214 Million in Funding For Cycling Announced

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:50:39 +0000, Mrcheerful wrote:

****wit

Thank you extremely for the compliment.

On 28/11/2014 07:40, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

On 28/11/2014 06:48, JNugent wrote:
On 28/11/2014 06:47, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 28/11/2014 06:26, JNugent wrote:

Q: Why is a traffic jam harmful (in any way)?
A: Because it delays motor traffic.

Q: What is the point in banning/discouraging motor traffic in order to
speed up motor traffic?
A: You've spotted the obvious flaw.

Good road networks encourage yet more traffic, the hugely successful M25
is a prime example.

The only ways that will reduce traffic are pricing it out of reach, or
making other alternatives more convenient. Part of making alternatives
more convenient is making driving less convenient. This is why the Dutch
model has worked. Driving and parking in the Netherlands in towns and
cities is a major hassle, so people use trams, buses and bikes for
shorter journeys. It means there is less traffic and the traffic that is
there flows better.

You've rather missed the most basic point, haven't you?
Why condemn congestion on the basis that it delays traffic if you don't
believe that the traffic has a right to exist in the first place?

I cannot see what point you have. Either I am being a bit dim here or
you are not being entirely clear.

Sorry about the delay in responding to this post (I've just been
cleaning up my subscribed NGs and found the message).

The logical problem here is that many of the techniques for "reducing
congestion" work on the simple basis that it is the amount of *traffic*
which is reduced (often by "dissuasive" methods such as charging even
more money than we already pay).

If congestion is bad because of its delaying effects on the people
caught in the congestion, how much worse it must be to prevent (some of)
them from travelling in the first place.

Again, if congestion is bad because of its delaying effects on the
people caught in the congestion, and if those people are not to be
simply prevented from doing the travelling (which surely militates
against the benefit which is sought), the only correct response to
actual congestion must be to provide more capacity.

The correct responses to potential congestion are slightly different.
Capacity-improvement is a large part of it, but planning refusals in
cases where local congestion would be an unacceptable outcome of
development are another legitimate measure.

I don't think anyone has suggested that traffic has no right to exist.

There's no practical difference between saying that a certain amount of
the traffic shouldn't even be there in the first place and taking steps
to ensure that traffic is arbitrarily reduced in volume.

And most people (I think) would condemn congestion at least partly on
the basis that it delays traffic.

So your point is?

See above (at more than one place, above). You cannot improve the lot of
x travellers caught in congestion by reducing the number of travellers
to x/y.

On 18/12/2014 15:24, JNugent wrote:
On 28/11/2014 07:40, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

On 28/11/2014 06:48, JNugent wrote:
On 28/11/2014 06:47, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 28/11/2014 06:26, JNugent wrote:

Q: Why is a traffic jam harmful (in any way)?
A: Because it delays motor traffic.

Q: What is the point in banning/discouraging motor traffic in order to
speed up motor traffic?
A: You've spotted the obvious flaw.

Good road networks encourage yet more traffic, the hugely successful
M25
is a prime example.

The only ways that will reduce traffic are pricing it out of reach, or
making other alternatives more convenient. Part of making alternatives
more convenient is making driving less convenient. This is why the
Dutch
model has worked. Driving and parking in the Netherlands in towns and
cities is a major hassle, so people use trams, buses and bikes for
shorter journeys. It means there is less traffic and the traffic
that is
there flows better.

You've rather missed the most basic point, haven't you?
Why condemn congestion on the basis that it delays traffic if you don't
believe that the traffic has a right to exist in the first place?

I cannot see what point you have. Either I am being a bit dim here or
you are not being entirely clear.

Sorry about the delay in responding to this post (I've just been
cleaning up my subscribed NGs and found the message).

The logical problem here is that many of the techniques for "reducing
congestion" work on the simple basis that it is the amount of *traffic*
which is reduced (often by "dissuasive" methods such as charging even
more money than we already pay).

If congestion is bad because of its delaying effects on the people
caught in the congestion, how much worse it must be to prevent (some of)
them from travelling in the first place.

If they are not travelling at all, they will not be delayed. That also
reduces congestion for everyone else who is travelling.

Again, if congestion is bad because of its delaying effects on the
people caught in the congestion, and if those people are not to be
simply prevented from doing the travelling (which surely militates
against the benefit which is sought), the only correct response to
actual congestion must be to provide more capacity.

This has been the perceived wisdom for years and it simply does not
work. Why? Because the greater the road capacity, the more traffic it
attracts. People will commute longer distances when there are roads to
accommodate them. Then the extra traffic simply gets blocked somewhere
else. Los Angeles is a fine example of this. The M25 is another.

The correct responses to potential congestion are slightly different.
Capacity-improvement is a large part of it, but planning refusals in
cases where local congestion would be an unacceptable outcome of
development are another legitimate measure.

I would argue that the most effective way to reduce traffic is to price
it off the roads.

I don't think anyone has suggested that traffic has no right to exist.

There's no practical difference between saying that a certain amount of
the traffic shouldn't even be there in the first place and taking steps
to ensure that traffic is arbitrarily reduced in volume.

And most people (I think) would condemn congestion at least partly on
the basis that it delays traffic.

So your point is?

See above (at more than one place, above). You cannot improve the lot of
x travellers caught in congestion by reducing the number of travellers
to x/y.

Conversely, you could improve the lot of many travellers by taking them
off the roads, and those left on the roads would have their lot improved
too.

On 19/12/2014 03:51, Phil W Lee wrote:
Simon Weaseltemper considered Thu, 18 Dec

I would argue that the most effective way to reduce traffic is to price
it off the roads.

It might be effective, but is it fair?

No, but life is not fair. The capitalist society in which we live
dictates that when a product is in short supply (in this case road
space) the price charged to use it increases. Or to reduce excessive use
of a product, we tax it more, to reduce the demand. They have been
talking about 'Road Pricing' for years. That is not going to be popular
for voters, but everyone would enjoy the effects of it, (apart from
paying it that is).

Better by far to reduce capacity, so that only those with time did the
longer distances. That way would not be inflationary, and would not
penalise the less well off, or the disabled who simply cannot get
around any other way.

However, there is an equally good argument to close roads, remove lanes,
create pedestrian only areas and bike only cycle routes, which in turn
would reduce traffic. Again, this would be very unpopular with voters
but the benefits would eventually reach everyone.

On 18/12/2014 16:44, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

On 18/12/2014 15:24, JNugent wrote:
On 28/11/2014 07:40, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 28/11/2014 06:48, JNugent wrote:
On 28/11/2014 06:47, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 28/11/2014 06:26, JNugent wrote:

Q: Why is a traffic jam harmful (in any way)?
A: Because it delays motor traffic.

Q: What is the point in banning/discouraging motor traffic in
order to speed up motor traffic?
A: You've spotted the obvious flaw.

Good road networks encourage yet more traffic, the hugely successful
M25 is a prime example.

The only ways that will reduce traffic are pricing it out of reach, or
making other alternatives more convenient. Part of making alternatives
more convenient is making driving less convenient. This is why the
Dutch model has worked. Driving and parking in the Netherlands in towns
and cities is a major hassle, so people use trams, buses and bikes for
shorter journeys. It means there is less traffic and the traffic
that is there flows better.

You've rather missed the most basic point, haven't you?
Why condemn congestion on the basis that it delays traffic if you don't
believe that the traffic has a right to exist in the first place?

I cannot see what point you have. Either I am being a bit dim here or
you are not being entirely clear.

Sorry about the delay in responding to this post (I've just been
cleaning up my subscribed NGs and found the message).

The logical problem here is that many of the techniques for "reducing
congestion" work on the simple basis that it is the amount of *traffic*
which is reduced (often by "dissuasive" methods such as charging even
more money than we already pay).

If congestion is bad because of its delaying effects on the people
caught in the congestion, how much worse it must be to prevent (some of)
them from travelling in the first place.

If they are not travelling at all, they will not be delayed. That also
reduces congestion for everyone else who is travelling.

Which is worse, being delayed on your journey, or not being allowed
(perhaps by arbitrary financial penalties) not to even make a start on it?

Again, if congestion is bad because of its delaying effects on the
people caught in the congestion, and if those people are not to be
simply prevented from doing the travelling (which surely militates
against the benefit which is sought), the only correct response to
actual congestion must be to provide more capacity.

This has been the perceived wisdom for years and it simply does not
work. Why? Because the greater the road capacity, the more traffic it
attracts. People will commute longer distances when there are roads to
accommodate them. Then the extra traffic simply gets blocked somewhere
else. Los Angeles is a fine example of this. The M25 is another.

As bad as the M25 can be (because it is massively under-specified and
was planned on the basis that there would be three London ring-road
motorways), it still beats trying to get from one side of London to the
other on the older routes.

I'm familiar with Los Angeles. The favourite moan there is the I-405.
I've used it to travel from Ventura County into Beverly Hills (Wilshire
Boulevard) every day for a week in the morning rush. Trust me: whilst it
is not free-flowing at that time of day, it is a far better route than
Sepulveda Boulevard (the route it more or less supersedes).

So... in either case... imperfect? Yes. But better than what was there
previously? Definitely.

The correct responses to potential congestion are slightly different.
Capacity-improvement is a large part of it, but planning refusals in
cases where local congestion would be an unacceptable outcome of
development are another legitimate measure.

I would argue that the most effective way to reduce traffic is to price
it off the roads.

What is the point of that?

If your complaint is about the effect of delay on travellers, it is
infinity percent worse to ban them from going at all, which is the
effect of pricing traffic off the roads.

Unless you only want the rich to be able to travel, I mean.

I don't think anyone has suggested that traffic has no right to exist.

Except you when you said it (or a proportion of it) should be
extinguished by pricing travellers off the road.

There's no practical difference between saying that a certain amount of
the traffic shouldn't even be there in the first place and taking steps
to ensure that traffic is arbitrarily reduced in volume.

And most people (I think) would condemn congestion at least partly on
the basis that it delays traffic.
So your point is?

See above (at more than one place, above). You cannot improve the lot of
x travellers caught in congestion by reducing the number of travellers
to x/y.

Conversely, you could improve the lot of many travellers by taking them
off the roads, and those left on the roads would have their lot improved
too.

You can improve the journey of a traveller by not letting them travel?

On 20/12/2014 01:23, Phil W Lee wrote:
Simon Weaseltemper considered Fri, 19 Dec
2014 12:23:26 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On 19/12/2014 03:51, Phil W Lee wrote:
Simon Weaseltemper considered Thu, 18 Dec

I would argue that the most effective way to reduce traffic is to price
it off the roads.

It might be effective, but is it fair?

No, but life is not fair. The capitalist society in which we live
dictates that when a product is in short supply (in this case road
space) the price charged to use it increases. Or to reduce excessive use
of a product, we tax it more, to reduce the demand. They have been
talking about 'Road Pricing' for years. That is not going to be popular
for voters, but everyone would enjoy the effects of it, (apart from
paying it that is).

Better by far to reduce capacity, so that only those with time did the
longer distances. That way would not be inflationary, and would not
penalise the less well off, or the disabled who simply cannot get
around any other way.

However, there is an equally good argument to close roads, remove lanes,
create pedestrian only areas and bike only cycle routes, which in turn
would reduce traffic. Again, this would be very unpopular with voters
but the benefits would eventually reach everyone.

One easy way, which could be sold to voters without too much
difficulty, would be higher standards for driving.
Surveys repeatedly tell us that over 90% of drivers consider
themselves above average, so a policy to remove the worst 30% of
drivers should easily get widespread support.
Better enforcement would be the first stage, followed by a re-testing
requirement at some interval (which could be gradually reduced).
It would even be revenue positive, as benefits would accrue to
healthcare and road maintenance far in excess of the loss in tax
income from motoring specific taxes.
And the decent drivers wouldn't be negatively affected - they'd have
less traffic, lower insurance, and greater safety.
Of course, the safety improvements would be most noticed by the most
vulnerable road users, which would encourage greater take-up of
cycling and walking.

And that, as they say, would be a win, win situation.

Who, on Earth, "takes up" walking?

Everyone, except for the few who are physically unable to, walks.

It's the default position.

On 19/12/2014 16:07, JNugent wrote:
On 18/12/2014 16:44, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

Which is worse, being delayed on your journey, or not being allowed
(perhaps by arbitrary financial penalties) not to even make a start on it?

Who knows? There seems to be an awful lot of people on the roads (and
stuck in traffic) who would rather not be there. If you took away their
ability (through financial restraints or otherwise) they may become
happy people with more fulfilled lives, doing things they enjoy, rather
than being stuck in traffic.

Again, if congestion is bad because of its delaying effects on the
people caught in the congestion, and if those people are not to be
simply prevented from doing the travelling (which surely militates
against the benefit which is sought), the only correct response to
actual congestion must be to provide more capacity.

This has been the perceived wisdom for years and it simply does not
work. Why? Because the greater the road capacity, the more traffic it
attracts. People will commute longer distances when there are roads to
accommodate them. Then the extra traffic simply gets blocked somewhere
else. Los Angeles is a fine example of this. The M25 is another.

As bad as the M25 can be (because it is massively under-specified and
was planned on the basis that there would be three London ring-road
motorways), it still beats trying to get from one side of London to the
other on the older routes.

AIUI, the when the M25 was planned, they did not take into account the
increased traffic due to the M25 itself. Yes, you could use it to crawl
from one side of London to the other at 20mph and it would (quite
possibly) still be quicker than taking a direct route through London so
in that respect, the M25 is a success. But it is still one big chugging
jam at times and people don't like it. I used to use it to get to work
about 25 years ago and it was bad then, but because it was such a drag
to use, I quit the job. It still surprises me though, how many people
still use it every morning and evening. Perhaps they think they have no
choice. Perhaps if there was a hefty toll, they might think again.

I'm familiar with Los Angeles. The favourite moan there is the I-405.
I've used it to travel from Ventura County into Beverly Hills (Wilshire
Boulevard) every day for a week in the morning rush. Trust me: whilst it
is not free-flowing at that time of day, it is a far better route than
Sepulveda Boulevard (the route it more or less supersedes).

So... in either case... imperfect? Yes. But better than what was there
previously? Definitely.

But only if you really feel you need to drive the journey. The problem
here is that too many people, really feel they need to take the journey.

The correct responses to potential congestion are slightly different.
Capacity-improvement is a large part of it, but planning refusals in
cases where local congestion would be an unacceptable outcome of
development are another legitimate measure.

I would argue that the most effective way to reduce traffic is to price
it off the roads.

What is the point of that?

To make people think whether they really need to make the journey and
thus reduce traffic, pollution and congestion.

If your complaint is about the effect of delay on travellers, it is
infinity percent worse to ban them from going at all, which is the
effect of pricing traffic off the roads.

Unless you only want the rich to be able to travel, I mean.

It could be enough to make them re-consider their need for travel, or
travel at that time.


I don't think anyone has suggested that traffic has no right to exist.

Except you when you said it (or a proportion of it) should be
extinguished by pricing travellers off the road.

I just said it was effective. It works on European Toll roads.

You can improve the journey of a traveller by not letting them travel?

yup :-)

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 16:58:06 +0000, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:

On 19/12/2014 16:07, JNugent wrote:
On 18/12/2014 16:44, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

Which is worse, being delayed on your journey, or not being allowed
(perhaps by arbitrary financial penalties) not to even make a start on it?

Who knows? There seems to be an awful lot of people on the roads (and
stuck in traffic) who would rather not be there. If you took away their
ability (through financial restraints or otherwise) they may become
happy people with more fulfilled lives, doing things they enjoy, rather
than being stuck in traffic.

Again, if congestion is bad because of its delaying effects on the
people caught in the congestion, and if those people are not to be
simply prevented from doing the travelling (which surely militates
against the benefit which is sought), the only correct response to
actual congestion must be to provide more capacity.

This has been the perceived wisdom for years and it simply does not
work. Why? Because the greater the road capacity, the more traffic it
attracts. People will commute longer distances when there are roads to
accommodate them. Then the extra traffic simply gets blocked somewhere
else. Los Angeles is a fine example of this. The M25 is another.

As bad as the M25 can be (because it is massively under-specified and
was planned on the basis that there would be three London ring-road
motorways), it still beats trying to get from one side of London to the
other on the older routes.

AIUI, the when the M25 was planned, they did not take into account the
increased traffic due to the M25 itself. Yes, you could use it to crawl
from one side of London to the other at 20mph and it would (quite
possibly) still be quicker than taking a direct route through London so
in that respect, the M25 is a success. But it is still one big chugging
jam at times and people don't like it. I used to use it to get to work
about 25 years ago and it was bad then, but because it was such a drag
to use, I quit the job. It still surprises me though, how many people
still use it every morning and evening. Perhaps they think they have no
choice. Perhaps if there was a hefty toll, they might think again.


What do you think they would do?

JNugent wrote:

On 20/12/2014 01:23, Phil W Lee wrote:
Simon Weaseltemper considered Fri, 19 Dec
2014 12:23:26 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On 19/12/2014 03:51, Phil W Lee wrote:
Simon Weaseltemper considered Thu, 18 Dec

I would argue that the most effective way to reduce traffic is to price
it off the roads.

It might be effective, but is it fair?

No, but life is not fair. The capitalist society in which we live
dictates that when a product is in short supply (in this case road
space) the price charged to use it increases. Or to reduce excessive use
of a product, we tax it more, to reduce the demand. They have been
talking about 'Road Pricing' for years. That is not going to be popular
for voters, but everyone would enjoy the effects of it, (apart from
paying it that is).

Better by far to reduce capacity, so that only those with time did the
longer distances. That way would not be inflationary, and would not
penalise the less well off, or the disabled who simply cannot get
around any other way.

However, there is an equally good argument to close roads, remove lanes,
create pedestrian only areas and bike only cycle routes, which in turn
would reduce traffic. Again, this would be very unpopular with voters
but the benefits would eventually reach everyone.

One easy way, which could be sold to voters without too much
difficulty, would be higher standards for driving.
Surveys repeatedly tell us that over 90% of drivers consider
themselves above average, so a policy to remove the worst 30% of
drivers should easily get widespread support.
Better enforcement would be the first stage, followed by a re-testing
requirement at some interval (which could be gradually reduced).
It would even be revenue positive, as benefits would accrue to
healthcare and road maintenance far in excess of the loss in tax
income from motoring specific taxes.
And the decent drivers wouldn't be negatively affected - they'd have
less traffic, lower insurance, and greater safety.
Of course, the safety improvements would be most noticed by the most
vulnerable road users, which would encourage greater take-up of
cycling and walking.

And that, as they say, would be a win, win situation.

Who, on Earth, "takes up" walking?

Everyone, except for the few who are physically unable to, walks.

It's the default position.


Not far it's not. most people walk puny distances, NHS says the average
is some 30mins a day, or 3,000/4,000 steps.

for my job I walk about up and down steps etc, and if at work will clock
some 10,000plus steps and some 5 miles with ease.

Roger Merriman