The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
Has this been shown to work anywhere?Pross said:
I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.TheBigBean said:
Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.Pross said:
Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way throughTheBigBean said:
Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
I can't imagine that it's very good for pedestrians when they are depending on drivers' goodwill to allow them space. It doesn't seem ideal when this is the system for cyclists.0 -
A lot of London has removed the pedestrian barriers at junctions. That is a similar type of thinking.kingstongraham said:
Has this been shown to work anywhere?Pross said:
I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.TheBigBean said:
Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.Pross said:
Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way throughTheBigBean said:
Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
I can't imagine that it's very good for pedestrians when they are depending on drivers' goodwill to allow them space. It doesn't seem ideal when this is the system for cyclists.0 -
Quite a big next step though.TheBigBean said:
A lot of London has removed the pedestrian barriers at junctions. That is a similar type of thinking.kingstongraham said:
Has this been shown to work anywhere?Pross said:
I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.TheBigBean said:
Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.Pross said:
Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way throughTheBigBean said:
Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
I can't imagine that it's very good for pedestrians when they are depending on drivers' goodwill to allow them space. It doesn't seem ideal when this is the system for cyclists.
Has it been established how many collisions were previously because pedestrians were caught the wrong side of the barriers after crossing?
0 -
That's not the point. It makes drivers go more slowly because it feels like people could be anywhere. As a result collisions are leas deadlykingstongraham said:
Quite a big next step though.TheBigBean said:
A lot of London has removed the pedestrian barriers at junctions. That is a similar type of thinking.kingstongraham said:
Has this been shown to work anywhere?Pross said:
I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.TheBigBean said:
Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.Pross said:
Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way throughTheBigBean said:
Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
I can't imagine that it's very good for pedestrians when they are depending on drivers' goodwill to allow them space. It doesn't seem ideal when this is the system for cyclists.
Has it been established how many collisions were previously because pedestrians were caught the wrong side of the barriers after crossing?0 -
In the UK or anywhere?kingstongraham said:
Has this been shown to work anywhere?Pross said:
I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.TheBigBean said:
Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.Pross said:
Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way throughTheBigBean said:
Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
I can't imagine that it's very good for pedestrians when they are depending on drivers' goodwill to allow them space. It doesn't seem ideal when this is the system for cyclists.
Works well in Denmark and Hans Monderman’s work in Delft is the usual example.
UK examples aren’t great because of the issues I mentioned. It means that not many examples get through and those that do are heavily compromised. Poynton is probably the best example I can think of.0 -
Google says that they have tried it with success in the Netherlands and Germany.kingstongraham said:
Has this been shown to work anywhere?Pross said:
I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.TheBigBean said:
Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.Pross said:
Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way throughTheBigBean said:
Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
I can't imagine that it's very good for pedestrians when they are depending on drivers' goodwill to allow them space. It doesn't seem ideal when this is the system for cyclists.
All reports are old though and no updates. DYOR for enquiring minds.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Do you have a link to a street view of what one looks like?Pross said:
In the UK or anywhere?kingstongraham said:
Has this been shown to work anywhere?Pross said:
I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.TheBigBean said:
Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.Pross said:
Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way throughTheBigBean said:
Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
I can't imagine that it's very good for pedestrians when they are depending on drivers' goodwill to allow them space. It doesn't seem ideal when this is the system for cyclists.
Works well in Denmark and Hans Monderman’s work in Delft is the usual example.
UK examples aren’t great because of the issues I mentioned. It means that not many examples get through and those that do are heavily compromised. Poynton is probably the best example I can think of.
It looks like the nearest in London is Exhibition Road which isn't really shared at all, because they have put barriers to delimit the pavement.
Difficult to imagine it in these days of big bits of concrete to keep vehicles away from pedestrians.
0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxtxZY45RMM
Video about JCB going down the hydrogen route, if anybody is interested.0 -
Except for another 15 square metres of paving. Which is why you should use permeable paving.TheBigBean said:
If there isn't already a dropped curved, paving over the front garden also effectively removes a street parking space, so it isn't much different to parking on the street.pangolin said:
When paving over front gardens becomes a nationwide norm it is quite bad for wildlife (and flooding)kingstongraham said:
If that's what people want to use their property for, it's not my concern. I think it's weird they wouldn't rather have a garden or a basketball hoop, but not my problem.rick_chasey said:
You ought to be. Waste of real estate. We all have to live further out from places we want to be, or we can't have the greenery we want.kingstongraham said:
What problem is that solving? I'm not massively concerned about cars that are parked up on someone's drive and not being driven.ugo.santalucia said:
there is an obvious solution to that, which is to tax very heavily any second car one owns. Household of 2 licences… 3 cars? Tax the third one 10 times over and they will sell it… another no brainerdavebradswmb said:
And that's despite car sales falling from 1.9 million in 1994 to 1.6 million last year. Car sales peaked in 2016 at 2.7 million. The increase in car registrations is due to older cars remaining on the road a lot longer. Old cars are cheap, and many households have several cars. Many of the houses on the road where I live have paved their front gardens and have 2 or 3 cars parked on it, and they still have another car parked on the road/grass verge, and it isn't a particularly affluent area.kingstongraham said:Just looked at the number of vehicles licenced in the UK for 1994 vs 2022.
The number of cars has gone up from 21 million to 35 million.
If it's on the road, then it starts to become my problem.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
And there's now a passing place on the road. What boils my piss is people with dropped kerbs who park on the road.rjsterry said:
Except for another 15 square metres of paving.TheBigBean said:
If there isn't already a dropped curved, paving over the front garden also effectively removes a street parking space, so it isn't much different to parking on the street.pangolin said:
When paving over front gardens becomes a nationwide norm it is quite bad for wildlife (and flooding)kingstongraham said:
If that's what people want to use their property for, it's not my concern. I think it's weird they wouldn't rather have a garden or a basketball hoop, but not my problem.rick_chasey said:
You ought to be. Waste of real estate. We all have to live further out from places we want to be, or we can't have the greenery we want.kingstongraham said:
What problem is that solving? I'm not massively concerned about cars that are parked up on someone's drive and not being driven.ugo.santalucia said:
there is an obvious solution to that, which is to tax very heavily any second car one owns. Household of 2 licences… 3 cars? Tax the third one 10 times over and they will sell it… another no brainerdavebradswmb said:
And that's despite car sales falling from 1.9 million in 1994 to 1.6 million last year. Car sales peaked in 2016 at 2.7 million. The increase in car registrations is due to older cars remaining on the road a lot longer. Old cars are cheap, and many households have several cars. Many of the houses on the road where I live have paved their front gardens and have 2 or 3 cars parked on it, and they still have another car parked on the road/grass verge, and it isn't a particularly affluent area.kingstongraham said:Just looked at the number of vehicles licenced in the UK for 1994 vs 2022.
The number of cars has gone up from 21 million to 35 million.
If it's on the road, then it starts to become my problem.0 -
Best way is to chuck Monderman Drachten into YouTube and see it working (it was previously a signal junction from memory).kingstongraham said:
Do you have a link to a street view of what one looks like?Pross said:
In the UK or anywhere?kingstongraham said:
Has this been shown to work anywhere?Pross said:
I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.TheBigBean said:
Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.Pross said:
Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way throughTheBigBean said:
Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
I can't imagine that it's very good for pedestrians when they are depending on drivers' goodwill to allow them space. It doesn't seem ideal when this is the system for cyclists.
Works well in Denmark and Hans Monderman’s work in Delft is the usual example.
UK examples aren’t great because of the issues I mentioned. It means that not many examples get through and those that do are heavily compromised. Poynton is probably the best example I can think of.
It looks like the nearest in London is Exhibition Road which isn't really shared at all, because they have put barriers to delimit the pavement.
Difficult to imagine it in these days of big bits of concrete to keep vehicles away from pedestrians.0 -
Hell yes. If you must do wall-to-wall tarmac and grub out your hedge, at least f***ing park on it.kingstongraham said:
And there's now a passing place on the road. What boils my piss is people with dropped kerbs who park on the road.rjsterry said:
Except for another 15 square metres of paving.TheBigBean said:
If there isn't already a dropped curved, paving over the front garden also effectively removes a street parking space, so it isn't much different to parking on the street.pangolin said:
When paving over front gardens becomes a nationwide norm it is quite bad for wildlife (and flooding)kingstongraham said:
If that's what people want to use their property for, it's not my concern. I think it's weird they wouldn't rather have a garden or a basketball hoop, but not my problem.rick_chasey said:
You ought to be. Waste of real estate. We all have to live further out from places we want to be, or we can't have the greenery we want.kingstongraham said:
What problem is that solving? I'm not massively concerned about cars that are parked up on someone's drive and not being driven.ugo.santalucia said:
there is an obvious solution to that, which is to tax very heavily any second car one owns. Household of 2 licences… 3 cars? Tax the third one 10 times over and they will sell it… another no brainerdavebradswmb said:
And that's despite car sales falling from 1.9 million in 1994 to 1.6 million last year. Car sales peaked in 2016 at 2.7 million. The increase in car registrations is due to older cars remaining on the road a lot longer. Old cars are cheap, and many households have several cars. Many of the houses on the road where I live have paved their front gardens and have 2 or 3 cars parked on it, and they still have another car parked on the road/grass verge, and it isn't a particularly affluent area.kingstongraham said:Just looked at the number of vehicles licenced in the UK for 1994 vs 2022.
The number of cars has gone up from 21 million to 35 million.
If it's on the road, then it starts to become my problem.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
How about Villiers St or Neal St? Do they count?kingstongraham said:
Do you have a link to a street view of what one looks like?Pross said:
In the UK or anywhere?kingstongraham said:
Has this been shown to work anywhere?Pross said:
I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.TheBigBean said:
Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.Pross said:
Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way throughTheBigBean said:
Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
I can't imagine that it's very good for pedestrians when they are depending on drivers' goodwill to allow them space. It doesn't seem ideal when this is the system for cyclists.
Works well in Denmark and Hans Monderman’s work in Delft is the usual example.
UK examples aren’t great because of the issues I mentioned. It means that not many examples get through and those that do are heavily compromised. Poynton is probably the best example I can think of.
It looks like the nearest in London is Exhibition Road which isn't really shared at all, because they have put barriers to delimit the pavement.
Difficult to imagine it in these days of big bits of concrete to keep vehicles away from pedestrians.0 -
Both have a pavement with bollards.TheBigBean said:
How about Villiers St or Neal St? Do they count?kingstongraham said:
Do you have a link to a street view of what one looks like?Pross said:
In the UK or anywhere?kingstongraham said:
Has this been shown to work anywhere?Pross said:
I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.TheBigBean said:
Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.Pross said:
Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way throughTheBigBean said:
Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
I can't imagine that it's very good for pedestrians when they are depending on drivers' goodwill to allow them space. It doesn't seem ideal when this is the system for cyclists.
Works well in Denmark and Hans Monderman’s work in Delft is the usual example.
UK examples aren’t great because of the issues I mentioned. It means that not many examples get through and those that do are heavily compromised. Poynton is probably the best example I can think of.
It looks like the nearest in London is Exhibition Road which isn't really shared at all, because they have put barriers to delimit the pavement.
Difficult to imagine it in these days of big bits of concrete to keep vehicles away from pedestrians.
0 -
That’s the sort of compromises I was talking about.kingstongraham said:
Both have a pavement with bollards.TheBigBean said:
How about Villiers St or Neal St? Do they count?kingstongraham said:
Do you have a link to a street view of what one looks like?Pross said:
In the UK or anywhere?kingstongraham said:
Has this been shown to work anywhere?Pross said:
I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.TheBigBean said:
Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.Pross said:
Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way throughTheBigBean said:
Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
I can't imagine that it's very good for pedestrians when they are depending on drivers' goodwill to allow them space. It doesn't seem ideal when this is the system for cyclists.
Works well in Denmark and Hans Monderman’s work in Delft is the usual example.
UK examples aren’t great because of the issues I mentioned. It means that not many examples get through and those that do are heavily compromised. Poynton is probably the best example I can think of.
It looks like the nearest in London is Exhibition Road which isn't really shared at all, because they have put barriers to delimit the pavement.
Difficult to imagine it in these days of big bits of concrete to keep vehicles away from pedestrians.0 -
There's no curb and both have pedestrians all over them. Neal st isn't straight as well. I see the bollards as restrictions on cars not people.kingstongraham said:
Both have a pavement with bollards.TheBigBean said:
How about Villiers St or Neal St? Do they count?kingstongraham said:
Do you have a link to a street view of what one looks like?Pross said:
In the UK or anywhere?kingstongraham said:
Has this been shown to work anywhere?Pross said:
I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.TheBigBean said:
Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.Pross said:
Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way throughTheBigBean said:
Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
I can't imagine that it's very good for pedestrians when they are depending on drivers' goodwill to allow them space. It doesn't seem ideal when this is the system for cyclists.
Works well in Denmark and Hans Monderman’s work in Delft is the usual example.
UK examples aren’t great because of the issues I mentioned. It means that not many examples get through and those that do are heavily compromised. Poynton is probably the best example I can think of.
It looks like the nearest in London is Exhibition Road which isn't really shared at all, because they have put barriers to delimit the pavement.
Difficult to imagine it in these days of big bits of concrete to keep vehicles away from pedestrians.0 -
You're making leftiebollox assumptions there and unsurprisingly, you're wrongsuper_davo said:
I find it really hard to believe, in 2023 South East England that driving can put a smile on anyone's face.kingstongraham said:
What if the carrot was fewer cars on the road so you can vroom vroom about more if you paid more?Stevo_666 said:
Luckily you don't get to decidekingstongraham said:
Great, so now it's just a question of what value you place on your chosen leisure pursuit.Stevo_666 said:
I already do, ta.kingstongraham said:
Sounds like you value it enough to pay quite a bit extra for.Stevo_666 said:
It's no more antiquated than using batteries, which were originally invented in 1800.rjsterry said:
Hence the joke. These are almost exactly the arguments that steam enthusiasts use about diesel and electric locomotives.Stevo_666 said:
They make no proper noise and have no soul. And they are very heavy so their handling, braking and dynamics are inferior.ugo.santalucia said:
EVs have in principle better performance than thermic engines. The acceleration is superior and the torque is immense.Stevo_666 said:I'm not sure that EV enthusiasts exist as there's not much to get enthused about, but I guess the equivalent would be
I guess with some decent software you can waste some battery to replicate your favourite engine tune and vibrations...
FWIW, I will concede that a really big diesel sounds quite impressive 😀.
My car puts a smile on my face every time I drive it. And that's what counts, beyond the mundane point getting getting me from a to b. I honestly think you would never understand. I already pay enough.
As has been mentioned above, there needs to be more carrot and less stick if they want more cooperation from the majority of the public.
Far too many cars for far too inadequate roads.
I would have thought disincentivising other people's car journeys and paying more for your own was exactly what was needed if that was genuinely the case.
If the thing putting a smile on your face is showing off your big expensive car, this works equally well.
I enjoy driving. And quite capable of finding good driving driving roads. Or if I want to drive it like I stole it I can go on track days."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
As mentioned above, I can find the right places to enjoy a drivekingstongraham said:
What if the carrot was fewer cars on the road so you can vroom vroom about more if you paid more?Stevo_666 said:
Luckily you don't get to decidekingstongraham said:
Great, so now it's just a question of what value you place on your chosen leisure pursuit.Stevo_666 said:
I already do, ta.kingstongraham said:
Sounds like you value it enough to pay quite a bit extra for.Stevo_666 said:
It's no more antiquated than using batteries, which were originally invented in 1800.rjsterry said:
Hence the joke. These are almost exactly the arguments that steam enthusiasts use about diesel and electric locomotives.Stevo_666 said:
They make no proper noise and have no soul. And they are very heavy so their handling, braking and dynamics are inferior.ugo.santalucia said:
EVs have in principle better performance than thermic engines. The acceleration is superior and the torque is immense.Stevo_666 said:I'm not sure that EV enthusiasts exist as there's not much to get enthused about, but I guess the equivalent would be
I guess with some decent software you can waste some battery to replicate your favourite engine tune and vibrations...
FWIW, I will concede that a really big diesel sounds quite impressive 😀.
My car puts a smile on my face every time I drive it. And that's what counts, beyond the mundane point getting getting me from a to b. I honestly think you would never understand. I already pay enough.
As has been mentioned above, there needs to be more carrot and less stick if they want more cooperation from the majority of the public. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You can only drive one car at a time so what's the issue, other than your apparent irrational dislike of cars?ugo.santalucia said:
there is an obvious solution to that, which is to tax very heavily any second car one owns. Household of 2 licences… 3 cars? Tax the third one 10 times over and they will sell it… another no brainerdavebradswmb said:
And that's despite car sales falling from 1.9 million in 1994 to 1.6 million last year. Car sales peaked in 2016 at 2.7 million. The increase in car registrations is due to older cars remaining on the road a lot longer. Old cars are cheap, and many households have several cars. Many of the houses on the road where I live have paved their front gardens and have 2 or 3 cars parked on it, and they still have another car parked on the road/grass verge, and it isn't a particularly affluent area.kingstongraham said:Just looked at the number of vehicles licenced in the UK for 1994 vs 2022.
The number of cars has gone up from 21 million to 35 million."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Speak for yourself.rick_chasey said:
You ought to be. Waste of real estate. We all have to live further out from places we want to be, or we can't have the greenery we want.kingstongraham said:
What problem is that solving? I'm not massively concerned about cars that are parked up on someone's drive and not being driven.ugo.santalucia said:
there is an obvious solution to that, which is to tax very heavily any second car one owns. Household of 2 licences… 3 cars? Tax the third one 10 times over and they will sell it… another no brainerdavebradswmb said:
And that's despite car sales falling from 1.9 million in 1994 to 1.6 million last year. Car sales peaked in 2016 at 2.7 million. The increase in car registrations is due to older cars remaining on the road a lot longer. Old cars are cheap, and many households have several cars. Many of the houses on the road where I live have paved their front gardens and have 2 or 3 cars parked on it, and they still have another car parked on the road/grass verge, and it isn't a particularly affluent area.kingstongraham said:Just looked at the number of vehicles licenced in the UK for 1994 vs 2022.
The number of cars has gone up from 21 million to 35 million."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's already been mentioned a while back that we are somewhere close to 85% urbanised already in the UK so there's not a huge amount of scope to make it more so.rick_chasey said:
To have your car parked on your drive, the house/street needs to have been designed less densely than otherwise to accommodate the space for the cars, thus being space inefficient. That all adds up.kingstongraham said:
It is not an obstruction in the manner of a collision or breakdown, it is just the way urban roads work.Pross said:
To an extent, that would come down to an obstruction. Although you can also argue it keeps vehicle speeds low in an urban environment. The bigger problem is that many drivers feel causing such inconvenience to motorists is a bad thing and it is better to park partially, or even fully, on the footway instead even when this often still means two cars can't pass.kingstongraham said:
Or cars parked on the road making it too narrow for two modern cars to pass each other.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Clearly you can have a basement garage for example, but then again, that's a flat or a house that otherwise is given away to vehicles.
Space is a premium where a lot of people live and it will continue to become more sought after as the urbanisation continues."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I thought we'd already tried big rise living in quite a few places and it hasn't been an unqualified success. Not everyone wants to live in a high rise with no private green space.rjsterry said:
The original Idea was that by building in towers there was LOTS of space left for parks and greenery. Guess which bit was cut to save money. On the other handrick_chasey said:
I mean, it is literally more land efficient, for starters. Is Los Angeles your ideal city or something?First.Aspect said:
Calling rjs to the thread - we need someone qualifies to explain why building up isn't more resource efficient. RC won't believe anyone else.rick_chasey said:
That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.pblakeney said:Ricktopia, with green spaces.
No thanks.
https://www.archdaily.com/976437/how-singapore-is-pioneering-the-way-to-creating-a-greener-urban-environment
And even in this country.
But height isn't necessary - you can build at pretty high densities and still have plenty of green."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Back on the Cambridge ULEZ - the No Campaign twitter account clearly is just some hobbyist, as he's wanging on about how it's "social cleansing".
Sometimes I marvel at the UK's ability to make *everything* about class.0 -
So what's your solution to accommodate the rising population?Stevo_666 said:
It's already been mentioned a while back that we are somewhere close to 85% urbanised already in the UK so there's not a huge amount of scope to make it more so.rick_chasey said:
To have your car parked on your drive, the house/street needs to have been designed less densely than otherwise to accommodate the space for the cars, thus being space inefficient. That all adds up.kingstongraham said:
It is not an obstruction in the manner of a collision or breakdown, it is just the way urban roads work.Pross said:
To an extent, that would come down to an obstruction. Although you can also argue it keeps vehicle speeds low in an urban environment. The bigger problem is that many drivers feel causing such inconvenience to motorists is a bad thing and it is better to park partially, or even fully, on the footway instead even when this often still means two cars can't pass.kingstongraham said:
Or cars parked on the road making it too narrow for two modern cars to pass each other.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Clearly you can have a basement garage for example, but then again, that's a flat or a house that otherwise is given away to vehicles.
Space is a premium where a lot of people live and it will continue to become more sought after as the urbanisation continues.0 -
Depends which you are talking about. Some are extremely desirable with waiting lists for a flat. You might have noticed a lot of big developments around places like Nine Elms for example. All towers and all aimed at high earners. So not true to say we've tried it and moved on. Of course not everyone fancies it, just as not everyone thinks driving a car is fun.Stevo_666 said:
I thought we'd already tried big rise living in quite a few places and it hasn't been an unqualified success. Not everyone wants to live in a high rise with no private green space.rjsterry said:
The original Idea was that by building in towers there was LOTS of space left for parks and greenery. Guess which bit was cut to save money. On the other handrick_chasey said:
I mean, it is literally more land efficient, for starters. Is Los Angeles your ideal city or something?First.Aspect said:
Calling rjs to the thread - we need someone qualifies to explain why building up isn't more resource efficient. RC won't believe anyone else.rick_chasey said:
That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.pblakeney said:Ricktopia, with green spaces.
No thanks.
https://www.archdaily.com/976437/how-singapore-is-pioneering-the-way-to-creating-a-greener-urban-environment
And even in this country.
But height isn't necessary - you can build at pretty high densities and still have plenty of green.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
All of the UK population growth is in urban areas and rural population continues to decline, so this is just incorrect. Countrybollox even 😀Stevo_666 said:
It's already been mentioned a while back that we are somewhere close to 85% urbanised already in the UK so there's not a huge amount of scope to make it more so.rick_chasey said:
To have your car parked on your drive, the house/street needs to have been designed less densely than otherwise to accommodate the space for the cars, thus being space inefficient. That all adds up.kingstongraham said:
It is not an obstruction in the manner of a collision or breakdown, it is just the way urban roads work.Pross said:
To an extent, that would come down to an obstruction. Although you can also argue it keeps vehicle speeds low in an urban environment. The bigger problem is that many drivers feel causing such inconvenience to motorists is a bad thing and it is better to park partially, or even fully, on the footway instead even when this often still means two cars can't pass.kingstongraham said:
Or cars parked on the road making it too narrow for two modern cars to pass each other.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Clearly you can have a basement garage for example, but then again, that's a flat or a house that otherwise is given away to vehicles.
Space is a premium where a lot of people live and it will continue to become more sought after as the urbanisation continues.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Says the person who yesterday claimed that eating seasonal veg is a middle-class thing.rick_chasey said:Back on the Cambridge ULEZ - the No Campaign twitter account clearly is just some hobbyist, as he's wanging on about how it's "social cleansing".
Sometimes I marvel at the UK's ability to make *everything* about class.1 -
Villiers Street always struck me as just a street with lots of pedestrians on it and didn't give vehicle access to anywhere really - it had a proper pavement. They are now making it pedestrians and cycles only apart from 6:30am to 11am.TheBigBean said:
There's no curb and both have pedestrians all over them. Neal st isn't straight as well. I see the bollards as restrictions on cars not people.kingstongraham said:
Both have a pavement with bollards.TheBigBean said:
How about Villiers St or Neal St? Do they count?kingstongraham said:
Do you have a link to a street view of what one looks like?Pross said:
In the UK or anywhere?kingstongraham said:
Has this been shown to work anywhere?Pross said:
I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.TheBigBean said:
Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.Pross said:
Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way throughTheBigBean said:
Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.Pross said:Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.
Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
I can't imagine that it's very good for pedestrians when they are depending on drivers' goodwill to allow them space. It doesn't seem ideal when this is the system for cyclists.
Works well in Denmark and Hans Monderman’s work in Delft is the usual example.
UK examples aren’t great because of the issues I mentioned. It means that not many examples get through and those that do are heavily compromised. Poynton is probably the best example I can think of.
It looks like the nearest in London is Exhibition Road which isn't really shared at all, because they have put barriers to delimit the pavement.
Difficult to imagine it in these days of big bits of concrete to keep vehicles away from pedestrians.
These are one way streets that don't really go anywhere where there are lots of pedestrians - I don't think that's really the same thing but could be wrong.0 -
I suspect it becomes less desireable once you have kids. My (possibly cliched) view of those living in expensive high rise developments is that they are career obsessed types. I can certainly see attractions in a penthouse suite in Docklands, the views would be incredible and you are close to the action,and the Battersea development looks good but I couldn't handle the claustrophobic nature of it being my life. My daughter lived in a lovely new development on Salford Quays although the view was spoiled by overlooking Old Trafford, as a youngster it was a great spot but even she struggled managing with her dog.rjsterry said:
Depends which you are talking about. Some are extremely desirable with waiting lists for a flat. You might have noticed a lot of big developments around places like Nine Elms for example. All towers and all aimed at high earners. So not true to say we've tried it and moved on. Of course not everyone fancies it, just as not everyone thinks driving a car is fun.Stevo_666 said:
I thought we'd already tried big rise living in quite a few places and it hasn't been an unqualified success. Not everyone wants to live in a high rise with no private green space.rjsterry said:
The original Idea was that by building in towers there was LOTS of space left for parks and greenery. Guess which bit was cut to save money. On the other handrick_chasey said:
I mean, it is literally more land efficient, for starters. Is Los Angeles your ideal city or something?First.Aspect said:
Calling rjs to the thread - we need someone qualifies to explain why building up isn't more resource efficient. RC won't believe anyone else.rick_chasey said:
That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.pblakeney said:Ricktopia, with green spaces.
No thanks.
https://www.archdaily.com/976437/how-singapore-is-pioneering-the-way-to-creating-a-greener-urban-environment
And even in this country.
But height isn't necessary - you can build at pretty high densities and still have plenty of green.
The other issue with high density development is that it still needs somewhere to be built and as the point of it is to condense people into an area they want to be you would need to either build on what greenspace is remaining or start flattening some of the existing low density housing to make way for redevelopment. Up until now there has been a lot of Brownfield redevelopment of old industrial sites such as Battersea, Docklands, Stratford but that supply won't last forever.0 -
I’d say the preoccupation with food provenance is indeed a middle class pursuit.Pross said:
Says the person who yesterday claimed that eating seasonal veg is a middle-class thing.rick_chasey said:Back on the Cambridge ULEZ - the No Campaign twitter account clearly is just some hobbyist, as he's wanging on about how it's "social cleansing".
Sometimes I marvel at the UK's ability to make *everything* about class.0
