|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: CarlosCarlos Date: Jul 2, 2008 02:45
I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
"concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
ruined countryside.
Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
about time?
|
| |
|
| | 131 Comments |
|
  |
Author: Mike PMike P Date: Jul 2, 2008 02:47
>I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>
> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
> among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
> least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
> Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
> and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>
> So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
> "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
> denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
> unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
> more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
> ruined countryside.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.21Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
  |
Author: BrimstoneBrimstone Date: Jul 2, 2008 03:55
Carlos wrote:
> I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>
> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
> among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
> least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
> Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
> and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>
> So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
> "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
> denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
> unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
> more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
> ruined countryside.
>
> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it ...
|
| Show full article (1.09Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Date: Jul 2, 2008 03:48
Carlos gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it
> about time?
It seems to be because the government is scared of public opinion. Or
rather that it is scared of the morons with the loud voices.
There is a desperate need for a decent road infrastructure in the East
of the country and none exists. There are lots of areas where new
motorways would make sense, such as the south coast from Dover to
Plymouth, Southampton to Oxford, Northampton to Norwich, Cambridge to
Norwich, Norwich to Peterborough and Peterborough to Hull. I suspect
London to Norwich via Colchester wouldn't go amiss either. Biting the
bullet and making the entire A1 a motorrway wouldn't hurt either.
However the government prefers to piss away your taxes on wars.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: John RowlandJohn Rowland Date: Jul 2, 2008 03:15
Carlos wrote:
> I stumbled across this interesting statistic based on the OECD
> International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size
>
> It turns out that Britain has one of the least dense motorway networks
> among rich OECD countries. Not only that, but we also have some of the
> least amounts of motorway per capita (only a meagre 60 mm, while each
> Canadian can call a 500 mm slice of motorway their own). Even Slovenia
> and Portugal has more motorway per capita.
>
> So much for the argument that motorway building will ruin Britain by
> "concreting over the country". France, Germany and Italy all have a
> denser motorway network despite a lower population density. Even "car
> unfriendly" nations such as Switzerland and The Netherlands have far
> more motorways than we, and last time I went there, I saw no sign of a
> ruined countryside.
>
> Why is it that Britain isn't building any new motorways? Isn't it ...
|
| Show full article (1.15Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Roger ThorpeRoger Thorpe Date: Jul 2, 2008 04:19
Hey, Carlos you have the same user agent and posting style as Doug.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008052906
Firefox/3.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Roger Thorpe
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Date: Jul 2, 2008 04:37
John Rowland journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Grade separated dual carriageways such as the A14 have taken over. If you
> include those in the equation, Britain might do a lot better.
Because at the moment, the hyaenas don't protest about dual carriageways
quite as much as they do about motorways. Although Newbury showed that
the twats will protest about *anything*.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Date: Jul 2, 2008 04:44
"John Rowland" journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g4fmvq$h8l$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Grade separated dual carriageways such as the A14 have taken over. If you
> include those in the equation, Britain might do a lot better.
Might but in reality wouldn't.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Date: Jul 2, 2008 04:46
"Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gOmdne8IRqU_w_bVnZ2dnUVZ8t7inZ2d@bt.com...
>
> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need motorways?
Catford, we could also do with more "diagonal" motorways, it may be possible
to get from just about any major city to another on the motorway network but
via not especially efficient routes.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: Mike PMike P Date: Jul 2, 2008 04:54
"Depresion" < 127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:FdqdnZHDa-Td8fbVnZ2dnUVZ8t7inZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> "Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gOmdne8IRqU_w_bVnZ2dnUVZ8t7inZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> Let's start with you telling us which places you think need motorways?
>
> Catford,
needs a bulldozer, not a motorway..
Mike P
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|