Re: A surprising result
- From: "DavidR" <curedham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:06:29 -0000
"JNugent" <not.telling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
DavidR wrote:
"JNugent" <not.telling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
Brian G wrote:
We don't need more money spent on new roads or motorways. The present
network is generally adequate.
Whilst bearing in mind that the writer could potentially provide a number
of different post-hoc definitions of "we", that has to be in the running
for most tongue-in-cheek post of the year on uk usenet.
My company is relocation our office 3 miles from where I live to 18 miles
away and is inconvenient to most of the workforce.
OK.
Whether roads are adequate or not is largely irrelevant.
"Irrelevant" to what?
The paragraph was badly constructed.
An additional 15 mile each way commute is an issue no matter how good or bad
the roads. Even on the most perfectly executed road system it would be
another 40 minutes a day, minimum. A road system is usually considered
adequate if it can support 20mph average in busy periods - an hour and a
half. On top of that, my fuel usage will rise 20 fold. Those are the
relevant points, not the road.
If (as some argue) that the road network is poor, it is important
to consider the reasons for the demand, rather than concentrating on the
supply side. Having given a corporate ego trip as one example of a cause of
change in demand, I doubt it is a particularly isolated one.
Certainly not irrelevant to the question of whether the... er... roads are
adequate.
If this is a cost
saving measure for the company (and rumour has it that the new premises
are
more expensive per unit area), they are effectively relying on publicly
funded facilities. I suggest that if the road network was not as good as
it
is, companies would be less inclined to mess about like this. Or more
likely, they do it anyway and then wonder why the roads have filled up.
You'll be resigning, I assume?
Let's stick with discussing the state of the roads?
.
- References:
- A surprising result
- From: DavidR
- Re: A surprising result
- From: bugbear
- Re: A surprising result
- From: Brian G
- Re: A surprising result
- From: Matt B
- Re: A surprising result
- From: Brian G
- Re: A surprising result
- From: JNugent
- Re: A surprising result
- From: DavidR
- Re: A surprising result
- From: JNugent
- A surprising result
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Paul Smith down
- Next by Date: Re: The Thunderer reveals a criminal conspiracy!
- Previous by thread: Re: A surprising result
- Next by thread: Re: A surprising result
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|