Extinction Rebellion - go slow Salisbury

[pwa]

Recentering our neighbourhoods is essential. The model that we all work in one place, and live in another, a car drive or a train ride away, is no longer viable. Paris is beginning to look at ‘15minute’ neighbourhoods. No essential facilities more than 15minutes away. We will need job swap websites and great re-organisation, but that is less of a pain than remaining stuck in the industrial model of the last century.

If you can magic away very long commutes, that would make a lot of people happy. But unless you tie housing to employers, how do you do that? And how do you deal with households where the members have different work places? People change their jobs a lot these days, so does that mean they have to relocate with every new job? And wouldn't that be the end of settled and stable communities? I find that all a bit slippery to deal with.

[fullupandslowingdown]

Indeed some do, but why do so many change their jobs? Why not society look at employer employee relationships in this country. Certainly up until a few years ago, in Japan it was normal to work for the same company till you retired. Are we swapping jobs so often because the grass greener on the other side, or because of poor working environments? It just doesn't make any sense for person A in city a to pass person B in city b each day as they commute to jobs in each other's city. Few of us are productive on the move, few of us will somehow live longer by sitting in a traffic jam. With train overcrowding, only 1st class travellers can be assured of a table to work at. The rest of us are jam packed against each other breathing in corona virus.

Car free zoned housing doesn't work, dwellers just end up parking elsewhere on the streets. Manufacturing and service type jobs means travelling outside of bus operating times, to areas badly or not served at all by public transport. The solution has to be holistic. Employment, entertainment, services and housing need to be located together not mile apart. We're losing our high street shopping etc because out of town retail developments are cheaper to rent and pay rates on, but we end up paying more to travel to either as worker or shopper.

[pwa]

Indeed some do, but why do so many change their jobs? Why not society look at employer employee relationships in this country. Certainly up until a few years ago, in Japan it was normal to work for the same company till you retired. Are we swapping jobs so often because the grass greener on the other side, or because of poor working environments? It just doesn't make any sense for person A in city a to pass person B in city b each day as they commute to jobs in each other's city. Few of us are productive on the move, few of us will somehow live longer by sitting in a traffic jam. With train overcrowding, only 1st class travellers can be assured of a table to work at. The rest of us are jam packed against each other breathing in corona virus.

Car free zoned housing doesn't work, dwellers just end up parking elsewhere on the streets. Manufacturing and service type jobs means travelling outside of bus operating times, to areas badly or not served at all by public transport. The solution has to be holistic. Employment, entertainment, services and housing need to be located together not mile apart. We're losing our high street shopping etc because out of town retail developments are cheaper to rent and pay rates on, but we end up paying more to travel to either as worker or shopper.

If we could go back to having jobs for life I would love that. And Mr and Mrs Jones would be able to find jobs close to their home and not have to travel far. but it seems we can't have that anymore.

[RH20]

There was a time in these green and pleasant lands when large employers built housing for their workers, these were close to the place of work. The world of work has changed dramatically since then. Short term contracts, job insecurity, centralisation to cut costs etc. All this means it is now almost essential to own a car to have a job. However, it does not stop there, people demand more choices in life. There was a time when pupils in state education attended the school in their catchment area, but now parents can pick which school their children attend. This has contributed to the “school run” problem. How many parents will be driving their children past a school that is close to home in favour of a “good” school further away? How many of these parents and children want better quality air to breathe? How many protest about the environment.
Business will always do what is best for the bottom line, but there are choices that we as individuals can make, the problem is there would appear to be a selfish gene within us that programmes us to want what is best for me whilst others make the sacrifices. Places of work have moved, we can’t do much about that. Even schools are now being centralised but this does not mean travelling past one school to get to another “better” school.
Just a thought, how do extinction rebellion protesters travel to the protest location? Do they all walk there? Do they use public transport? Or do they travel by car?

[Cyril Haearn]

Economic, geographical rebalancing is needed, houses in Stoke and Middlesbrough are demolished for want of demand, or sold for a quid

[mattheus]

If you can magic away very long commutes, that would make a lot of people happy. But unless you tie housing to employers, how do you do that? And how do you deal with households where the members have different work places? People change their jobs a lot these days, so does that mean they have to relocate with every new job? And wouldn't that be the end of settled and stable communities? I find that all a bit slippery to deal with.

You're very problem-oriented, aren't you?! That's 2 replies - to different people - where all you do is shoot things down.


Let me know when you have solutions; [Re: cars on new builds] i pointed out to you that Venice functions without ANY cars, so I think you can get your head round an estate with limited private parking if you try hard.

[Tangled Metal]

I had a thought recently. Wouldn't it be great if there was no use for ER?

Think about it for awhile.

[Cyril Haearn]

Job swap is the solution lots of Newport people work in Caerdiff and vice-versa
Just needs a nudge

[slowster]

If you can magic away very long commutes, that would make a lot of people happy. But unless you tie housing to employers, how do you do that? And how do you deal with households where the members have different work places? People change their jobs a lot these days, so does that mean they have to relocate with every new job? And wouldn't that be the end of settled and stable communities? I find that all a bit slippery to deal with.

Those very long commutes didn't come about by chance. To a large extent they have become commonplace because of the cheap current cost of energy to society (both manufacturing and private individuals buying fuel for their cars). In part the energy is cheap because we are using fossil fuels which are a finite resource at an excessive rate, and partly because the true costs of using energy and resources to create and incentivise such behaviours as very long commutes are 'externalised'.

Externalised because the full impacts of cheap energy etc. are not covered by the price we have been and are paying. Those impacts are both current and existing - e.g. a negative and vicious cycle of more roads which allow even longer commutes, pollution etc. - and future - i.e. harmful climate change. The latter is the same as a government borrowing excessively to pay for election bribes like large tax cuts or similar: the cost of the borrowing is passed onto future generations who will have to pay more tax to cover the interest on the higher resulting National Debt. Ironically that sort of fiscal irresponsibility is usually something firmly resisted by right wing politicians and commentators, but they are often the group that is most resistant to policies which will reduce the future impact of climate change (which possibly explains why so many of them refuse to believe in man made climate change, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus).

We either start making some very sharp course corrections, e.g. by significantly reducing the externalisation of those costs to discourage such behaviours, or we carry on as we are and say that things are just they way they are and that we cannot magic them away. The problem with the latter approach is that the costs we are continuing to build up for the future will have to be paid eventually, and the more and longer we put it off, the worse it will be be when the final demand arrives.

[mattheus]

If you can magic away very long commutes, that would make a lot of people happy. But unless you tie housing to employers, how do you do that? And how do you deal with households where the members have different work places? People change their jobs a lot these days, so does that mean they have to relocate with every new job? And wouldn't that be the end of settled and stable communities? I find that all a bit slippery to deal with.

Those very long commutes didn't come about by chance. To a large extent they have become commonplace because of the cheap current cost of energy to society (both manufacturing and private individuals buying fuel for their cars). In part the energy is cheap because we are using fossil fuels which are a finite resource at an excessive rate, and partly because the true costs of using energy and resources to create and incentivise such behaviours as very long commutes are 'externalised'.

Externalised because the full impacts of cheap energy etc. are not covered by the price we have been and are paying. Those impacts are both current and existing - e.g. a negative and vicious cycle of more roads which allow even longer commutes, pollution etc. - and future - i.e. harmful climate change. The latter is the same as a government borrowing excessively to pay for election bribes like large tax cuts or similar: the cost of the borrowing is passed onto future generations who will have to pay more tax to cover the interest on the higher resulting National Debt. Ironically that sort of fiscal irresponsibility is usually something firmly resisted by right wing politicians and commentators, but they are often the group that is most resistant to policies which will reduce the future impact of climate change (which possibly explains why so many of them refuse to believe in man made climate change, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus).

We either start making some very sharp course corrections, e.g. by significantly reducing the externalisation of those costs to discourage such behaviours, or we carry on as we are and say that things are just they way they are and that we cannot magic them away. The problem with the latter approach is that the costs we are continuing to build up for the future will have to be paid eventually, and the more and longer we put it off, the worse it will be be when the final demand arrives.

I hope people take the time to read that post.

[Graham]

Yep ^ a nice reminder.

And while I'm at it I remember that the "Fuel Price Escalator" - which was initiated back in the 90s - in an attempt to increase to cost of fossil fuel burning - by pushing up the cost by MORE than inflation.

That was quietly scrapped - some good few years ago - as the government could not stomach the whining from the transport industry & the voting motorist.

For a few years, it would appear that we have something worse. i.e. the taxation on fossil fuels has been frozen for several years, making the REAL (taxation) cost ever cheaper.

Our destructor economy is going to stuff your children and grandchildren bigtime !

Fortunately, I don't have any kids.

[Pete Owens]

Recentering our neighbourhoods is essential. The model that we all work in one place, and live in another, a car drive or a train ride away, is no longer viable. Paris is beginning to look at ‘15minute’ neighbourhoods. No essential facilities more than 15minutes away. We will need job swap websites and great re-organisation, but that is less of a pain than remaining stuck in the industrial model of the last century.

If you can magic away very long commutes,

I realise this is difficult for the car obsessed to comprehend, but this is not a matter of "magic" - but a of individual choice. If you CHOOSE a lifestyle that involves driving to work then take personal responsibility for your own actions rather than blaming society for your irresponsible decisions.

that would make a lot of people happy. But unless you tie housing to employers, how do you do that?

By making driving much more expensive to give people an incentive to live near to where they work.

And how do you deal with households where the members have different work places?

By making driving much more expensive to give people an incentive to look for work near to where they live

People change their jobs a lot these days, so does that mean they have to relocate with every new job?

If driving to a job that is more than cycling distance from their home becomes very expensive then they would think twice about the area within which to search for a new job.

If they really really wanted that job in a different county - and really really didn't want to move then the choice to drive or to move house or to catch a bus or to change jobs is still there - just if driving became very expensive people would be incentivised to make more responsible decisions.

[mattheus]

Indeed some do, but why do so many change their jobs? Why not society look at employer employee relationships in this country. Certainly up until a few years ago, in Japan it was normal to work for the same company till you retired. Are we swapping jobs so often because the grass greener on the other side, or because of poor working environments? It just doesn't make any sense for person A in city a to pass person B in city b each day as they commute to jobs in each other's city. Few of us are productive on the move, few of us will somehow live longer by sitting in a traffic jam. With train overcrowding, only 1st class travellers can be assured of a table to work at. The rest of us are jam packed against each other breathing in corona virus.

Car free zoned housing doesn't work, dwellers just end up parking elsewhere on the streets. Manufacturing and service type jobs means travelling outside of bus operating times, to areas badly or not served at all by public transport. The solution has to be holistic. Employment, entertainment, services and housing need to be located together not mile apart. We're losing our high street shopping etc because out of town retail developments are cheaper to rent and pay rates on, but we end up paying more to travel to either as worker or shopper.

Totally agree with all that! (well, not quite totally ... ; ) )

The whole zero-hours contracts problem is part of this. Only an idiotic government could see these as a Good Thing.

You say holistic; well then you should include cost-of-driving too - peeps will be reluctant to look for new "better" job another 10 miles away if that hits their wallet hard enough. You can use carrot AND stick!

[fullupandslowingdown]

The school system is indeed a 'nice' example of how apparent choice is restricting us. Surely everyone notices when the schools are on holiday, and rush hour traffic magically seems that bit lighter, that bit freer moving. Parents and usually those with deeper pockets, choosing to sell, I mean send their sproggs to better schools are denying not just commuters an easier drive to work. They are ensuring that the other schools remain lower down the league tables. More money gets thrown at the popular schools, attracting better teachers etc. Pupils with difficult to deal with problems such as family breakdown, abuse, addictions, crime etc etc, have no real choice of school. Teachers dealing with large numbers of "problem" pupils throw in the towel, so all the class suffers. So that school remains down in the league tables and suffers under investment and fails to attract effective teachers. Becomes a self perpetuating cycle. Kids leave school with little or no qualifications. Few employment options open to them. So areas of our cities become run down, which of course is what the rich elite wants. Keep us in our place, well away from their nice neighbourhoods. Benefit modifications having the same effect, reduce the LHA in regard to typical rents, then low paid are forced to leave that area.

[pwa]

If you can magic away very long commutes, that would make a lot of people happy. But unless you tie housing to employers, how do you do that? And how do you deal with households where the members have different work places? People change their jobs a lot these days, so does that mean they have to relocate with every new job? And wouldn't that be the end of settled and stable communities? I find that all a bit slippery to deal with.

You're very problem-oriented, aren't you?! That's 2 replies - to different people - where all you do is shoot things down.


Let me know when you have solutions; [Re: cars on new builds] i pointed out to you that Venice functions without ANY cars, so I think you can get your head round an estate with limited private parking if you try hard.

Venice doesn't function well as a modern city. That's plain wrong. It has seen its full time population more than halve in recent decades. Some suggest it may become a tourist hot spot with no full time residents. It is a tourist attraction, not a real city with all the real city functions. And of course it has boats acting like cars.

The problems I raised are real ones that come up when someone suggests going back to the old arrangement of living just down the road from your employment. That was something that worked when employment was stable and secure. It worked when people stayed with the same employer for their working life. But I can pretend that isn't a problem if you prefer. I am problem oriented when people propose problematic "solutions" that don't stand up to scrutiny.

Where I can see "no car" housing developments working is close to city centres where a high density of employment exists nearby.