Workers call for end to traffic nightmare
Comments
-
Lol - it seems a strange coincidence that they both live 40 miles away. Maybe they could car share?Widgey wrote:Upped. Lots of hate from the 40 milers.0 -
Drfabulous0 wrote:
But it makes no sense from an economic point of view, if there is not free parking then consumers simply go to the out of town shopping centers where there is, meaning town center businesses close and the rates and rental income for the council goes down
This does happen, however I can only talk specifically of where I live we have both a large centre in town & out of town centres and both can work together and none miss out. Plus is the same in Bristol, London, B'ham.
Think that councils need to think about this when planning the sign off for building one of these centres in the first place instead of taking the attitude that its more income to them. It might not work in some towns though I do get that and is a sad state when towns/villages are in effect killed off by council planning. But there are many towns/villages that do make it work.Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.0 -
Danlikesbikes wrote:Not sure I get what you mean?
The link is for planning permission for a building works so presume a new mixed used building(s) which if people are buying or renting in this new development need to take into account if they do or do not get off road parking included.
My point being that planning should budget for a car per household.FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
jds_1981 wrote:Danlikesbikes wrote:Not sure I get what you mean?
The link is for planning permission for a building works so presume a new mixed used building(s) which if people are buying or renting in this new development need to take into account if they do or do not get off road parking included.
My point being that planning should budget for a car per household.
But it doesn't - I'm just in the process of moving house and looked at some new builds and know where you are coming from. But building firms are trying to knock em up cheap and high as they say & people need to consider this when purchasing/budgeting. It might not be ideal for a first time buyer who can not afford a street permit on top of their mortgage, but think that also boils down to a poor decision by a bank to lend money to someone who may not have the means to pay it back which I guess got us partly into this mess in the first place.
I am a bit of an eco warrior at heart (though more of a hipster in reality) but do think we need to think long and hard about the planet and if we can encourage people to use alternative means of transport then its a good thing.Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.0 -
The timing of lights, where lines get painted etc. would be set by a technocratic body, tasked to achieve their public interest goals, so they'd have no financial interest in it.davmaggs wrote:
That would be very bad, you do not want to stop people being fined if you are in that business otherwise your earnings model breaks. Instead you set the lights to change quick so that people get caught in the ASL, perhaps let the paint fade or perhaps close lanes or slip roads to force cars to join at the ASL point. TfL has several illegal box junctions with special exemption that earn year after year, they certainly aren't fixing them.jamesco wrote:Sometimes I wonder that, given the (near) complete absence of parking & driving enforcement, wouldn't it be an idea to have independent enforcement officials on commission? Write up the fines and keep X% of the take. I'd bet the ASLs would be free from cars within a week
The enforcement would be a free-for-all (the enforcers would be licensed, of course, but not by this technocratic body); it'd be up to them if the commission they get is worth their time. It's the free market in action!
This isn't too seriously thought out, but the problem at the moment is that the people responsible for enforcement - councils & police - want the public (i.e. voters) to like them, which just isn't compatible with enforcement. We've all seen drivers go nuts when they've been quite legitimately ticketed, after all.0 -
-
GreameS wrote:The point isn't that everybody should cycle all of the time. The point is that if everybody who could cycle or use public transport did so most of the time then those who really did need to drive wouldn't have problems with congestion and you wouldn't need an extra entrance.
That's one of the most sensible things I've ever seen posted on the internet.0 -
Also, "extra entrance" sounds a little bit rudeDrfabulous0 wrote:That's one of the most sensible things I've ever seen posted on the internet.
0 -
Graeme_S wrote:
Also, "extra entrance" sounds a little bit rudeDrfabulous0 wrote:That's one of the most sensible things I've ever seen posted on the internet.
And yes, that was me commenting. The "it's impossible for any people to use a bike because I live 380 miles from work and have to carry a sofa with me each day" thing always bugs me. As Graeme said, it's not about everyone doing everything by bike, just some people changing some journeys. There's someone on there who lives 3 miles away FFS, but all she can do is drive, and then complain that there are too many drivers!? :?
The spaces for houses/flats thing is interesting. In the Netherlands, apparently, any new houses must have off street parking for cars. This means that roads are free of parked cars so everything flows better and bike lanes and pavements are unobstructed. But here some places deliberately under-provide parking to try to force people to not have cars. So people end up parking on the street. What we do is just make car use/ownership awkward, rather than providing any decent alternatives such as public transport (outside London, anyway) or useable bike infrastructure.0 -
Oops, 2 bits wrong in one sentance....davmaggs wrote:However, firstly it is illegal for councils to use parking revenue as a source of income.
First it's not illegal, it is contrary to governement guidance, but critically, it's only enforcement activity (penalties) they are not allowed to profit from, they can profit from income from P&D and from permit schemes.Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.0 -
Nice to see the paper have picked up on points raised in the comments :roll:. Today's article on the subject:
Westwood Business Park workers fear worse traffic gridlock if new college built nearby
This is alongside this article, also from today's paper:
Millions could be spent easing traffic nightmare near University Hospital
The hospital is brand new, and is the single most difficult place I've ever attempted to cycle to. The entire site was gridlocked by cars (during the middle of the day) and while there I saw a car that had got caught in a box junction dive out of the way of an ambulance and strike a curb, and a Mercedes CLS tear part of its bumper off on a double height curb while illegally parking in an ambulance bay.
This is another place where adding another entrance isn't going to help people get into the hospital more quickly. The site simply can't support the number of people who drive to it and the alternatives are pathetically poor.
No surprise that Coventry recently came out as the most car dependent city in the UK.0
