A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

It's not every day...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 11th 17, 02:25 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,022
Default It's not every day...

On 11/07/17 02:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2017 22:23, TMS320 wrote:


Doesn't that demolish (once and for all) the futile attacks on Road
Tax as a concept?


Not really. The fund (if it comes about) will go to roads yet to be
built, not existing ones.


Where does it say that?


I have assumed it from other articles which I can't be bothered to find.
I have also seen mention that it will contribute to a "pothole fund".
(Except the government seems to remain fixated on a tax based on a
flawed test of CO2 output, whatever that has to do with pothole
development.)

Despite the announcement that has just been made, I am not aware of any
new A-routes or motorways planned. Are you?
...end of decade, hmmm.


Thirty months away.


One hundred and twenty nine weeks.


Plenty of time for a new regime to change its mind.


It'll take that long to spend the money aleady committed.

What the UK needs, though (and you hint at it above), is a couple of new
long-disctance motorways which steer clear of existing urban areas, have
only a limited number of interchanges and do not, in practice, cater for
journeys of much less than a hundred miles.


Agreed. But the problem is also how to avoid the spread of urban areas
so such roads end up as local feeders after 20 years. We also have the
problem of how to build traffic relief without encouraging an increase
in traffic. I expect we need to accelerate a move from blunt taxes to
pay to drive.
Ads
  #12  
Old July 11th 17, 05:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 376
Default It's not every day...

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 2:41:20 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2017 22:23, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/07/17 17:27, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2017 08:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/07/17 02:32, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2017 16:35, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 4:25:25 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
...you get evidence of the existence of something that was alleged to
have been extinct for 80+ years.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/05/local-roads-government-cash-councils-motorways


QUOTE:
English councils will be given access to a multibillion-pound fund
for
local road improvements under plans unveiled by the transport
secretary,
Chris Grayling.

It was initially envisaged that the cash, held in the national roads
fund, would be spent on the motorways and major A-roads managed by
Highways England. But Grayling announced a change of tack, saying
that
some of it should be diverted to be spent on roads run by local
authorities.
ENDQUOTE

The national WHAT?

Someone needs to tell the Guardian PDQ that there is no "national
roads
fund" and that it was all abolished long ago.

It was the road fund LICENCE that was replaced with VED.
Obviously national and local governments have a road budget that
comes from the general tax pot.
The only reference I can find for national roads fund is in Zambia
which I am fairly sure is not in the UK.

No, no... nothing to do with Zambia...

The story mentions the English national roads fund. And as you know
(but cannot bring yourself to admit) and fund is not a budget.

But you can imagine my surprise on reading it, because you and
others have been squealing for years that the road fund was
abolished back in the Middle Ages or something.

It was abolished. This is a different one promised by George Osborne
two years ago.

http://www.ciht.org.uk/en/wra/news/i...nal-roads-fund


"Unveiling his Budget this lunchtime Mr Osborne said that every penny
raised through the duty would, by the end of the decade, be used to
improve the highways network."

Doesn't that demolish (once and for all) the futile attacks on Road
Tax as a concept?


Not really. The fund (if it comes about) will go to roads yet to be
built, not existing ones.


Where does it say that?

Despite the announcement that has just been made, I am not aware of any
new A-routes or motorways planned. Are you?
...end of decade, hmmm.


Thirty months away.


One hundred and twenty nine weeks.


Plenty of time for a new regime to change its mind.


It'll take that long to spend the money aleady committed.

What the UK needs, though (and you hint at it above), is a couple of new
long-disctance motorways which steer clear of existing urban areas, have
only a limited number of interchanges and do not, in practice, cater for
journeys of much less than a hundred miles.


So long as it's not built in your back yard?

  #13  
Old July 11th 17, 06:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 376
Default It's not every day...

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 2:32:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2017 16:35, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 4:25:25 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
...you get evidence of the existence of something that was alleged to
have been extinct for 80+ years.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/05/local-roads-government-cash-councils-motorways

QUOTE:
English councils will be given access to a multibillion-pound fund for
local road improvements under plans unveiled by the transport secretary,
Chris Grayling.

It was initially envisaged that the cash, held in the national roads
fund, would be spent on the motorways and major A-roads managed by
Highways England. But Grayling announced a change of tack, saying that
some of it should be diverted to be spent on roads run by local authorities.
ENDQUOTE

The national WHAT?

Someone needs to tell the Guardian PDQ that there is no "national roads
fund" and that it was all abolished long ago.



It was the road fund LICENCE that was replaced with VED.
Obviously national and local governments have a road budget that comes from the general tax pot.
The only reference I can find for national roads fund is in Zambia which I am fairly sure is not in the UK.


No, no... nothing to do with Zambia...

The story mentions the English national roads fund. And as you know (but
cannot bring yourself to admit) and fund is not a budget.


Then you should have no problem pointing to where I can find this 'National Road Fund' defined in some sort of official document.


But you can imagine my surprise on reading it, because you and others
have been squealing for years that the road fund was abolished back in
the Middle Ages or something.


Where?



  #14  
Old July 12th 17, 02:06 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,917
Default It's not every day...

On 11/07/2017 18:14, wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 2:32:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2017 16:35,
wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 4:25:25 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
...you get evidence of the existence of something that was alleged to
have been extinct for 80+ years.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/05/local-roads-government-cash-councils-motorways


QUOTE:
English councils will be given access to a multibillion-pound fund for
local road improvements under plans unveiled by the transport secretary,
Chris Grayling.

It was initially envisaged that the cash, held in the national roads
fund, would be spent on the motorways and major A-roads managed by
Highways England. But Grayling announced a change of tack, saying that
some of it should be diverted to be spent on roads run by local authorities.
ENDQUOTE


The national WHAT?


Someone needs to tell the Guardian PDQ that there is no "national roads
fund" and that it was all abolished long ago.


It was the road fund LICENCE that was replaced with VED.
Obviously national and local governments have a road budget that comes from the general tax pot.
The only reference I can find for national roads fund is in Zambia which I am fairly sure is not in the UK.


No, no... nothing to do with Zambia...


The story mentions the English national roads fund. And as you know (but
cannot bring yourself to admit) a fund is not a budget.


Then you should have no problem pointing to where I can find this 'National Road Fund' defined in some sort of official document.


Wash your mouth out.

The Guardian IS the *only* "official document" accepted by trendies like
yourself, shirley?

But you can imagine my surprise on reading it, because you and others
have been squealing for years that the road fund was abolished back in
the Middle Ages or something.


Where?


Here (of course).
  #15  
Old July 12th 17, 02:07 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,917
Default It's not every day...

On 11/07/2017 17:14, wrote:
On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 2:41:20 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2017 22:23, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/07/17 17:27, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2017 08:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/07/17 02:32, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2017 16:35,
wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 4:25:25 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
...you get evidence of the existence of something that was alleged to
have been extinct for 80+ years.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/05/local-roads-government-cash-councils-motorways


QUOTE:
English councils will be given access to a multibillion-pound fund
for
local road improvements under plans unveiled by the transport
secretary,
Chris Grayling.

It was initially envisaged that the cash, held in the national roads
fund, would be spent on the motorways and major A-roads managed by
Highways England. But Grayling announced a change of tack, saying
that
some of it should be diverted to be spent on roads run by local
authorities.
ENDQUOTE

The national WHAT?

Someone needs to tell the Guardian PDQ that there is no "national
roads
fund" and that it was all abolished long ago.

It was the road fund LICENCE that was replaced with VED.
Obviously national and local governments have a road budget that
comes from the general tax pot.
The only reference I can find for national roads fund is in Zambia
which I am fairly sure is not in the UK.

No, no... nothing to do with Zambia...

The story mentions the English national roads fund. And as you know
(but cannot bring yourself to admit) and fund is not a budget.

But you can imagine my surprise on reading it, because you and
others have been squealing for years that the road fund was
abolished back in the Middle Ages or something.

It was abolished. This is a different one promised by George Osborne
two years ago.

http://www.ciht.org.uk/en/wra/news/i...nal-roads-fund


"Unveiling his Budget this lunchtime Mr Osborne said that every penny
raised through the duty would, by the end of the decade, be used to
improve the highways network."

Doesn't that demolish (once and for all) the futile attacks on Road
Tax as a concept?

Not really. The fund (if it comes about) will go to roads yet to be
built, not existing ones.


Where does it say that?

Despite the announcement that has just been made, I am not aware of any
new A-routes or motorways planned. Are you?
...end of decade, hmmm.


Thirty months away.


One hundred and twenty nine weeks.


Plenty of time for a new regime to change its mind.


It'll take that long to spend the money aleady committed.

What the UK needs, though (and you hint at it above), is a couple of new
long-disctance motorways which steer clear of existing urban areas, have
only a limited number of interchanges and do not, in practice, cater for
journeys of much less than a hundred miles.


So long as it's not built in your back yard?


Au contraire.

I want one of the (few) junctions to be within a few miles of this very
spot.
  #16  
Old July 12th 17, 02:26 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,917
Default It's not every day...

On 11/07/2017 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/07/17 02:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2017 22:23, TMS320 wrote:


Doesn't that demolish (once and for all) the futile attacks on Road
Tax as a concept?

Not really. The fund (if it comes about) will go to roads yet to be
built, not existing ones.


Where does it say that?


I have assumed it from other articles which I can't be bothered to find.
I have also seen mention that it will contribute to a "pothole fund".
(Except the government seems to remain fixated on a tax based on a
flawed test of CO2 output, whatever that has to do with pothole
development.)

Despite the announcement that has just been made, I am not aware of
any new A-routes or motorways planned. Are you?
...end of decade, hmmm.


Thirty months away.


One hundred and twenty nine weeks.


Plenty of time for a new regime to change its mind.


It'll take that long to spend the money aleady committed.

What the UK needs, though (and you hint at it above), is a couple of
new long-disctance motorways which steer clear of existing urban
areas, have only a limited number of interchanges and do not, in
practice, cater for journeys of much less than a hundred miles.


Agreed. But the problem is also how to avoid the spread of urban areas
so such roads end up as local feeders after 20 years. We also have the
problem of how to build traffic relief without encouraging an increase
in traffic. I expect we need to accelerate a move from blunt taxes to
pay to drive.


The answer to that problem is to have very few interchanges (essentially
only with other motorways and primary routes crossed by the line of the
new motorways and not even all of them.

For instance, a route starting at the Channel Tunnel and running to
(say) Preston could interchange with:

- M20 (obviously),
- M2 at Gravesend (maybe), then a new Thames crossing, then
- M11 near Harlow,
- A14 in the Kettering area,
- M1 near Loughborough,
- A50 (Uttoxeter),
- M62 near Risley then express to
- M6 at Bamber Bridge and then again at
- Garstang, with a spur to the M55.

About 325 miles with only seven intermediate interchanges. It would be
important not to have one immediately south of the Mersey in order to
preclude use of the new road as an alternative to the Thelwall Viaduct.
Cheshire-bound traffic from the south could join A50 and thence M6 via
the A500.

Another idea would be continuously-monitored (controllable) access at
all intermediate junctions, with access for joining traffic closed
completely and immediately in conditions likely to lead to overload and
congestion (in effect, reserving the new road for longer-distance
traffic as far as possible). The traffic excluded by such controls would
still have access to the existing route (in the case of the above route,
M20, M25, A282, M25, M1, M6).

  #17  
Old July 12th 17, 04:12 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Kerr Mudd-John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 489
Default It's not every day...

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:26:47 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 11/07/2017 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/07/17 02:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2017 22:23, TMS320 wrote:


Doesn't that demolish (once and for all) the futile attacks on Road
Tax as a concept?

Not really. The fund (if it comes about) will go to roads yet to be
built, not existing ones.

Where does it say that?


I have assumed it from other articles which I can't be bothered to find.
I have also seen mention that it will contribute to a "pothole fund".
(Except the government seems to remain fixated on a tax based on a
flawed test of CO2 output, whatever that has to do with pothole
development.)

Despite the announcement that has just been made, I am not aware of
any new A-routes or motorways planned. Are you?
...end of decade, hmmm.

Thirty months away.

One hundred and twenty nine weeks.

Plenty of time for a new regime to change its mind.

It'll take that long to spend the money aleady committed.

What the UK needs, though (and you hint at it above), is a couple of
new long-disctance motorways which steer clear of existing urban
areas, have only a limited number of interchanges and do not, in
practice, cater for journeys of much less than a hundred miles.


Agreed. But the problem is also how to avoid the spread of urban areas
so such roads end up as local feeders after 20 years. We also have the
problem of how to build traffic relief without encouraging an increase
in traffic. I expect we need to accelerate a move from blunt taxes to
pay to drive.


The answer to that problem is to have very few interchanges (essentially
only with other motorways and primary routes crossed by the line of the
new motorways and not even all of them.

For instance, a route starting at the Channel Tunnel and running to
(say) Preston could interchange with:

- M20 (obviously),
- M2 at Gravesend (maybe), then a new Thames crossing, then
- M11 near Harlow,
- A14 in the Kettering area,
- M1 near Loughborough,
- A50 (Uttoxeter),
- M62 near Risley then express to
- M6 at Bamber Bridge and then again at
- Garstang, with a spur to the M55.

About 325 miles with only seven intermediate interchanges. It would be
important not to have one immediately south of the Mersey in order to
preclude use of the new road as an alternative to the Thelwall Viaduct.
Cheshire-bound traffic from the south could join A50 and thence M6 via
the A500.

Another idea would be continuously-monitored (controllable) access at
all intermediate junctions, with access for joining traffic closed
completely and immediately in conditions likely to lead to overload and
congestion (in effect, reserving the new road for longer-distance
traffic as far as possible). The traffic excluded by such controls would
still have access to the existing route (in the case of the above route,
M20, M25, A282, M25, M1, M6).


I'm sure this is a fun and lovely way to spend taxpayers money. But it's nowt to do with cycling


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
  #18  
Old July 12th 17, 04:46 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,917
Default It's not every day...

On 12/07/2017 16:12, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 11/07/2017 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/07/17 02:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2017 22:23, TMS320 wrote:


Doesn't that demolish (once and for all) the futile attacks on Road
Tax as a concept?


Not really. The fund (if it comes about) will go to roads yet to be
built, not existing ones.


Where does it say that?


I have assumed it from other articles which I can't be bothered to find.
I have also seen mention that it will contribute to a "pothole fund".
(Except the government seems to remain fixated on a tax based on a
flawed test of CO2 output, whatever that has to do with pothole
development.)


Despite the announcement that has just been made, I am not aware of
any new A-routes or motorways planned. Are you?


...end of decade, hmmm.


Thirty months away.
One hundred and twenty nine weeks.


Plenty of time for a new regime to change its mind.


It'll take that long to spend the money aleady committed.
What the UK needs, though (and you hint at it above), is a couple of
new long-disctance motorways which steer clear of existing urban
areas, have only a limited number of interchanges and do not, in
practice, cater for journeys of much less than a hundred miles.


Agreed. But the problem is also how to avoid the spread of urban areas
so such roads end up as local feeders after 20 years. We also have the
problem of how to build traffic relief without encouraging an increase
in traffic. I expect we need to accelerate a move from blunt taxes to
pay to drive.


The answer to that problem is to have very few interchanges (essentially
only with other motorways and primary routes crossed by the line of the
new motorways and not even all of them.


For instance, a route starting at the Channel Tunnel and running to
(say) Preston could interchange with:
- M20 (obviously),
- M2 at Gravesend (maybe), then a new Thames crossing, then
- M11 near Harlow,
- A14 in the Kettering area,
- M1 near Loughborough,
- A50 (Uttoxeter),
- M62 near Risley then express to
- M6 at Bamber Bridge and then again at
- Garstang, with a spur to the M55.


About 325 miles with only seven intermediate interchanges. It would be
important not to have one immediately south of the Mersey in order to
preclude use of the new road as an alternative to the Thelwall Viaduct.
Cheshire-bound traffic from the south could join A50 and thence M6 via
the A500.

Another idea would be continuously-monitored (controllable) access at
all intermediate junctions, with access for joining traffic closed
completely and immediately in conditions likely to lead to overload and
congestion (in effect, reserving the new road for longer-distance
traffic as far as possible). The traffic excluded by such controls would
still have access to the existing route (in the case of the above route,
M20, M25, A282, M25, M1, M6).


I'm sure this is a fun and lovely way to spend taxpayers money. But it's
nowt to do with cycling


Thread drift. It happens.

Some people post new threads which have nothing to do with cycling.

But discussion of the disputed existence of the Road Fund is the very
stuff of ukrc.
  #19  
Old July 12th 17, 05:58 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,070
Default It's not every day...

On 12/07/2017 16:12, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:26:47 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 11/07/2017 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/07/17 02:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2017 22:23, TMS320 wrote:

Doesn't that demolish (once and for all) the futile attacks on Road
Tax as a concept?

Not really. The fund (if it comes about) will go to roads yet to be
built, not existing ones.

Where does it say that?

I have assumed it from other articles which I can't be bothered to find.
I have also seen mention that it will contribute to a "pothole fund".
(Except the government seems to remain fixated on a tax based on a
flawed test of CO2 output, whatever that has to do with pothole
development.)

Despite the announcement that has just been made, I am not aware of
any new A-routes or motorways planned. Are you?
...end of decade, hmmm.

Thirty months away.

One hundred and twenty nine weeks.

Plenty of time for a new regime to change its mind.

It'll take that long to spend the money aleady committed.

What the UK needs, though (and you hint at it above), is a couple of
new long-disctance motorways which steer clear of existing urban
areas, have only a limited number of interchanges and do not, in
practice, cater for journeys of much less than a hundred miles.

Agreed. But the problem is also how to avoid the spread of urban areas
so such roads end up as local feeders after 20 years. We also have the
problem of how to build traffic relief without encouraging an increase
in traffic. I expect we need to accelerate a move from blunt taxes to
pay to drive.


The answer to that problem is to have very few interchanges (essentially
only with other motorways and primary routes crossed by the line of the
new motorways and not even all of them.

For instance, a route starting at the Channel Tunnel and running to
(say) Preston could interchange with:

- M20 (obviously),
- M2 at Gravesend (maybe), then a new Thames crossing, then
- M11 near Harlow,
- A14 in the Kettering area,
- M1 near Loughborough,
- A50 (Uttoxeter),
- M62 near Risley then express to
- M6 at Bamber Bridge and then again at
- Garstang, with a spur to the M55.

About 325 miles with only seven intermediate interchanges. It would be
important not to have one immediately south of the Mersey in order to
preclude use of the new road as an alternative to the Thelwall Viaduct.
Cheshire-bound traffic from the south could join A50 and thence M6 via
the A500.

Another idea would be continuously-monitored (controllable) access at
all intermediate junctions, with access for joining traffic closed
completely and immediately in conditions likely to lead to overload and
congestion (in effect, reserving the new road for longer-distance
traffic as far as possible). The traffic excluded by such controls would
still have access to the existing route (in the case of the above route,
M20, M25, A282, M25, M1, M6).


I'm sure this is a fun and lovely way to spend taxpayers money. But it's
nowt to do with cycling




Sounds like the perfect road for night time trials
  #20  
Old July 12th 17, 06:38 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 376
Default It's not every day...

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 2:06:10 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 11/07/2017 18:14, wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 2:32:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2017 16:35,
wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 4:25:25 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
...you get evidence of the existence of something that was alleged to
have been extinct for 80+ years.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/05/local-roads-government-cash-councils-motorways


QUOTE:
English councils will be given access to a multibillion-pound fund for
local road improvements under plans unveiled by the transport secretary,
Chris Grayling.

It was initially envisaged that the cash, held in the national roads
fund, would be spent on the motorways and major A-roads managed by
Highways England. But Grayling announced a change of tack, saying that
some of it should be diverted to be spent on roads run by local authorities.
ENDQUOTE


The national WHAT?


Someone needs to tell the Guardian PDQ that there is no "national roads
fund" and that it was all abolished long ago.


It was the road fund LICENCE that was replaced with VED.
Obviously national and local governments have a road budget that comes from the general tax pot.
The only reference I can find for national roads fund is in Zambia which I am fairly sure is not in the UK.


No, no... nothing to do with Zambia...


The story mentions the English national roads fund. And as you know (but
cannot bring yourself to admit) a fund is not a budget.


Then you should have no problem pointing to where I can find this 'National Road Fund' defined in some sort of official document.


Wash your mouth out.

The Guardian IS the *only* "official document" accepted by trendies like
yourself,


The last newspaper I remember buying was the first issue of The European back in the early 90's.
Actually that's not true, I used to buy the Sunday Telegraph because of the Nonogram.

shirley?


Not me and those wrestling matches were fake.


But you can imagine my surprise on reading it, because you and others
have been squealing for years that the road fund was abolished back in
the Middle Ages or something.


Where?


Here (of course).


Har! Har! Har! and indeed Har!.
Now cite the relevant post.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.