Greens praise the Albion

[Stumpy Tim]

Not including Park n' Ride is foolish if they do count other buses. A large number of people (including me) walk from their house to the Park n' Ride and use the Ride piece. Why are we not sustainable but someone traveling on a normal bus is sustainable?

 

[Basil Fawlty]

f*** me, you couldn't get any more patronising or condescending if you tried.

Yeah, it was rather wasn't it.

 

[brighton bluenose]

But the Greens won't provide any Park 'n' Ride sites for the city as they believe it 'encourages car use'. They just wring their hands and moan about 'the traffic in Brighton'. And matchday traffic management would be easier if traffic, instead of being funnelled to three sites (which are not idea but were chosen simply because that's all that were available) could also spread itself 'organically' over a larger area. That obviously is a complete no-no, hence the mantra of "Park 'n' Ride good, Park 'n' Walk bad."
We need massive great out-of-town Park 'n' Ride sites. All those who disagree will be rounded up and shot ...

But matchday traffic isn't just 'funnelled to three site's is it?! The PnR is one option alongside the 'organic' parking and walking that you prefer and that clearly many fans already do!

Imagine the additional congestion and chaos around Moulsecoomb and Coldean etc if there was NO park and ride? At least with that some of our less able/ less fit fans can drive to the outskirts of town jump on a bus and get to and from the ground relatively easy!!

 

[Basil Fawlty]

Not including Park n' Ride is foolish if they do count other buses. A large number of people (including me) walk from their house to the Park n' Ride and use the Ride piece. Why are we not sustainable but someone traveling on a normal bus is sustainable?

Walking to the park and ride is sustainable nobody is disputing that. But lots of people drive and park at the park and ride, hence why it is always full of cars! And why it is called a park and ride.

I know buses hold more people, but the point is driving to a car park to just get on another form of transport is not very sustainable! It's not decreasing the amount of people who drive to the games, just because they are parking in a park and ride instead of next to the ground!

 

[The Large One]

f*** me, you couldn't get any more patronising or condescending if you tried.

... he said, negelcting the whole slab of irony in his post.

Actually I could, but seeing as this was meant for Kev, and has nothing to do with you, I don't know why you commented.

 

[The Large One]

It's not just the comparison between one car and one bus (with however many passengers you care to count) that matters. You have to factor in the effects of traffic congestion, in particular the relative effects of (say) thirty cars, all crammed into the same piece of road and travelling slowly, versus the effects of one bus, full of passengers, occupying one-twentieth of the road space that the cars would take up.

Plus, the emission from one bus is far less than from 30 cars.

 

[The Large One]

Walking to the park and ride is sustainable nobody is disputing that. But lots of people drive and park at the park and ride, hence why it is always full of cars! And why it is called a park and ride.

I know buses hold more people, but the point is driving to a car park to just get on another form of transport is not very sustainable! It's not decreasing the amount of people who drive to the games, just because they are parking in a park and ride instead of next to the ground!

That is working on the assumption that street-parking (or semi-near parking) is always available. If you know you can drive straight to your street place without looking across several streets, park up legally, not annoy the neighbours - you may have a point, although if you're talking about sustainability you still have 30 cars' worth of emissions to compare with one bus' emissions.

With park & ride, you don't have the above problems.

 

[Basil Fawlty]

... he said, negelcting the whole slab of irony in his post.

Actually I could, but seeing as this was meant for Kev, and has nothing to do with you, I don't know why you commented.

Hi yeah. Actually said a few posts ago this isn't Kev! May want to go back and check that one out.

 

[The Large One]

Hi yeah. Actually said a few posts ago this isn't Kev! May want to go back and check that one out.

Now who's being condescending and patronising?

I didn't know that you'd hijacked Kev's account until AFTER I'd posted the original point. Knowing it now doesn't change that fact.

 

[Basil Fawlty]

Now who's being condescending and patronising?

I didn't know that you'd hijacked Kev's account until AFTER I'd posted the original point. Knowing it now doesn't change that fact.

Won't argue there, it was condescending and patronising.

 

[Brovion]

But matchday traffic isn't just 'funnelled to three site's is it?! The PnR is one option alongside the 'organic' parking and walking that you prefer and that clearly many fans already do!

Imagine the additional congestion and chaos around Moulsecoomb and Coldean etc if there was NO park and ride? At least with that some of our less able/ less fit fans can drive to the outskirts of town jump on a bus and get to and from the ground relatively easy!!

I never said there should be no park and ride, it's a very sensible option and should be expanded - ideally with purpose-built car parks and not just any old site that happens to be available regardless of suitability. The Greens point of view is that if you've got in your car and driven towards Falmer (or just Brighton in general) then you are not using 'sustainable' transport and the damage is already done. Consequently where you park after that is irrelevant.

 

[e77]

Would people prefer it if the Greens slagged us off?