New thread to tidy up today's situation - and last night's!

I was on GX platform last night to see Chiltern set due to be used by
NR for tests on the system, due GX about 22:15, but finally
rescheduled at about 23:30 to 01:30 at which point I went home.
Something about Control deciding that it would not let the test set
into the Possession at High Wycombe until the single-line usage HW -
Beaconsfield had finished.  Various people at GX rather upset
including S & T people waiting to check relays in their magic boxes.

Speed restrictions then on the tunnel section were 30/50 which might
seem high but only a short stretch needed relaying which is probably
in better nick than the rest of the track!  Anticipated back to line
speed (75) on Monday.

I did not see the brief flow of traffic this morning but I imagine
that stock positioning for tomorrow's start would have been well
fouled up if the GX route continued to be used.

Spent an hour or more last night chatting to someone from the
Possessions Management company (also less than pleased at the delay!).
Minor facts that emerged were that the tamper had been used to check
track circuits locally including into the turn-back siding.

This morning road transport being loaded with the short pieces of
track visible inside the tunnel in at least one of my pictures.  Every
scrap of fill material previously piled in the station car park has
gone, road sweepers due in today to clear up the dust (mud now it is
raining!)

BTP have a presence at the station this morning.

If anything else interesting happens to make life even more difficult
for Chiltern, I'll let you know!



Guy Gorton

"Guy Gorton"  wrote in message 
news:vggbg15ckc2nvot7ricihjc2593hlr5t93@4ax.com...

> New thread to tidy up today's situation - and last night's!
>


Story on BBC front page this morning (correct picture too): 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4168184.stm

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:20:39 +0100, "Dave"  wrote:


>
>"Guy Gorton"  wrote in message 
>news:vggbg15ckc2nvot7ricihjc2593hlr5t93@4ax.com...
>> New thread to tidy up today's situation - and last night's!
>>
>
>Story on BBC front page this morning (correct picture too): 
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4168184.stm 
>


Nice brochure being handed out by Chiltern/Network rail - paid for by
Tescos apparently, though Tesco are not mentioned anywhere in it - to
publicise the reopening. To paraphrase the person who showed it to me
- "now to get our passengers back...."

G

Gavin Hamilton wrote:


>
> Nice brochure being handed out by Chiltern/Network rail - paid for by
> Tescos apparently, though Tesco are not mentioned anywhere in it - to
> publicise the reopening. To paraphrase the person who showed it to me
> - "now to get our passengers back...."
>


It's also available on their web site as a pdf.  The following is
rather interesting:

"The underlying cause of the accident is still subject to a Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) investigation, but initial views are trhat the
loading sequence used in the construction of the tunnel was the major
factor that caused the collapse."

The large posters displayed at the stations, were quite similar to the
inside pages of the leaflet, re-arranged somewhat to suit the dillerent
sheet format.  Interestingly however the above paragraph has been
replaed by a rather different one.  I didn't write it down, but I think
the wording was:

"This was caused by overloading the concrete arches before correctly
in-filling the area around the tunnel"

Note that the poster states a definite cause for the collapse, whereas
the leaflet does not.  I would not expect this statment to be made
before the report of the HSE investigation has been published, which I
do not think has happened yet, and it can only be a few days since the
leaflet was printed, which does not make this statement.  Was the
statement on the poster issued in error?

If the cause stated on the poster turns out to be correct another
interesting point arises.  On 30th June, the day of the collapse, I
wrote the following after seeing a photograph of the collapsed tunnel
on the BBC news page:

"Looking at the picture there seems to be a lot  of fill on  top of the
arch, but much less at the sides.  Maybe the lack of material here
allowed the arch to buckle?"

That sounds not too far removed from the cause stated on the poster.  I
wasn't sure that this was the cause, indeed, after studying some other
photographs the following day, the depth of fill at the sides did not
look so low.  However, it did look give me cause to question it, and I
was not the only one here to comment on this.

I am an I.T, technician, and occasional cinema projectionist; I have no
knowledge or experience whatsoever of building tunnels, I don't know
about the experience of the others who commented on this.  We had the
advantage of seeing a photograph after the collapse, thereby
effectively seeing a transverse section of the tunnel, which those on
site before the collapse did not, but if the lack of fill at the sides
of the tunnel was sufficient for several people here to at least
question whether it could have led to the collapse, after seeing just
one small photograph, surely whoever was supervising the in-filling
work on site, and who hopefully did have knowledge and experience of
the process should have noticed it, and raised the alarm, before it got
the the point where the arch collapsed?

It does seem rather unfair to blame Tesco for any of this.  I think
that it is now clear that the failure of the structure was due to the
way that the work was carried out on site; either those carrying out
the work did not correctly follow the instructions they were given as
to how the work was to be carried out, or the instructions they were
given were incorrect or inadequate.  Surely, this is not the
responsibility of Tesco; they are no more experts on the construction
of tunnels than I am.  I would guess that this will delay the opening
of their store by at least a year, causing them considrable losses.

On 20 Aug 2005 16:56:53 -0700, "Stephen Furley"
 wrote:


>It's also available on their web site as a pdf.  The following is
>rather interesting:
>
>"The underlying cause of the accident is still subject to a Health and
>Safety Executive (HSE) investigation, but initial views are trhat the
>loading sequence used in the construction of the tunnel was the major
>factor that caused the collapse."
>
<snip>
>
>"This was caused by overloading the concrete arches before correctly
>in-filling the area around the tunnel"
>

This statement has appeared in various forms whilst other statements
state that explanations of the cause await HSE disclosure. 

>
>It does seem rather unfair to blame Tesco for any of this.


It is unfair but without Tesco's determination to create this
monstrosity, no collapse could have happened.  The blame should really
be heaped on Prescott who approved the plan in the first place but
there is no point in going down that route because he cannot undo the
harm he did, whereas Tesco can to a limited extent.  Even if the
project is abandoned, millions spent to restore the site, the town
will never entirely recover from the environmental disaster visited on
it.


>Surely, this is not the
>responsibility of Tesco; they are no more experts on the construction
>of tunnels than I am.  I would guess that this will delay the opening
>of their store by at least a year, causing them considrable losses.


It is rumoured that Tesco shouldered at least some of the insurance
liability on its broad and wealthy shoulders.  Not many tears being
shed in Gerrards Cross!

Guy Gorton

In article ,
   Guy Gorton  wrote:

> >It does seem rather unfair to blame Tesco for any of this.

> It is unfair but without Tesco's determination to create this
> monstrosity, no collapse could have happened.  The blame should really
> be heaped on Prescott who approved the plan in the first place but
> there is no point in going down that route because he cannot undo the
> harm he did, whereas Tesco can to a limited extent.


In what way was John Prescott to blame for the tunnel collapse? You may not
like the fact that he approved the plan, but someone made a mess of the
execution of the plan - and that's who is to blame.

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

Guy Gorton  wrote:


>It is unfair but without Tesco's determination to create this
>monstrosity, no collapse could have happened.  The blame should really
>be heaped on Prescott who approved the plan in the first place but
>there is no point in going down that route because he cannot undo the
>harm he did, whereas Tesco can to a limited extent.  Even if the
>project is abandoned, millions spent to restore the site, the town
>will never entirely recover from the environmental disaster visited on
>it.



Don't be silly.  The tunnel will be completed, the Tesco store will
open, and a lot of people will happily shop there.  The train service
is already back to normal.  

Yes, there was a major failure in construction of the tunnel, but
calling it "an environmental disaster" is gratuitous.  Perhaps you are
allowing your personal hostility towards Tesco to cloud your otherwise
objective judgement, which I greatly respected until now.

>I am an I.T, technician, and occasional cinema projectionist; I have no
>knowledge or experience whatsoever of building tunnels, I don't know
>about the experience of the others who commented on this. 


That doesn't prevent you from joining the other armchair experts
commenting here. Seems that the tunnel segments were too thin unless
loaded very carefully. Seems they might have been better off making some
wooden frames and casting a thicker amount of concrete around that, but
hey!, gotta try something new from time to time, otherwise we'd still be
up in the trees;).....
-- 
Tony Sayer

>It is unfair but without Tesco's determination to create this
>monstrosity, no collapse could have happened.  The blame should really
>be heaped on Prescott who approved the plan in the first place but
>there is no point in going down that route because he cannot undo the
>harm he did, whereas Tesco can to a limited extent.  Even if the
>project is abandoned, millions spent to restore the site, the town
>will never entirely recover from the environmental disaster visited on
>it.


Really Guy!, environmental disaster, thats a bit strong isn't it?.

I suspect that the good folk of GC will in a years time be flocking
there and shopping happily with Tesco giving Joe public what he or she
wants which is what their very good at doing, and all the problems and
delays during the building will be long forgotten by the commuters
travelling through the Tesco tunnel they now being distracted by
something else, perhaps ASDA doing it on the cheap elsewhere, or Ken
Morrision doing it even cheaper somewhere oop North!.......

-- 
Tony Sayer

Guy Gorton wrote:

 > ... without Tesco's determination to create this

> monstrosity, no collapse could have happened.  The blame should really
> be heaped on Prescott who approved the plan in the first place but
> there is no point in going down that route because he cannot undo the
> harm he did, whereas Tesco can to a limited extent. 


Surely the blame for the tunnel collapse should be heaped on the
people who carried out the construction incorrectly, and
those who allowed this malpractice to continue?

I'm surprised to see you linking this engineering disaster
with the question of whether Gerrard's Cross needs a Tesco,
which is a different matter. I do often wonder whether
we need so many supermarkets ... and yet ... I find Tesco
a good place to shop even though their taste in architecture
leaves much to be desired.

Would you blame the loss of life when the Queen Mary 2's
gangway collapsed on the people who ordered the ship?
Should the Tay Bridge collapse be blamed on the railway
company which wanted a bridge? Should the railway to
Heathrow have been rejected in case any tunnel collapses
occurred?

Charlie

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:29:52 +0100, tony sayer 
wrote:


>Really Guy!, environmental disaster, thats a bit strong isn't it?.
>
>I suspect that the good folk of GC will in a years time be flocking
>there and shopping happily with Tesco giving Joe public what he or she
>wants which is what their very good at doing, and all the problems and
>delays during the building will be long forgotten by the commuters
>travelling through the Tesco tunnel they now being distracted by
>something else, perhaps ASDA doing it on the cheap elsewhere, or Ken
>Morrision doing it even cheaper somewhere oop North!.......


If only the good folk of GC flock to Tesco, it will go bust - there
are not enough of us!  Add in people driving in from all around, not
to a store on the edge of town but right in the middle, and it will
prosper. That's why we don't like it - the Tesco name on it is
irrelevant - any name would be just as unwelcome. 

Guy Gorton

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:10:34 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>Don't be silly.  The tunnel will be completed, the Tesco store will
>open, and a lot of people will happily shop there.  The train service
>is already back to normal.  
>

Having the trains back to normal is one thing, it is quite another to
continue building the store - indeed, it is not building the store but
loading the tunnel crown again that many people do not trust.  It is
my personal view, not based on any expert knowledge, is that it would
be entirely safe to re-load the tunnel and continue with the store -
safer than if the roof had never collapsed because of the extra
scrutiny continuing work would atttract.  Basically, I trust the
original design.


>Yes, there was a major failure in construction of the tunnel, but
>calling it "an environmental disaster" is gratuitous.  Perhaps you are
>allowing your personal hostility towards Tesco to cloud your otherwise
>objective judgement, which I greatly respected until now.


I had nothing against Tesco until it ignored all local opinion.  Any
major developer would have faced the same opposition even if it had
been Fortnum & Mason as some wag suggested some months ago.
A single store of any brand of this size is totally out of proportion
to the remainder of the shopping area.

When I said environmental disaster I was really thinking of what would
happen if the project were to be abandoned - and, like you, I do not
think it will be, although local planning authorities now have some
influence again due to the extra time needed.

If it were to be abandoned, and assuming that restoration is
attempted, 100 year old trees have been lost in the cutting north of
the car park.  In the main development area, the growth was relatively
young, many trees having been cut down or trimmed after the December
1981 crash at Seer Green  but they provided a valuable resource for
wildlife.  This time most have been uprooted and I doubt whether the
mix of scalpings and IBA will be conducive to new growth.

The other type of 'environment' is the one that we enjoy in our
shopping area, which has already been damaged..

I am sorry I have lost your respect.



Guy Gorton

In article , Guy Gorton
 writes

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:29:52 +0100, tony sayer 
>wrote:
>
>>Really Guy!, environmental disaster, thats a bit strong isn't it?.
>>
>>I suspect that the good folk of GC will in a years time be flocking
>>there and shopping happily with Tesco giving Joe public what he or she
>>wants which is what their very good at doing, and all the problems and
>>delays during the building will be long forgotten by the commuters
>>travelling through the Tesco tunnel they now being distracted by
>>something else, perhaps ASDA doing it on the cheap elsewhere, or Ken
>>Morrision doing it even cheaper somewhere oop North!.......
>
>If only the good folk of GC flock to Tesco, it will go bust - there
>are not enough of us!  Add in people driving in from all around, not
>to a store on the edge of town but right in the middle, and it will
>prosper. That's why we don't like it - the Tesco name on it is
>irrelevant - any name would be just as unwelcome. 
>
>Guy Gorton


Yes but people here in Cambridge, where we have more professional
protesters than perhaps anywhere in the UK, have been down this route
and the likes of Tesco are well attended.

I'm sure they have some very good people who make these decisions as to
whether or not a store will trade profitably etc.

How many do they close down, anyone know?.....
-- 
Tony Sayer

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:26:51 +0100, tony sayer 
wrote:


>
>Yes but people here in Cambridge, where we have more professional
>protesters than perhaps anywhere in the UK, have been down this route
>and the likes of Tesco are well attended.
>

But was it built on a platform over the river with its entrance on to
Garret Hostel Lane or Silver Street?  The analogy is far from precise
and Packhorse Road and the cutting cannot compare with your lovely
streets, alleys and open spaces, but they are the best we have - or
had.


>I'm sure they have some very good people who make these decisions as to
>whether or not a store will trade profitably etc.
>

No one doubts it will trade well, but that does not make it welcome.


>How many do they close down, anyone know?.....



Guy Gorton

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:09:56 GMT, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:


>Surely the blame for the tunnel collapse should be heaped on the
>people who carried out the construction incorrectly, and
>those who allowed this malpractice to continue?

>I'm surprised to see you linking this engineering disaster
>with the question of whether Gerrard's Cross needs a Tesco,
>which is a different matter. I do often wonder whether
>we need so many supermarkets ... and yet ... I find Tesco
>a good place to shop even though their taste in architecture
>leaves much to be desired.
>
>Would you blame the loss of life when the Queen Mary 2's
>gangway collapsed on the people who ordered the ship?
>Should the Tay Bridge collapse be blamed on the railway
>company which wanted a bridge? Should the railway to
>Heathrow have been rejected in case any tunnel collapses
>occurred?
>
>Charlie


The trouble with your analogies, Charlie, is that in each case the
ship, the bridge, the tunnel was wanted.  it was broadly agreed that
these things were a 'good thing'.  It was far from agreed that Tesco
in Gerrards Cross would be a 'good thing'.  If the railway company had
built the Tay Bridge against united opposition from the people of
Dundee and Wormit I suspect the railway company would have been blamed
when it collapsed - not, of course, by an official enquiry, but in the
public mind.

Guy Gorton

Guy Gorton  wrote:


>I am sorry I have lost your respect.



You haven't.  I just thought your reply was somewhat out of character,
as it lacked your usual objectivity.  However, I recognise that those
of us who don't live in Gerrards Cross need to recognise the strong
antipathy towards Tesco, which you amply explained in your reply.  It
is difficult for anyone who shares that antipathy to be objective, but
you have done a marvellous job so far. 

Passions can run very high on local issues such as this.  Given the
circumstances, and especially the fact that the majority of locals
were (and remain) implacably opposed to the development, the tunnel
collapse was probably the worst thing that could have happened.

Now that all the fuss is over may I enquire whether the town should be

Gerrard's Cross?

If so who was Gerrard and where was his cross roads?

(I doubt that he was ever so cross as to have the occasion recorded in the 
name of a town.)
JG.

"Guy Gorton"  wrote in message 
news:si3hg11qeckf17qnjr9mg125ih7cre0u5l@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:09:56 GMT, Charlie Hulme
>  wrote:
>
>>Surely the blame for the tunnel collapse should be heaped on the
>>people who carried out the construction incorrectly, and
>>those who allowed this malpractice to continue?
>
>>I'm surprised to see you linking this engineering disaster
>>with the question of whether Gerrard's Cross needs a Tesco,
>>which is a different matter. I do often wonder whether
>>we need so many supermarkets ... and yet ... I find Tesco
>>a good place to shop even though their taste in architecture
>>leaves much to be desired.
>>
>>Would you blame the loss of life when the Queen Mary 2's
>>gangway collapsed on the people who ordered the ship?
>>Should the Tay Bridge collapse be blamed on the railway
>>company which wanted a bridge? Should the railway to
>>Heathrow have been rejected in case any tunnel collapses
>>occurred?
>>
>>Charlie
>
> The trouble with your analogies, Charlie, is that in each case the
> ship, the bridge, the tunnel was wanted.  it was broadly agreed that
> these things were a 'good thing'.  It was far from agreed that Tesco
> in Gerrards Cross would be a 'good thing'.  If the railway company had
> built the Tay Bridge against united opposition from the people of
> Dundee and Wormit I suspect the railway company would have been blamed
> when it collapsed - not, of course, by an official enquiry, but in the
> public mind.
>
> Guy Gorton 

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:01:56 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>Passions can run very high on local issues such as this.  Given the
>circumstances, and especially the fact that the majority of locals
>were (and remain) implacably opposed to the development, the tunnel
>collapse was probably the worst thing that could have happened.


Except for one thing; the tunnel collapse with a train passing
through.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:01:56 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:



>You haven't.  I just thought your reply was somewhat out of character,
>as it lacked your usual objectivity.  However, I recognise that those
>of us who don't live in Gerrards Cross need to recognise the strong
>antipathy towards Tesco, which you amply explained in your reply.  It
>is difficult for anyone who shares that antipathy to be objective, but
>you have done a marvellous job so far. 
>

Thanks for your words, Tony.  I wonder if a look at the main shopping
and trading area of Gerrards Cross might put our local opposition in
perspective for people who have not visited us - you have, so you do
not need it.  People on the ng may have already found it but there is
a walk through most of Gerrards Cross at
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.gorton/index.htm
It is a bit out of date but essentially the place is unchanged.  One
change is the greengrocer Aldridge on the west side saw his
opportunity and sold the remainder of his lease to a betting shop!
How come a betting shop slipped through the planning net?  He had
decided to diversify a bit and applied for the planning permission
necessary to have a lottery machine, which, so I am told, counts as
financial services - and so does a betting shop!

There are two other roads with shops but Packhorse Road is the main
area.  If you take out the estate agents, banks and restaurants what
you are left with is not much more than Tesco's floor space.


>Passions can run very high on local issues such as this.  Given the
>circumstances, and especially the fact that the majority of locals
>were (and remain) implacably opposed to the development, the tunnel
>collapse was probably the worst thing that could have happened.
>

Indeed so.  The urgent work to get the thing safe and the railway
reopened had a major impact on the town, with all the activities that
were proscribed in the planning consent to build it taking place
anyway!  Work 24/7, trucks by the dozen in Packhorse Road, dust, mess,
noise.

Guy Gorton

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Tony   Polson wrote:

(to Guy Gorton)


> However, I recognise that those of us who don't live in Gerrards 
> Cross need to recognise the strong antipathy towards Tesco, which 
> you amply explained in your reply.  It is difficult for anyone who 
> shares that antipathy to be objective,


Reading your responses on this thread, and speaking from the sidelines 
as I have no connection whatever with GX, you seem to be missing the 
point.  I've been tempted to comment before on your apparent 
blind-spot in your responses, and have resisted; but as you continue 
to troll away on this theme, I finally can't resist putting my oar in.

It's evident to me that their antipathy is towards any enterprise 
which sets up a massive facility, with massive car park, in 
circumstances where it is clear that the facility can only make 
commercial sense if it attracts far more customers from far away, 
complete with their motorised transport, than are in its immediate 
catchment area.  The residents, not unreasonably, expect significant 
additional congestion and nuisance.  It just so happens that the 
project in question here is run by Tesco, so it's not surprising that 
their criticism is aimed at Tesco, but it looks to me as if the same 
level of resistance would be generated no matter which company was 
involved.


> Passions can run very high on local issues such as this. 


As someone who has suffered a completely inappropriate commercial 
development in an otherwise calm residential area, I'd have to advise 
you that what the affected victims would rate as objective 
descriptions of the problems, can be all too easily laughed off - by 
those who don't have to suffer the problems themselves - as 
"passions".  Such categorisations - by those not involved - is 
unhelpful, and I suspect the residents of GX might rate your 
miscategorisation of their objections as equally unhelpful.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:qungg1lguurps3jg0e0aecpek7tpgv4gfk@4ax.com...

> Guy Gorton  wrote:
>
>>It is unfair but without Tesco's determination to create this
>>monstrosity, no collapse could have happened.  The blame should really
>>be heaped on Prescott who approved the plan in the first place but
>>there is no point in going down that route because he cannot undo the
>>harm he did, whereas Tesco can to a limited extent.  Even if the
>>project is abandoned, millions spent to restore the site, the town
>>will never entirely recover from the environmental disaster visited on
>>it.

> Don't be silly.  The tunnel will be completed, the Tesco store will
> open, and a lot of people will happily shop there.  The train service
> is already back to normal.

....

It is by no means certain that the Tesco store will open.  There was an 
article in Friday's Grauniad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552057,00.html

"No decisions on the future of the store have been made."
-- 
David Biddulph

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:31:12 +0000 (UTC), "David Biddulph"
 wrote:



>
>It is by no means certain that the Tesco store will open.  There was an 
>article in Friday's Grauniad:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552057,00.html
>
>"No decisions on the future of the store have been made."


Someone told me today that if this project is successful Tesco have
20-30 other, similar sites in mind.............

G

Guy Gorton wrote:


> The trouble with your analogies, Charlie, is that in each case the
> ship, the bridge, the tunnel was wanted.  it was broadly agreed that
> these things were a 'good thing'.  It was far from agreed that Tesco
> in Gerrards Cross would be a 'good thing'.  If the railway company had
> built the Tay Bridge against united opposition from the people of
> Dundee and Wormit I suspect the railway company would have been blamed
> when it collapsed - not, of course, by an official enquiry, but in the
> public mind.
>
> Guy Gorton


I wonder how the good people of Gerrards Cross reacted to the idea of a
load of nasty, rough, navvies descending on their town, or was it a
village, to dig a ruddy great cutting through it for one of these
nasty, new fangled railway type things?  Who needs them anyway, what's
wrong with a horse and carriage?

I think there are several separate issues here:

Should the cutting be in-filled to reclaim the land?

If so, should the land be built upon?

If so, what should be built, and who should build it.

Other than the disruption, noise and dirt during the fairly brief
construction period, it's difficult to see what the objection is to the
in-filling of the cutting.  Indeed, it could be argued that this is
actually undoing some of the damage caused by the construction of the
railway.  When I first heard of this project it was stated that the
store was to be built over the station.  I had visions of Gerrards
Cross station being turned into something like Wembly Central; we now
know that this is not the case.

If the land above the railway is to be reclaimed, then there is the
question of what it is used for.  If the proposals had been for a park,
playing fields, housing, small shops, industrial units, new bus
station, a prison, sewage works, glue factory, slaughterhouse, toxic
waste incinerator or explosives factory, how would the opposition have
compared to that against the Tesco store?  Obviously, some of these
would be more welcome as a neighbour than others; is a Tesco store
really that bad to live close to?

I would have thought that the most valid objection that could be raised
against it would probably be on the grounds of the extra traffic which
it would generate.  Having said that, I really don't see why Prescott
became involved.  This development is not a matter of national,
strategic importance, e.g. a new airport, so I don't see why it should
not have been decided at a local level.

I was myself involved it the opposition to a proposed new development
some years ago.  It was the multiplex cinema, video games arcade, fast
food outlets etc., which was to be built in Crystal Palace Park.  There
are certain similarities between this case and the Gerrards Cross one;
a large development, strong local opposition to what is seen s a
development in an inappropriate location, and a large amount of extra
traffic generated.  I don't know Gerrards Cross, I've only ever been
through it onn a train, so I can't really comment on the suitability of
the location.

Thanks for the tip about google groups quoting


Stephen Furley wrote:


> I think there are several separate issues here:
>
> Should the cutting be in-filled to reclaim the land?
>
> If so, should the land be built upon?
>
> If so, what should be built, and who should build it.
>



Can`t be the only one who was somewhat suprised that the `air space`
above a suburban railway line was worth the difficulty and expense of
building on.Central London floorspace obviously reached a point where
it was worth it but still suprised that periphery areas had reached
this level.

Should imagine the cost of creating a flat buildable land out of a
railway cutting whilst allowing continuing rail operations is very
high, even with modern building techniques.. This will limit the number
of potential developers  to those who can generate high returns this is
highly unlikely to render "park,
playing fields, housing, small shops.." viable.

The viability of a project such as this is also greatly affected by
penalty clauses for interfering with the operation of the railway.
Believe the penalties for as much as dropping a spanner during the
construction of the central London Station projects were draconian.

Sure that the insurers of Tesco`s and their contractors will also have
an opinion on how much there exposure to risk is on a project of this
nature.

Perhaps in London the sums add up, but uncertain the risk reward ratio
works further out into the sticks.

Adam

"tony sayer"  wrote in message 
news:ZGqVvJCbEICDFwkT@bancom.co.uk...

> In article , Guy Gorton
>  writes
>>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:29:52 +0100, tony sayer 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Really Guy!, environmental disaster, thats a bit strong isn't it?.
>>>
>>>I suspect that the good folk of GC will in a years time be flocking
>>>there and shopping happily with Tesco giving Joe public what he or she
>>>wants which is what their very good at doing, and all the problems and
>>>delays during the building will be long forgotten by the commuters
>>>travelling through the Tesco tunnel they now being distracted by
>>>something else, perhaps ASDA doing it on the cheap elsewhere, or Ken
>>>Morrision doing it even cheaper somewhere oop North!.......
>>
>>If only the good folk of GC flock to Tesco, it will go bust - there
>>are not enough of us!  Add in people driving in from all around, not
>>to a store on the edge of town but right in the middle, and it will
>>prosper. That's why we don't like it - the Tesco name on it is
>>irrelevant - any name would be just as unwelcome.
>>
>>Guy Gorton
>
> Yes but people here in Cambridge, where we have more professional
> protesters than perhaps anywhere in the UK, have been down this route
> and the likes of Tesco are well attended.
>
> I'm sure they have some very good people who make these decisions as to
> whether or not a store will trade profitably etc.
>
> How many do they close down, anyone know?.....
> -- 
> Tony Sayer
>

They built a new store in the middle of my home town in Wales (Llanelli), 
only to close it and replace it with an out-of-town site within a decade.
Brian

On 21 Aug 2005 12:15:56 -0700, "Adam Aglionby" 
wrote:


>Can`t be the only one who was somewhat suprised that the `air space`
>above a suburban railway line was worth the difficulty and expense of
>building on.Central London floorspace obviously reached a point where
>it was worth it but still suprised that periphery areas had reached
>this level.


Gerrards Cross has some of the highest house prices in the country,
and therefore land prices are also high.  I think that could tip the
balance in favour of such a costly and (as it turned out) risky
project.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams wrote:


> Gerrards Cross has some of the highest house prices in the country,
> and therefore land prices are also high.  I think that could tip the
> balance in favour of such a costly and (as it turned out) risky
> project.


Does anyone know what the original cost of this project was due to be?
Also, what is the cost of putting things right after the collapse?

On 21 Aug 2005 12:15:56 -0700, "Adam Aglionby" 
wrote:


>Can`t be the only one who was somewhat suprised that the `air space`
>above a suburban railway line was worth the difficulty and expense of
>building on.Central London floorspace obviously reached a point where
>it was worth it but still suprised that periphery areas had reached
>this level.


You have to bear in mind the government policy against allowing retail
premises to be built on green field land. The space above a railway
line is a brown field site, and this is no doubt why the site was
chosen.

I'm sure that Tesco would have far preferred to be on a green field
site, with access from major roads in all directions, or even adjacent
to a motorway junction, provided that they could have adequate parking
space.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:26:51 +0100, tony sayer wrote:


> How many do they close down, anyone know?.....


I only know it does happen. I was planning a journey in Scotland
involving a bus transfer between Largs and Wemyss Bay, and according to
the bus timetables (McGill, IIRC) the stop is at "Safeway Car Park", but
on doing a web search to find where that is, it would seem the Largs
branch of Safeways is not open any longer - not even as a Morrisons.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12598501.html
(20 009 at Bescot, Apr 1987)

Goalie of the Century (goalie@ntlworld.com) said:

> In message <zik0l0o5qorx$.1t7ozgzwdgo2y.dlg@40tude.net>,
> Chris Tolley  writes
> > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:26:51 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
> >
> > > How many do they close down, anyone know?.....
> >
> > I only know it does happen. I was planning a journey in
> > Scotland involving a bus transfer between Largs and
> > Wemyss Bay, and according to the bus timetables
> > (McGill, IIRC) the stop is at "Safeway Car Park", but
> > on doing a web search to find where that is, it would
> > seem the Largs branch of Safeways is not open any
> > longer - not even as a Morrisons.
> What makes you think it's closed?
>
> <http://www.yell.com> still have it as a Safeway, the
> only supermarket in Largs, and
> <http://www.largsonline.co.uk/movingtoamenities.html>
> have it as a Morrisons.  A Google turns up variety of
> references, one almost on topic!


http://www.multimap.com/clients/browse.cgi?client=morrison_safeway&coordsys=&scale=1000000&reclimit=4&overviewmap=ap_ukmap&g.x=134&g.y=112

Listed on the morrisons store finder (provided by multimap) as still 
existing.

-- 
Andrew

On 21 Aug 2005 11:30:25 -0700, "Stephen Furley"
 wrote:


>
>I wonder how the good people of Gerrards Cross reacted to the idea of a
>load of nasty, rough, navvies descending on their town, or was it a
>village, to dig a ruddy great cutting through it for one of these
>nasty, new fangled railway type things?  Who needs them anyway, what's
>wrong with a horse and carriage?
>

Too long to dismantle and reply to, so just a bit of history about
1906 when the station opened.  Gerrards Cross had a few houses on the
Oxford Road half a mile away, along with a coaching inn The Bull
(still there) and the big house, Bulstrode (also still there).
Nothing near where the railway is.  Development started started before
the railway was completed in anticipation of good times to come which
they certainly did.  The railway was sorely needed and was very
welcome, not just in GX but all along the line.


>I would have thought that the most valid objection that could be raised
>against it would probably be on the grounds of the extra traffic which
>it would generate.


A point I have made several times.

Guy Gorton

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 09:17:26 +0100, Guy Gorton  
 wrote:



>> It does seem rather unfair to blame Tesco for any of this.
>
> It is unfair but without Tesco's determination to create this
> monstrosity, no collapse could have happened.  The blame should really
> be heaped on Prescott who approved the plan in the first place but
> there is no point in going down that route because he cannot undo the
> harm he did, whereas Tesco can to a limited extent.  Even if the
> project is abandoned, millions spent to restore the site, the town
> will never entirely recover from the environmental disaster visited on
> it.


Guy,
There were similar concerns raised about a Tescos built at Tenterden in  
Kent which has a similar population. There was a "Tesco Action Group" of  
NIMBYS whos objections ensured that the planning process went on for about  
10 years. Everything was raised from no need because of the small  
population to traffic concerns, would ruin the high street with all the  
traders closing down etc. etc.

The store has been opened about 2 years now, its very popular, whilst you  
do see the occasional tesco lorry down the high street traffic has not  
noticeably increased.
Tescos themselves have been very proactive in giving grants to the local  
community. As part of the planning permission new street lighting in the  
high street and new traffic lights were provided on the Rye Rd turning.

The opening of the Tesco store in the town centre has caused a major boost  
to the town centre shops as people from a wide area of rural kent and  
romney marsh now come to Tenterden to shop rather than drive 12 miles to  
Ashford. It has also provided a major boost to employment in the town.  
Overall I would say it is a massive success for the comunity.
I dont have any connection with Tescos whatsoever.

Paul



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

In article , Terry Harper
 writes

>On 21 Aug 2005 12:15:56 -0700, "Adam Aglionby" 
>wrote:
>
>>Can`t be the only one who was somewhat suprised that the `air space`
>>above a suburban railway line was worth the difficulty and expense of
>>building on.Central London floorspace obviously reached a point where
>>it was worth it but still suprised that periphery areas had reached
>>this level.
>
>You have to bear in mind the government policy against allowing retail
>premises to be built on green field land. The space above a railway
>line is a brown field site, and this is no doubt why the site was
>chosen.
>
>I'm sure that Tesco would have far preferred to be on a green field
>site, with access from major roads in all directions, or even adjacent
>to a motorway junction, provided that they could have adequate parking
>space.


Actually this is how they go about things in Cambridge. Instead of
putting in a proper ring road and some retail parts there, they put them
near the centre and turn the roads nearby into car parks. Unintentional
ones, because you can't move for the bloody traffic there. Meanwhile the
affordable housing that is really needed for young people is build in
towns 20 odd miles away so no wonder the roads are packed with people
commuting!.

FWIW Cambridge has Three Tesco's and another one just outside town.....
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article , Guy Gorton
 writes

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:26:51 +0100, tony sayer 
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes but people here in Cambridge, where we have more professional
>>protesters than perhaps anywhere in the UK, have been down this route
>>and the likes of Tesco are well attended.
>>
>But was it built on a platform over the river with its entrance on to
>Garret Hostel Lane or Silver Street?  The analogy is far from precise
>and Packhorse Road and the cutting cannot compare with your lovely
>streets, alleys and open spaces, but they are the best we have - or
>had.
>

They, the Uni made sure the railway never came hear the centre of the
town, couldn't be doing with that new fangled invention that might make
people move about and upset the scholars etc;).

There is a Tesco down near the river FWIW where the old gasworks used to
be....


-- 
Tony Sayer

Guy Gorton wrote:


> Too long to dismantle and reply to, so just a bit of history about
> 1906 when the station opened.


I hadn't realised that it was built that late; was the line built at
that time, or was the station a later addition to an existing line.


> Development started started before
> the railway was completed in anticipation of good times to come which
> they certainly did.  The railway was sorely needed and was very
> welcome, not just in GX but all along the line.


Very different then to the view that Dickens presents of the building
of the line through Camden.

I have to say that my personal view is that there are plenty of worse
things to have around than a Tesco store, and since I don't have a car,
a local store, rather than one on an out of town site would be useful
to me.  I don't think the typical stores that Tesco has built in recent
years look too bad, some landscaping could be done, and trees planted.
If I lived in the area my main concerns would be for increased traffic,
and the affect on the existing shops.  On balance I don't think I would
have objected to it.  I certainly think it's better to build above the
railway than on a green field site.  Having said that, I repeat what I
said earlier, that the decision should have been made locally, and
Prescott should not have been involved; if that meant that the store
was not built, then so be it.

I would certainly not be happy about the events of the past two months;
a certain amount of disruption would have been ineitable during the
construction period, but what happened was avoidable, and should never
have happened, quite apart from the consequences if there had been a
train in the tunnel at the time.

Goalie of the Century wrote:

> In message <zik0l0o5qorx$.1t7ozgzwdgo2y.dlg@40tude.net>, Chris Tolley 
>>on doing a web search to find where that is, it would seem the Largs
>>branch of Safeways is not open any longer - not even as a Morrisons.
>>
> What makes you think it's closed?


The knowhere guide http://www.knowhere.co.uk/4296_shops.html talks about
stuff at the site of the old safeway store, and

http://www.dunoon-observer.co.uk/archive/arcaug200406.html says it was
going in Aug 2004.

Since I was only looking for where a bus stop is, rather than
researching the supermarket as such, I didn't look further.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857155.html
(37 411 at Bath Spa, 4 Sep 1998)

paul Hutchinson (ukr@prhutchinson.co.uk) said:

> Tescos themselves have been very proactive in giving
> grants to the local community. As part of the planning
> permission new street lighting in the high street and new
> traffic lights were provided on the Rye Rd turning.


If Tesco want to build a store on a particular site they will cover the 
costs of any associated local road improvements, if it will tips the 
planning balance in their favour. The construction of this tunnel is 
just an extreme extention of this policy.

-- 
Andrew

In message , at 
18:13:04 on Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Alan J. Flavell  
remarked:

>It's evident to me that their antipathy is towards any enterprise
>which sets up a massive facility, with massive car park, in
>circumstances where it is clear that the facility can only make
>commercial sense if it attracts far more customers from far away,
>complete with their motorised transport, than are in its immediate
>catchment area.


However, as I've demonstrated in earlier postings (with figures) this is 
quite a small supermarket by modern standards. I can't see many people 
from more than (say) 4 miles away chosing this one, rather than the much 
larger ones just as close to them. The catchment area will be mainly 
Gerrards Cross.

And the demise of the local shops (greengrocer to betting shop etc) is 
happening in small towns all over the country, even those which aren't 
having a new supermarket built in them.

Many people in Gerrards Cross would soon be having to drive to the 
next-nearest supermarket anyway. So there's a significant increase in 
amenity having one in the centre of town.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <15jradkq6pa2e$.x2a6hpwthu0u.dlg@40tude.net>, Chris Tolley 
 writes

>Goalie of the Century wrote:
>> In message <zik0l0o5qorx$.1t7ozgzwdgo2y.dlg@40tude.net>, Chris Tolley
>>>on doing a web search to find where that is, it would seem the Largs
>>>branch of Safeways is not open any longer - not even as a Morrisons.
>>>
>> What makes you think it's closed?
>
>The knowhere guide http://www.knowhere.co.uk/4296_shops.html talks about
>stuff at the site of the old safeway store, and
>

I suppose they closed the old store in Main Street when they built the 
new one.


>http://www.dunoon-observer.co.uk/archive/arcaug200406.html says it was
>going in Aug 2004.


That's Dunoon, not Largs.


>Since I was only looking for where a bus stop is, rather than
>researching the supermarket as such, I didn't look further.


Though it has (many!) faults <http://www.transportdirect.info> is 
usually good for finding bus stops.

It doesn't have 'Largs, Irvine Rd Rbt / Safeway Store' but 'Largs, 
Charles Street, Safeway Store, Opposite Hill Street' which is not too 
helpful.  However, as it's only one minute in the timetable from the 
splendidly named and more easily found 'Largs, Irvine Road / Gogo 
Street', you wouldn't have been too far out.

-- 
Goalie of the Century

Goalie of the Century wrote:


> That's Dunoon, not Largs.


Whoops. See, I said I wasn't paying that much attention. ;-)

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12906827.html
(47 521 at Kensington Olympia, Aug 1991)

"Stephen Furley"  wrote in message
news:1124702564.536492.16980@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Guy Gorton wrote:
>
> > Too long to dismantle and reply to, so just a bit of history about
> > 1906 when the station opened.
>
> I hadn't realised that it was built that late; was the line built at
> that time, or was the station a later addition to an existing line.
>

The line, the GW&GCJoint, was built at that time, as part of the GWR's
Birmingham cut-off (prior to this the GWR used the Great Way Round via
Readsing, Didcot and Oxford) and the GCR's London Extension. The main
settlements served by the new line were served by earlier railways, e.g.
High Wycombe and Princes Risborough by the GWR branch from Maidenhwad, and
Bicester by the LNWR Bletchley to Oxford branch.

Peter

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:32:10 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
 wrote:


>
>"Stephen Furley"  wrote in message
>news:1124702564.536492.16980@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Guy Gorton wrote:
>>
>> > Too long to dismantle and reply to, so just a bit of history about
>> > 1906 when the station opened.
>>
>> I hadn't realised that it was built that late; was the line built at
>> that time, or was the station a later addition to an existing line.
>>
>The line, the GW&GCJoint, was built at that time, as part of the GWR's
>Birmingham cut-off (prior to this the GWR used the Great Way Round via
>Readsing, Didcot and Oxford) and the GCR's London Extension. The main
>settlements served by the new line were served by earlier railways, e.g.
>High Wycombe and Princes Risborough by the GWR branch from Maidenhwad, and
>Bicester by the LNWR Bletchley to Oxford branch.
>
>Peter
>

The HW and PR branch from Maidenhead was single line which must have
been very restrictive by 1900 - pictures by Newton taken while the
widening took place at HW shows the track to be on longitudinal
timbers which I think had gone from most of the GWR system by then.

Guy Gorton

Andrew Bell wrote:

> http://www.multimap.com/clients/browse.cgi?client=morrison_safeway&coordsys=&scale=1000000&reclimit=4&overviewmap=ap_ukmap&g.x=134&g.y=112
>
> Listed on the morrisons store finder (provided by multimap) as still
> existing.


Unlike the one at the bottom of my road, which Morrisons closed and
have allegedly sold to Lidl, and the one in the centre of Leeds, which
used to be very busy indeed, and which was still boarded up the last
time I looked.

I gather the terms of the Safeway takeover included a rider imposed
from above, that they had to sell a certain number of stores. These two
appear to be two of them (they were the only branches of Safeway I ever
used).

I'm quite a fan of Morrisons, but they get practically none of my
custom, because their closest branch is very badly served by public
transport from where I live (and I don't drive a car).

This is all well off topic for this newsgroup, so I'll leave it at
that.


-- 
Regards

Mike

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:54:13 +0100, tony sayer 
wrote:


>Actually this is how they go about things in Cambridge. Instead of
>putting in a proper ring road and some retail parts there, they put them
>near the centre and turn the roads nearby into car parks. Unintentional
>ones, because you can't move for the bloody traffic there. Meanwhile the
>affordable housing that is really needed for young people is build in
>towns 20 odd miles away so no wonder the roads are packed with people
>commuting!.


"Affordable housing" is a scam, anyway.  None should be provided,
other than for rent, and soon prices would fall to a sensible and
realistic level.  In particular, shared ownership does little of
benefit other than to increase house prices overall.

It is merely an example of typical short-termism.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In article , Neil Williams <wensleydale
@pacersplace.org.uk> writes

>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:54:13 +0100, tony sayer 
>wrote:
>
>>Actually this is how they go about things in Cambridge. Instead of
>>putting in a proper ring road and some retail parts there, they put them
>>near the centre and turn the roads nearby into car parks. Unintentional
>>ones, because you can't move for the bloody traffic there. Meanwhile the
>>affordable housing that is really needed for young people is build in
>>towns 20 odd miles away so no wonder the roads are packed with people
>>commuting!.
>
>"Affordable housing" is a scam, anyway.  None should be provided,
>other than for rent, and soon prices would fall to a sensible and
>realistic level.  In particular, shared ownership does little of
>benefit other than to increase house prices overall.
>
>It is merely an example of typical short-termism.
>
>Neil
>


Perhaps then accommodation for single person housing. What is a scam is
that most all one bedroom places round here are restricted to retired
persons only.

Mind you why should the young bother, as their quite happy round this
area living at home, paying bugger all rent and then going out and
getting pissed and making a nuisance of themselves!.

Not that this has got much to do with the railway......
-- 
Tony Sayer

On 22 Aug 2005 08:42:10 -0700, "Mike Roebuck" 
wrote:


>I gather the terms of the Safeway takeover included a rider imposed
>from above, that they had to sell a certain number of stores. These two
>appear to be two of them (they were the only branches of Safeway I ever
>used).


Morrisons were forced to sell 52 stores when they purchased Safeway,
although they have now sold 196 stores. All the old Safeway Compact
stores went to Somerfields and other went to Sainsburys, Tescos and
Waitrose.

More at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4162402.stm

Duncan

Guy Gorton  wrote:

>
>The HW and PR branch from Maidenhead was single line which must have
>been very restrictive by 1900 - pictures by Newton taken while the
>widening took place at HW shows the track to be on longitudinal
>timbers which I think had gone from most of the GWR system by then.



The longitudinal sleepers and cross ties were to be found all over the
former broad gauge routes of the GWR system, including mixed gauge
routes.  The last conversions from 7ft to what the GWR called "narrow
gauge" were carried out in 1892, so it is probable that much of the
"baulk road" remained in service only fourteen years later.

"Andrew Bell"  wrote:


>paul Hutchinson (ukr@prhutchinson.co.uk) said:
>> Tescos themselves have been very proactive in giving
>> grants to the local community. As part of the planning
>> permission new street lighting in the high street and new
>> traffic lights were provided on the Rye Rd turning.
>
>If Tesco want to build a store on a particular site they will cover the 
>costs of any associated local road improvements, if it will tips the 
>planning balance in their favour. The construction of this tunnel is 
>just an extreme extention of this policy.



On the contrary, there are absolutely no road improvements included
with the Gerrards Cross scheme and no other tangible planning gain.
As a consequence of the construction of the store, there will be a
considerable environmental penalty in terms of increased noise and
traffic, leading to an inevitable increase in road accidents.

The only beneficiary of the construction of the tunnel is Tesco,
because it allows them to obtain a plot of land that would otherwise
be impossible to find in an area where planning control is especially
strictly imposed.  To suggest that Gerrards Cross is in any way
gaining by the construction of the store is therefore misleading.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:56:35 +0100, tony sayer 
wrote:


>Perhaps then accommodation for single person housing. What is a scam is
>that most all one bedroom places round here are restricted to retired
>persons only.


Indeedy.  Out of interest (and vague consideration of working there
for a bit again - but I have no actual plans as yet!) I recently did a
search for one bedroom and studio apartments for rent in Hamburg on a
couple of websites.  There was a massive choice of all different types
of housing, and it wasn't all that expensive either.

I have no objection to renting per-se - indeed, in my current
situation[1] it doesn't make any sense *not* to.  That's possibly why
I see proper Council property as a way out of the problem -
not-for-profit and definitely not for sale - but of a good standard
and *not* in "Council estates", which have time and time again proven
to be an utter failure.


>Mind you why should the young bother, as their quite happy round this
>area living at home, paying bugger all rent and then going out and
>getting pissed and making a nuisance of themselves!.


I'd be rich if I lived with my parents...

[1] Milton Keynes is in the odd situation where, because of a "glut"
of rental property, rents have not increased significantly in 4 years,
while house prices for sale have almost doubled.  Thus, my monthly
rent is about 2/3 of a repayment mortgage on an equivalent property.
As I don't have any children, my current concern is not providing
anyone an inheritance, but to economically house myself, so I have no
incentive to stretch myself to buy when I can comfortably rent.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:


>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:54:13 +0100, tony sayer 
>wrote:
>
>>Actually this is how they go about things in Cambridge. Instead of
>>putting in a proper ring road and some retail parts there, they put them
>>near the centre and turn the roads nearby into car parks. Unintentional
>>ones, because you can't move for the bloody traffic there. Meanwhile the
>>affordable housing that is really needed for young people is build in
>>towns 20 odd miles away so no wonder the roads are packed with people
>>commuting!.
>
>"Affordable housing" is a scam, anyway.  None should be provided,
>other than for rent, and soon prices would fall to a sensible and
>realistic level.  In particular, shared ownership does little of
>benefit other than to increase house prices overall.
>
>It is merely an example of typical short-termism.



In British politics "the long term" equates to "by the next election".

;-)

>The opening of the Tesco store in the town centre has caused a major boost

to the town centre shops as people from a wide area of rural kent and

romney marsh now come to Tenterden to shop rather than drive 12 miles
to
Ashford. It has also provided a major boost to employment in the town.

Overall I would say it is a massive success for the comunity.
I dont have any connection with Tescos whatsoever. <

Kindly permit me to go somewhat off-topic here and make a comparison.

Here in Los Angeles County there is a different legislative framework
in operation.  Although there are some parallels.

The giant Wal-Mart Corporation and their Sam's Club warehouses like to
build what Americans call 'big box' structures.  These are large
warehouse, along with parking lots to match that fill entire City
blocks or occupy large edge of town sites.

One municipality here in LA Co., Inglewood, has denied planning
permission to Wal-Mart.   These developments are not viewed as wholly
welcome.

Whilst having a 'big box' warehouse within a local authority may bring
increased sales taxes there is a down side.  Typically these stores
push out local businesses.  We are talking about everything from
butchers to Optometrists here.  Wal-Mart/Sam's Club has all of these
under one roof.  This means that the character of the neighborhood
changes.

Moreover, Wal-Mart pays rock bottom wages with no medical benefits.
So, local income tax falls.  But, when one of Walmart's employees has
to visit the hospital or emergency room it will be a county facility at
taxpayer expense.

And, these people are selling goods made very cheaply in China.   No
American labor is used in the manufacturing process.

Bringing the subject back on topic transit advocates in LA Co. tend to
be pro 'Transit Oriented Development'.  We like street facing shops
easily accessible to bus and rail users.  We push for a move away from
the 'freeway' and 'big box' paradigm.  It has proved to be a failure.

In the UK the comparrison might be between car oriented Milton Keynes
or transit served London.

A.

In message , at 
15:20:38 on Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Adrian Auer-Hudson 
 remarked:

>Whilst having a 'big box' warehouse within a local authority may bring
>increased sales taxes there is a down side.  Typically these stores
>push out local businesses.  We are talking about everything from
>butchers to Optometrists here.  Wal-Mart/Sam's Club has all of these
>under one roof.  This means that the character of the neighborhood
>changes.


But the relatively small Tesco store that's proposed for Gerrards Cross 
is unlikely to have that effect. People can already find much larger 
stores within ten minutes drive, if they want to shop at such a place. 
This Tesco is more for the local people who don't want to make that 
journey, especially those who don't have a car and use the excellent 
railway service instead.
-- 
Roland Perry

>Seems they might have been better off making some
> wooden frames and casting a thicker amount of concrete around that, but
> hey!, gotta try something new from time to time,


An engineer does the same job for a pound that fool can do for 10.

But sometimes it just doesn't quite work out right.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:35:40 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:54:13 +0100, tony sayer 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Actually this is how they go about things in Cambridge. Instead of
>>>putting in a proper ring road and some retail parts there, they put them
>>>near the centre and turn the roads nearby into car parks. Unintentional
>>>ones, because you can't move for the bloody traffic there. Meanwhile the
>>>affordable housing that is really needed for young people is build in
>>>towns 20 odd miles away so no wonder the roads are packed with people
>>>commuting!.
>>
>>"Affordable housing" is a scam, anyway.  None should be provided,
>>other than for rent, and soon prices would fall to a sensible and
>>realistic level.  In particular, shared ownership does little of
>>benefit other than to increase house prices overall.
>>
>>It is merely an example of typical short-termism.
>
>
>In British politics "the long term" equates to "by the next election".
>
>;-)


or "next year" - whichever is sooner...........

G