Science:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-everyone-to-pay-the-price-of-anarchy.html

I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of these 
ideas in the future.

tom

-- 
All London roads are part of MY London Cycle Network. I'd like to see
some of them removed from the London Motor Network! -- Ben Jefferys

Tom Anderson wrote:
> Science:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-everyone-to-pay-the-price-of-anarchy.html
>
> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of
> these ideas in the future.

Obviously if every side road off your commute between your home and your 
office was closed, this would speed up your journey. Unless you're Kim 
Jong-il, I don't see that as useful info.

On Sep 5, 2:52 pm, "John Rowland"
 wrote:
> Tom Anderson wrote:
> > Science:
>
> >http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-...
>
> > I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of
> > these ideas in the future.
>
> Obviously if every side road off your commute between your home and your
> office was closed, this would speed up your journey. Unless you're Kim
> Jong-il, I don't see that as useful info.

But that's not what's being claimed. What is being claimed is that by
closing certain links, journey time for everybody can be improved.

This isn't particularly new. However, I'm not sure anybody has
actually tried to predict which roads should be closed to improve
congestion. The wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27_paradox
gives a couple of examples where a new road increased congestion and
closing it relieved the congestion again. It also gives the example of
the closing of 42nd street in NYC reducing congestion - however I
don't know if that was luck or planning.

Note that this is different from the claim that new roads cause extra
traffic. This is the case when, everything else staying equal, opening
a new, fast, road can cause all the existing people to see increased
journey times without adding any new journeys.

Tim.

google@woodall.me.uk wrote:

> "John Rowland"  wrote:
>> Tom Anderson wrote:

>>> Science:

>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-...

>>> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of
>>> these ideas in the future.

>> Obviously if every side road off your commute between your home and your
>> office was closed, this would speed up your journey. Unless you're Kim
>> Jong-il, I don't see that as useful info.

> But that's not what's being claimed. What is being claimed is that by
> closing certain links, journey time for everybody can be improved.

Indeed. It looks like good, well-informed and useful research.

Certain road schemes in the UK have actually been built with the same sort of 
consideration in mind - and that's going back over four decades. The 
best-known example may well be the M6/A452 junction at Castle Bromwich (then 
in Warwickshire), opened to traffic in 1971. The junction:

<http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.509339,-1.792595&spn=0.009899,0.019312&z=16>

... has slip roads which face only to the east, a move designed to prevent 
commuting along the M6 from Castle Bromwich to the A38(M) at Gravelly Hill 
and thence to Birmingham City Centre.

> This isn't particularly new.

Precisely. But there is always room for proper theoretical and empirical 
research in order to test what is often thought of as "common sense".

Perhaps, eventually, some of those junctions along the northern edge of the 
M25 (J26 A121, anyone?) will be shut (except for emergency access and egress) 
in order to prevent traffic being slowed by rush-hour joiners. I'm fairly 
sure that the M25 was never meant to facilitate access to Waltham Abbey in 
any event.

> However, I'm not sure anybody has
> actually tried to predict which roads should be closed to improve
> congestion. The wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27_paradox
> gives a couple of examples where a new road increased congestion and
> closing it relieved the congestion again. It also gives the example of
> the closing of 42nd street in NYC reducing congestion - however I
> don't know if that was luck or planning.

> Note that this is different from the claim that new roads cause extra
> traffic. This is the case when, everything else staying equal, opening
> a new, fast, road can cause all the existing people to see increased
> journey times without adding any new journeys.

Again, this is an obvious point. Those who claim that you can't build your 
way out of congestion should stop for a moment and ask themselves what would 
happen in London if the M25 (including the Dartford Crossing) was closed to 
traffic.

And then they should ask themselves whether bilding/re-opening the M25 (they 
amount to the same thing) would relieve congestion or not.

On 5 Sep, 12:26, Tom Anderson  wrote:
> Science:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-...
>
> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of these
> ideas in the future.
>
The source says:

"Uncoordinated individuals in human society pursuing their personally
optimal strategies do not always achieve the social optimum, the most
beneficial state to the society as a whole. Instead, strategies form
Nash equilibria which are often socially suboptimal. Society,
therefore, has to pay a price of anarchy for the lack of coordination
among its members."

Or in other words, selfish drivers do not serve the common good and
give anarchists a bad name. Well, we knew that already didn't we.

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

On 5 Sep, 20:09, JNugent  wrote:
> goo...@woodall.me.uk wrote:
> > "John Rowland"  wrote:
> >> Tom Anderson wrote:
> >>> Science:
> >>>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-...
> >>> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of
> >>> these ideas in the future.
> >> Obviously if every side road off your commute between your home and your
> >> office was closed, this would speed up your journey. Unless you're Kim
> >> Jong-il, I don't see that as useful info.
> > But that's not what's being claimed. What is being claimed is that by
> > closing certain links, journey time for everybody can be improved.
>
> Indeed. It looks like good, well-informed and useful research.
>
> Certain road schemes in the UK have actually been built with the same sort of
> consideration in mind - and that's going back over four decades. The
> best-known example may well be the M6/A452 junction at Castle Bromwich (then
> in Warwickshire), opened to traffic in 1971. The junction:
>
> <http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.509339,-1.792595&spn=0.009899...>
>
> ... has slip roads which face only to the east, a move designed to prevent
> commuting along the M6 from Castle Bromwich to the A38(M) at Gravelly Hill
> and thence to Birmingham City Centre.
>
> > This isn't particularly new.
>
> Precisely. But there is always room for proper theoretical and empirical
> research in order to test what is often thought of as "common sense".
>
> Perhaps, eventually, some of those junctions along the northern edge of the
> M25 (J26 A121, anyone?) will be shut (except for emergency access and egress)
> in order to prevent traffic being slowed by rush-hour joiners. I'm fairly
> sure that the M25 was never meant to facilitate access to Waltham Abbey in
> any event.
>
> > However, I'm not sure anybody has
> > actually tried to predict which roads should be closed to improve
> > congestion. The wiki page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27_paradox
> > gives a couple of examples where a new road increased congestion and
> > closing it relieved the congestion again. It also gives the example of
> > the closing of 42nd street in NYC reducing congestion - however I
> > don't know if that was luck or planning.
> > Note that this is different from the claim that new roads cause extra
> > traffic. This is the case when, everything else staying equal, opening
> > a new, fast, road can cause all the existing people to see increased
> > journey times without adding any new journeys.
>
> Again, this is an obvious point. Those who claim that you can't build your
> way out of congestion should stop for a moment and ask themselves what would
> happen in London if the M25 (including the Dartford Crossing) was closed to
> traffic.
>
> And then they should ask themselves whether bilding/re-opening the M25 (they
> amount to the same thing) would relieve congestion or not.
>
Closing the M25 would cause massive congestion which in turn would
reduce traffic journeys. After a period of adjustment it is likely
that more people would leave their cars at home and a state of
equilibrium would finally be reached again, but with less traffic.
What you have to realise is that there is a high proportion of non-
essential journeys made which are actively encouraged by perpetual
roadbuilding and these impede essential journeys, such as food
deliveries.

Some means has to be found of combating the anti-social and anti-
environmental habits of many motorists, instead of always giving in to
their unreasonable consumerist demands.

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

Doug wrote:
> On 5 Sep, 20:09, JNugent  wrote:
>> goo...@woodall.me.uk wrote:
>>> "John Rowland"  wrote:
>>>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>>>> Science:
>>>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-...
>>>>> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of
>>>>> these ideas in the future.
>>>> Obviously if every side road off your commute between your home and your
>>>> office was closed, this would speed up your journey. Unless you're Kim
>>>> Jong-il, I don't see that as useful info.
>>> But that's not what's being claimed. What is being claimed is that by
>>> closing certain links, journey time for everybody can be improved.
>> Indeed. It looks like good, well-informed and useful research.
>>
>> Certain road schemes in the UK have actually been built with the same sort of
>> consideration in mind - and that's going back over four decades. The
>> best-known example may well be the M6/A452 junction at Castle Bromwich (then
>> in Warwickshire), opened to traffic in 1971. The junction:
>>
>> <http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.509339,-1.792595&spn=0.009899...>
>>
>> ... has slip roads which face only to the east, a move designed to prevent
>> commuting along the M6 from Castle Bromwich to the A38(M) at Gravelly Hill
>> and thence to Birmingham City Centre.
>>
>>> This isn't particularly new.
>> Precisely. But there is always room for proper theoretical and empirical
>> research in order to test what is often thought of as "common sense".
>>
>> Perhaps, eventually, some of those junctions along the northern edge of the
>> M25 (J26 A121, anyone?) will be shut (except for emergency access and egress)
>> in order to prevent traffic being slowed by rush-hour joiners. I'm fairly
>> sure that the M25 was never meant to facilitate access to Waltham Abbey in
>> any event.
>>
>>> However, I'm not sure anybody has
>>> actually tried to predict which roads should be closed to improve
>>> congestion. The wiki page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27_paradox
>>> gives a couple of examples where a new road increased congestion and
>>> closing it relieved the congestion again. It also gives the example of
>>> the closing of 42nd street in NYC reducing congestion - however I
>>> don't know if that was luck or planning.
>>> Note that this is different from the claim that new roads cause extra
>>> traffic. This is the case when, everything else staying equal, opening
>>> a new, fast, road can cause all the existing people to see increased
>>> journey times without adding any new journeys.
>> Again, this is an obvious point. Those who claim that you can't build your
>> way out of congestion should stop for a moment and ask themselves what would
>> happen in London if the M25 (including the Dartford Crossing) was closed to
>> traffic.
>>
>> And then they should ask themselves whether bilding/re-opening the M25 (they
>> amount to the same thing) would relieve congestion or not.
>>
> Closing the M25 would cause massive congestion which in turn would
> reduce traffic journeys. After a period of adjustment it is likely
> that more people would leave their cars at home and a state of
> equilibrium would finally be reached again, but with less traffic.
> What you have to realise is that there is a high proportion of non-
> essential journeys made which are actively encouraged by perpetual
> roadbuilding and these impede essential journeys, such as food
> deliveries.
> 
> Some means has to be found of combating the anti-social and anti-
> environmental habits of many motorists, instead of always giving in to
> their unreasonable consumerist demands.
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.


But thousands of people would be unable to get to work, would not get 
paid and would consequently not pay any tax. That would mean that *your* 
State cream-off would be seriously at risk.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Doug wrote:
> Closing the M25 would cause massive congestion which in turn would
> reduce traffic journeys. After a period of adjustment it is likely
> that more people would leave their cars at home and a state of
> equilibrium would finally be reached again, but with less traffic.
> What you have to realise is that there is a high proportion of non-
> essential journeys made which are actively encouraged by perpetual
> roadbuilding and these impede essential journeys, such as food
> deliveries.

There seems to be a new phrase we can add to the list of Dougisms, 
"perpetual roadbuilding".

(Dougism = a word, term or phrase previously shown to be wrong in fact.)

> Some means has to be found of combating the anti-social and anti-
> environmental habits of many motorists, instead of always giving in to
> their unreasonable consumerist demands.

So what would your solution be Doug? Starting from the basis that people 
are, by their very nature, consumers.

Doug wrote:
> On 5 Sep, 12:26, Tom Anderson  wrote:
>> Science:
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-...
>>
>> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of
>> these ideas in the future.
>>
> The source says:
>
> "Uncoordinated individuals in human society pursuing their personally
> optimal strategies do not always achieve the social optimum, the most
> beneficial state to the society as a whole. Instead, strategies form
> Nash equilibria which are often socially suboptimal. Society,
> therefore, has to pay a price of anarchy for the lack of coordination
> among its members."
>
> Or in other words, selfish drivers do not serve the common good and
> give anarchists a bad name. Well, we knew that already didn't we.

No Doug, people behave like that whether they are drivers or not. Anarchists 
are by nature selfish.

google@woodall.me.uk wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2:52 pm, "John Rowland"
>  wrote:
>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>> Science:
>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-...
>>> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of
>>> these ideas in the future.
>> Obviously if every side road off your commute between your home and your
>> office was closed, this would speed up your journey. ...
> But that's not what's being claimed. What is being claimed is that by
> closing certain links, journey time for everybody can be improved.

Assuming:-
- that 'everybody' includes only motorised road users
- that those whose journeys are lengthened drive faster to compensate

And it's been happening for years, with the twin aims of getting motor 
traffic onto the main corridors and keeping it moving there.

The result is a much less permeable network, with increased journey 
distance, increased free-flowing traffic speeds, reduced lane widths, 
and kerbside barriers everywhere.

It's hard to see how they could have done any more to discourage 
cycling, and it's nearly as bad for pedestrians.

Colin McKenzie

-- 
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the 
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Tom Anderson wrote:
> Science:
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-everyone-to-pay-the-price-of-anarchy.html 

  "selfish driving causes everyone to pay the price" must have been 
known since at least 1868, when the first traffic lights were installed.

> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of 
> these ideas in the future.

  Resequencing the lights in London? No need to actually close roads.

Brimstone wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 5 Sep, 12:26, Tom Anderson  wrote:
>>> Science:
>>>
>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-...
>>>
>>> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of
>>> these ideas in the future.
>>>
>> The source says:
>>
>> "Uncoordinated individuals in human society pursuing their personally
>> optimal strategies do not always achieve the social optimum, the most
>> beneficial state to the society as a whole. Instead, strategies form
>> Nash equilibria which are often socially suboptimal. Society,

Do you really understand what a Nash equilibrium is Duhg?

>> therefore, has to pay a price of anarchy for the lack of coordination
>> among its members."
>>
>> Or in other words, selfish drivers do not serve the common good and
>> give anarchists a bad name. Well, we knew that already didn't we.
> 
> No Doug, people behave like that whether they are drivers or not. Anarchists 
> are by nature selfish. 

True anarchism requires more empathy between people. Its people that are 
selfish, that's why anarchism will never work, and also why Duhg isn't 
one. He's too selfish.




-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 6 Sep, 10:11, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 5 Sep, 12:26, Tom Anderson  wrote:
> >> Science:
>
> >>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-...
>
> >> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of
> >> these ideas in the future.
>
> > The source says:
>
> > "Uncoordinated individuals in human society pursuing their personally
> > optimal strategies do not always achieve the social optimum, the most
> > beneficial state to the society as a whole. Instead, strategies form
> > Nash equilibria which are often socially suboptimal. Society,
> > therefore, has to pay a price of anarchy for the lack of coordination
> > among its members."
>
> > Or in other words, selfish drivers do not serve the common good and
> > give anarchists a bad name. Well, we knew that already didn't we.
>
> No Doug, people behave like that whether they are drivers or not. Anarchists
> are by nature selfish.

As usual you fail to demonstrate any understanding of anarchy.

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

On 6 Sep, 19:28, John Wright  wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> >> On 5 Sep, 12:26, Tom Anderson  wrote:
> >>> Science:
>
> >>>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-...
>
> >>> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of
> >>> these ideas in the future.
>
> >> The source says:
>
> >> "Uncoordinated individuals in human society pursuing their personally
> >> optimal strategies do not always achieve the social optimum, the most
> >> beneficial state to the society as a whole. Instead, strategies form
> >> Nash equilibria which are often socially suboptimal. Society,
>
> Do you really understand what a Nash equilibrium is Duhg?
>
Relevance of question? Exactly how would an understanding of Nash
equilibria or not influence an understanding of 'socially suboptimal'?
>
> >> therefore, has to pay a price of anarchy for the lack of coordination
> >> among its members."
>
> >> Or in other words, selfish drivers do not serve the common good and
> >> give anarchists a bad name. Well, we knew that already didn't we.
>
> > No Doug, people behave like that whether they are drivers or not. Anarchists
> > are by nature selfish.
>
> True anarchism requires more empathy between people.
>
Thank you, at last.
>
> Its people that are
> selfish, that's why anarchism will never work, and also why Duhg isn't
> one. He's too selfish.
>
Anarchism has been shown to work on a small scale, Gohn, but the
problem is governments would never allow it to work on a much larger
scale as it would mean them forfeiting much of the power they have
over the people.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug wrote:
> On 6 Sep, 19:28, John Wright  wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 5 Sep, 12:26, Tom Anderson  wrote:
>>>>> Science:
>>
>>>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-...
>>
>>>>> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development
>>>>> of these ideas in the future.
>>
>>>> The source says:
>>
>>>> "Uncoordinated individuals in human society pursuing their
>>>> personally optimal strategies do not always achieve the social
>>>> optimum, the most beneficial state to the society as a whole.
>>>> Instead, strategies form Nash equilibria which are often socially
>>>> suboptimal. Society,
>>
>> Do you really understand what a Nash equilibrium is Duhg?
>>
> Relevance of question? Exactly how would an understanding of Nash
> equilibria or not influence an understanding of 'socially suboptimal'?
>>
>>>> therefore, has to pay a price of anarchy for the lack of
>>>> coordination among its members."
>>
>>>> Or in other words, selfish drivers do not serve the common good and
>>>> give anarchists a bad name. Well, we knew that already didn't we.
>>
>>> No Doug, people behave like that whether they are drivers or not.
>>> Anarchists are by nature selfish.
>>
>> True anarchism requires more empathy between people.
>>
> Thank you, at last.
>>
>> Its people that are
>> selfish, that's why anarchism will never work, and also why Duhg
>> isn't one. He's too selfish.
>>
> Anarchism has been shown to work on a small scale, Gohn, but the
> problem is governments would never allow it to work on a much larger
> scale as it would mean them forfeiting much of the power they have
> over the people.

How would you deal with those people who only want to take advantage of 
those who are happy to live in co-operation with everyone else?

Doug wrote:
> On 6 Sep, 10:11, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 5 Sep, 12:26, Tom Anderson  wrote:
>>>> Science:
>>
>>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-...
>>
>>>> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development
>>>> of these ideas in the future.
>>
>>> The source says:
>>
>>> "Uncoordinated individuals in human society pursuing their
>>> personally optimal strategies do not always achieve the social
>>> optimum, the most beneficial state to the society as a whole.
>>> Instead, strategies form Nash equilibria which are often socially
>>> suboptimal. Society, therefore, has to pay a price of anarchy for
>>> the lack of coordination among its members."
>>
>>> Or in other words, selfish drivers do not serve the common good and
>>> give anarchists a bad name. Well, we knew that already didn't we.
>>
>> No Doug, people behave like that whether they are drivers or not.
>> Anarchists are by nature selfish.
>
> As usual you fail to demonstrate any understanding of anarchy.

As usual, you fail to deal with the primary point.

Doug  wrote:

> As usual you fail to demonstrate any understanding of anarchy.

Oh, the irony.

In message 
, 
Doug  writes
>> Do you really understand what a Nash equilibrium is Duhg?
>>
>Relevance of question? Exactly how would an understanding of Nash
>equilibria or not influence an understanding of 'socially suboptimal'?
That's a NO then.
-- 
Clive

Doug  wrote:

> > True anarchism requires more empathy between people.
> >
> Thank you, at last.

Hence a reason why a sociopath like you can never be an anarchist.

Doug wrote:
> On 6 Sep, 19:28, John Wright  wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 5 Sep, 12:26, Tom Anderson  wrote:
>>>>> Science:
>>>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-selfish-driving-causes-...
>>>>> I look forward to reading the paper, and to following development of
>>>>> these ideas in the future.
>>>> The source says:
>>>> "Uncoordinated individuals in human society pursuing their personally
>>>> optimal strategies do not always achieve the social optimum, the most
>>>> beneficial state to the society as a whole. Instead, strategies form
>>>> Nash equilibria which are often socially suboptimal. Society,
>> Do you really understand what a Nash equilibrium is Duhg?
>>
> Relevance of question? Exactly how would an understanding of Nash
> equilibria or not influence an understanding of 'socially suboptimal'?
>>>> therefore, has to pay a price of anarchy for the lack of coordination
>>>> among its members."
>>>> Or in other words, selfish drivers do not serve the common good and
>>>> give anarchists a bad name. Well, we knew that already didn't we.
>>> No Doug, people behave like that whether they are drivers or not. Anarchists
>>> are by nature selfish.
>> True anarchism requires more empathy between people.
>>
> Thank you, at last.
>> Its people that are
>> selfish, that's why anarchism will never work, and also why Duhg isn't
>> one. He's too selfish.
>>
> Anarchism has been shown to work on a small scale, Gohn, but the
> problem is governments would never allow it to work on a much larger
> scale as it would mean them forfeiting much of the power they have
> over the people.

Not for any length of time or on any scale. Hence it will never work. As 
George Orwell (who I know you dislike) observed, some animals are more 
equal than others - this always happens. Governments would not have any 
option other than a military one if it came to the crunch - as happened 
in Spain where the commune was smashed (or bombed to bits) by the 
fascists of Franco with the aid of Hitler's Germany, as I'm sure you know.

Would you really expect any non anarchist government to come to their 
aid? Any anarchist society must also be prepared to stand alone.


-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:09:52 +0100, JNugent
 wrote:
>
>Again, this is an obvious point. Those who claim that you can't build your 
>way out of congestion should stop for a moment and ask themselves what would 
>happen in London if the M25 (including the Dartford Crossing) was closed to 
>traffic.

And people that do think that you can build your way out of congestion
should stop for a moment and ask themselves if the M25 does work at
8am on a rainy Monday morning in December.

Prior to the M25 hardly anyone would have considered living one side
of London and working the other. Now the M25 exists people do.

People will put up with a certain level of 'crapness' in a journey. If
it is too crap then they either won't start doing it or will stop
doing it. 

The M1 is being expanded into 4 lanes into London, will that solve the
congestion problems on that road? It would if only the vehicles that
currently use it, use it in the future. But as the road will become
less crap when the 4 lanes open, then more people will start using the
M1, until it degenerates again into the current level of crapness. So
you may get a small window of improvement, but it fixes nothing over
time.

JB wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:

>> Again, this is an obvious point. Those who claim that you can't build your 
>> way out of congestion should stop for a moment and ask themselves what would 
>> happen in London if the M25 (including the Dartford Crossing) was closed to 
>> traffic.

> And people that do think that you can build your way out of congestion
> should stop for a moment and ask themselves if the M25 does work at
> 8am on a rainy Monday morning in December.

Compared to the alternative(s), of course it does, both for the traffic 
travelling on it and for the roads it relieves (Dorking, anyone?).

> Prior to the M25 hardly anyone would have considered living one side
> of London and working the other. Now the M25 exists people do.

People keep saying this, and it is possible that there are a few examples, 
but by and large, the same quantification ("hardly anyone") applies both 
before and after the construction of the M25. Living in Kingston and working 
in Brentwood is not new.

> People will put up with a certain level of 'crapness' in a journey. If
> it is too crap then they either won't start doing it or will stop
> doing it. 

And?

> The M1 is being expanded into 4 lanes into London, will that solve the
> congestion problems on that road? It would if only the vehicles that
> currently use it, use it in the future. But as the road will become
> less crap when the 4 lanes open, then more people will start using the
> M1, until it degenerates again into the current level of crapness. So
> you may get a small window of improvement, but it fixes nothing over
> time.

If you were right about that (you aren't), every town and village along the 
line of the routes superseded by the motorway network (cf: Holmes Chapel, or 
Talke Pits, or Stone) would be as congested today as they were in the summer 
of 1958. They aren't.

Similarly, if you were right about that (you aren't), it would still take 12 
hours to drive from (say) Preston to London. It doesn't, except in unusual 
conditions where a road is closed due to an accident or incident trapping 
traffic on a motorway with no means of escape until the incident is cleared. 
I'll admit that one good thing about the A50 was that you could abandon your 
journey, do a three-pointer and go home.

In message , at 09:39:10 on 
Sun, 14 Sep 2008, JB  remarked:
>And people that do think that you can build your way out of congestion
>should stop for a moment and ask themselves if the M25 does work at
>8am on a rainy Monday morning in December.

Just because it has problems at specific times and location doesn't mean 
that overall it's not an improvement. As someone who weekly-commuted 
between Essex and Reading, even a congested M25 beats what was there 
before.
-- 
Roland Perry