|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Do pedestrians and cyclists subsidise motorists' shopping
ash wrote:
On 9 Apr, 03:11, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: Jon considered Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:13:48 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write: On 7 Apr, 19:00, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam- blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Tom Crispin wrote: The cost to a supermarket for providing and maintaining a large car park must be huge. Yet motorists contribute nothing directly for this usually free provision. The cost is hidden in the price of products sold in the supermarket, and it therefore paid for by those who walk and cycle to the supermarket. How long did it take you to think up this load of bollox? The statement is in itself perfectly logical. The contribution to the cost of the car park from non-driving customers is probably negligably small in most cases, but negligable is not non-existent. It would be interesting to see some figures on the costs and usage of such car parks. I'm not so sure it's negligible - what would that land fetch at development prices (it's now officially brownfield, after all). Then think what the monthly cost of a mortgage would be to buy it, plus the cost of maintaining it. Then there's the s106 payments that you will need to make when yo build it, to offset the cost of providing roads for the traffic you are bringing to the area, and of course what does having that much attached land do to the rateable value for your business rates? How much shopping can a pedestrian or push bike rider carry home? I carry home just as much shopping in the trailer & barbag as I used to carry by car - a week's shopping. Naturally the trailer & bag are usually nearly full while the car had a lot of unused space left available - but it was unused. You probably carry more. You'll be needing to replace the calories used in transporting it, after all - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - This is the thing I noticed when I was cycle commuting.a couple of years ago (about 70-80 miles per week). My calorific intake went up substantially. I would be interested to see how a comparison of fuel burnt in a frugal car carrying to capacity compares with the increased food consumption and associated transport costs of a cyclist doing similar mileage ? http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/bike_co2.htm |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Do pedestrians and cyclists subsidise motorists' shopping
On 11 Apr, 00:02, Adam Lea wrote:
ash wrote: On 9 Apr, 03:11, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: Jon considered Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:13:48 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write: On 7 Apr, 19:00, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam- blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Tom Crispin wrote: The cost to a supermarket for providing and maintaining a large car park must be huge. Yet motorists contribute nothing directly for this usually free provision. The cost is hidden in the price of products sold in the supermarket, and it therefore paid for by those who walk and cycle to the supermarket. How long did it take you to think up this load of bollox? The statement is in itself perfectly logical. The contribution to the cost of the car park from non-driving customers is probably negligably small in most cases, but negligable is not non-existent. It would be interesting to see some figures on the costs and usage of such car parks. I'm not so sure it's negligible - what would that land fetch at development prices (it's now officially brownfield, after all). Then think what the monthly cost of a mortgage would be to buy it, plus the cost of maintaining it. Then there's the s106 payments that you will need to make when yo build it, to offset the cost of providing roads for the traffic you are bringing to the area, and of course what does having that much attached land do to the rateable value for your business rates? How much shopping can a pedestrian or push bike rider carry home? I carry home just as much shopping in the trailer & barbag *as I used to carry by car - a week's shopping. Naturally the trailer & bag are usually nearly full while the car had a lot of unused space left available - but it was unused. You probably carry more. You'll be needing to replace the calories used in transporting it, after all - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - This is the thing I noticed when I was cycle commuting.a couple of years ago (about 70-80 miles per week). My calorific intake went up substantially. I would be interested to see how a comparison of fuel burnt in a frugal car carrying to capacity compares with the increased food consumption and associated transport costs of a cyclist doing similar mileage ? http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/bike_co2.htm This is all very well, but cycling is not going to save the world. Holding them up as the answer to the growing problems of human population growth and subsequent consumption makes for a specious argument! |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Do pedestrians and cyclists subsidise motorists' shopping
ash wrote:
This is all very well, but cycling is not going to save the world. Holding them up as the answer to the growing problems of human population growth and subsequent consumption makes for a specious argument! Has anyone said otherwise? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Do pedestrians and cyclists subsidise motorists' shopping
Tom Crispin wrote:
The cost to a supermarket for providing and maintaining a large car park must be huge. Yet motorists contribute nothing directly for this usually free provision. The cost is hidden in the price of products sold in the supermarket, and it therefore paid for by those who walk and cycle to the supermarket. who are a tiny % I would guess most drive followed by bus maybe taxi. Should there be legislation that requires all supermarkets, with a floor area over a certain amount, to charge able-bodied motorists who choose to drive the do their shopping? why? the supermarket has paid for the land and has chosen to use it as a car park, in the same way they have added some bike parking, which to be honest at least around here is never full. Would such a charge encourage more people to walk or drive to the supermarket? Would such a charge increase the health of the nation? Would such a charge reduce the costs to the NHS of treating people with heart conditions? It seems to me like a win-win-win situation. looks like trolling or at best a very central london view point. roger -- www.rogermerriman.com |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Do pedestrians and cyclists subsidise motorists' shopping
On 11 Apr, 17:35, Adam Lea wrote:
ash wrote: This is all very well, but cycling is not going to save the world. Holding them up as the answer to the growing problems of human population growth and subsequent consumption makes for a specious argument! Has anyone said otherwise? You stand them up, I'll knock them down. Cycle for fun, cycle to save money, cycle to keep fit, but don't cycle to reduce your carbon footprint, it is a futile gesture in the face of a hopeless situation. Only the irrational thinkers buy into this green bull**** |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Do pedestrians and cyclists subsidise motorists' shopping
Ian Smith wrote:
ash wrote: Most sane people would not consider pushing a child along a busy road in a buggy What do you think sane people would do instead? Teleport? The word "sane" might not have been the best for the PP to have used. But there can be little doubt that most parents (of any given level of sanity) would view that transport mode (pulling a child along a road in a very light trailer behind a push-bike) as unacceptably dangerous* for their children. [*Substitute some other word to the same effect if you prefer.] |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Do pedestrians and cyclists subsidise motorists' shopping
Phil W Lee wrote:
ash considered Fri, 9 Apr 2010 01:10:32 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write: On 9 Apr, 03:11, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: Jon considered Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:13:48 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write: On 7 Apr, 19:00, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam- blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Tom Crispin wrote: The cost to a supermarket for providing and maintaining a large car park must be huge. Yet motorists contribute nothing directly for this usually free provision. The cost is hidden in the price of products sold in the supermarket, and it therefore paid for by those who walk and cycle to the supermarket. How long did it take you to think up this load of bollox? The statement is in itself perfectly logical. The contribution to the cost of the car park from non-driving customers is probably negligably small in most cases, but negligable is not non-existent. It would be interesting to see some figures on the costs and usage of such car parks. I'm not so sure it's negligible - what would that land fetch at development prices (it's now officially brownfield, after all). Then think what the monthly cost of a mortgage would be to buy it, plus the cost of maintaining it. Then there's the s106 payments that you will need to make when yo build it, to offset the cost of providing roads for the traffic you are bringing to the area, and of course what does having that much attached land do to the rateable value for your business rates? How much shopping can a pedestrian or push bike rider carry home? I carry home just as much shopping in the trailer & barbag as I used to carry by car - a week's shopping. Naturally the trailer & bag are usually nearly full while the car had a lot of unused space left available - but it was unused. You probably carry more. You'll be needing to replace the calories used in transporting it, after all - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - This is the thing I noticed when I was cycle commuting.a couple of years ago (about 70-80 miles per week). My calorific intake went up substantially. I would be interested to see how a comparison of fuel burnt in a frugal car carrying to capacity compares with the increased food consumption and associated transport costs of a cyclist doing similar mileage ? Even if the car was as efficient as a bicycle (and it's not going to be anywhere near), there's still the extra work of carting a tonne of metal and plastic around. In what sense are you using the word "efficient"? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Do pedestrians and cyclists subsidise motorists' shopping
Phil W Lee wrote:
Jon : "The Medway Handyman" wrote: Tom Crispin wrote: The cost to a supermarket for providing and maintaining a large car park must be huge. Yet motorists contribute nothing directly for this usually free provision. The cost is hidden in the price of products sold in the supermarket, and it therefore paid for by those who walk and cycle to the supermarket. How long did it take you to think up this load of bollox? The statement is in itself perfectly logical... ....if one starts from his illogical position and premise. The contribution to the cost of the car park from non-driving customers is probably negligably small in most cases, but negligable is not non-existent. It would be interesting to see some figures on the costs and usage of such car parks. I'm not so sure it's negligible - what would that land fetch at development prices (it's now officially brownfield, after all). Then think what the monthly cost of a mortgage would be to buy it, plus the cost of maintaining it. Then there's the s106 payments that you will need to make when yo build it, to offset the cost of providing roads for the traffic you are bringing to the area, and of course what does having that much attached land do to the rateable value for your business rates? How much shopping can a pedestrian or push bike rider carry home? Well, full marks for knowing that there is such a thing as a 106 "agreement" (even if they would never actually be *agreed* to by a planning applicant if not imposed by the planning authority and are therefore euphemistically named). I will assume that you know how the system works and what its purpose is. Now... a couple of questions... A. What *is* the purpose of a Section 106 "agreement" within the planning procedure for a supermarket? B. Do you think that an application for planning consent for a large supermarket (or for any retail development of a size which must attract its clientele from a wide area) would be granted without significant parking provision being provided at both the outline and detailed stages of the application? C. Can you think of a large successful and viable retail EOT/OOT unit which doesn't have parking facilities? If you can't (or if you can cite only an isolated and atypical example in special circumstances), why would you think that might be? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Do pedestrians and cyclists subsidise motorists' shopping
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Do pedestrians and cyclists subsidise motorists' shopping
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:54:29 +0100, (Roger Merriman) wrote: It seems to me like a win-win-win situation. looks like trolling or at best a very central london view point. I did have my local corner shop in mind - a giant Sainsburys in Lewisham. I expect well over 50% of customers walk. they have a lot of stores, in a lot of areas, I expect that is the exeption, than the rule. roger -- www.rogermerriman.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Geelong 'worst' for pedestrians and cyclists | Marty | Australia | 3 | September 20th 05 01:50 PM |
Old Cyclists (was Bike lanes and pedestrians) | Graeme | Australia | 1 | August 1st 05 02:43 AM |
pedestrians and cyclists | Tamyka Bell | Australia | 88 | November 29th 04 10:59 AM |
Consultation on providing for pedestrians and cyclists | Jo Stoller | UK | 10 | June 21st 04 10:16 AM |
Priority to be given to pedestrians and cyclists over cars? | Richard Bates | UK | 23 | October 30th 03 11:11 PM |