More QE on the way?

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

the thing is you need urbanisation to not be poor

and clearly people much prefer to live in the places with traffic as no one is forcing the people in turkey to leave their goat farming nil traffic villages and seek a better life in istanbul and no one is forcing the indians to leave their chicken farming nil traffic villages and go to mumbai

you cant go from subsistence living to paris to London standards overnight. those places need to get rich enough to afford things like metros and then build them out. Istanbul has already done that as its richer than mumbai but mumbai is also starting to invest in metros

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

and they all love it, going from sitting on the back of a donkey travailing 10 miles at 3 miles per hour to the local market to sell your tomatoes before they rot was a lot worse

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

the thing is you need urbanisation to not be poor

The UK is not poor.

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

and they all love it, going from sitting on the back of a donkey travailing 10 miles at 3 miles per hour to the local market to sell your tomatoes before they rot was a lot worse

Because that's all people do there, right?

Bit of a derogative post to be honest.

Have you ever actually been?

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Because that's all people do there, right?

used to be that subsistence farmers were the majority of the people and not that long ago. Without looking it up I would say less than 30 years ago that was definitely the case

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Bit of a derogative post to be honest.

Why? When a country is poor they cant afford cars so they have donkeys. India is still in the very poor stage so they cant afford cars (and I suspect that is one of the problems for the trains in india). Turkey is somewhere in between India and France/UK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Have you ever actually been?

Yes but only a few days in istanbul and then onto other parts of the country

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The UK is not poor.

that's because we have traffic in our capital city

without it we would still be poor

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

Why? When a country is poor they cant afford cars so they have donkeys. India is still in the very poor stage so they cant afford cars (and I suspect that is one of the problems for the trains in india). Turkey is somewhere in between India and France/UK

A lot are poor yes - but isn't that part of the reason "we" want immigration to the UK? So that we become richer. This only ever happens at the expense of the poor. This is exactly what has happened in Mumbai.

However, as I have said a few times, Mumbai itself is not a poor place.

The reason most (out of the slums) don't have cars is there is no point. Much like London, what's the point in owning a car if all you are doing is commuting within London?

Driving a car in Mumbai is fraught with hazards. One of the biggest hazards is the roads are severely clogged.

With respect, I really don't think you have a clue what you are going on about in regards to these places. You may "suspect" lots of things. But why not simply look into the reality of it?

The reason people go on the trains is that the train network itself it excellent. It's also very very cheap. Something like 96km for £1. They buy monthly passes for around £10 a month if I recall correctly (hence why I responded to Generali about paying less for clinging on to a train!?). The fine for not being able to produce a pass or ticket though is absolutely huge. A few days wages for most, so people buy the cheap tickets or passes to avoid the huge fines.

Why drive a car when transport is so frequent and so cheap? It's not neccesarily because they are poor. Theres just little point.

Mumbai itself is pioneering when it comes to a lot of stuff. As I say, the central station is an absolute marvel when you look at what they have done with it. 1,500 trains come through a day transporting 6 million people a day. All from 26 platforms. Mumbai itself is not poor. There is simply a massive gap between the rich and the poor. The rich are rich beyond belief, the poor are practically destitute.

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

that's because we have traffic in our capital city

without it we would still be poor

Sorry, I've lost the will to discuss things with you.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A lot are poor yes - but isn't that part of the reason "we" want immigration to the UK? So that we become richer. This only ever happens at the expense of the poor. This is exactly what has happened in Mumbai.

However, as I have said a few times, Mumbai itself is not a poor place.

The reason most (out of the slums) don't have cars is there is no point. Much like London, what's the point in owning a car if all you are doing is commuting within London?

Driving a car in Mumbai is fraught with hazards. One of the biggest hazards is the roads are severely clogged.

With respect, I really don't think you have a clue what you are going on about in regards to these places. You may "suspect" lots of things. But why not simply look into the reality of it?

The reason people go on the trains is that the train network itself it excellent. It's also very very cheap. Something like 96km for £1. They buy monthly passes for around £10 a month if I recall correctly (hence why I responded to Generali about paying less for clinging on to a train!?). The fine for not being able to produce a pass or ticket though is absolutely huge. A few days wages for most, so people buy the cheap tickets or passes to avoid the huge fines.

Why drive a car when transport is so frequent and so cheap? It's not neccesarily because they are poor. Theres just little point.

Mumbai itself is pioneering when it comes to a lot of stuff. As I say, the central station is an absolute marvel when you look at what they have done with it. 1,500 trains come through a day transporting 6 million people a day. All from 26 platforms. Mumbai itself is not poor. There is simply a massive gap between the rich and the poor. The rich are rich beyond belief, the poor are practically destitute.

its got nowt on clapham junction.......


Clapham Junction is reportedly Europe's busiest station in terms of through daily rail traffic.
The station is situated in the south west London borough of Wandsworth and as a result many routes from London's two busiest stations – Waterloo and Victoria – pass through its platforms.
It is estimated that each day about 2,000 trains pass through Clapham Junction, while during peak times 180 trains reportedly pass through the station each hour, 117 of which stop. All services from Waterloo are operated by South West Trains while many from Victoria are catered to by Southern and Gatwick Express.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry, I've lost the will to discuss things with you.

great we can leave it at......

cities that don't have a subway able to transport over a billion passengers a year...for instance mumbai... should not be used as an example of how bad traffic is if the population goes up