http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/4296968.stm

That map looks all wrong, but I don't have time right now to pick the bones
out of it.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"John Rowland" wrote in message

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/4296968.stm

That map looks all wrong, but I don't have time right now to pick the
bones
out of it.


The detailed map is available he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cc-ex/maps.shtml The charge will end half an hour
earlier at 1800 apparently.

Ian

So even more people now can't drive to work in the week, but can't use
the tube at the weekend, requiring both a car and expensive train
tickets.

Paul Weaver wrote:

So even more people now can't drive to work in the week, but can't use
the tube at the weekend, requiring both a car and expensive train
tickets.

Very few people in that part of London *require* a car. It is a
lifestyle choice, not a necessity for the most part.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632911.html
(Skye seen through mist and low cloud from Kyle of Lochalsh in 1999)

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:21:56 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

Paul Weaver wrote:

So even more people now can't drive to work in the week, but can't use
the tube at the weekend, requiring both a car and expensive train
tickets.

Very few people in that part of London *require* a car. It is a
lifestyle choice, not a necessity for the most part.

Quite a few, like me, drive *out* of that tax-grab area against any
congestion in the zone, right into congestion around it - westway
west-bound for example, Scrubs Lane, all those nice roads which would
have more traffic after the area is Kengested and will have even more
when the ShepBush mega shopping-opolis (conveniently avoided by the
expansion) opens next year. See this for what it is: more tax. Some
value is returned in better buses but the whole cost is excessive and
fares are still too high. Cars are still required by families and
odd-hours workers.

The smart way to reduce congestion (not that this expansion has it, 5%
of the area at most has congestion) is to close off zones and reduce
flow. Classic example Hammersmith bridge. Close it and traffic
"evaporates". But hi-tech cameras and 50mi/year "costs" are much more
fun than closures and pinching.

--
New anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com

"Colum Mylod" wrote in message
...

The smart way to reduce congestion (not that this expansion has it, 5%
of the area at most has congestion) is to close off zones and reduce
flow. Classic example Hammersmith bridge. Close it and traffic
"evaporates".

Er... not quite.

I remember a miserable afternoon spent trying to get from Barnes to Hanwell.
It should have been a doddle using Hammersmith Bridge, but it was then
closed for repairs (is it still closed, or closed again?). Using Chiswick
Bridge (the westerly nexus of the North and South Circular Roads) was
excruciating because Hammersmith Bridge was closed. The traffic certainly
does not "evaporate", even if the residents of the approach roads (some of
whom seem very self-centred over this issue) think it does. It simply goes
elsewhere (because it has to).

I remember a saying my grandmother frequently used - "full bellies never
think of empty ones".

Colum Mylod wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:21:56 GMT, Chris Tolley
Paul Weaver wrote:
So even more people now can't drive to work in the week, but can't use
the tube at the weekend, requiring both a car and expensive train
tickets.

Very few people in that part of London *require* a car. It is a
lifestyle choice, not a necessity for the most part.

Quite a few, like me, drive ... Cars are still required by families

If true, one wonders how anyone ever managed before. But since people
plainly did manage before, perhaps it isn't a necessity, but a lifestyle
choice.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767296.html
(4TC unit 8001 on the Weymouth Tramway on 31 Dec 1989)

Colum Mylod wrote:
The smart way to reduce congestion (not that this expansion has it, 5%
of the area at most has congestion) is to close off zones and reduce
flow. Classic example Hammersmith bridge. Close it and traffic
"evaporates".

Traffic might have evaporated from Castlenau/Lonsdale Road and the
surrounding roads to the south of the bridge. But, it miraculously
condensed on neighbouring bridges, with Putney seeing most of the
increases, although Chiswick and Kew were affected.

While it was a great boost to the quality of life to many in the area to
the south of the Bridge, closing Hammersmith Bridge was not a
"victimless crime".

Tolling the bridges, though - that's not an idea much mentioned. Given
the voracious traffic wardens in Wandsworth, especially, tolling the
bridges would bring in a whole wedge of new revenue.

Very few people in that part of London *require* a car. It is a
lifestyle choice, not a necessity for the most part.

Aside from people that work outside the train/tube hours (i.e. start
before 9AM on a sunday). I'm thinking about nurses at Chelsea &
Westminster Hospital for example. Basically unless you work government
hours you're forced to risk a dangerous night bus that takes 3 times
longer than a car, and that assumes there's a direct bus from where you
live to where you work, highly unlikely.

I'm writing this at 02:31 on a Monday morning, from work, just outside
the new extension area. Won't affect me directly as I live west of
London. Many of my collegues will have to take a new route in though,
along more congested roads.

While I'm just outside the zone, If the building was 800 yards East
we'd be in it. It's going to cause enough problems with added traffic
arround the bush at lunchtime (when some of my shifts start - yes, the
shopping centre wont help either). FYI the last tube east from work on
a Sunday is 2327, the last train west 0005. Not much good when you
finish at 0030.

But journeys in the zone will speed up by 5 minutes. Assuming 2
journeys per day, for an £8 cost, the point of the zone is to make
life easier for people on more than £48 an hour. Ken - the rich man's
mayor.

Paul Weaver wrote:
forced to risk a dangerous night bus
That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal,
but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia.

You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is
necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from
their place of employment. The main reason that there is transport
congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have
all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in
our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a
choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by
my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.)
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767304.html
(4TC units 418 and 422 and men with red flags at Weymouth Quay, 1985)