Thursday 9 March 2017 12.00pm
Rambling Phil wrote:
Wasn't it Livingstone that slowed the traffic down in the first place. I don't know how stationary traffic will mean a healthy city.
Subways are the future (ahem).
I'm not sure what you mean about Mayor Livingstone slowing the traffic down. Following the introduction of the congestion charge, car and bus journey times decreased while journey times in most other cities increased because of increasing congestion.
nb The alternative to 'increased traffic flow' of motorised vehicles isn't stationary traffic. It's modal shift and demand reduction, and stationary traffic is a temporary incentive to these ends. People stop using their cars when they can't get anywhere in them.
Purely anecdotal on my part, but I wasn't the only one complaining about the red light position on traffic lights lasting for a lot longer all of a sudden, I remember that being quite a topic on LBC at the time.
No, modal shift, by it's very description creates stationary traffic. The reason pollution increases is because traffic isn't moving enough, that's a fact.
The deterrent argument doesn't hold with me either, it's not working. I walked down Webber st all of my life, I now do so to get to work, the stationary traffic is unprecedented, it's backed up from Blackfriars rd to King James street every single morning.
There was once a bus lane in Blackfriars rd, now they are a joke, no way would I mess about with buses if I had to get to Farringdon or Walworth rd, is that the kind of deterrent you mean? They don't hardly move anymore and spew out the most rotten crap fpr our kids to breathe in.