View Single Post
  #7   Report Post  
Old August 16th 08, 05:42 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
Tom Anderson Tom Anderson is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,188
Default TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows

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