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

First.Aspect

.

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.

They did the same sort of thing in a few US and Canadian cities, and ran freeways along the city waterfront so all the people trapped in traffic had a nice view. I'm thinking Toronto, Portland and Seattle. There are probably others.

kingstongraham

photonic69 said:

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.

Hogarth flyover is a single carriageway like that. Temporary structure been there about 50 years.

rjsterry

photonic69 said:

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.

It was only supposed to be temporary, but I think it the late 90s before it came down.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

.

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.

They did the same sort of thing in a few US and Canadian cities, and ran freeways along the city waterfront so all the people trapped in traffic had a nice view. I'm thinking Toronto, Portland and Seattle. There are probably others.

It all stems from the Buchanan Report.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

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.

They did the same sort of thing in a few US and Canadian cities, and ran freeways along the city waterfront so all the people trapped in traffic had a nice view. I'm thinking Toronto, Portland and Seattle. There are probably others.

It all stems from the Buchanan Report.

I could only skim the Wikipedia article, but was the report actually really prescient, but given bad reputation by poor implementation or just plain ignoring it?

Seems less clearly misguided than Beeching, anyway.

briantrumpet

photonic69 said:

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.

I only drove over it a handful of times. Bloomin worked for traffic flow, as I recall.

briantrumpet

Incidentally, that whole Redcliffe area is a a prime example of how motorised transport has absolutely dominated the whole area around one of the country's greatest churches.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

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.

They did the same sort of thing in a few US and Canadian cities, and ran freeways along the city waterfront so all the people trapped in traffic had a nice view. I'm thinking Toronto, Portland and Seattle. There are probably others.

It all stems from the Buchanan Report.

I could only skim the Wikipedia article, but was the report actually really prescient, but given bad reputation by poor implementation or just plain ignoring it?

Seems less clearly misguided than Beeching, anyway.

It's not quite fair to blame it all on one report, but it was very influential. The context of everything from the Futurists onwards, through the Ville Radieuse was towards everyone zooming effortlessly from place to place. Then they worked out how to make cars cheap enough and suddenly found themselves with a problem. If you haven't had your faith in Modernity and Progress thoroughly dented and think everything about the Victorian era was awful, then building motorways through every city to relieve congestion probably seemed like a great Idea.

Pross

rjsterry said:

photonic69 said:

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.

It was only supposed to be temporary, but I think it the late 90s before it came down.

Is that the one that was outside Templemeads? If so I worked on the signalised roundabout that replaced it in 1998/99 not long after I started working in Bristol. I have vague memories of driving it but only a handful of times.

A lot of that sort of design came out of the 1963 report led by Colin Buchanan into Traffic In Towns. He was concerned at the way traffic was growing and made some pretty good predictions but unfortunately a lot of the recommendations such as segregation of traffic and pedestrian only serves to increase the feeling of car dominance we see today with roads being seen as a space for cars and cyclists / pedestrians infringing on a motorists space. It was the basis of planning policy for nearly half a century until Manual for Streets came into use.

briantrumpet

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

photonic69 said:

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.

It was only supposed to be temporary, but I think it the late 90s before it came down.

Is that the one that was outside Templemeads? If so I worked on the signalised roundabout that replaced it in 1998/99 not long after I started working in Bristol. I have vague memories of driving it but only a handful of times.

A lot of that sort of design came out of the 1963 report led by Colin Buchanan into Traffic In Towns. He was concerned at the way traffic was growing and made some pretty good predictions but unfortunately a lot of the recommendations such as segregation of traffic and pedestrian only serves to increase the feeling of car dominance we see today with roads being seen as a space for cars and cyclists / pedestrians infringing on a motorists space. It was the basis of planning policy for nearly half a century until Manual for Streets came into use.

Yes, or at least very near. You could go over it, then follow through to the DC that cut Queens Square in two.

https://twitter.com/bgreencapital/status/698819222030393346

Pross

I used to work just off Queen’s Square, J can’t recall the road going through the middle. The centre outside the Hippodrome changed massively in my time there and the roads off like Baldwin Street seem to change every time I go there.

briantrumpet

Pross said:

I used to work just off Queen’s Square, J can’t recall the road going through the middle. The centre outside the Hippodrome changed massively in my time there and the roads off like Baldwin Street seem to change every time I go there.

I think QS was one of the earlier ones where they realised a terrible mistake had been made to accommodate the automobile... I guess it was reconstituted as a square in the 80s sometime.

briantrumpet

Incidentally, it was a good bit of engineering to cover over the harbour to create 'the centre', but the old harbour was picturesque.

https://riverlutionfromedreamsforbristol.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/history-of-the-river-frome/

Pross

briantrumpet said:

Incidentally, it was a good bit of engineering to cover over the harbour to create 'the centre', but the old harbour was picturesque.

https://riverlutionfromedreamsforbristol.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/history-of-the-river-frome/

I may have imagined it but I thought there was talk a few years ago about opening it back up. Integrated transport at its finest in that photo, the late 20th century will feel very short term in terms of transport and planning policy very soon.

briantrumpet

Pross said:

briantrumpet said:

Incidentally, it was a good bit of engineering to cover over the harbour to create 'the centre', but the old harbour was picturesque.

https://riverlutionfromedreamsforbristol.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/history-of-the-river-frome/

I may have imagined it but I thought there was talk a few years ago about opening it back up. Integrated transport at its finest in that photo, the late 20th century will feel very short term in terms of transport and planning policy very soon.

Given that (at least) part of the rationale for covering it over was to increase road traffic space, now that traffic is being reduced in that area, it doesn't sound like a bonkers plan, given the draw of a pretty harbourside.

On my rare visits back to Bristol, I still find its current layout disturbing, as it feels like I'm going the wrong way round the old roundabout system. And I was at Bristol Cathedral School when the main road separated the cathedral from College Green. That' again, was an early improvement when it was dug up, again in the 80s, I think.

rjsterry

I studied the development of Bristol's road network in some detail at university. I don't think butchered is too strong a word. The dual carriageway through Queens Square was dreamt up in the 30s. Then there's running the M32 right into the city centre. It's also episode after episode of City Councillors overriding local wishes for the post-war reconstruction. Castle Park used to be the main shopping area but was very badly damaged in the Blitz. The locals wanted to rebuild where they had left off but the City Council were all sold on the new idea of rigid zoning and the chance to modernise the road network so the shops were forced to relocate to Broadmead. A new cultural quarter was promised for the ruins of what became Castle Park, but after decades of the place being used as a car park they gave up and grassed it over.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

I studied the development of Bristol's road network in some detail at university. I don't think butchered is too strong a word. It's also episode after episode of City Councillors overriding local wishes for the post-war reconstruction. Castle Park used to be the main shopping area but was very badly damaged in the Blitz. The locals wanted to rebuild where they had left off but the City Council were all sold on the new idea of rigid zoning and the chance to modernise the road network so the shops were forced to relocate to Broadmead. A new cultural quarter was promised for the ruins of what became Castle Park, but after decades of the place being used as a car park they gave up and grassed it over.

And while I was at the Cathedral School (trapped between two mainish roads), I was astonished that the Canon's Marsh was mostly still a post-industrial wasteland (looked like it was a left-over from WW2 bombing), right in the city centre. Mind you, that's when Courage still brewed beer right in the city centre, and the aroma would often waft over school, so there were compensations of being there.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

I studied the development of Bristol's road network in some detail at university. I don't think butchered is too strong a word. It's also episode after episode of City Councillors overriding local wishes for the post-war reconstruction. Castle Park used to be the main shopping area but was very badly damaged in the Blitz. The locals wanted to rebuild where they had left off but the City Council were all sold on the new idea of rigid zoning and the chance to modernise the road network so the shops were forced to relocate to Broadmead. A new cultural quarter was promised for the ruins of what became Castle Park, but after decades of the place being used as a car park they gave up and grassed it over.

And while I was at the Cathedral School (trapped between two mainish roads), I was astonished that the Canon's Marsh was mostly still a post-industrial wasteland (looked like it was a left-over from WW2 bombing), right in the city centre. Mind you, that's when Courage still brewed beer right in the city centre, and the aroma would often waft over school, so there were compensations of being there.

Note the factory in the middle of what is now Broadmead.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

I studied the development of Bristol's road network in some detail at university. I don't think butchered is too strong a word. It's also episode after episode of City Councillors overriding local wishes for the post-war reconstruction. Castle Park used to be the main shopping area but was very badly damaged in the Blitz. The locals wanted to rebuild where they had left off but the City Council were all sold on the new idea of rigid zoning and the chance to modernise the road network so the shops were forced to relocate to Broadmead. A new cultural quarter was promised for the ruins of what became Castle Park, but after decades of the place being used as a car park they gave up and grassed it over.

And while I was at the Cathedral School (trapped between two mainish roads), I was astonished that the Canon's Marsh was mostly still a post-industrial wasteland (looked like it was a left-over from WW2 bombing), right in the city centre. Mind you, that's when Courage still brewed beer right in the city centre, and the aroma would often waft over school, so there were compensations of being there.

Note the factory in the middle of what is now Broadmead.

If you don't know it, this blog on Exeter might make your blood boil too.

http://demolition-exeter.blogspot.com/

rick_chasey

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/09/entrenched-car-culture-leaves-millions-of-britons-in-transport-poverty

Millions of Britons are trapped in transport poverty owing to a lack of alternatives to car ownership, with some spending nearly a fifth of their pre-tax income keeping a car on the road, a study has found.

Those who own a car spend on average 13% of their gross income on it, above the 10% generally seen as the indicator of transport poverty. For those paying for their car with a finance or loan deal this proportion rises to 19%.

The report, produced by the cycle industry campaign group Bike Is Best, found that about three-quarters of drivers think they will always own a car, while just under half, 47%, believe they have no alternative.

First.Aspect

I am getting the whiff of misrepresented data from that article, because jt is claiming an average of about £6k a year on owning a car, or £4k if you aren't on finance.

So they are figuring an average of about £175 pcm for finance and £325 for running costs, which seems awfully high for running costs.

MattFalle

.

rick_chasey said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/09/entrenched-car-culture-leaves-millions-of-britons-in-transport-poverty

Millions of Britons are trapped in transport poverty owing to a lack of alternatives to car ownership, with some spending nearly a fifth of their pre-tax income keeping a car on the road, a study has found.

Those who own a car spend on average 13% of their gross income on it, above the 10% generally seen as the indicator of transport poverty. For those paying for their car with a finance or loan deal this proportion rises to 19%.

The report, produced by the cycle industry campaign group Bike Is Best, found that about three-quarters of drivers think they will always own a car, while just under half, 47%, believe they have no alternative.

produced by the cycle industry campaign group

so no bias, no?

First.Aspect

First.Aspect said:

I am getting the whiff of misrepresented data from that article, because jt is claiming an average of about £6k a year on owning a car, or £4k if you aren't on finance.

So they are figuring an average of about £175 pcm for finance and £325 for running costs, which seems awfully high for running costs.

Actually, you can't tell what proportion are on finance, so you have to find £500 a month from the average figs for people on finance.

The polling data is probably a bit disingenuous as well, given it was acquired during a rail strike.

Is "transport poverty" really a recognised thing, and does it happen to be widely recognised as a conveniently round number? How do we compare to other countries?

I genuinely don't know, but then I've not just posted an article that matches my agenda without casting a critical eye over it, so I think it's okay for me to ask.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

First.Aspect said:

I am getting the whiff of misrepresented data from that article, because jt is claiming an average of about £6k a year on owning a car, or £4k if you aren't on finance.

So they are figuring an average of about £175 pcm for finance and £325 for running costs, which seems awfully high for running costs.

Actually, you can't tell what proportion are on finance, so you have to find £500 a month from the average figs for people on finance.

The polling data is probably a bit disingenuous as well, given it was acquired during a rail strike.

Is "transport poverty" really a recognised thing, and does it happen to be widely recognised as a conveniently round number? How do we compare to other countries?

I genuinely don't know, but then I've not just posted an article that matches my agenda without casting a critical eye over it, so I think it's okay for me to ask.

It's *almost* like I even posted and bolded the bit by who conducted the research to draw attention to it.

MattFalle

so its actually worthless to Richard's argument by his own admission but Richard posted it anyway......

brilliant. you actually couldn' make thisshitup

First.Aspect

I wonder, what do you actually think of the article RC? Or is the strategy not to disclose this?

rick_chasey

I suspect there is a kernal of truth and it ties back to the discussion we had earlier about how much of total transport spend is on cars and how the mentality is such that spending loads of money on a private car to sit in jams and struggle to park is totally normal but swapping that money out for better infrastructure for things like cycling or public transport is still *madness*

Even if the numbers are likely wrong, I doubt they're so wrong that that argument falls over.

MattFalle

First.Aspect said:

I wonder, what do you actually think of the article RC? Or is the strategy not to disclose this?

he's googling his answer to this as we speak.

#interesting

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

I suspect there is a kernal of truth and it ties back to the discussion we had earlier about how much of total transport spend is on cars and how the mentality is such that spending loads of money on a private car to sit in jams and struggle to park is totally normal but swapping that money out for better infrastructure for things like cycling or public transport is still *madness*

Even if the numbers are likely wrong, I doubt they're so wrong that that argument falls over.

The article doesn't compare costs of public transport though. Just bikes. So it is comparing journeys by just bikes with all car journeys, and proposing one as a substitute for the other.

Is that a reasonable argument to make?

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect there is a kernal of truth and it ties back to the discussion we had earlier about how much of total transport spend is on cars and how the mentality is such that spending loads of money on a private car to sit in jams and struggle to park is totally normal but swapping that money out for better infrastructure for things like cycling or public transport is still *madness*

Even if the numbers are likely wrong, I doubt they're so wrong that that argument falls over.

The article doesn't compare costs of public transport though. Just bikes. So it is comparing journeys by just bikes with all car journeys, and proposing one as a substitute for the other.

Is that a reasonable argument to make?

Possibly in the sunlit fantasy world.
Not so much in pissing January.