There is a discussion on the Carfree Network list about induced
demand, which is based on a theory that 'congestion is the only true
limiting factor in unregulated traffic'.

"Amsterdam does not have congestion charging, but it has successfully
reduced traffic to and in the inner city by implementing three
measures, preceded by a referendum early nineties. Introduction of
ever increasing parking rates, approaching € 5 per hour now; reducing
the number of parking places; introducing lots of one way streets. The
results are very good."

"On the other hand, where data for shrinkage is tough to come by,
evidence for the concept of induced capacity, whereby new roadway
space attracts more cars, is thoroughly described in journals and
traffic studies and is far more available."

"As long as people keep packing into the cities, you will have an ever
increasing problem. Traffic congestion is only one of them.

One thing some engineers here in the US have figured out is that there
is no possable solution. It boils down to a simple rule of human
behavior.If you give some one a space, they will fill it... ie. If you
add a road or tunnel to relieve congestion, more cars will show up. If
you cut back on the cars ( high parking fees etc.), then the space
will be filled with some thing else ( bikes, peddacabs, padestrians
etc.) If you want any chance of controling the problem, you have to
work with in this parrameter."

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

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> "Amsterdam does not have congestion charging, but it has successfully
> reduced traffic to and in the inner city by implementing three measures,
> preceded by a referendum early nineties. Introduction of ever increasing
> parking rates, approaching € 5 per hour now; reducing the number of
> parking places; introducing lots of one way streets.

Hey, maybe London could try those...

Oh, wait... €5/hr would be a massive reduction, there's virtually no 
parking places other than commercially run car parks, and I'm not 
entirely sure they COULD one-way any more streets...

> The results are very good."

As long as you're not actually trying to get anywhere to do business...

> "As long as people keep packing into the cities, you will have an ever
> increasing problem. Traffic congestion is only one of them.

Do you have an opinion on this para, Duhg?

On 8 Sep, 08:03, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > "Amsterdam does not have congestion charging, but it has successfully
> > reduced traffic to and in the inner city by implementing three measures> > preceded by a referendum early nineties. Introduction of ever increasing
> > parking rates, approaching € 5 per hour now; reducing the number of
> > parking places; introducing lots of one way streets.
>
> Hey, maybe London could try those...
>
> Oh, wait... €5/hr would be a massive reduction, there's virtually no
> parking places other than commercially run car parks, and I'm not
> entirely sure they COULD one-way any more streets...
>
> > The results are very good."
>
> As long as you're not actually trying to get anywhere to do business...
>
That is what public transport is for.
>
> > "As long as people keep packing into the cities, you will have an ever
> > increasing problem. Traffic congestion is only one of them.
>
> Do you have an opinion on this para, Duhg?

Yes, Adrain. Obviously increasing populations are an increasing
problem. However, there seems to be no net migration to cities from
rural areas, quite the reverse, and concreting over more green spaces
is a very bad idea. Limit all future building and concreting to cities
alone, preferably on brownfield sites.

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

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > "Amsterdam does not have congestion charging, but it has successfully
>> > reduced traffic to and in the inner city by implementing three
>> > measures, preceded by a referendum early nineties. Introduction of
>> > ever increasing parking rates, approaching € 5 per hour now; reducing
>> > the number of parking places; introducing lots of one way streets.

>> Hey, maybe London could try those...
>>
>> Oh, wait... €5/hr would be a massive reduction, there's virtually no
>> parking places other than commercially run car parks, and I'm not
>> entirely sure they COULD one-way any more streets...

>> > The results are very good."

>> As long as you're not actually trying to get anywhere to do business...

> That is what public transport is for.

You'd be the first to moan when your bus is delayed because somebody's 
trying to get several cubic metres of goods to be delivered in the doors.

Oh - and, just to remind you, there ain't no way that public transport 
will be economically viable without private cars sharing the roads. It 
just won't happen. The manufacture, distribution, infrastructure just 
will not be affordable.

>> > "As long as people keep packing into the cities, you will have an
>> > ever increasing problem. Traffic congestion is only one of them.

>> Do you have an opinion on this para, Duhg?

> Yes, Adrain. Obviously increasing populations are an increasing problem.
> However, there seems to be no net migration to cities from rural areas,
> quite the reverse, and concreting over more green spaces is a very bad
> idea. Limit all future building and concreting to cities alone,
> preferably on brownfield sites.

Which bit of "Traffic congestion is ONLY ONE of the ever increasing 
problems of packing people into cities" are you ignoring?

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 23:38:28 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

<snip>

>"As long as people keep packing into the cities, you will have an ever
>increasing problem. Traffic congestion is only one of them.

Correct. Now just remind me, who is it that wants us all living in
concrete blocks within cycling distance of work? 

>
>One thing some engineers here in the US have figured out

Only some? Presumably the others "figured out" something different.

> is that there
>is no possable solution. It boils down to a simple rule of human
>behavior.If you give some one a space, they will fill it... ie. If you
>add a road or tunnel to relieve congestion, more cars will show up. If
>you cut back on the cars ( high parking fees etc.), then the space
>will be filled with some thing else ( bikes, peddacabs, padestrians
>etc.) If you want any chance of controling the problem, you have to
>work with in this parrameter."

They'd be better employed trying to "figure out" spelling beyond the
standard of a 4 year old.

Derek

In article <128bafb0-509e-44bf-b8ef-76efa3715b55
@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> > As long as you're not actually trying to get anywhere to do business...
> >
> That is what public transport is for.
> 
For making sure you can't get to where you want when you need to? 
You're spot on there.


> Yes, Adrain. Obviously increasing populations are an increasing
> problem. However, there seems to be no net migration to cities from
> rural areas, quite the reverse, and concreting over more green spaces
> is a very bad idea. Limit all future building and concreting to cities
> alone, preferably on brownfield sites.
> 
But it was YOU, Doug, who WANTED everyone to move from the country to 
cities and its impossible to accommodate all of those people without 
building on greenfield sites. Then of course you have the problem about 
what to do with the people who work in farming.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

higher fuel costs have meant fewer drivers using their cars in the last few 
months so those who can (afford 2?) drive have beneffited

On the other hand the Greenies just hate cars so when they influence 
councils to muck about with timings of traffic lights causing congestion all 
they do is slow down traffic and increase  harmful emmissions - so where 
does that help the planet?

Doug  wrote:

> There is a discussion on the Carfree Network list 

Is there? How nice for them. Is it all bollocks like the stuff you
posted?

Doug wrote:

[ ... ]

> ... Obviously increasing populations are an increasing
> problem. However, there seems to be no net migration to cities from
> rural areas, quite the reverse, and concreting over more green spaces
> is a very bad idea. Limit all future building [...] to cities
> alone, preferably on brownfield sites.

As long as your term "cities" also includes large towns that don't have the 
status of a city, I couldn't agree more.

Well said.

One small point, however: where I have elided your comments above, you had 
the phrase "and concreting". I don't know what you mean by that biy, so can't 
agree with it. I would not be happy if I were prevented from widening the 
driveway of my non-urban home, for instance.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 23:38:28 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>There is a discussion on the Carfree Network list about induced
>demand, which is based on a theory that 'congestion is the only true
>limiting factor in unregulated traffic'.
>
>"Amsterdam does not have congestion charging, but it has successfully
>reduced traffic to and in the inner city by implementing three
>measures, preceded by a referendum early nineties. Introduction of
>ever increasing parking rates, approaching € 5 per hour now; reducing
>the number of parking places; introducing lots of one way streets. The
>results are very good."
>

It's not been sensible to take a car into Omsterdom for well over 20
years it's best left to the tourists, hippies, and junkies.

OTOH Den Haag / Scheveningen is very pleasant and accessible by car.

>"On the other hand, where data for shrinkage is tough to come by,
>evidence for the concept of induced capacity, whereby new roadway
>space attracts more cars, is thoroughly described in journals and
>traffic studies and is far more available."
>
>"As long as people keep packing into the cities, you will have an ever
>increasing problem. Traffic congestion is only one of them.
>
>One thing some engineers here in the US have figured out is that there
>is no possable solution.

While you are at the museum in Leeds (When you've found it) get them
to show you a "Posser".

>It boils down to a simple rule of human
>behavior.If you give some one a space, they will fill it... ie. If you
>add a road or tunnel to relieve congestion, more cars will show up. If
>you cut back on the cars ( high parking fees etc.), then the space
>will be filled with some thing else ( bikes, peddacabs, padestrians
>etc.) If you want any chance of controling the problem, you have to
>work with in this parrameter."

So that's it then get yourself a Prre-payment parrameter. 

Derek

On 8 Sep, 12:36, "Tommy"  wrote:
> higher fuel costs have meant fewer drivers using their cars in the last few
> months so those who can (afford 2?) drive have beneffited
>
> On the other hand the Greenies just hate cars so when they influence
> councils to muck about with timings of traffic lights causing congestion all
> they do is slow down traffic and increase  harmful emmissions - so where
> does that help the planet?
>
I am surprised that councils pay any attention to so-called
'Greenies', bearing in mind that most councils are dominated by
motorist councillors and employees. Traffic light phasing is supposed
to improve congestion surely? It also provides gaps in traffic where
vulnerable road users are able quickly to cross the road free from
death or injury and drivers waiting at side turnings are able to exit.

While the motorists on this newsgroup demand the right to drive as
fast as possible, and regardless of any consequences, they should
realise that if allowed it would lead to total chaos and a sharp
increase in road deaths and injuries.

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

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Traffic light phasing is supposed to improve congestion surely?

Only if your name is Livingstone. Otherwise, it's supposed to _reduce_ 
congestion.

On 9 Sep, 07:50, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > Traffic light phasing is supposed to improve congestion surely?
>
> Only if your name is Livingstone. Otherwise, it's supposed to _reduce_
> congestion.
>
Wrong as usual. Just because they seem to hold you up doesn't mean
everyone else is held up too. If you are held up that is to clear the
way for someone else.

http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=142612
http://www.leics.gov.uk/pressrelease.htm?id=118081

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

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > Traffic light phasing is supposed to improve congestion surely?

>> Only if your name is Livingstone. Otherwise, it's supposed to _reduce_
>> congestion.

> Wrong as usual. Just because they seem to hold you up doesn't mean
> everyone else is held up too. If you are held up that is to clear the
> way for someone else.

Doesn't your foot hurt, Duhg, with all those multiple gunshot wounds?

> http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=142612

Highways Agency Project Manager Paul Elliot said:
"The new intelligent traffic signals at both sites will help keep traffic 
flowing and significantly reduce congestion on the A556.

> http://www.leics.gov.uk/pressrelease.htm?id=118081

Nicholas Rushton, deputy leader of Leicestershire County Council with 
responsibility for Highways and Transportation, said: "The proposed 
changes at this location will bring about potential accident savings and 
reduce traffic congestion."

Oh, look, both of those links you posted to support your view of light 
phasing "improving congestion" - which we all know you mean to increase 
congestion - are clearly stated as REDUCING congestion, despite your 
assertion that by pointing that out I am "wrong as usual"...

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1imye14.1sbibex1vi2wyfN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Doug  wrote:
>
>> There is a discussion on the Carfree Network list
>
> Is there? How nice for them. Is it all bollocks like the stuff you
> posted?

I heared it was based on facts that are trues as your claims:)