How can the congestion charge be increasing its area? When Transport
London has done little to address the real problem. The traffic flow in
London is bad, very bad and its not due to masses of traffic, but the
masses traffic generated by a poorly designed system that lack logic.
Traffic needs to flow and the constant stop start traffic lights adds
to the traffic. If we define traffic a the time a vehicle is on the
road as opposed to journey numbers, we can clearly see that stopping
400 cars to let 10 out that would have managed to get out within a
small percentage of the equivalent traffic time generated by stopping
400 cars for 1 minutes (400 minutes).

Build of of rush hour traffic is also due to the role over of traffic
held up by these badly designed system. If these lights had simple
sensor systems; much cheaper that any single set of congestion charge
cameras. These would allow non rush hour traffic to flow better.
Eliminating the needless stooping when there are no cars at the
opposing lights.

If they put the need of the transport users first instead of revenue
generating schemes we could reduce the congestion with out the need
for this charge.

To often is the choice of a roundabout with traffic lights is taken,
when a roundabout would do. Traffic systems are designed for rush hour
traffic, most traffic system would benefit by having sensored lights.
Do you find your self waiting on the A4 at some light when nothing is
at the opposing lights. Would sensored lights not reduce traffic by
preventing pre rush hour build up. The flow of traffic is that bad that

it makes me think it could be a conspiracy, but it`s more likely to be
bad planning, which education board certify these town planners.

The big question is should the government have spent 90 million on
setting up the congestion charge or should it have been spent on
improving traffic flow. Why does every motorway inside the M25 need to

have a 50 or 40 mph limit? Big questions for Ken to answer. The real
solution is to have a continuous road through London, not as it
currently is where ever Major road is interrupted every 400 m with
traffic lights. If 10 cars wait at a filter lane rater than
a set of lights would these people not have gotten out of the junction
any way in the time the 400 cars at the lights have to wait. 400 extra
Mimi's of traffic as opposed to the 10 caused by those cars.

Until the they sort out the current system how can they charge for
congestion they cause. We need a real transport system that takes into
account non rush hour traffic, with sensored lights to prevent needless

stopping. All this extra traffic not only increase greenhouse gases but

also the amount you send on fuel and repairers.


If a speed limit is 30mph why are there bumps that would not allow
drivers to go over then at that speed. If you want a 20mph zone just
put the bumps but for a 30 zone the bumps must allow cars to drive at
that speed. Are local council neglecting some responsibilities and
placing traffic calming measures.


I regular send out a transport news letter you can sign up at

https://www.transport-wizard.co.uk/register_page.htm

If you would like to contribute please contact me through the contact
us link on the page.

wrote:
Traffic needs to flow and the constant stop start traffic lights adds
to the traffic. If we define traffic a the time a vehicle is on the

It seems to me most of the traffic lights in london are of the
brain dead fixed timer type. The number of times I've been stuck
at a red light late at night with no traffic going in the other
direction (or was even waiting at the lights to start with) I've lost
count of. A good example would be the A23 purley way where
TfL obviously know theres an issue because theres red camera
lights on a lot of them presumably in case some poor driver whos
just had enough gets p1ssed off and drives through a red.

B2003

wrote:
How can the congestion charge be increasing its area?

I think it was always intended originally to cover all of zone 1 which
it doesn't at the moment.

When Transport
London has done little to address the real problem. The traffic flow in
London is bad, very bad and its not due to masses of traffic, but the
masses traffic generated by a poorly designed system that lack logic.

And how do you explain the traffic queues on the M25. Where are the
traffic lights there?

Traffic needs to flow and the constant stop start traffic lights adds
to the traffic. If we define traffic a the time a vehicle is on the
road as opposed to journey numbers, we can clearly see that stopping
400 cars to let 10 out that would have managed to get out within a
small percentage of the equivalent traffic time generated by stopping
400 cars for 1 minutes (400 minutes).

I don't think that for rush-hour traffic it's the traffic lights that
are the major problem, but I agree that they do not give priority
properly to the main road, i.e. first the primary routes, then the
A-roads, then the B-roads and lastly the unclassified. If you're on the
A10 (primary) crossing little road like Nuttall Street you should
expect a green light most of the time.

Build of of rush hour traffic is also due to the role over of traffic
held up by these badly designed system. If these lights had simple
sensor systems; much cheaper that any single set of congestion charge
cameras. These would allow non rush hour traffic to flow better.
Eliminating the needless stooping when there are no cars at the
opposing lights.

Will they sense bicycles too?

If they put the need of the transport users first instead of revenue
generating schemes we could reduce the congestion with out the need
for this charge.

They need revenue to be able to improve the public transport system.

To often is the choice of a roundabout with traffic lights is taken,
when a roundabout would do.

And when do pedestrians get to cross when there's a roundabout? At a
mini-roundabout, i.e. any roundabout with only one lane it is true that
the flow for traffic is better off without traffic lights as long as
there are as many going into each road as there are coming out, so that
when someone enters your road you can leave, not that many drivers have
actually worked out that logic. Also, roundabouts actually work better
only at less busy junctions. You get a much faster flow of traffic in
busy junctions with signals.

Do you find your self waiting on the A4 at some light when nothing is
at the opposing lights.

Don't use the A4 now. Do you mean the dual-carriageway sections west of
Hammersmith or the slower sections like Cromwell Road?

The big question is should the government have spent 90 million on
setting up the congestion charge or should it have been spent on
improving traffic flow. Why does every motorway inside the M25 need to
have a 50 or 40 mph limit?

They don't. Only the elevated section of the M4 has a 40 limit. The A40
Westway is no longer a motorway. The M1, M3 and M11 have 70mph limits
except right at the end of the M11, the M23 doesn't really go that far
inside the M25 and I never use that section anyway.

Big questions for Ken to answer. The real
solution is to have a continuous road through London, not as it
currently is where ever Major road is interrupted every 400 m with
traffic lights.

The main road that "crosses" London in an E/W direction is the road
along the North of the Thames, although you have to go around
Parliament Square on the way. The best N/S route across the middle is
the A201 which crosses the Thames at Blackfriars Bridge. The South-most
part of the A201, New Kent Road, forms part of the CC boundary.

If 10 cars wait at a filter lane rater than
a set of lights would these people not have gotten out of the junction
any way in the time the 400 cars at the lights have to wait. 400 extra
Mimi's of traffic as opposed to the 10 caused by those cars.

Until the they sort out the current system how can they charge for
congestion they cause. We need a real transport system that takes into
account non rush hour traffic, with sensored lights to prevent needless
stopping. All this extra traffic not only increase greenhouse gases but

Why exactly do you use your car to get into work? The Piccadilly Line
runs pretty much along the route of the A4.

If a speed limit is 30mph why are there bumps that would not allow
drivers to go over then at that speed. If you want a 20mph zone just
put the bumps but for a 30 zone the bumps must allow cars to drive at
that speed. Are local council neglecting some responsibilities and
placing traffic calming measures.

Yes and Barnet Council ripped most of them out.

Earl Purple wrote:

At a mini-roundabout, i.e. any roundabout with only one lane it is true
that
the flow for traffic is better off without traffic lights

But stand by for the crashes - there's a mini near us with several
collisions a week. An enterprising body shop has set up nearby.

E.

eastender wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:

At a mini-roundabout, i.e. any roundabout with only one lane it is true
that
the flow for traffic is better off without traffic lights

But stand by for the crashes - there's a mini near us with several
collisions a week. An enterprising body shop has set up nearby.

Well I live right on the corner at a junction where a mini-roundabout
was replaced by signals, and since then our wall has stayed up. It came
down several times due to crashes at the junction when there was a
mini-roundabout.

In article .com,
"Earl Purple" wrote:

eastender wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:

At a mini-roundabout, i.e. any roundabout with only one lane it is true
that
the flow for traffic is better off without traffic lights

But stand by for the crashes - there's a mini near us with several
collisions a week. An enterprising body shop has set up nearby.

Well I live right on the corner at a junction where a mini-roundabout
was replaced by signals, and since then our wall has stayed up. It came
down several times due to crashes at the junction when there was a
mini-roundabout.

Yes - half the drivers in Hackney where I am don't seem to know to give
way to traffic from the right. Or just as likely, they don't care.

E.

wrote in message
oups.com...
How can the congestion charge be increasing its area? When Transport
London has done little to address the real problem. The traffic flow in
London is bad, very bad and its not due to masses of traffic, but the
masses traffic generated by a poorly designed system that lack logic.
Traffic needs to flow and the constant stop start traffic lights adds
to the traffic. If we define traffic a the time a vehicle is on the
road as opposed to journey numbers, we can clearly see that stopping
400 cars to let 10 out that would have managed to get out within a
small percentage of the equivalent traffic time generated by stopping
400 cars for 1 minutes (400 minutes).

I would have thought cutting down on useless journeys would make even more
sense... Maybe to travel in central london, one should have to demonstrate
why, as opposed to just have the right... It *is* somewhat of a luxury to
many people, and should surely not be allowed to impact other people the way
it does...

If the roads were used in a more sensible fashion, the traffic lights
wouldn't seem so bad


Build of of rush hour traffic is also due to the role over of traffic
held up by these badly designed system. If these lights had simple
sensor systems; much cheaper that any single set of congestion charge
cameras. These would allow non rush hour traffic to flow better.
Eliminating the needless stooping when there are no cars at the
opposing lights.

If they put the need of the transport users first instead of revenue
generating schemes we could reduce the congestion with out the need
for this charge.

To often is the choice of a roundabout with traffic lights is taken,
when a roundabout would do. Traffic systems are designed for rush hour
traffic, most traffic system would benefit by having sensored lights.
Do you find your self waiting on the A4 at some light when nothing is
at the opposing lights. Would sensored lights not reduce traffic by
preventing pre rush hour build up. The flow of traffic is that bad that

it makes me think it could be a conspiracy, but it`s more likely to be
bad planning, which education board certify these town planners.

The big question is should the government have spent 90 million on
setting up the congestion charge or should it have been spent on
improving traffic flow. Why does every motorway inside the M25 need to

have a 50 or 40 mph limit? Big questions for Ken to answer. The real
solution is to have a continuous road through London, not as it
currently is where ever Major road is interrupted every 400 m with
traffic lights. If 10 cars wait at a filter lane rater than
a set of lights would these people not have gotten out of the junction
any way in the time the 400 cars at the lights have to wait. 400 extra
Mimi's of traffic as opposed to the 10 caused by those cars.

Until the they sort out the current system how can they charge for
congestion they cause. We need a real transport system that takes into
account non rush hour traffic, with sensored lights to prevent needless

stopping. All this extra traffic not only increase greenhouse gases but

also the amount you send on fuel and repairers.


If a speed limit is 30mph why are there bumps that would not allow
drivers to go over then at that speed. If you want a 20mph zone just
put the bumps but for a 30 zone the bumps must allow cars to drive at
that speed. Are local council neglecting some responsibilities and
placing traffic calming measures.


I regular send out a transport news letter you can sign up at

https://www.transport-wizard.co.uk/register_page.htm

If you would like to contribute please contact me through the contact
us link on the page.

eastender wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:

At a mini-roundabout, i.e. any roundabout with only one lane it is
true that
the flow for traffic is better off without traffic lights

But stand by for the crashes - there's a mini near us with several
collisions a week. An enterprising body shop has set up nearby.

Car crashes victims need help that Anita Roddick can't supply!