More QE on the way?

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

both those pictures look very old

Well nothing has changed. Though it has expanded.

Heres a video from 2012...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVc6wPI1irw

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

and here is a photo of the inside of one

Heres another....




We can all pick images

The overarching point of all of this is that those against large immigration may simply not want to live in such a crowded atmosphere.

That was my point to start with. Some people may want to live in such densely populated spaces. Some may not.

My issue is that when it comes to talking about it this is never taken into consideration. It seems to boil down to you are either pro immigration and wise to all it's benefits, or a racist. How about the third angle? Maybe you don't want mega city infrastructure and crowds? I certainly don't. It's bad enough driving around the larger cities as is.

Worth noting that London now holds first place in Europe. That is for the most congested roads in any european city. We've moved up from 8th most congested around 3 years ago. That's a massive increase to hit the top spot in such a small space of time.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Using the measure is OK, but it averages the population out. This therefore ignores the density in specific places.

Clearly Paris doesn't look anything like Mumbai at it's centre. I don't mean physically, I mean the sheer amount of people. ...

Wikipedia has a list of the 50 cities with the highest population density. Paris is number 25, Mumbai is 31.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...We can do whatever we like with statistics. ...

True. But the best thing to do with statistics is to look them up before your reach a conclusion.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....But sometimes it takes a simple dose of reality to see a clearer picture....

So rather than base your conclusion on statistics, you want to base them on random photographs you've swiped from the interweb?

P.S. !!!!!! has any of this to do with QE?

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

So rather than base your conclusion on statistics, you want to base them on random photographs you've swiped from the interweb?

P.S. !!!!!! has any of this to do with QE?

Hang on.

So let me get this straight.

You are telling us all that you believe Paris has a larger density of population in the centre than Mumbai?

That you will see larger crowds in Paris than you will Mumbai?

You will have more space around in you central Mumbai than you will in central Paris?

Yes or no answer....

I'm basing my conclusion on reality. What are you basing yours on?

cells

but people do want to live in highly dense rich cities as is evidence by paris or inner london. there is no one forcing people to move to mumbai they are doing it out of their own free will

taking 10 year old photos of a third world city at rush hour which doesnt even have a metro is no argument for transport

also look at Japan and tokyo not many immigrants there but its still dense and packed. stopping immigrants coming to a nation doesnt turn the capital cities into villages with acres of fields between each home

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

......Worth noting that London now holds first place in Europe. That is for the most congested roads in any european city. We've moved up from 8th most congested around 3 years ago. That's a massive increase to hit the top spot in such a small space of time.

Depends on whose research you believe. Inrix says it's London. TomTom says it's Moscow.

https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/trafficindex/#/list

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hang on.

So let me get this straight.

You are telling us all that you believe Paris has a larger density of population in the centre than Mumbai?

That you will see larger crowds in Paris than you will Mumbai?

You will have more space around in you central Mumbai than you will in central Paris?

Yes or no answer....

I'm basing my conclusion on reality. What are you basing yours on?

mumbai is probably less desirable than paris and the main reason is that they are relatively poor and the metro infrastructure is just being built out now and over the next 30 years

it would be more fair to compare mumbai and paris in 50 years time when the two are probably at a closer level of wealth and build out

either way immigrants dont cause high population density, cities form into high density places. look at japan....or even London 80 years ago...not so many immigrants but still 8 million people

cells

a more fair view into rapidly growing cities would be Istanbul in turkey. A good deal richer than Mumbai and has a metro (still expanding)

Its growing in population by about 500,000 a year or 3.5% which is very rapid population growth. It seems to be functioning ok

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

it would be more fair to compare mumbai and paris in 50 years time when the two are probably at a closer level of wealth and build out

And here you have specifically stated it would be fairer to look at the cities 40 years in the future - AFTER it's dealt with it's problems caused by mass growth.

So you appear to agree there is an issue. Just ignore it for now and wait 40 years (when many of us will be dead) to examine it?

There is a documentary on the BBC running at the moment on the railways in Mumbai. Fascinating watch. With respect, I'd reccomend you give it a watch as you seem intent on believing the pictures I put up were from 10 years ago. The reality is the stuff from this year is probably worse. Have a watch of it if you can. Truly fascinating to observe what they have done to cope with the numbers.

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

a more fair view into rapidly growing cities would be Istanbul in turkey. A good deal richer than Mumbai and has a metro (still expanding)

Its growing in population by about 500,000 a year or 3.5% which is very rapid population growth. It seems to be functioning ok

Suppose it really depends on what you call "OK".

Istanbul traffic...


Said to be costing the economy there $5bn a year.

One study showed that 40 minutes of every hour driving in Istanbul was lost to congestion.