LogFAQs > #979325942

DarkDoc posted...

The numbers are definitely trending that way. I just googled a current report claiming a 41% increase in drive throughs in the UK between 2015 and 2020. I'd say it's accelerated since then. Even places that don't need a drive through (eg Starbucks) are seeing huge increases.

It's just the way the country is these days. Like, 20 years ago, I was surprised to see drive through banks and pharmacies in the USA, but those are coming here now too. If you're not seeing that then it's just confirmation bias from a non-driver.

I don't question that the UK is plunging further into car dependency, only that it's a desirable outcome.

Not without the money you can't. Getting back on topic, money and overpopulation are intrinsically linked.

But the point being that everybody wants to live within a short distance of all the amenities. Simple fact is you can't. The situation would probably improve if the amenities were evenly distributed throughout an area.

Yes, that's the whole point of walkable neighbourhoods. If you can just pop to a store down the road rather than drive for several miles, that's a positive for everyone involved. If your kids can simply walk to school or take a bus rather than having to rely on being driven across town, that's good.

Overpopulation and money aren't intrinsically linked at all. You can have places like London that have strong economies and are... crowded. You can have rural areas that are desolate but certainly nowhere near overpopulated. The opposite of these can also be true.

You're pointing at official figures saying 1 million people are "unemployed". I'm pointing at official figures saying 9 million people of working age don't have a job. The difference is 8 million.

So if you think that 1 in 5 of the population is a vegetable, all I can tell you is you're wrong.

Where the hell did I claim any of that? I even gave a number of 3m on long term disability, although it appears that you simply ignored the rest of my words. At no point did I claim that 8-9m people are vegetables who are incapable of working.

Since you seem to be more sure on the numbers, please provide an actual breakdown of these people not in work. Let's get some data on them.

It's a good aspiration, but in practice things don't evolve like that. Maybe for historical reasons, ie a line was built before a town and doesn't pass near it. Maybe for geographical reasons (ie it's too hilly).

Stations weren't randomly built, they were built at destinations. For the more historical ones, the area around the stations were valuable to outside investors since they were easy to access. We saw this specifically in the USA, where the land near railways was given away to whoever built said railways.

Parking is seen as a transport facility. But there are other differences (most American cities aren't very big, so there are less people. Plus more of their car parks are underground so don't have a footprint.

Also, shops/restaurants with easy parking probably generate more income than those without. I literally can't imagine ever doing my weekly/monthly shop at a place that doesn't have a car park. Those places will go bust pretty quick.

It's infrastructure for cars, just like roads really. Problem is that infrastructure doesn't generate income. Obviously you're gonna need a certain amount of infrastructure, but car specific infrastructure takes up silly amounts of land for the amount of people it serves.

You'd also be surprised at how irrelevant parking can be as opposed to access for the majority of businesses. I'll give you an example from my town. A friend of mine was the general manager for a chain restaurant which had 2 locations in my town. One was located off a major road and had a sizeable parking lot, the other was located in town centre and was effectively impossible to drive to. The nearby shopping centre did have a car park but it costs a fortune and you were still about 10 mins away. It was, however, way easier to get to by bus. It also consistently outperformed the other location. People don't care about driving there, they care about getting there easily no matter what.

Obviously some businesses will fare a bit differently, but they're the exception. I wouldn't exactly expect a B&Q to pop up in the town centre.

In contrast, Manchester airport is actually terrible, for the same reasons. The transport links are pretty decent (ie train and bus), but on a recent trip I had to pay three parking charges (totalling I think 20), literally before my car had stopped moving. Then you have a building layout that's been badly designed on purpose, and crappy overpriced food, and the only reason people use it is because they have to.

Never flown from there so I can't comment. The stores for poor people at airports are pretty much universally gonna be expensive due to a captive audience. No way around that outside of regulation really

Is that the same one you posted before?

The thing is, people are gonna spend what they're gonna spend. The same amount of revenue will always be generated, it will just be generated in different areas. This idea is to shave something off those spikes, which will be added elsewhere.

Revenue in this context is for the state, not businesses. Ignoring the fact that council tax and business rates aren't equal, spreading the same number of people out further and further means you have more infrastructure to maintain on the same budget.