VinnieK 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. Why do you have to wait for every one else to plough ahead before you follow suit though? If you value the principal behind the argument, and you're confident that you can manage with just one, surely you can get rid of one of them regardless of what everyone else is doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 The carrot is that you reduce the number of cars, and we all have a better quality of life. Tell that to my wife who would have to rely on the bloody infrequent bus service to our neck of the woods when I'm working in Douglas 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. Ha! Spoken like a true manxman. I can manage with one car, I've only got two cos it's cheap and convenient. Cheap? We have two cars because we need them. Being a tightwad (who begrudged spending £107 on road tax this morning) if I could manage properly with only one car I would. If everyone else managed with one, I'd happily do it. Why wait for everyone else? If it's that easy why not just get rid of one now and show your 'green credentials'? The proper carrot would be to have a decent island-wide transport system to encourage prople away from cars. However the eco-nauts decide that they'd rather use the stick and penalise car owners without putting a proper alternative in place first. As feckin usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3v0 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 In some cases I can see the one car thing working but not all, just because someone has two cars doesn't mean they drive them both at the same time (that would be entertaining), maybe they have a dirty great landrover to tow something heavy but because they are reasonably enviromentally aware they also have a little 1.0 citroen for daily commuting, why should they be penalised heavily for having two cars when only one is used on the road at a time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 The proper carrot would be to have a decent island-wide transport system to encourage prople away from cars. However the eco-nauts decide that they'd rather use the stick and penalise car owners without putting a proper alternative in place first. As feckin usual. I don't know, some environmentalists do have good ideas that aren't solely coercive. Having said that, it's interesting that those who do rely primarily on the stick often suggest proposals that are nearly always regressive, i.e. they typically penalise the poor more than the wealthy (who can happily afford the charges, and so on). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 The proper carrot would be to have a decent island-wide transport system to encourage prople away from cars. However the eco-nauts decide that they'd rather use the stick and penalise car owners without putting a proper alternative in place first. As feckin usual. The Island does have a decent transport system. What are you comparing it to? Earlier you said the buses are at 'silly times' but I don't really understand that. You would have to get the 7:22 in order to get into Douglas for 8:35, which hardly seems unreasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 (edited) why should they be penalised heavily for having two cars when only one is used on the road at a time? VED is an easily collectable but unfair tax - a better scheme would be to abolish it (+ require an insurance disk as per France) and add the extra tax (maybe 20% more) to fuel duty - now all user with n cars pay only for the carbon footprint produced Edited July 4, 2008 by Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Frances - that's definitely the best idea and the fairest - yet I've asked the Transport Minister AND the Treasury Minister why they won't consider it and get a stock reply about the 'common purse agreement'. I have two cars and a motorbike - I only drive one at a time yet pay to tax and insure all three. Patently unfair, yet I guess it's producing lots more revenue than the option, which is why they won't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 Argh, they can't add to fuel duty because it is harmonised under the Common Purse Agreement. It would be a complete waste of time for the DoT/Treasury to consider it. Mr Peters: Could you not declare one of them 'off the road?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 The proper carrot would be to have a decent island-wide transport system to encourage prople away from cars. However the eco-nauts decide that they'd rather use the stick and penalise car owners without putting a proper alternative in place first. As feckin usual. The Island does have a decent transport system. What are you comparing it to? Earlier you said the buses are at 'silly times' but I don't really understand that. You would have to get the 7:22 in order to get into Douglas for 8:35, which hardly seems unreasonable. There is one bus an hour to where I live - the morning buses are OK, I can get the 8:02 and get in to the office before 9. However coming home I have the option of the 16:45, convenient if like most you finish work at 17:00 (!) or otherwise have to hang around until 17:45 for a bus which will get me home at twenty to seven. If I drive home in the car I am home just after 17:30, using the bus I'd still be sitting in the bus shelter at that time twiddling my thumbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 Fair enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 Getting back to the QB, it seems to me that the congestion there is on the approaches not the roundabout itself. There is one lane to a pinch point on Quarterbridge Road above the old Nook Cafe. Regardless of which direction you want to go, the new scheme will not alter this. There are two lanes approaching from the south, if you want to go north or west you have to stay in the same lane. The lane into Douglas is nearly always flowing. Maybe easier to widen the road by the access road to create a west bound lane to ease this? I can't see the scheme easing the flow from the west much as again the congestion is waiting for traffic coming in from the south and there is no easy route to slip north? The traffic coming out of Douglas along Peel Road seems to be the easiest flowing because of the fact that there are three lanes which you can select early! If they really must spend money why not just build a bridge to go behind the QB to ease the traffic out and provide an alternative route into Douglas during the TT & MGP? I don't see why the Hotel has to go even with the proposed scheme, surely there could be access and it could be a feature? Has anyone thought how pedestrians will negotiate this white elephant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 Has anyone thought how pedestrians will negotiate this white elephant? With sang froid and a strong faith in the almighty............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 governers hasn't worked and won't be any better when actually finished, and QB is no different. whatever system is in place, you have the same cars wanting to go the same way as usual through the same bit of road. aslong as all the lanes are on the same level it will be a problem. the idea of a left only lane from the south to bradden bridge is ok, but why don't folks wanting to go that way go via saddle road? avoid the QB totally. as said above, the traffic is always moving on the roundabouts and some routes work better than others. the nature of roundabouts is that that will always be the case unless you add traffic lights too. but all lights will do is shorten one tailback and lengthen another. if you have 10000 cars wanting to pass through a single level junction at about the same time queues are bound to happen and no amount roundabouts in that area will help. REAL alternative routes into and out of douglas are what's needed and douglas is just not designed to have them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 And I SO wish that just a little of the money had been spent sorting out the old railway line from Peel to Douglas so that it could be used as a cycleway. Shouldn't the old railway line be re-instated, with commuter trains? £4m would go a long way towards that, and it would take a lot of the traffic off the roads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 I know, spend the 4 million relocating the government departments that don't need to be in douglas, out of douglas, reducing conjestion and parking problems considerably. 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.