Do people think native English people will be forced to move to out of London?

Generali

westernpromise wrote: »

Nope.



http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-4.pdf
(p95 - 96; my bold)

So there you have it from the horse's mouth: London traffic speeds have been falling for decades and this happened regardless of whether traffic volumes were rising or declining. The culprit was not traffic volumes but primarily policy decisions including a decision to push people out of cars and onto public transport, which slows traffic down.

London traffic is bad not because it isn't being managed, but because it is.

Interesting. Thank you.

As a cyclist I quite enjoyed having cars taken away from the bit of road I was on in London. I can't imagine I slowed too many cars down as I was almost always riding in bus lanes and cycleways.

westernpromise

Generali wrote: »

Interesting. Thank you.

As a cyclist I quite enjoyed having cars taken away from the bit of road I was on in London. I can't imagine I slowed too many cars down as I was almost always riding in bus lanes and cycleways.

I think the tacit admission from TFL is that schemes to accommodate that are what slow the traffic down. If you reversed everything done to manage traffic in London over the last 40 years, you'd have more traffic flowing faster. The air quality issue is mainly a diesel issue, so take buses off the road and it's job done. Pedestrian safety would be a concern, but deaths on the road have been falling or flatlining secularly for years, so I suspect there'd be no effect.

I'd love to cycle to work but I'm not fit or brave enough to, and in any case my commute from North London would be downhill into work and uphill most of the way home, which is a fight I don't want at the end of my day. If I did it, though, I wouldn't kid myself that I was helping to improve London traffic. In fact, and counter-intuitively, cars are the solution, and buses and bikes are the problem, and I know this because TfL tell me so.

Generali

westernpromise wrote: »

I think the tacit admission from TFL is that schemes to accommodate that are what slow the traffic down. If you reversed everything done to manage traffic in London over the last 40 years, you'd have more traffic flowing faster. The air quality issue is mainly a diesel issue, so take buses off the road and it's job done. Pedestrian safety would be a concern, but deaths on the road have been falling or flatlining secularly for years, so I suspect there'd be no effect.

I'd love to cycle to work but I'm not fit or brave enough to, and in any case my commute from North London would be downhill into work and uphill most of the way home, which is a fight I don't want at the end of my day. If I did it, though, I wouldn't kid myself that I was helping to improve London traffic. In fact, and counter-intuitively, cars are the solution, and buses and bikes are the problem, and I know this because TfL tell me so.

I suspect that we're not looking at the whole picture. By taking measures that prioritise public transport presumably TfL believes that it is decreasing travel times overall at the expense of car drivers.

Due to the way London is built in what amounts to a bowl, most people go uphill home unless they ride along the Thames.

The best thing about cycling to work is that you are forced to have some proper exercise each day. TBH I didn't find other drivers too bad in London and I can only really recall two nasty incidents, one where an idiot opened his car door as a bus was passing me on the A3 at Oval and another where someone tried to crash his car into me deliberately, I think because I was overtaking stopped traffic on his side of the road (he had 2 lanes and because he'd jumped a red light had the road to himself and swerved towards me).

That's not bad in about 20 years of cycling in London. TBH I find it much worse riding on country roads as the traffic is going faster and the drivers aren't used to cyclists (AIUI there is a well known 'herd protection effect' from lots of cyclists being on the road).

Cycling in Sydney is great for the most part with some really good facilities. The main danger comes from the 'them and us' mentality that Sydneysiders seem to love: either you're a cyclist or a driver for example. Drivers don't respect the fact that cyclists are more vulnerable than cars so sometimes pass too close and too fast.

lisyloo

I can't imagine I slowed too many cars down as I was almost always riding in bus lanes and cycleways.

You have slowed them down by taking away a part of the road though :-(
I'm a cyclist too and I'm amazed at what has been achieved for cyclists at the expense of motorists.

lisyloo

If I did it, though, I wouldn't kid myself that I was helping to improve London traffic. In fact, and counter-intuitively, cars are the solution, and buses and bikes are the problem, and I know this because TfL tell me so.

Makes no snese whatsoever.
How can it help to have 50/60 or 100 cars on the road rather than a bus.
Whoever said cyclist take up 6 feet horizontally cannot have cycled in central London.

dunstonh

Magsicle67 wrote: »

Do people think that native English people will be just priced out of london by both foreign investors and immigrants?

Payback time.

Just like many villages in Norfolk and Suffolk saw locals driven out by Londoners buying second homes and killing the villages for trade and other activities.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

The trend for the world is toward megacities. More people are living more densely, everywhere. This isn't a London phenomenon.

I don't know what your financial situation is, perhaps you're retired already or doing ok financially somehow, but our country has high expenses and we need some way to pay these expenses. Obviously that is through tax. We can choose to choke off our most lucrative tax area so that some people get shorter queues at doctors or a seat on the tube, but this will have adverse impacts for everyone else.

Like it or not, the trend is toward larger more productive cities.

I don't buy an argument that because there is a 'trend' then that means its a good thing nor does it mean it is inevitable.

The influx of immigrants into London is due to the failure of the EU to provide employment to their own citizens and the failure of the rest of the world to do likewise.
The majority provide little added value, providing low economic value minimum wage jobs.
In no way do these people add significantly to our tax base : if the true costs of extra infrastructure are included they will be a cost rather than a benefit.
Long queues at doctor kills people :
Smaller houses, long travel times etc makes us all worse of not better.

Filo25

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't buy an argument that because there is a 'trend' then that means its a good thing nor does it mean it is inevitable.

The influx of immigrants into London is due to the failure of the EU to provide employment to their own citizens and the failure of the rest of the world to do likewise.
The majority provide little added value, providing low economic value minimum wage jobs.
In no way do these people add significantly to our tax base : if the true costs of extra infrastructure are included they will be a cost rather than a benefit.
Long queues at doctor kills people :
Smaller houses, long travel times etc makes us all worse of not better.

Genuine question on this one, is there a study somewhere showing that most permanent EU immigrants in London are earning minimum wage, tat is a certainly a surprising statistic for me.

CLAPTON

Filo25 wrote: »

Genuine question on this one, is there a study somewhere showing that most permanent EU immigrants in London are earning minimum wage, tat is a certainly a surprising statistic for me.

why would that surprise you? do you have statistics about EU migrant earnings?

Filo25

CLAPTON wrote: »

why would that surprise you? do you have statistics about EU migrant earnings?

No I don't, I assumed you did as you posted the claim.

Personal experience is that I have come across people from the EU working in a large variety of roles, hence my surprise.