In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 06:31:52AM -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:
It would certainly make a big difference to the bits next to the
laughable south circular. That road is sufficiently awful that I often
find it quicker to just drive straight across London instead of using
it.

I don't think you have absorbed the lessons of how roads generate
new traffic.

So do railways. So clearly it's pointless to build or upgrade railways
because they'll only get clogged up with pesky passengers.

Not at all. As has been demonstrated over the last 20 years, the railways
have handled huge increases in traffic surprisingly easily.

But anyway, you, my friend, appear to have not absorbed the lessons of
how junctions and conflicting movements impede traffic flow. THAT's the
problem of the south circular.

Ho, ho! How simplistic!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

The railway industry and its supporters seem to disagree with you. They are
always trying to whip up a panic about the need for still more tax-payers'
money to cope with the overcrowding and general lack of capacity. In fact,
a supposed lack of capacity is now the pretext for HS2 as the need for higher
speeds and shorter journey times is no longer credible.

As a fairly regular user of parts of the South Circular - the parts which have
not been ruined - I can't see what is simplistic about David Cantrell's
assessment of the road.

I can guess what lessons you've drawn from the past, but whether they're
valid is questionable.

The 1960s and '70s was a period of increasing prosperity in which more and
more people found that they could afford to buy their own vehicle and move
about freely. It was also a period in which successive Governments tried to
reduce London's population. For example: Milton Keynes. Since 1979, our
country has experienced continuously falling prosperity and today a much
smaller percentage of working people have well-paid jobs than was the case
in the '60s and '70s. The population of London has grown enormously and no
longer is any attempt made by politicians to move people to new towns. The
inevitable and entirely predictable result is that London's population has far
outgrown the infrastructure.

The growth in car-ownership has stalled partly as a result of low incomes,
partly because the roads no longer function properly and partly because
young people cannot afford car insurance. There is no reason to assume that
increasing road capacity would lead to a substantial increase in car travel.

It should always be borne in mind that in the '60s and '70s car ownership
increased in general, including in parts of the country where the roads were
not improved. There is no reliable, incontestable evidence that car ownership
increased merely because roads were improved.

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 09:38:19AM -0500, wrote:
(David Cantrell) wrote:
wrote:
I don't think you have absorbed the lessons of how roads generate
new traffic.
So do railways. So clearly it's pointless to build or upgrade railways
because they'll only get clogged up with pesky passengers.
Not at all. As has been demonstrated over the last 20 years, the railways
have handled huge increases in traffic surprisingly easily.

Mmmm. Just because they make it *look* easy doesn't mean that all the
civil engineers, train builders, timetablers and so on are just slacking
off.

But anyway, you, my friend, appear to have not absorbed the lessons of
how junctions and conflicting movements impede traffic flow. THAT's the
problem of the south circular.
Ho, ho! How simplistic!

Then enlighten me, oh wise sage, how would you either make the south
circular fit for purpose or unneeded?

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life
-- Samuel Johnson

I drove along part of the South Circular this afternoon, from Brixton Hill to
Forest Hill. The road is quite inadequate for the volume of traffic. TfL, of
course, have made matters worse by installing additional and unnecessary
traffic signals. (What else is new!)

Boris Johnson's balderdash suggestion might be appropriate for this road. (His
tunnel-building proposal is general is mere publicity-seeking moonshine
designed solely to advance his career. He obviously realises that his pro
cycling/to hell with other road users attitude will not ingratiate him with Tory
selection committees in safe Tory seats)

Robin9 wrote:
Roland Perry;142220 Wrote:
In message , at 12:22:55
on Wed, 14 May 2014, David Cantrell remarked:--
What a hare-brained idea! What would the portals do to their localities
and
why would it divert anything from the streets in central London?-

It would certainly make a big difference to the bits next to the
laughable south circular. That road is sufficiently awful that I often
find it quicker to just drive straight across London instead of using
it.-

Ah yes, the "South Circular"; once described as a 'collection of
signposts' rather than an actual road.
--
Roland Perry

I drove along part of the South Circular this afternoon, from Brixton
Hill to
Forest Hill. The road is quite inadequate for the volume of traffic.
TfL, of
course, have made matters worse by installing additional and unnecessary
traffic signals. (What else is new!)

Boris Johnson's balderdash suggestion might be appropriate for this
road. (His
tunnel-building proposal is general is mere publicity-seeking moonshine

designed solely to advance his career. He obviously realises that his
pro cycling/to hell with other road users attitude will not ingratiate him
with Tory selection committees in safe Tory seats)

Actually, I'm not so sure that London's cyclists regard Boris as
pro-cycling. And I doubt that potential safe Tory seats would select him or
not based on proposals like this. It's probably more of a case that he
wants to be seen doing something, but without having to actually start
anything during his remaining term in office.

That's interesting. I don't have cyclists in my normal circle so you
undoubtedly are more familiar with their opinion of Boris Johnson that I am.
I had assumed that his pro-cycling stance would have won their approval.

On 13/05/2014 08:45, wrote:
In article ,
(Basil Jet) wrote:

On 2014\05\12 20:46, wrote:
In article ,
(David Walters) wrote:


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...r-22mile-ringr
oad-tunnel-under-london-9354896.html

Plans to transform central London with a 22-mile-long
underground ring road can be revealed today.

Costing £30 billion to construct, it would remove tens of
thousands of cars from the crowded streets above.

What a hare-brained idea! What would the portals do to their localities
and why would it divert anything from the streets in central London?

This looks like 1960s car insanity to me, likely to generate a lot more
traffic.

It'll reduce jams on the M25 though! ;-)

Initially maybe but it would grow total traffic and jams would return very
soon. Did they learn nothing in the 1960s and 70s?

What was that "lesson"?

That traffic only flows freely when it has zero road space allocated to it?

On 14/05/2014 12:31, wrote:
In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 02:46:55PM -0500,
wrote:

What a hare-brained idea! What would the portals do to their
localities and why would it divert anything from the streets in
central London?

It would certainly make a big difference to the bits next to the
laughable south circular. That road is sufficiently awful that I often
find it quicker to just drive straight across London instead of using it.

I don't think you have absorbed the lessons of how roads generate new
traffic.


Or, as saner people describe it, they allow people to go where they
actually want to go, rather then where they have to settle for.

On 16/05/2014 11:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:21:23
on Fri, 16 May 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
I don't think you have absorbed the lessons of how roads generate new
traffic.

So do railways. So clearly it's pointless to build or upgrade railways
because they'll only get clogged up with pesky passengers.

Same with airports. Another runway or terminal, and all that happens is
more passengers clog them up.

Same with hospitals.

And new schools.

And even new housing.

They just fill up with new patients, new pupils and new occupants.

Colin must find it mystifying that we build anything at all.