 | Forum
Reply | Hammersmith Bridge
at 19:10 26 Feb 2025
No doubt you "and many others" are indeed concerned to see the money spent on the bridge and have good reasons for doing so.
But assuming you are coming at this as a car owner, you might not want to make it a numbers game, since another cursory google reveals this:
"There are 2.56m cars licensed in London. This equates to an average of 0.3 cars per adult. In total, 46 per cent of households do not have a car, 40 per cent have one car and 12 per cent have two or more cars, with very few households owning more than two cars."
https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-many-cars-are-there-in-london.p
[Note the difference between households and occupants]
It is my guess that non-drivers/car owners would prefer to see the money spent elsewhere, also a few other car owners like myself, who question it too.
Anyhow# right or wrong, I can't see anyomne stumping up the necessary in the present economic climate, much less in another few years when costs will doubtless have risen further.
And the longer we manage (somehow) to get by without a bridge, the less the perceived "need" I imagine. |
| Forum
Reply | Hammersmith Bridge
at 18:19 26 Feb 2025
Er, that would be the same Cllr. Hogg, Leader of the Council in Wandsworth, which is desperately trying to persuade Central Government (and LBH&F) to stump up extra millions to sort out the bridge?
I can certainly see his interest in the topic. Meanwhile, the most cursory of googles unearths another local interest group, the cycling lobby, who paint a very different picture to Cllr. Hogg:
"The data used by Wandsworth does not seem quite right, comparing 2020 to 2023 to claim Hammersmith Bridge’s closure caused more traffic. But the bridge was already closed in 2020! A fair baseline shows motor traffic on Putney Bridge has actually fallen by 12% [while they say cycling has increased by 27%]"
https://www.instagram.com/wandsworthcycling/p/DGVOWLxMlMq/
Anyhow, I really have no desire to get into one of those tedious statistics-led internet debates over a matter which is as much emotional as factual etc.
Instead I was just wondering whether the money needed for Hammersmith Bridge might be better spent elsewhere, to solve other greater and more urgent infrastructure problems.
Or as I said at the end of my original post: "Just a thought." [Post edited 26 Feb 18:20]
|
| Forum
Reply | Hammersmith Bridge
at 17:36 26 Feb 2025
Perhaps.
But if Covid etc has reduced the need for motor traffic on the bridge, then that surely is an argument for saying it's no longer needed, therefore not worth spending millions on? |
| Forum
Reply | Hammersmith Bridge
at 17:34 26 Feb 2025
Maybe so, but do you know that the congestion you suffered on that particular day was anything to do with Hammersmith Bridge closing nearly five years ago?
Does it happen all the time?
And if you find you have to make the same journey on the same day and at a similar time etc, will you just factor in extra time for delay, or find another route, or just change your plans completely?
And on the same theme, how many of the people urging us to spend millions on reparing or replacing the old bridge actually used to drive over it frequently, and because they had to?
How many have found its closure intolerable and have had to stop working, or visiting family and friends, or to move schools etc?
And have you never experienced excessive delay when travelling elsewhere through London i.e. nowhere near Hammersmith or Putney and so nothing to do with the bridge being shut?
Besides all of which, why on earth would anyone bother going south of the river anyway - that's Apache country as far as I'm concerned! [Post edited 26 Feb 17:39]
|
| Forum
Reply | Hammersmith Bridge
at 17:09 26 Feb 2025
Why bother spending God-Knows-How-Many Millions repairing or replacing the bridge?
Seriously.
For in the nearly five years since it had to be closed, we've not had the traffic chaos throughout West London which some predicted would ensue.
Instead, motorists have either (a ) made fewer journeys; and/or (b ) switched to public transport; and/or (c ) found acceptable altewrnative routes.
And regarding this last strategy, there hasn't been an unacceptable (noticeable?) increase in usage of Putney, Chiswick, Kew bridges etc.
While there has been a measurable reduction in pollution around H'smith Bridge, while shops, bars, cafes and small businesses on the Barnes side have benefited by more trade, as customers no longer whizz by over the bridge.
Meanwhile, if they were to keep it open only to cyclists and pedestrians, they could increase usage by those of restricted mobity, or carrying goods, or with children etc, by going ahead with a system of electric, golf cart-style shuttles back and forth across the bridge to Hammersmith Tube and Bus Garage. (This has been proposed by others, but not yet taken up).
Then we could use the gazillions saved on infrastructure repairs and improvements which are genunely needed.
Just a thought. |
| Forum
Reply | QPR finances released
at 13:42 26 Feb 2025
It's not, not by a long chalk:
https://preview.redd.it/the-swiss-ramble-premier-league-clubs-wage-to-turnover-v
And I know those figures are a bit out-of-date, but they haven't changed drastically in the couple of years since. If anything they're coming down, what with UEFA's new P&S Rules (belatedly) causing teams to put a cap on their wages/turnover ratio.
Of course, with the massive revenues available to them, there is no excuse for PL clubs even to be at those levels.
EDIT: Oops - just seen QPRSam's post, above.  [Post edited 26 Feb 13:45]
|
| Forum
Reply | QPR finances released
at 19:26 23 Feb 2025
Re Brentford, afaik the plan originally was to incorporate Conferencing (and other?) facilities in the stadium which would generate non-matchday income. Also a hotel on site.
But they then concluded that they're a football club who don't possess expertise on non-footballing matters and besides, London is coming down with competitors who do have expertise.
Decided to concentrate on a football-only stadium instead. On which point, the first design was for 20k seats (maximum feasible), but then realised that sacrificing 2.5k places to increase their hospitality set-up (lounges etc) would actually produce more revenue.
EDIT: They were also getting income from renting out to London Irish, but eventually concluded that the pitch damage from rugby outweighed the (relatively low) rents being received - at least in the context of PL revenues.
So that if London Irish should be revived, they won't be playing at the GTech - an opportunity for QPR/Loftus Road perhaps? [Post edited 23 Feb 19:29]
|
| Forum
Reply | Spurs v Man Utd
at 18:16 18 Feb 2025
Back in the first attempt to create a "sawker" revolution in the USA i.e. before even NASL, never mind MLS, some of the big TV networks started televising local games.
They got Danny "The Prince of Blarney" Blanchflower, a rare educated former footballer in those days, over to co-commentate/analyse.
To say the least, he wasn't impressed by what he was seeing in his first game, and called it as it was. Eventually he described something as "dreadful". At half time the Editor called him aside, and gave him an instruction to be "more positive."
Second half starts and at the first miskick, Danny observed that "That was positively dreadful".
His contract was cancelled after the game...
Edit: Omitted to mention that by far the best analyst I ever heard was your old guy, Terry Venables - didn't just tell you what you'd just seen, but explained why it happened. Glenn Hoddle is also a bit like that (if you can stand all his other mannerisms, that is). [Post edited 18 Feb 18:19]
|
| Forum
Reply | Evertons new staduim
at 18:02 18 Feb 2025
@RangersDave: "Right next to a waste water management company, and has detracted from the wonderful old docks area."
I'm not sure of the relevance of the first part?
As for the second, not having a pop at you, what do you consider to be "wonderful" about a vast Victorian industrial wasteland, which hasn't seen activity or habitation for nearly half a century?
And which no-one else was a damned bit interested in doing anything with, any more than they are with the other disused docks further along.
Imo, if this stadium leads to regeneration of an otherwise unused, unwanted and frankly barren space near the city centre, then that is surely a good thing?
(Meanwhile, when the Docks were originally built, there were probably people complaining about the despoilation of the old salt marshes which were formerly there.) [Post edited 18 Feb 18:04]
|
| Forum
Reply | Marriage. Tunes to waltz down the isle to..
at 14:03 11 Feb 2025
Which reminds me of the time a mate of mine, a Portsmouth lad and lifelong Pompey fan, got married.
When he stood up to make his speech that afternoon, he started off:
"Today is the happiest day of my life...[Pause, quick glance at his watch] ...Portsmouth have just been promoted to the First Division!"
Footnote: Pompey lasted one season in the top flight, the marriage not much longer. |
| Forum
Reply | Sam Kerr on trial
at 22:13 5 Feb 2025
I wonder what her (white) mother thought of that? |
| Forum
Reply | Sam Kerr on trial
at 22:35 4 Feb 2025
Had she shown some contrition, offered to pay the Cabbie for all his trouble and apologised to the policeman, I'd say that she'd have got away with a Caution as to her future behaviour.
For I don't imagine the CPS would ordinarily bring a prosecution for something so relatively minor , if only because the Courts are busy enough as it is.
If her brief cannot get her off, then she'll deserve everything she gets (imo) |
| Forum
Reply | Andy Brassel
at 12:11 4 Feb 2025
Father Dougal: "Why's Father Jack in hospital, Ted?"
Father Ted: "Medical Tests"
Father Dougal: "Sure what would he know about Medicine?" |
| Forum
Reply | Sam Kerr on trial
at 12:08 4 Feb 2025
Apparently SK's partner is pregnant. I wonder who the surrogate father is?
John Terry perhaps? |
| Forum
Reply | Wineshttps://loftforwords.fansnetwork.co.uk/
at 16:36 30 Jan 2025
Tbf to her, her views were endorsed by a Pope:
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/103656064/photo/pope-kisses-tarmac.webp?s=1024x
And he drank a lot of wine. I mean, he had to be carried around in a chair.
Anyhow, I once participated in a proper winetasting and the first couple of samples didn't do anything for me, while all round me people were talking of pear drops and wet grass etc.
Then the sommelier introduced an Aussie Shiraz, and I immediately said "Leather" (from the bouquet, I suppose).
Anyhow, she congratulated me on my "nose" (if you knew what I look like, you'd appreciate that's the first - and last - time anyone's ever done that) and said that's what she recommends to go with beef. |
| Forum
Reply | Wines
at 18:56 29 Jan 2025
It's really only that big a rise for Port (£1.30) and Sherry (97p).
For lower alcohol wines you're talking just a few pence extra; for average strength wines around 13%, it's a 20p-30p increase; while for 14% it's +43p and 14.5% it's +54p.
And for some strange reason, when you get to 15%+, the rise is only 11p.
All here: https://www.enotriacoe.com/blog/new-duty-rates-february-2025 |
| Forum
Reply | 3rd runway at heathrow
at 18:30 29 Jan 2025
It's already been done elsewhere eg Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris:
[Post edited 29 Jan 18:36]
|
| | NewBee
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 452 | | Comment Votes: | 1 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 453 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
