The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Problem with the tram is, in part, too many cars? lol.

It's a bit of a Catch 22 though isn't it? Until you provide the alternative you can't rip up the roads that provide the only option but you can't provide the other option until you've ripped up the roads. The big issue in Bath, as Photonic mentioned, is that the existing main roads run through the middle of the city a even in a car free world they still need to be kept running for buses, e-bikes, delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles etc. It is also a World Heritage Site which impacts on what type of work can be done. I actually bid for a scheme to regenerate a section of the town centre, part of which was to make it more pedestrian and cycle friendly, about 7 years ago. I'm not sure if it has since been done (ironically the main component of this was demolition of the main coach station with smaller pockets of coach parking then being created around the city to make up for the lost spaces).

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Didn't the Edinburgh tram, despite an overrun, make profit 2 years sooner than predicted?

Last I read usage numbers were lower than expected. It was also about 5 years overdue and cost around 3 times initial predictions, for half the route - so vastly more expensive than predicted. Besides, it will depend on when they decided they "expected" operating profits. If you keep repositioning the starting point, you can tell any story you want. They initially expected them 3 or 4 years before the project eventually finished.

Based on the Edinburgh tram story (theres an ongoing public enquiry about the costs and delays), the reality of tram cost effectiveness might bear no resemblance to the numbers you see in a parliamentary report. I lived in Vancouver while they were extending the sky train as well - similar story of cost over runs and heated debates about why cheaper alternatives were ignored in favour of a vanity project.

The route they did build in Edinburgh is just an airport connector, really, which is just about the most profitable route imaginable in a given city, and does make sense for Edinburgh. A huge proportion of the trips have an extra £6 added for just the last stop.

They have just extended to Leith, which will be more of a litmus test for viability of still further routes that aren't going to be used by tourists, and which won't command the tripling of the fare they get from the airport customers.

rjsterry

photonic69 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

They have has some success reopening rail lines up here. But even those, where the embankments and moat of the route hadn't been built on, turned out to be too expensive to do properly. God only knows how expensive it would be to start from scratch, in order to serve lesser deman areas.

And do not, I warn you, wish for trams. We put too much censored under the roads for that to be anything other than a money pit to install the rails. They are also a nightmare for cycling and no faster than busses.

Pretty sure I read a study somewhere that trams are the most cost-effective way to improve transport around a city.

Have you any knowledge whatsoever on this?

I can't find it now but here's something similar:

https://bathtrams.uk/solving-baths-traffic/comparative-benefits-trams-vs-buses/

and https://bathtrams.uk/tfl-evidence-to-parliamentary-select-committee-2005-trams-are-cheaper-than-buses/

I think over the lifetime of a tram line, once you include the cost of putting them in, they're about as cheap and efficient way to do public transport in a city.

Certainly cheaper than underground, and as per the link, cheaper over the lifetime than busses.

Obviously less flexible than busses.

Complete pie inthe sky thinking of some local nutcases. I know, I live here. The routes they propose are chock full of cars coming from miles outside of town. There is no ring road so all traffic, local or not has to use those routes. Lorries, vans, private cars, buses etc. The roads are not big enough to separate the trams from the cars. Despite what they say in the links about using 'green wave traffic light pre-emption / dynamic tram priority signalization' - Absolute poppycocks! Those roads are in poor repair and constantly dug up. Not so easy to dig up and relay tracks and maintain tram flow.
It might have worked if they had more park and rides especially to the East of the city. One was proposed but due to outcry from the NIMBYs and local Tory councillors it was thrown out and the land given to the NT with a covenant that it never be used for park and ride development. Totally scuppered a plan that would ease local congestion on that side of the city. Nuts. Trams might work where there is less traffic and without P7R and ring roads it'll never happen. Yes, it worked 100 years ago when cars were rare and the streets had horses.
The figures they quote are very massaged in their favour.

I mean Bath had a tram system like pretty much every city until the middle of the 20th century. It's a case of won't, not can't.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

...
The route they did build in Edinburgh is just an airport connector, really, which is just about the most profitable route imaginable in a given city, and does make sense for Edinburgh. A huge proportion of the trips have an extra £6 added for just the last stop.
...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but having taken the train over the Forth Bridge it looked to me that all they needed to do was build a rail station at the end of the airport.
Not "sexy" enough a vanity project?

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

photonic69 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

They have has some success reopening rail lines up here. But even those, where the embankments and moat of the route hadn't been built on, turned out to be too expensive to do properly. God only knows how expensive it would be to start from scratch, in order to serve lesser deman areas.

And do not, I warn you, wish for trams. We put too much censored under the roads for that to be anything other than a money pit to install the rails. They are also a nightmare for cycling and no faster than busses.

Pretty sure I read a study somewhere that trams are the most cost-effective way to improve transport around a city.

Have you any knowledge whatsoever on this?

I can't find it now but here's something similar:

https://bathtrams.uk/solving-baths-traffic/comparative-benefits-trams-vs-buses/

and https://bathtrams.uk/tfl-evidence-to-parliamentary-select-committee-2005-trams-are-cheaper-than-buses/

I think over the lifetime of a tram line, once you include the cost of putting them in, they're about as cheap and efficient way to do public transport in a city.

Certainly cheaper than underground, and as per the link, cheaper over the lifetime than busses.

Obviously less flexible than busses.

Complete pie inthe sky thinking of some local nutcases. I know, I live here. The routes they propose are chock full of cars coming from miles outside of town. There is no ring road so all traffic, local or not has to use those routes. Lorries, vans, private cars, buses etc. The roads are not big enough to separate the trams from the cars. Despite what they say in the links about using 'green wave traffic light pre-emption / dynamic tram priority signalization' - Absolute poppycocks! Those roads are in poor repair and constantly dug up. Not so easy to dig up and relay tracks and maintain tram flow.
It might have worked if they had more park and rides especially to the East of the city. One was proposed but due to outcry from the NIMBYs and local Tory councillors it was thrown out and the land given to the NT with a covenant that it never be used for park and ride development. Totally scuppered a plan that would ease local congestion on that side of the city. Nuts. Trams might work where there is less traffic and without P7R and ring roads it'll never happen. Yes, it worked 100 years ago when cars were rare and the streets had horses.
The figures they quote are very massaged in their favour.

I mean Bath had a tram system like pretty much every city until the middle of the 20th century. It's a case of won't, not can't.

What we're traffic volumes like in 1950 compared to now?

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

...
The route they did build in Edinburgh is just an airport connector, really, which is just about the most profitable route imaginable in a given city, and does make sense for Edinburgh. A huge proportion of the trips have an extra £6 added for just the last stop.
...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but having taken the train over the Forth Bridge it looked to me that all they needed to do was build a rail station at the end of the airport.
Not "sexy" enough a vanity project?

Closest point is actually nearly a mile from the terminal. I don't know for sure but my guess is that there would be a capacity issue precluding enough extra trains. Everything in Edinburgh is bottlenecked at Haymarket anyway.

Or alternatively it just might have been considered too cost effective to run an airport monorail 0.8 miles to a station.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

...
Or alternatively it just might have been considered too cost effective to run an airport monorail 0.8 miles to a station.

🤣🤣🤣

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

...
Closest point is actually nearly a mile from the terminal. I don't know for sure but my guess is that there would be a capacity issue precluding enough extra trains. Everything in Edinburgh is bottlenecked at Haymarket anyway.
...

Are you suggesting that Rick's train & bike solution won't work in Edinburgh? 😉

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

...
Closest point is actually nearly a mile from the terminal. I don't know for sure but my guess is that there would be a capacity issue precluding enough extra trains. Everything in Edinburgh is bottlenecked at Haymarket anyway.
...

Are you suggesting that Rick's train & bike solution won't work in Edinburgh? 😉

You are never going to get that many more people cycling in this climate, these roads and these hills. Any ricktopian solution has to be compatible with walking.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

photonic69 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

They have has some success reopening rail lines up here. But even those, where the embankments and moat of the route hadn't been built on, turned out to be too expensive to do properly. God only knows how expensive it would be to start from scratch, in order to serve lesser deman areas.

And do not, I warn you, wish for trams. We put too much censored under the roads for that to be anything other than a money pit to install the rails. They are also a nightmare for cycling and no faster than busses.

Pretty sure I read a study somewhere that trams are the most cost-effective way to improve transport around a city.

Have you any knowledge whatsoever on this?

I can't find it now but here's something similar:

https://bathtrams.uk/solving-baths-traffic/comparative-benefits-trams-vs-buses/

and https://bathtrams.uk/tfl-evidence-to-parliamentary-select-committee-2005-trams-are-cheaper-than-buses/

I think over the lifetime of a tram line, once you include the cost of putting them in, they're about as cheap and efficient way to do public transport in a city.

Certainly cheaper than underground, and as per the link, cheaper over the lifetime than busses.

Obviously less flexible than busses.

Complete pie inthe sky thinking of some local nutcases. I know, I live here. The routes they propose are chock full of cars coming from miles outside of town. There is no ring road so all traffic, local or not has to use those routes. Lorries, vans, private cars, buses etc. The roads are not big enough to separate the trams from the cars. Despite what they say in the links about using 'green wave traffic light pre-emption / dynamic tram priority signalization' - Absolute poppycocks! Those roads are in poor repair and constantly dug up. Not so easy to dig up and relay tracks and maintain tram flow.
It might have worked if they had more park and rides especially to the East of the city. One was proposed but due to outcry from the NIMBYs and local Tory councillors it was thrown out and the land given to the NT with a covenant that it never be used for park and ride development. Totally scuppered a plan that would ease local congestion on that side of the city. Nuts. Trams might work where there is less traffic and without P7R and ring roads it'll never happen. Yes, it worked 100 years ago when cars were rare and the streets had horses.
The figures they quote are very massaged in their favour.

I mean Bath had a tram system like pretty much every city until the middle of the 20th century. It's a case of won't, not can't.

What we're traffic volumes like in 1950 compared to now?

Broadly comparable numbers of people; they didn't all demand their own vehicle, though.

orraloon

photonic69 said:

orraloon said:

I'm sure I posted a version of this Amsterdam street comparison pics before somewhere, but I know which version I prefer. Anyone favour the middle one?

Is that really Amsterdam? It's got a slope on it.

It's Haarlemmerdijk, 'a quaint shopping street'. According to t'interweb anyroads. Not so much slope as camera angles.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

photonic69 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

They have has some success reopening rail lines up here. But even those, where the embankments and moat of the route hadn't been built on, turned out to be too expensive to do properly. God only knows how expensive it would be to start from scratch, in order to serve lesser deman areas.

And do not, I warn you, wish for trams. We put too much censored under the roads for that to be anything other than a money pit to install the rails. They are also a nightmare for cycling and no faster than busses.

Pretty sure I read a study somewhere that trams are the most cost-effective way to improve transport around a city.

Have you any knowledge whatsoever on this?

I can't find it now but here's something similar:

https://bathtrams.uk/solving-baths-traffic/comparative-benefits-trams-vs-buses/

and https://bathtrams.uk/tfl-evidence-to-parliamentary-select-committee-2005-trams-are-cheaper-than-buses/

I think over the lifetime of a tram line, once you include the cost of putting them in, they're about as cheap and efficient way to do public transport in a city.

Certainly cheaper than underground, and as per the link, cheaper over the lifetime than busses.

Obviously less flexible than busses.

Complete pie inthe sky thinking of some local nutcases. I know, I live here. The routes they propose are chock full of cars coming from miles outside of town. There is no ring road so all traffic, local or not has to use those routes. Lorries, vans, private cars, buses etc. The roads are not big enough to separate the trams from the cars. Despite what they say in the links about using 'green wave traffic light pre-emption / dynamic tram priority signalization' - Absolute poppycocks! Those roads are in poor repair and constantly dug up. Not so easy to dig up and relay tracks and maintain tram flow.
It might have worked if they had more park and rides especially to the East of the city. One was proposed but due to outcry from the NIMBYs and local Tory councillors it was thrown out and the land given to the NT with a covenant that it never be used for park and ride development. Totally scuppered a plan that would ease local congestion on that side of the city. Nuts. Trams might work where there is less traffic and without P7R and ring roads it'll never happen. Yes, it worked 100 years ago when cars were rare and the streets had horses.
The figures they quote are very massaged in their favour.

I mean Bath had a tram system like pretty much every city until the middle of the 20th century. It's a case of won't, not can't.

What we're traffic volumes like in 1950 compared to now?

Broadly comparable numbers of people; they didn't all demand their own vehicle, though.

Bath's population has doubled. The UKs gas gone up 35%.

Agree that Beeching cuts and city planning decisions to rip up light rapid transport have aged badly, but putting lrt back in to the streets of Bath now would be challenging I'd have thought.

Rather like Edinburgh, you probably don't know where the sewers actually are or the cost of moving them until you have started digging.

pangolin

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

photonic69 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

They have has some success reopening rail lines up here. But even those, where the embankments and moat of the route hadn't been built on, turned out to be too expensive to do properly. God only knows how expensive it would be to start from scratch, in order to serve lesser deman areas.

And do not, I warn you, wish for trams. We put too much censored under the roads for that to be anything other than a money pit to install the rails. They are also a nightmare for cycling and no faster than busses.

Pretty sure I read a study somewhere that trams are the most cost-effective way to improve transport around a city.

Have you any knowledge whatsoever on this?

I can't find it now but here's something similar:

https://bathtrams.uk/solving-baths-traffic/comparative-benefits-trams-vs-buses/

and https://bathtrams.uk/tfl-evidence-to-parliamentary-select-committee-2005-trams-are-cheaper-than-buses/

I think over the lifetime of a tram line, once you include the cost of putting them in, they're about as cheap and efficient way to do public transport in a city.

Certainly cheaper than underground, and as per the link, cheaper over the lifetime than busses.

Obviously less flexible than busses.

Complete pie inthe sky thinking of some local nutcases. I know, I live here. The routes they propose are chock full of cars coming from miles outside of town. There is no ring road so all traffic, local or not has to use those routes. Lorries, vans, private cars, buses etc. The roads are not big enough to separate the trams from the cars. Despite what they say in the links about using 'green wave traffic light pre-emption / dynamic tram priority signalization' - Absolute poppycocks! Those roads are in poor repair and constantly dug up. Not so easy to dig up and relay tracks and maintain tram flow.
It might have worked if they had more park and rides especially to the East of the city. One was proposed but due to outcry from the NIMBYs and local Tory councillors it was thrown out and the land given to the NT with a covenant that it never be used for park and ride development. Totally scuppered a plan that would ease local congestion on that side of the city. Nuts. Trams might work where there is less traffic and without P7R and ring roads it'll never happen. Yes, it worked 100 years ago when cars were rare and the streets had horses.
The figures they quote are very massaged in their favour.

I mean Bath had a tram system like pretty much every city until the middle of the 20th century. It's a case of won't, not can't.

What we're traffic volumes like in 1950 compared to now?

Broadly comparable numbers of people; they didn't all demand their own vehicle, though.

Bath's population has doubled. The UKs gas gone up 35%.

Agree that Beeching cuts and city planning decisions to rip up light rapid transport have aged badly, but putting lrt back in to the streets of Bath now would be challenging I'd have thought.

Rather like Edinburgh, you probably don't know where the sewers actually are or the cost of moving them until you have started digging.

Broadly comparable then, only up 35%.

In contrast, cars have gone up over 800%

TheBigBean

On the plus side, Europe is better in many ways than the rest of the world.

Dorset_Boy

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

photonic69 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

They have has some success reopening rail lines up here. But even those, where the embankments and moat of the route hadn't been built on, turned out to be too expensive to do properly. God only knows how expensive it would be to start from scratch, in order to serve lesser deman areas.

And do not, I warn you, wish for trams. We put too much censored under the roads for that to be anything other than a money pit to install the rails. They are also a nightmare for cycling and no faster than busses.

Pretty sure I read a study somewhere that trams are the most cost-effective way to improve transport around a city.

Have you any knowledge whatsoever on this?

I can't find it now but here's something similar:

https://bathtrams.uk/solving-baths-traffic/comparative-benefits-trams-vs-buses/

and https://bathtrams.uk/tfl-evidence-to-parliamentary-select-committee-2005-trams-are-cheaper-than-buses/

I think over the lifetime of a tram line, once you include the cost of putting them in, they're about as cheap and efficient way to do public transport in a city.

Certainly cheaper than underground, and as per the link, cheaper over the lifetime than busses.

Obviously less flexible than busses.

Complete pie inthe sky thinking of some local nutcases. I know, I live here. The routes they propose are chock full of cars coming from miles outside of town. There is no ring road so all traffic, local or not has to use those routes. Lorries, vans, private cars, buses etc. The roads are not big enough to separate the trams from the cars. Despite what they say in the links about using 'green wave traffic light pre-emption / dynamic tram priority signalization' - Absolute poppycocks! Those roads are in poor repair and constantly dug up. Not so easy to dig up and relay tracks and maintain tram flow.
It might have worked if they had more park and rides especially to the East of the city. One was proposed but due to outcry from the NIMBYs and local Tory councillors it was thrown out and the land given to the NT with a covenant that it never be used for park and ride development. Totally scuppered a plan that would ease local congestion on that side of the city. Nuts. Trams might work where there is less traffic and without P7R and ring roads it'll never happen. Yes, it worked 100 years ago when cars were rare and the streets had horses.
The figures they quote are very massaged in their favour.

I mean Bath had a tram system like pretty much every city until the middle of the 20th century. It's a case of won't, not can't.

What we're traffic volumes like in 1950 compared to now?

Broadly comparable numbers of people; they didn't all demand their own vehicle, though.

Where do you get that stat for Bath from?
On a match day there's way more traffic in and around Bath than there was in the 1950s. Likewise when the Christmas Markets are on, and again in the summer with all the tourist busses.

Comparing having a tram system in the 1950s with installing one now is apples and elephants.

First.Aspect

pangolin said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

photonic69 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

They have has some success reopening rail lines up here. But even those, where the embankments and moat of the route hadn't been built on, turned out to be too expensive to do properly. God only knows how expensive it would be to start from scratch, in order to serve lesser deman areas.

And do not, I warn you, wish for trams. We put too much censored under the roads for that to be anything other than a money pit to install the rails. They are also a nightmare for cycling and no faster than busses.

Pretty sure I read a study somewhere that trams are the most cost-effective way to improve transport around a city.

Have you any knowledge whatsoever on this?

I can't find it now but here's something similar:

https://bathtrams.uk/solving-baths-traffic/comparative-benefits-trams-vs-buses/

and https://bathtrams.uk/tfl-evidence-to-parliamentary-select-committee-2005-trams-are-cheaper-than-buses/

I think over the lifetime of a tram line, once you include the cost of putting them in, they're about as cheap and efficient way to do public transport in a city.

Certainly cheaper than underground, and as per the link, cheaper over the lifetime than busses.

Obviously less flexible than busses.

Complete pie inthe sky thinking of some local nutcases. I know, I live here. The routes they propose are chock full of cars coming from miles outside of town. There is no ring road so all traffic, local or not has to use those routes. Lorries, vans, private cars, buses etc. The roads are not big enough to separate the trams from the cars. Despite what they say in the links about using 'green wave traffic light pre-emption / dynamic tram priority signalization' - Absolute poppycocks! Those roads are in poor repair and constantly dug up. Not so easy to dig up and relay tracks and maintain tram flow.
It might have worked if they had more park and rides especially to the East of the city. One was proposed but due to outcry from the NIMBYs and local Tory councillors it was thrown out and the land given to the NT with a covenant that it never be used for park and ride development. Totally scuppered a plan that would ease local congestion on that side of the city. Nuts. Trams might work where there is less traffic and without P7R and ring roads it'll never happen. Yes, it worked 100 years ago when cars were rare and the streets had horses.
The figures they quote are very massaged in their favour.

I mean Bath had a tram system like pretty much every city until the middle of the 20th century. It's a case of won't, not can't.

What we're traffic volumes like in 1950 compared to now?

Broadly comparable numbers of people; they didn't all demand their own vehicle, though.

Bath's population has doubled. The UKs gas gone up 35%.

Agree that Beeching cuts and city planning decisions to rip up light rapid transport have aged badly, but putting lrt back in to the streets of Bath now would be challenging I'd have thought.

Rather like Edinburgh, you probably don't know where the sewers actually are or the cost of moving them until you have started digging.

Broadly comparable then, only up 35%.

In contrast, cars have gone up over 800%

Yup. It should, of course, be horribly inconvenient to drive in Bath City centre amd pedestrian/bike/local delivery zones always inlmprove an area and its foot fall, despite what squinty eyed shop owners claim.

But putting trams in now, to today's safety standards, would be very, very expensive regardless of the traffic.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

photonic69 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

They have has some success reopening rail lines up here. But even those, where the embankments and moat of the route hadn't been built on, turned out to be too expensive to do properly. God only knows how expensive it would be to start from scratch, in order to serve lesser deman areas.

And do not, I warn you, wish for trams. We put too much censored under the roads for that to be anything other than a money pit to install the rails. They are also a nightmare for cycling and no faster than busses.

Pretty sure I read a study somewhere that trams are the most cost-effective way to improve transport around a city.

Have you any knowledge whatsoever on this?

I can't find it now but here's something similar:

https://bathtrams.uk/solving-baths-traffic/comparative-benefits-trams-vs-buses/

and https://bathtrams.uk/tfl-evidence-to-parliamentary-select-committee-2005-trams-are-cheaper-than-buses/

I think over the lifetime of a tram line, once you include the cost of putting them in, they're about as cheap and efficient way to do public transport in a city.

Certainly cheaper than underground, and as per the link, cheaper over the lifetime than busses.

Obviously less flexible than busses.

Complete pie inthe sky thinking of some local nutcases. I know, I live here. The routes they propose are chock full of cars coming from miles outside of town. There is no ring road so all traffic, local or not has to use those routes. Lorries, vans, private cars, buses etc. The roads are not big enough to separate the trams from the cars. Despite what they say in the links about using 'green wave traffic light pre-emption / dynamic tram priority signalization' - Absolute poppycocks! Those roads are in poor repair and constantly dug up. Not so easy to dig up and relay tracks and maintain tram flow.
It might have worked if they had more park and rides especially to the East of the city. One was proposed but due to outcry from the NIMBYs and local Tory councillors it was thrown out and the land given to the NT with a covenant that it never be used for park and ride development. Totally scuppered a plan that would ease local congestion on that side of the city. Nuts. Trams might work where there is less traffic and without P7R and ring roads it'll never happen. Yes, it worked 100 years ago when cars were rare and the streets had horses.
The figures they quote are very massaged in their favour.

I mean Bath had a tram system like pretty much every city until the middle of the 20th century. It's a case of won't, not can't.

What we're traffic volumes like in 1950 compared to now?

Broadly comparable numbers of people; they didn't all demand their own vehicle, though.

Bath's population has doubled. The UKs gas gone up 35%.

Agree that Beeching cuts and city planning decisions to rip up light rapid transport have aged badly, but putting lrt back in to the streets of Bath now would be challenging I'd have thought.

Rather like Edinburgh, you probably don't know where the sewers actually are or the cost of moving them until you have started digging.

It's all challenging. Of course reinserting a light rail system is expensive, but doing nothing has a pretty big cost, too.

There was a lot more industry in the centre of cities in the '50s, so despite the general population growth, I suspect the change in transport policy from the 1930s onwards is the thing that has made the difference. And it was a deliberate policy choice.

This guy has a lot to answer for.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abercrombie_Plan

First.Aspect

I once saw a plan, I think for Glasgow, which went beyond even trapping the city within motorways (the disaster they now have), and that actually proposed building the roads over the city, with people living and working underneath.

There was a lot of mania about the automobile panacea, back in the day.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

I once saw a plan, I think for Glasgow, which went beyond even trapping the city within motorways (the disaster they now have), and that actually proposed building the roads over the city, with people living and working underneath.

There was a lot of mania about the automobile panacea, back in the day.

A roof over Glasgow sounds like a solid plan. 😉

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Pfft, it's shifted a bit, but to go all Chasey, look at the difference between London or Bristol (or Lyon, come to that) and Amsterdam, and see how far the dial could be shifted, if the will was there. But cars still dominate massively, and will remain so unless the car's primacy in urban environments, both in policy and public perception, can been overturned. We're nowhere near that.

You're going all Chasey by assuming that cars 'dominate massively': Tfls own data for London shows that less than 1/3rd of journeys in london are by private car. And declining.

Amsterdam is an outlier, not necessarily a target.

so if you took a measurementfrom outer pavemet to outer pavement would you say one third of the space (ie pavement/road/bike lane) is given over to cars?

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Pfft, it's shifted a bit, but to go all Chasey, look at the difference between London or Bristol (or Lyon, come to that) and Amsterdam, and see how far the dial could be shifted, if the will was there. But cars still dominate massively, and will remain so unless the car's primacy in urban environments, both in policy and public perception, can been overturned. We're nowhere near that.

You're going all Chasey by assuming that cars 'dominate massively': Tfls own data for London shows that less than 1/3rd of journeys in london are by private car. And declining.

Amsterdam is an outlier, not necessarily a target.

so if you took a measurementfrom outer pavemet to outer pavement would you say one third of the space (ie pavement/road/bike lane) is given over to cars?

Don't know. Why?

rjsterry

...

First.Aspect said:

I once saw a plan, I think for Glasgow, which went beyond even trapping the city within motorways (the disaster they now have), and that actually proposed building the roads over the city, with people living and working underneath.

There was a lot of mania about the automobile panacea, back in the day.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Pfft, it's shifted a bit, but to go all Chasey, look at the difference between London or Bristol (or Lyon, come to that) and Amsterdam, and see how far the dial could be shifted, if the will was there. But cars still dominate massively, and will remain so unless the car's primacy in urban environments, both in policy and public perception, can been overturned. We're nowhere near that.

You're going all Chasey by assuming that cars 'dominate massively': Tfls own data for London shows that less than 1/3rd of journeys in london are by private car. And declining.

Amsterdam is an outlier, not necessarily a target.

so if you took a measurementfrom outer pavemet to outer pavement would you say one third of the space (ie pavement/road/bike lane) is given over to cars?

Depends which road, but 2/3 pedestrian and 1/3 cycling/scooter seems sensible to me.

rick_chasey

I think it's 5% of all city space is taken up with parking, and in total about 20% of space taken up for roads, pavements and parking etc. Obviously roads with fewer cars are more pedestrian friendly etc.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Pfft, it's shifted a bit, but to go all Chasey, look at the difference between London or Bristol (or Lyon, come to that) and Amsterdam, and see how far the dial could be shifted, if the will was there. But cars still dominate massively, and will remain so unless the car's primacy in urban environments, both in policy and public perception, can been overturned. We're nowhere near that.

You're going all Chasey by assuming that cars 'dominate massively': Tfls own data for London shows that less than 1/3rd of journeys in london are by private car. And declining.

Amsterdam is an outlier, not necessarily a target.

so if you took a measurementfrom outer pavemet to outer pavement would you say one third of the space (ie pavement/road/bike lane) is given over to cars?

Depends which road, but 2/3 pedestrian and 1/3 cycling/scooter seems sensible to me.

if you were starting from scratch then something towards thirds would seem to be reasonable.

The great benefit of pooled cars would be the extra room created by having no cars parked on the streets

photonic69

rjsterry said:

...

First.Aspect said:

I once saw a plan, I think for Glasgow, which went beyond even trapping the city within motorways (the disaster they now have), and that actually proposed building the roads over the city, with people living and working underneath.

There was a lot of mania about the automobile panacea, back in the day.

That's the proposed tunnel under Bath from the 60's. Before the M4 was built all East-West traffice was along the A4 and hence through Bath. Probably worse now than it was bac then!

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Pfft, it's shifted a bit, but to go all Chasey, look at the difference between London or Bristol (or Lyon, come to that) and Amsterdam, and see how far the dial could be shifted, if the will was there. But cars still dominate massively, and will remain so unless the car's primacy in urban environments, both in policy and public perception, can been overturned. We're nowhere near that.

You're going all Chasey by assuming that cars 'dominate massively': Tfls own data for London shows that less than 1/3rd of journeys in london are by private car. And declining.

Amsterdam is an outlier, not necessarily a target.

so if you took a measurementfrom outer pavemet to outer pavement would you say one third of the space (ie pavement/road/bike lane) is given over to cars?

Depends which road, but 2/3 pedestrian and 1/3 cycling/scooter seems sensible to me.

if you were starting from scratch then something towards thirds would seem to be reasonable.

The great benefit of pooled cars would be the extra room created by having no cars parked on the streets

It's quite interesting if you look at car free places. The cars are initially parked outside the area then eventually lots of people stop bothering with them.

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Pfft, it's shifted a bit, but to go all Chasey, look at the difference between London or Bristol (or Lyon, come to that) and Amsterdam, and see how far the dial could be shifted, if the will was there. But cars still dominate massively, and will remain so unless the car's primacy in urban environments, both in policy and public perception, can been overturned. We're nowhere near that.

You're going all Chasey by assuming that cars 'dominate massively': Tfls own data for London shows that less than 1/3rd of journeys in london are by private car. And declining.

Amsterdam is an outlier, not necessarily a target.

so if you took a measurementfrom outer pavemet to outer pavement would you say one third of the space (ie pavement/road/bike lane) is given over to cars?

Depends which road, but 2/3 pedestrian and 1/3 cycling/scooter seems sensible to me.

if you were starting from scratch then something towards thirds would seem to be reasonable.

The great benefit of pooled cars would be the extra room created by having no cars parked on the streets

Starting from scratch on a main road you would have had a 2m footway each side and a 7.3m carriageway on a main road. In a residential development the carriageway would usually go down to 5.5 or 6m.

There’s new guidance that recommends something like 5m for a footway cycleway on one side now to replace one of the footways and I think there’s then supposed to be a margin between that and the carriageway so the total width for cars is less than for non-motorised traffic. It gets very difficult to provide that in most real-life situations though.

rjsterry

photonic69 said:

rjsterry said:

...

First.Aspect said:

I once saw a plan, I think for Glasgow, which went beyond even trapping the city within motorways (the disaster they now have), and that actually proposed building the roads over the city, with people living and working underneath.

There was a lot of mania about the automobile panacea, back in the day.

That's the proposed tunnel under Bath from the 60's. Before the M4 was built all East-West traffice was along the A4 and hence through Bath. Probably worse now than it was bac then!

Bath was the one that got away. Bristol got its inner ring road cut through the city and elevated pedestrian walkways. And then they spent the next few decades taking it all out again.

photonic69

rjsterry said:

photonic69 said:

rjsterry said:

...

First.Aspect said:

I once saw a plan, I think for Glasgow, which went beyond even trapping the city within motorways (the disaster they now have), and that actually proposed building the roads over the city, with people living and working underneath.

There was a lot of mania about the automobile panacea, back in the day.

That's the proposed tunnel under Bath from the 60's. Before the M4 was built all East-West traffice was along the A4 and hence through Bath. Probably worse now than it was bac then!

Bath was the one that got away. Bristol got its inner ring road cut through the city and elevated pedestrian walkways. And then they spent the next few decades taking it all out again.

Bristol also had an elevated Flyover in Redcliffe. I recall it was quite terrifying the first few times I went over it. It was very narrow and flimsy looking. All long gone now.