Congestion increases in Brighton and Hove

Congested traffic

Congested traffic

First published in News
Last updated
by , Reporter

BRIGHTON and Hove’s roads remain in the top five most car-clogged in the country and despite dropping from third worst to fifth worst, the problem is worse than ever.

GARETH DAVIES and SACHA KURUCZ report on the latest figures behind the issue grinding commuters’ gears.

ON AVERAGE, travel times in Brighton and Hove are 31% longer than they would be in free-flowing, uncongested conditions – a figure that’s up one percentage point from last year.

During morning rush hour, this figure increases to 51% and in the evening rush hour motorists are stuck in traffic for 52% longer as they scramble to get home from the office.

Last year, Brighton and Hove was third only to Birmingham and London in the list of the worst cities in the country for congestion.

But this year Belfast, Bristol and Edinburgh have become worse that Brighton and Hove, leaving the city fifth worst in the TomTom Traffic Index.

The report also suggests that drivers using rat runs may actually be making their journeys slower.

Typically, Brighton and Hove commuters face delays of 30 minutes for every hour they spend in rush-hour traffic compared to last year’s figure of 27 minutes.

And drivers with just a 30 minute commute will waste more than three full days in their cars stuck in traffic jams each year.

This means a person who works 9-5 in the city from the age of 18 to 60 will spend a staggering 19 weeks of their lives in stationary traffic on their way to and from work.

Steve Percy, from the People’s Parking Protest, blamed the poor modifications made by the Green administration for the congestion and the subsequent increase in travel times.

He said: “If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year.

“The Lewes Road Gyratory and Valley Gardens are two examples of this.

“We used to have two roads going into the city and two going out, but to accommodate for the cycle lanes and bus lanes you’ve got two lanes chopped into one and that slows traffic almost automatically by 50%.

“The Green Party is supposed to be getting everything squeaky clean, but pollution is through the roof.

“I’m always driving through Brighton and Hove, and I can barely get out of second gear.

“Driving along the seafront is murderous – and it’s the commuters and holiday makers I feel sorry for.

“This extra time people are spending in cars could be spent socialising or working so that they can earn a bit of extra money.

“It’s all well and good saying jump on a bus, but I did it the other week and it was awful – the seats were uncomfortable and the noise was terrible.

“And on top of that, it’s cheaper for a family of four to have a car than to be using the buses.”

Councillor Ian Davey, deputy leader of Brighton and Hove City Council and lead member for transport, said: “Tackling congestion has been an issue in Brighton and Hove for many years, as it is for many cities.

“Brighton and Hove is the busiest seaside resort in the country and attracts millions of visitors every year.

“Managing the demand that popularity places on the road network is a major challenge.”

Some members of public blamed the ongoing roadworks in the city as one reason for the traffic issues.

One of Sussex’s busiest roads, the A23, has been the subject of wide-scale debate since work began on widening the carriageway back in October 2011.

Coun Davey added: “Widening of key roads into the city just shifts the problem elsewhere as traffic is funnelled into our smaller residential streets.

“Given how built up Brighton and Hove is, widening roads here really isn’t an option even if we had the funds to do so.

“That is why we are focussed on making better use of the space we have through encouraging bus, train and taxi use alongside walking and cycling.

“All of these are becoming more popular choices for getting into and around the city.

“The introduction of 20mph limits has also improved the flow of traffic in the city and we are currently finalising the roadworks permit scheme which will give the council powers it doesn’t currently have to prevent disruptive roadworks.”

Some commuters disagreed, and claimed the 20mph zones introduced by Jason Kitkat’s Green administration were directly contributing to the problem.

But Councillor Graham Cox, Conservative transport spokesman, sided with Coun Davey.

He said: “As much as I’d like to jump on that, I don’t think there’s any evidence to suggest the 20mph zones are responsible for this.

“They smooth the flow of traffic much like you see on the motorway so that cars travel at a steady speed as opposed to speeding up and stopping.

“I don’t think the zones have contributed to or eased the traffic.

“And as far as pollution is concerned, I think this is far more to do with filthy diesel engines.

“I think some of it is inevitable unfortunately when we’re stuck with infrastructure which was built before cars were invented.

“There is just no magic bullet answer to this problem.

“Real time fazing of traffic lights could be looked at because that’s not always done as well as it could be.

“And we’re forever trying to get people onto the buses, but they are not immune to it because buses get held up as well.”

Labour Councillor Gill Mitchell also believed that buses were the answer, and in particular the need to utilise park and ride facilities outside the city.

She said: “It’s not good for anyone.

“It’s obviously not good for the commuters, it’s not good for businesses with deliveries being delayed and it’s not good for residents because of the air quality.

“I think it’s an ongoing problem and unfortunately there is not one single solution.

“Having said that, it has always been a Labour group policy to try to take cars out of the city by utilising more park and ride facilities.

“We know there are limitations with the National Park, but The Albion run a very successful park and ride system and we want to see that extended during busy periods such as Christmas, Bank Holidays and the summer months.

“What we need is good public transport, to stop unnecessary short car journeys in the city and a system that allows motorists to leave their cars outside the city.”

Traffic expert TomTom analysed more than ten trillion pieces of data worldwide to compile its traffic index.

Harold Goddijn, chief executive officer for TomTom, said: “Traffic congestion is nothing new, and continues to be a global challenge.

“The traditional responses to congestion - such as building new roads or widening existing ones - are no longer proving to be effective.

“Real time traffic information can help drivers find the quickest shortcut on their journey, and assist governments to make smarter decisions to improve traffic flow for their cities.”

It is estimated that time lost as a result of traffic congestion costs the UK economy £2 billion a year and the situation is set to get worse despite a £28 billion plan for road improvements in the UK.

The Government has forecast four million more drivers on UK roads by 2030 and that, by 2040, the volume of traffic will have risen by 40%.

The TomTom Traffic Index is the only global measurement of traffic congestion, comparing travel times during non-congested hours with travel times in peak hours experienced by passenger vehicles.

The Index takes into account local roads, main roads and motorways across 180 cities in six continents.

Comments (131)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:17am Wed 4 Jun 14

spaceman1 says...

Well then that was really worth the millions the greens have wasted and I see they just can't stop spending on the out of town twenty zones now they are doing coldean does anyone here ever drive over twenty I know I don't there must be thousands working for them in the planning department ridiculous
Well then that was really worth the millions the greens have wasted and I see they just can't stop spending on the out of town twenty zones now they are doing coldean does anyone here ever drive over twenty I know I don't there must be thousands working for them in the planning department ridiculous spaceman1
  • Score: 71

7:08am Wed 4 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

The city is on the up economically, more jobs being created, more visitors to the city, so unsurprising that congestion goes up if people will not leave the car behind. There are too many cars in the city and there will never be any more road space built in B&H, whatever the administration.

At least good alternatives are being provided and the cycle and bus routes that have been built, resulting in increased ridership, even make it more feasible for park and ride ( but don't hold your breath as there is no funding, no site and a question over effectiveness, let's face it the moanerati won't use it). The railways are also increasing in capacity and will be transformed by 2018.

However, it takes a long time for travel habits to change. We need to encourage the younger generation not to pick up the car habit in the first place; taking up regular walking and cycling would be healthy and efficient use of road space. Unlike the unhealthy, overweight generations of parents and grandparents. But like other cities I can think of, in 20 years we may look back in amazement and wonder why we tolorated so many cars coming into the city in the first place.

If you have to drive into B&H, then I am afraid you will have to get used to congestion, it has been with us a long time and is a permanent fixture. At least you could buy the most reasonably small and fuel efficient car.
The city is on the up economically, more jobs being created, more visitors to the city, so unsurprising that congestion goes up if people will not leave the car behind. There are too many cars in the city and there will never be any more road space built in B&H, whatever the administration. At least good alternatives are being provided and the cycle and bus routes that have been built, resulting in increased ridership, even make it more feasible for park and ride ( but don't hold your breath as there is no funding, no site and a question over effectiveness, let's face it the moanerati won't use it). The railways are also increasing in capacity and will be transformed by 2018. However, it takes a long time for travel habits to change. We need to encourage the younger generation not to pick up the car habit in the first place; taking up regular walking and cycling would be healthy and efficient use of road space. Unlike the unhealthy, overweight generations of parents and grandparents. But like other cities I can think of, in 20 years we may look back in amazement and wonder why we tolorated so many cars coming into the city in the first place. If you have to drive into B&H, then I am afraid you will have to get used to congestion, it has been with us a long time and is a permanent fixture. At least you could buy the most reasonably small and fuel efficient car. HJarrs
  • Score: -177

7:08am Wed 4 Jun 14

Baffled of Brighton says...

Ian Davey talking about widening roads, all you do is turn dual carriageways into single lanes for cars... they only one he doesn't plan on doing (yet) is the coast road.
Ian Davey talking about widening roads, all you do is turn dual carriageways into single lanes for cars... they only one he doesn't plan on doing (yet) is the coast road. Baffled of Brighton
  • Score: 98

7:29am Wed 4 Jun 14

Grumpy Old Cyclist says...

Perhaps Car mechanic Nathan Townsend could be given the job of speeding up the traffic as he managed 71mph in a 20mph zone. Long live the Greens but only in another universe.
Perhaps Car mechanic Nathan Townsend could be given the job of speeding up the traffic as he managed 71mph in a 20mph zone. Long live the Greens but only in another universe. Grumpy Old Cyclist
  • Score: 39

7:36am Wed 4 Jun 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Ian Davey and HJarrs talk utter rubbish. I cycle every day and it takes me longer to get down Coombe Road than it has in a decade thanks to the congestion the rat run the Lewes Road has now created in residential streets. We now have huge coaches and container lorries squeezing up and down narrow residential roads.
I do wish these spinners would stop fibbing. We can all see that congestion is worse over this end of town since the closure of one lane to vehicles on the Lewes Road and when the unis break for holidays hardly a cyclist is seen on the lane so all very pointless when the cycle lane existed and there was no need to close the inside lane which has now made bus journeys slower so if you need to get a train or meet an appintment locals are now calling taxis hence the 40 per cent increase in taxi journeys along the route. In the rush hour the Lewes Road is now one long lane of traffic queue from Moulsecoombe into town, much of it vans and trade vehicles which have to use roads but don't let a PR opportunity for your CVs get in the way of the truth Mr Davey. Your legacy to the town will an archive of lies and congestion.
Ian Davey and HJarrs talk utter rubbish. I cycle every day and it takes me longer to get down Coombe Road than it has in a decade thanks to the congestion the rat run the Lewes Road has now created in residential streets. We now have huge coaches and container lorries squeezing up and down narrow residential roads. I do wish these spinners would stop fibbing. We can all see that congestion is worse over this end of town since the closure of one lane to vehicles on the Lewes Road and when the unis break for holidays hardly a cyclist is seen on the lane so all very pointless when the cycle lane existed and there was no need to close the inside lane which has now made bus journeys slower so if you need to get a train or meet an appintment locals are now calling taxis hence the 40 per cent increase in taxi journeys along the route. In the rush hour the Lewes Road is now one long lane of traffic queue from Moulsecoombe into town, much of it vans and trade vehicles which have to use roads but don't let a PR opportunity for your CVs get in the way of the truth Mr Davey. Your legacy to the town will an archive of lies and congestion. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 146

7:41am Wed 4 Jun 14

Max Ripple says...

The widening of the A23 is happening miles outside of Brighton and has no effect whatsoever on the congestion within the city. A pointless piece of evidence, if you ask me. Main arterial roads in Brighton have in fact been narrowed. Constantly. Either by removing a lane entirely to allow for infrequent buses and a handful of cyclists or by widening pavements to allow for tree planters. The more you narrow roads, the more traffic has to slow down. Corners of roads which are now virtually impossible to negotiate as they stick out so far. Pollution is going up, partly due to the proliferation of diesel vehicles which cause more damage and the fact that cars have no way of traveling anywhere near their optimum speeds to keep it to a minimum. The 20mph zones mean that more vehicles have to drive 'on their brakes' as it were and that causes more problems with asbestos dust. Drivers also find that they are constantly having to look down at their speedometers to stop themselves going over the 20mph limit. This means they are not concentrating on what is going on around them as much as they should be.
All policies have their drawbacks.
The widening of the A23 is happening miles outside of Brighton and has no effect whatsoever on the congestion within the city. A pointless piece of evidence, if you ask me. Main arterial roads in Brighton have in fact been narrowed. Constantly. Either by removing a lane entirely to allow for infrequent buses and a handful of cyclists or by widening pavements to allow for tree planters. The more you narrow roads, the more traffic has to slow down. Corners of roads which are now virtually impossible to negotiate as they stick out so far. Pollution is going up, partly due to the proliferation of diesel vehicles which cause more damage and the fact that cars have no way of traveling anywhere near their optimum speeds to keep it to a minimum. The 20mph zones mean that more vehicles have to drive 'on their brakes' as it were and that causes more problems with asbestos dust. Drivers also find that they are constantly having to look down at their speedometers to stop themselves going over the 20mph limit. This means they are not concentrating on what is going on around them as much as they should be. All policies have their drawbacks. Max Ripple
  • Score: 85

7:50am Wed 4 Jun 14

afterovid says...

I want the Greens to be bold and ban private cars and taxis carrying single passengers from the town centre.... while they've still got the chance.... please do it Greens and you will get my vote
I want the Greens to be bold and ban private cars and taxis carrying single passengers from the town centre.... while they've still got the chance.... please do it Greens and you will get my vote afterovid
  • Score: -148

7:58am Wed 4 Jun 14

Skidrow says...

What about married or passengers in civil partnerships?
What about married or passengers in civil partnerships? Skidrow
  • Score: 27

8:18am Wed 4 Jun 14

hyram77 says...

I have the answer..... Take the back roads where they have those silly 20mph speed limits. Did exactly that yesterday and saved queing in the grid lock traffic at 5pm yesterday evening around Lewes Road. Obviously don't all do this otherwise my shortcuts will also be gridlocked :-)
I have the answer..... Take the back roads where they have those silly 20mph speed limits. Did exactly that yesterday and saved queing in the grid lock traffic at 5pm yesterday evening around Lewes Road. Obviously don't all do this otherwise my shortcuts will also be gridlocked :-) hyram77
  • Score: 22

8:44am Wed 4 Jun 14

pachallis says...

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall of the green-spin production meeting yesterday when they found out about the report on increased congestion in the city. How would they use this to their advantage?

Davey has really lost it now and seems to be living in another world - the greens have been in power for 4 years and have only made congestion and emission levels worse in the city by the introduction of their 'policies'!

And we must remember that HJarrs is NOT an official spokesperson for the Green Party – he is just, apparently, a fanboy, so anything he says might well be misleading and anything he promises or rumours is not approved policy for them either. Unless of course HJarrs will now come clean and actually admit he is on a retainer from the green party for his ‘services’?
His facts are very misleading, and those that you query he will refuse to substantiate and instead point you at a web report that actually contradicts his claim!. For example:

1. More jobs being created (says who? What is the source of this claim?)

2. More visitors to the city (well those staying at least 1 night in an hotel was up 6% last year, but what about actual visitor numbers? What data is there to back the claim? Even HJarrs admits that any increase in visitor numbers is more likely to be caused by the good weather!)

3. The city is on the up economically (according to duport who issued the report on the number of businesses registered in Brighton ‘the city’s increased popularity with tourists from both the UK and abroad COULD (my emphasis) be the reason for so many new company formations’). So how about some data to back up the claim that the economy as improved? What about business revenue and profitability? What about employment and unemployment rates?)

What has the green party actually done to encourage these businesses to start-up in the city? Did increasing some parking charges by 100% help? Did the never-to-be-enforced 20mph zones and bus lanes encourage visitors and shoppers to come to the city, or did they instead go elsewhere? Did the unused cycle lanes help?

4. The potential ‘park-and-ride’ – no – don’t hold your breath – this has been suggested for many years and an excellent one could have been located near the Amex Stadium to take advantage of the rail link. Instead we get a hollow promise (from a fanboy!) of one if the greens are re-elected (heaven forfend!), but of course with the direct insult to anyone who might disagree with him.

So we end up with a quote from HJarrs that if you drive into the city you will have to put up with ever increasing congestion. So unless you have a good rail or bus link into town in the direction you want to travel, either queue in the rain to get a bus, or get drenched in the rain on your bike, or drive your car to another town or city that wants your custom.

I particularly feel sorry for people in Brighton who have to commute to locations outside the city who don’t live near to a station, or those coming in on a daily basis.

But at least it is good to know that it is not the greens fault, but yours! Yes HJarrs – keep up the good work making the greens appear childish and immature!
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall of the green-spin production meeting yesterday when they found out about the report on increased congestion in the city. How would they use this to their advantage? Davey has really lost it now and seems to be living in another world - the greens have been in power for 4 years and have only made congestion and emission levels worse in the city by the introduction of their 'policies'! And we must remember that HJarrs is NOT an official spokesperson for the Green Party – he is just, apparently, a fanboy, so anything he says might well be misleading and anything he promises or rumours is not approved policy for them either. Unless of course HJarrs will now come clean and actually admit he is on a retainer from the green party for his ‘services’? His facts are very misleading, and those that you query he will refuse to substantiate and instead point you at a web report that actually contradicts his claim!. For example: 1. More jobs being created (says who? What is the source of this claim?) 2. More visitors to the city (well those staying at least 1 night in an hotel was up 6% last year, but what about actual visitor numbers? What data is there to back the claim? Even HJarrs admits that any increase in visitor numbers is more likely to be caused by the good weather!) 3. The city is on the up economically (according to duport who issued the report on the number of businesses registered in Brighton ‘the city’s increased popularity with tourists from both the UK and abroad COULD (my emphasis) be the reason for so many new company formations’). So how about some data to back up the claim that the economy as improved? What about business revenue and profitability? What about employment and unemployment rates?) What has the green party actually done to encourage these businesses to start-up in the city? Did increasing some parking charges by 100% help? Did the never-to-be-enforced 20mph zones and bus lanes encourage visitors and shoppers to come to the city, or did they instead go elsewhere? Did the unused cycle lanes help? 4. The potential ‘park-and-ride’ – no – don’t hold your breath – this has been suggested for many years and an excellent one could have been located near the Amex Stadium to take advantage of the rail link. Instead we get a hollow promise (from a fanboy!) of one if the greens are re-elected (heaven forfend!), but of course with the direct insult to anyone who might disagree with him. So we end up with a quote from HJarrs that if you drive into the city you will have to put up with ever increasing congestion. So unless you have a good rail or bus link into town in the direction you want to travel, either queue in the rain to get a bus, or get drenched in the rain on your bike, or drive your car to another town or city that wants your custom. I particularly feel sorry for people in Brighton who have to commute to locations outside the city who don’t live near to a station, or those coming in on a daily basis. But at least it is good to know that it is not the greens fault, but yours! Yes HJarrs – keep up the good work making the greens appear childish and immature! pachallis
  • Score: 77

8:46am Wed 4 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

I agree with Steve Percy about the buses. I used one the other evening - it was cold, the seats were uncomfortable, it was noisy, expensive and the electronic display said the next bus would be in 13 minutes and it arrived 1 minute later.

And the most annoying thing was it kept stopping and starting to let other passengers on and off! Shocking stuff.
I agree with Steve Percy about the buses. I used one the other evening - it was cold, the seats were uncomfortable, it was noisy, expensive and the electronic display said the next bus would be in 13 minutes and it arrived 1 minute later. And the most annoying thing was it kept stopping and starting to let other passengers on and off! Shocking stuff. Quiterie
  • Score: 17

8:49am Wed 4 Jun 14

Phani Tikkala says...

The increase in congestion is a problem created ENTIRELY by the Greens. Next up - an equivalent increase in pollution. And then more news about falling visitor numbers. And an increase in businesses closing, going bust and moving elsewhere. Watch this space.

You don't have to be a genius to realise that cutting road capacity by 50% (by changing dual carriageways to single carriageways) means that it will take twice as long to make the same journey. It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25 and the congestions at the Dials is far, far worse than it ever was before.

"The introduction of 20mph limits has also improved the flow of traffic in the city" says Davey. Perhaps once he gets out of his green ivory tower he'll realise that's complete BS.

I'm setting up a new business that will employ dozens. Not here in Brighton, elsewhere because I need to give the business the best chance of success. Well done greens, you've screwed the City with parking charges and stupid traffic changes that look like some sort of psychological experiment on residents. It will take years to repair the damage, which AMAZINGLY they are busy patting themselves on the back for!

Roll on May 2015 and we can start the long long and painful process of trying to get the City back on its feet. And kick Davey and his colleagues out of power.
The increase in congestion is a problem created ENTIRELY by the Greens. Next up - an equivalent increase in pollution. And then more news about falling visitor numbers. And an increase in businesses closing, going bust and moving elsewhere. Watch this space. You don't have to be a genius to realise that cutting road capacity by 50% (by changing dual carriageways to single carriageways) means that it will take twice as long to make the same journey. It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25 and the congestions at the Dials is far, far worse than it ever was before. "The introduction of 20mph limits has also improved the flow of traffic in the city" says Davey. Perhaps once he gets out of his green ivory tower he'll realise that's complete BS. I'm setting up a new business that will employ dozens. Not here in Brighton, elsewhere because I need to give the business the best chance of success. Well done greens, you've screwed the City with parking charges and stupid traffic changes that look like some sort of psychological experiment on residents. It will take years to repair the damage, which AMAZINGLY they are busy patting themselves on the back for! Roll on May 2015 and we can start the long long and painful process of trying to get the City back on its feet. And kick Davey and his colleagues out of power. Phani Tikkala
  • Score: 85

8:58am Wed 4 Jun 14

LB says...

"It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25"

Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem?
"It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25" Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem? LB
  • Score: -61

8:59am Wed 4 Jun 14

Phani Tikkala says...

LB wrote:
"It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25"

Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem?
Try that with 8 5 litre cans of paint. GO ON
[quote][p][bold]LB[/bold] wrote: "It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25" Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem?[/p][/quote]Try that with 8 5 litre cans of paint. GO ON Phani Tikkala
  • Score: 97

9:11am Wed 4 Jun 14

LB says...

Cargo bicycle it is then :)
Cargo bicycle it is then :) LB
  • Score: -54

9:12am Wed 4 Jun 14

gazzamagoo says...

How can they prove that the 20mph speed limits improve traffic flow when absolutely no bugger sticks to them?? What they're really saying is because no one sticks to them traffic flow is quicker!
How can they prove that the 20mph speed limits improve traffic flow when absolutely no bugger sticks to them?? What they're really saying is because no one sticks to them traffic flow is quicker! gazzamagoo
  • Score: 38

9:12am Wed 4 Jun 14

fred clause says...

Brighton is the busiest seaside resort? Since when I'm sure Blackpool is as busy, we all know this has been caused by the greens cycle and bus lanes the sooner we are rid the better.
Brighton is the busiest seaside resort? Since when I'm sure Blackpool is as busy, we all know this has been caused by the greens cycle and bus lanes the sooner we are rid the better. fred clause
  • Score: 29

9:22am Wed 4 Jun 14

john newman says...

The city needs another railway line and a proper bus station to give the public alternatives. Edinburgh opens new tram lines and other places, Crossrail for London, are planning for 2030.

PLAN AHEAD BRIGHTON.
The city needs another railway line and a proper bus station to give the public alternatives. Edinburgh opens new tram lines and other places, Crossrail for London, are planning for 2030. PLAN AHEAD BRIGHTON. john newman
  • Score: 30

9:33am Wed 4 Jun 14

fixithove says...

Reduced road width due to cycle lanes, bus lanes and 20mph also I have noticed the traffic lights change very quickly so fewer cars cross.

This all leads to more pollution and traffic jams.

This is all due to the Greens!!!
Reduced road width due to cycle lanes, bus lanes and 20mph also I have noticed the traffic lights change very quickly so fewer cars cross. This all leads to more pollution and traffic jams. This is all due to the Greens!!! fixithove
  • Score: 59

9:35am Wed 4 Jun 14

s&k says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Ian Davey and HJarrs talk utter rubbish. I cycle every day and it takes me longer to get down Coombe Road than it has in a decade thanks to the congestion the rat run the Lewes Road has now created in residential streets. We now have huge coaches and container lorries squeezing up and down narrow residential roads. I do wish these spinners would stop fibbing. We can all see that congestion is worse over this end of town since the closure of one lane to vehicles on the Lewes Road and when the unis break for holidays hardly a cyclist is seen on the lane so all very pointless when the cycle lane existed and there was no need to close the inside lane which has now made bus journeys slower so if you need to get a train or meet an appintment locals are now calling taxis hence the 40 per cent increase in taxi journeys along the route. In the rush hour the Lewes Road is now one long lane of traffic queue from Moulsecoombe into town, much of it vans and trade vehicles which have to use roads but don't let a PR opportunity for your CVs get in the way of the truth Mr Davey. Your legacy to the town will an archive of lies and congestion.
It certainly is more congested than since I moved to B&H from Manchester (a terribly congested city) over 15 years ago. Lewes Road is terrible, I agree. I do think a lot of this is student cars which should be heavily penalised in the city i.e no permits for students.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Ian Davey and HJarrs talk utter rubbish. I cycle every day and it takes me longer to get down Coombe Road than it has in a decade thanks to the congestion the rat run the Lewes Road has now created in residential streets. We now have huge coaches and container lorries squeezing up and down narrow residential roads. I do wish these spinners would stop fibbing. We can all see that congestion is worse over this end of town since the closure of one lane to vehicles on the Lewes Road and when the unis break for holidays hardly a cyclist is seen on the lane so all very pointless when the cycle lane existed and there was no need to close the inside lane which has now made bus journeys slower so if you need to get a train or meet an appintment locals are now calling taxis hence the 40 per cent increase in taxi journeys along the route. In the rush hour the Lewes Road is now one long lane of traffic queue from Moulsecoombe into town, much of it vans and trade vehicles which have to use roads but don't let a PR opportunity for your CVs get in the way of the truth Mr Davey. Your legacy to the town will an archive of lies and congestion.[/p][/quote]It certainly is more congested than since I moved to B&H from Manchester (a terribly congested city) over 15 years ago. Lewes Road is terrible, I agree. I do think a lot of this is student cars which should be heavily penalised in the city i.e no permits for students. s&k
  • Score: 27

9:37am Wed 4 Jun 14

road_rager says...

From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley
From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley road_rager
  • Score: -46

9:40am Wed 4 Jun 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

This article only seems to emphasise the level of incompetence and arrogance displayed by each party when presented with the results of their bumbling ineptitude and ideologically driven enslavement to idiotic plans.
This article only seems to emphasise the level of incompetence and arrogance displayed by each party when presented with the results of their bumbling ineptitude and ideologically driven enslavement to idiotic plans. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 32

9:42am Wed 4 Jun 14

Worthing Jim says...

TomTom have released a travel survey, also stating that the answer to congestion in ever increasingly populated towns and cities is not to build new roads or widen existing, but to use real time travel information - in essence to buy a TomTom.

Infomercial aside, this does not stop the usual motoring moanarati, who won't leave their cars until their cold dead hands are prized off the wheel, whilst refusing to accept that by sitting in a jam they are part of the problem. It's easier to blame every other motorist, the school run or 'the Greens'. Also, funnily enough, ignoring the fact that Brighton has improved in the 'rankings'. It's a simple rule of physics that there is a finite amount of cars that one can cram into a finite space, affecting quality of life for all. Other mainland European towns and cities woke up to this decades ago and started to design out the private car - their town and city centres are still as vibrant as ever. But we now have to hate everything Europe does for some inexplicable reason. And I own a car - it's just that i've realised that the disc in the windscreen is a privilege - not some God given right.

Anyway, let's pick up the popcorn and read people denying simple facts and inconvenient truths. Enjoy Top Gear.
TomTom have released a travel survey, also stating that the answer to congestion in ever increasingly populated towns and cities is not to build new roads or widen existing, but to use real time travel information - in essence to buy a TomTom. Infomercial aside, this does not stop the usual motoring moanarati, who won't leave their cars until their cold dead hands are prized off the wheel, whilst refusing to accept that by sitting in a jam they are part of the problem. It's easier to blame every other motorist, the school run or 'the Greens'. Also, funnily enough, ignoring the fact that Brighton has improved in the 'rankings'. It's a simple rule of physics that there is a finite amount of cars that one can cram into a finite space, affecting quality of life for all. Other mainland European towns and cities woke up to this decades ago and started to design out the private car - their town and city centres are still as vibrant as ever. But we now have to hate everything Europe does for some inexplicable reason. And I own a car - it's just that i've realised that the disc in the windscreen is a privilege - not some God given right. Anyway, let's pick up the popcorn and read people denying simple facts and inconvenient truths. Enjoy Top Gear. Worthing Jim
  • Score: -23

9:44am Wed 4 Jun 14

Ania Green says...

What utter rubbish Steve Percy is talking. We have carried out numerous studies and have found that the introduction of a bus lane along Lewes Road has had no effect on travel times within the city at all.
What utter rubbish Steve Percy is talking. We have carried out numerous studies and have found that the introduction of a bus lane along Lewes Road has had no effect on travel times within the city at all. Ania Green
  • Score: -59

9:49am Wed 4 Jun 14

NickBtn says...

"The introduction of 20mph limits has also improved the flow of traffic in the city" says Davey. Well if this is true and congestion is still increasing that means that the increase in congestion is due to the road "improvements" on Lewes Road, Old Shoreham Road, 7 dials, station etc..

So the green road "improvements" have increased congestion. This in turn will increase pollution caused by the stationary cars, vans and lorries. Hardly what most voters would expect from the "greens". We can also add above inflation bus rises, the long-term green plan NOT to have park and ride (which would be a help for congestion and pollution). So three areas where the "greens" have failed the city and helped increase pollution
"The introduction of 20mph limits has also improved the flow of traffic in the city" says Davey. Well if this is true and congestion is still increasing that means that the increase in congestion is due to the road "improvements" on Lewes Road, Old Shoreham Road, 7 dials, station etc.. So the green road "improvements" have increased congestion. This in turn will increase pollution caused by the stationary cars, vans and lorries. Hardly what most voters would expect from the "greens". We can also add above inflation bus rises, the long-term green plan NOT to have park and ride (which would be a help for congestion and pollution). So three areas where the "greens" have failed the city and helped increase pollution NickBtn
  • Score: 43

9:52am Wed 4 Jun 14

pachallis says...

road_rager wrote:
From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley
@road_rager - hooray!

The city has gone from 3rd to 5th (so two other locations are even worse) but the actual congestion has increased by 3% (31%/30%). So this report says nothing about more people walking or cycling - in fact it could say the opposite - that more people walking or cycling increases congestion?

So perhaps we should get rid of the cycle lanes and bus lanes and let everyone drive nice, warm, dry, enclosed, private low-emission (or even zero-emission) vehicles from their homes to where they actually want to go to?

We should be so proud of the green-controlled transport committee, and it's traffic management policies focussed on being anti-car and filling the centre of the city with queues of buses pumping toxic diesel emissions into the air!
[quote][p][bold]road_rager[/bold] wrote: From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley[/p][/quote]@road_rager - hooray! The city has gone from 3rd to 5th (so two other locations are even worse) but the actual congestion has increased by 3% (31%/30%). So this report says nothing about more people walking or cycling - in fact it could say the opposite - that more people walking or cycling increases congestion? So perhaps we should get rid of the cycle lanes and bus lanes and let everyone drive nice, warm, dry, enclosed, private low-emission (or even zero-emission) vehicles from their homes to where they actually want to go to? We should be so proud of the green-controlled transport committee, and it's traffic management policies focussed on being anti-car and filling the centre of the city with queues of buses pumping toxic diesel emissions into the air! pachallis
  • Score: 14

9:53am Wed 4 Jun 14

Notters_Seagull says...

I still don't believe this. London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Nottingham, etc. are far far worse.
I still don't believe this. London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Nottingham, etc. are far far worse. Notters_Seagull
  • Score: -7

9:54am Wed 4 Jun 14

Quiterie says...

Ania Green wrote:
What utter rubbish Steve Percy is talking. We have carried out numerous studies and have found that the introduction of a bus lane along Lewes Road has had no effect on travel times within the city at all.
If you're talking about studies carried out by Council Officers, I have zero confidence in the outcome of those studies. You can guarantee that those studies are biased because they're not carried out by independent people. I have also yet to come across a Council Officer who has the skills to analyse data in an effective and competent way. They will of course produce any results that the Council of the day wants them to.
[quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: What utter rubbish Steve Percy is talking. We have carried out numerous studies and have found that the introduction of a bus lane along Lewes Road has had no effect on travel times within the city at all.[/p][/quote]If you're talking about studies carried out by Council Officers, I have zero confidence in the outcome of those studies. You can guarantee that those studies are biased because they're not carried out by independent people. I have also yet to come across a Council Officer who has the skills to analyse data in an effective and competent way. They will of course produce any results that the Council of the day wants them to. Quiterie
  • Score: 38

10:04am Wed 4 Jun 14

roystony says...

The greens can not admit defeat that their schemes are failing.

They always say how good they are doing.

Just remember when you lose office its going to take you a little longer to get out of the city.
The greens can not admit defeat that their schemes are failing. They always say how good they are doing. Just remember when you lose office its going to take you a little longer to get out of the city. roystony
  • Score: 27

10:09am Wed 4 Jun 14

cynic_the says...

This report is actually pretty meaningless without any information about car use over the same time period.

If car & motor vehicle use has increased, then an increase in congestion and journey times is inevitable. If it has decreased or stayed the same, then the increased congestion must be blamed on changes to the road layouts (and also roadworks etc).

Unfortunately, I don't think that data will ever be made available in a format, or from a source, that people will actually trust.

Part of the problem I think comes from the lack of joined up thinking in the transport planning departments. The conservative councilor demonstrates this perfectly by making BOTH the following statements:

"we’re forever trying to get people onto the buses"
"as far as pollution is concerned, I think this is far more to do with filthy diesel engines"

So it seems that their solution to one issue is what causes another. Brilliant.
This report is actually pretty meaningless without any information about car use over the same time period. If car & motor vehicle use has increased, then an increase in congestion and journey times is inevitable. If it has decreased or stayed the same, then the increased congestion must be blamed on changes to the road layouts (and also roadworks etc). Unfortunately, I don't think that data will ever be made available in a format, or from a source, that people will actually trust. Part of the problem I think comes from the lack of joined up thinking in the transport planning departments. The conservative councilor demonstrates this perfectly by making BOTH the following statements: "we’re forever trying to get people onto the buses" "as far as pollution is concerned, I think this is far more to do with filthy diesel engines" So it seems that their solution to one issue is what causes another. Brilliant. cynic_the
  • Score: 16

10:19am Wed 4 Jun 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Worthing Jim wrote:
TomTom have released a travel survey, also stating that the answer to congestion in ever increasingly populated towns and cities is not to build new roads or widen existing, but to use real time travel information - in essence to buy a TomTom.

Infomercial aside, this does not stop the usual motoring moanarati, who won't leave their cars until their cold dead hands are prized off the wheel, whilst refusing to accept that by sitting in a jam they are part of the problem. It's easier to blame every other motorist, the school run or 'the Greens'. Also, funnily enough, ignoring the fact that Brighton has improved in the 'rankings'. It's a simple rule of physics that there is a finite amount of cars that one can cram into a finite space, affecting quality of life for all. Other mainland European towns and cities woke up to this decades ago and started to design out the private car - their town and city centres are still as vibrant as ever. But we now have to hate everything Europe does for some inexplicable reason. And I own a car - it's just that i've realised that the disc in the windscreen is a privilege - not some God given right.

Anyway, let's pick up the popcorn and read people denying simple facts and inconvenient truths. Enjoy Top Gear.
Moanerati? I'm guessing you must be HJarrs!
[quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: TomTom have released a travel survey, also stating that the answer to congestion in ever increasingly populated towns and cities is not to build new roads or widen existing, but to use real time travel information - in essence to buy a TomTom. Infomercial aside, this does not stop the usual motoring moanarati, who won't leave their cars until their cold dead hands are prized off the wheel, whilst refusing to accept that by sitting in a jam they are part of the problem. It's easier to blame every other motorist, the school run or 'the Greens'. Also, funnily enough, ignoring the fact that Brighton has improved in the 'rankings'. It's a simple rule of physics that there is a finite amount of cars that one can cram into a finite space, affecting quality of life for all. Other mainland European towns and cities woke up to this decades ago and started to design out the private car - their town and city centres are still as vibrant as ever. But we now have to hate everything Europe does for some inexplicable reason. And I own a car - it's just that i've realised that the disc in the windscreen is a privilege - not some God given right. Anyway, let's pick up the popcorn and read people denying simple facts and inconvenient truths. Enjoy Top Gear.[/p][/quote]Moanerati? I'm guessing you must be HJarrs! thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 17

10:28am Wed 4 Jun 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Well what a surprise! I am so shocked by this news - who would have thought congestion would go up when you remove 50% of some of Brighton's major roads?!
Well what a surprise! I am so shocked by this news - who would have thought congestion would go up when you remove 50% of some of Brighton's major roads?! thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 25

10:45am Wed 4 Jun 14

spa301 says...

H.Jarrs - the anti Greens not so secret weapon.
65 thumbs down in 3 hours. Must be a record. It seems the Moanerati are growing in numbers.
H.Jarrs - the anti Greens not so secret weapon. 65 thumbs down in 3 hours. Must be a record. It seems the Moanerati are growing in numbers. spa301
  • Score: 25

10:47am Wed 4 Jun 14

Minger21 says...

I am one of the commuters along the seafront. I drive because I work out of town, and to get the bus would take three times as long. It should not take an hour and a half to travel 12 miles on a bus! The buses serve both my home and place of work, but an extra two hours a day commuting does not make it worth using the bus.

In general on the seafront it feels like the traffic lights/pedestrian crossing timings do not help traffic flow. It is rarely possible to get along the seafront without being stopped at lights. This creates so much stop/start rather than encouraging a smooth traffic flow, which of course then impacts on side streets etc. I realise the area is part of the busiest in terms of tourism but equally the A259 is one of the main roads into and out of town and it never feels to be treated as such. If there was a viable alternative route I would gladly use it, but with parts of town inaccessible to cars and the volume of traffic going through the available routes, it's quicker to use the seafront and sit in that traffic. It does tickle me that everyone is always banging on about air quality, but it seems the congestion is at least partly down to the infrastructure. If the powers that be stopped trying to force people out of their cars, which clearly isn't working, and improved the road network for ALL users including cars, we may see an improvement.

I do think the bus service is excellent (at least where I live) but the costs are so high I don't use it as often as I could. At £4.50 per person for a return it makes it cheaper to get a taxi or drive, especially in a group. I can nip into town in my car, pay £3 for 2 hours parking and go door to door. It's convenient and cheaper, so why on earth would I leave the car at home?

B&H is always going to be a busy place, and that's great! We will always have traffic. Trying to make life difficult for motorists seems to not be encouraging people out of their cars however. I wonder if it's time for a shake up.
I am one of the commuters along the seafront. I drive because I work out of town, and to get the bus would take three times as long. It should not take an hour and a half to travel 12 miles on a bus! The buses serve both my home and place of work, but an extra two hours a day commuting does not make it worth using the bus. In general on the seafront it feels like the traffic lights/pedestrian crossing timings do not help traffic flow. It is rarely possible to get along the seafront without being stopped at lights. This creates so much stop/start rather than encouraging a smooth traffic flow, which of course then impacts on side streets etc. I realise the area is part of the busiest in terms of tourism but equally the A259 is one of the main roads into and out of town and it never feels to be treated as such. If there was a viable alternative route I would gladly use it, but with parts of town inaccessible to cars and the volume of traffic going through the available routes, it's quicker to use the seafront and sit in that traffic. It does tickle me that everyone is always banging on about air quality, but it seems the congestion is at least partly down to the infrastructure. If the powers that be stopped trying to force people out of their cars, which clearly isn't working, and improved the road network for ALL users including cars, we may see an improvement. I do think the bus service is excellent (at least where I live) but the costs are so high I don't use it as often as I could. At £4.50 per person for a return it makes it cheaper to get a taxi or drive, especially in a group. I can nip into town in my car, pay £3 for 2 hours parking and go door to door. It's convenient and cheaper, so why on earth would I leave the car at home? B&H is always going to be a busy place, and that's great! We will always have traffic. Trying to make life difficult for motorists seems to not be encouraging people out of their cars however. I wonder if it's time for a shake up. Minger21
  • Score: 35

10:48am Wed 4 Jun 14

Worthing Jim says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
TomTom have released a travel survey, also stating that the answer to congestion in ever increasingly populated towns and cities is not to build new roads or widen existing, but to use real time travel information - in essence to buy a TomTom.

Infomercial aside, this does not stop the usual motoring moanarati, who won't leave their cars until their cold dead hands are prized off the wheel, whilst refusing to accept that by sitting in a jam they are part of the problem. It's easier to blame every other motorist, the school run or 'the Greens'. Also, funnily enough, ignoring the fact that Brighton has improved in the 'rankings'. It's a simple rule of physics that there is a finite amount of cars that one can cram into a finite space, affecting quality of life for all. Other mainland European towns and cities woke up to this decades ago and started to design out the private car - their town and city centres are still as vibrant as ever. But we now have to hate everything Europe does for some inexplicable reason. And I own a car - it's just that i've realised that the disc in the windscreen is a privilege - not some God given right.

Anyway, let's pick up the popcorn and read people denying simple facts and inconvenient truths. Enjoy Top Gear.
Moanerati? I'm guessing you must be HJarrs!
Erm, no. Just someone who has traveled around to see what works best in towns and cities (New York City, anywhere you like in the Netherlands etc etc). I'm also someone who has read enough of this website to see what the agendas are.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: TomTom have released a travel survey, also stating that the answer to congestion in ever increasingly populated towns and cities is not to build new roads or widen existing, but to use real time travel information - in essence to buy a TomTom. Infomercial aside, this does not stop the usual motoring moanarati, who won't leave their cars until their cold dead hands are prized off the wheel, whilst refusing to accept that by sitting in a jam they are part of the problem. It's easier to blame every other motorist, the school run or 'the Greens'. Also, funnily enough, ignoring the fact that Brighton has improved in the 'rankings'. It's a simple rule of physics that there is a finite amount of cars that one can cram into a finite space, affecting quality of life for all. Other mainland European towns and cities woke up to this decades ago and started to design out the private car - their town and city centres are still as vibrant as ever. But we now have to hate everything Europe does for some inexplicable reason. And I own a car - it's just that i've realised that the disc in the windscreen is a privilege - not some God given right. Anyway, let's pick up the popcorn and read people denying simple facts and inconvenient truths. Enjoy Top Gear.[/p][/quote]Moanerati? I'm guessing you must be HJarrs![/p][/quote]Erm, no. Just someone who has traveled around to see what works best in towns and cities (New York City, anywhere you like in the Netherlands etc etc). I'm also someone who has read enough of this website to see what the agendas are. Worthing Jim
  • Score: -18

10:48am Wed 4 Jun 14

Worthing Jim says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
TomTom have released a travel survey, also stating that the answer to congestion in ever increasingly populated towns and cities is not to build new roads or widen existing, but to use real time travel information - in essence to buy a TomTom.

Infomercial aside, this does not stop the usual motoring moanarati, who won't leave their cars until their cold dead hands are prized off the wheel, whilst refusing to accept that by sitting in a jam they are part of the problem. It's easier to blame every other motorist, the school run or 'the Greens'. Also, funnily enough, ignoring the fact that Brighton has improved in the 'rankings'. It's a simple rule of physics that there is a finite amount of cars that one can cram into a finite space, affecting quality of life for all. Other mainland European towns and cities woke up to this decades ago and started to design out the private car - their town and city centres are still as vibrant as ever. But we now have to hate everything Europe does for some inexplicable reason. And I own a car - it's just that i've realised that the disc in the windscreen is a privilege - not some God given right.

Anyway, let's pick up the popcorn and read people denying simple facts and inconvenient truths. Enjoy Top Gear.
Moanerati? I'm guessing you must be HJarrs!
Erm, no. Just someone who has traveled around to see what works best in towns and cities (New York City, anywhere you like in the Netherlands etc etc). I'm also someone who has read enough of this website to see what the agendas are.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: TomTom have released a travel survey, also stating that the answer to congestion in ever increasingly populated towns and cities is not to build new roads or widen existing, but to use real time travel information - in essence to buy a TomTom. Infomercial aside, this does not stop the usual motoring moanarati, who won't leave their cars until their cold dead hands are prized off the wheel, whilst refusing to accept that by sitting in a jam they are part of the problem. It's easier to blame every other motorist, the school run or 'the Greens'. Also, funnily enough, ignoring the fact that Brighton has improved in the 'rankings'. It's a simple rule of physics that there is a finite amount of cars that one can cram into a finite space, affecting quality of life for all. Other mainland European towns and cities woke up to this decades ago and started to design out the private car - their town and city centres are still as vibrant as ever. But we now have to hate everything Europe does for some inexplicable reason. And I own a car - it's just that i've realised that the disc in the windscreen is a privilege - not some God given right. Anyway, let's pick up the popcorn and read people denying simple facts and inconvenient truths. Enjoy Top Gear.[/p][/quote]Moanerati? I'm guessing you must be HJarrs![/p][/quote]Erm, no. Just someone who has traveled around to see what works best in towns and cities (New York City, anywhere you like in the Netherlands etc etc). I'm also someone who has read enough of this website to see what the agendas are. Worthing Jim
  • Score: -18

10:48am Wed 4 Jun 14

The Heretic says...

I've lived here for 30 years now and watched congestion go from bad to worse under (in alphabetical order) Conservative, Green and Labour administrations. All three have modified, tweaked and otherwise tinkered with our road network, sometimes producing marginal improvements, on other occasions, less so (and usually I've noticed, with no reference to those who earn a living actually driving on our roads). The most which seems to be possible, from all available evidence, is to slow the decent towards complete gridlock.

The biggest single change to driving conditions in the city came with completion of the A27 bypass some years ago. Not - be it noted - a B&HCC scheme. Even this could have included slip roads suitable to take traffic from the east of the city directly onto the A23 instead of clogging up rat runs between Lewes and London Roads, as still happens.

In the years since the bypass opened, the A270 has become almost as bad (especially either side of Preston Circus) as when it was the A27. I see no reference to the actual net increase in vehicles registered over the years, but as license plates now run in 6 month increments rather that the old 12 month period, I'm guessing it's gone up substantially. I'm no expert, but I'd imagine this might have some bearing on the problem.

Our fair city largely predates motor vehicles and boy does that ever show. Add to this north-south traffic on a mere four routes out of the city crossing east-west traffic on three primary routes - and doing so at ground level and voilà - chaos. Anything which can be achieved by any one party during a single council pales into insignificance next to the scale of infrastructure work necessary to cure the woes of our roads. It's not a few years of catch-up, it's a century or more. All the political mudslinging in the world won't change that.

I'd hesitate to make too many specific suggestions without reference to an up to date survey of exactly what traffic is going where, and when. Modern CCTV cameras (fixed and mobile) allegedly have capacity to identify individual license plates, so why not put this to some use other than gathering revenue? So, this costs money. So does traffic congestion. Surely, with two universities in the city, there must be one department which wants to make a name for itself in urban traffic management.

Or is political support happier continuing to confine effort to merely trading insults regarding whatever scheme is being implemented at any given time?
I've lived here for 30 years now and watched congestion go from bad to worse under (in alphabetical order) Conservative, Green and Labour administrations. All three have modified, tweaked and otherwise tinkered with our road network, sometimes producing marginal improvements, on other occasions, less so (and usually I've noticed, with no reference to those who earn a living actually driving on our roads). The most which seems to be possible, from all available evidence, is to slow the decent towards complete gridlock. The biggest single change to driving conditions in the city came with completion of the A27 bypass some years ago. Not - be it noted - a B&HCC scheme. Even this could have included slip roads suitable to take traffic from the east of the city directly onto the A23 instead of clogging up rat runs between Lewes and London Roads, as still happens. In the years since the bypass opened, the A270 has become almost as bad (especially either side of Preston Circus) as when it was the A27. I see no reference to the actual net increase in vehicles registered over the years, but as license plates now run in 6 month increments rather that the old 12 month period, I'm guessing it's gone up substantially. I'm no expert, but I'd imagine this might have some bearing on the problem. Our fair city largely predates motor vehicles and boy does that ever show. Add to this north-south traffic on a mere four routes out of the city crossing east-west traffic on three primary routes - and doing so at ground level and voilà - chaos. Anything which can be achieved by any one party during a single council pales into insignificance next to the scale of infrastructure work necessary to cure the woes of our roads. It's not a few years of catch-up, it's a century or more. All the political mudslinging in the world won't change that. I'd hesitate to make too many specific suggestions without reference to an up to date survey of exactly what traffic is going where, and when. Modern CCTV cameras (fixed and mobile) allegedly have capacity to identify individual license plates, so why not put this to some use other than gathering revenue? So, this costs money. So does traffic congestion. Surely, with two universities in the city, there must be one department which wants to make a name for itself in urban traffic management. Or is political support happier continuing to confine effort to merely trading insults regarding whatever scheme is being implemented at any given time? The Heretic
  • Score: 28

11:06am Wed 4 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

road_rager wrote:
From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley
Christ - someone with a bit of sense!! Congestion has gone up by just 1% which can be explained by extra visitors and tourism, by extra jobs and by more people moving here - let's not forget that something like 10% of students stay in Brighton and Hove once they've completed their degrees every year and that's without the Londoners, the retirees, the gays etc etc etc that all want to live down here thus adding to the issue of over-crowding and congestion!!
[quote][p][bold]road_rager[/bold] wrote: From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley[/p][/quote]Christ - someone with a bit of sense!! Congestion has gone up by just 1% which can be explained by extra visitors and tourism, by extra jobs and by more people moving here - let's not forget that something like 10% of students stay in Brighton and Hove once they've completed their degrees every year and that's without the Londoners, the retirees, the gays etc etc etc that all want to live down here thus adding to the issue of over-crowding and congestion!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -17

11:12am Wed 4 Jun 14

billy goat-gruff says...

The selfish petrol heads, sitting in their air-conditioned 4x4s pumping out pollution to the rest of us, just don't get it - they are the problem! They are the traffic! The sooner the centre of the city and seafront is all like New Road the better (only without the cars and taxis!).
The selfish petrol heads, sitting in their air-conditioned 4x4s pumping out pollution to the rest of us, just don't get it - they are the problem! They are the traffic! The sooner the centre of the city and seafront is all like New Road the better (only without the cars and taxis!). billy goat-gruff
  • Score: -34

11:22am Wed 4 Jun 14

spa301 says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
The selfish petrol heads, sitting in their air-conditioned 4x4s pumping out pollution to the rest of us, just don't get it - they are the problem! They are the traffic! The sooner the centre of the city and seafront is all like New Road the better (only without the cars and taxis!).
What a stupid unhelpful comment.
Thank you Minger21 and The Heretic for your intelligent, non mudslinging comments that deal with the realities and problems of modern travel.
Not everyone can walk/cycle/bus to work. I often wonder if the virulent anti car brigade all live within easy access of their workplace/supermarke
t etc. They offer nothing but insults.
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: The selfish petrol heads, sitting in their air-conditioned 4x4s pumping out pollution to the rest of us, just don't get it - they are the problem! They are the traffic! The sooner the centre of the city and seafront is all like New Road the better (only without the cars and taxis!).[/p][/quote]What a stupid unhelpful comment. Thank you Minger21 and The Heretic for your intelligent, non mudslinging comments that deal with the realities and problems of modern travel. Not everyone can walk/cycle/bus to work. I often wonder if the virulent anti car brigade all live within easy access of their workplace/supermarke t etc. They offer nothing but insults. spa301
  • Score: 34

11:27am Wed 4 Jun 14

pjwilk says...

That stupid Councillor on tv last night said its the price we pay for being a popular place.Why dont they just have bus lanes for rush hour and for all traffic at all other times,the Greens have really messed up the road systems,dont they realise that these jams caused by bus lanes are causing much more pollution,so defeating their object. I hope nobody ever votes for Greens again.
That stupid Councillor on tv last night said its the price we pay for being a popular place.Why dont they just have bus lanes for rush hour and for all traffic at all other times,the Greens have really messed up the road systems,dont they realise that these jams caused by bus lanes are causing much more pollution,so defeating their object. I hope nobody ever votes for Greens again. pjwilk
  • Score: 28

11:27am Wed 4 Jun 14

NickBtn says...

Quiterie wrote:
Ania Green wrote:
What utter rubbish Steve Percy is talking. We have carried out numerous studies and have found that the introduction of a bus lane along Lewes Road has had no effect on travel times within the city at all.
If you're talking about studies carried out by Council Officers, I have zero confidence in the outcome of those studies. You can guarantee that those studies are biased because they're not carried out by independent people. I have also yet to come across a Council Officer who has the skills to analyse data in an effective and competent way. They will of course produce any results that the Council of the day wants them to.
I think we believe what we see with our own eyes (increased queues and people who now avoid Lewes Road and use side streets instead which are busier). We also read the almost daily delays and congestion twitter reports about Lewes Road from the bus company and the council's own traffic team

Ania - do you really mean your comment that "a bus lane along Lewes Road has had no effect on travel times within the city at all" - if that's correct then millions wasted on no improvement! The bus company hasn't yet made any claims for faster services that I've seen and others say delays so perhaps the scheme is just a white elephant with millions spent and no benefit......
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: What utter rubbish Steve Percy is talking. We have carried out numerous studies and have found that the introduction of a bus lane along Lewes Road has had no effect on travel times within the city at all.[/p][/quote]If you're talking about studies carried out by Council Officers, I have zero confidence in the outcome of those studies. You can guarantee that those studies are biased because they're not carried out by independent people. I have also yet to come across a Council Officer who has the skills to analyse data in an effective and competent way. They will of course produce any results that the Council of the day wants them to.[/p][/quote]I think we believe what we see with our own eyes (increased queues and people who now avoid Lewes Road and use side streets instead which are busier). We also read the almost daily delays and congestion twitter reports about Lewes Road from the bus company and the council's own traffic team Ania - do you really mean your comment that "a bus lane along Lewes Road has had no effect on travel times within the city at all" - if that's correct then millions wasted on no improvement! The bus company hasn't yet made any claims for faster services that I've seen and others say delays so perhaps the scheme is just a white elephant with millions spent and no benefit...... NickBtn
  • Score: 27

11:35am Wed 4 Jun 14

pachallis says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
road_rager wrote:
From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley
Christ - someone with a bit of sense!! Congestion has gone up by just 1% which can be explained by extra visitors and tourism, by extra jobs and by more people moving here - let's not forget that something like 10% of students stay in Brighton and Hove once they've completed their degrees every year and that's without the Londoners, the retirees, the gays etc etc etc that all want to live down here thus adding to the issue of over-crowding and congestion!!
@brighton bluenose - swearing!

Have you been to the green party school of mathematics? An increase from 30% to 31% is a 3% increase in congestion (31%/30%).

And those are very nice theories you have, but other than the one about us having an incompetent idealistic anti-car pro-bike green controlled transport committee, can you actually provide any data to backup your theories?
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]road_rager[/bold] wrote: From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley[/p][/quote]Christ - someone with a bit of sense!! Congestion has gone up by just 1% which can be explained by extra visitors and tourism, by extra jobs and by more people moving here - let's not forget that something like 10% of students stay in Brighton and Hove once they've completed their degrees every year and that's without the Londoners, the retirees, the gays etc etc etc that all want to live down here thus adding to the issue of over-crowding and congestion!![/p][/quote]@brighton bluenose - swearing! Have you been to the green party school of mathematics? An increase from 30% to 31% is a 3% increase in congestion (31%/30%). And those are very nice theories you have, but other than the one about us having an incompetent idealistic anti-car pro-bike green controlled transport committee, can you actually provide any data to backup your theories? pachallis
  • Score: 8

11:40am Wed 4 Jun 14

pachallis says...

NickBtn wrote:
Quiterie wrote:
Ania Green wrote:
What utter rubbish Steve Percy is talking. We have carried out numerous studies and have found that the introduction of a bus lane along Lewes Road has had no effect on travel times within the city at all.
If you're talking about studies carried out by Council Officers, I have zero confidence in the outcome of those studies. You can guarantee that those studies are biased because they're not carried out by independent people. I have also yet to come across a Council Officer who has the skills to analyse data in an effective and competent way. They will of course produce any results that the Council of the day wants them to.
I think we believe what we see with our own eyes (increased queues and people who now avoid Lewes Road and use side streets instead which are busier). We also read the almost daily delays and congestion twitter reports about Lewes Road from the bus company and the council's own traffic team

Ania - do you really mean your comment that "a bus lane along Lewes Road has had no effect on travel times within the city at all" - if that's correct then millions wasted on no improvement! The bus company hasn't yet made any claims for faster services that I've seen and others say delays so perhaps the scheme is just a white elephant with millions spent and no benefit......
@Quiterie & @NickBtn - don't get too upset - you do know Ania is just a troll?
[quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ania Green[/bold] wrote: What utter rubbish Steve Percy is talking. We have carried out numerous studies and have found that the introduction of a bus lane along Lewes Road has had no effect on travel times within the city at all.[/p][/quote]If you're talking about studies carried out by Council Officers, I have zero confidence in the outcome of those studies. You can guarantee that those studies are biased because they're not carried out by independent people. I have also yet to come across a Council Officer who has the skills to analyse data in an effective and competent way. They will of course produce any results that the Council of the day wants them to.[/p][/quote]I think we believe what we see with our own eyes (increased queues and people who now avoid Lewes Road and use side streets instead which are busier). We also read the almost daily delays and congestion twitter reports about Lewes Road from the bus company and the council's own traffic team Ania - do you really mean your comment that "a bus lane along Lewes Road has had no effect on travel times within the city at all" - if that's correct then millions wasted on no improvement! The bus company hasn't yet made any claims for faster services that I've seen and others say delays so perhaps the scheme is just a white elephant with millions spent and no benefit......[/p][/quote]@Quiterie & @NickBtn - don't get too upset - you do know Ania is just a troll? pachallis
  • Score: 3

11:59am Wed 4 Jun 14

Joshiman says...

Everyone I have spoken to about congestion agrees that the Greens have caused this.Especially Ian Davey.
The traffic flow expert engineers are amateurs when compared to their counterparts in Europe.
We have too many traffic lights.All are totally out of sequence.The worst traffic congestion points are:
Seafront Regency Square traffic lights.Pedestrian crossing lights near the Pier go red as soon as pressed,A259 to Rottingdean/Peacehav
en is just a nightmare.London Rd single stop start Rd out of town.Single lane into town,Railway arches/New England St.Blatchington Rd/Sackville Rd junctions Old Shoreham Rd.etc etc We need logical traffic engineers with common sense.This anti car policy is alienating everyone.I had visitors out of town who were shocked at the gridlock over the weekend but even more shocked at the extortionate parking charges especially the NCP off West Street.£8.40 for 2 hours?Green party Council get some real experts in to sort out this mess.
Everyone I have spoken to about congestion agrees that the Greens have caused this.Especially Ian Davey. The traffic flow expert engineers are amateurs when compared to their counterparts in Europe. We have too many traffic lights.All are totally out of sequence.The worst traffic congestion points are: Seafront Regency Square traffic lights.Pedestrian crossing lights near the Pier go red as soon as pressed,A259 to Rottingdean/Peacehav en is just a nightmare.London Rd single stop start Rd out of town.Single lane into town,Railway arches/New England St.Blatchington Rd/Sackville Rd junctions Old Shoreham Rd.etc etc We need logical traffic engineers with common sense.This anti car policy is alienating everyone.I had visitors out of town who were shocked at the gridlock over the weekend but even more shocked at the extortionate parking charges especially the NCP off West Street.£8.40 for 2 hours?Green party Council get some real experts in to sort out this mess. Joshiman
  • Score: 19

12:26pm Wed 4 Jun 14

graham_Seagull says...

Max Ripple wrote:
The widening of the A23 is happening miles outside of Brighton and has no effect whatsoever on the congestion within the city. A pointless piece of evidence, if you ask me. Main arterial roads in Brighton have in fact been narrowed. Constantly. Either by removing a lane entirely to allow for infrequent buses and a handful of cyclists or by widening pavements to allow for tree planters. The more you narrow roads, the more traffic has to slow down. Corners of roads which are now virtually impossible to negotiate as they stick out so far. Pollution is going up, partly due to the proliferation of diesel vehicles which cause more damage and the fact that cars have no way of traveling anywhere near their optimum speeds to keep it to a minimum. The 20mph zones mean that more vehicles have to drive 'on their brakes' as it were and that causes more problems with asbestos dust. Drivers also find that they are constantly having to look down at their speedometers to stop themselves going over the 20mph limit. This means they are not concentrating on what is going on around them as much as they should be. All policies have their drawbacks.
how about just admitting that we as car drivers (you as well) are ALL part of the problem, there are way too many journeys by car in the City, its not someone else causing the problems it really is you and me and pretty much everyone else.
If the built out corners and 20mph zones were removed, do you really think a car journey would be any quicker? thats a ridiculous statement to infer.

If you cant concentrate on drivnig at 20mph then you simply dont have the rights skills to drive and you should walk.
[quote][p][bold]Max Ripple[/bold] wrote: The widening of the A23 is happening miles outside of Brighton and has no effect whatsoever on the congestion within the city. A pointless piece of evidence, if you ask me. Main arterial roads in Brighton have in fact been narrowed. Constantly. Either by removing a lane entirely to allow for infrequent buses and a handful of cyclists or by widening pavements to allow for tree planters. The more you narrow roads, the more traffic has to slow down. Corners of roads which are now virtually impossible to negotiate as they stick out so far. Pollution is going up, partly due to the proliferation of diesel vehicles which cause more damage and the fact that cars have no way of traveling anywhere near their optimum speeds to keep it to a minimum. The 20mph zones mean that more vehicles have to drive 'on their brakes' as it were and that causes more problems with asbestos dust. Drivers also find that they are constantly having to look down at their speedometers to stop themselves going over the 20mph limit. This means they are not concentrating on what is going on around them as much as they should be. All policies have their drawbacks.[/p][/quote]how about just admitting that we as car drivers (you as well) are ALL part of the problem, there are way too many journeys by car in the City, its not someone else causing the problems it really is you and me and pretty much everyone else. If the built out corners and 20mph zones were removed, do you really think a car journey would be any quicker? thats a ridiculous statement to infer. If you cant concentrate on drivnig at 20mph then you simply dont have the rights skills to drive and you should walk. graham_Seagull
  • Score: -15

12:31pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Automaton says...

road_rager wrote:
From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley
That dosent necessarily mean we have got any better only that others cities have got even worse
[quote][p][bold]road_rager[/bold] wrote: From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley[/p][/quote]That dosent necessarily mean we have got any better only that others cities have got even worse Automaton
  • Score: 9

12:36pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Automaton says...

cynic_the wrote:
This report is actually pretty meaningless without any information about car use over the same time period.

If car & motor vehicle use has increased, then an increase in congestion and journey times is inevitable. If it has decreased or stayed the same, then the increased congestion must be blamed on changes to the road layouts (and also roadworks etc).

Unfortunately, I don't think that data will ever be made available in a format, or from a source, that people will actually trust.

Part of the problem I think comes from the lack of joined up thinking in the transport planning departments. The conservative councilor demonstrates this perfectly by making BOTH the following statements:

"we’re forever trying to get people onto the buses"
"as far as pollution is concerned, I think this is far more to do with filthy diesel engines"

So it seems that their solution to one issue is what causes another. Brilliant.
Good point. I seem to recall a recent Argus article claiming car ownership has decreased in Brighton.
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: This report is actually pretty meaningless without any information about car use over the same time period. If car & motor vehicle use has increased, then an increase in congestion and journey times is inevitable. If it has decreased or stayed the same, then the increased congestion must be blamed on changes to the road layouts (and also roadworks etc). Unfortunately, I don't think that data will ever be made available in a format, or from a source, that people will actually trust. Part of the problem I think comes from the lack of joined up thinking in the transport planning departments. The conservative councilor demonstrates this perfectly by making BOTH the following statements: "we’re forever trying to get people onto the buses" "as far as pollution is concerned, I think this is far more to do with filthy diesel engines" So it seems that their solution to one issue is what causes another. Brilliant.[/p][/quote]Good point. I seem to recall a recent Argus article claiming car ownership has decreased in Brighton. Automaton
  • Score: 6

12:45pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Mr P Brown says...

When are this ridiculous council going to admit that they just are not capable of the job they have been elected to do?
When are this ridiculous council going to admit that they just are not capable of the job they have been elected to do? Mr P Brown
  • Score: 12

12:52pm Wed 4 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

Minger21 wrote:
I am one of the commuters along the seafront. I drive because I work out of town, and to get the bus would take three times as long. It should not take an hour and a half to travel 12 miles on a bus! The buses serve both my home and place of work, but an extra two hours a day commuting does not make it worth using the bus.

In general on the seafront it feels like the traffic lights/pedestrian crossing timings do not help traffic flow. It is rarely possible to get along the seafront without being stopped at lights. This creates so much stop/start rather than encouraging a smooth traffic flow, which of course then impacts on side streets etc. I realise the area is part of the busiest in terms of tourism but equally the A259 is one of the main roads into and out of town and it never feels to be treated as such. If there was a viable alternative route I would gladly use it, but with parts of town inaccessible to cars and the volume of traffic going through the available routes, it's quicker to use the seafront and sit in that traffic. It does tickle me that everyone is always banging on about air quality, but it seems the congestion is at least partly down to the infrastructure. If the powers that be stopped trying to force people out of their cars, which clearly isn't working, and improved the road network for ALL users including cars, we may see an improvement.

I do think the bus service is excellent (at least where I live) but the costs are so high I don't use it as often as I could. At £4.50 per person for a return it makes it cheaper to get a taxi or drive, especially in a group. I can nip into town in my car, pay £3 for 2 hours parking and go door to door. It's convenient and cheaper, so why on earth would I leave the car at home?

B&H is always going to be a busy place, and that's great! We will always have traffic. Trying to make life difficult for motorists seems to not be encouraging people out of their cars however. I wonder if it's time for a shake up.
As you can 'nip into town' where is the congestion issue?!!
[quote][p][bold]Minger21[/bold] wrote: I am one of the commuters along the seafront. I drive because I work out of town, and to get the bus would take three times as long. It should not take an hour and a half to travel 12 miles on a bus! The buses serve both my home and place of work, but an extra two hours a day commuting does not make it worth using the bus. In general on the seafront it feels like the traffic lights/pedestrian crossing timings do not help traffic flow. It is rarely possible to get along the seafront without being stopped at lights. This creates so much stop/start rather than encouraging a smooth traffic flow, which of course then impacts on side streets etc. I realise the area is part of the busiest in terms of tourism but equally the A259 is one of the main roads into and out of town and it never feels to be treated as such. If there was a viable alternative route I would gladly use it, but with parts of town inaccessible to cars and the volume of traffic going through the available routes, it's quicker to use the seafront and sit in that traffic. It does tickle me that everyone is always banging on about air quality, but it seems the congestion is at least partly down to the infrastructure. If the powers that be stopped trying to force people out of their cars, which clearly isn't working, and improved the road network for ALL users including cars, we may see an improvement. I do think the bus service is excellent (at least where I live) but the costs are so high I don't use it as often as I could. At £4.50 per person for a return it makes it cheaper to get a taxi or drive, especially in a group. I can nip into town in my car, pay £3 for 2 hours parking and go door to door. It's convenient and cheaper, so why on earth would I leave the car at home? B&H is always going to be a busy place, and that's great! We will always have traffic. Trying to make life difficult for motorists seems to not be encouraging people out of their cars however. I wonder if it's time for a shake up.[/p][/quote]As you can 'nip into town' where is the congestion issue?!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -10

12:54pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Man of steel says...

Gill Mitchell says that The Albion runs a very successful park and ride system, but she is forgetting that you have to drive into town in order to park halfway along the Lewes Road, then get a bus back out of town, these buses having already caused havoc along the Avenue, where they park awaiting their turn, and then even more havoc after the match, when all of the cars try to drive back out of town, on match days, we that live somewhere along the Avenue, are almost landlocked, and that the only reason for the park and ride is that there were not enough parking spaces built at the stadium.
Joshiman, I think that they are not amateurs, they have been told to cause this mess, when I think back to when I was involved in traffic systems, the designs were always to get traffic moving freely, and in Brighton this also involved the traffic lights being under computer control from Lewes Council offices, has this control been switched off?
There were amateur designers in the past, for instance the junctions at Portland, Blatchington, Sackville Roads, and at Sackville, Old Shoreham Road, along with others, were designed by a man with the dubious training and knowledge of having been a succesful rally navigator, and the Vogue Gyratory by a young woman changing departments within the council, fresh out of the wages department i seem to remember, I think the expression at the time was "Something to cut her teeth on"
Gill Mitchell says that The Albion runs a very successful park and ride system, but she is forgetting that you have to drive into town in order to park halfway along the Lewes Road, then get a bus back out of town, these buses having already caused havoc along the Avenue, where they park awaiting their turn, and then even more havoc after the match, when all of the cars try to drive back out of town, on match days, we that live somewhere along the Avenue, are almost landlocked, and that the only reason for the park and ride is that there were not enough parking spaces built at the stadium. Joshiman, I think that they are not amateurs, they have been told to cause this mess, when I think back to when I was involved in traffic systems, the designs were always to get traffic moving freely, and in Brighton this also involved the traffic lights being under computer control from Lewes Council offices, has this control been switched off? There were amateur designers in the past, for instance the junctions at Portland, Blatchington, Sackville Roads, and at Sackville, Old Shoreham Road, along with others, were designed by a man with the dubious training and knowledge of having been a succesful rally navigator, and the Vogue Gyratory by a young woman changing departments within the council, fresh out of the wages department i seem to remember, I think the expression at the time was "Something to cut her teeth on" Man of steel
  • Score: 15

12:54pm Wed 4 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

Automaton wrote:
road_rager wrote:
From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley
That dosent necessarily mean we have got any better only that others cities have got even worse
But considering all the issues our average congestion issues are at a very similar percentage to everywhere else in the country!!
[quote][p][bold]Automaton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]road_rager[/bold] wrote: From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley[/p][/quote]That dosent necessarily mean we have got any better only that others cities have got even worse[/p][/quote]But considering all the issues our average congestion issues are at a very similar percentage to everywhere else in the country!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -8

12:58pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Mark63 says...

Its simple common sense that if you narrow roads, they will be busier... our council is obviously too **** thick to realise this, preferring to create 6-foot cycle lanes for hardly any users and dedicated bus lanes while cars sit and wait and wait and wait - and then have to cross bus lanes and cycle lanes to exit... A 20 mph city means a city in SECOND GEAR ... ie going nowhere. The Greens are killing the place - how green is that! Fast direct roads in and out of town are needed, together with large affordable parking, not the £25 a day NCP charges or the £20 a day street parking charges... Brighton is slitting its own throat and its got nothing to do with the people living here - just the idiots running it (at the moment)...
Its simple common sense that if you narrow roads, they will be busier... our council is obviously too **** thick to realise this, preferring to create 6-foot cycle lanes for hardly any users and dedicated bus lanes while cars sit and wait and wait and wait - and then have to cross bus lanes and cycle lanes to exit... A 20 mph city means a city in SECOND GEAR ... ie going nowhere. The Greens are killing the place - how green is that! Fast direct roads in and out of town are needed, together with large affordable parking, not the £25 a day NCP charges or the £20 a day street parking charges... Brighton is slitting its own throat and its got nothing to do with the people living here - just the idiots running it (at the moment)... Mark63
  • Score: 14

1:08pm Wed 4 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

pachallis wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
road_rager wrote:
From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley
Christ - someone with a bit of sense!! Congestion has gone up by just 1% which can be explained by extra visitors and tourism, by extra jobs and by more people moving here - let's not forget that something like 10% of students stay in Brighton and Hove once they've completed their degrees every year and that's without the Londoners, the retirees, the gays etc etc etc that all want to live down here thus adding to the issue of over-crowding and congestion!!
@brighton bluenose - swearing!

Have you been to the green party school of mathematics? An increase from 30% to 31% is a 3% increase in congestion (31%/30%).

And those are very nice theories you have, but other than the one about us having an incompetent idealistic anti-car pro-bike green controlled transport committee, can you actually provide any data to backup your theories?
Yes - as you know full well it's just been reported about the rise in the number of visitors last year and the new business start ups - or are you going to deny these facts?! With regard to the population increase there are nearly 20,000 people on the housing waiting list - in 2011 it was 11,500!!! And IF those houses that need building do ever get constructed do you really think that all that temporary accommodation and private rented accommodation used by the council will remain empty?! Of course not so this city has got, and will continue to get, more and more crowded - in 2011 the projection was an additional 40,000 by 2026!!
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]road_rager[/bold] wrote: From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley[/p][/quote]Christ - someone with a bit of sense!! Congestion has gone up by just 1% which can be explained by extra visitors and tourism, by extra jobs and by more people moving here - let's not forget that something like 10% of students stay in Brighton and Hove once they've completed their degrees every year and that's without the Londoners, the retirees, the gays etc etc etc that all want to live down here thus adding to the issue of over-crowding and congestion!![/p][/quote]@brighton bluenose - swearing! Have you been to the green party school of mathematics? An increase from 30% to 31% is a 3% increase in congestion (31%/30%). And those are very nice theories you have, but other than the one about us having an incompetent idealistic anti-car pro-bike green controlled transport committee, can you actually provide any data to backup your theories?[/p][/quote]Yes - as you know full well it's just been reported about the rise in the number of visitors last year and the new business start ups - or are you going to deny these facts?! With regard to the population increase there are nearly 20,000 people on the housing waiting list - in 2011 it was 11,500!!! And IF those houses that need building do ever get constructed do you really think that all that temporary accommodation and private rented accommodation used by the council will remain empty?! Of course not so this city has got, and will continue to get, more and more crowded - in 2011 the projection was an additional 40,000 by 2026!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 1

1:12pm Wed 4 Jun 14

scootergirly says...

Every day i ride my scooter from Rottingdean to Newhaven for work, every day the congestion from Peacehaven to Rottingdean. Loads of cars with one person in, loads of cars with school children in.
Why arnt we using buses more? Is it because of the price?
Yet when we get to the school holidays or inset days there is no traffic congestion??????????
????/
Every day i ride my scooter from Rottingdean to Newhaven for work, every day the congestion from Peacehaven to Rottingdean. Loads of cars with one person in, loads of cars with school children in. Why arnt we using buses more? Is it because of the price? Yet when we get to the school holidays or inset days there is no traffic congestion?????????? ????/ scootergirly
  • Score: -4

1:12pm Wed 4 Jun 14

twosugars says...

Congestion charging is the answer.
Congestion charging is the answer. twosugars
  • Score: -20

1:24pm Wed 4 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

Mark63 wrote:
Its simple common sense that if you narrow roads, they will be busier... our council is obviously too **** thick to realise this, preferring to create 6-foot cycle lanes for hardly any users and dedicated bus lanes while cars sit and wait and wait and wait - and then have to cross bus lanes and cycle lanes to exit... A 20 mph city means a city in SECOND GEAR ... ie going nowhere. The Greens are killing the place - how green is that! Fast direct roads in and out of town are needed, together with large affordable parking, not the £25 a day NCP charges or the £20 a day street parking charges... Brighton is slitting its own throat and its got nothing to do with the people living here - just the idiots running it (at the moment)...
Do you REALLY think that Labour and the Tories would do away with these bus lanes?! Do you not realise that Tory/ Labour brought in the bus lanes along London Road or the A259?! Perhaps you haven't read the FACTS about visitor numbers being up or about Brighton being the most popular resort in the country?! Perhaps you can explain how you want 'fast and direct' roads in a small city with lots of traffic and lots of junctions? This isn't LA for gods sake?! The idea that 20mph slows the city down is just brain-dead rubbish - after all we are told most people don't obey it so you are hardly basing your argument on any reliable data and if you are to be believed the city is in gridlock most of the time - you can't have it both ways!!
[quote][p][bold]Mark63[/bold] wrote: Its simple common sense that if you narrow roads, they will be busier... our council is obviously too **** thick to realise this, preferring to create 6-foot cycle lanes for hardly any users and dedicated bus lanes while cars sit and wait and wait and wait - and then have to cross bus lanes and cycle lanes to exit... A 20 mph city means a city in SECOND GEAR ... ie going nowhere. The Greens are killing the place - how green is that! Fast direct roads in and out of town are needed, together with large affordable parking, not the £25 a day NCP charges or the £20 a day street parking charges... Brighton is slitting its own throat and its got nothing to do with the people living here - just the idiots running it (at the moment)...[/p][/quote]Do you REALLY think that Labour and the Tories would do away with these bus lanes?! Do you not realise that Tory/ Labour brought in the bus lanes along London Road or the A259?! Perhaps you haven't read the FACTS about visitor numbers being up or about Brighton being the most popular resort in the country?! Perhaps you can explain how you want 'fast and direct' roads in a small city with lots of traffic and lots of junctions? This isn't LA for gods sake?! The idea that 20mph slows the city down is just brain-dead rubbish - after all we are told most people don't obey it so you are hardly basing your argument on any reliable data and if you are to be believed the city is in gridlock most of the time - you can't have it both ways!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -11

1:28pm Wed 4 Jun 14

pachallis says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
pachallis wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
road_rager wrote:
From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley
Christ - someone with a bit of sense!! Congestion has gone up by just 1% which can be explained by extra visitors and tourism, by extra jobs and by more people moving here - let's not forget that something like 10% of students stay in Brighton and Hove once they've completed their degrees every year and that's without the Londoners, the retirees, the gays etc etc etc that all want to live down here thus adding to the issue of over-crowding and congestion!!
@brighton bluenose - swearing!

Have you been to the green party school of mathematics? An increase from 30% to 31% is a 3% increase in congestion (31%/30%).

And those are very nice theories you have, but other than the one about us having an incompetent idealistic anti-car pro-bike green controlled transport committee, can you actually provide any data to backup your theories?
Yes - as you know full well it's just been reported about the rise in the number of visitors last year and the new business start ups - or are you going to deny these facts?! With regard to the population increase there are nearly 20,000 people on the housing waiting list - in 2011 it was 11,500!!! And IF those houses that need building do ever get constructed do you really think that all that temporary accommodation and private rented accommodation used by the council will remain empty?! Of course not so this city has got, and will continue to get, more and more crowded - in 2011 the projection was an additional 40,000 by 2026!!
@brighton bluenose - more green-spin speak!

Yes - there were more visitors to the city (well those staying at least 1 night in an hotel was up 6% last year, but what about actual visitor numbers? What data is there to back the claim that visitors arriving by car have increased?

And why didn't all the anti-car policies such as increasing some parking charges by 100% help? Didn't the never-to-be-enforced 20mph zones and bus lanes discourage visitors and shoppers from driving cars? Are you saying that all the policies that the greens have followed have caused NO benefit to congestion levels? Or could it be that these policies have actually caused the worsening congestion?

And what has housing waiting lists got to do with congestion?

And I recall (and I think it is quoted above) that the greens were boasting how there were now less cars registered in the city than before due to their policies.

I think the greens need to get their story straight with some real data rather than 'grasping at straws'.

It's a shame that HJarrs has apparently been banned by Caroline Lucas from responding to my posts - possibly after our last discussion when he claimed that to be an environmentalist you had to be an anti-capitalist communist.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]road_rager[/bold] wrote: From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley[/p][/quote]Christ - someone with a bit of sense!! Congestion has gone up by just 1% which can be explained by extra visitors and tourism, by extra jobs and by more people moving here - let's not forget that something like 10% of students stay in Brighton and Hove once they've completed their degrees every year and that's without the Londoners, the retirees, the gays etc etc etc that all want to live down here thus adding to the issue of over-crowding and congestion!![/p][/quote]@brighton bluenose - swearing! Have you been to the green party school of mathematics? An increase from 30% to 31% is a 3% increase in congestion (31%/30%). And those are very nice theories you have, but other than the one about us having an incompetent idealistic anti-car pro-bike green controlled transport committee, can you actually provide any data to backup your theories?[/p][/quote]Yes - as you know full well it's just been reported about the rise in the number of visitors last year and the new business start ups - or are you going to deny these facts?! With regard to the population increase there are nearly 20,000 people on the housing waiting list - in 2011 it was 11,500!!! And IF those houses that need building do ever get constructed do you really think that all that temporary accommodation and private rented accommodation used by the council will remain empty?! Of course not so this city has got, and will continue to get, more and more crowded - in 2011 the projection was an additional 40,000 by 2026!![/p][/quote]@brighton bluenose - more green-spin speak! Yes - there were more visitors to the city (well those staying at least 1 night in an hotel was up 6% last year, but what about actual visitor numbers? What data is there to back the claim that visitors arriving by car have increased? And why didn't all the anti-car policies such as increasing some parking charges by 100% help? Didn't the never-to-be-enforced 20mph zones and bus lanes discourage visitors and shoppers from driving cars? Are you saying that all the policies that the greens have followed have caused NO benefit to congestion levels? Or could it be that these policies have actually caused the worsening congestion? And what has housing waiting lists got to do with congestion? And I recall (and I think it is quoted above) that the greens were boasting how there were now less cars registered in the city than before due to their policies. I think the greens need to get their story straight with some real data rather than 'grasping at straws'. It's a shame that HJarrs has apparently been banned by Caroline Lucas from responding to my posts - possibly after our last discussion when he claimed that to be an environmentalist you had to be an anti-capitalist communist. pachallis
  • Score: 11

1:29pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Withdean-er says...

john newman wrote:
The city needs another railway line and a proper bus station to give the public alternatives. Edinburgh opens new tram lines and other places, Crossrail for London, are planning for 2030.

PLAN AHEAD BRIGHTON.
Trams/light railways would be great e.g. Shoreham to Brighton Marina, could take masses of traffic off the roads. But the capital cost is vast.

Edinburgh is most certainly not the example to follow - it cost several times more than was originally quoted (all out of public money), as a result it is shorter in length than planned, it took many more years to complete than planned and was dogged by a dispute between the contractor and council.
[quote][p][bold]john newman[/bold] wrote: The city needs another railway line and a proper bus station to give the public alternatives. Edinburgh opens new tram lines and other places, Crossrail for London, are planning for 2030. PLAN AHEAD BRIGHTON.[/p][/quote]Trams/light railways would be great e.g. Shoreham to Brighton Marina, could take masses of traffic off the roads. But the capital cost is vast. Edinburgh is most certainly not the example to follow - it cost several times more than was originally quoted (all out of public money), as a result it is shorter in length than planned, it took many more years to complete than planned and was dogged by a dispute between the contractor and council. Withdean-er
  • Score: 9

1:35pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Minger21 says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
The selfish petrol heads, sitting in their air-conditioned 4x4s pumping out pollution to the rest of us, just don't get it - they are the problem! They are the traffic! The sooner the centre of the city and seafront is all like New Road the better (only without the cars and taxis!).
I'm fairly certain most, if not all, drivers who regularly encounter traffic and congestion are actually aware they are contributing to the said congestion.

For people to get out of their cars, there must be viable alternatives. Yes, some of the public transport is good. But not good enough.

I don't consider it selfish to not want to spend an extra 2 hours per day, 10 hour per week, 44 hours per month or 456 hours per year, travelling just for the sake of getting the bus. I have other things I can do with those 456 hours.

I agree that some people do use the car when they could walk or use public transport. There is definitely some attitude adjustment to be done - I myself had to after moving to B&H some years ago from a smaller town with awful public transport.

That aside, I don't believe the attitude of "forcing" people out of their cars or that all car drivers are "selfish" is helpful or constructive. There are times I would not want to use public transport - for example late at night - because I would not feel safe.

The powers that be will not, and should not be trying to, end car journeys in the City. I wish they would stop fighting it and instead accept that there will always be some, and improve the infrastructure to reduce jams and congestion. This would benefit all road users. Instead of the bullish attitude of "forcing" people, I wonder if some incentives would work better. I can't see there being much of a change in attitude all the while public transport is so expensive and people are having changes thrust upon them - buy-in is key.
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: The selfish petrol heads, sitting in their air-conditioned 4x4s pumping out pollution to the rest of us, just don't get it - they are the problem! They are the traffic! The sooner the centre of the city and seafront is all like New Road the better (only without the cars and taxis!).[/p][/quote]I'm fairly certain most, if not all, drivers who regularly encounter traffic and congestion are actually aware they are contributing to the said congestion. For people to get out of their cars, there must be viable alternatives. Yes, some of the public transport is good. But not good enough. I don't consider it selfish to not want to spend an extra 2 hours per day, 10 hour per week, 44 hours per month or 456 hours per year, travelling just for the sake of getting the bus. I have other things I can do with those 456 hours. I agree that some people do use the car when they could walk or use public transport. There is definitely some attitude adjustment to be done - I myself had to after moving to B&H some years ago from a smaller town with awful public transport. That aside, I don't believe the attitude of "forcing" people out of their cars or that all car drivers are "selfish" is helpful or constructive. There are times I would not want to use public transport - for example late at night - because I would not feel safe. The powers that be will not, and should not be trying to, end car journeys in the City. I wish they would stop fighting it and instead accept that there will always be some, and improve the infrastructure to reduce jams and congestion. This would benefit all road users. Instead of the bullish attitude of "forcing" people, I wonder if some incentives would work better. I can't see there being much of a change in attitude all the while public transport is so expensive and people are having changes thrust upon them - buy-in is key. Minger21
  • Score: 14

1:38pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Automaton says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Automaton wrote:
road_rager wrote:
From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley
That dosent necessarily mean we have got any better only that others cities have got even worse
But considering all the issues our average congestion issues are at a very similar percentage to everywhere else in the country!!
Considering what issues? The Argus this year has published articles saying we have one of the biggest falls in car ownership in the country (3% fall) and that the number of cyclists has doubled. Yet still our congestion is not getting any better. Has our popoulation increased significantly since last year?
Some facts please.

Of course other measures to help improve congestion such as Tuk Tuks have been forced of the road. Also wouldn't a shared taxi service that operates in many countries help alleviate the problem instead of many Taxis transporting just one person.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Automaton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]road_rager[/bold] wrote: From the comments here anyone would think that we had gone up the congestion rankings rather than down. The article actually states that we have gone from 3rd most congested city to 5th most. This must be because more people are walking and cycling so the greens have actually reduced congestion. Some people however would only be happy if the city purely laid out for car use and was covered in dual carriage-ways. If you like that kind of thing you can always move to Crawley[/p][/quote]That dosent necessarily mean we have got any better only that others cities have got even worse[/p][/quote]But considering all the issues our average congestion issues are at a very similar percentage to everywhere else in the country!![/p][/quote]Considering what issues? The Argus this year has published articles saying we have one of the biggest falls in car ownership in the country (3% fall) and that the number of cyclists has doubled. Yet still our congestion is not getting any better. Has our popoulation increased significantly since last year? Some facts please. Of course other measures to help improve congestion such as Tuk Tuks have been forced of the road. Also wouldn't a shared taxi service that operates in many countries help alleviate the problem instead of many Taxis transporting just one person. Automaton
  • Score: 7

1:51pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

HJarrs wrote:
The city is on the up economically, more jobs being created, more visitors to the city, so unsurprising that congestion goes up if people will not leave the car behind. There are too many cars in the city and there will never be any more road space built in B&H, whatever the administration.

At least good alternatives are being provided and the cycle and bus routes that have been built, resulting in increased ridership, even make it more feasible for park and ride ( but don't hold your breath as there is no funding, no site and a question over effectiveness, let's face it the moanerati won't use it). The railways are also increasing in capacity and will be transformed by 2018.

However, it takes a long time for travel habits to change. We need to encourage the younger generation not to pick up the car habit in the first place; taking up regular walking and cycling would be healthy and efficient use of road space. Unlike the unhealthy, overweight generations of parents and grandparents. But like other cities I can think of, in 20 years we may look back in amazement and wonder why we tolorated so many cars coming into the city in the first place.

If you have to drive into B&H, then I am afraid you will have to get used to congestion, it has been with us a long time and is a permanent fixture. At least you could buy the most reasonably small and fuel efficient car.
The younger generations seem to be on the case already, passing your driving test isn't really seen as the rite of passage that it used to be from what I've gathered. I reckon the youngsters don't have this memory of what driving conditions were like 40 years ago, so they just see it for what it is - a very expensive pain in the arss. There's definitely a generational element to the problem.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: The city is on the up economically, more jobs being created, more visitors to the city, so unsurprising that congestion goes up if people will not leave the car behind. There are too many cars in the city and there will never be any more road space built in B&H, whatever the administration. At least good alternatives are being provided and the cycle and bus routes that have been built, resulting in increased ridership, even make it more feasible for park and ride ( but don't hold your breath as there is no funding, no site and a question over effectiveness, let's face it the moanerati won't use it). The railways are also increasing in capacity and will be transformed by 2018. However, it takes a long time for travel habits to change. We need to encourage the younger generation not to pick up the car habit in the first place; taking up regular walking and cycling would be healthy and efficient use of road space. Unlike the unhealthy, overweight generations of parents and grandparents. But like other cities I can think of, in 20 years we may look back in amazement and wonder why we tolorated so many cars coming into the city in the first place. If you have to drive into B&H, then I am afraid you will have to get used to congestion, it has been with us a long time and is a permanent fixture. At least you could buy the most reasonably small and fuel efficient car.[/p][/quote]The younger generations seem to be on the case already, passing your driving test isn't really seen as the rite of passage that it used to be from what I've gathered. I reckon the youngsters don't have this memory of what driving conditions were like 40 years ago, so they just see it for what it is - a very expensive pain in the arss. There's definitely a generational element to the problem. Gribbet
  • Score: -2

1:56pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Minger21 says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Minger21 wrote: I am one of the commuters along the seafront. I drive because I work out of town, and to get the bus would take three times as long. It should not take an hour and a half to travel 12 miles on a bus! The buses serve both my home and place of work, but an extra two hours a day commuting does not make it worth using the bus. In general on the seafront it feels like the traffic lights/pedestrian crossing timings do not help traffic flow. It is rarely possible to get along the seafront without being stopped at lights. This creates so much stop/start rather than encouraging a smooth traffic flow, which of course then impacts on side streets etc. I realise the area is part of the busiest in terms of tourism but equally the A259 is one of the main roads into and out of town and it never feels to be treated as such. If there was a viable alternative route I would gladly use it, but with parts of town inaccessible to cars and the volume of traffic going through the available routes, it's quicker to use the seafront and sit in that traffic. It does tickle me that everyone is always banging on about air quality, but it seems the congestion is at least partly down to the infrastructure. If the powers that be stopped trying to force people out of their cars, which clearly isn't working, and improved the road network for ALL users including cars, we may see an improvement. I do think the bus service is excellent (at least where I live) but the costs are so high I don't use it as often as I could. At £4.50 per person for a return it makes it cheaper to get a taxi or drive, especially in a group. I can nip into town in my car, pay £3 for 2 hours parking and go door to door. It's convenient and cheaper, so why on earth would I leave the car at home? B&H is always going to be a busy place, and that's great! We will always have traffic. Trying to make life difficult for motorists seems to not be encouraging people out of their cars however. I wonder if it's time for a shake up.
As you can 'nip into town' where is the congestion issue?!!
I really am not sure if you are serious, but I will indulge.

I am able to "nip" into town in the car because I go in early and don't live too far away. The point of that statement was to draw attention to the fact that it is quicker, cheaper and more convenient for me to drive than to use public transport. I have a feeling it should be the other way around.

I hope this answers your question but please let me know should you have any further queries.

:-)
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minger21[/bold] wrote: I am one of the commuters along the seafront. I drive because I work out of town, and to get the bus would take three times as long. It should not take an hour and a half to travel 12 miles on a bus! The buses serve both my home and place of work, but an extra two hours a day commuting does not make it worth using the bus. In general on the seafront it feels like the traffic lights/pedestrian crossing timings do not help traffic flow. It is rarely possible to get along the seafront without being stopped at lights. This creates so much stop/start rather than encouraging a smooth traffic flow, which of course then impacts on side streets etc. I realise the area is part of the busiest in terms of tourism but equally the A259 is one of the main roads into and out of town and it never feels to be treated as such. If there was a viable alternative route I would gladly use it, but with parts of town inaccessible to cars and the volume of traffic going through the available routes, it's quicker to use the seafront and sit in that traffic. It does tickle me that everyone is always banging on about air quality, but it seems the congestion is at least partly down to the infrastructure. If the powers that be stopped trying to force people out of their cars, which clearly isn't working, and improved the road network for ALL users including cars, we may see an improvement. I do think the bus service is excellent (at least where I live) but the costs are so high I don't use it as often as I could. At £4.50 per person for a return it makes it cheaper to get a taxi or drive, especially in a group. I can nip into town in my car, pay £3 for 2 hours parking and go door to door. It's convenient and cheaper, so why on earth would I leave the car at home? B&H is always going to be a busy place, and that's great! We will always have traffic. Trying to make life difficult for motorists seems to not be encouraging people out of their cars however. I wonder if it's time for a shake up.[/p][/quote]As you can 'nip into town' where is the congestion issue?!![/p][/quote]I really am not sure if you are serious, but I will indulge. I am able to "nip" into town in the car because I go in early and don't live too far away. The point of that statement was to draw attention to the fact that it is quicker, cheaper and more convenient for me to drive than to use public transport. I have a feeling it should be the other way around. I hope this answers your question but please let me know should you have any further queries. :-) Minger21
  • Score: 5

1:57pm Wed 4 Jun 14

rolivan says...

There are 3 companies that have benefited Edburton,Dance and Brighton and Hove Bus Company
There are 3 companies that have benefited Edburton,Dance and Brighton and Hove Bus Company rolivan
  • Score: 6

2:06pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

“If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year."

How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air.
“If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year." How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air. Gribbet
  • Score: -2

2:16pm Wed 4 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
The selfish petrol heads, sitting in their air-conditioned 4x4s pumping out pollution to the rest of us, just don't get it - they are the problem! They are the traffic! The sooner the centre of the city and seafront is all like New Road the better (only without the cars and taxis!).
^^^^^^Stupid Comment Of The Day ^^^^^^

So banning all traffic will remove the....er.......traf
fic problem?

Why not kill all heteros to remove homophobia?

The traffic problems are caused by the city's popularity (which the council encourages) and a failure to manage traffic flow correctly. If you force traffic to slow down, then you will get congestion. I ride there frequently, and it's plain what the council is up to.
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: The selfish petrol heads, sitting in their air-conditioned 4x4s pumping out pollution to the rest of us, just don't get it - they are the problem! They are the traffic! The sooner the centre of the city and seafront is all like New Road the better (only without the cars and taxis!).[/p][/quote]^^^^^^Stupid Comment Of The Day ^^^^^^ So banning all traffic will remove the....er.......traf fic problem? Why not kill all heteros to remove homophobia? The traffic problems are caused by the city's popularity (which the council encourages) and a failure to manage traffic flow correctly. If you force traffic to slow down, then you will get congestion. I ride there frequently, and it's plain what the council is up to. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 4

2:21pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

Worthing Jim wrote:
TomTom have released a travel survey, also stating that the answer to congestion in ever increasingly populated towns and cities is not to build new roads or widen existing, but to use real time travel information - in essence to buy a TomTom.

Infomercial aside, this does not stop the usual motoring moanarati, who won't leave their cars until their cold dead hands are prized off the wheel, whilst refusing to accept that by sitting in a jam they are part of the problem. It's easier to blame every other motorist, the school run or 'the Greens'. Also, funnily enough, ignoring the fact that Brighton has improved in the 'rankings'. It's a simple rule of physics that there is a finite amount of cars that one can cram into a finite space, affecting quality of life for all. Other mainland European towns and cities woke up to this decades ago and started to design out the private car - their town and city centres are still as vibrant as ever. But we now have to hate everything Europe does for some inexplicable reason. And I own a car - it's just that i've realised that the disc in the windscreen is a privilege - not some God given right.

Anyway, let's pick up the popcorn and read people denying simple facts and inconvenient truths. Enjoy Top Gear.
Couldn't agree more
[quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: TomTom have released a travel survey, also stating that the answer to congestion in ever increasingly populated towns and cities is not to build new roads or widen existing, but to use real time travel information - in essence to buy a TomTom. Infomercial aside, this does not stop the usual motoring moanarati, who won't leave their cars until their cold dead hands are prized off the wheel, whilst refusing to accept that by sitting in a jam they are part of the problem. It's easier to blame every other motorist, the school run or 'the Greens'. Also, funnily enough, ignoring the fact that Brighton has improved in the 'rankings'. It's a simple rule of physics that there is a finite amount of cars that one can cram into a finite space, affecting quality of life for all. Other mainland European towns and cities woke up to this decades ago and started to design out the private car - their town and city centres are still as vibrant as ever. But we now have to hate everything Europe does for some inexplicable reason. And I own a car - it's just that i've realised that the disc in the windscreen is a privilege - not some God given right. Anyway, let's pick up the popcorn and read people denying simple facts and inconvenient truths. Enjoy Top Gear.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more Gribbet
  • Score: -5

2:36pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
The selfish petrol heads, sitting in their air-conditioned 4x4s pumping out pollution to the rest of us, just don't get it - they are the problem! They are the traffic! The sooner the centre of the city and seafront is all like New Road the better (only without the cars and taxis!).
^^^^^^Stupid Comment Of The Day ^^^^^^

So banning all traffic will remove the....er.......traf

fic problem?

Why not kill all heteros to remove homophobia?

The traffic problems are caused by the city's popularity (which the council encourages) and a failure to manage traffic flow correctly. If you force traffic to slow down, then you will get congestion. I ride there frequently, and it's plain what the council is up to.
"Why not kill all heteros to remove homophobia?"

Genocide is a lot worse than pedestrianisation, that's why.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: The selfish petrol heads, sitting in their air-conditioned 4x4s pumping out pollution to the rest of us, just don't get it - they are the problem! They are the traffic! The sooner the centre of the city and seafront is all like New Road the better (only without the cars and taxis!).[/p][/quote]^^^^^^Stupid Comment Of The Day ^^^^^^ So banning all traffic will remove the....er.......traf fic problem? Why not kill all heteros to remove homophobia? The traffic problems are caused by the city's popularity (which the council encourages) and a failure to manage traffic flow correctly. If you force traffic to slow down, then you will get congestion. I ride there frequently, and it's plain what the council is up to.[/p][/quote]"Why not kill all heteros to remove homophobia?" Genocide is a lot worse than pedestrianisation, that's why. Gribbet
  • Score: -6

2:38pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it.
Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it. Gribbet
  • Score: -5

2:51pm Wed 4 Jun 14

rolivan says...

Gribbet wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
The city is on the up economically, more jobs being created, more visitors to the city, so unsurprising that congestion goes up if people will not leave the car behind. There are too many cars in the city and there will never be any more road space built in B&H, whatever the administration.

At least good alternatives are being provided and the cycle and bus routes that have been built, resulting in increased ridership, even make it more feasible for park and ride ( but don't hold your breath as there is no funding, no site and a question over effectiveness, let's face it the moanerati won't use it). The railways are also increasing in capacity and will be transformed by 2018.

However, it takes a long time for travel habits to change. We need to encourage the younger generation not to pick up the car habit in the first place; taking up regular walking and cycling would be healthy and efficient use of road space. Unlike the unhealthy, overweight generations of parents and grandparents. But like other cities I can think of, in 20 years we may look back in amazement and wonder why we tolorated so many cars coming into the city in the first place.

If you have to drive into B&H, then I am afraid you will have to get used to congestion, it has been with us a long time and is a permanent fixture. At least you could buy the most reasonably small and fuel efficient car.
The younger generations seem to be on the case already, passing your driving test isn't really seen as the rite of passage that it used to be from what I've gathered. I reckon the youngsters don't have this memory of what driving conditions were like 40 years ago, so they just see it for what it is - a very expensive pain in the arss. There's definitely a generational element to the problem.
I can assure you one of the reasons the younger generation might not be interested in learning to drive and Passing their test is because it is so much harder now . You have to pass a theory test first which unfortunately would rule out a big percentage given their lack of literacy skills and then they go on to learn to pass their test which in my experience is not the same as learning to Drive . I do not see the necessity in having a vehicle in the City unless it is for business purposes . Over the course of a year I am sure that it would be cheaper to use a Taxi for Shopping and a Bus if too far to walk . The biggest problem is that the Bus Company has been given a Monopoly so will now increase fares at every opportunity.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: The city is on the up economically, more jobs being created, more visitors to the city, so unsurprising that congestion goes up if people will not leave the car behind. There are too many cars in the city and there will never be any more road space built in B&H, whatever the administration. At least good alternatives are being provided and the cycle and bus routes that have been built, resulting in increased ridership, even make it more feasible for park and ride ( but don't hold your breath as there is no funding, no site and a question over effectiveness, let's face it the moanerati won't use it). The railways are also increasing in capacity and will be transformed by 2018. However, it takes a long time for travel habits to change. We need to encourage the younger generation not to pick up the car habit in the first place; taking up regular walking and cycling would be healthy and efficient use of road space. Unlike the unhealthy, overweight generations of parents and grandparents. But like other cities I can think of, in 20 years we may look back in amazement and wonder why we tolorated so many cars coming into the city in the first place. If you have to drive into B&H, then I am afraid you will have to get used to congestion, it has been with us a long time and is a permanent fixture. At least you could buy the most reasonably small and fuel efficient car.[/p][/quote]The younger generations seem to be on the case already, passing your driving test isn't really seen as the rite of passage that it used to be from what I've gathered. I reckon the youngsters don't have this memory of what driving conditions were like 40 years ago, so they just see it for what it is - a very expensive pain in the arss. There's definitely a generational element to the problem.[/p][/quote]I can assure you one of the reasons the younger generation might not be interested in learning to drive and Passing their test is because it is so much harder now . You have to pass a theory test first which unfortunately would rule out a big percentage given their lack of literacy skills and then they go on to learn to pass their test which in my experience is not the same as learning to Drive . I do not see the necessity in having a vehicle in the City unless it is for business purposes . Over the course of a year I am sure that it would be cheaper to use a Taxi for Shopping and a Bus if too far to walk . The biggest problem is that the Bus Company has been given a Monopoly so will now increase fares at every opportunity. rolivan
  • Score: 6

2:56pm Wed 4 Jun 14

pachallis says...

Gribbet wrote:
Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it.
Could this be another green fanboy 'grasping for straws'?

Could they next suggest that the increased congestion might be something astrological with the Sun occluding Uranus?
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it.[/p][/quote]Could this be another green fanboy 'grasping for straws'? Could they next suggest that the increased congestion might be something astrological with the Sun occluding Uranus? pachallis
  • Score: 6

3:13pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

pachallis wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it.
Could this be another green fanboy 'grasping for straws'?

Could they next suggest that the increased congestion might be something astrological with the Sun occluding Uranus?
Don't know about whatever that thing is you mentioned, but it was the wettest winter since god-knows-when was it not? People drive more when it's raining do they not?
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it.[/p][/quote]Could this be another green fanboy 'grasping for straws'? Could they next suggest that the increased congestion might be something astrological with the Sun occluding Uranus?[/p][/quote]Don't know about whatever that thing is you mentioned, but it was the wettest winter since god-knows-when was it not? People drive more when it's raining do they not? Gribbet
  • Score: -2

3:21pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Minger21 says...

pachallis wrote:
Gribbet wrote: Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it.
Could this be another green fanboy 'grasping for straws'? Could they next suggest that the increased congestion might be something astrological with the Sun occluding Uranus?
Why do you think it's someone 'grasping for straws'? Does it not make sense that if the weather is bad, people are more likely to use their cars than to walk or use public transport?
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it.[/p][/quote]Could this be another green fanboy 'grasping for straws'? Could they next suggest that the increased congestion might be something astrological with the Sun occluding Uranus?[/p][/quote]Why do you think it's someone 'grasping for straws'? Does it not make sense that if the weather is bad, people are more likely to use their cars than to walk or use public transport? Minger21
  • Score: 1

3:26pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Phani Tikkala says...

Gribbet wrote:
“If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year."

How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air.
Ummm how about some facts instead of green BS for a change.

The ASA had 3 complaints about Unchain The Brighton Motorist. The latest, from 30th April 2014, was made by B&HCC. WTF?

Anyway, it was NOT UPHELD. Contrary to Gribbet's spin that the "facts and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming, well in actual fact it was the COUNCIL that couldn't prove anything they were claiming and that their complaint was unsubstantiated.

The second complaint adjudication, from 9th April 2014, was made by the Council (WTF???) and Friends of the Earth, and was only upheld IN PART (3 points upheld, 3 points dismissed).

The earliest complaint, from February 2014, was made by 15 complainants, including Bricycles, B&HCC(!!), Friends of the Earth, "20s plenty for us", and others. It was upheld.

So, 3 complaints, one thrown out, another half thrown out, and one upheld.

So, rather than it being Steve Percy "plucking figures out of the air" in this case it seems Gribbet is "plucking Green spin out of the air".
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: “If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year." How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air.[/p][/quote]Ummm how about some facts instead of green BS for a change. The ASA had 3 complaints about Unchain The Brighton Motorist. The latest, from 30th April 2014, was made by B&HCC. WTF? Anyway, it was NOT UPHELD. Contrary to Gribbet's spin that the "facts and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming, well in actual fact it was the COUNCIL that couldn't prove anything they were claiming and that their complaint was unsubstantiated. The second complaint adjudication, from 9th April 2014, was made by the Council (WTF???) and Friends of the Earth, and was only upheld IN PART (3 points upheld, 3 points dismissed). The earliest complaint, from February 2014, was made by 15 complainants, including Bricycles, B&HCC(!!), Friends of the Earth, "20s plenty for us", and others. It was upheld. So, 3 complaints, one thrown out, another half thrown out, and one upheld. So, rather than it being Steve Percy "plucking figures out of the air" in this case it seems Gribbet is "plucking Green spin out of the air". Phani Tikkala
  • Score: 11

3:35pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Andy R says...

Phani Tikkala wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
“If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year."

How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air.
Ummm how about some facts instead of green BS for a change.

The ASA had 3 complaints about Unchain The Brighton Motorist. The latest, from 30th April 2014, was made by B&HCC. WTF?

Anyway, it was NOT UPHELD. Contrary to Gribbet's spin that the "facts and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming, well in actual fact it was the COUNCIL that couldn't prove anything they were claiming and that their complaint was unsubstantiated.

The second complaint adjudication, from 9th April 2014, was made by the Council (WTF???) and Friends of the Earth, and was only upheld IN PART (3 points upheld, 3 points dismissed).

The earliest complaint, from February 2014, was made by 15 complainants, including Bricycles, B&HCC(!!), Friends of the Earth, "20s plenty for us", and others. It was upheld.

So, 3 complaints, one thrown out, another half thrown out, and one upheld.

So, rather than it being Steve Percy "plucking figures out of the air" in this case it seems Gribbet is "plucking Green spin out of the air".
Steve Percy isn't plucking figures out of the air. He has NO figures - plucked out of the air or otherwise! But, incredibly, the Argus keeps going to this Rentaquote.

Who could have guessed that the Argus Comment petrolheads would turn a story about increased trafiic congestion into something....anythin
g.....other than too many cars?
[quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: “If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year." How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air.[/p][/quote]Ummm how about some facts instead of green BS for a change. The ASA had 3 complaints about Unchain The Brighton Motorist. The latest, from 30th April 2014, was made by B&HCC. WTF? Anyway, it was NOT UPHELD. Contrary to Gribbet's spin that the "facts and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming, well in actual fact it was the COUNCIL that couldn't prove anything they were claiming and that their complaint was unsubstantiated. The second complaint adjudication, from 9th April 2014, was made by the Council (WTF???) and Friends of the Earth, and was only upheld IN PART (3 points upheld, 3 points dismissed). The earliest complaint, from February 2014, was made by 15 complainants, including Bricycles, B&HCC(!!), Friends of the Earth, "20s plenty for us", and others. It was upheld. So, 3 complaints, one thrown out, another half thrown out, and one upheld. So, rather than it being Steve Percy "plucking figures out of the air" in this case it seems Gribbet is "plucking Green spin out of the air".[/p][/quote]Steve Percy isn't plucking figures out of the air. He has NO figures - plucked out of the air or otherwise! But, incredibly, the Argus keeps going to this Rentaquote. Who could have guessed that the Argus Comment petrolheads would turn a story about increased trafiic congestion into something....anythin g.....other than too many cars? Andy R
  • Score: -5

3:39pm Wed 4 Jun 14

gheese77 says...

Gribbet wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
billy goat-gruff wrote:
The selfish petrol heads, sitting in their air-conditioned 4x4s pumping out pollution to the rest of us, just don't get it - they are the problem! They are the traffic! The sooner the centre of the city and seafront is all like New Road the better (only without the cars and taxis!).
^^^^^^Stupid Comment Of The Day ^^^^^^

So banning all traffic will remove the....er.......traf


fic problem?

Why not kill all heteros to remove homophobia?

The traffic problems are caused by the city's popularity (which the council encourages) and a failure to manage traffic flow correctly. If you force traffic to slow down, then you will get congestion. I ride there frequently, and it's plain what the council is up to.
"Why not kill all heteros to remove homophobia?"

Genocide is a lot worse than pedestrianisation, that's why.
Not to some of the Alan Partridge types who post on here
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: The selfish petrol heads, sitting in their air-conditioned 4x4s pumping out pollution to the rest of us, just don't get it - they are the problem! They are the traffic! The sooner the centre of the city and seafront is all like New Road the better (only without the cars and taxis!).[/p][/quote]^^^^^^Stupid Comment Of The Day ^^^^^^ So banning all traffic will remove the....er.......traf fic problem? Why not kill all heteros to remove homophobia? The traffic problems are caused by the city's popularity (which the council encourages) and a failure to manage traffic flow correctly. If you force traffic to slow down, then you will get congestion. I ride there frequently, and it's plain what the council is up to.[/p][/quote]"Why not kill all heteros to remove homophobia?" Genocide is a lot worse than pedestrianisation, that's why.[/p][/quote]Not to some of the Alan Partridge types who post on here gheese77
  • Score: 4

3:44pm Wed 4 Jun 14

spa301 says...

Thanks Andy R for the same boring anti car jibe. Many commentators on this story have made valid and sensible contributions. Shame you still insist on childish insults. Driving a car does not make a person a petrol head.
Thanks Andy R for the same boring anti car jibe. Many commentators on this story have made valid and sensible contributions. Shame you still insist on childish insults. Driving a car does not make a person a petrol head. spa301
  • Score: 10

3:46pm Wed 4 Jun 14

gheese77 says...

twosugars wrote:
Congestion charging is the answer.
I think you are correct. It has made a big difference in central London & of course those of us that actually live here would benefit most
[quote][p][bold]twosugars[/bold] wrote: Congestion charging is the answer.[/p][/quote]I think you are correct. It has made a big difference in central London & of course those of us that actually live here would benefit most gheese77
  • Score: -8

3:46pm Wed 4 Jun 14

pachallis says...

Minger21 wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Gribbet wrote: Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it.
Could this be another green fanboy 'grasping for straws'? Could they next suggest that the increased congestion might be something astrological with the Sun occluding Uranus?
Why do you think it's someone 'grasping for straws'? Does it not make sense that if the weather is bad, people are more likely to use their cars than to walk or use public transport?
@Minger21 - because you need to know what periods were included in the comparison before you can start looking for probable causes. You then need to identify whether the observed metric does actually lead to a change in the variable you are interested in.

You are assuming 'because it makes sense' a wet period increases congestion - how much wetter was it this year than last? Is you 'sense' correct? Do you have historic analysis that makes sure 'sense' matches reality, or are you trying to fit observations that meet your purpose to match what happened?

Could the entire 3% increase in congestion be due to the weather? Could it be mostly due to other effects like the greens activating the Lewes Road cycle lanes? Could it be due to changes in traffic light phasing?

However 'sense' is a wonderful concept - it's a shame the green 'led' council doesn't use it sometimes before implementing policies rather than being driven by ideologies...
[quote][p][bold]Minger21[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it.[/p][/quote]Could this be another green fanboy 'grasping for straws'? Could they next suggest that the increased congestion might be something astrological with the Sun occluding Uranus?[/p][/quote]Why do you think it's someone 'grasping for straws'? Does it not make sense that if the weather is bad, people are more likely to use their cars than to walk or use public transport?[/p][/quote]@Minger21 - because you need to know what periods were included in the comparison before you can start looking for probable causes. You then need to identify whether the observed metric does actually lead to a change in the variable you are interested in. You are assuming 'because it makes sense' a wet period increases congestion - how much wetter was it this year than last? Is you 'sense' correct? Do you have historic analysis that makes sure 'sense' matches reality, or are you trying to fit observations that meet your purpose to match what happened? Could the entire 3% increase in congestion be due to the weather? Could it be mostly due to other effects like the greens activating the Lewes Road cycle lanes? Could it be due to changes in traffic light phasing? However 'sense' is a wonderful concept - it's a shame the green 'led' council doesn't use it sometimes before implementing policies rather than being driven by ideologies... pachallis
  • Score: 8

3:49pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Phani Tikkala says...

Andy R wrote:
Phani Tikkala wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
“If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year."

How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air.
Ummm how about some facts instead of green BS for a change.

The ASA had 3 complaints about Unchain The Brighton Motorist. The latest, from 30th April 2014, was made by B&HCC. WTF?

Anyway, it was NOT UPHELD. Contrary to Gribbet's spin that the "facts and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming, well in actual fact it was the COUNCIL that couldn't prove anything they were claiming and that their complaint was unsubstantiated.

The second complaint adjudication, from 9th April 2014, was made by the Council (WTF???) and Friends of the Earth, and was only upheld IN PART (3 points upheld, 3 points dismissed).

The earliest complaint, from February 2014, was made by 15 complainants, including Bricycles, B&HCC(!!), Friends of the Earth, "20s plenty for us", and others. It was upheld.

So, 3 complaints, one thrown out, another half thrown out, and one upheld.

So, rather than it being Steve Percy "plucking figures out of the air" in this case it seems Gribbet is "plucking Green spin out of the air".
Steve Percy isn't plucking figures out of the air. He has NO figures - plucked out of the air or otherwise! But, incredibly, the Argus keeps going to this Rentaquote.

Who could have guessed that the Argus Comment petrolheads would turn a story about increased trafiic congestion into something....anythin

g.....other than too many cars?
Ummm what do you mean he has NO figures? The ASA threw out the latest complaint (perhaps you should read it).
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: “If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year." How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air.[/p][/quote]Ummm how about some facts instead of green BS for a change. The ASA had 3 complaints about Unchain The Brighton Motorist. The latest, from 30th April 2014, was made by B&HCC. WTF? Anyway, it was NOT UPHELD. Contrary to Gribbet's spin that the "facts and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming, well in actual fact it was the COUNCIL that couldn't prove anything they were claiming and that their complaint was unsubstantiated. The second complaint adjudication, from 9th April 2014, was made by the Council (WTF???) and Friends of the Earth, and was only upheld IN PART (3 points upheld, 3 points dismissed). The earliest complaint, from February 2014, was made by 15 complainants, including Bricycles, B&HCC(!!), Friends of the Earth, "20s plenty for us", and others. It was upheld. So, 3 complaints, one thrown out, another half thrown out, and one upheld. So, rather than it being Steve Percy "plucking figures out of the air" in this case it seems Gribbet is "plucking Green spin out of the air".[/p][/quote]Steve Percy isn't plucking figures out of the air. He has NO figures - plucked out of the air or otherwise! But, incredibly, the Argus keeps going to this Rentaquote. Who could have guessed that the Argus Comment petrolheads would turn a story about increased trafiic congestion into something....anythin g.....other than too many cars?[/p][/quote]Ummm what do you mean he has NO figures? The ASA threw out the latest complaint (perhaps you should read it). Phani Tikkala
  • Score: 6

3:53pm Wed 4 Jun 14

KarenT says...

Build more houses. That will sort it out.
Build more houses. That will sort it out. KarenT
  • Score: -4

3:54pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

Phani Tikkala wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
“If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year."

How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air.
Ummm how about some facts instead of green BS for a change.

The ASA had 3 complaints about Unchain The Brighton Motorist. The latest, from 30th April 2014, was made by B&HCC. WTF?

Anyway, it was NOT UPHELD. Contrary to Gribbet's spin that the "facts and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming, well in actual fact it was the COUNCIL that couldn't prove anything they were claiming and that their complaint was unsubstantiated.

The second complaint adjudication, from 9th April 2014, was made by the Council (WTF???) and Friends of the Earth, and was only upheld IN PART (3 points upheld, 3 points dismissed).

The earliest complaint, from February 2014, was made by 15 complainants, including Bricycles, B&HCC(!!), Friends of the Earth, "20s plenty for us", and others. It was upheld.

So, 3 complaints, one thrown out, another half thrown out, and one upheld.

So, rather than it being Steve Percy "plucking figures out of the air" in this case it seems Gribbet is "plucking Green spin out of the air".
All 11 complaints from the ad in February were upheld, sorry, but that's actually a fact. Have a look on the ASA website for yourself.

Whoever made the complaints is irrelevant because the ASA found the complaints to all be valid and that UBM was in breach of advertising standards.

Can you shed any light on how Steve Percy can "almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year."

That's a figure he's made up. How do I know this? I know this because Steve Percy cannot see into the future, nobody can.
[quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: “If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year." How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air.[/p][/quote]Ummm how about some facts instead of green BS for a change. The ASA had 3 complaints about Unchain The Brighton Motorist. The latest, from 30th April 2014, was made by B&HCC. WTF? Anyway, it was NOT UPHELD. Contrary to Gribbet's spin that the "facts and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming, well in actual fact it was the COUNCIL that couldn't prove anything they were claiming and that their complaint was unsubstantiated. The second complaint adjudication, from 9th April 2014, was made by the Council (WTF???) and Friends of the Earth, and was only upheld IN PART (3 points upheld, 3 points dismissed). The earliest complaint, from February 2014, was made by 15 complainants, including Bricycles, B&HCC(!!), Friends of the Earth, "20s plenty for us", and others. It was upheld. So, 3 complaints, one thrown out, another half thrown out, and one upheld. So, rather than it being Steve Percy "plucking figures out of the air" in this case it seems Gribbet is "plucking Green spin out of the air".[/p][/quote]All 11 complaints from the ad in February were upheld, sorry, but that's actually a fact. Have a look on the ASA website for yourself. Whoever made the complaints is irrelevant because the ASA found the complaints to all be valid and that UBM was in breach of advertising standards. Can you shed any light on how Steve Percy can "almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year." That's a figure he's made up. How do I know this? I know this because Steve Percy cannot see into the future, nobody can. Gribbet
  • Score: -5

3:54pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Andy R says...

spa301 wrote:
Thanks Andy R for the same boring anti car jibe. Many commentators on this story have made valid and sensible contributions. Shame you still insist on childish insults. Driving a car does not make a person a petrol head.
Never said it did.
[quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: Thanks Andy R for the same boring anti car jibe. Many commentators on this story have made valid and sensible contributions. Shame you still insist on childish insults. Driving a car does not make a person a petrol head.[/p][/quote]Never said it did. Andy R
  • Score: -4

4:13pm Wed 4 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Andy R wrote:
spa301 wrote:
Thanks Andy R for the same boring anti car jibe. Many commentators on this story have made valid and sensible contributions. Shame you still insist on childish insults. Driving a car does not make a person a petrol head.
Never said it did.
Don't lie....of course you claimed that car drivers are all petrol heads.

The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: Thanks Andy R for the same boring anti car jibe. Many commentators on this story have made valid and sensible contributions. Shame you still insist on childish insults. Driving a car does not make a person a petrol head.[/p][/quote]Never said it did.[/p][/quote]Don't lie....of course you claimed that car drivers are all petrol heads. The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 5

4:13pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Metro Reader says...

As the greens have closed most of the roads in Brighton and Hove it comes as no surprise that congestion has increased.

The greens are on record as saying they wanted a congestion charge, just before they "came to power"
As the greens have closed most of the roads in Brighton and Hove it comes as no surprise that congestion has increased. The greens are on record as saying they wanted a congestion charge, just before they "came to power" Metro Reader
  • Score: 5

4:16pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Phani Tikkala says...

Gribbet wrote:
Phani Tikkala wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
“If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year."

How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air.
Ummm how about some facts instead of green BS for a change.

The ASA had 3 complaints about Unchain The Brighton Motorist. The latest, from 30th April 2014, was made by B&HCC. WTF?

Anyway, it was NOT UPHELD. Contrary to Gribbet's spin that the "facts and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming, well in actual fact it was the COUNCIL that couldn't prove anything they were claiming and that their complaint was unsubstantiated.

The second complaint adjudication, from 9th April 2014, was made by the Council (WTF???) and Friends of the Earth, and was only upheld IN PART (3 points upheld, 3 points dismissed).

The earliest complaint, from February 2014, was made by 15 complainants, including Bricycles, B&HCC(!!), Friends of the Earth, "20s plenty for us", and others. It was upheld.

So, 3 complaints, one thrown out, another half thrown out, and one upheld.

So, rather than it being Steve Percy "plucking figures out of the air" in this case it seems Gribbet is "plucking Green spin out of the air".
All 11 complaints from the ad in February were upheld, sorry, but that's actually a fact. Have a look on the ASA website for yourself.

Whoever made the complaints is irrelevant because the ASA found the complaints to all be valid and that UBM was in breach of advertising standards.

Can you shed any light on how Steve Percy can "almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year."

That's a figure he's made up. How do I know this? I know this because Steve Percy cannot see into the future, nobody can.
Errr can you not read?

I said that the February complaint was upheld. The 2nd one was half thrown out (or half upheld depending if you're green or not), and the third complaint was thrown out completely. You forgot to mention those.

As for Steve Percy's claim, why don't you ask him?
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: “If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year." How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air.[/p][/quote]Ummm how about some facts instead of green BS for a change. The ASA had 3 complaints about Unchain The Brighton Motorist. The latest, from 30th April 2014, was made by B&HCC. WTF? Anyway, it was NOT UPHELD. Contrary to Gribbet's spin that the "facts and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming, well in actual fact it was the COUNCIL that couldn't prove anything they were claiming and that their complaint was unsubstantiated. The second complaint adjudication, from 9th April 2014, was made by the Council (WTF???) and Friends of the Earth, and was only upheld IN PART (3 points upheld, 3 points dismissed). The earliest complaint, from February 2014, was made by 15 complainants, including Bricycles, B&HCC(!!), Friends of the Earth, "20s plenty for us", and others. It was upheld. So, 3 complaints, one thrown out, another half thrown out, and one upheld. So, rather than it being Steve Percy "plucking figures out of the air" in this case it seems Gribbet is "plucking Green spin out of the air".[/p][/quote]All 11 complaints from the ad in February were upheld, sorry, but that's actually a fact. Have a look on the ASA website for yourself. Whoever made the complaints is irrelevant because the ASA found the complaints to all be valid and that UBM was in breach of advertising standards. Can you shed any light on how Steve Percy can "almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year." That's a figure he's made up. How do I know this? I know this because Steve Percy cannot see into the future, nobody can.[/p][/quote]Errr can you not read? I said that the February complaint was upheld. The 2nd one was half thrown out (or half upheld depending if you're green or not), and the third complaint was thrown out completely. You forgot to mention those. As for Steve Percy's claim, why don't you ask him? Phani Tikkala
  • Score: 3

4:24pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Mark63 says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Mark63 wrote:
Its simple common sense that if you narrow roads, they will be busier... our council is obviously too **** thick to realise this, preferring to create 6-foot cycle lanes for hardly any users and dedicated bus lanes while cars sit and wait and wait and wait - and then have to cross bus lanes and cycle lanes to exit... A 20 mph city means a city in SECOND GEAR ... ie going nowhere. The Greens are killing the place - how green is that! Fast direct roads in and out of town are needed, together with large affordable parking, not the £25 a day NCP charges or the £20 a day street parking charges... Brighton is slitting its own throat and its got nothing to do with the people living here - just the idiots running it (at the moment)...
Do you REALLY think that Labour and the Tories would do away with these bus lanes?! Do you not realise that Tory/ Labour brought in the bus lanes along London Road or the A259?! Perhaps you haven't read the FACTS about visitor numbers being up or about Brighton being the most popular resort in the country?! Perhaps you can explain how you want 'fast and direct' roads in a small city with lots of traffic and lots of junctions? This isn't LA for gods sake?! The idea that 20mph slows the city down is just brain-dead rubbish - after all we are told most people don't obey it so you are hardly basing your argument on any reliable data and if you are to be believed the city is in gridlock most of the time - you can't have it both ways!!
brain-dead rubbish? Read it properly and keep insults to yourself! I didnt say the 20pmh slowed down the city (although the graffitti mess its causing on the roads should be fine-able), I said that narrowing the roads slows it down... any hint of a dual carriageway and the Greens have narrowed it in favour of a handful of bikers and infrequent busses. PEOPLE WANT TO DRIVE and should not be penalised over and over for that. Yes, a fast road in and out, why not?! That could be via a park and ride with express busses, or a dual carriageway that skirts the narrow streets .... Brighton and Hove was made a CITY in 2000.... and 14 years later - we still have signs to the TOWN Centre... we still have a zig-zag route down to the front that confuses every visitor, we still have roads that are crumbling... but the emphasis of this madcap council is to make things tough and more expensive for people who want to drive here and narrow the streets that had any efficiency about them. No vision at all... no wonder its crumbling into the sea....
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark63[/bold] wrote: Its simple common sense that if you narrow roads, they will be busier... our council is obviously too **** thick to realise this, preferring to create 6-foot cycle lanes for hardly any users and dedicated bus lanes while cars sit and wait and wait and wait - and then have to cross bus lanes and cycle lanes to exit... A 20 mph city means a city in SECOND GEAR ... ie going nowhere. The Greens are killing the place - how green is that! Fast direct roads in and out of town are needed, together with large affordable parking, not the £25 a day NCP charges or the £20 a day street parking charges... Brighton is slitting its own throat and its got nothing to do with the people living here - just the idiots running it (at the moment)...[/p][/quote]Do you REALLY think that Labour and the Tories would do away with these bus lanes?! Do you not realise that Tory/ Labour brought in the bus lanes along London Road or the A259?! Perhaps you haven't read the FACTS about visitor numbers being up or about Brighton being the most popular resort in the country?! Perhaps you can explain how you want 'fast and direct' roads in a small city with lots of traffic and lots of junctions? This isn't LA for gods sake?! The idea that 20mph slows the city down is just brain-dead rubbish - after all we are told most people don't obey it so you are hardly basing your argument on any reliable data and if you are to be believed the city is in gridlock most of the time - you can't have it both ways!![/p][/quote]brain-dead rubbish? Read it properly and keep insults to yourself! I didnt say the 20pmh slowed down the city (although the graffitti mess its causing on the roads should be fine-able), I said that narrowing the roads slows it down... any hint of a dual carriageway and the Greens have narrowed it in favour of a handful of bikers and infrequent busses. PEOPLE WANT TO DRIVE and should not be penalised over and over for that. Yes, a fast road in and out, why not?! That could be via a park and ride with express busses, or a dual carriageway that skirts the narrow streets .... Brighton and Hove was made a CITY in 2000.... and 14 years later - we still have signs to the TOWN Centre... we still have a zig-zag route down to the front that confuses every visitor, we still have roads that are crumbling... but the emphasis of this madcap council is to make things tough and more expensive for people who want to drive here and narrow the streets that had any efficiency about them. No vision at all... no wonder its crumbling into the sea.... Mark63
  • Score: 5

4:54pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Minger21 says...

pachallis wrote:
Minger21 wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Gribbet wrote: Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it.
Could this be another green fanboy 'grasping for straws'? Could they next suggest that the increased congestion might be something astrological with the Sun occluding Uranus?
Why do you think it's someone 'grasping for straws'? Does it not make sense that if the weather is bad, people are more likely to use their cars than to walk or use public transport?
@Minger21 - because you need to know what periods were included in the comparison before you can start looking for probable causes. You then need to identify whether the observed metric does actually lead to a change in the variable you are interested in. You are assuming 'because it makes sense' a wet period increases congestion - how much wetter was it this year than last? Is you 'sense' correct? Do you have historic analysis that makes sure 'sense' matches reality, or are you trying to fit observations that meet your purpose to match what happened? Could the entire 3% increase in congestion be due to the weather? Could it be mostly due to other effects like the greens activating the Lewes Road cycle lanes? Could it be due to changes in traffic light phasing? However 'sense' is a wonderful concept - it's a shame the green 'led' council doesn't use it sometimes before implementing policies rather than being driven by ideologies...
Aaah, the application of logic. That makes me very happy!

I was just curious. Thanks!
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minger21[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it.[/p][/quote]Could this be another green fanboy 'grasping for straws'? Could they next suggest that the increased congestion might be something astrological with the Sun occluding Uranus?[/p][/quote]Why do you think it's someone 'grasping for straws'? Does it not make sense that if the weather is bad, people are more likely to use their cars than to walk or use public transport?[/p][/quote]@Minger21 - because you need to know what periods were included in the comparison before you can start looking for probable causes. You then need to identify whether the observed metric does actually lead to a change in the variable you are interested in. You are assuming 'because it makes sense' a wet period increases congestion - how much wetter was it this year than last? Is you 'sense' correct? Do you have historic analysis that makes sure 'sense' matches reality, or are you trying to fit observations that meet your purpose to match what happened? Could the entire 3% increase in congestion be due to the weather? Could it be mostly due to other effects like the greens activating the Lewes Road cycle lanes? Could it be due to changes in traffic light phasing? However 'sense' is a wonderful concept - it's a shame the green 'led' council doesn't use it sometimes before implementing policies rather than being driven by ideologies...[/p][/quote]Aaah, the application of logic. That makes me very happy! I was just curious. Thanks! Minger21
  • Score: 1

4:55pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Andy R says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Andy R wrote:
spa301 wrote:
Thanks Andy R for the same boring anti car jibe. Many commentators on this story have made valid and sensible contributions. Shame you still insist on childish insults. Driving a car does not make a person a petrol head.
Never said it did.
Don't lie....of course you claimed that car drivers are all petrol heads.

The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity.
ZeeGee telling others "don't lie". Hliarious. If I've called all drivers petrolheads, you'll be able to point out where exactly I have done that.....won't you?
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: Thanks Andy R for the same boring anti car jibe. Many commentators on this story have made valid and sensible contributions. Shame you still insist on childish insults. Driving a car does not make a person a petrol head.[/p][/quote]Never said it did.[/p][/quote]Don't lie....of course you claimed that car drivers are all petrol heads. The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity.[/p][/quote]ZeeGee telling others "don't lie". Hliarious. If I've called all drivers petrolheads, you'll be able to point out where exactly I have done that.....won't you? Andy R
  • Score: -4

5:38pm Wed 4 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Andy R wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Andy R wrote:
spa301 wrote:
Thanks Andy R for the same boring anti car jibe. Many commentators on this story have made valid and sensible contributions. Shame you still insist on childish insults. Driving a car does not make a person a petrol head.
Never said it did.
Don't lie....of course you claimed that car drivers are all petrol heads.

The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity.
ZeeGee telling others "don't lie". Hliarious. If I've called all drivers petrolheads, you'll be able to point out where exactly I have done that.....won't you?
Yes, I can.

You wrote:

"Who could have guessed that the Argus Comment petrolheads would turn a story about increased trafiic congestion into something....anythin
g.....other than too many cars?"

You accused the drivers of cars as being 'petrolheads' without bothering to check which of them actually are that way inclined.

FYI not everyone on here who drives is a petrolhead.

HTH
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: Thanks Andy R for the same boring anti car jibe. Many commentators on this story have made valid and sensible contributions. Shame you still insist on childish insults. Driving a car does not make a person a petrol head.[/p][/quote]Never said it did.[/p][/quote]Don't lie....of course you claimed that car drivers are all petrol heads. The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity.[/p][/quote]ZeeGee telling others "don't lie". Hliarious. If I've called all drivers petrolheads, you'll be able to point out where exactly I have done that.....won't you?[/p][/quote]Yes, I can. You wrote: "Who could have guessed that the Argus Comment petrolheads would turn a story about increased trafiic congestion into something....anythin g.....other than too many cars?" You accused the drivers of cars as being 'petrolheads' without bothering to check which of them actually are that way inclined. FYI not everyone on here who drives is a petrolhead. HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 4

6:06pm Wed 4 Jun 14

hoveguyactually says...

I was very impressed, a couple of years ago, by the way the whole centre of Liverpool is pedestrianised. How much better Brighton and Hove would be if they followed that example. Money wasted on confusing and often dangerous traffic alterations and cycle lanes could be diverted into providing better quality, more comfortable, more frequent and cheaper public transport in and out of the city. A park and ride system, one that the public would be pleased to use, would be ideal. Delivery vehicles should be only allowed in at off-peak periods. And by pedestrianised I certainly don't mean the half-baked ambiguity of New Road, that is always such a nuisance to anyone on foot, as they dodge the vehicles and cyclists. And just imagine how much more pleasant it would be to wander around the clock tower area, which must be one of the least pedestrian friendly areas of any city in the country.
I was very impressed, a couple of years ago, by the way the whole centre of Liverpool is pedestrianised. How much better Brighton and Hove would be if they followed that example. Money wasted on confusing and often dangerous traffic alterations and cycle lanes could be diverted into providing better quality, more comfortable, more frequent and cheaper public transport in and out of the city. A park and ride system, one that the public would be pleased to use, would be ideal. Delivery vehicles should be only allowed in at off-peak periods. And by pedestrianised I certainly don't mean the half-baked ambiguity of New Road, that is always such a nuisance to anyone on foot, as they dodge the vehicles and cyclists. And just imagine how much more pleasant it would be to wander around the clock tower area, which must be one of the least pedestrian friendly areas of any city in the country. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 5

6:07pm Wed 4 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

The annual Tom Tom advert!

The Tom Tom report of 2011 had the quote

"In comparison, the German city of Cologne sits at the bottom of the top 50; only 18.9% of its roads are congested."

Now, any of you that have travelled in and around Koeln as I have will notice few cars in the centre, excellent public transport infrastructure including bus, tram and trains, large areas of pedestrianisation and mile upon mile of decent quality cycle routes. This combination of public transport and using legs has meant less reliance on the car. Those that still use the car find less congestion. I should imagine their moanerati complain about cyclelists, buses etc as well.
The annual Tom Tom advert! The Tom Tom report of 2011 had the quote "In comparison, the German city of Cologne sits at the bottom of the top 50; only 18.9% of its roads are congested." Now, any of you that have travelled in and around Koeln as I have will notice few cars in the centre, excellent public transport infrastructure including bus, tram and trains, large areas of pedestrianisation and mile upon mile of decent quality cycle routes. This combination of public transport and using legs has meant less reliance on the car. Those that still use the car find less congestion. I should imagine their moanerati complain about cyclelists, buses etc as well. HJarrs
  • Score: -6

6:08pm Wed 4 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
I was very impressed, a couple of years ago, by the way the whole centre of Liverpool is pedestrianised. How much better Brighton and Hove would be if they followed that example. Money wasted on confusing and often dangerous traffic alterations and cycle lanes could be diverted into providing better quality, more comfortable, more frequent and cheaper public transport in and out of the city. A park and ride system, one that the public would be pleased to use, would be ideal. Delivery vehicles should be only allowed in at off-peak periods. And by pedestrianised I certainly don't mean the half-baked ambiguity of New Road, that is always such a nuisance to anyone on foot, as they dodge the vehicles and cyclists. And just imagine how much more pleasant it would be to wander around the clock tower area, which must be one of the least pedestrian friendly areas of any city in the country.
If the whole area were pedestrianised, how would the buses be able to operate?
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: I was very impressed, a couple of years ago, by the way the whole centre of Liverpool is pedestrianised. How much better Brighton and Hove would be if they followed that example. Money wasted on confusing and often dangerous traffic alterations and cycle lanes could be diverted into providing better quality, more comfortable, more frequent and cheaper public transport in and out of the city. A park and ride system, one that the public would be pleased to use, would be ideal. Delivery vehicles should be only allowed in at off-peak periods. And by pedestrianised I certainly don't mean the half-baked ambiguity of New Road, that is always such a nuisance to anyone on foot, as they dodge the vehicles and cyclists. And just imagine how much more pleasant it would be to wander around the clock tower area, which must be one of the least pedestrian friendly areas of any city in the country.[/p][/quote]If the whole area were pedestrianised, how would the buses be able to operate? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Wed 4 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

Another interesting statistic from last year's report headline is that apparently the congestion in B&H last year rose by 45%. Now by 3%. Hmmm.
Another interesting statistic from last year's report headline is that apparently the congestion in B&H last year rose by 45%. Now by 3%. Hmmm. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Wed 4 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

HJarrs wrote:
Another interesting statistic from last year's report headline is that apparently the congestion in B&H last year rose by 45%. Now by 3%. Hmmm.
Last year's report won't have commented upon anything from last year. It would have been reporting on the previous year.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Another interesting statistic from last year's report headline is that apparently the congestion in B&H last year rose by 45%. Now by 3%. Hmmm.[/p][/quote]Last year's report won't have commented upon anything from last year. It would have been reporting on the previous year. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Wed 4 Jun 14

her professional says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Ian Davey and HJarrs talk utter rubbish. I cycle every day and it takes me longer to get down Coombe Road than it has in a decade thanks to the congestion the rat run the Lewes Road has now created in residential streets. We now have huge coaches and container lorries squeezing up and down narrow residential roads.
I do wish these spinners would stop fibbing. We can all see that congestion is worse over this end of town since the closure of one lane to vehicles on the Lewes Road and when the unis break for holidays hardly a cyclist is seen on the lane so all very pointless when the cycle lane existed and there was no need to close the inside lane which has now made bus journeys slower so if you need to get a train or meet an appintment locals are now calling taxis hence the 40 per cent increase in taxi journeys along the route. In the rush hour the Lewes Road is now one long lane of traffic queue from Moulsecoombe into town, much of it vans and trade vehicles which have to use roads but don't let a PR opportunity for your CVs get in the way of the truth Mr Davey. Your legacy to the town will an archive of lies and congestion.
The Lewes Road has queued from Moulsecoomb in the rush hour for years. Perhaps the five cities with worse congestion than us will come and see what we're getting right. Also even the Tories and the Clarksons at Tom Tom agree that widening roads and encouraging more cars onto the limited space is not the answer, so yes, getting people onto the alternatives is the only way. Around a million journeys a week are made along the detested bus lanes, and there are about 220 buses on the road at peak times. That's a million journeys that are freeing up a bit of space for those that have to use their cars. People will only continue to use the buses if they can maintain some sort of reliability, and bus lanes are a massive help.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Ian Davey and HJarrs talk utter rubbish. I cycle every day and it takes me longer to get down Coombe Road than it has in a decade thanks to the congestion the rat run the Lewes Road has now created in residential streets. We now have huge coaches and container lorries squeezing up and down narrow residential roads. I do wish these spinners would stop fibbing. We can all see that congestion is worse over this end of town since the closure of one lane to vehicles on the Lewes Road and when the unis break for holidays hardly a cyclist is seen on the lane so all very pointless when the cycle lane existed and there was no need to close the inside lane which has now made bus journeys slower so if you need to get a train or meet an appintment locals are now calling taxis hence the 40 per cent increase in taxi journeys along the route. In the rush hour the Lewes Road is now one long lane of traffic queue from Moulsecoombe into town, much of it vans and trade vehicles which have to use roads but don't let a PR opportunity for your CVs get in the way of the truth Mr Davey. Your legacy to the town will an archive of lies and congestion.[/p][/quote]The Lewes Road has queued from Moulsecoomb in the rush hour for years. Perhaps the five cities with worse congestion than us will come and see what we're getting right. Also even the Tories and the Clarksons at Tom Tom agree that widening roads and encouraging more cars onto the limited space is not the answer, so yes, getting people onto the alternatives is the only way. Around a million journeys a week are made along the detested bus lanes, and there are about 220 buses on the road at peak times. That's a million journeys that are freeing up a bit of space for those that have to use their cars. People will only continue to use the buses if they can maintain some sort of reliability, and bus lanes are a massive help. her professional
  • Score: -1

7:32pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Levent says...

Maybe you anti-cycling brigade could lever your **** out your front seats and onto a saddle and God forbid get to work under your own steam we wouldn't have so much congestion!?

You'd soon be calling for more cycle lanes then, such is the hypocrisy
of the petrol head. I'd rather you stayed morbidly obese and frustrated, I do enjoy watching you lard **** sit in an hours worth of traffic while I enjoy a nice leisurely cycle to work. lol lol lol!
Maybe you anti-cycling brigade could lever your **** out your front seats and onto a saddle and God forbid get to work under your own steam we wouldn't have so much congestion!? You'd soon be calling for more cycle lanes then, such is the hypocrisy of the petrol head. I'd rather you stayed morbidly obese and frustrated, I do enjoy watching you lard **** sit in an hours worth of traffic while I enjoy a nice leisurely cycle to work. lol lol lol! Levent
  • Score: -8

7:47pm Wed 4 Jun 14

ghost bus driver says...

Withdean-er wrote:
john newman wrote:
The city needs another railway line and a proper bus station to give the public alternatives. Edinburgh opens new tram lines and other places, Crossrail for London, are planning for 2030.

PLAN AHEAD BRIGHTON.
Trams/light railways would be great e.g. Shoreham to Brighton Marina, could take masses of traffic off the roads. But the capital cost is vast.

Edinburgh is most certainly not the example to follow - it cost several times more than was originally quoted (all out of public money), as a result it is shorter in length than planned, it took many more years to complete than planned and was dogged by a dispute between the contractor and council.
Trams would be great if they did go to Shoreham they could also extend up the old Steyning branch. I'd apply for a job on there for certain. The Croydon ones pay £30,000 a year.
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]john newman[/bold] wrote: The city needs another railway line and a proper bus station to give the public alternatives. Edinburgh opens new tram lines and other places, Crossrail for London, are planning for 2030. PLAN AHEAD BRIGHTON.[/p][/quote]Trams/light railways would be great e.g. Shoreham to Brighton Marina, could take masses of traffic off the roads. But the capital cost is vast. Edinburgh is most certainly not the example to follow - it cost several times more than was originally quoted (all out of public money), as a result it is shorter in length than planned, it took many more years to complete than planned and was dogged by a dispute between the contractor and council.[/p][/quote]Trams would be great if they did go to Shoreham they could also extend up the old Steyning branch. I'd apply for a job on there for certain. The Croydon ones pay £30,000 a year. ghost bus driver
  • Score: 1

8:42pm Wed 4 Jun 14

MDavison says...

And what will it be like, not only in Brighton but in the greater Argus catchment area when the second Gatwick runway is in full operation? As people swarm in and out of the vastly expanded towns and city to serve its every needs. Crawley, Horsham, Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath to name a few will all grind to a halt. No one seems recognise the implications of this imminent threat, but you simply need to look to history and see the Airport's impact on the whole A23 corridor over the last 30 years. Now double it.
And what will it be like, not only in Brighton but in the greater Argus catchment area when the second Gatwick runway is in full operation? As people swarm in and out of the vastly expanded towns and city to serve its every needs. Crawley, Horsham, Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath to name a few will all grind to a halt. No one seems recognise the implications of this imminent threat, but you simply need to look to history and see the Airport's impact on the whole A23 corridor over the last 30 years. Now double it. MDavison
  • Score: -1

9:11pm Wed 4 Jun 14

her professional says...

Phani Tikkala wrote:
The increase in congestion is a problem created ENTIRELY by the Greens. Next up - an equivalent increase in pollution. And then more news about falling visitor numbers. And an increase in businesses closing, going bust and moving elsewhere. Watch this space.

You don't have to be a genius to realise that cutting road capacity by 50% (by changing dual carriageways to single carriageways) means that it will take twice as long to make the same journey. It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25 and the congestions at the Dials is far, far worse than it ever was before.

"The introduction of 20mph limits has also improved the flow of traffic in the city" says Davey. Perhaps once he gets out of his green ivory tower he'll realise that's complete BS.

I'm setting up a new business that will employ dozens. Not here in Brighton, elsewhere because I need to give the business the best chance of success. Well done greens, you've screwed the City with parking charges and stupid traffic changes that look like some sort of psychological experiment on residents. It will take years to repair the damage, which AMAZINGLY they are busy patting themselves on the back for!

Roll on May 2015 and we can start the long long and painful process of trying to get the City back on its feet. And kick Davey and his colleagues out of power.
As both the Tory and labour transport spokesmen were in broad agreement with the greens I don't quite know what you think will happen next year, regardless of who runs the council.
[quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: The increase in congestion is a problem created ENTIRELY by the Greens. Next up - an equivalent increase in pollution. And then more news about falling visitor numbers. And an increase in businesses closing, going bust and moving elsewhere. Watch this space. You don't have to be a genius to realise that cutting road capacity by 50% (by changing dual carriageways to single carriageways) means that it will take twice as long to make the same journey. It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25 and the congestions at the Dials is far, far worse than it ever was before. "The introduction of 20mph limits has also improved the flow of traffic in the city" says Davey. Perhaps once he gets out of his green ivory tower he'll realise that's complete BS. I'm setting up a new business that will employ dozens. Not here in Brighton, elsewhere because I need to give the business the best chance of success. Well done greens, you've screwed the City with parking charges and stupid traffic changes that look like some sort of psychological experiment on residents. It will take years to repair the damage, which AMAZINGLY they are busy patting themselves on the back for! Roll on May 2015 and we can start the long long and painful process of trying to get the City back on its feet. And kick Davey and his colleagues out of power.[/p][/quote]As both the Tory and labour transport spokesmen were in broad agreement with the greens I don't quite know what you think will happen next year, regardless of who runs the council. her professional
  • Score: -3

9:15pm Wed 4 Jun 14

her professional says...

Phani Tikkala wrote:
LB wrote:
"It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25"

Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem?
Try that with 8 5 litre cans of paint. GO ON
You go to Western Road to bulk buy paint do you? What a load of rubbish. Also, where in Western Road can you miraculously park right outside your mythical paint shop?
[quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LB[/bold] wrote: "It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25" Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem?[/p][/quote]Try that with 8 5 litre cans of paint. GO ON[/p][/quote]You go to Western Road to bulk buy paint do you? What a load of rubbish. Also, where in Western Road can you miraculously park right outside your mythical paint shop? her professional
  • Score: -5

9:21pm Wed 4 Jun 14

her professional says...

cynic_the wrote:
This report is actually pretty meaningless without any information about car use over the same time period.

If car & motor vehicle use has increased, then an increase in congestion and journey times is inevitable. If it has decreased or stayed the same, then the increased congestion must be blamed on changes to the road layouts (and also roadworks etc).

Unfortunately, I don't think that data will ever be made available in a format, or from a source, that people will actually trust.

Part of the problem I think comes from the lack of joined up thinking in the transport planning departments. The conservative councilor demonstrates this perfectly by making BOTH the following statements:

"we’re forever trying to get people onto the buses"
"as far as pollution is concerned, I think this is far more to do with filthy diesel engines"

So it seems that their solution to one issue is what causes another. Brilliant.
Except that one bus Diesel engine is carrying hundreds of people around ech day, and bus emissions are strictly controlled; bus depots and buses out on the road are subject to spot checks by the authorities.
[quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: This report is actually pretty meaningless without any information about car use over the same time period. If car & motor vehicle use has increased, then an increase in congestion and journey times is inevitable. If it has decreased or stayed the same, then the increased congestion must be blamed on changes to the road layouts (and also roadworks etc). Unfortunately, I don't think that data will ever be made available in a format, or from a source, that people will actually trust. Part of the problem I think comes from the lack of joined up thinking in the transport planning departments. The conservative councilor demonstrates this perfectly by making BOTH the following statements: "we’re forever trying to get people onto the buses" "as far as pollution is concerned, I think this is far more to do with filthy diesel engines" So it seems that their solution to one issue is what causes another. Brilliant.[/p][/quote]Except that one bus Diesel engine is carrying hundreds of people around ech day, and bus emissions are strictly controlled; bus depots and buses out on the road are subject to spot checks by the authorities. her professional
  • Score: -3

9:23pm Wed 4 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

ghost bus driver wrote:
Withdean-er wrote:
john newman wrote: The city needs another railway line and a proper bus station to give the public alternatives. Edinburgh opens new tram lines and other places, Crossrail for London, are planning for 2030. PLAN AHEAD BRIGHTON.
Trams/light railways would be great e.g. Shoreham to Brighton Marina, could take masses of traffic off the roads. But the capital cost is vast. Edinburgh is most certainly not the example to follow - it cost several times more than was originally quoted (all out of public money), as a result it is shorter in length than planned, it took many more years to complete than planned and was dogged by a dispute between the contractor and council.
Trams would be great if they did go to Shoreham they could also extend up the old Steyning branch. I'd apply for a job on there for certain. The Croydon ones pay £30,000 a year.
There is a better idea taking route in Europe (those **** Europeans!) and on trial in Milton Keynes and that is the electric bus that charges on-route. In the Milton Keynes trial the bus recharges through induction at the end stops, but there are many variations to the system. A low cost trolley bus as you do not have to have the disruption and cost of putting all the overhead wires and supports.

I have been in touch with the council on this matter and they weem very supportive. Of course, at a time of slashed budgets, this is the sort of development that must wait till the trials show a success and that some grant funding is available.

Clean, quick electric buses coupled with a park and ride and a largely CAR FREE route into the city might just have legs.
[quote][p][bold]ghost bus driver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]john newman[/bold] wrote: The city needs another railway line and a proper bus station to give the public alternatives. Edinburgh opens new tram lines and other places, Crossrail for London, are planning for 2030. PLAN AHEAD BRIGHTON.[/p][/quote]Trams/light railways would be great e.g. Shoreham to Brighton Marina, could take masses of traffic off the roads. But the capital cost is vast. Edinburgh is most certainly not the example to follow - it cost several times more than was originally quoted (all out of public money), as a result it is shorter in length than planned, it took many more years to complete than planned and was dogged by a dispute between the contractor and council.[/p][/quote]Trams would be great if they did go to Shoreham they could also extend up the old Steyning branch. I'd apply for a job on there for certain. The Croydon ones pay £30,000 a year.[/p][/quote]There is a better idea taking route in Europe (those **** Europeans!) and on trial in Milton Keynes and that is the electric bus that charges on-route. In the Milton Keynes trial the bus recharges through induction at the end stops, but there are many variations to the system. A low cost trolley bus as you do not have to have the disruption and cost of putting all the overhead wires and supports. I have been in touch with the council on this matter and they weem very supportive. Of course, at a time of slashed budgets, this is the sort of development that must wait till the trials show a success and that some grant funding is available. Clean, quick electric buses coupled with a park and ride and a largely CAR FREE route into the city might just have legs. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

9:23pm Wed 4 Jun 14

her professional says...

Minger21 wrote:
I am one of the commuters along the seafront. I drive because I work out of town, and to get the bus would take three times as long. It should not take an hour and a half to travel 12 miles on a bus! The buses serve both my home and place of work, but an extra two hours a day commuting does not make it worth using the bus.

In general on the seafront it feels like the traffic lights/pedestrian crossing timings do not help traffic flow. It is rarely possible to get along the seafront without being stopped at lights. This creates so much stop/start rather than encouraging a smooth traffic flow, which of course then impacts on side streets etc. I realise the area is part of the busiest in terms of tourism but equally the A259 is one of the main roads into and out of town and it never feels to be treated as such. If there was a viable alternative route I would gladly use it, but with parts of town inaccessible to cars and the volume of traffic going through the available routes, it's quicker to use the seafront and sit in that traffic. It does tickle me that everyone is always banging on about air quality, but it seems the congestion is at least partly down to the infrastructure. If the powers that be stopped trying to force people out of their cars, which clearly isn't working, and improved the road network for ALL users including cars, we may see an improvement.

I do think the bus service is excellent (at least where I live) but the costs are so high I don't use it as often as I could. At £4.50 per person for a return it makes it cheaper to get a taxi or drive, especially in a group. I can nip into town in my car, pay £3 for 2 hours parking and go door to door. It's convenient and cheaper, so why on earth would I leave the car at home?

B&H is always going to be a busy place, and that's great! We will always have traffic. Trying to make life difficult for motorists seems to not be encouraging people out of their cars however. I wonder if it's time for a shake up.
If you are a regular commuter you can buy much cheaper bus travel than that.
[quote][p][bold]Minger21[/bold] wrote: I am one of the commuters along the seafront. I drive because I work out of town, and to get the bus would take three times as long. It should not take an hour and a half to travel 12 miles on a bus! The buses serve both my home and place of work, but an extra two hours a day commuting does not make it worth using the bus. In general on the seafront it feels like the traffic lights/pedestrian crossing timings do not help traffic flow. It is rarely possible to get along the seafront without being stopped at lights. This creates so much stop/start rather than encouraging a smooth traffic flow, which of course then impacts on side streets etc. I realise the area is part of the busiest in terms of tourism but equally the A259 is one of the main roads into and out of town and it never feels to be treated as such. If there was a viable alternative route I would gladly use it, but with parts of town inaccessible to cars and the volume of traffic going through the available routes, it's quicker to use the seafront and sit in that traffic. It does tickle me that everyone is always banging on about air quality, but it seems the congestion is at least partly down to the infrastructure. If the powers that be stopped trying to force people out of their cars, which clearly isn't working, and improved the road network for ALL users including cars, we may see an improvement. I do think the bus service is excellent (at least where I live) but the costs are so high I don't use it as often as I could. At £4.50 per person for a return it makes it cheaper to get a taxi or drive, especially in a group. I can nip into town in my car, pay £3 for 2 hours parking and go door to door. It's convenient and cheaper, so why on earth would I leave the car at home? B&H is always going to be a busy place, and that's great! We will always have traffic. Trying to make life difficult for motorists seems to not be encouraging people out of their cars however. I wonder if it's time for a shake up.[/p][/quote]If you are a regular commuter you can buy much cheaper bus travel than that. her professional
  • Score: -3

9:30pm Wed 4 Jun 14

her professional says...

rolivan wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
The city is on the up economically, more jobs being created, more visitors to the city, so unsurprising that congestion goes up if people will not leave the car behind. There are too many cars in the city and there will never be any more road space built in B&H, whatever the administration.

At least good alternatives are being provided and the cycle and bus routes that have been built, resulting in increased ridership, even make it more feasible for park and ride ( but don't hold your breath as there is no funding, no site and a question over effectiveness, let's face it the moanerati won't use it). The railways are also increasing in capacity and will be transformed by 2018.

However, it takes a long time for travel habits to change. We need to encourage the younger generation not to pick up the car habit in the first place; taking up regular walking and cycling would be healthy and efficient use of road space. Unlike the unhealthy, overweight generations of parents and grandparents. But like other cities I can think of, in 20 years we may look back in amazement and wonder why we tolorated so many cars coming into the city in the first place.

If you have to drive into B&H, then I am afraid you will have to get used to congestion, it has been with us a long time and is a permanent fixture. At least you could buy the most reasonably small and fuel efficient car.
The younger generations seem to be on the case already, passing your driving test isn't really seen as the rite of passage that it used to be from what I've gathered. I reckon the youngsters don't have this memory of what driving conditions were like 40 years ago, so they just see it for what it is - a very expensive pain in the arss. There's definitely a generational element to the problem.
I can assure you one of the reasons the younger generation might not be interested in learning to drive and Passing their test is because it is so much harder now . You have to pass a theory test first which unfortunately would rule out a big percentage given their lack of literacy skills and then they go on to learn to pass their test which in my experience is not the same as learning to Drive . I do not see the necessity in having a vehicle in the City unless it is for business purposes . Over the course of a year I am sure that it would be cheaper to use a Taxi for Shopping and a Bus if too far to walk . The biggest problem is that the Bus Company has been given a Monopoly so will now increase fares at every opportunity.
Nobody has given the bus company a monopoly.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: The city is on the up economically, more jobs being created, more visitors to the city, so unsurprising that congestion goes up if people will not leave the car behind. There are too many cars in the city and there will never be any more road space built in B&H, whatever the administration. At least good alternatives are being provided and the cycle and bus routes that have been built, resulting in increased ridership, even make it more feasible for park and ride ( but don't hold your breath as there is no funding, no site and a question over effectiveness, let's face it the moanerati won't use it). The railways are also increasing in capacity and will be transformed by 2018. However, it takes a long time for travel habits to change. We need to encourage the younger generation not to pick up the car habit in the first place; taking up regular walking and cycling would be healthy and efficient use of road space. Unlike the unhealthy, overweight generations of parents and grandparents. But like other cities I can think of, in 20 years we may look back in amazement and wonder why we tolorated so many cars coming into the city in the first place. If you have to drive into B&H, then I am afraid you will have to get used to congestion, it has been with us a long time and is a permanent fixture. At least you could buy the most reasonably small and fuel efficient car.[/p][/quote]The younger generations seem to be on the case already, passing your driving test isn't really seen as the rite of passage that it used to be from what I've gathered. I reckon the youngsters don't have this memory of what driving conditions were like 40 years ago, so they just see it for what it is - a very expensive pain in the arss. There's definitely a generational element to the problem.[/p][/quote]I can assure you one of the reasons the younger generation might not be interested in learning to drive and Passing their test is because it is so much harder now . You have to pass a theory test first which unfortunately would rule out a big percentage given their lack of literacy skills and then they go on to learn to pass their test which in my experience is not the same as learning to Drive . I do not see the necessity in having a vehicle in the City unless it is for business purposes . Over the course of a year I am sure that it would be cheaper to use a Taxi for Shopping and a Bus if too far to walk . The biggest problem is that the Bus Company has been given a Monopoly so will now increase fares at every opportunity.[/p][/quote]Nobody has given the bus company a monopoly. her professional
  • Score: -3

10:05pm Wed 4 Jun 14

cynic_the says...

her professional wrote:
cynic_the wrote:
This report is actually pretty meaningless without any information about car use over the same time period.

If car & motor vehicle use has increased, then an increase in congestion and journey times is inevitable. If it has decreased or stayed the same, then the increased congestion must be blamed on changes to the road layouts (and also roadworks etc).

Unfortunately, I don't think that data will ever be made available in a format, or from a source, that people will actually trust.

Part of the problem I think comes from the lack of joined up thinking in the transport planning departments. The conservative councilor demonstrates this perfectly by making BOTH the following statements:

"we’re forever trying to get people onto the buses"
"as far as pollution is concerned, I think this is far more to do with filthy diesel engines"

So it seems that their solution to one issue is what causes another. Brilliant.
Except that one bus Diesel engine is carrying hundreds of people around ech day, and bus emissions are strictly controlled; bus depots and buses out on the road are subject to spot checks by the authorities.
The two worst areas of air pollution in the city highlighted in an Argus article last year were:

Churchill Square and North Street

Both are car-free. It's the buses and taxis causing the problem.

Also, most buses I see are nearly empty at off peak times, and the thought of their emissions being 'strictly controlled' is just a joke.

Why couldn't our 'green' council have made a really bold statement by making Brighton the first town in the uk (world?) where all buses must be electric only? Now that would get people talking....
[quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cynic_the[/bold] wrote: This report is actually pretty meaningless without any information about car use over the same time period. If car & motor vehicle use has increased, then an increase in congestion and journey times is inevitable. If it has decreased or stayed the same, then the increased congestion must be blamed on changes to the road layouts (and also roadworks etc). Unfortunately, I don't think that data will ever be made available in a format, or from a source, that people will actually trust. Part of the problem I think comes from the lack of joined up thinking in the transport planning departments. The conservative councilor demonstrates this perfectly by making BOTH the following statements: "we’re forever trying to get people onto the buses" "as far as pollution is concerned, I think this is far more to do with filthy diesel engines" So it seems that their solution to one issue is what causes another. Brilliant.[/p][/quote]Except that one bus Diesel engine is carrying hundreds of people around ech day, and bus emissions are strictly controlled; bus depots and buses out on the road are subject to spot checks by the authorities.[/p][/quote]The two worst areas of air pollution in the city highlighted in an Argus article last year were: Churchill Square and North Street Both are car-free. It's the buses and taxis causing the problem. Also, most buses I see are nearly empty at off peak times, and the thought of their emissions being 'strictly controlled' is just a joke. Why couldn't our 'green' council have made a really bold statement by making Brighton the first town in the uk (world?) where all buses must be electric only? Now that would get people talking.... cynic_the
  • Score: 2

10:52pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Strange Town says...

As a long term Brighton resident not sure the current administration can be totally to blame. When we had a decent tram service the town was easier to navigate, why did they have to go? The idiots who when building the original Churchill Square in the 1960's decided the seafront A259 should be the main arterial road through Brighton want shooting, the Seafront Arches were never reinforced as we are now seeing. Of course traffic levels have increased so the answer has to be Park and Ride for visitors with a free Bus Service for residents as many European cities offer. But of course like so many of our services they are run by commercial companies driven by profit.
As a long term Brighton resident not sure the current administration can be totally to blame. When we had a decent tram service the town was easier to navigate, why did they have to go? The idiots who when building the original Churchill Square in the 1960's decided the seafront A259 should be the main arterial road through Brighton want shooting, the Seafront Arches were never reinforced as we are now seeing. Of course traffic levels have increased so the answer has to be Park and Ride for visitors with a free Bus Service for residents as many European cities offer. But of course like so many of our services they are run by commercial companies driven by profit. Strange Town
  • Score: 2

11:12pm Wed 4 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

Mark63 wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Mark63 wrote:
Its simple common sense that if you narrow roads, they will be busier... our council is obviously too **** thick to realise this, preferring to create 6-foot cycle lanes for hardly any users and dedicated bus lanes while cars sit and wait and wait and wait - and then have to cross bus lanes and cycle lanes to exit... A 20 mph city means a city in SECOND GEAR ... ie going nowhere. The Greens are killing the place - how green is that! Fast direct roads in and out of town are needed, together with large affordable parking, not the £25 a day NCP charges or the £20 a day street parking charges... Brighton is slitting its own throat and its got nothing to do with the people living here - just the idiots running it (at the moment)...
Do you REALLY think that Labour and the Tories would do away with these bus lanes?! Do you not realise that Tory/ Labour brought in the bus lanes along London Road or the A259?! Perhaps you haven't read the FACTS about visitor numbers being up or about Brighton being the most popular resort in the country?! Perhaps you can explain how you want 'fast and direct' roads in a small city with lots of traffic and lots of junctions? This isn't LA for gods sake?! The idea that 20mph slows the city down is just brain-dead rubbish - after all we are told most people don't obey it so you are hardly basing your argument on any reliable data and if you are to be believed the city is in gridlock most of the time - you can't have it both ways!!
brain-dead rubbish? Read it properly and keep insults to yourself! I didnt say the 20pmh slowed down the city (although the graffitti mess its causing on the roads should be fine-able), I said that narrowing the roads slows it down... any hint of a dual carriageway and the Greens have narrowed it in favour of a handful of bikers and infrequent busses. PEOPLE WANT TO DRIVE and should not be penalised over and over for that. Yes, a fast road in and out, why not?! That could be via a park and ride with express busses, or a dual carriageway that skirts the narrow streets .... Brighton and Hove was made a CITY in 2000.... and 14 years later - we still have signs to the TOWN Centre... we still have a zig-zag route down to the front that confuses every visitor, we still have roads that are crumbling... but the emphasis of this madcap council is to make things tough and more expensive for people who want to drive here and narrow the streets that had any efficiency about them. No vision at all... no wonder its crumbling into the sea....
Apologies for the insult - your phrase was 'a 20mph city is a city in SECOND GEAR..... ie a city going nowhere' apart from the fact it is meaningless nonsense I would respectfully suggest that it is saying 20mph limits are slowing the city down and I fail to see how you can say otherwise!!
[quote][p][bold]Mark63[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark63[/bold] wrote: Its simple common sense that if you narrow roads, they will be busier... our council is obviously too **** thick to realise this, preferring to create 6-foot cycle lanes for hardly any users and dedicated bus lanes while cars sit and wait and wait and wait - and then have to cross bus lanes and cycle lanes to exit... A 20 mph city means a city in SECOND GEAR ... ie going nowhere. The Greens are killing the place - how green is that! Fast direct roads in and out of town are needed, together with large affordable parking, not the £25 a day NCP charges or the £20 a day street parking charges... Brighton is slitting its own throat and its got nothing to do with the people living here - just the idiots running it (at the moment)...[/p][/quote]Do you REALLY think that Labour and the Tories would do away with these bus lanes?! Do you not realise that Tory/ Labour brought in the bus lanes along London Road or the A259?! Perhaps you haven't read the FACTS about visitor numbers being up or about Brighton being the most popular resort in the country?! Perhaps you can explain how you want 'fast and direct' roads in a small city with lots of traffic and lots of junctions? This isn't LA for gods sake?! The idea that 20mph slows the city down is just brain-dead rubbish - after all we are told most people don't obey it so you are hardly basing your argument on any reliable data and if you are to be believed the city is in gridlock most of the time - you can't have it both ways!![/p][/quote]brain-dead rubbish? Read it properly and keep insults to yourself! I didnt say the 20pmh slowed down the city (although the graffitti mess its causing on the roads should be fine-able), I said that narrowing the roads slows it down... any hint of a dual carriageway and the Greens have narrowed it in favour of a handful of bikers and infrequent busses. PEOPLE WANT TO DRIVE and should not be penalised over and over for that. Yes, a fast road in and out, why not?! That could be via a park and ride with express busses, or a dual carriageway that skirts the narrow streets .... Brighton and Hove was made a CITY in 2000.... and 14 years later - we still have signs to the TOWN Centre... we still have a zig-zag route down to the front that confuses every visitor, we still have roads that are crumbling... but the emphasis of this madcap council is to make things tough and more expensive for people who want to drive here and narrow the streets that had any efficiency about them. No vision at all... no wonder its crumbling into the sea....[/p][/quote]Apologies for the insult - your phrase was 'a 20mph city is a city in SECOND GEAR..... ie a city going nowhere' apart from the fact it is meaningless nonsense I would respectfully suggest that it is saying 20mph limits are slowing the city down and I fail to see how you can say otherwise!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

12:12am Thu 5 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Andy R wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Andy R wrote:
spa301 wrote:
Thanks Andy R for the same boring anti car jibe. Many commentators on this story have made valid and sensible contributions. Shame you still insist on childish insults. Driving a car does not make a person a petrol head.
Never said it did.
Don't lie....of course you claimed that car drivers are all petrol heads.

The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity.
ZeeGee telling others "don't lie". Hliarious. If I've called all drivers petrolheads, you'll be able to point out where exactly I have done that.....won't you?
Yes, I can.

You wrote:

"Who could have guessed that the Argus Comment petrolheads would turn a story about increased trafiic congestion into something....anythin

g.....other than too many cars?"

You accused the drivers of cars as being 'petrolheads' without bothering to check which of them actually are that way inclined.

FYI not everyone on here who drives is a petrolhead.

HTH
"you claimed that car drivers are all petrol heads."

Actually he didn't claim that car drivers are ALL petrol-heads. As for your claim though that: "The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity". How could you possibly know this? Do you know all these people personally in real life?
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: Thanks Andy R for the same boring anti car jibe. Many commentators on this story have made valid and sensible contributions. Shame you still insist on childish insults. Driving a car does not make a person a petrol head.[/p][/quote]Never said it did.[/p][/quote]Don't lie....of course you claimed that car drivers are all petrol heads. The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity.[/p][/quote]ZeeGee telling others "don't lie". Hliarious. If I've called all drivers petrolheads, you'll be able to point out where exactly I have done that.....won't you?[/p][/quote]Yes, I can. You wrote: "Who could have guessed that the Argus Comment petrolheads would turn a story about increased trafiic congestion into something....anythin g.....other than too many cars?" You accused the drivers of cars as being 'petrolheads' without bothering to check which of them actually are that way inclined. FYI not everyone on here who drives is a petrolhead. HTH[/p][/quote]"you claimed that car drivers are all petrol heads." Actually he didn't claim that car drivers are ALL petrol-heads. As for your claim though that: "The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity". How could you possibly know this? Do you know all these people personally in real life? Gribbet
  • Score: -3

12:23am Thu 5 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

Phani Tikkala wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Phani Tikkala wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
“If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year."

How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air.
Ummm how about some facts instead of green BS for a change.

The ASA had 3 complaints about Unchain The Brighton Motorist. The latest, from 30th April 2014, was made by B&HCC. WTF?

Anyway, it was NOT UPHELD. Contrary to Gribbet's spin that the "facts and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming, well in actual fact it was the COUNCIL that couldn't prove anything they were claiming and that their complaint was unsubstantiated.

The second complaint adjudication, from 9th April 2014, was made by the Council (WTF???) and Friends of the Earth, and was only upheld IN PART (3 points upheld, 3 points dismissed).

The earliest complaint, from February 2014, was made by 15 complainants, including Bricycles, B&HCC(!!), Friends of the Earth, "20s plenty for us", and others. It was upheld.

So, 3 complaints, one thrown out, another half thrown out, and one upheld.

So, rather than it being Steve Percy "plucking figures out of the air" in this case it seems Gribbet is "plucking Green spin out of the air".
All 11 complaints from the ad in February were upheld, sorry, but that's actually a fact. Have a look on the ASA website for yourself.

Whoever made the complaints is irrelevant because the ASA found the complaints to all be valid and that UBM was in breach of advertising standards.

Can you shed any light on how Steve Percy can "almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year."

That's a figure he's made up. How do I know this? I know this because Steve Percy cannot see into the future, nobody can.
Errr can you not read?

I said that the February complaint was upheld. The 2nd one was half thrown out (or half upheld depending if you're green or not), and the third complaint was thrown out completely. You forgot to mention those.

As for Steve Percy's claim, why don't you ask him?
And Steve Percy is "plucking figures from the air" in this article, because as any sane person knows, you can't "almost guarantee" statistics from the future, does that not make sense?

I can read, but you conveniently chose not to elaborate on the details of the 11 complaints that were upheld in February.

However you look at it, UBM's success rate with providing accurate information to the public is pretty terrible.
[quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: “If these council road projects continue I can almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year." How many advertisements has Unchain The Brighton Motorist been forced (by Advertising Standards) to remove now? I thinks it's 3 to date and it's because they found that their 'facts' and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming. They were basically doing exactly what Steve Percy is doing in this article and plucking figures out of the air.[/p][/quote]Ummm how about some facts instead of green BS for a change. The ASA had 3 complaints about Unchain The Brighton Motorist. The latest, from 30th April 2014, was made by B&HCC. WTF? Anyway, it was NOT UPHELD. Contrary to Gribbet's spin that the "facts and claims were unsubstantiated and that UBM couldn't prove anything they were claiming, well in actual fact it was the COUNCIL that couldn't prove anything they were claiming and that their complaint was unsubstantiated. The second complaint adjudication, from 9th April 2014, was made by the Council (WTF???) and Friends of the Earth, and was only upheld IN PART (3 points upheld, 3 points dismissed). The earliest complaint, from February 2014, was made by 15 complainants, including Bricycles, B&HCC(!!), Friends of the Earth, "20s plenty for us", and others. It was upheld. So, 3 complaints, one thrown out, another half thrown out, and one upheld. So, rather than it being Steve Percy "plucking figures out of the air" in this case it seems Gribbet is "plucking Green spin out of the air".[/p][/quote]All 11 complaints from the ad in February were upheld, sorry, but that's actually a fact. Have a look on the ASA website for yourself. Whoever made the complaints is irrelevant because the ASA found the complaints to all be valid and that UBM was in breach of advertising standards. Can you shed any light on how Steve Percy can "almost guarantee cars will be going 50% slower this time next year." That's a figure he's made up. How do I know this? I know this because Steve Percy cannot see into the future, nobody can.[/p][/quote]Errr can you not read? I said that the February complaint was upheld. The 2nd one was half thrown out (or half upheld depending if you're green or not), and the third complaint was thrown out completely. You forgot to mention those. As for Steve Percy's claim, why don't you ask him?[/p][/quote]And Steve Percy is "plucking figures from the air" in this article, because as any sane person knows, you can't "almost guarantee" statistics from the future, does that not make sense? I can read, but you conveniently chose not to elaborate on the details of the 11 complaints that were upheld in February. However you look at it, UBM's success rate with providing accurate information to the public is pretty terrible. Gribbet
  • Score: 0

12:35am Thu 5 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

pachallis wrote:
Minger21 wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Gribbet wrote: Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it.
Could this be another green fanboy 'grasping for straws'? Could they next suggest that the increased congestion might be something astrological with the Sun occluding Uranus?
Why do you think it's someone 'grasping for straws'? Does it not make sense that if the weather is bad, people are more likely to use their cars than to walk or use public transport?
@Minger21 - because you need to know what periods were included in the comparison before you can start looking for probable causes. You then need to identify whether the observed metric does actually lead to a change in the variable you are interested in.

You are assuming 'because it makes sense' a wet period increases congestion - how much wetter was it this year than last? Is you 'sense' correct? Do you have historic analysis that makes sure 'sense' matches reality, or are you trying to fit observations that meet your purpose to match what happened?

Could the entire 3% increase in congestion be due to the weather? Could it be mostly due to other effects like the greens activating the Lewes Road cycle lanes? Could it be due to changes in traffic light phasing?

However 'sense' is a wonderful concept - it's a shame the green 'led' council doesn't use it sometimes before implementing policies rather than being driven by ideologies...
Ok, now apply this strict rationale of yours to all of the other comments above (not just the ones you don't like) and see what you're left with.

I was pretty much doing exactly the same thing that you've just done above - posing a couple of valid questions that should be considered before drawing a conclusion, was I not?

I think the way you reacted to me raising the very reasonable possibility of the wettest winter for 250 years being a factor was a bit OTT.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minger21[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: Could this marginal increase in congestion have anything to do with the apocalyptic weather we had this winter? I think that might have a lot to do with it.[/p][/quote]Could this be another green fanboy 'grasping for straws'? Could they next suggest that the increased congestion might be something astrological with the Sun occluding Uranus?[/p][/quote]Why do you think it's someone 'grasping for straws'? Does it not make sense that if the weather is bad, people are more likely to use their cars than to walk or use public transport?[/p][/quote]@Minger21 - because you need to know what periods were included in the comparison before you can start looking for probable causes. You then need to identify whether the observed metric does actually lead to a change in the variable you are interested in. You are assuming 'because it makes sense' a wet period increases congestion - how much wetter was it this year than last? Is you 'sense' correct? Do you have historic analysis that makes sure 'sense' matches reality, or are you trying to fit observations that meet your purpose to match what happened? Could the entire 3% increase in congestion be due to the weather? Could it be mostly due to other effects like the greens activating the Lewes Road cycle lanes? Could it be due to changes in traffic light phasing? However 'sense' is a wonderful concept - it's a shame the green 'led' council doesn't use it sometimes before implementing policies rather than being driven by ideologies...[/p][/quote]Ok, now apply this strict rationale of yours to all of the other comments above (not just the ones you don't like) and see what you're left with. I was pretty much doing exactly the same thing that you've just done above - posing a couple of valid questions that should be considered before drawing a conclusion, was I not? I think the way you reacted to me raising the very reasonable possibility of the wettest winter for 250 years being a factor was a bit OTT. Gribbet
  • Score: 1

1:40am Thu 5 Jun 14

LeaveItSteve says...

Here's a different perspective.

How many cars do we all see in the city with only 1 person in them??? I would say that a large majority if not a very large majority has only 1 person.

Yet virtually every car seats at least 4 people, obviously.

Not very efficient form of transport.

How many journeys are essential to have a car? Many, many are very essential and yes we have a right to drive a car, however I personally know many who use there cars for a variety amount of non essential activities, I bet you would know a few too, maybe this even applies to you?

Who here we would agree that we as a nation or as people of the city of Brighton and Hove, face problems such as pollution, traffic congestion or even obesity and many other health related problems caused by lack of exercise? You must be able to agree to 1 or 2 of those?

How many deaths each year are caused by cars and vehicles?

Can you see where I'm going with this?

Only your own personal responsibility over how YOU decide to travel will determine the problems YOU face.

There's more and more cars on the roads every single year, but no more roads in the city to put them on. Even as a child growing up here in the 90's, I remember far far fewer cars and lorries on the roads, and the figures are there to prove it.

Of course many companies and even our own democratically elected government would like us all to buy cars, of course they would. The car industry and it's huge array of taxes and thousands of related industries is worth hundreds of billions of pounds. Insurance to driving schools to antifreeze to service stations to road tax to auto repair to parking fines to even buying a car in the first place. Mega bucks.

I've never heard of anyone telling me not to buy a car, in fact it's almost seen as a bit shameful to some people not to have a car or to use a bike or a bus. It's a status symbol, which has become the norm, and to a certain few, a god given right.

Not only have we bought and used the car more for getting around, we now choose to buy many products online, which are delivered to us. Delivered by what? How many supermarket vans do you see every time you are out in your local area? I realise many are delivering food to those who cannot get to the shop, such as the sick or the elderly but not certainly not always. My student neighbour has his food delivered from Iceland, only a 4-5min walk but I'm sure he's probably working very hard this time of year studying for exams. He seems to like loud music a lot of the time too mind. Oh well.

During my entire school life I walked to and from school, or cycled and it has helped me know the city I live in. How many of your children or others friends and extended families children do you know that walk to school? Some but I think you might agree that many are in cars at peak times of the day, it's even got a name these days "the school run".

The answers is very simple and it's not the councils fault or the governments fault that we are in this current situation.

The only real likelihood is without you and many perfectly capable others like you, doing something about it, really doing something not just pointing the finger at someone else, it WILL get worse.

Only your own personal responsibility over how YOU decide to travel will determine the problems YOU face.

For those who have chosen to be responsible, we should be given every opportunity to continue and encourage the rest of us to join in to walk or cycle or use public transport when we can.

The gas powered car is on the way out, it's a dinosaur oblivious to the huge meteor looming overhead, it's staring you lot right in the face and it's barely even mentioned in the discussions on this page.

Boiling down those like me, to cultural stereotypes is a very bad idea, and has more of a reflection of yourself, so please embarrass yourself.

As for me, I know you'd like to know as you've read this far, I choose not to own a car but cycle and walk, or use buses and trains for longer journeys.

Also of anyone from The Argus reads this, your article, your online paper is shockingly right wing and very biased, why would you give the first comment in the article to such a person? Sensationalism.

THE END
Here's a different perspective. How many cars do we all see in the city with only 1 person in them??? I would say that a large majority if not a very large majority has only 1 person. Yet virtually every car seats at least 4 people, obviously. Not very efficient form of transport. How many journeys are essential to have a car? Many, many are very essential and yes we have a right to drive a car, however I personally know many who use there cars for a variety amount of non essential activities, I bet you would know a few too, maybe this even applies to you? Who here we would agree that we as a nation or as people of the city of Brighton and Hove, face problems such as pollution, traffic congestion or even obesity and many other health related problems caused by lack of exercise? You must be able to agree to 1 or 2 of those? How many deaths each year are caused by cars and vehicles? Can you see where I'm going with this? Only your own personal responsibility over how YOU decide to travel will determine the problems YOU face. There's more and more cars on the roads every single year, but no more roads in the city to put them on. Even as a child growing up here in the 90's, I remember far far fewer cars and lorries on the roads, and the figures are there to prove it. Of course many companies and even our own democratically elected government would like us all to buy cars, of course they would. The car industry and it's huge array of taxes and thousands of related industries is worth hundreds of billions of pounds. Insurance to driving schools to antifreeze to service stations to road tax to auto repair to parking fines to even buying a car in the first place. Mega bucks. I've never heard of anyone telling me not to buy a car, in fact it's almost seen as a bit shameful to some people not to have a car or to use a bike or a bus. It's a status symbol, which has become the norm, and to a certain few, a god given right. Not only have we bought and used the car more for getting around, we now choose to buy many products online, which are delivered to us. Delivered by what? How many supermarket vans do you see every time you are out in your local area? I realise many are delivering food to those who cannot get to the shop, such as the sick or the elderly but not certainly not always. My student neighbour has his food delivered from Iceland, only a 4-5min walk but I'm sure he's probably working very hard this time of year studying for exams. He seems to like loud music a lot of the time too mind. Oh well. During my entire school life I walked to and from school, or cycled and it has helped me know the city I live in. How many of your children or others friends and extended families children do you know that walk to school? Some but I think you might agree that many are in cars at peak times of the day, it's even got a name these days "the school run". The answers is very simple and it's not the councils fault or the governments fault that we are in this current situation. The only real likelihood is without you and many perfectly capable others like you, doing something about it, really doing something not just pointing the finger at someone else, it WILL get worse. Only your own personal responsibility over how YOU decide to travel will determine the problems YOU face. For those who have chosen to be responsible, we should be given every opportunity to continue and encourage the rest of us to join in to walk or cycle or use public transport when we can. The gas powered car is on the way out, it's a dinosaur oblivious to the huge meteor looming overhead, it's staring you lot right in the face and it's barely even mentioned in the discussions on this page. Boiling down those like me, to cultural stereotypes is a very bad idea, and has more of a reflection of yourself, so please embarrass yourself. As for me, I know you'd like to know as you've read this far, I choose not to own a car but cycle and walk, or use buses and trains for longer journeys. Also of anyone from The Argus reads this, your article, your online paper is shockingly right wing and very biased, why would you give the first comment in the article to such a person? Sensationalism. THE END LeaveItSteve
  • Score: -2

2:16am Thu 5 Jun 14

Zeta Function says...

Cheer up everyone, the computer driven car is on its way!

These vehicles will be free of the internal combustion engine, hurrah! Solar Battery powered and noiseless they'll free travellers from the tedium of driving a heavy polluting vehicle. What's not to like?

I can't wait. I just hope they won't be too pricey to hire. A good idea would be for councils to rent them out. They will be much safer, and we can work on the way to work! We shall wonder why we oppressed ourselves with the internal combustion engine for so long. Goodbye Taxis. Goodbye wasting precious hours driving.
Cheer up everyone, the computer driven car is on its way! These vehicles will be free of the internal combustion engine, hurrah! Solar Battery powered and noiseless they'll free travellers from the tedium of driving a heavy polluting vehicle. What's not to like? I can't wait. I just hope they won't be too pricey to hire. A good idea would be for councils to rent them out. They will be much safer, and we can work on the way to work! We shall wonder why we oppressed ourselves with the internal combustion engine for so long. Goodbye Taxis. Goodbye wasting precious hours driving. Zeta Function
  • Score: -1

6:45am Thu 5 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Zeta Function wrote:
Cheer up everyone, the computer driven car is on its way!

These vehicles will be free of the internal combustion engine, hurrah! Solar Battery powered and noiseless they'll free travellers from the tedium of driving a heavy polluting vehicle. What's not to like?

I can't wait. I just hope they won't be too pricey to hire. A good idea would be for councils to rent them out. They will be much safer, and we can work on the way to work! We shall wonder why we oppressed ourselves with the internal combustion engine for so long. Goodbye Taxis. Goodbye wasting precious hours driving.
And Hello to battery-powered traffic congestion.

*facepalm*
[quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: Cheer up everyone, the computer driven car is on its way! These vehicles will be free of the internal combustion engine, hurrah! Solar Battery powered and noiseless they'll free travellers from the tedium of driving a heavy polluting vehicle. What's not to like? I can't wait. I just hope they won't be too pricey to hire. A good idea would be for councils to rent them out. They will be much safer, and we can work on the way to work! We shall wonder why we oppressed ourselves with the internal combustion engine for so long. Goodbye Taxis. Goodbye wasting precious hours driving.[/p][/quote]And Hello to battery-powered traffic congestion. *facepalm* ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

6:49am Thu 5 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

" As for your claim though that: "The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity". How could you possibly know this? Do you know all these people personally in real life?"

Not one of them has indicated that they are a petrolhead. The posts are from drivers concerned at the congestion and how they sometimes find the car a necessity.

A petrolhead is a fanatic....as I'm sure you're aware.
" As for your claim though that: "The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity". How could you possibly know this? Do you know all these people personally in real life?" Not one of them has indicated that they are a petrolhead. The posts are from drivers concerned at the congestion and how they sometimes find the car a necessity. A petrolhead is a fanatic....as I'm sure you're aware. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

9:39am Thu 5 Jun 14

Phani Tikkala says...

her professional wrote:
Phani Tikkala wrote:
LB wrote:
"It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25"

Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem?
Try that with 8 5 litre cans of paint. GO ON
You go to Western Road to bulk buy paint do you? What a load of rubbish. Also, where in Western Road can you miraculously park right outside your mythical paint shop?
Wow another thick green who can't read.

Now go back and read the original comment again, engage your brain cell, and come back and have another pop
[quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LB[/bold] wrote: "It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25" Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem?[/p][/quote]Try that with 8 5 litre cans of paint. GO ON[/p][/quote]You go to Western Road to bulk buy paint do you? What a load of rubbish. Also, where in Western Road can you miraculously park right outside your mythical paint shop?[/p][/quote]Wow another thick green who can't read. Now go back and read the original comment again, engage your brain cell, and come back and have another pop Phani Tikkala
  • Score: 4

10:27am Thu 5 Jun 14

Automaton says...

Phani Tikkala wrote:
her professional wrote:
Phani Tikkala wrote:
LB wrote:
"It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25"

Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem?
Try that with 8 5 litre cans of paint. GO ON
You go to Western Road to bulk buy paint do you? What a load of rubbish. Also, where in Western Road can you miraculously park right outside your mythical paint shop?
Wow another thick green who can't read.

Now go back and read the original comment again, engage your brain cell, and come back and have another pop
Anyone who uses the moniker phani tikkala deserves to be ignored.
[quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LB[/bold] wrote: "It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25" Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem?[/p][/quote]Try that with 8 5 litre cans of paint. GO ON[/p][/quote]You go to Western Road to bulk buy paint do you? What a load of rubbish. Also, where in Western Road can you miraculously park right outside your mythical paint shop?[/p][/quote]Wow another thick green who can't read. Now go back and read the original comment again, engage your brain cell, and come back and have another pop[/p][/quote]Anyone who uses the moniker phani tikkala deserves to be ignored. Automaton
  • Score: -3

11:06am Thu 5 Jun 14

Phani Tikkala says...

Automaton wrote:
Phani Tikkala wrote:
her professional wrote:
Phani Tikkala wrote:
LB wrote:
"It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25"

Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem?
Try that with 8 5 litre cans of paint. GO ON
You go to Western Road to bulk buy paint do you? What a load of rubbish. Also, where in Western Road can you miraculously park right outside your mythical paint shop?
Wow another thick green who can't read.

Now go back and read the original comment again, engage your brain cell, and come back and have another pop
Anyone who uses the moniker phani tikkala deserves to be ignored.
Yeah just insult my name won't you…if that's the best you can manage in terms of argument, then…..
[quote][p][bold]Automaton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LB[/bold] wrote: "It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25" Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem?[/p][/quote]Try that with 8 5 litre cans of paint. GO ON[/p][/quote]You go to Western Road to bulk buy paint do you? What a load of rubbish. Also, where in Western Road can you miraculously park right outside your mythical paint shop?[/p][/quote]Wow another thick green who can't read. Now go back and read the original comment again, engage your brain cell, and come back and have another pop[/p][/quote]Anyone who uses the moniker phani tikkala deserves to be ignored.[/p][/quote]Yeah just insult my name won't you…if that's the best you can manage in terms of argument, then….. Phani Tikkala
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Gribbet says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
" As for your claim though that: "The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity". How could you possibly know this? Do you know all these people personally in real life?"

Not one of them has indicated that they are a petrolhead. The posts are from drivers concerned at the congestion and how they sometimes find the car a necessity.

A petrolhead is a fanatic....as I'm sure you're aware.
Are they a fanatic? I'm not sure that's exactly how I'd describe a petrolhead. That said, I think there are several fanatical comments above from the car-people.

Still interested to know how you can claim that all of the car drivers commenting above are "concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity", how do you know this? How do you know that some or all of these people don't use their cars just because they can't be bothered to walk sometimes.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: " As for your claim though that: "The people discussing this thread are anything but petrol-heads....they are concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity". How could you possibly know this? Do you know all these people personally in real life?" Not one of them has indicated that they are a petrolhead. The posts are from drivers concerned at the congestion and how they sometimes find the car a necessity. A petrolhead is a fanatic....as I'm sure you're aware.[/p][/quote]Are they a fanatic? I'm not sure that's exactly how I'd describe a petrolhead. That said, I think there are several fanatical comments above from the car-people. Still interested to know how you can claim that all of the car drivers commenting above are "concerned drivers who use their cars out of necessity", how do you know this? How do you know that some or all of these people don't use their cars just because they can't be bothered to walk sometimes. Gribbet
  • Score: -3

10:17pm Thu 5 Jun 14

DCCCCCC says...

graham_Seagull wrote:
Max Ripple wrote:
The widening of the A23 is happening miles outside of Brighton and has no effect whatsoever on the congestion within the city. A pointless piece of evidence, if you ask me. Main arterial roads in Brighton have in fact been narrowed. Constantly. Either by removing a lane entirely to allow for infrequent buses and a handful of cyclists or by widening pavements to allow for tree planters. The more you narrow roads, the more traffic has to slow down. Corners of roads which are now virtually impossible to negotiate as they stick out so far. Pollution is going up, partly due to the proliferation of diesel vehicles which cause more damage and the fact that cars have no way of traveling anywhere near their optimum speeds to keep it to a minimum. The 20mph zones mean that more vehicles have to drive 'on their brakes' as it were and that causes more problems with asbestos dust. Drivers also find that they are constantly having to look down at their speedometers to stop themselves going over the 20mph limit. This means they are not concentrating on what is going on around them as much as they should be. All policies have their drawbacks.
how about just admitting that we as car drivers (you as well) are ALL part of the problem, there are way too many journeys by car in the City, its not someone else causing the problems it really is you and me and pretty much everyone else.
If the built out corners and 20mph zones were removed, do you really think a car journey would be any quicker? thats a ridiculous statement to infer.

If you cant concentrate on drivnig at 20mph then you simply dont have the rights skills to drive and you should walk.
I've had more cars pull out in front of me and more people run out in front of me while driving in 20mph zones than I have in faster areas. All 20mph zones should be abolished.
[quote][p][bold]graham_Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Ripple[/bold] wrote: The widening of the A23 is happening miles outside of Brighton and has no effect whatsoever on the congestion within the city. A pointless piece of evidence, if you ask me. Main arterial roads in Brighton have in fact been narrowed. Constantly. Either by removing a lane entirely to allow for infrequent buses and a handful of cyclists or by widening pavements to allow for tree planters. The more you narrow roads, the more traffic has to slow down. Corners of roads which are now virtually impossible to negotiate as they stick out so far. Pollution is going up, partly due to the proliferation of diesel vehicles which cause more damage and the fact that cars have no way of traveling anywhere near their optimum speeds to keep it to a minimum. The 20mph zones mean that more vehicles have to drive 'on their brakes' as it were and that causes more problems with asbestos dust. Drivers also find that they are constantly having to look down at their speedometers to stop themselves going over the 20mph limit. This means they are not concentrating on what is going on around them as much as they should be. All policies have their drawbacks.[/p][/quote]how about just admitting that we as car drivers (you as well) are ALL part of the problem, there are way too many journeys by car in the City, its not someone else causing the problems it really is you and me and pretty much everyone else. If the built out corners and 20mph zones were removed, do you really think a car journey would be any quicker? thats a ridiculous statement to infer. If you cant concentrate on drivnig at 20mph then you simply dont have the rights skills to drive and you should walk.[/p][/quote]I've had more cars pull out in front of me and more people run out in front of me while driving in 20mph zones than I have in faster areas. All 20mph zones should be abolished. DCCCCCC
  • Score: 1

1:07pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Fairfax Aches says...

If lazy selfish people want to sit in their cars in smog ridden congested traffic jams, that's their problem. I for one will enjoy the fresh air and save the environment by cycling. About time the council woke up and started implementing some more stern ways of reducing car usage (congestion charge, more pedestrian zones etc
If lazy selfish people want to sit in their cars in smog ridden congested traffic jams, that's their problem. I for one will enjoy the fresh air and save the environment by cycling. About time the council woke up and started implementing some more stern ways of reducing car usage (congestion charge, more pedestrian zones etc Fairfax Aches
  • Score: -1

2:34pm Fri 6 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

As a fifth generation Brightonian, I am dismayed at how this Council is destroying my town.Groups like ‘Unchain the Brighton ….’ have grown as have the disillusioned residents in the CPZs who have paid through the nose only for the income to have been given to the “GO AHEAD” groups shareholders (I remember Corporation & Southdown Buses). This fixation with Bus & Cycle Lanes must end. Congestion is caused because 3 lanes into 1 won’t go and with 20mph limits is there a need for cycle lanes when they can safely integrate into the traffic flow.
Park & ride is pie in the sky and is empty rhetoric without the will to see through. £2 million spent on Edward St & Seven Dials, £1.5 Million on unused Old Shoreham Rd cycle lanes wasted when none of these were needed. There is £3.5million that could have gone to a more comprehensive & much needed Rark & Ride.
We need to attract visitors not deter but we also need to respect the wishes of the residents of this town. Stop the Greens doing more damage.I believe that all proposed Highways works should cease & resources
poured into solving this traffic congestion instead of on the Green
Party vanity projects!
We must not become the No.1 most congested city. We must not become the most expensive city in which to be a car owner.
As a fifth generation Brightonian, I am dismayed at how this Council is destroying my town.Groups like ‘Unchain the Brighton ….’ have grown as have the disillusioned residents in the CPZs who have paid through the nose only for the income to have been given to the “GO AHEAD” groups shareholders (I remember Corporation & Southdown Buses). This fixation with Bus & Cycle Lanes must end. Congestion is caused because 3 lanes into 1 won’t go and with 20mph limits is there a need for cycle lanes when they can safely integrate into the traffic flow. Park & ride is pie in the sky and is empty rhetoric without the will to see through. £2 million spent on Edward St & Seven Dials, £1.5 Million on unused Old Shoreham Rd cycle lanes wasted when none of these were needed. There is £3.5million that could have gone to a more comprehensive & much needed Rark & Ride. We need to attract visitors not deter but we also need to respect the wishes of the residents of this town. Stop the Greens doing more damage.I believe that all proposed Highways works should cease & resources poured into solving this traffic congestion instead of on the Green Party vanity projects! We must not become the No.1 most congested city. We must not become the most expensive city in which to be a car owner. stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 3

2:53pm Fri 6 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

HJarrs wrote:
The annual Tom Tom advert!

The Tom Tom report of 2011 had the quote

"In comparison, the German city of Cologne sits at the bottom of the top 50; only 18.9% of its roads are congested."

Now, any of you that have travelled in and around Koeln as I have will notice few cars in the centre, excellent public transport infrastructure including bus, tram and trains, large areas of pedestrianisation and mile upon mile of decent quality cycle routes. This combination of public transport and using legs has meant less reliance on the car. Those that still use the car find less congestion. I should imagine their moanerati complain about cyclelists, buses etc as well.
Tom Tom report didn't have the collapsed Kings Road Arches or the Ship St Sewers, next years must be "most congested city"!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: The annual Tom Tom advert! The Tom Tom report of 2011 had the quote "In comparison, the German city of Cologne sits at the bottom of the top 50; only 18.9% of its roads are congested." Now, any of you that have travelled in and around Koeln as I have will notice few cars in the centre, excellent public transport infrastructure including bus, tram and trains, large areas of pedestrianisation and mile upon mile of decent quality cycle routes. This combination of public transport and using legs has meant less reliance on the car. Those that still use the car find less congestion. I should imagine their moanerati complain about cyclelists, buses etc as well.[/p][/quote]Tom Tom report didn't have the collapsed Kings Road Arches or the Ship St Sewers, next years must be "most congested city"! stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 1

3:06pm Fri 6 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Another interesting statistic from last year's report headline is that apparently the congestion in B&H last year rose by 45%. Now by 3%. Hmmm.
Last year's report won't have commented upon anything from last year. It would have been reporting on the previous year.
Tom Tom report didn't have the collapsed Kings Road Arches or the Ship St Sewers, next years must be "most congested city"!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Another interesting statistic from last year's report headline is that apparently the congestion in B&H last year rose by 45%. Now by 3%. Hmmm.[/p][/quote]Last year's report won't have commented upon anything from last year. It would have been reporting on the previous year.[/p][/quote]Tom Tom report didn't have the collapsed Kings Road Arches or the Ship St Sewers, next years must be "most congested city"! stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 1

6:25pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Automaton says...

Fairfax Aches wrote:
If lazy selfish people want to sit in their cars in smog ridden congested traffic jams, that's their problem. I for one will enjoy the fresh air and save the environment by cycling. About time the council woke up and started implementing some more stern ways of reducing car usage (congestion charge, more pedestrian zones etc
Think you getting more pollution cycling your bike than those in cars
[quote][p][bold]Fairfax Aches[/bold] wrote: If lazy selfish people want to sit in their cars in smog ridden congested traffic jams, that's their problem. I for one will enjoy the fresh air and save the environment by cycling. About time the council woke up and started implementing some more stern ways of reducing car usage (congestion charge, more pedestrian zones etc[/p][/quote]Think you getting more pollution cycling your bike than those in cars Automaton
  • Score: 1

7:30pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Joshiman says...

Drove this afternoon from Shoreham to Peacehaven.It took just over an hour.Everthing normal until we hit the Regency Sq traffic lights and then the nightmare stop start traffic light system kicked in all the way along the seafront /Pier/Rock gardens/Marina/Rotti
ngdean/saltdean/junc
tion garage/thai elephant/peacehaven.
All could have been so different if only the morons who work out traffic light sequences either did their job properly or went back for retraining.or better still were sacked and replaced with more experienced personnel who have common sense.Bus lanes/cycle lanes ok we have to accept but the way these so called engineers play games with our traffic lights/pedestrian lights is an utter disgrace and the reason for our very polluted and gridlocked city.
Drove this afternoon from Shoreham to Peacehaven.It took just over an hour.Everthing normal until we hit the Regency Sq traffic lights and then the nightmare stop start traffic light system kicked in all the way along the seafront /Pier/Rock gardens/Marina/Rotti ngdean/saltdean/junc tion garage/thai elephant/peacehaven. All could have been so different if only the morons who work out traffic light sequences either did their job properly or went back for retraining.or better still were sacked and replaced with more experienced personnel who have common sense.Bus lanes/cycle lanes ok we have to accept but the way these so called engineers play games with our traffic lights/pedestrian lights is an utter disgrace and the reason for our very polluted and gridlocked city. Joshiman
  • Score: 6

8:47pm Fri 6 Jun 14

gheese77 says...

her professional wrote:
Phani Tikkala wrote:
The increase in congestion is a problem created ENTIRELY by the Greens. Next up - an equivalent increase in pollution. And then more news about falling visitor numbers. And an increase in businesses closing, going bust and moving elsewhere. Watch this space.

You don't have to be a genius to realise that cutting road capacity by 50% (by changing dual carriageways to single carriageways) means that it will take twice as long to make the same journey. It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25 and the congestions at the Dials is far, far worse than it ever was before.

"The introduction of 20mph limits has also improved the flow of traffic in the city" says Davey. Perhaps once he gets out of his green ivory tower he'll realise that's complete BS.

I'm setting up a new business that will employ dozens. Not here in Brighton, elsewhere because I need to give the business the best chance of success. Well done greens, you've screwed the City with parking charges and stupid traffic changes that look like some sort of psychological experiment on residents. It will take years to repair the damage, which AMAZINGLY they are busy patting themselves on the back for!

Roll on May 2015 and we can start the long long and painful process of trying to get the City back on its feet. And kick Davey and his colleagues out of power.
As both the Tory and labour transport spokesmen were in broad agreement with the greens I don't quite know what you think will happen next year, regardless of who runs the council.
i think they hope it will be a UKIP council that tears up al the bus/ cycle lanes and installs a citywide 40 mph limit
Thankfully there is no chance of that happening
[quote][p][bold]her professional[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: The increase in congestion is a problem created ENTIRELY by the Greens. Next up - an equivalent increase in pollution. And then more news about falling visitor numbers. And an increase in businesses closing, going bust and moving elsewhere. Watch this space. You don't have to be a genius to realise that cutting road capacity by 50% (by changing dual carriageways to single carriageways) means that it will take twice as long to make the same journey. It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25 and the congestions at the Dials is far, far worse than it ever was before. "The introduction of 20mph limits has also improved the flow of traffic in the city" says Davey. Perhaps once he gets out of his green ivory tower he'll realise that's complete BS. I'm setting up a new business that will employ dozens. Not here in Brighton, elsewhere because I need to give the business the best chance of success. Well done greens, you've screwed the City with parking charges and stupid traffic changes that look like some sort of psychological experiment on residents. It will take years to repair the damage, which AMAZINGLY they are busy patting themselves on the back for! Roll on May 2015 and we can start the long long and painful process of trying to get the City back on its feet. And kick Davey and his colleagues out of power.[/p][/quote]As both the Tory and labour transport spokesmen were in broad agreement with the greens I don't quite know what you think will happen next year, regardless of who runs the council.[/p][/quote]i think they hope it will be a UKIP council that tears up al the bus/ cycle lanes and installs a citywide 40 mph limit Thankfully there is no chance of that happening gheese77
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Grumpy Old Cyclist says...

Still think the Greens are to blame
Still think the Greens are to blame Grumpy Old Cyclist
  • Score: 4

7:57am Sun 8 Jun 14

stumpyshimmans says...

LB wrote:
"It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25"

Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem?
Why not cull all people unable to cycle or walk.......Ian Davey has blinkered views !
[quote][p][bold]LB[/bold] wrote: "It used to take 8 minutes to drive from Highcroft Villas to Western Road. Now it takes 25" Why not just walk and be part of the solution, not the problem?[/p][/quote]Why not cull all people unable to cycle or walk.......Ian Davey has blinkered views ! stumpyshimmans
  • Score: 1

8:30am Sun 8 Jun 14

Plantpot says...

The only politically acceptable way to reduce pollution is to have traffic get through the city as quickly as possible. At the moment traffic is deliberately being stalled as often as possible. Ironically, the most polluted areas are exclusively for the use of buses and taxis.
The only politically acceptable way to reduce pollution is to have traffic get through the city as quickly as possible. At the moment traffic is deliberately being stalled as often as possible. Ironically, the most polluted areas are exclusively for the use of buses and taxis. Plantpot
  • Score: 1

5:27pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Sir Prised says...

HJarrs wrote:
The city is on the up economically, more jobs being created, more visitors to the city, so unsurprising that congestion goes up if people will not leave the car behind. There are too many cars in the city and there will never be any more road space built in B&H, whatever the administration.

At least good alternatives are being provided and the cycle and bus routes that have been built, resulting in increased ridership, even make it more feasible for park and ride ( but don't hold your breath as there is no funding, no site and a question over effectiveness, let's face it the moanerati won't use it). The railways are also increasing in capacity and will be transformed by 2018.

However, it takes a long time for travel habits to change. We need to encourage the younger generation not to pick up the car habit in the first place; taking up regular walking and cycling would be healthy and efficient use of road space. Unlike the unhealthy, overweight generations of parents and grandparents. But like other cities I can think of, in 20 years we may look back in amazement and wonder why we tolorated so many cars coming into the city in the first place.

If you have to drive into B&H, then I am afraid you will have to get used to congestion, it has been with us a long time and is a permanent fixture. At least you could buy the most reasonably small and fuel efficient car.
Yes let's keep payiing people to have babies they can't themselves afford and run an open door immigraiton policy. I really want to live in an over-crowded sprawl. Pay more for my food, water, energy and waste disposal, oh and green taxes to reduce consumption ! I mean what's the b****y point of it all. And don't give me the old rubbish about needing more youngsters to keep the growing number of elderly. That is an inssane concept. We need to limit numbers and reduce consumption and return to enjoying the simple things life has to offer. For thousands of years, people manage to live like this, until greed and materialism became the new religion.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: The city is on the up economically, more jobs being created, more visitors to the city, so unsurprising that congestion goes up if people will not leave the car behind. There are too many cars in the city and there will never be any more road space built in B&H, whatever the administration. At least good alternatives are being provided and the cycle and bus routes that have been built, resulting in increased ridership, even make it more feasible for park and ride ( but don't hold your breath as there is no funding, no site and a question over effectiveness, let's face it the moanerati won't use it). The railways are also increasing in capacity and will be transformed by 2018. However, it takes a long time for travel habits to change. We need to encourage the younger generation not to pick up the car habit in the first place; taking up regular walking and cycling would be healthy and efficient use of road space. Unlike the unhealthy, overweight generations of parents and grandparents. But like other cities I can think of, in 20 years we may look back in amazement and wonder why we tolorated so many cars coming into the city in the first place. If you have to drive into B&H, then I am afraid you will have to get used to congestion, it has been with us a long time and is a permanent fixture. At least you could buy the most reasonably small and fuel efficient car.[/p][/quote]Yes let's keep payiing people to have babies they can't themselves afford and run an open door immigraiton policy. I really want to live in an over-crowded sprawl. Pay more for my food, water, energy and waste disposal, oh and green taxes to reduce consumption ! I mean what's the b****y point of it all. And don't give me the old rubbish about needing more youngsters to keep the growing number of elderly. That is an inssane concept. We need to limit numbers and reduce consumption and return to enjoying the simple things life has to offer. For thousands of years, people manage to live like this, until greed and materialism became the new religion. Sir Prised
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree