...Blair's Bugle, is turning against congestion charging:

see link:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,9061,1095610,00.html

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Friday November 28, 2003

(snips only)

Only one other British city is likely to have introduced a congestion charge by the end of the decade, the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, admitted today.
Just Edinburgh is thinking of following in London's footsteps and bringing in a charge for private motorists before 2010, despite many of the government's congestion reduction plans being predicated on a big follow-up to Ken Livingstone's initiative.
In an interview with the Times, Mr Darling reveals that no other local authority apart from Edinburgh - his home town - has approached him for permission to bring in a congestion charge.

Mr Darling said: "Outside Edinburgh there is very little interest. There is no one actually coming to us and saying 'can you help us?'.
As the mayor of London, Mr Livingstone had the necessary devolved powers to bring in a fee unilaterally. However, in Britain's regional cities, council leaders would have to ask for Mr Darling's permission.
The government had hoped that up to 30 local authorities would bring in their own versions of the scheme, and parts of the 10-year transport plan make assumptions on that basis.
However, Bristol, which had been looking at London with an eye to its own massive city centre car congestion, lost Labour overall control and is now lukewarm about any such project.
Leeds, Cardiff, Manchester and Birmingham had also been early advocates of a form of congestion charging, but now appear to be getting cold feet.

Professor Begg wants the government to force the hand of local authorities by setting traffic reduction targets for cities, then imposing financial penalties if they fail to meet them. Money for bus and tram schemes should be conditional on introducing a congestion charge on private motorists, he says.
But he told the Times: "Local authorities are too small and lack the political determination. It helped that Ken was independent."
Mr Darling sought to put a positive spin on the lack of enthusiasm from other cities, saying: "Because it works in London doesn't mean it's going to work everywhere else.
"Most cities don't have underground systems and mainline trains coming in from all directions."
End.

How the worm has turned, how the mighty fall..

Funny that, seeing as how Durham already have congestion charging and Nottingham is actively persuing a form called the Workplace Parking Levy.

They could always set an example and start the ball rolling by banning their own workers from commuting by car, and turning all the council office car parks into "hubs" for private industry workers to leave their cars in and transfer to buses and trams.

And pigs might fly.

 

"banning their own workers from commuting by car"

I can't recall banning workers from commuting being local or any gobernment policy?

Or is it one of your proposals Bogush?

Can't you read?

 

It must be true it's in the paper. Oh how gullible you are!

Do try to keep up:

 

No, we don't believe that cameras are there for safety and not revenue when we read it in the papers.

If they were their targets would be fewer, not more, fines.

 

No, we don't believe that "Speed Kills" when we read it in the papers.

If it did, people a bit faster then the average wouldn't be less dangerous than the average speed drivers, who wouldn't be safer than the slower than average drivers.

 

No, we don't believe that "car" Pollution Kills when we read it ("traffic") in the papers.

If it did the NHS report wouldn't have said that there were no health or environmental reasons for curtailing car use. And the W.H.O. report on which that "fact" is based wouldn't have refered to buses and trains and the power stations that drive trams and trains, and not cars.

 

And we don't believe that cars cause global "warming" when we read it in the papers.

If they did then the 20,000 scientists (including many who contributed to the IPCC "research") would be agreeing, not disagreeing, with the 2,000 whose jobs depend on the governments who need an excuse to levy carbon taxes, and the UN which needs an excuse to redistribute wealth to the Third World.

 

Now, Nonny, remind us of what you believe!

 

So you believe what's in the papers when it suits. When it doesn't you call it tripe, spin or whatever word is flavour of the month.

I believe in

Using resources to their maximum effect to minimise fatalities and injuries.

Reducing air and noise pollution.

A fair deal for all, especially the disabled and elderly and those who don't drive.

Choice.

Wearing duffel coats and reading the Guardian.

"So you believe what's in the papers when it suits. When it doesn't you call it tripe, spin or whatever word is flavour of the month."

Let's see:

When I read a newspaper "report" that says that a study says that traffic pollution kills and that cars should be banned and I do a bit of digging around and find that the study in question says that pollution from buses and trains and the power stations that drive trams and trains kills, and another (from the NHS) says that there are no environmental or health reasons for restricting car use then, yes, it suits me to call that newspaper "report" "tripe, spin or whatever word is flavour of the month."

When I see a Speed Kills article in a paper and hunt around a bit and find that lack of speed also kills, and that the people who say that speed kills on the roads want trains to do 186mph when their fatality rates already match that of the roads per passenger mile despite them being fenced off then, yes, it suits me to call that newspaper "report" "tripe, spin or whatever word is flavour of the month."

When I see a global "warming" article in a paper and do a bit of research and find that the "facts" were opinions from a political executive summary of a report that many of the scientists who provided data for it were distancing themselves from; tens of thousands of scientists, led by one of the top scientists in the field,  were opposed to the alleged results; and all the supporters were either directly employed to support it, or whose careers depended on continuing funding for supporting it then, yes, it suits me to call that newspaper "report" "tripe, spin or whatever word is flavour of the month."

"I believe in"

"Using resources to their maximum effect to minimise fatalities and injuries."

So, if a road is accepted by experienced drivers as being suitable for 60mph, if 60mph means that you get double the flow at 30mph and half the congestion, if it means that goods and services get to their customers in half the time, if it means that fatalitis will reduce due to it being the optimum safe speed:

You believe in reverting from the cynically lowered 30mph limit, policed by a greed scamera, to the 60mph limit which will be:

"Using resources to their maximum effect to minimise fatalities and injuries."

 

"Reducing air and noise pollution."

So you believe in halving the amount of traffic on the road by doubling speed limits, and reducing air and noise pollution not just by halving traffic on the roads, but by allowing cars to cruise at more efficient speeds.

You also believe in removing all traffic "calming", doubling road widths by removing all bus lanes (especially 24 hour bus lanes - where are the 24 hour buses?), more than doubling capacity at junctions by their removal, and also by reverting to gentle curves, instead of sharp corners at junctions. And removing all the other congestion engineering such as series of "refuges", traffic light mis-phasing, car free zones, unnecessary pelican crossings, pelican crossings that don't use a flashing amber to give any pedestrians who are really crossing time to cross, rather than a red so long that the odd pedestrian who actually uses it has time to cross, do their shopping and cross back befor it changes, etc, etc, etc.

"A fair deal for all, especially the disabled and elderly"

Indeed.

Why should someone who is on such a low income that they pay no tax, but still manage to run an old banger, effectively pay 80% income tax on the money they use to buy fuel?

And anyone who pays even the lowest rate of tax effectively pay more than the very richest used to pay on investment income when they were being squeezed till the pips squeaked?

 

"and those who don't drive."

Getting rid of the anti-motorist taxation levels would give them:

"Choice."

If they didn't drive due to unaffordability, making it affordable would let them drive.

Those who can't drive could afford taxis if they didn't pay around 350% fuel taxes.

Assuming that their friends and relatives didn't find it that much easier to (start driving if they couldn't before and)  ferry them around.

 

So, if a road is accepted by experienced drivers as being suitable for 60mph, if 60mph means that you get double the flow at 30mph and half the congestion, if it means that goods and services get to their customers in half the time, if it means that fatalitis will reduce due to it being the optimum safe speed:

Unfortunately Bogush you only see the world from the motorists point of view. Let's take your hypothetical road. OK so the drivers see it as safe to drive along at 60. There's then the noise factor, high speeds increses surface noise considerably - example of a speed limit for this reason = Colwyn Bay. Then there's the professional point of view. The emergency services and police who have to mop up the mess after an accident. Then there's the point of view of the locals who may use the road for turning in and out of side roads and property.

If all these bodies are happy about the higher speed then OK. However, I think you'll often find than one or more body raises justified objections.

You see I try to think of everone including the motorist (which is me some of the time).

I find the roads near us im Machynlleth very noisy. I'm told they never used to be. What I don't like is that they are still intrusive when you climb quite a hill behind our house. The noise of the speeding cars spoils it all.

Spoils what all? Cosy romantic moments with our mutual friend from this site, perhaps?

> > "So, if a road is accepted by experienced drivers as being suitable for 60mph, if 60mph means that you get double the flow at 30mph and half the congestion, if it means that goods and services get to their customers in half the time, if it means that fatalitis will reduce due to it being the optimum safe speed":

> "Unfortunately Bogush you only see the world from the motorists point of view. Let's take your hypothetical road. OK so the drivers see it as safe to drive along at 60."

In their experience.

And experience, including of the scientific study kind, shows them to be right.

 

> "There's then the noise factor, high speeds increses surface noise considerably - example of a speed limit for this reason = Colwyn Bay."

You "conveniently" missed this bit:

> > "So you believe in halving the amount of traffic on the road by doubling speed limits, and reducing air and noise pollution not just by halving traffic on the roads, but by allowing cars to cruise at more efficient speeds."

 

> "Then there's the professional point of view. The emergency services and police who have to mop up the mess after an accident."

So they would be right behind increasing a 30mph limit that should be a 60 to a 60 then, as that would be the safest speed for the road.

Do try to keep up.

 

> "Then there's the point of view of the locals who may use the road for turning in and out of side roads and property."

Errrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

If the optimum speed for the road was 60 then there wouldn't be any (or many) locals doing that.

And what few there were would find blocks of vehicles doing 60, and large gaps between them allowing them to pull in and out, whereas if it was an unsuitable 30 they would be faced with a never ending stream of traffic doing around 30, jockeying for position, overtaking in inappropriate places, speeding up to 60 on the wrong side of the road just as you though there was a gap at last.

BANG!

That's what happens in the real world, as opposed to the non driving, non technical anti-car "planners" planet paradise.

> "If all these bodies are happy about the higher speed then OK."

If they knew anything about the matter they would be over the moon.

 

> "However, I think you'll often find than one or more body raises justified objections."

If they did, I think you'd find that, by definition, they wouldn't be.

"You see I try to think of everone including the motorist (which is me some of the time)."

No, you don't.

You like to think you try to think of everyone in your fantasy world.

But the real world down here on planet earth, works nothing like what you want to believe it does.

Bet you supported the commies in the 60's, and the Greenham Common women, and Sheffield's Nuclear Free Zone.

Bet you support releasing poor ickle mink and lab rats and bunny wunnies into the wild to massacre the indigenous fauna, spread disease, and starve to death.

Bet you support releasing vicious criminals onto the streets because they are victims too.

And banning the public from owning guns in case they shoot the poor ickle perps.

And I bet you support, when we have removed all their natural predators, banning foxhunting, meaning that there are no natural controls left on fox population growth, and no natural selection until they run out of range and end up dying slow. painful, lingering deaths from disease and starvation.

Am I right?

Or am I right?

bogush

the all seeing ~O^O.......::::::::::::::::

 

Doubling speeds does not double the capacity. More distance should be left between cars.

"Doubling speeds does not double the capacity. More distance should be left between cars."

My god, he's a traffic "planner".

 

The myths and fallacies of traffic planning:

 

I doesn't matter how fast you go, because a road's capacity reduces as you go faster.

They mean that as separation increases as you go faster (especially if you uses the maximum overall stopping distance separation), you have fewer cars on any stretch of road at any one time.

But that's how you measure the capacity of a car park, not a transport system!

 

I doesn't matter how fast you go, because a road's capacity is always 1,800 cars per hour.

If you keep a two second gap, a car passes an observer every two seconds, regardless of speed, and so you always get 1,800 cars passing an hour, regardless of speed.

But the roads aren't there to keep council workers employed doing traffic censuses: they are a transport system.

 

Now, the truth:

If your house is burning down, and you have a wife, two kids, and four buckets, do you amble down to the river, and stroll back, because it doesn't matter how fast you go, you won't get any more water up to the house, or get back to the river any quicker?

Clearly not:

The faster you go, the more trips you complete, the more water you get, and the faster you get it there.

Which is what transport is all about.

You never hear the pro rail activists saying slow down the trains: it's just as fast when you're slow.

Do you?

 

You might have 1,800 cars an hour passing, but if they do double the speed, they get back in half the time, and leave the road free for the next journeys.

It's only a problem if you have so grossly underinvested in your transport system that it gets congested, and you start measuring it's capacity as a car park.

 

"find the roads near us im Machynlleth very noisy. I'm told they never used to be."

WHEN WAS THAT, THEN, FREDA?

"What I don't like is that they are still intrusive when you climb quite a hill behind our house. The noise of the speeding cars spoils it all."

TAKE CARE, FREDA. You're beginning to sound like a sheep.

And you know what Welshmen do to sheep............

December 6 2003, 4:01 AM - A bit early for racist remarks.

Remove Welshmen.

Insert Yorkshiremen.

Not racist now, I assume?

Groan...........................

Since when were the Welsh a different race from the English, Anon?

Since about 1066

The Welsh might live in a different nation, but they are not a different race.

Trouble is, they think they are.

Just because they speak jibberish, shag sheep and sing a lot.

Bore Da

We are a much superior race to the pond life on this forum.

I rest my case.