When Skies Are Grey Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 How about finding ways to cut the numebr of cars using that area...some suggestions Congestion Charging Hiking up road tax Developing park and ride facilities in the Cooil roundabout area De-Douglasify (!) businesses Sometime taking Mohammed to the mountain is the overlooked option!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 How about finding ways to cut the numebr of cars using that area...some suggestions Congestion Charging Hiking up road tax Developing park and ride facilities in the Cooil roundabout area De-Douglasify (!) businesses Sometime taking Mohammed to the mountain is the overlooked option!! Whilst I agree that we would be better cutting the numbers of cars, but: Congestion Charging: Would probably be deeply unpopular, as most stealth taxes are. Furthermore, people don't drive because it is the cheap option, and this alone is unlikely to dissaude those that drive from doing so. Hiking up road tax: The problem isn't with people owning cars, but with too many trying to use Douglas at the same time. Park and Ride: This could work, but would probably require a reduction in private parking within Douglas itself. Diversifying Businesses: Whilst we would all like to see more businesses in the smaller towns, I don't think this should necessarily be at the expense of Douglas's economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3v0 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Motorbikes = the way ahead No more congestion (unless it becomes like india ) And no parking problems! Shall I take my consultancy fee now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 (edited) I presume that we will have the usual DOT team of Civil Engineers and Traffic Management experts overseeing the construction. Edited July 4, 2008 by Jimcalagon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I don't agree with that one - people used to use Walpole Avenue as a long-tail run, and cut their way into the queue of traffic that had come across the front of the sea terminal causing, the traffic to back up even worse than it does now, which in turn sent more people down Walpole Avenue to cut their way into the queue. It was horrendous, and got loads of people frustrated. The current system is much fairer. In this case fairer=everyone gets frustrated because everyone (whether going to the sea terminal or along the prom) has to use the single lane stretch from the roundabout to the corner. That causes the conjestion. If the prom people could slip down Walpole ave, and the sea termonal and remainder of the prom people use the existing route the traffic will flow more freely. 2 lanes verses 1. A total no brainer. Even the DOT shold see that. In reality they are trying to stop people using Walpole avenue. it is probably going to be the enterance to whatever they build on the carpark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ade Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 (edited) I think it actually looks OK - I was pleasantly surprised. Because it looks Ok does not mean that it is necessary. Drivers still have to get out into the traffic flow - something a few of them don't seem to have the skill to do. Have the DoT produced a cost benefit/analysis or is this just a 'nice to do'. Should £4 million of your money and mine (about £200 per family) be spent on this without having some form of commercially sound justification? PS: How does a pedestrian cross the road - there does not seem to be any provision in the crayon sketh. Just because I think the design of the actual roundabout is OK, it doesn't mean I think it's value for money. I think that the £4m cost to build it sounds ridiculous, however I'm not in construction, so I'm just saying that because it sounds like a shit load of cash that can amazingly be found when other things have to go without. As with previous government projects I would think that the final cost is a lot more than £4m. I'm also (not pleasantly) surprised that they've quoted 2 years for the build. I'm sure resorts and huge buildings get constructed around the world in less time. Park and ride, provision for cycle lanes, somewhere to park my fucking bike in Douglas would be nice. Edited July 4, 2008 by ade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3v0 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Helicopters and Jetpacks for all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Helicopters and Jetpacks for all? or...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Legislating one car per household would be an instant solution, and is perfectly manageable for pretty much everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Gladiators style atlaspheres are the only realistic alternative. They're only marginally less glamorous than bicycles, are safer, and are probably good for the environment in a million billion different ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Legislating one car per household would be an instant solution, and is perfectly manageable for pretty much everyone. or you pay a large premium if you have a justifiable reason for having two...funds to go in to development of public transport system..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3v0 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Legislating one car per household would be an instant solution, and is perfectly manageable for pretty much everyone. or you pay a large premium if you have a justifiable reason for having two...funds to go in to development of public transport system..... If we can keep the helicopter, jetpack and hoverboard you've got yourself a deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Legislating one car per household would be an instant solution, and is perfectly manageable for pretty much everyone. Bollocks. That's the trouble with you anti-car lot, all stick and no carrot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Bollocks. That's the trouble with you anti-car lot, all stick and no carrot. The carrot is that you reduce the number of cars, and we all have a better quality of life. I'm not that anti-car, I've got two myself. I just fekking hate driving, its a nightmare. There's too many cars on the roads. I can manage with one car, I've only got two cos it's cheap and convenient. If everyone else managed with one, I'd happily do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Legislating one car per household would be an instant solution, and is perfectly manageable for pretty much everyone. or you pay a large premium if you have a justifiable reason for having two...funds to go in to development of public transport system..... What a bloody good idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.