|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
Author: John RowlandJohn Rowland Date: Aug 16, 2008 06:26
|
| |
|
| | 125 Comments |
|
|
Author: JNugentJNugent Date: Aug 16, 2008 06:43
John Rowland wrote:
> I'm not sure who the Association of British Drivers are, so I'm not sure how
> much to read into this.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Date: Aug 16, 2008 06:48
John Rowland journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
It's hardly news. Anyone working in transport/telematics already knew
that Livingstone had issued an edict that the lights across London were
to be rephased to cause congestion prior to the introduction of the
congestion charge. In fact I stated this was what was happening here at
the time and had the usual cabal of fuckwits and some who should have
known better screaming that it was a lie.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: asdfasdf Date: Aug 16, 2008 07:55
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:43:09 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure who the Association of British Drivers are, so I'm not sure how
>> much to read into this.
Yes, that's certainly helpful in deciding how much to read into this -
i.e., nothing. In particular, TfL don't suggest at all that they
gratuitously obstructed traffic, as the title misleadingly suggests.
It turns out that they "deliberately obstructed traffic flows" by,
erm, authorising roadworks.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Aug 16, 2008 10:30
> John Rowland journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
> It's hardly news. Anyone working in transport/telematics already knew
> that Livingstone had issued an edict that the lights across London were
> to be rephased to cause congestion prior to the introduction of the
> congestion charge. In fact I stated this was what was happening here at
> the time and had the usual cabal of fuckwits and some who should have
> known better screaming that it was a lie.
If the idea was to make congestion worse when they monitored congestion in
the run up to the introduction then reset the phasing after to make things
look better it didn't work well considering all the reports like this:
|
| Show full article (1.14Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Aug 16, 2008 10:36
asdf wrote:
> Yes, that's certainly helpful in deciding how much to read into this -
> i.e., nothing. In particular, TfL don't suggest at all that they
> gratuitously obstructed traffic, as the title misleadingly suggests.
> It turns out that they "deliberately obstructed traffic flows" by,
> erm, authorising roadworks.
You appear to have a reading disorder. Or perhaps you got tired before
reaching the end of the report? Or possibly you simply don't understand
that TfL will never accept blame but does leave coded admissions in that
report of the reasons for the congestion.
Note the references to "rephasing traffic lights" i.e. putting them back
the way they were before ken had them changed to increase congestion.
"Reduction of road space' - that is the encroachment upon road space of
bus lanes, cycle lanes, pinch points, the increase in the width of
pavements, reduction of roads to single lane etc.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Abigail BradyAbigail Brady Date: Aug 16, 2008 10:56
On Aug 16, 6:30 pm, "Depresion" < 127.0.0.1> wrote: > Despite a slight dip in traffic entering the city congestion is as bad as it
> ever was, so it's £8 for what exactly?
Can you please tell us where you have hidden the control London? We
could use it for so many other things.
--
Abi
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Aug 16, 2008 11:05
>
> Can you please tell us where you have hidden the control London?
Thankfully there is only one, can you imagine two of the hell holes? Hence
why we are using historical figures, from which there have been no
improvements as were promised.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: asdfasdf Date: Aug 16, 2008 11:34
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:42:57 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
>So basically, (a) there are a hell of a lot more roadworks than before and
>(b) road space is being reallocated away from cars and to buses, bikes,
>and people. Thus, less traffic causes the same amount of congestion.
>
>The ABD's complaint goes like this:
>
>"This latest report on the London congestion charge demonstrates the
>fundamental dishonesty of all road pricing proposals," said the ABD's
>Nigel Humphries. "They claim that by paying even more money to use the
>roads, drivers will benefit from lower congestion."
>
>Which is cobblers. Nobody's ever claimed that the London congestion charge
>was for the benefit of car drivers.
I dunno, surely it goes without saying that, all else being equal,
there's less congestion with the charge than there would be without
it?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
