Less roads more relief.

"Most transportation planners continue to operate from the orthodoxy
that the
best way to untangle traffic is to build more roads, yet in some
cases, doing
so proves counterproductive. The “Braess Paradox” is a mathematical
theorem
explaining why:
http://tinyurl.com/mlvqpy There are plenty other advantages, such as
improving
quality of life and the environment."

More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/wo...ight.html?_r=3

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Doug wrote:

(Of Braess's paradox)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/wo...ight.html?_r=3

I haven't looked at the nytimes, but the paradox is well known, is
hardly contentious (it works in the maths, and has been observed in
the real world), and is not relevant to cycling in the uk, in which
the effect of congestion is different (it may apply in a network where
cycles are the dominant traffic).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Doug" wrote in message
...

http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriti...rfewer?view=uk

On 11 Aug, 13:31, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Doug wrote:

(Of Braess's paradox)

*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/wo...ight.html?_r=3

I haven't looked at the nytimes, but the paradox is well known, is
hardly contentious (it works in the maths, and has been observed in
the real world), and is not relevant to cycling in the uk, in which
the effect of congestion is different (it may apply in a network where
cycles are the dominant traffic).

Traffic in general and perpetual roadbuilding impinges in various ways
on cycling. Isn't it odd how anything which remotely casts drivers in
a bad light is considered by some to be out of place on a UK cycling
newsgroup? And yet overtly car oriented threads do not attract similar
attention?

'Heads Up - parking fines & credit cards.'
'A Good Day for Proper Road Safety: Swindon Ditches Fixed Speed
Cameras.'
'Driver distraction from in-vehicle sources.'

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:16:36 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:

On 11 Aug, 13:31, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Doug wrote:

(Of Braess's paradox)

*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/wo...ight.html?_r=3

I haven't looked at the nytimes, but the paradox is well known, is
hardly contentious (it works in the maths, and has been observed in
the real world), and is not relevant to cycling in the uk, in which
the effect of congestion is different (it may apply in a network where
cycles are the dominant traffic).

Traffic in general and perpetual roadbuilding impinges in various ways
on cycling. Isn't it odd how anything which remotely casts drivers in
a bad light is considered by some to be out of place on a UK cycling
newsgroup? And yet overtly car oriented threads do not attract similar
attention?

'Heads Up - parking fines & credit cards.'
'A Good Day for Proper Road Safety: Swindon Ditches Fixed Speed
Cameras.'
'Driver distraction from in-vehicle sources.'

Hmmmmm yeah, I noticed that. But then I realised, we're not all
twisted hypocritical demented old parasites like you.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:16:36 -0700 (PDT), Doug wrote:
On 11 Aug, 13:31, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Doug wrote:

(Of Braess's paradox)

*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/wo...ight.html?_r=3

I haven't looked at the nytimes, but the paradox is well known, is
hardly contentious (it works in the maths, and has been observed in
the real world), and is not relevant to cycling in the uk, in which
the effect of congestion is different (it may apply in a network where
cycles are the dominant traffic).

Traffic in general and perpetual roadbuilding impinges in various ways
on cycling.

But Braess's paradox does not apply to cyclists in uk conditions.

Isn't it odd how anything which remotely casts drivers in a bad
light is considered by some to be out of place on a UK cycling
newsgroup? And yet overtly car oriented threads do not attract
similar attention?

Did you really just say "isn't it odd how discussions about car
drivers are considered out of place in a cycling newsgroup"?

Do you really, honestly find that odd?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 11 Aug, 17:16, Doug wrote:
On 11 Aug, 13:31, Ian Smith wrote: On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Doug wrote:

(Of Braess's paradox)

�http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/wo...ight.html?_r=3

I haven't looked at the nytimes, but the paradox is well known, is
hardly contentious (it works in the maths, and has been observed in
the real world), and is not relevant to cycling in the uk, in which
the effect of congestion is different (it may apply in a network where
cycles are the dominant traffic).

Traffic in general and perpetual roadbuilding impinges in various ways
on cycling. Isn't it odd how anything which remotely casts drivers in
a bad light is considered by some to be out of place on a UK cycling
newsgroup? And yet overtly car oriented threads do not attract similar
attention?

'Heads Up - parking fines & credit cards.'
'A Good Day for Proper Road Safety: Swindon Ditches Fixed Speed
Cameras.'
'Driver distraction from in-vehicle sources.'

Except they did: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....n&dmode=source

Yet again, you are caught lying, Mr Bollen.

On 11 Aug, 19:06, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:16:36 -0700 (PDT), Doug wrote:
*On 11 Aug, 13:31, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Doug wrote:

(Of Braess's paradox)

*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/wo...ight.html?_r=3

I haven't looked at the nytimes, but the paradox is well known, is
hardly contentious (it works in the maths, and has been observed in
the real world), and is not relevant to cycling in the uk, in which
the effect of congestion is different (it may apply in a network where
cycles are the dominant traffic).

*Traffic in general and perpetual roadbuilding impinges in various ways
*on cycling.

But Braess's paradox does not apply to cyclists in uk conditions.

It does if they are affected by the cars which are affected by the
paradox, i.e. held up by traffic jams consisting of frustrated and
enraged motorists.

*Isn't it odd how anything which remotely casts drivers in a bad
*light is considered by some to be out of place on a UK cycling
*newsgroup? And yet overtly car oriented threads do not attract
*similar attention?

Did you really just say "isn't it odd how discussions about car
drivers are considered out of place in a cycling newsgroup"?

Do you really, honestly find that odd?

So what about all the car related threads in this cycling newsgroup
then?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

Doug wrote:
"Most transportation planners continue to operate from the orthodoxy
that the
best way to untangle traffic is to build more roads, yet in some
cases, doing
so proves counterproductive. The “Braess Paradox” is a mathematical
theorem
explaining why:
http://tinyurl.com/mlvqpy There are plenty other advantages, such as
improving
quality of life and the environment."

More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/wo...ight.html?_r=3

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.
Nothing New
see:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article14.html

Jim (;-)

On 12 Aug, 13:16, "J. Chisholm" wrote:
Doug wrote:
"Most transportation planners continue to operate from the orthodoxy
that the
best way to untangle traffic is to build more roads, yet in some
cases, doing
so proves counterproductive. The “Braess Paradox” is a mathematical
theorem
explaining why:
http://tinyurl.com/mlvqpyThere are plenty other advantages, such as
improving
quality of life and the environment."

More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/wo...ight.html?_r=3


Nothing New
see:http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article14.html

Yes but many motorists here disagree that perpetual roadbuilding does
not solve congestion. They seem to imagine that a way can be built out
of congestion, despite the lesson of history and the maths.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.