"Road travel 'needs big overhaul' to avoid gridlock"
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Mortimer on 17 Mar 2010 06:27 <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message news:hnqa1e$80r$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:57:10 -0700 (PDT) > Jethro <krazykara0(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>The simplest answer, if you want to avoid more road building (on the >>basis we can't seem to manage the roads we do have) is to "do >>something" to break the 9-5 culture which dominates the business >>mindset. > > If school and working hours were 8-4 so there was equal working time > before > and after midday we could dispense with the idiotic daylight saving > nonsense > that we have to suffer every year and just stick to GMT. Yes I've always wondered why our lives tend to be arranged asymmetrically about midday rather than having the same number of working hours before and after. I wonder how the 9-5 hours came about. Schools seem to have shifted, judging by the hoardes of school children I see walking home in the middle of the afternoon whereas I was still at school until 4:30 at their age - unless there was Games in which case we stayed until 5:30.
From: Derek C on 17 Mar 2010 06:48 On 17 Mar, 09:57, Jethro <krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On 15 Mar, 06:47, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > But please no more roadbuilding as an open invitation to those > > suffering from incurable wanderlust. > > > "There needs to be a "radical overhaul" of road travel in the UK to > > avoid future gridlock, the CBI business organisation has warned. > > > It said measures that need to be explored include staggered work > > commutes, increased car sharing, and more working from home. > > > The CBI estimates road congestion now costs the UK economy up to £8bn > > a year. > > > It warned this could more than double by 2025 unless more action is > > taken to tackle the problem..." > > > More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8566989.stm > > > -- > > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net > > Travel broadens the damage. > > The simplest answer, if you want to avoid more road building (on the > basis we can't seem to manage the roads we do have) is to "do > something" to break the 9-5 culture which dominates the business > mindset. > > Yes, flexible hours are not practical for some roles. But that's not > the point. If you can just shift 5% of the road traffic away from the > 7-9 and 4-6 slots, you will halve congestion overnight. Think of how > much quieter the roads are in half-term. > > Over the years, I have worked for a few companies, and had interviews > with many more. In my role (IT development) I could easily work from > home, and/or in a flextime pattern. Not one of 50 companies I have > asked allows (or in some cases knows about) flexible working. I scream > with rage when I read about these wonderful home-based flextime roles, > because they are rare as hens teeth in the real world. > > So, given that we look to governments to "do something" then how about > a subtle tweak to the tax system to reward companies that provide a > clear flextime/home working policy for a given proportion of their > staff. This would kick a few plcs into touch (as they would have to > explain to shareholders why they weren't minimizing their tax burden) > and also stimulate a few smaller companies. > > Every time I have floated this idea, no one has come up with any > showstopper reasons why it wouldn't work (oh, "we don't do things that > way" is not an arguement, just a statement). And yet nothing. I have > used this to develop my "if it mattered" test for politicians of any > stripe.- Hide quoted text - > Totally agree with you Jethro. For most of the day the roads are not congested, except for the 7.30 to 9.00 am and the 16.30 - 18.00 rush hours. The last (multinational) company I worked for insisted that you arrived at 08.30 or not more than 15 minutes earlier, and left at 17.00 on the dot, quoting Health & Safety as the justification for this! This seems to be a fairly normal practice nowadays. One of my previous (UK) employers had a good flexitime scheme that allowed you to avoid the worst of the rush hours, and to build up time credits so you could take the odd day off and not have to commute at all. The system had core periods when you had to be there, and you had to work at least a minimum number of hours a month. Seemed to work very well and gave good productivity from happy workers, not ones that where stressed out and kn*ckered from travelling in the worst of the rush hours. Derek C
From: Jethro on 17 Mar 2010 07:17 On 17 Mar, 10:48, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > On 17 Mar, 09:57, Jethro <krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 15 Mar, 06:47, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > But please no more roadbuilding as an open invitation to those > > > suffering from incurable wanderlust. > > > > "There needs to be a "radical overhaul" of road travel in the UK to > > > avoid future gridlock, the CBI business organisation has warned. > > > > It said measures that need to be explored include staggered work > > > commutes, increased car sharing, and more working from home. > > > > The CBI estimates road congestion now costs the UK economy up to £8bn > > > a year. > > > > It warned this could more than double by 2025 unless more action is > > > taken to tackle the problem..." > > > > More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8566989.stm > > > > -- > > > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net > > > Travel broadens the damage. > > > The simplest answer, if you want to avoid more road building (on the > > basis we can't seem to manage the roads we do have) is to "do > > something" to break the 9-5 culture which dominates the business > > mindset. > > > Yes, flexible hours are not practical for some roles. But that's not > > the point. If you can just shift 5% of the road traffic away from the > > 7-9 and 4-6 slots, you will halve congestion overnight. Think of how > > much quieter the roads are in half-term. > > > Over the years, I have worked for a few companies, and had interviews > > with many more. In my role (IT development) I could easily work from > > home, and/or in a flextime pattern. Not one of 50 companies I have > > asked allows (or in some cases knows about) flexible working. I scream > > with rage when I read about these wonderful home-based flextime roles, > > because they are rare as hens teeth in the real world. > > > So, given that we look to governments to "do something" then how about > > a subtle tweak to the tax system to reward companies that provide a > > clear flextime/home working policy for a given proportion of their > > staff. This would kick a few plcs into touch (as they would have to > > explain to shareholders why they weren't minimizing their tax burden) > > and also stimulate a few smaller companies. > > > Every time I have floated this idea, no one has come up with any > > showstopper reasons why it wouldn't work (oh, "we don't do things that > > way" is not an arguement, just a statement). And yet nothing. I have > > used this to develop my "if it mattered" test for politicians of any > > stripe.- Hide quoted text - > > Totally agree with you Jethro. For most of the day the roads are not > congested, except for the 7.30 to 9.00 am and the 16.30 - 18.00 rush > hours. > > The last (multinational) company I worked for insisted that you > arrived at 08.30 or not more than 15 minutes earlier, and left at > 17.00 on the dot, quoting Health & Safety as the justification for > this! This seems to be a fairly normal practice nowadays. > > One of my previous (UK) employers had a good flexitime scheme that > allowed you to avoid the worst of the rush hours, and to build up time > credits so you could take the odd day off and not have to commute at > all. The system had core periods when you had to be there, and you had > to work at least a minimum number of hours a month. Seemed to work > very well and gave good productivity from happy workers, not ones that > where stressed out and kn*ckered from travelling in the worst of the > rush hours. I made myself very unpopular in a previous role, when I was co-opted onto a workers forum, to discuss the possibility of flextime. (I warned them, but they claimed they wanted my views). We came up with a proposal to measure various stats from before and after a 3 month trial period. It was a carefully drafted proposal which countered every single argument we had heard over the years against flextime. We did it in a FAQ style, and one of the questions was "Won't flextime require management to ensure staff are not abusing it". My answer was "We have managers whose job is to manage. If these managers can't manage, we should get managers that can". In the end, the board rejected the proposal as "it won't suit our way of working". Red faces all around when they had to pay shed loads of overtime to support staff when they would have had it for free if they let staff choose their working hours. They went bust in 2004.
From: boltar2003 on 17 Mar 2010 07:31 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:26:29 -0000 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: ><boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message >news:hnqa1e$80r$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:57:10 -0700 (PDT) >> Jethro <krazykara0(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>>The simplest answer, if you want to avoid more road building (on the >>>basis we can't seem to manage the roads we do have) is to "do >>>something" to break the 9-5 culture which dominates the business >>>mindset. >> >> If school and working hours were 8-4 so there was equal working time >> before >> and after midday we could dispense with the idiotic daylight saving >> nonsense >> that we have to suffer every year and just stick to GMT. >> >What's that got to do with road congestion? It was just an aside, though if work ended an hour earlier in the winter and it wasn't so dark when people drove home the standard of driving would probably be better. B2003
From: Jethro on 17 Mar 2010 08:31
On 17 Mar, 11:17, Jethro <krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On 17 Mar, 10:48, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On 17 Mar, 09:57, Jethro <krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > On 15 Mar, 06:47, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > But please no more roadbuilding as an open invitation to those > > > > suffering from incurable wanderlust. > > > > > "There needs to be a "radical overhaul" of road travel in the UK to > > > > avoid future gridlock, the CBI business organisation has warned. > > > > > It said measures that need to be explored include staggered work > > > > commutes, increased car sharing, and more working from home. > > > > > The CBI estimates road congestion now costs the UK economy up to £8bn > > > > a year. > > > > > It warned this could more than double by 2025 unless more action is > > > > taken to tackle the problem..." > > > > > More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8566989.stm > > > > > -- > > > > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net > > > > Travel broadens the damage. > > > > The simplest answer, if you want to avoid more road building (on the > > > basis we can't seem to manage the roads we do have) is to "do > > > something" to break the 9-5 culture which dominates the business > > > mindset. > > > > Yes, flexible hours are not practical for some roles. But that's not > > > the point. If you can just shift 5% of the road traffic away from the > > > 7-9 and 4-6 slots, you will halve congestion overnight. Think of how > > > much quieter the roads are in half-term. > > > > Over the years, I have worked for a few companies, and had interviews > > > with many more. In my role (IT development) I could easily work from > > > home, and/or in a flextime pattern. Not one of 50 companies I have > > > asked allows (or in some cases knows about) flexible working. I scream > > > with rage when I read about these wonderful home-based flextime roles, > > > because they are rare as hens teeth in the real world. > > > > So, given that we look to governments to "do something" then how about > > > a subtle tweak to the tax system to reward companies that provide a > > > clear flextime/home working policy for a given proportion of their > > > staff. This would kick a few plcs into touch (as they would have to > > > explain to shareholders why they weren't minimizing their tax burden) > > > and also stimulate a few smaller companies. > > > > Every time I have floated this idea, no one has come up with any > > > showstopper reasons why it wouldn't work (oh, "we don't do things that > > > way" is not an arguement, just a statement). And yet nothing. I have > > > used this to develop my "if it mattered" test for politicians of any > > > stripe.- Hide quoted text - > > > Totally agree with you Jethro. For most of the day the roads are not > > congested, except for the 7.30 to 9.00 am and the 16.30 - 18.00 rush > > hours. > > > The last (multinational) company I worked for insisted that you > > arrived at 08.30 or not more than 15 minutes earlier, and left at > > 17.00 on the dot, quoting Health & Safety as the justification for > > this! This seems to be a fairly normal practice nowadays. > > > One of my previous (UK) employers had a good flexitime scheme that > > allowed you to avoid the worst of the rush hours, and to build up time > > credits so you could take the odd day off and not have to commute at > > all. The system had core periods when you had to be there, and you had > > to work at least a minimum number of hours a month. Seemed to work > > very well and gave good productivity from happy workers, not ones that > > where stressed out and kn*ckered from travelling in the worst of the > > rush hours. > > I made myself very unpopular in a previous role, when I was co-opted > onto a workers forum, to discuss the possibility of flextime. (I > warned them, but they claimed they wanted my views). We came up with a > proposal to measure various stats from before and after a 3 month > trial period. It was a carefully drafted proposal which countered > every single argument we had heard over the years against flextime. We > did it in a FAQ style, and one of the questions was "Won't flextime > require management to ensure staff are not abusing it". My answer was > "We have managers whose job is to manage. If these managers can't > manage, we should get managers that can". > > In the end, the board rejected the proposal as "it won't suit our way > of working". Red faces all around when they had to pay shed loads of > overtime to support staff when they would have had it for free if they > let staff choose their working hours. They went bust in 2004.- Hide quoted text - > Bad form to reply to oneself, but another factor of flexible working, is where offered, it can equate to a pay rise ... if an employee spends less time on the roads, their work-life balance improves, and less money on fuel. A days homeworking can be a £10/week pay rise for some. |