http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/634.htm

I'm not sure who the Association of British Drivers are, so I'm not sure how
much to read into this.

John Rowland wrote:

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/634.htm

I'm not sure who the Association of British Drivers are, so I'm not sure how
much to read into this.

Why not read the Transprt Against London page referenced in that report?

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/8948.aspx

John Rowland wrote:

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/634.htm

I'm not sure who the Association of British Drivers are, so I'm not sure how
much to read into this.

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 ****wits and some who should have
known better screaming that it was a lie.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:43:09 +0100, JNugent wrote:

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/634.htm

I'm not sure who the Association of British Drivers are, so I'm not sure how
much to read into this.

Why not read the Transprt Against London page referenced in that report?

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/8948.aspx

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.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
John Rowland wrote:

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/634.htm

I'm not sure who the Association of British Drivers are, so I'm not sure
how
much to read into this.

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 ****wits 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:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....as_bad_as_ever

Despite a slight dip in traffic entering the city congestion is as bad as it
ever was, so it's £8 for what exactly?

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.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008, John Rowland wrote:

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/634.htm

I'm not sure who the Association of British Drivers are, so I'm not sure
how much to read into this.

They're a lunatic fringe speedophile pressure group. That doesn't mean
that what they say isn't true, of course.

But it isn't. If you like, you can read the press release they link to:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/8948.aspx

Or even - shock horror! - get in touch with your inner U Thant and read
the actual original document:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...rt-2008-07.pdf

Which says (in its executive summary, which is as far as i got - the whole
thing is over 200 pages!):

"Previous annual impacts monitoring reports have noted a trend towards
increasing congestion and more variable network conditions in central and
inner London. Given effectively stable traffic levels, this is believed by
TfL to reflect a reduction to the effective capacity of the road network
for general traffic. These capacity reductions are a consequence of the
re-allocation of a proportion of the effective road space, together with a
sharp rise in the incidence and intensity of road works."

"The capacity reallocations included pedestrian, cyclist and bus priority
measures and several major urban realm improvement schemes all of which
have required either specific allocation of road space (eg bus lanes) or
junction capacity (eg pedestrian all green traffic signal phases). These
initiatives, while generating beneficial effects, have reduced road
capacity for general traffic and have increased congestion."

"Increased road works have primarily reflected an accelerated programme of
infrastructure replacement by the utility companies generally agreed to be
an urgent priority together with increased development and construction
work reflecting recent buoyant economic conditions."

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. It's there to help pedestrians,
cyclists and public transport users, at the expense of car drivers.

tom

--
Eat whip you steroid wall-bashing lug-head! -- The Laird

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

"Abigail Brady" wrote in message
...

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.

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?