# London Traffic



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

AArrrh this only ever seems to get worse....im fed up with it....
why why cant some of these business looking poeple get sodding public transport and use the train, surely they dont really really need to drive.

Some people like me who is not on a train route need to drive and get stuck cos of your stupid snobby use of a car rather than using a train.

I know at least one friend who drives from Hatfield into the congestion charge zone purley cos he doesnt like trains !!! arh get these poeple off the road and we woudl all benefit.....

Sod congestion charging lets ban cars totally during pesk hours! me for mayor.....

sorry i needed to get that off my chest......


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

Errr, please correct me if I am wrong - as you don't use the train, you would ban yourself?


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

jonhaff said:


> AArrrh this only ever seems to get worse....im fed up with it....
> why why cant some of these business looking poeple get sodding public transport and use the train, surely they dont really really need to drive.
> 
> Some people like me who is not on a train route need to drive and get stuck cos of your stupid snobby use of a car rather than using a train.
> ...


I always use the train when I have to go to London so fast so comfortable so easy and best of all ITS FREE :lol:


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Nice one Walls.

The bus is also FREE if you pretend to be on the phone when the ticket inspector comes round he won't ask you for a ticket again!!

Free Ride


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

Do see your friends point. By the time you get of the cattle shuttle, your nicely ironed shirt is creased, your suit has picked up alien substances and your "box fresh shoes" look old :? 
No thanks! the smell of the trains in rush hour is enough to put you off eating, and as for the tubes - j3sus ! half the people who get on them must be into greenpeace, why else do they refuse to use anti-perspirants ?


----------



## dimitt (Apr 21, 2004)

got to agree with Ronin.... and I am the only one who sits next to the garlic eating geek?

(given the choice - and lack of traffic - i would def drive to work too!
but its not just worth it unfo...  )


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

Your rant is unerstandable but flawed.

When public transport becomes clean, affordable, safe, reliable, etc I'll use it.

Till then I'm paying Â£6 a day parking and Â£5 a day congestion charge and putting up with the jams


----------



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

Guy said:


> Errr, please correct me if I am wrong - as you don't use the train, you would ban yourself?


Not quite cos i am lucky enough to work in SLough but get caught up in all the other idiots trying to get into London via M40/M3/M4/A41/M25 !


----------



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

s3_lurker said:


> Your rant is unerstandable but flawed.
> 
> When public transport becomes clean, affordable, safe, reliable, etc I'll use it.
> 
> Till then I'm paying Â£6 a day parking and Â£5 a day congestion charge and putting up with the jams


agreed but its exactly this short sightedness that now causes traffic jams which are not necessary if everyone was a little more less self centred. Yes the trains are smelly and overcrowded but thats not the point...... u could use the train and it woudl probably be faster even if a bit smelly and be more environmently freindly and casue less over all traffic.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

And public transport is FUCKING USELESS because (as I have discovered) to get from ANYWHERE in the known world to Hatfield, you have to go INTO London and back OUT again...

FUCKING RIDICULOUS.

They seem to have entirely bypassed the concept of going from A to B via a "normal" route, and seem instead to believe London to be the geographical centre of the UK. So to get to Hatfield from (say) Cardiff or Worcester, you can't just travel close by, and get a connecting train. Oh no. Way too fucking clever. You have to travel into that cesspit known as London, GET ON THE FUCKING TUBE, cross from one mainline station to another, then travel back out again.

This makes the journey time FAR longer than going by car.

Wankers.


----------



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

agree totally with you jampott but thats not the point of my flame....
the point is people that do live nr a station and could use it bloody dont mainly through snobbery (and a feble excuss its smelly or overcrowded).

If you dont live nr a station then thats ok im not including you!!

on the other hand i agree that if all those that did use it then we would have more overcrowding, but until you actually do this 'they' will assume what crappy service they offer now is good enough (no pain no gain)
this would i hope result in less people driving and ease the cronic traffic problem we have resulting in reducing my time to work (who does have to drive to work due to exactly the point you made no cross country route to Slough from Herts.)

OK im having a bad day....but this is the flame room...


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

You can't have connections from every place to every other place so you should choose where to live based on your normal travel arrangements (among other things).

I take a bus to the train station and then a train to the office. I could drive to the station. I could drive to the office. Public transport, if you organise yourself works 90odd% of the time. It's normally the people who don't give it a chance that don't realise it can work.

I've now been commuting for nearly 10years. I wonder how many hours I've used for reading, emailing, writing, sleeping, etc that would otherwise have been wasted in driving.

Don't get me wrong I love driving but I also recognise that it's not always the answer.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Just in case anyone thinks I dodge the fare I work for a TOC (train operating company) and blame those pesky Victorians who thought London and not Hatfield was the centre of the universe,although having lived in Hatfield for a few years when I was young I dont blame them


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

wallsendmag said:


> Just in case anyone thinks I dodge the fare I work for a TOC (train operating company) and blame those pesky Victorians who thought London and not Hatfield was the centre of the universe,although having lived in Hatfield for a few years when I was young I dont blame them


Indeed. Back in the days when the railways were being built different train companies built different lines connecting the most popular places. London has always been a popular destination, which is why routes tended to start there. 
Of course, the private rail companies were in competition with each other, unlike now, where pretty much everywhere south-west of London is served by a single company who can charge that the hell they want. etc etc rant rant.

There's a map on this page which shows what the railways used to be like. Not that I remember any of it.


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

jonhaff said:


> Guy said:
> 
> 
> > Errr, please correct me if I am wrong - as you don't use the train, you would ban yourself?
> ...


Ahem...I'm one of them :wink:


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

I drive in when the weathers wet and refuse to use trains. Disgusting, smelly, overcrowded, unreliable and outdated. :evil:

Share the ride with someone and split the CC and parking and it's cheaper as well.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

London traffic is great.

I just love the way they have converted nice dual-carriageways into single lane roads with a brightly coloured bus-lane. It must be cheap to do & really helps reduce congestion, because every bus I see is completely empty & producing more noxious gas than a 747...


----------



## StuarTT (May 7, 2002)

> .... and I am the only one who sits next to the garlic eating geek?


Travel first class, you get a richer/better type of garlic eating geek! :wink:

R1, I like your sigpic. :twisted:[smiley=whip.gif]


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

jgoodman00 said:


> London traffic is great.
> 
> I just love the way they have converted nice dual-carriageways into single lane roads with a brightly coloured bus-lane. It must be cheap to do & really helps reduce congestion, because every bus I see is completely empty & producing more noxious gas than a 747...


Isn't it great that Ken fuckwit Livingston bangs on about how many more buses there are now. Of course, all of the extra buses are off-peak and empty, like you say, and during rush hour they're as full as ever because you can't physically fit anyone else on.

I was sitting in the window of a Restaurant on Putney high street last week and the road was as clogged as usual. But about 70-80% of the road space was taken up by buses, none of which had more than 4 people on them. 
But we all love diesel fumes don't we?

Incidently, did you know that the buses in London used to break even before Livingston came in? Now we all pay through our noses via council tax to "improve" London's transport. Of course, the private bus companies still get their profits.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

Bendy buses :evil:


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

So everyone slated public transport because it wasn't frequent enough or was standing room only and now buses are everywhere and there's loads of room this is wrong as well.

What exactly are your proposals to enable everyone to get to work easier and quicker?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

scoTTy said:


> You can't have connections from every place to every other place so you should choose where to live based on your normal travel arrangements (among other things).
> 
> I take a bus to the train station and then a train to the office. I could drive to the station. I could drive to the office. Public transport, if you organise yourself works 90odd% of the time. It's normally the people who don't give it a chance that don't realise it can work.
> 
> ...


No you can't have connections from every place to every other place.

But where *I* come from, its pretty normal to be able to get around on public transport quite well, and be able to get from A to B without a detour into a major city...

It seems that London is a black-hole of public transport. Noone can design a route that goes NEAR it without actually going INTO it.

It's no wonder London is such an overcrowded shithole, if every c.unting rail company routes INTO it not AROUND it....!!

Public transport for me is simply not a viable alternative. I think the travel time from Cardiff is something like 3:37 by train, including 2 changes. Set off from Cardiff at the crack of dawn, arrive in Paddington, get on the tube, go accross London, then leave whatever station serves Hatfield, arriving at Hatfield about an hour later than if I'd travelled by car. Now if the trains had their own equivalent of the M25, I could change somewhere between Reading and Heathrow, go AROUND London, and arrive there nice and quickly, without having to go accross London on the tube... making things much more pleasant for me, and taking some overcrowding away from London (and the M25 / M4!) but no... its not possible.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > You can't have connections from every place to every other place so you should choose where to live based on your normal travel arrangements (among other things).
> ...


Agree on the London comments - pleased I left a few years back - but still have to go in often.

2 choices for me:

1. Train for Bristol Parkway to Paddington; cab/tube to City.
2. Drive as far as Hammersmith, then tube/cab to City.

Both can be a pain.

ps I go from Bristol to Hatfield (Computacenter) once or twice per week. 2 1/2 hours is possible, without driving madly, _if_ you time it right. If it goes wrong, it can be an absolute nightmare M4, A404M, M40, M25, A1M = many chances for hold ups


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

They should legalise motorised scooters like I suggested on the Off Topic forum.

They allow for people to be lazy, dont pollute at all, take up almost no space, & are cheap...

http://www.funriderscooters.co.uk/


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

r1 said:


> I drive in when the weathers wet and refuse to use trains. Disgusting, smelly, overcrowded, unreliable and outdated. :evil:


Isn't there an irony, where so many would happily crowd themselves into city bars and pubs that display all those traits, with the addition of smoke for extra comfort . :wink:


----------



## dimitt (Apr 21, 2004)

Alcohol is the added ingredient there mate!!!!

Maybe they should sell overpriced beer on the tubes.....


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > scoTTy said:
> ...


Gary

If you want to "do lunch" or even just admire the Zed, let me know. I'm just over the other side of the Business Park (T Mobile)....


----------



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

Ken got it wrong just to provide more busses, from what everyone in here seems to think if they cleaned them better then people might think about actually using them.

You cant just provide more of somethign and expect people to use it.... they only way to get people on to it would be to make it cheaper. they shoudl do a free day and see how many poeple use it...would be interesting to see.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

jonhaff said:


> Ken got it wrong just to provide more busses, from what everyone in here seems to think if they cleaned them better then people might think about actually using them.
> 
> You cant just provide more of somethign and expect people to use it.... they only way to get people on to it would be to make it cheaper. they shoudl do a free day and see how many poeple use it...would be interesting to see.


Its the same with almost all public transport in Britain. Trains, buses etc are old, knackered, dirty & smelly. In the case of trains, the tracks are knackered. There are parts of the met line where it is so bumpy you could probably get wiplash!


----------



## dimitt (Apr 21, 2004)

jgoodman..you;ve got it totally right, the whole train / tude system is accident waiting to happen, its a matter of time!

[smiley=end.gif]


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


Doh. I was there yesterday with time to kill. Will do - I am away in Germany next week - but will IM you after for pint/sarnie and to admire the Zed.


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

dimitt said:


> jgoodman..you;ve got it totally right, the whole train / tude system is accident waiting to happen, its a matter of time!
> 
> [smiley=end.gif]


WAITING to happen? Ever heard of Potters Bar and Ladbroke Grove?


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

jampott said:


> And public transport is FUCKING USELESS because (as I have discovered) to get from ANYWHERE in the known world to Hatfield, you have to go INTO London and back OUT again...
> 
> FUCKING RIDICULOUS.
> 
> They seem to have entirely bypassed the concept of going from A to B via a "normal" route, and seem instead to believe London to be the geographical centre of the UK. .


I think you can blame the Romans for that, and then Beeching for cutting off most of the branch lines. The Conservatives, and Labour ignored the concept that reliable, cheap and subsidised public transport, can actually be good for the economy. No, they'd rather turn it into a money making business for fat cats and shareholders, or spend the money on the welfare state ...

I have a similar commuting problem. I could use the train, but I would have to travel into Liverpool street, and then travel out to Docklands, where I work. It would take twice as long, and cost twice as much, so I use the car.

But the trains aren't that bad. Location, location, location. I moved house last year, I specifically chose somewhere with good travel connections, so that I wouldn't be reliant on the car all of the time. I can walk to the station, catch a train, be in Bishops Stortford, or Stansted Airport in 5 minutes, or London Liverpool Street in 40. If we're out for the evening, it's easier to go by train, as we have no worries about parking, or drinking ...


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

So apart from legalising motorised scooters and making public transport free for a day, I don't think I've seen any suggestions on how to improve it. I thought with all the complaining this forum must be bristling with great ideas :?

With regards cleanliness of public transport - the buses I get are clean 90% of the time and the worst I have seen is dirt from possibly two or three weeks. Inside they are always clean.

The trains I get are a mix of old and new. Regardless of this they appear clean. Virtually everytime we come into Liverpool Street a cleaner gets on as everyone else gets off.

I get the impression that there are a lot of old fashioned ideas being posted. Perhaps people just prefer their cars and are scared of not having a good reason to stay in them. I would also like to use my car, and when working at weekends and on Bank Holidays I do as it's easier and a little quicker (due to public transport down gearing at weekends)

I'm sure there's a lot worse services around but how many people actually give them a good try?


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

scoTTy said:


> So apart from legalising motorised scooters and making public transport free for a day, I don't think I've seen any suggestions on how to improve it. I thought with all the complaining this forum must be bristling with great ideas :?
> 
> With regards cleanliness of public transport - the buses I get are clean 90% of the time and the worst I have seen is dirt from possibly two or three weeks. Inside they are always clean.
> 
> ...


Do what they did in europe get someone else to bomb the s**t out of your transport system and then get them to pay for a nice shiny new one


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

wallsendmag said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > So apart from legalising motorised scooters and making public transport free for a day, I don't think I've seen any suggestions on how to improve it. I thought with all the complaining this forum must be bristling with great ideas :?
> ...


Close all the schools down and end the school run for good. :wink:


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

I use public transport every day for commuting into the City from home in SW London. It's actually not too bad - I have 3 possible routes as well so if there's a problem on the tubes, I just go on the overground.

The privatisation of the railway system was a disaster. But the subsequent nationalisation of it was even worse. The whole thing is a cock up - for example, it's ridiculous that it is cheaper to fly to Scotland from London than it is to go by train. The fact that plane fuel is tax free and the flights subsidised doesn't help the trains either.

As for the underground, I actually think a well thought out privatisation would work well. With the right investment - even if it meant closing down a line for 6 months - we could have larger tunnels meaning double decker trains, decent signal systems and a 24 hour service. Right now, the tubes are okay or very bad - there's very little in between.

We have a mayor however who uses cabs all the time and charges them to the taxpayer. I can't remember how much this came to last year, but it was something crazy like Â£25k.


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

raven said:


> I use public transport every day for commuting into the City from home in SW London. It's actually not too bad - I have 3 possible routes as well so if there's a problem on the tubes, I just go on the overground.
> 
> The privatisation of the railway system was a disaster. But the subsequent nationalisation of it was even worse. The whole thing is a cock up - for example, it's ridiculous that it is cheaper to fly to Scotland from London than it is to go by train. The fact that plane fuel is tax free and the flights subsidised doesn't help the trains either.
> 
> ...


When were the railways nationalised? Railtrack was replaced by an equally underfunded non-profit company, but the train companies are still private companies.

And I think you're being a little optimisitic if you think privatising the tubes would help. Why would a private rail company who could have it all taken away by the government want to invest in the railways when they could be making money? It's simple business sense. There's absolutely no incentive whatsoever for a private company to improve things. Which is why privatisation has been a disaster and the services are worse than they were during the BR days.

And although rebuilding the underground's a nice idea, it would be cheaper to build a new line rather than replace an existing one, particularly the deep-level ones.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

phil said:


> When were the railways nationalised? Railtrack was replaced by an equally underfunded non-profit company, but the train companies are still private companies.
> 
> And I think you're being a little optimisitic if you think privatising the tubes would help. Why would a private rail company who could have it all taken away by the government want to invest in the railways when they could be making money? It's simple business sense. There's absolutely no incentive whatsoever for a private company to improve things. Which is why privatisation has been a disaster and the services are worse than they were during the BR days.
> 
> And although rebuilding the underground's a nice idea, it would be cheaper to build a new line rather than replace an existing one, particularly the deep-level ones.


OK, the railways weren't nationalised exactly, but that's what it felt like - especially for the shareholders (which many pension funds were). The accountants who are running Network Rail are doing very nicely out of the whole debacle. I can never understand why people say the service is worse than in the BR days - nostalgia perhaps distorting your memory? BR was shite - period.

As for the tubes, of course a private company wouldn't want to invest in it if the government could take it all away. But that's the whole point - the fact that the government *can* do that is ridiculous and any privatisation would have to be structured so that that could not happen. You only have to see how many people use the tube every day to see that it's crying out for private investment - fine if that means building new tunnels - they built a tunnel under the channel when there was relatively no demand.

When will people realise that we should be striving to move away from state involvement in our lives. Just because the privatisation of the railways was a mess, does not mean privatisation would never work. Look at all the other success stories - water, gas, electricity. State involvement usually means bureaucracy, inefficiency and waste.


----------



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

moving the school run would make a big difference , its so much nicer to drive in the holidays, so much less traffic.

I can see from all the commetns that the hardest thing to do is get people to change their view/minds/attitudes without a big kick up the arse no one will ever change !! = just more problems..... to be honest we are a very self centred society (i guess thats capitalism for you - not that im a socialist)


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

raven said:


> OK, the railways weren't nationalised exactly, but that's what it felt like - especially for the shareholders (which many pension funds were). The accountants who are running Network Rail are doing very nicely out of the whole debacle. I can never understand why people say the service is worse than in the BR days - nostalgia perhaps distorting your memory? BR was shite - period.


Were you a shareholder then?
People think the service is worse because it is. There have been no improvements, there are more people trying to use it, and it costs more. Yes, BR was shite, due to decades of underinvestment, and the mess that Beeching made of it. But we were promised improvements a.k.a. a quick "fix" by a previous government, which never happened.



raven said:


> As for the tubes, of course a private company wouldn't want to invest in it if the government could take it all away. But that's the whole point - the fact that the government *can* do that is ridiculous and any privatisation would have to be structured so that that could not happen. You only have to see how many people use the tube every day to see that it's crying out for private investment - fine if that means building new tunnels - they built a tunnel under the channel when there was relatively no demand.


I think the problem is lack of competition. Each train company currently has a monopoly over an area of the country, with some exceptions. Which means they can charge what they want and invest the bare minimum.

Fair enough, you might have a choice between tube and train (as do I, obviously seeing as I live down the road), but not everyone does.



raven said:


> When will people realise that we should be striving to move away from state involvement in our lives. Just because the privatisation of the railways was a mess, does not mean privatisation would never work. Look at all the other success stories - water, gas, electricity. State involvement
> usually means bureaucracy, inefficiency and waste.


The difference with the utilities is there is competition between the companies. Comparing them with transport is impossible, unless competing companies offer competing services on the same stretches of line. If this were the case I'd be all for it. Not sure how feasable this would be on the underground.

I agree with you regarding the bureaucracy & inefficiency, but it's just another form of mis-management.

Anyway, if the tube were privatised, companies would end up buying each other, thus ensuring monopolies for themselves. This is what happened in the early 1900s on the tubes. It would happen again. It would be just like Carlton & Granada.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

phil said:


> raven said:
> 
> 
> > OK, the railways weren't nationalised exactly, but that's what it felt like - especially for the shareholders (which many pension funds were). The accountants who are running Network Rail are doing very nicely out of the whole debacle. I can never understand why people say the service is worse than in the BR days - nostalgia perhaps distorting your memory? BR was shite - period.
> ...


Yeah, I'm not saying that privatisation would be easy. It is totally different to the utilities as you rightly say. However, that just means that it requires a bit more thought. I'm not claiming to know the answers, but I do stand by the statement that state involvement is bad news (not always - for example, national security is better run by the state for obvious reasons). It is just another form of mis-management, but I believe that this mis-management is a direct result of the absence of any profit / efficiency incentive.

As for being a shareholder in Railtrack, I was not directly, but my pension fund was (as maybe was yours?)


----------

