RE: Eco-Towns To 'Charge Cars To Leave'
Discussion
LewisR said:
The answre to the green problem, is this: Treble the number of trains and buses (inc. those in Park & Ride). Make them all free.
Don't fall for the hype. Buses burn diesel and emit CO2 just like cars, but they do single digit mpg. Unless you run buses infrequently enough that occupancy rates remain high, the per passenger emissions end up higher than if people had driven. As for free, no way. Bus companies should pay the same duty rates as motorists (and not be able to claim the money back from Fuel Duty Rebate or BSOG or whatever the scheme is called this week) and pass the cost on to passengers. If it's greener than driving, it will be cheaper for passengers, if it isn't, it won't."Well assuming this is another make up article from the Daily Mail I won't take this one as seriously!
On the otherhand, if your going to charge people to leave...then it will lead to people to choose to polute more in the town."
It's not - they may not put the scheme into action, but the Developers have put forward this possibility to people I know at Cambridge County Council!
On the otherhand, if your going to charge people to leave...then it will lead to people to choose to polute more in the town."
It's not - they may not put the scheme into action, but the Developers have put forward this possibility to people I know at Cambridge County Council!
chunkymonkey71 said:
I know its a sweeping statement but I can imagine an eco town being full of people with bad breath, B.O. and long beards.
b
ks to that!
Sadly I think it'll be more like a modern equivalent of a '60s tower development - ie lots of people who can't afford any alternative subjected to a draconian social experiment.b
ks to that!It will lead to an isolated society governed by Tescos, which will rarely have visitors and aspiration through work and accumulation will initially be frowned upon. It will NOT attract anyone with money, power or influence, and it will end up as a flimsy shell of a place surviving on handouts.
The beardies you refer to all seem to live in Victorian townhouses in Notting Hill with chipped skirting boards, tatty furniture, unread books cluttering the place and uncovered floorboards spattered with paint that echo through all four floors. Obviously no car (as they never leave London and assume it just carries on in all directions to the sea), and probably no TV either.
Twincam16 said:
chunkymonkey71 said:
I know its a sweeping statement but I can imagine an eco town being full of people with bad breath, B.O. and long beards.
bks to that!
Sadly I think it'll be more like a modern equivalent of a '60s tower development - ie lots of people who can't afford any alternative subjected to a draconian social experiment.b
ks to that!It will lead to an isolated society governed by Tescos, which will rarely have visitors and aspiration through work and accumulation will initially be frowned upon. It will NOT attract anyone with money, power or influence, and it will end up as a flimsy shell of a place surviving on handouts.
The beardies you refer to all seem to live in Victorian townhouses in Notting Hill with chipped skirting boards, tatty furniture, unread books cluttering the place and uncovered floorboards spattered with paint that echo through all four floors. Obviously no car (as they never leave London and assume it just carries on in all directions to the sea), and probably no TV either.
otolith said:
LewisR said:
The answer to the green problem, is this: Treble the number of trains and buses (inc. those in Park & Ride). Make them all free.
Don't fall for the hype. Buses burn diesel and emit CO2 just like cars, but they do single digit mpg. Unless you run buses infrequently enough that occupancy rates remain high, the per passenger emissions end up higher than if people had driven. As for free, no way. Bus companies should pay the same duty rates as motorists (and not be able to claim the money back from Fuel Duty Rebate or BSOG or whatever the scheme is called this week) and pass the cost on to passengers. If it's greener than driving, it will be cheaper for passengers, if it isn't, it won't.
What a bunch of w------. Does nobody stand on their own two feet and say sod you bunch of t----, this nation of freaks, layabouts and treehuggers. We'll all be walking soon anyway if that c--- in number 10 has his way. Has nobody got the balls to stand upto this bunch of idiots any get rid of them. Lets start the revolution now!!
peter450 said:
Whine whine whine, there is absolutely no issue here since the choice to live in one of these places is up to you. I for one would never buy a house or flat were there was no were to park my car, but thats me hence why i'm not going to have a whinge since this is not going to affect me at all.
Thanks for that... It is affecting people that don't choose to live there, what about the villages that are nearby? The project is also a waste of money... how can that not affect you unless you live abroad?NATM5 said:
Honestly, like the first comment they would charge me once...............on the way out.
Id like to see them do the weekly shopping for a family of 4 on the bus...........
or take the kids to their swimming lesson, or music lesson , or football on a sat/sun morning.
All of these measures are just stealth / more taxes.
Im sick of the green scaremongers wanting to charge everyone for everything. What you going to charge me next............for breathing .?
As for public transport, well that sucks...........its already overcrowded, extremely expensive, slow and dirty.
I can solve the whole green issue though, its very very simple.
POPULATION CONTROL..............not popular but there you have it. Put simply the planet is overcrowded. Think of it as a fish tank that is designed to hold 50 fish. Now put 150 fish in it and surprise surprise, the pump cant cope, neither can the filter, food is short etc etc.............same with our planet. Its not about being super green..........( although that of course helps ) ..the planet can sustain our current level of cleanliness ( for want of a better expression )if there were less people. Its not popular and there are some that will say its politically incorrect. However its a fact..............whether you like it or not.
We need to start by stopping immigration , encouraging migration and introduce super taxes on anyone who has more that 2 kids. Its not necessary to have 3,4,5 or more children. 1 Or 2 kids fullfills all maternal/parental needs/urges..............thats the start. In fact there should be tax breaks for couples who decide not to have kids, and over the next 100 years youll find the uk has a more sustainable economy than it has currently. If you look overseas at whats considered the third world, its common thinking that the more kids you have the more income comes into the household.
Its that kind of mentality that has to change.
Its my 2 peneth worth, its not popular but i know im 100 % right.
Regards
Nat.
Spot on NATM5!! Population control (reduction by limitation)would address global warming, food shortages and eventually wars over crowded pieces of land. Not to mention local congestion!!! Mind you, it would take a b****y long time but would be effective. Of course it will happen cos all our politicians are interested in the long term aren't they? Sorry, back to subject - stupid tId like to see them do the weekly shopping for a family of 4 on the bus...........
or take the kids to their swimming lesson, or music lesson , or football on a sat/sun morning.
All of these measures are just stealth / more taxes.
Im sick of the green scaremongers wanting to charge everyone for everything. What you going to charge me next............for breathing .?
As for public transport, well that sucks...........its already overcrowded, extremely expensive, slow and dirty.
I can solve the whole green issue though, its very very simple.
POPULATION CONTROL..............not popular but there you have it. Put simply the planet is overcrowded. Think of it as a fish tank that is designed to hold 50 fish. Now put 150 fish in it and surprise surprise, the pump cant cope, neither can the filter, food is short etc etc.............same with our planet. Its not about being super green..........( although that of course helps ) ..the planet can sustain our current level of cleanliness ( for want of a better expression )if there were less people. Its not popular and there are some that will say its politically incorrect. However its a fact..............whether you like it or not.
We need to start by stopping immigration , encouraging migration and introduce super taxes on anyone who has more that 2 kids. Its not necessary to have 3,4,5 or more children. 1 Or 2 kids fullfills all maternal/parental needs/urges..............thats the start. In fact there should be tax breaks for couples who decide not to have kids, and over the next 100 years youll find the uk has a more sustainable economy than it has currently. If you look overseas at whats considered the third world, its common thinking that the more kids you have the more income comes into the household.
Its that kind of mentality that has to change.
Its my 2 peneth worth, its not popular but i know im 100 % right.
Regards
Nat.
ts!!!NATM5 said:
We need to start by stopping immigration , encouraging migration and introduce super taxes on anyone who has more that 2 kids. Its not necessary to have 3,4,5 or more children. 1 Or 2 kids fullfills all maternal/parental needs/urges..............thats the start. In fact there should be tax breaks for couples who decide not to have kids, and over the next 100 years youll find the uk has a more sustainable economy than it has currently. If you look overseas at whats considered the third world, its common thinking that the more kids you have the more income comes into the household.
Its that kind of mentality that has to change.
Its my 2 peneth worth, its not popular but i know im 100 % right.
Regards
Nat.
Well its certainly popular with me,my wife and I are in our early forties and don't have kids,never found time what with starting and growing a business.Its that kind of mentality that has to change.
Its my 2 peneth worth, its not popular but i know im 100 % right.
Regards
Nat.
We have paid a lot of tax over the years and we haven't taken any back for post natal/anti natal costs,paid holidays etc just because we can't keep our dicks in our pants.
Infant school,Primary school,Comprehensive school,Tertiary college,SUBSIDISED college,university etc etc, for any offspring the people who pay LESS tax than me have, because the Govt give them cash for being so clever.Child benefit,tax credits,free housing blah blah blah.Childless couples dont have to take 100% more journeys because they are scared their precious one is going to get hooked on crack on the way to school if they don't deliver them to the gate.
Childless couples are enviromentally friendly and should get tax breaks accordingly.
I for one drive big fast American V8s in an effort to get my carbon tyreprint someway up to the 2 kids level ,its a futile protest I know as I end up paying more tax.
But I just love the envious look on the faces of the school runners in their MPV's as I cruise past FREE! its almost worth paying the B****rds to suffer !
sadako said:
I also see this as a town with only one shop, no competition and a captive market for them. I can see living there becoming very unaffordable very fast.
Makes you wonder if there's a case for an anti-competition case? If the developers hold land on behalf of the Tesco Empire (unless I'm reading it incorrectly), that's surely something of a vested interest? Why not just call the town Tesconia and have done with it?The whole eco-town idea stinks to high heaven, from the fiddling of what constitutes brownfield sites to the whole anti-car agenda. If Labour are so bloody keen on the idea, why don't they build a town just for MPs and all sod off and live there?
sprinter885 said:
john_r said:
Don't you all understand this yet?
These are towns for the unemployable! With fat kids who sit in front of games consoles all day and night.
They won't need cars because they'll be on benefits; in brand new social housing...
Eco towns are the slums of the future - within 10 years they'll be no-go regions for 'normal people' and the whole area will be a graffiti tagged gangland war zone.
I think you could well be right.These are towns for the unemployable! With fat kids who sit in front of games consoles all day and night.
They won't need cars because they'll be on benefits; in brand new social housing...
Eco towns are the slums of the future - within 10 years they'll be no-go regions for 'normal people' and the whole area will be a graffiti tagged gangland war zone.
I might have known Tesco would be involved somewhere-the whole town is probably going to be financed with their cash just so they get "exclusive" rights to a site.
As for selling houses with no garages- well I can only suggest they name it Cloud Cuckoo Town !
Stupid stupid wannabe planet savers--- all so very wrong.
darth_pies said:
What gets my goat is that cars are singled out as inefficent, CO2-heavy and 'unnecessary luxuries' when as we know they serve a pretty key purpose (getting us to work/school!) 
When is someone going to stand up and point out all the millions of other human activities that use energy and could be considered 'unnecessary'. You could say that strictly speaking all sport, entertainment and art is not essential to our lives. Why use energy and other resources on it?
e.g. The Olympics. Putting aside the criminal waste of taxpayers money, if the environment/C02/oil/global warming situation is really that desperate why are we endorsing a massive construction program and tens of thousands of people flying to the UK from all over the world?!!?? All just for two weeks of games?
Or another example would be football. Why allow a couple of million people to 'waste' energy travelling to matches on a saturday afternoon? Can't they all watch it on TV with empty stadiums?!?
I'm not actually saying this is what i think should happen, but when you start classifying certain activities as 'wasteful' or 'an unnecessary use of resources' where exactly do you stop?
Of course cars get picked on because most people have no choice in whether or not to use them and its easy to pretend that the public transort 'alternative' is there when for most people it isn't.
Also the petrol in->pollution out relationship of a car is a lot more obvious than how much C02 is generated by an art gallery or an episode of Eastenders!
Eco-towns = another clear indication that we need some people in touch with reality running things.
On the subject of the Olympics, Mrs -Tro recently pointed out that everything that is needed for the Olympics, already exists in London:When is someone going to stand up and point out all the millions of other human activities that use energy and could be considered 'unnecessary'. You could say that strictly speaking all sport, entertainment and art is not essential to our lives. Why use energy and other resources on it?
e.g. The Olympics. Putting aside the criminal waste of taxpayers money, if the environment/C02/oil/global warming situation is really that desperate why are we endorsing a massive construction program and tens of thousands of people flying to the UK from all over the world?!!?? All just for two weeks of games?
Or another example would be football. Why allow a couple of million people to 'waste' energy travelling to matches on a saturday afternoon? Can't they all watch it on TV with empty stadiums?!?
I'm not actually saying this is what i think should happen, but when you start classifying certain activities as 'wasteful' or 'an unnecessary use of resources' where exactly do you stop?
Of course cars get picked on because most people have no choice in whether or not to use them and its easy to pretend that the public transort 'alternative' is there when for most people it isn't.
Also the petrol in->pollution out relationship of a car is a lot more obvious than how much C02 is generated by an art gallery or an episode of Eastenders!
Eco-towns = another clear indication that we need some people in touch with reality running things.
Accomodation - utilise empty University digs rather than build whole new village.
Sporting venues - come on, multiple football stadia, Cyrstal Palace Athletics and Swiming Pool facility etc
So 2012 could actually have been an opportunity to regenerate facillities which are already in use in London, as well as develop the transport infrastructure in the city especially SE (cross rail, tube extension).
Surely that is favourable and more "eco-friendly" than building from scratch an overpriced, single use, white elephant that taxpayers will be paying for for decades?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff