rodneybewes

Hi JH, I would imagine that very little of that kind of modelling would have gone into the Loughborough Junction decision - it doesn't feel very joined up to me at all. Just lots of random events occurring up and down the network sadly. Possibly they use a magic 8 ball to decide which one is next...

Quite frankly I'm not interested in wading through your self-justifications for not being arsed to actually do the slightest bit of work for yourself on an issue you find so important, only to rudely throw it onto someone else in an imperious manner as if they are only here to do your whim. That's your job MRS Mab. I am of course flattering you by imitating your tone, with a little bit thrown in.

It's amazing he puts himself up here for this abuse given the astonishing mix of arrogance, sloth and self-entitlement that a lot of the posters give him. Even as they're demanding all kinds of him whilst doing very little for themselves.

There has actually been quite a bit of study on this if you are interested - looking up induced traffic and latent demand brings up some interesting reading. Try this for starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27_paradox.

Cheers

Pevara Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oddly enough, I don't disagree with a lot of what > you've said. > > Except for the strawman you set up on status quo - > I was clearly referring to keeping roads open both > ways (not closing them), which is an objective > status quo. > > One hopes over time that the fuel use becomes > cleaner (electric/solar) but I can only speculate > on that. > > However, I still don't see closing major roads as > part of any solution - simply creates more > problems for others (including non-car users like > me living along smaller residential streets). > Don't see it as car user versus cyclist - which is > what this has become. There are other stakeholders > as well. > > For instance, I am neither a car owner (user, yes, > I use taxis once in a while) nor a cyclist. I > don't have a stake in the car user versus cyclist > or pogo stick debate. I do have a stake in any > debate which encourages cycling by pushing cars > down smaller streets. This makes me sit up and ask > whether it solves any problems while > inconveniencing hundreds of folks like me. Let me > be very clear when I say the answer is no - it is > only going to make air pollution worse and > increase stress levels by displacing noise > pollution down smaller roads. You want to reduce > deaths due to pollution - I bet you that won't do > it! > > Ironically I am a car user and an occasional cyclist (I'm finding it increasingly dangerous sadly...). I'll see you in 15 years to collect my winnings! :)

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In other Overground related news, from December, > the trains via Peckham Rye will terminate at > Dalston Junction rather than Highbury & Islington. That's a blow. Thanks for the info. Do you know if that's permanent?

Pevara Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Got any suggestions yourself that would keep the > larger roads open to traffic both ways? If not, > I'm all in favour of the status quo rather than > wholesale change. > > However often the cycle lobby may say it, there is > no concrete evidence that closing down larger > roads to traffic (one way or both ways) will > reduce traffic or consequent pollution - the > central assumption on which all of these proposals > appear to be based. > > It will merely diverts both traffic and the > localized air and noise pollution onto smaller > roads that are less capable of handling them, and > causing more stress to residents. Indeed, some of > those very smaller roads from which our > hypothetical independent 10 year old will commence > cycling to school. > > What is more plausible is that any larger road > closure proposals will INCREASE air pollution (and > certainly divert noise pollution) as cars move > more slowly through congested smaller roads and > journey times increase (even if only by a few > minutes). It really isn't rocket science. > > No I don't have any suggestions that would keep the amount of roads available to motor traffic the same as they are now. The idea that there is a "status quo" is laughable - there isn't one. Traffic is going up because driving a car is cheaper in real terms than it used to be and the population is increasing. And the amount of space available to cars is either staying the same or going down. Can you tell me where the status quo is in that? I would employ a number of measures - take more road space away from motorised traffic and give it to pedestrians, runners and cyclists (or pogoists for all I care, anything that is non-polluting), increase the congestion charge out to zone 3, increase vehicle excise duty (which is based on the amount of pollution a vehicle creates) for areas of high pollution (London being extremely high) and use any revenue gained to create tramlinks crossways across London and increase cycling routes, penalise single car use and incentivise car pooling, have a city wide metropolitan run uber service with big discounts for the elderly and the non-ambulatory, double decker trains, charge by the mile driven rather than the current flat rate.... There are absolutely loads of things that can be done to help reduce the huge impact of pollution that don't pay homage to the non-existent "status quo", if only there was some imagination to implement them. Instead what will happen is there will be a death by a thousand cuts of punishments to road users to agonisingly drive them off the roads - all stick and no carrot. Because if there is one thing that politicians surely know it's that Londoners will quietly accept a few thousand extra deaths a year through pollution but they'll froth at the mouth if you openly say you'll interfere with their car use. You'll probably say this is utopian but it doesn't really matter. Come back in 15 years time and see if any of this is implemented or if traffic is smoothly flowing through London at the current levels or more. I know where my money is.

So we solve the problem of traffic deaths injuries and pollution by squeezing cyclists into the paths of the real non-injuring, non-polluting section of the population - pedestrians. Whilst leaving cars as they are. Tremendous work.

EDOldie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Townleygreen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But London could be more like Dutch cities and > > that is what we should be aiming for. > > That could be fun, cannabis cafes in Lordship > Lane, some er, ahem, other attractions, for the > area as well. Perhaps we'll all end up very tall > and blond too! > > ..... We have to live with cars and make > provision for them to move round London quickly, > safely and in the least polluting way possible. > Traffic jams caused by silly planning exacerbate > the situation and simply make things worse. Again with this. It's clearly not going to happen. Whatever you think of the rest of it, that bit is not going to happen. And I'm talking about the traffic here unfortunately.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wulfhound, > I would suggest the changes are not being "done > right", if they were I submit that opposition > would not be so great. people drive for complex > reasons, trying to solve all that in one > cackhanded effort is not the way to go. Anything that gets in the way of letting drivers get from A to B as quickly as possible meets with massive opposition in London. Even/especially when it's other drivers. There was a massive furore over the congestion charge and that's had a massive positive impact on central London. Of course now no-one wants to go back to the way it was before, because they have got used to it.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TG - your approach to this is admirable but > somewhat unrealistic. These plans are not > pragmatic - as we have seen on numerous threads on > this forum they are ill-convinced, badly-designed > and executed and ultimately do nothing but > aggravate people trying to live in the city and > many would argue actually create more pollution > due to increased traffic congestion. > > Your utopian mantra of ditch the car and get on a > bike is just not practical for the majority of > people living or going about their business in the > city and I think the numerous threads on this, and > other, forum/s shows how much people are not > supporting these ideals - or at least the > execution therein. > > And I don't think anyone is suggesting demolishing > anything to make way for new roads (and I would > suggest London's road system hasn't been expanded > for decades - it's the same layout it has been for > a very long time) but to take a balanced approach > to traffic management to make journey times for > everyone as quick, convenient and a safe as > possible whilst at the same time protecting the > environment as much as possible. I can understand what you want to achieve here (even if I don't agree with much of it) but your last sentence exposes the entire fallacy of your position - it simply isn't achievable. There have been a couple of things that have made a difference to traffic levels in London in the last 30 years - one penalised drivers and one encouraged cycling. Those two apart the experience of driving in London is that is getting more frustrating, slower and more polluting.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Utter Nonsense ?? > > How Traffic Jams Affect Air Quality > > No one will be surprised to learn that areas with > the largest number of cars on the road see higher > levels of air pollution on average. > Motor vehicles are one of the largest sources of > pollution worldwide. > > You may be surprised to learn, however, that > slower moving traffic emits more pollution than > when cars move at freeway speeds. > > Traffic jams are bad for our air. > > http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/01/05/how- > traffic-jams-affect-air-quality/ > > DulwichFox The comparison there is with freeway speeds, not London traffic speeds. It also says that there are more pollutants the more you accelerate. So, if we are going to follow your rather free logic, that means if you are only accelerating to 20 instead of 30 you spend less time accelerating and therefore pollute less, no? In reality in London the more capacity you give to traffic on the roads, either in terms of actual distance of road surface or by speeding things up, the more traffic fills up the available space and the more pollution and accidents there are. The answer is to reduce the amount of individual road traffic by removing incentives to travel that way, not to make it easier to jump into the car. Let's face it, for all the moaning about the drop from 30mph to 20mph on this particular forum, we all know that this is the way it's heading - there isn't going to be a raising of speeds or any encouragement given to driving in London for the forseeable future. Does anyone actually believe that will happen? Of course if they gave us a decent mass transit system with proper infrastructure a lot of people would be happier ditching the car in the first place...

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or the opposite, everyone will forget it's 20 and > drive at 30 Hence the need for more cameras to aid forgetfulness?

Only way to do that in London is to have less of it.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The slower people drive the closer together they > drive and pollution becomes more concentrated. > Add to that the problem by more traffic controls > cars are at a standstill with lights at red for up > to 2 mins. > Then pulling away with a 20 mph limit congestion > builds up.. > > Cars also create more pollution at 20 mph with > higher revs and being in lower gear. and an > increase in noise.. > > DulwichFox You've got no evidence to back that up - it just "sounds" a bit plausible. You can cut that kind of conversation any way you want - same as those people who argue exactly the opposite.

Bluerevolution Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are all missing the point of this ideology, if > everybody travels at the same speed, congestion > and bottle necks are significantly reduced. Person > 1 leaves his/her home at 0830 and drives at 20 > mph, then person 2 leaves at 0826 and drives at 30 > mph and then person 3 leaves at 0830 at 40mph you > get tailgaiting, congestion and bottlenecking. Is > it that hard to figure out ? 20 people can leave > at the same time and ALL drive at 20 mph and a > standard space would be maintained. I thought the main point was that they can prove it saves lives and injuries?

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > They said that when the speed limits are set at > 30mph, most cars travel at 35mph... but where the > 20mph limits are set, most drivers drive at around > 25mph. > > In other words, the general mindset has changed, > which is pretty much the best I think that we will > achieve. I think this is exactly right. The mindset is key here - 30 years ago drinking and driving was a bit frowned upon but a lot of people did it. Now it's nearly universally reviled - but a lot of campaigning went into changing the way people thought about it and the change didn't happen overnight. And let's face it, they don't enforce 30 or 40 at the moment either do they? Which is why I also think those lit up signs giving indications of speed and reminding people of pedestrians are a good idea - it goes to the core of why speeding needs to be reduced.

rabbitears Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it really that confusing? The 20mph bit isn't confusing at all. People are just confused as to whether or not it's going to be enforced i.e. if they ignore it how likely are they going to be to get away with it?

Cohorts Apparatchiks War on motorists (my personal favourite) In fact any "war on..."

Re the bags for life - there was a bloke on the radio the other day from an environmental group saying that when you looked at the energy cost that went into bags for life you would have to use them over a 100 times to recoup it compared to charging a couple of pence for every plastic carrier bag and putting that money into collection and recycling. I have to say I've never used any of my bags for life over 100 times... I keep losing them.

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most companies I have been with have a tea club or > a machine you put your own money in > > why is asking why we have to pay ?169.000.00 > showing contempt. > > Heating? Think you have lost the plot I've never worked for a company with a tea club. Even the dockyard managed to supply its workforce with a cup of tea now and again. I work for a city firm now - not known for having any waste at all but realises that providing some basic comfort now and again improves productivity. It's interesting that with all the corruption and nepotism that goes in local government, with all the cuts that have been made from central funds, with all the tax breaks for property developers and special deals for contractors and incompetence at the highest level of management it's the workers' tea and biscuits that you're after.

This seems to have worked for me, although I have got the cat a couple of times with the garden hose when it didn't see me coming as well. It's probably a mixture of the two to be honest. http://www.amazon.co.uk/PestBye-Battery-Operated-Cat-Repeller/dp/B004SGC75S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1442755252&sr=8-1&keywords=fox+and+cat+repeller

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As someone has remarked they can cut this scheme > out but can still pay ?169.000.00 on staff > refreshments for 2014 . > > Why do we have to pay for their tea and coffees? Why does any firm pay for tea and coffee? Why does my firm pay for tea and coffee? So I'm happier working and more productive and not nipping down the road to buy coffee wasting time. Why should we pay to heat their buildings - surely they can wear coats? Here is another why. Why the utter contempt for council employees?

Looks like some Hungarians don't know their own history, and have forgotten what's it's like to be refugees. I say some, not all, but unfortunately Hungary is being led by extremely right-wing politicians at the moment.