Silly commuting racing

mtb-idle

Sweet, so we are all agreed that it's the cars that are the problem.

inbike

martinc wrote:

For over 20 years she worked as a teacher in Sheen, driving there from Kingston. As she said, during the summer it was a pleasant 10min drive through park, during winter a 1hr slog in a jam through Ham. And she wouldn't ride due to basically being scared of riding in park at night.
So if the park was always shut to traffic, that's a constant traffic jam in a residential area... not great for their health either.

There are short term and long term changes.

In the short term people might take the long wait through Ham, making traffic worse.

But in the long term, they'll refuse to take jobs that involve a commute through hours of traffic, or they'll start to cycle, or they'll move. So traffic will head back to it's equilibrium.

This is a well studied effect - here's one such study which suggests that the long term elasticity of demand for transport is such that a 1% increase in journey time reduces demand by 1% - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00166218

So for the cost of a few years of disruption you'd get a permanently nicer environment in the park and lower pollution levels forever.

Would your wife have insisted you move if she had to spend two hours a day commuting? Would she have got over her fear of cycling in the dark (especially given the likely rise in cycle traffic)? Even if she wouldn't have done so - how many people would have?

Pearcy

Did anyone get through the Park and have any SCR today? :shock:
Fast guy on silver/green fixed Cannondale was keeping everyone honest, been mentioned on here before. Chopper with TT extensions cut in front of me just after Chelsea bridge off the lights. Got dispatched with ease straight away for both indiscretions. Shared the work with fellow clubmate Aybee along Embankment after that on his shiny orange Allez.

kingstongraham

When there are no cars in the park, people walk and run on the roads for some reason. A restricted number of cars is ideal.

kingstongraham

martinc wrote:

Whilst I'd agree a car-free park would be preferable, my wife's experience does show the realities:
For over 20 years she worked as a teacher in Sheen, driving there from Kingston. As she said, during the summer it was a pleasant 10min drive through park, during winter a 1hr slog in a jam through Ham. And she wouldn't ride due to basically being scared of riding in park at night.
So if the park was always shut to traffic, that's a constant traffic jam in a residential area... not great for their health either.
I remember the Parks did a lot of commuter research about 10years ago into closing the park to traffic and came to the same conclusion.

Why didn't they open it for the evening rush hour then?

martinc

inbike wrote:

martinc wrote:

For over 20 years she worked as a teacher in Sheen, driving there from Kingston. As she said, during the summer it was a pleasant 10min drive through park, during winter a 1hr slog in a jam through Ham. And she wouldn't ride due to basically being scared of riding in park at night.
So if the park was always shut to traffic, that's a constant traffic jam in a residential area... not great for their health either.

There are short term and long term changes.

In the short term people might take the long wait through Ham, making traffic worse.

But in the long term, they'll refuse to take jobs that involve a commute through hours of traffic, or they'll start to cycle, or they'll move. So traffic will head back to it's equilibrium.

This is a well studied effect - here's one such study which suggests that the long term elasticity of demand for transport is such that a 1% increase in journey time reduces demand by 1% - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00166218

So for the cost of a few years of disruption you'd get a permanently nicer environment in the park and lower pollution levels forever.

Would your wife have insisted you move if she had to spend two hours a day commuting? Would she have got over her fear of cycling in the dark (especially given the likely rise in cycle traffic)? Even if she wouldn't have done so - how many people would have?

I guess all these things are interconnected.. her school increasingly had higher turnover of staff because nobody on a teacher salary could afford to live in Sheen, hence the long commutes... so yes.. teachers moving away and new staff arriving then doing the same. So the traffic problem remains and now the teaching of the kids has got worse too. That's London though.

Anyways.. yes I rode through RP. No I didn't SCR.

tgotb

Rick Chasey wrote:

This is what I mean by optimum.
IF every man and his dog did that journey by car, it wouldn't be so fast, would it!

If everyone who was already flying from London to Inverness switched to driving, the impact to traffic would be negligible.

In practice I'd still choose to fly, but I was surprised to discover that - for pretty much the longest journey it's possible to make from London to somewhere in the mainland UK - the fastest and cheapest way to do so is by driving; the only alternative that even vaguely competes still involves several hours of driving.

veronese68

DrHaggis wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

I had to drive in today, went through Richmond Park. :oops:

This is something I don't get. Back when I lived in Teddington, I'd never ever think about driving to work (in Bloomsbury)...

Had to drop the Mrs off at her work in Twickenham then on to Hanworth so not heading into town. The wife would normally take a train and I cycle, but she broke her leg a while back and still isn’t up to it. She’s been wfh a lot but had a meeting today.
Banning cars would make cycling in the park more difficult. The road would become like the shared path in Bushy Park. It’s the same width as the roads and pedestrians wander about aimlessly, dog walkers pay no heed to their hounds or have long leads which are worse still. The idiots in cars keep other idiots off the roads.
Anyway, drove home. Traffic was sh!t.

prhymeate

I thought the Taxi protest at London Bridge would make getting home a nightmare. If anything it was an advert for how nice it'd be if more roads were only open to busses and bikes...pretty sure that wasn't the point they were trying to make though.

asprilla

Making my way from Pen Ponds to Ham Cross this evening when I noticed a patch of dark on the path that was darker than the surrounding dark. 'Ah, a deer' so I slow below 20 mph but notice that I'm not getting any closer. Put the hammer down a bit and catch up.

Not a deer.

Chap dressed in Vantablack clothing riding a Vantablack bike. Rare.

sgt.pepper

60km/h headwind this morning after a disturbed night, need to invest in some more aero waterproof gear - ended up choosing getting wet over blowing up like a sail. Small amount of SCR with a guy on a tourer, but I don't think either of us really had the heart for it.

Back on the GT, Raleigh's in the shop with a stripped crank pedal thread - thankfully have the old Competition's to put on. Forgot just how much I love the 4 seasons on it, really need to invest in some nice tyres for the Arena once they wear out, but struggling to find any that will keep with the period look. Also having some issues with my helmet camera overheating, need to try find some better mounting points.

RE the park - it sounds like too many cars is the problem.

-Dash

I often do ACW laps in the morning. I'm glad I don't go CW. Kingston to Richmond Gate is always slow moving or queuing traffic. It looks like any other A road in London in terms of traffic volume. Pretty ridiculous for a park.

Diana's ring in Bushy Park on a weekend looks like a car park too. Too many cars trying to turn right out onto the main road and blocking things up.

itboffin

exactly its either a park or a road with a couple of green patches in the middle, turn it back into a park. Stop traffic during commuting hours as has been said it'll make no difference to the car park / streets outside. I'd go so far as to say takeaway the tarmac altogether and replace with a trail path, you can still cycle but not race because its not a velodrome or track its a PARK.

in 2014 they counted 1000 cyclist an hour going through the park according to the friends website, must be more now.

Fact is cars are destroying roads everywhere, i've lived in the back water boons of the west country for coming on 12 years and roads that once you'd not see a single car in an hour now its almost a traffic jam during rush hours. This is all the work of satnav and no doubt the increase of drivers/car ownership.

I'm not ecco evangelist in fact I now drive to work 130 miles rounds trip four days a week, whereas for 10 years I cycle/train/cycled, i'm now driving because A its significantly cheaper even with buy a new car, that's mental in itself.

My point is if we continue to just accept this destruction of our limited city green spaces and even countryside rat runs this is not going to end well, so take actions now, make taking those "shortcuts" inconvenient, expensive or just downright unpleasant.

Back to my local situation, a road that had no traffic is now a super busy through road which can only be saving people minutes, i'd put cameras and width restrictions all along it, taking away any timesaving. Shut the park in rush hours, take away the casual timesaver.

inbike

Average speed cameras would solve most of the problem.

We clocked a driver doing 60mph on our 20 limit road. If you stick to the limit, it's quicker to cycle/train.

anonymousblackfg

Another idea to throw into the mix is making the park clockwise only for cars, single lane. I think this solves a few of the issues of keeping dog walkers at bay and making the shortcut of Kingston to Richmond more difficult for drivers.

Else, for my journey in, better on navigating the trial route but completely forgot about the obvious drawback of having to go through a level crossing...

Finally, if you are or know the tall fixie rider with the shiny studded belt, i'm happy to be a witness if lodging your footage of the fat cretin trying to force his way past/hit you in Colliers Wood last night leading to much shouting/bedlam.

kingstonian

For those of you on BadgerWatch in Richmond Park, the roadworks will allegedly start on Mon 3rd Dec and last 2 weeks

Bit foggy this morning, eh peeps.

rhodrich

Was that you who said hello this morning Asprilla? I just heard a brief hello before I set off from the lights at PS, and it looks like you were in the area according to Flyby.

Whitehall/Horseguards route was a definite winner today!

wolfsbane2k

TGOTB wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

1) Is there any evidence of this leading to increased pollution overall? The traffic is already heavy and slow outside the park. At evening rush hour this time of year, no cars can go through the park anyway, so it would make no massive difference to the overall level of traffic.

Not evidence, but it seems reasonable to conclude that emissions from the cars displaced from the park will be greater because they're now travelling more slowly, and spending more time stationary with their engines running. Assuming the vehicles already outside the park are slowed further (due to the increase in volume), their emissions will also increase.

But if you take into account the "motorised traffic evaporation" effect, whereby people , unable to drive, find an alternative mode of transport ; in this instance, if many people don't cycle to work because of traffic safety concerns, how many would cycle now that the park is traffic free...
There are a large number of cases that support this effect, with paris being the latest example as far as I'm aware.

rower63 wrote:

Yes but note also the effect whereby increasing capacity also tends to increase traffic, apparently. I wonder if the reverse is true? If so, closing off the Park to cars will reduce traffic and concomitant pollution.

Yep - Induced demand is the "widen a road, cars will eventually fill it" and traffic evaporation is the reverse

cjcp

I agree that a certain amount of traffic is good - keeps both peds and us cyclists on a leash to a certain extent.

A toll would be good for those in the park for less than 30 minutes. It may cut out unnecssary journeys, but, if it doesn't, and people still want the pleasure and privilege of driving through the park, paying a fee should allow the park to raise funds for any works or projects.

Keeping it to 30 mins rather than entry full stop would mean that the cafes in the park won't suffer financially, and those who drive to the likes of Pen Ponds for their daily walks with or without the dog(s) also aren't penalised.

I agree that the traffic through Ham and Petersham is an absolute shocker when the park is closed in the winter; if the cull is on, I'll often deviate through Twickenham andTeddington rather than fight my way through the fumes.

I agree with Rower that if you increase capacity, you'll just have more people using that space --- a bit like work: it expands to fill the time available.

Preventing commercial vehicles and taxis altogether would be good, but the latter won't happen. I count a lot of private taxis using the park, so would be nice to cull them.

wolfsbane2k

TGOTB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

This is what I mean by optimum.
IF every man and his dog did that journey by car, it wouldn't be so fast, would it!

If everyone who was already flying from London to Inverness switched to driving, the impact to traffic would be negligible.

In practice I'd still choose to fly, but I was surprised to discover that - for pretty much the longest journey it's possible to make from London to somewhere in the mainland UK - the fastest and cheapest way to do so is by driving; the only alternative that even vaguely competes still involves several hours of driving.

I once drove from Portsmouth to the isle of skye to drop a small, irreplaceable package off - I'd looked at flying to inverness, driving, public transport, etc etc ,and driving was just so much cheaper than any alternatives - even taking into account that I wouldn't be "working" while behind the wheel, which I could have been if on a train.
And that's after paying the M6 toll!

Shows just how car centric our society is.

asprilla

Rhodrich wrote:

Was that you who said hello this morning Asprilla? I just heard a brief hello before I set off from the lights at PS, and it looks like you were in the area according to Flyby.

Whitehall/Horseguards route was a definite winner today!

It was yes. Morning.

tgotb

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

Yep - Induced demand is the "widen a road, cars will eventually fill it" and traffic evaporation is the reverse

You also have to take into account the beneficial effect of that traffic (which is what I was getting at with my hypothetical dynamiting of the motorway system). So yes, closing some roads to cars will ultimately reduce traffic, but that will have lots of other knock-on effects, for example increasing the cost of shopping (because goods cost more to transport) or making the labour market less efficient (because people are less inclined to travel longer distances to work). In turn, inefficiencies in the labour market might have knock-on impacts on health or education because schools and hospitals have to draw their skilled workers from a smaller pool.

I'm obviously not proposing we tarmac the whole country, but assuming that less traffic is always a good thing, or that more traffic is always a bad thing, is a gross over-simplification that ignores the benefits created by that traffic.

tgotb

cjcp wrote:

A toll would be good for those in the park for less than 30 minutes. It may cut out unnecssary journeys, but, if it doesn't, and people still want the pleasure and privilege of driving through the park, paying a fee should allow the park to raise funds for any works or projects.

Keeping it to 30 mins rather than entry full stop would mean that the cafes in the park won't suffer financially, and those who drive to the likes of Pen Ponds for their daily walks with or without the dog(s) also aren't penalised.

Beware of the law of unintended consequences. If I wanted to drive from Ham to Roehampton during the morning rush hour without driving through the park, I reckon I'd need to allow at least 45 mins to be sure of getting there on time, maybe even an hour for a critical appointment. Through the park is obviously going to be quicker, so I might be tempted to drive that way anyway, and wait in the car park near Roehampton Gate until my 30 mins was up. If it was cold, I might even leave my engine running to stay warm. Or maybe I'd drive the long way round the park, to see a few more deer while I'm waiting for my 30 mins to tick over.

kingstonian

cjcp wrote:

I agree that a certain amount of traffic is good - keeps both peds and us cyclists on a leash to a certain extent.

A toll would be good for those in the park for less than 30 minutes. It may cut out unnecssary journeys, but, if it doesn't, and people still want the pleasure and privilege of driving through the park, paying a fee should allow the park to raise funds for any works or projects.

Keeping it to 30 mins rather than entry full stop would mean that the cafes in the park won't suffer financially, and those who drive to the likes of Pen Ponds for their daily walks with or without the dog(s) also aren't penalised.

I agree that the traffic through Ham and Petersham is an absolute shocker when the park is closed in the winter; if the cull is on, I'll often deviate through Twickenham andTeddington rather than fight my way through the fumes.

I agree with Rower that if you increase capacity, you'll just have more people using that space --- a bit like work: it expands to fill the time available.

Preventing commercial vehicles and taxis altogether would be good, but the latter won't happen. I count a lot of private taxis using the park, so would be nice to cull them.

Cull the taxis? Yep, I'm up for that. I'd pay good money to get to use a shoulder mounted anti tank weapon to sort the problem out.

rower63

TGOTB wrote:

...dynamiting of the motorway system ....

dynamite is old-fashioned. I believe they use badgers these days

cjcp

TGOTB wrote:

cjcp wrote:

A toll would be good for those in the park for less than 30 minutes. It may cut out unnecssary journeys, but, if it doesn't, and people still want the pleasure and privilege of driving through the park, paying a fee should allow the park to raise funds for any works or projects.

Keeping it to 30 mins rather than entry full stop would mean that the cafes in the park won't suffer financially, and those who drive to the likes of Pen Ponds for their daily walks with or without the dog(s) also aren't penalised.

Beware of the law of unintended consequences. If I wanted to drive from Ham to Roehampton during the morning rush hour without driving through the park, I reckon I'd need to allow at least 45 mins to be sure of getting there on time, maybe even an hour for a critical appointment. Through the park is obviously going to be quicker, so I might be tempted to drive that way anyway, and wait in the car park near Roehampton Gate until my 30 mins was up. If it was cold, I might even leave my engine running to stay warm. Or maybe I'd drive the long way round the park, to see a few more deer while I'm waiting for my 30 mins to tick over.

Yep, fair enough.

One hour.

cjcp

Kingstonian wrote:

cjcp wrote:

I agree that a certain amount of traffic is good - keeps both peds and us cyclists on a leash to a certain extent.

A toll would be good for those in the park for less than 30 minutes. It may cut out unnecssary journeys, but, if it doesn't, and people still want the pleasure and privilege of driving through the park, paying a fee should allow the park to raise funds for any works or projects.

Keeping it to 30 mins rather than entry full stop would mean that the cafes in the park won't suffer financially, and those who drive to the likes of Pen Ponds for their daily walks with or without the dog(s) also aren't penalised.

I agree that the traffic through Ham and Petersham is an absolute shocker when the park is closed in the winter; if the cull is on, I'll often deviate through Twickenham andTeddington rather than fight my way through the fumes.

I agree with Rower that if you increase capacity, you'll just have more people using that space --- a bit like work: it expands to fill the time available.

Preventing commercial vehicles and taxis altogether would be good, but the latter won't happen. I count a lot of private taxis using the park, so would be nice to cull them.

Cull the taxis? Yep, I'm up for that. I'd pay good money to get to use a shoulder mounted anti tank weapon to sort the problem out.

tgotb

cjcp wrote:

One hour.

Park Run. Anyone wanting to rush back home to have breakfast with their family is going to be incentivised to park antisocially in residential streets just outside the park so that they don't have to stand around waiting for the hour to tick over. And what about to people who don't mind waiting, on a cold day? They jump into their cars of course, and turn on the heater....

veronese68

cjcp wrote:

Kingstonian wrote:

Cull the taxis? Yep, I'm up for that. I'd pay good money to get to use a shoulder mounted anti tank weapon to sort the problem out.

What about launching badgers at them?
Rode the bike today, not a single rider heading my way. Going to get wet later.

wolfsbane2k

TGOTB wrote:

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

Yep - Induced demand is the "widen a road, cars will eventually fill it" and traffic evaporation is the reverse

You also have to take into account the beneficial effect of that traffic (which is what I was getting at with my hypothetical dynamiting of the motorway system). So yes, closing some roads to cars will ultimately reduce traffic, but that will have lots of other knock-on effects, for example increasing the cost of shopping (because goods cost more to transport) or making the labour market less efficient (because people are less inclined to travel longer distances to work). In turn, inefficiencies in the labour market might have knock-on impacts on health or education because schools and hospitals have to draw their skilled workers from a smaller pool.

I'm obviously not proposing we tarmac the whole country, but assuming that less traffic is always a good thing, or that more traffic is always a bad thing, is a gross over-simplification that ignores the benefits created by that traffic.

Oh, indeed, but if we work on efficiency of moving people, not traffic, and with the knowledge that "Most trips are relatively short. In 2017, 24% of trips were under 1 mile, and 68% under 5 miles." (DFT National Traffic Survey 2017, NTS0308), it really wouldn't take a lot of people changing from driving to cycling that distance to make a massive impact on the congestion on our roads - improving the timeliness of the longer distance drives, who actually need it..