|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|