[HN Gopher] London's Lost Ringways
___________________________________________________________________
London's Lost Ringways
Author : bananapear
Score : 120 points
Date : 2022-04-22 08:42 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.worksinprogress.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.worksinprogress.co)
| zabzonk wrote:
| Whilst things like Westway are an abomination, the other parts of
| London's road structure are little better. I used to live just
| off the South Circular, which is a road system in notion only -
| there are almost no dual carrige-ways, and the route simply joins
| up a lot of suburban minor roads. The North Circular is somewhat
| better (unless you live next to it), but not much.
| Markoff wrote:
| To save you a click - there are no lost ringways in article,
| whole article is about UNREALIZED ideas, not about losing any
| existing ringways.
| tagersenim wrote:
| I do _not_ like the way the text scroll just 'jumps' ahead when
| scrolling down after the header picture. The title has
| disappeared above your screen before you have time to read it. It
| reminds me of the Apple product pages, whereby your scroll is
| constantly hijacked by spinning pictures of laptops opening and
| closing.
| saaaaaam wrote:
| Yes the user experience on this site is AWFUL on mobile.
|
| The stand-first vanishes when you scroll but the bottom of it
| is cut off so you have to scroll to be able to read it.
|
| Then when you scroll a pop-up appears asking me to sign up to
| emails.
|
| Absolutely not.
|
| I gave up even trying to read the article.
| rmason wrote:
| Couldn't you use Elon Musk's Boring Company to recreate the
| missing Ringways as underground tunnels?
|
| I remember as an American overseas in 1975 that it was one of the
| most baffling aspects of driving in London. I don't know if they
| still do it but the rental car companies would offer to drive you
| from Central London to the beginning of the freeway. Assuming
| they took either a bus or the tube back.
|
| I took a trip to Bournemouth to see a ham radio buddy and ended
| up being white knuckled the entire way. After our visit I ended
| up turning the car in and taking the train back into London!
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| Is it now time to start digging these things (where they actually
| were built) up?
|
| Dismantling freeways, returning neighbourhoods. The harder it is
| to get anywhere by car, the more people will demand good public
| transport.
| fmajid wrote:
| Those proposals were extreme, specially Ringway 1, but getting
| around London is far worse than in Paris, which has the benefit
| of Haussmann's boulevards pierced after the upheavals of
| revolutions, and the Peripherique. Political stability entrenches
| vested interests and NIMBYism, like the fact much of London's
| choicest property is still owned by descendants of the feudal
| aristocracy and people don't own the land their houses are built
| on, they just lease them like medieval serfs would have, since
| land reform never happened in England.
|
| At one point, there was even a proposal to build massive highways
| _underground_ instead, but Paris ' friable limestone (just as in
| London) and long history of undocumented quarries make any
| tunneling effort fraught.
| bb123 wrote:
| > people don't own the land their houses are built on, they
| just lease them like medieval serfs would have, since land
| reform never happened in England.
|
| I'm curious about this - are you referring to leaseholds?
| Because that seems to mainly exist for flats. If you have a
| freehold (like almost every house has) you definitely own the
| land.
| algesten wrote:
| Technically the Queen (the crown) owns all the land. In
| practice it doesn't make much difference, but it does kick in
| if a freehold suddenly has no owner.
| desas wrote:
| In reality, all nations have dealt with that problem in
| roughly the same way, the land reverts to the state.
|
| In the US if an owner of property can't be identified, then
| it's given to the state to deal with and in France it goes
| to the local authority.
|
| In most of the UK, the land is given to the Crown Estate
| (not the monarchs personal property but to fund the
| country). The exception is Cornwall and Lancashire, where
| it's given to the relevant duchies (i.e. the prince of
| wales and the monarch), who by convention sell it and
| donate the proceeds to charity.
| ealexhudson wrote:
| Freehold didn't apply to much of London. Many areas are still
| technically owned by large landowners, Dukes and so forth.
|
| Not a huge amount of London, and not most of greater London,
| but definitely applicable to the Royal boroughs.
| samizdis wrote:
| You might find Guy Shrubsole's book, Who Owns England?, an
| interesting read. It deals with land ownership, so not
| directly with freehold v leasehold for householders, but it
| contains some startling statistics.
|
| There's a decent review of the book (from 2019) here:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/28/who-owns-
| engla...
| cnorthwood wrote:
| Freehold houses aren't as common as you think, especially in
| London. Across England about a third of houses are leasehold.
| kmlx wrote:
| > but getting around London is far worse than in Paris
|
| not sure about this. every time i go to Paris i'm stuck in
| traffic. at least in London i've got at least 5 routes i could
| take. and this is exactly because there are no boulevards.
| sbisson wrote:
| Ringway 2 would have been right behind my home. Instead I have an
| electric railway and a lot of trees...
| leoedin wrote:
| The proposals for the inner ring are really astounding - it would
| have gone right through all sorts of lovely historical
| neighbourhoods, across nice local parks - right through many of
| the nicest inner suburbs in London. Every time I see the
| fortress-like sides of Southwyck House in Brixton I'm reminded of
| it. If it had gone ahead it really would be a completely
| different city today.
| nly wrote:
| London was a hell hole in the 60s and nobody wanted to live
| there anyway.
|
| Today houses built in the 30s in what were suburban towns,
| still 45-60 minutes out from central on the Tube, are going for
| $1.5M a piece.
| Thlom wrote:
| There were similar plans in Oslo and Bergen as well in the 60's
| that would have completely destroyed the cities.
| dboreham wrote:
| Today Oslo has major roads in tunnels under parts of the
| city. My impression visiting was that this is how you would
| solve the problem if you had infinite budget.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| Before WW2 there was a plan to dramatically extend the London
| Underground miles into the surrounding countryside, far beyond
| the metropolis. The depression paused that plan and WW2 and the
| impoverishment of the country ended it. I hope someone writes a
| similar article about the unfinished transport system that we
| call the tube.
| Aromasin wrote:
| After nearly 100 years we've come full circle and the Elizabeth
| line is opening, connecting Reading and the town's West on
| London to the city through to Shenfield - although perhaps
| still not on the scale they originally pictured.
| Areacking wrote:
| nly wrote:
| > Today, London has only one ring road
|
| Errr...the North and South Circular?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Circular_Road
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Circular_Road,_London
| ddek wrote:
| err, kinda.
|
| The North Circular is a decent enough road if you don't live by
| it.
|
| I happen to live just by the South Circular, and it's not
| really a ring road. You wouldn't use it to circumnavigate
| London, it's just a joined up set of separate roads (of various
| sizes) that happen to form a vague semi-circle.
| alexfoo wrote:
| Also on the Eastern side there's only a ferry to connect the
| North and South Circulars. And that ferry has quite limited
| operating hours and capacity. It's also very slow.
|
| To avoid the ferry you either need to come West a bit and use
| the Blackwall Tunnel or go way East and use the outer ring
| road (M25) crossings at Dartford.
| bb123 wrote:
| Thank god this didn't go ahead. It would have made london into a
| car centric hellhole, and I suspect traffic would still be
| terrible. I've never been to any large city where the traffic
| flows freely, regardless of how much road infrastructure there
| is.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| I am hoping that self driving electric medium sized buses
| giving a hybrid between public transport and uber would solve
| that. Move people away from car ownership.
| hansworst wrote:
| It feels like building more infrastructure just causes people
| to use more of it, because the "cost" of using it goes down.
| Kind of similar to how having faster computers has just
| resulted in us creating more bloated software, instead of
| everything becoming snappier.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| That's the point.
|
| High usage of resources for low expenditure of man-hours
| directly correlates to higher quality of living.
|
| You couldn't afford an air conditioner if transportation was
| expensive, power was expensive and every step along the way
| was running on paper records.
|
| But transportation, power and administrative overhead (and a
| whole laundry list of other things) are cheap enough (in
| terms of labor) that you can afford to get and use an air
| conditioner and you are better off for it.
|
| We want fast and efficient transportation, power generation,
| record keeping and information management (and other things)
| because those things add a labor cost to just about
| everything in our word.
|
| It helps to think of money and time as being convertible to
| and from each other.
| Majings wrote:
| Your feeling is generally observed to be correct. Induced
| demand [1] is a fairly well observed phenomenon.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Effect_in_tr
| ans...
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Induced demand doesn't mean the additional infrastructure
| is useless. It just means it likely won't reduce traffic.
| You'll get greater population, more economic growth. More
| people able to get to where they want to go.
|
| And induced demand applies to all kinds of things, not just
| automobile infrastructure. So it should help you be more
| thoughtful about what infrastructure you want to actually
| build, but crucially it does NOT mean that the
| infrastructure is worthless.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Exactly. Another related and very relevant economic concept
| is elasticity of demand [1].
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand
| kmlx wrote:
| > I've never been to any large city where the traffic flows
| freely, regardless of how much road infrastructure there is.
|
| singapore and dubai off the top of my head.
| helloooooooo wrote:
| Dubai is plainly not a human scale city. You need a car to
| get around it, walking anywhere is a complete nightmare
| albrewer wrote:
| Dubai is usually over 38 degC (100degF) for half the year,
| usually reaching 40degC (105degC) and once reached 49degC
| (121degF). Humans can't really cope with temperatures that
| high unless it's insanely dry out. I would argue Dubai can
| really only be lived in through artificial means.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >Dubai is plainly not a human scale city.
|
| Ok and?
|
| If their median/average/<whatever> quality of life is
| greater that way then so what?
|
| Every ideologue latches onto buzzwords like "human scale"
| but forgets that the whole point of that buzzword is that
| the thing is represents theoretically goes hand in hand
| with quality of life.
|
| Look at the local climate and land situation for Dubai.
| It's not exactly a surprise that they prefer to just spread
| everything out and travel in cars. Just a 1/4mi walk from
| subway station to destination would be pretty uncomfortable
| for large parts of the year. At least in St. Petersburg you
| can put on a big jacket during the uncomfortable part of
| the year.
| Tade0 wrote:
| > Every ideologue latches onto buzzwords like "human
| scale"
|
| I started hating this term, because it appears to reflect
| a very particular lifestyle which in turn fits a very
| particular demographic and just assumes this is better
| than alternatives.
|
| One thing that I never see mentioned is how this affects
| availability of real estate. In my corner of the world
| people are generally leaving large cities, because at
| least half of the working population isn't eligible for a
| mortgage for an apartment within city limits.
|
| You can only go so far on foot or on a bicycle in a day.
| With a car you at least have a bargaining chip against
| the local real estate market.
| zip1234 wrote:
| The problem is often that people want to live in a place
| that is cheap and with space and then drive to where jobs
| are and the pay is high (city), which means wide roads to
| get to city, which means lots of pollution, noise, lack
| of safety for those in the city. As far as real estate,
| there are often other reasons for the high prices. The
| root cause is often not just land.
| odiroot wrote:
| Singapore works because congestion charges are high.
| montroser wrote:
| Robert Moses was successful carrying out many projects like this
| in the 1960s to add urban highways in NYC and other northeast US
| metropolitan areas.
|
| It's mostly a big tragedy. Neighborhoods sliced through, where
| highways created largely impermeable boundaries for pedestrians.
| And the swaths of destruction where eminent domain was invoked
| and then dense, culturally rich, bustling, thriving blocks and
| blocks were bulldozed and paved.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses
| settrans wrote:
| Even the most collectivist public-transit apologist should be
| celebrating Robert Moses. He greatly expanded the predecessor
| to the MTA, and secured its legacy by building the toll bridges
| and tunnels that subsidize the wildly expensive New York City
| subways, generations after the bridges and tunnels have been
| paid off.
| wonder_er wrote:
| noooooo!!!!! This is exactly wrong.
|
| He used the toll revenue to fund his own highway building
| projects, independent of state/local budgets.
|
| He fired everyone on his staff that advocated for rail
| network. He starved rail lines (that, at the time, were being
| used very heavily) in favor of road networks.
|
| He also rather hated black people and puerto ricans.
|
| I can only imagine you've heard things about Robert Moses
| written by the great fans of the man, who USUALLY were high-
| modernists who loved his big bridges and roads.
|
| his biography, "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall
| of NYC" is the comprehensive evaluation of his life and
| legacy. He shaped the modern world 10x more than anyone else
| who has ever lived, and vastly for the worse.
| JamesBaxter wrote:
| Interesting to read in the current context of the Silvertown
| tunnel currently being built despite complaints from both sides
| of the river and an admission from TFL that it may make traffic
| worse south of the river.
|
| Not to mention the fact that cyclists can't use the tunnel...
| cameronh90 wrote:
| I wonder about whether the Silvertown Tunnel will make the
| average traffic worse but the worst case traffic better.
|
| Currently, if the Blackwall tunnel closes, traffic basically
| grinds to a halt across a huge part of SE London. I was taking
| my dying bunny to the vet the other month and a trip that
| normally takes under ten minutes took forty due to the
| Blackwall tunnel being closed, even though I'm all the way back
| in Hither Green.
|
| Nevertheless, I would have preferred they built one of the many
| proposed pedestrian/cycling bridges...
| adwww wrote:
| I shouldn't laugh, but that's a strong 30-50 feral hog vibes
| from your vet visit ha.
| saaaaaam wrote:
| To be fair the congestion in that area is also because of a
| significant number of the side roads across
| Lewisham/Greenwich having been closed to enable the low
| traffic neighbourhoods - much needed but making congestion
| awful as a consequence.
| teh_klev wrote:
| Glasgow's M8 (incomplete) ringroad is famous for its ski-jumps to
| no-where and ghost junctions and sliproads.
|
| https://www.roads.org.uk/articles/glasgow
|
| https://www.scottishroadsarchive.org/m8
|
| There's a really good book on the subject matter by John Cullen
| who was one of the original engineers who worked on the project:
|
| https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0955378109
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| What a vision of an absolute nightmare.
| meekaaku wrote:
| The dartboard should be done for the London tube/rail network. It
| easy to get into central London from periphery (say Bromley to
| Victoria is 20min by train, 1hr by car), but periphery to
| periphery is not good if you dont have direct train (eg Bromley
| to Greenwich is 45min by train, but 20 min by car). The situation
| is worse if you are carrying luggage and/or kids.
| verisimi wrote:
| And this is why our governments love China so much. As Trudeau
| said:
|
| "There's a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their
| basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their
| economy around on a dime."
|
| And it is also a reason why governments and their pet projects,
| despite their claimed authority, are not actually serving those
| they purport to serve. Huge projects at public expense - eg the
| creation of the road networks we do have - don't necessarily
| serve people, but do serve corporations (eg automakers).
| bananapub wrote:
| unsurprisingly, London is all for the better for these projects
| having been canned in the 60's - very few massive roads cutting
| up neigbourhoods, and helped avoid the massive tipping into
| redesigning cities for single/low occupancy cars. it's so
| successful, that in 2022, 46% of households in greater London
| have *zero* cars. if you're curious what it what have looked
| like, go for a walk around Notting Hill and see how Westway has
| damaged the human environment and walkability.
|
| so, yay.
|
| obligatory jay foreman video on the topic:
| https://youtu.be/yUEHWhO_HdY
| geogra4 wrote:
| American cities were utterly destroyed by these kinds of
| projects.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| There's no winning.
|
| You build highways and they screech about cutting up
| neighborhoods.
|
| You don't and they screech about the resulting sprawl as
| development becomes more diffuse.
|
| My pet favorite solution is more park & ride transition
| points on the outskirts and light rail in the dense areas but
| the cognitive dissonance it takes to argue that raised
| highways and highway pits cut through neighborhoods but not
| let out a peep when it's subway and tram lines doing the same
| should disqualify one from voting.
|
| As much as I hate the NIMBYs for insisting on violating other
| people's property rights you at least have to give them +1
| for consistency.
|
| Looking back with hindsight we'd probably be better off if we
| had just built _all_ the urban highways and rail lines (and
| other transit infrastructure projects) that have been
| seriously considered over the years.
| harg wrote:
| > You don't and they screech about the resulting sprawl as
| development becomes more diffuse.
|
| Highways create urban sprawl, they don't prevent it.
|
| > the cognitive dissonance it takes to argue that raised
| highways and highway pits cut through neighborhoods but not
| let out a peep when it's subway and tram lines doing the
| same should disqualify one from voting.
|
| But a subway/tram line is completely different from a
| highway. Trains can move an order of magnitude more
| people/stuff, don't result in local air pollution, don't
| create a lot of noise, don't result in road accidents that
| kill people and destroy property. And that's even before
| you realise that a subway is underground so you don't need
| to tear apart neighborhoods to build them and you basically
| wouldn't know it's there.
| scratcheee wrote:
| Rail lines have more than 10x the throughput though, so you
| need vastly less of them to do vastly more work.
|
| A city with enough roads for 100% car usage is approaching
| not being a city anymore, just an unending suburban
| hellscape, but a city with barely any roads and more rail
| than it really needs can still be a beautiful city.
|
| To add to that, underground railways exist in many cities,
| but underground road networks effectively don't. The
| throughput by volume dug out the ground is viable for a
| rail service, its totally non-viable to bury an equivalent
| throughput 20 lane highway underground.
| Angostura wrote:
| > You build highways and they screech about cutting up
| neighborhoods. You don't and they screech about the
| resulting sprawl as development becomes more diffuse.
|
| The green belt policy around London where you were
| prevented from developing was quite good at preventing
| sprawl for decades.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Similar policies in Oregon now, which force increased
| density in existing (orm as an option, brand new) urban
| areas, rather than just spreading. Or at least, there
| were a decade ago. I hope they've survived.
| egypturnash wrote:
| _but the cognitive dissonance it takes to argue that raised
| highways and highway pits cut through neighborhoods but not
| let out a peep when it 's subway and tram lines doing the
| same should disqualify one from voting_
|
| Here's a thought experiment for you. You are on foot,
| perhaps with a kid in a stroller, perhaps with a dog on a
| leash, perhaps an armful of groceries. It is a gorgeous day
| for a walk. You have multiple destinations on the other
| side of several transit arteries:
|
| * a subway that passes under city streets with sidewalks,
| if you're lucky maybe it goes under a park that's between
| you and your destination
|
| * a light rail line with trains passing every few minutes,
| clearly visible, with lots of time in between to cross the
| tracks, if you're lucky maybe the area around the line has
| some pretty plants and trees
|
| * an elevated highway with cars zooming along the feeder
| roads in its shadow, if you're lucky there's a crosswalk
| with pedestrian lights
|
| * a ground-level highway, 8-14 lanes of constant high speed
| traffic in both directions, if you are very lucky there is
| a pedestrian overpass no more than 2-3 blocks out of your
| way and you'll only be inhaling exhaust for a little while
|
| Which one of these would you rather cross? Which one of
| these feels like an integrated part of the neighborhood,
| which ones feel like a raw open wound in the city when you
| try to cross them on foot?
| brimble wrote:
| > You don't and they screech about the resulting sprawl as
| development becomes more diffuse.
|
| Huh? Don't highways _enable_ sprawl? The brand new
| neighborhood built way out "in the country" (not for
| long...) next to the brand new highway in Yates'
| _Revolutionary Road_ comes to mind.
| petercooper wrote:
| I disagree, and wish it had happened, but regardless, the
| biggest problem is they failed to invest in a plan B. For
| example, the options for folks outside of London wanting to get
| in are dire and could have been solved with several large car
| parks next to fast mass transit - the two Westfields are
| perhaps the best options there right now, and those are
| shopping centres not intended for such use and, ironically,
| located right next to the expressway projects that _did_ happen
| (the Westway and the A12 respectively). Maybe CrossRail will
| help? Park and ride from Abbey Wood, perhaps?
|
| I have a trip to London planned later this year and it's still
| a toss up between parking at Westfield Stratford or just
| driving into the city centre and paying the congestion charge..
| whereas really it should be an easy choice by now.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > the options for folks outside of London wanting to get in
| are dire
|
| I literally can't think of a city I've been to that has been
| easier to get into? There's endless options of overground,
| underground, river, bus. What more do you want?
| petercooper wrote:
| _I literally can 't think of a city I've been to that has
| been easier to get into?_
|
| Admittedly I didn't define "easier"! London is near the top
| in terms of number of options, regularity, 24 hour
| availability, etc. For _me_ , "easier" refers to time and
| comfort as someone who tends to be coming from random
| points 50+ miles away with young children, luggage, and a
| car at my disposal.
|
| And if you were to dumped at a random point 50 miles away
| with a car at your disposal, the centres of many UK cities
| are, even relative to their size, more comfortably reached
| than London's. Leeds, Cardiff, Newcastle, and Glasgow, for
| example (Leeds is notably good for access). If the car
| isn't allowed to go into the town centre, I think York or
| Oxford do a good job too.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I'm not sure I see what the problem is? If you _need_ to take
| your car into the city centre, you can. Just pay the
| congestion charge?
| haspok wrote:
| I'm not sure why you are downvoted, as everyone is entitled
| to their opinion.
|
| I kind of agree with both sides, but the people suggesting
| train rides forget that the train doesn't stop in front of
| your house, and doesn't leave when you want it to. And taking
| an extra luggage with you is a pain. Owning a car gives you
| so much more freedom in your life that few people who can
| afford it willingly don't own one. For a few years I did try
| the rental model, but it was so much hassle that I couldn't
| bear it any longer. I'm usually on the go every other
| weekend.
|
| I used to live in Greenwich, and while I had a bike for
| commuting, on the weekends the car was the only way to get
| OUT of the city within a reasonable amount of time and get
| back again. It was still a pain, as pretty much any journey
| started by getting to the M25 first, then driving on it to
| some extent, making the smallest journey a 30-40 minute
| minimum. It didn't help that South London is pretty much an
| impassable barrier by car (takes so much time that it's not
| worth it). And Greenwich even has the A2 and the (constantly
| clogged up) Blackwall Tunnel, so it is one of the better
| areas of London regarding car ownership.
|
| On the other hand, I never understood why anyone would want
| to drive into the City, that really makes no sense, and I
| fully support the congestion charge.
| petercooper wrote:
| _On the other hand, I never understood why anyone would
| want to drive into the City, that really makes no sense,
| and I fully support the congestion charge._
|
| I also support the CG, but I am also quite far on the "I'm
| staying in my car" end of the spectrum, so maybe I can
| answer the question! I don't _relish_ the idea of driving
| into the City, but it 's a rare enough experience that I
| mildly enjoy it - the traffic isn't as bad in the CGZ as it
| _used_ to be, and I hugely prefer the solitude of driving
| to, well, the alternatives. Could I do such a journey on a
| weekly /monthly basis? Absolutely not.
| bananapub wrote:
| > I disagree, and wish it had happened, but regardless, the
| biggest problem is they failed to invest in a plan B. For
| example, the options for folks outside of London wanting to
| get in are dire and could have been solved with several large
| car parks next to fast mass transit
|
| encouraging more cars into the center is explicitly an anti-
| goal, so not sure why you wish these projects had been built?
|
| yes there should be more park and ride on the outskirts, but
| Stratford isn't really outskirts anymore, and wasting lots of
| land for parking in Stratford or White City instead of homes
| also seems a silly waste of their good connectedness.
|
| > I have a trip to London planned later this year and it's
| still a toss up between parking at Westfield Stratford or
| just driving into the city centre and paying the congestion
| charge.. whereas really it should be an easy choice by now.
|
| I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be higher.
| Silhouette wrote:
| _I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be
| higher._
|
| The trouble with public transport advocacy is that it so
| often relies on the stick rather than the carrot as the
| main incentive. The better solution is almost always to
| provide attractive public transport options. If you can do
| that then people will use them anyway. If you don't do that
| then people will do what you don't want instead unless you
| totally prohibit it. And if you prohibit it then maybe they
| won't come at all.
|
| The catch is that providing good public transport is a
| challenge even in densely populated areas and for long
| distance travel. Our biggest cities also tend to be very
| old and that means layouts that are far from ideal for
| running an efficient public transport network.
|
| The other catch is that good public transport is never
| going to be cost-effective in smaller towns and rural
| areas. So doing it would require a massive commitment from
| both local and wider government and in the UK we don't have
| that. Politicians tend to be very good at talking about
| grand ideas but no-one is willing to say "We need to put
| your taxes up 5% to subsidise loss-making transport
| infrastructure so there's a sensible alternative to cars
| for everyone who doesn't live in one of the biggest
| cities."
|
| This is why I'm not sure emphasizing public transport is
| the right long term policy here. Better infrastructure to
| support small-scale private transport seems a more
| promising direction to look -- bikes, e-scooters, future
| electric vehicles designed for one or two passengers and
| light baggage, etc.
| dharma1 wrote:
| Public transport into/in London is pretty good. Crowded
| but not unbearable, especially if you can avoid rush
| hours.
|
| I have a car in London but almost never drive into
| central London (just in my area and out of London) -
| getting in and around Central London is much better with
| public transport.
| bananapub wrote:
| > The trouble with public transport advocacy is that it
| so often relies on the stick rather than the carrot as
| the main incentive
|
| I...don't understand what your comment is about? London
| has excellent public transport that runs all the way into
| the non-London bits around it. it's mostly made of
| carrots.
|
| there are also a small number of sticks.
| Silhouette wrote:
| London has good public transport internally. For people
| coming in from outside the picture is far more variable.
| adwww wrote:
| I can travel to central London from my home 100 miles to
| the West in 70 minutes by public transport.
|
| In any case, that's a fault of poor public transport in
| the shires, not London.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| I used to know people who would commute by train to
| London from Bath and Bristol. Every day.
|
| And others who would drive from central Wiltshire to
| London and back. Every day.
|
| Work from home should have highlighted the insanity of
| those kinds of work patterns. Trains are greener than
| cars, but no commuting at all is greener still.
|
| Unfortunately it's looking more like we'll be heading
| back to pre-Covid normal, with very limited mixed-mode
| working offered as a bonus to those who qualify for it.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > Unfortunately it's looking more like we'll be heading
| back to pre-Covid normal, with very limited mixed-mode
| working offered as a bonus to those who qualify for it.
|
| Is it? Everyone I know with an office job has greatly
| expanded home working options. Most of them were
| previously 100% in the office, and now have the kind of 1
| or 2 days in the office a week hybrid options that used
| to be exclusively for tech companies. And quite a few
| individuals I know have been able to go completely remote
| only having to go into the office a few times a year and
| have been able to move cities entirely.
| Silhouette wrote:
| _In any case, that 's a fault of poor public transport in
| the shires, not London._
|
| Please see my other comments in this discussion. There is
| no "public transport in X". There is only "public
| transport". It will never be cost-effective to provide
| mass transit outside of densely populated areas and major
| long distance routes so if you want to enjoy the benefits
| and shift people away from cars in large numbers then you
| have to accept that we all need to subsidise plausible
| alternatives for everyone, probably through some serious
| taxation and government spending.
| bananapub wrote:
| London already provides public transport even beyond it's
| own boundaries. It seems pretty unfair to insist that we,
| as London tax payers, spend even more money on providing
| services to people outside of London.
|
| how much better does London need to make (and I assume
| pay for?) public transport for the Home Counties before
| you think it's OK for London to not demolish thousands of
| homes, in London, to build more roads for people who
| don't live in London?
| Silhouette wrote:
| _London already provides public transport even beyond it
| 's own boundaries. It seems pretty unfair to insist that
| we, as London tax payers, spend even more money on
| providing services to people outside of London._
|
| I don't think I've even suggested anything like that
| here.
|
| That said, the thing about public transport is that it's
| all-for-one. If it's going to be a viable alternative to
| owning private cars then it has to be reasonable for
| _all_ journeys someone needs to make not just a few
| convenient examples. There is no "local" or "national"
| with public transport for most people. The question is
| whether they can get from A to B in some reasonable way
| for any A and B they care about.
| hgomersall wrote:
| Talking about carrots for motorists is just privilege
| bias. We are where we are because of many policy
| decisions, many of which came with a particular world
| view, including the idea that motorists should have more
| infrastructure investment to support them. If you come at
| it from the perspective of active transport, removing
| cars _is_ the goal. Further to that, fewer cars means
| public transport becomes much better. We have to get into
| the virtuous circle where fewer cars begets more active
| transport and public transport which begets fewer cars.
|
| All non-toll roads are loss making, let's not pretend
| that cars are free. That's even before we get into a
| discussion about the negative externalities of driving.
|
| The Cambridge GCP (essentially a talking shop with a
| remit to deliver new infrastructure, but prefers to
| deliver reports instead) commissioned proposals on a
| "metro". One of those proposals had loads of small self
| guided pods. Superficially they seemed like a great idea
| until you looked at the flow rate required to have them
| deliver the people required, and suddenly you have the
| the road congested with pods (or, if you will, cars).
|
| Ultimately, you need a policy that is consistent with
| geometry: https://thewaroncars.org/transcript-
| episode-79-the-end-of-ub...
| timthorn wrote:
| Pods were trialled between the West Cambridge site and
| the P&R and were proposed to offer 24 hour service, but
| the main Cambridge Autonomous Metro proposal was for
| units that could seat over 100 people. But the new mayor
| likes buses.
| hgomersall wrote:
| It was the Dromos proposal I was referring to. That's
| nowhere near a trial:
| https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/on-demand-
| driverless...
|
| Self-driving buses I'm all in favour of.
| timthorn wrote:
| Yeah, the pod trial was with Aurrigo:
| https://www.connectingcambridgeshire.co.uk/smart-
| places/smar...
| Silhouette wrote:
| _Talking about carrots for motorists is just privilege
| bias._
|
| I have no idea what that means. However if we ever want
| to achieve more than talking in this area then we need to
| be realistic. And the reality is that lots of people rely
| on private cars every day in this country, and they
| collectively have enough money and political influence
| that you aren't going to change that behaviour at scale
| with a hostile strategy. You _certainly_ aren 't going to
| do it with arguments based on some kind of righteous
| indignation and words like "privilege".
|
| _We have to get into the virtuous circle where fewer
| cars begets more active transport and public transport
| which begets fewer cars._
|
| That would be great. And if there is one thing we have
| learned about transport planning in the last fifty years
| it is that the cycle is not going to be started on the
| "fewer cars" side. You can criticise as much as you like,
| that is obviously your prerogative, but I prefer to
| explore policies that have a greater than zero chance of
| actually working.
|
| _All non-toll roads are loss making, let 's not pretend
| that cars are free._
|
| The UK government has consistently received 3-4x as much
| revenue from direct motoring taxes as government of all
| levels spends on direct motoring services for many years.
| This is why they are so worried about the loss of much of
| that revenue with the rise of electric vehicles. And if
| you want to include externalities in the costs of cars
| then you also have to include indirect benefits and again
| you might not like the answer if environmental concerns
| are your priority.
|
| It is interesting that you picked Cambridge as your
| example because it is an excellent example of what I am
| talking about here. For years the local authorities have
| been increasingly car-hostile and despite the unusually
| high prevalence of bikes in the city the council have
| always been heavily in favour of relying on buses to
| solve the congestion and pollution problems. They have
| been trying that for a very long time and _it has never
| worked_. But still every few months someone puts up the
| parking fees again or adds more restrictions on where you
| can drive or park or proposes this year 's variation of
| congestion charging. Meanwhile cycling provision is still
| substandard and the city centre is still dying.
| hgomersall wrote:
| I can't respond to your deepest comment, but the
| privilege is you _can_ drive, which is distinctly not
| universal. In any case, having biases is totally normal.
|
| Smarter Cambridge transport has addressed many of the
| issues you raise in far more detail than I can in an off-
| topic comments thread: https://www.smartertransport.uk
|
| Notably this: https://www.smartertransport.uk/why-park-
| rides-are-a-waste-o... and this:
| https://www.smartertransport.uk/could-lollipop-bus-
| routing-b...
|
| Edited to add links and remove assertion I can't support.
| Silhouette wrote:
| _I can 't respond to your deepest comment, but the
| privilege is you can drive, which is distinctly not
| universal._
|
| It _is_ normal for the large proportion of the population
| who don 't live in densely populated urban centres served
| by adequate public transport, because for most people
| there simply isn't any viable alternative.
|
| And before anyone invokes the privilege argument again,
| consider that being able to afford a home in those
| densely populated areas with good public transport is
| also a privilege. In fact compared to owning a car it's a
| privilege that involves a couple of extra zeroes in a
| place like Cambridge or London.
|
| _Smarter Cambridge transport_
|
| is a defunct private advocacy group whose members have
| included prominent members of the local cycling campaign
| well known in the community for their borderline extreme
| views on transportation policy. That said, we should
| address the substance of the arguments and not who was
| making them.
|
| Take the piece about P&R. It's mostly consistent what
| I've already said above.
|
| It isn't cost-effective to run a comprehensive public
| transport system outside of densely populated urban areas
| and high traffic long distance routes. Public transport
| works because of economies of scale but there just aren't
| that many people in a place as small as Cambridge who
| want to make similar journeys at off-peak times. This is
| the fundamental qualitative difference between a few of
| our biggest cities and everywhere else in the country.
|
| Even so those P&R sites have capacity for thousands of
| cars every day that aren't then driving into the city
| centre. It takes a peculiar kind of mental gymnastics not
| to see that as a win.
|
| I can't find any other source for anything they're
| talking about with the costs, including the "Cambridge
| South East Transport Park & Ride proposal", which doesn't
| seem to be mentioned anywhere in the official description
| of that programme[1]. And note that the Cambourne route
| proposals they mention have been highly controversial for
| many reasons and haven't actually happened yet.
|
| The other piece suggesting alternative bus routes is a
| more reasonable proposal than most of the local bus
| advocacy and deserves credit for that. Unfortunately the
| traffic model mentioned isn't public but we do know from
| past public comments by those in the know that the model
| is inadequate and in particular it grossly underestimates
| some effects that cause dramatic increases in journey
| times for large numbers of road users. Without seeing
| real figures for how you put that many buses around the
| ring road without causing the usual mathematical problems
| with queueing in heavy traffic and making the whole
| system fall apart it's hard to know whether it's a useful
| proposal or not. Likewise it doesn't say how pedestrians
| and cycles would take advantage of the now-free road
| space inside the ring road if there's an effective
| barrier caused by a steady stream of buses on the ring
| road itself nor what would happen to all the cycle
| traffic that currently uses the ring road itself since it
| would obviously be far too dangerous to continue doing so
| with that many buses around.
|
| [1] https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk/public-transport-
| schemes...
| hgomersall wrote:
| Privilege bias is a bias that means you find it difficult
| to understand the position of those that are not in the
| privileged class. In this case, you think that as a
| driver the world should not be made more difficult for
| you, but you don't realise that making it more difficult
| for you makes it better for everyone that is not a
| driver.
|
| Cambridge has had very little impactful effort towards
| reducing car usage, hoping they can sidestep the
| difficult reality of having to reduce cars through a
| stick approach. Until that's done, there's no chance the
| buses will do much since as you don't quite point out,
| they're just stuck in the same traffic. They're still
| hoping to avoid reality by building special roads for
| buses and a few parking spaces outside the city.
|
| For sure cycling provision is substandard. You have no
| arguments from me there!
| Silhouette wrote:
| _Privilege bias is a bias that means you find it
| difficult to understand the position of those that are
| not in the privileged class._
|
| I've been a cyclist for a lot longer than I've been a
| driver and I've lived in or around Cambridge for a long
| time and been personally affected by everything we've
| been talking about from all perspectives.
|
| I am not "privileged" or unable to understand your
| position. I just don't agree with your conclusions for
| the reasons I've described in the comments above.
|
| _Cambridge has had very little impactful effort towards
| reducing car usage, hoping they can sidestep the
| difficult reality of having to reduce cars through a
| stick approach. Until that 's done, there's no chance the
| buses will do much since as you don't quite point out,
| they're just stuck in the same traffic. They're still
| hoping to avoid reality by building special roads for
| buses and a few parking spaces outside the city._
|
| It is unclear that a congestion charge would be effective
| in causing sustained modal shift in Cambridge, not least
| because it is unclear whether any council that voted for
| one would survive the following election. Prominent local
| councillors have been advocating more aggressive anti-car
| measures for years but so far despite the supportive
| rhetoric no council has passed them. Ask yourself why.
|
| It _is_ clear that buses can 't be the main solution to
| traffic problems in Cambridge. The council has spent a
| lot of money over the years on research that explained to
| them exactly why, which has mysteriously been largely
| ignored, perhaps because it didn't give the "right"
| answer. But if you know anything about the mathematics of
| traffic modelling you can quickly convince yourself. Just
| try to find any viable location near the city centre for
| a central bus hub that could accommodate a significant
| multiple of the current bus traffic levels without
| causing gridlock in the surrounding streets.
|
| Ironically the Park and Ride schemes that you casually
| dismissed have been one of the few clear successes in
| Cambridge transport in recent years, taking thousands of
| cars off the roads in the city centre.
|
| _For sure cycling provision is substandard. You have no
| arguments from me there!_
|
| I'm glad that we can agree on this. If the local
| authorities had spent a fraction of the money they've
| spent on pro-bus measures on pro-cycling measures
| instead, we might have been in a much better situation in
| this area today.
| tpm wrote:
| > The trouble with public transport advocacy is that it
| so often relies on the stick rather than the carrot as
| the main incentive.
|
| That's mostly because the carrot does not work. You can't
| really do much better than a private car. Once you are ok
| with driving, and very many people are, it is the most
| comfortable and individualized means of transport. So
| realistically, on one hand of course public transport
| must be good, but on the other hand it does not matter as
| much. People will still use cars whenever possible. You
| have to make it difficult, expensive and uncomfortable.
|
| On the point of small private mobility I fully agree with
| you. This seems to be the future, if only our politicians
| would understand that.
| ebiester wrote:
| If and only if you build the system around those cars. If
| there is no free parking and a parking lot is taxed like
| it is productive land, then parking is expensive.
|
| Cars are convenient because we have made the tax system
| cater to them. It makes for terrible cities for everyone
| not in a car at the moment.
| logifail wrote:
| > Once you are ok with driving, and very many people are,
| it is the most comfortable and individualized means of
| transport. So realistically, on one hand of course public
| transport must be good, but on the other hand it does not
| matter as much. People will still use cars whenever
| possible. You have to make it difficult, expensive and
| uncomfortable.
|
| I think you're missing one really key factor, and that is
| _time_. If the traffic is sufficiently bad, even an easy
| cheap comfortable car journey stops looking attractive,
| because it is _slow_.
|
| UK example: I've had the "pleasure" of driving right
| across central London; my start point was within sight of
| London City Airport, my destination was Heathrow Airport.
| The shortest route is more or less a staight-line journey
| of about 25 miles. You would be crazy to attempt to use
| that route that during working hours. It is often faster
| to head straight out of London, and drive a long looping
| route, a total of ~60 miles in length. It will save you
| at least 20 minutes driving time.
|
| European example: a couple of months ago I was in the
| Austrian border town of Kufstein and needed to get to
| Innsbruck. I hopped on a Railjet train, which made the
| journey in 35 minutes with very few stops (only one,
| IIRC). By car it would have taken at best 60 minutes,
| assuming no major traffic issues. Motorway speeds are
| limited to 100km/h in that part of Austria in an attempt
| to reduce air pollution.[0]
|
| [0] https://www.tirol.gv.at/en/environment/vehicle-
| prohibitions-...
| 7steps2much wrote:
| One stop at Worgl if i am not mistaken. Trains in Austria
| are pretty nice indeed, but of course only if you have a
| train available. If you first need to drive to the train
| station then more often than not the commuter trains
| aren't worth it time wise.
|
| If you catch one of the fast trains though then of course
| it is a different story.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| People will gladly share a metal tube if it's
| substantially faster or substantially cheaper than not.
| ghaff wrote:
| Assuming the metal tube runs on a moderately convenient
| schedule between convenient locations and that they'll
| not transporting things that they can't conveniently take
| on the metal tube.
|
| I was just reminded of this last week. I was going into
| the city about an hour away for a class but after
| thinking about it, I'd still have needed to drive to the
| train station and park, the train schedule was
| suboptimal, and I'd have had to carry some things
| associated with the class around with me all day. I do
| sometimes take the train in but although it's sometimes
| convenient, it's not a panacea (and doesn't work at all
| for going in for an evening event). It's also not cheap.
| brimble wrote:
| > You can't really do much better than a private car.
|
| I once read an analysis linked on HN, claiming that cars
| are only a personal net benefit if you're rich enough to
| pay for someone to drive you around, _or_ live in a city
| that 's not yet developed in a car-accommodating way and
| has low car ownership rates, and that the last personal
| transportation development that was _actually_ a strong
| net benefit was the bicycle.
|
| This is because car-centric city design pushes everything
| much farther apart (big front lawns so your house isn't
| too close to the nasty street; huge setbacks next to
| highways [look how damn wide those are next time you're
| on one!], the highways themselves, enormous interchanges,
| "green spaces" that aren't intended for people to be in
| but just to provide a buffer between people and roads,
| gigantic parking lots, et c), _plus_ cars are expensive,
| so by the time you factor in the extra travel distance
| _due to cars being widespread_ and the amount of time you
| spend working just to pay for your car (and gas, and
| maintenance, and a place to keep it) most people are
| _losing_ time, when the whole point was to _travel
| faster_.
|
| I thought that had to be overstating it. So I ran the
| numbers for myself. With conservative estimates for how
| much closer my house would be to the city if you took out
| all the car-created distance, with my own spending on
| cars being rather low, with my commute to the city center
| not being that long (20-25 minutes each way), _and_ with
| my income being nearly double the household median income
| in my city (so I need fewer hours working to pay for my
| car)--well, I 'll be damned, I _would_ save a little time
| in a hypothetical city that wasn 't designed around cars,
| but instead around bicycles and walking. Which means cars
| are a slam-dunk _loss_ for most people, if my numbers
| came out that way--they only seem like they 're saving
| you time if your city has already been messed up by car-
| centric design.
| bananapub wrote:
| > You can't really do much better than a private car.
|
| what does this mean? owning a private care in central-ish
| London is awful - traffic is slow, there's limited
| parking both at home and at your destination, they're
| mostly emitting loads of pollution. in most cases, public
| transport is cheaper and faster (or at least not much
| slower).
|
| where in London do you live that you think personal low
| occupancy cars are the "best" option?
| tpm wrote:
| I don't live in London anymore, but I think you agree
| with me - people in central London don't own/use cars
| because it is inconvenient.
| Silhouette wrote:
| _You can 't really do much better than a private car._
|
| There are all kinds of things that _might_ be better than
| a private car. The point I 'm trying to make here is that
| most of them require radically more commitment (= money +
| political capital, usually) than those in power and those
| who vote for them are willing to give at present. Bashing
| car drivers is the "something must be done and this is
| something so we're doing it" approach. It gets you
| popular points with your base. Unfortunately as we've
| seen for many years now it doesn't actually work without
| providing decent alternatives as well.
|
| _People will still use cars whenever possible. You have
| to make it difficult, expensive and uncomfortable._
|
| Obviously I don't accept that premise. There are also
| inherently inconvenient things about a lot of car
| journeys and about owning and maintaining the car itself
| so to an extent it provides the deterrent effect you've
| been talking about automatically without any artificial
| "stick". Public transport doesn't have many of those
| downsides. Some alternative methods of private transport
| don't either. But you need local transport to be
| frequent, reliable, cheap and comfortable, and you need
| long distance transport to be all of those things plus
| easily reachable by local transport.
| petercooper wrote:
| _I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be
| higher._
|
| Economically, I agree, but in practice, I think it misses a
| point. I go to London once every year or three. So I can
| justify spending a lot more for a single day's convenience
| than, say, someone who goes a few times a month. As a rare
| visitor, I contribute less to London's congestion and
| problems, but on the other, I contribute less to its
| economy too, so is raising the congestion charge fair?
|
| All that said, this conversation has encouraged me to at
| least try some other options and broaden my approach, so I
| might park at Ebbsfleet and get HS1 in (19 minutes). It
| costs PS19.10 each way though and about PS25 for the
| parking, but I'm up PS30 in congestion charges and painful
| traffic..
|
| _encouraging more cars into the center is explicitly an
| anti-goal, so not sure why you wish these projects had been
| built?_
|
| I'm too young to have been around when they worked on the
| project, but my personal preferences are oriented around
| different goals than they had. I would be quite happy with
| a Angelesation of London, but I'm one of those weirdos who
| likes Milton Keynes as well..
| pmyteh wrote:
| You might be able to do better than PS19.10 each way,
| depending on what time you're travelling. An unlimited
| all-day travelcard from Ebbsfleet to London[0], including
| tube/bus/train in zones 1-6 is only PS24.40 off-peak (no
| arrival before 10am Mon-Fri). It's PS45.00 peak, though.
|
| [0]: https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=EBD&dest=1072
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Not quite sure what you mean by "Angelesation", but if it
| is a reference to Los Angeles, that was never going to
| happen. The reasons the projects described in TFA didn't
| happen was reflective of a city that has been in that
| location for centuries. Nobody was ever going to convert
| London into anything remotely like LA.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| London's economy is doing better than the rest of the UK
| even with the charge that it's worth taking the hit
| rather than paying for all the health and pollution
| externalities of one additional marginal car, which is
| more than just the fuel burned.
| gadders wrote:
| The thing with raising congestion charges, higher taxes on
| airfares etc is that you then limit these options to the
| financially well off, which doesn't seem very progressive.
| rexpress wrote:
| It certainly seems progressive to me. Charging private
| vehicles to access the roads reduces demand, which allows
| other modes such as buses, trams and bikes to move more
| people more quickly.
|
| I don't see what's progressive about letting private cars
| clog the roads up and slowing down London's vast and
| comprehensive bus network.
| cjrp wrote:
| I guess the point is that it's not related to the
| person's income. For someone on minimum wage, the PS15
| congestion charge prevents them using the car. For a
| high-earned, it's just a fee to pay as you continue to
| drive in London.
| rexpress wrote:
| But food at the supermarket, clothes, even water from the
| tap are all priced without regard to individual income.
| Why would road usage be any different?
|
| The wealthy are always able to buy the nicest things, and
| addressing income inequality is a very valid goal. But
| what realistic alternative is there to the price
| mechanism that still allows for a level of individual
| choice, and permits vehicle journeys that are
| economically necessary (e.g. tradespeople) while
| discouraging car journeys that could me made by other
| means.
|
| As for the minimum wage earner, they are the least likely
| to be able to afford to keep a car. The current roads
| free-for-all means their bus journeys are far slower due
| to the traffic, and more expensive due to the larger
| number of buses required to maintain frequency on
| congested roads.
|
| A possible solution to reduce inequality from road
| charging while still maintaining the benefits of the
| price mechanism would be to return the proceeds (after
| maintenance costs) to the residents of the city in the
| form of transport credits. These credits would be able to
| be spent on road access, public transport, or cycling as
| the individual preferred.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I don't really agree with the original premise, but I
| would point out that:
|
| > The wealthy are always able to buy the nicest things,
|
| the problem is that there is no product differentiation
| when it comes to road usage. You're either on it and
| paying the same fee, or you're not.
|
| It's not like food, clothes, housing where you might be
| paying a lot for these things, or you might be paying
| less. We price specific items of food without regard to
| income, but there's a wide variety of items of food to
| choose from, at different price levels.
|
| Not so with a lot of transportation.
| rexpress wrote:
| The local water company does not provide deluxe or budget
| versions, water is water. The same applies to gas and
| electricity. All are major household expenses.
|
| In the context of a large city, there certainly is
| differentiation in transport. You can grab a large amount
| of the scarce road space for yourself with a car (even
| more if you park on-street) or taxi, or you can take a
| smaller share of it by getting on a bus, bike or tram.
| 7952 wrote:
| And people who can afford it just feel a sense of
| entitlement because they have purchased something. And it
| is a resource we all own and have already paid for. We
| should have a basic right to access that resource. The
| problem is when people take more than their fair share.
| In the centre of London that could be driving 1 mile a
| day. We should give a free tier and then ramp up prices
| exponentially after that. The more you use the resource
| the more it costs per mile.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Car ownership itself is an indication of wealth.
|
| Even in the US, where car ownership is practically
| mandatory and broad taxes or fees on driving are
| significantly lower, owning a car is associated with
| higher incomes because the base cost is still several
| thousand a year in insurance, gas, etc. so if you tax it
| you are already hitting wealthier people.
| [deleted]
| cameronh90 wrote:
| If LA is anything to go by, building these large elevated
| highways wouldn't have fixed anything. Tokyo does have a lot
| of elevated highways, admittedly, and that has a certain
| aesthetic appeal there, but it's a very different place. If
| the elevated highways in London had ended up anything like
| the Westway, it would have been awful.
|
| I do agree that we could do with more Park and Rides though.
| In the past, I've parked at the O2 because there's always
| space in the day, then took the Jubilee line in.
| pm215 wrote:
| Some of Tokyo's elevated highways are an aesthetic
| disaster; the one that goes very low over the Nihonbashi
| bridge is the classic example. On the bright side they are
| finally planning to move that particular expressway
| underground...
|
| https://theolympians.co/2017/07/25/nihonbashi-uncovered-
| the-...
| Majings wrote:
| Out of interest, why do you wish that it had happened? As far
| as I'm concerned, the idea of making London more car-friendly
| is directly at odds with anything that would actually improve
| the city itself.
|
| > solved with several large car parks next to fast mass
| transit
|
| I don't disagree with this concept, but your suggestions are
| still surprisingly far in to London. Why do they need to be
| inside the M25 at all?
| petercooper wrote:
| _Out of interest, why do you wish that it had happened?_
|
| I like roads. I like motorways. I've always enjoyed being
| in LA. Just a personal preference. I am under no illusions
| that it would have actually worked in London, but I have a
| Ballardian sense of "what if" to major infrastructure
| projects. I never expect anyone to agree with me.
|
| _your suggestions are still surprisingly far in to London.
| Why do they need to be inside the M25 at all?_
|
| They don't. Ebbsfleet, being on HS1, is a reasonable
| example of a park and ride option outside the M25, although
| it's amazingly expensive to park there for what used to all
| be fields when I was a kid..
|
| The problem is lack of infrastructure. We can't just slap 4
| or 5 Ebbsfleets outside the M25 because there are few
| reasonable ways to offer a 20-30 minute journey into
| central London from them at this point. But this is my
| point. If they'd conceded we'd need this sort of thing when
| they ditched the ringways project 40+ years ago, we could
| have had something in place well before now. Where can you
| park and ride from, say, the top third of the M25?
| Stevenage is probably your only reasonable bet.. especially
| as even Cockfosters is a cramped 40 minute tube ride to St.
| Pancras.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Why does it need to be a 20-30 minute journey? It would
| take a lot longer than that to drive that distance.
| petercooper wrote:
| There needs to be a quid pro quo for the inconvenience
| and 20-30 minutes feels like a reasonable amount of time
| to get from the outskirts to the centre of a large city.
| If public transport took the same amount of time, or
| more, as driving, there is less motivation for a driver
| to use it unless you can price them out of driving.
|
| (Indeed, that is the problem in my local area since the
| nearest town is an hour on the bus, versus a 25 minute
| drive, so services keep getting cut.. so less people
| ride.. etc. etc.)
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Wouldn't there need to be more large car parks in the
| middle of the city if it were more car friendly.
|
| Think car ideology pollutes peoples minds sometimes that
| they can't see how utterly stupid it is to build cities
| around cars [1]
|
| [1]: usa.streetsblog.org/wp-
| content/uploads/sites/5/2013/03/Picture-112.png
| kmlx wrote:
| > car-friendly is directly at odds with anything that would
| actually improve the city
|
| this is because our solutions to car-friendly cities
| usually mean tearing down neighbourhoods, more pollution
| etc. there are solutions that please both sides of the
| table, but they usually involve huge costs. and in the
| current climate of litigating everything combined with
| political polarisation and the very nature of democracy,
| they're usually a non-starter.
| Majings wrote:
| > There are solutions that please both sides of the table
|
| I'd love to hear about some of these. As someone who sits
| firmly on one side of the table (live in central London,
| don't own a car etc.) my default position is to reject
| anything which encourages the use of private motor
| vehicles in the city, so I definitely think I should try
| to hear the other side!
| emsixteen wrote:
| Highly recommend Not Just Bikes and Practical Engineering
| channels on YouTube. You'd be hard pressed not to realise
| that wishing they'd happened was a mistake.
| twelvechairs wrote:
| You have the easy choice which is catch the train in.
| petercooper wrote:
| Then we have a repeat performance of everything I said
| before but merely in a different town. Even in towns as far
| flung as Peterborough, Reading or Oxford there are numerous
| issues with accessing and parking at the stations.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| Honestly, driving in London is slow and annoying, and it's
| hard to find parking, particularly in the center.
|
| You're much better off using public transport within London,
| or just walking (I've seen people take tube rides one or two
| stops that are quicker to just walk in the center).
|
| I don't even own a car in London anymore, I just hire them
| when I need to get away somewhere that needs one.
| barrkel wrote:
| Scooters are IMO the best way to get around London if your
| common destinations are not well connected to the Tube.
| Cycling isn't too bad but it can be a tad intimidating.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Buses are also a good option. It used to be a nightmare
| to work out which bus(es) to catch, but with modern
| mapping apps it's easy.
| kmlx wrote:
| > and it's hard to find parking, particularly in the center
|
| not sure about this. i always find parking in the center of
| London.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| Addendum: the CityMapper app is excellent for getting
| around London.
| petercooper wrote:
| You're absolutely right once you're _there_. I 'm talking
| about actually getting there as someone who lives 100+
| miles away. The UK needs better options for switching from
| the required car to some high speed option for the final 30
| minutes of the journey. Even LA offers this with its Metro
| stops..
| multjoy wrote:
| There are plenty of train stations 30 minutes out from
| London. You can go as far north as Letchworth Garden
| City, west as Reading, south west as Woking and so on.
| robotresearcher wrote:
| There's a shortage of convenient parking at these outlier
| stations, because most were built in the center of towns
| long ago without parking in mind. Woking station was
| built in 1838.
| zip1234 wrote:
| There are absolutely great rail links to London. From
| nearly every direction. Drive your car to one of those
| places, buy a travelcard and you're all set.
| 7952 wrote:
| There are options like Bristol/Didcot/Oxford parkway that
| do exactly that. Some of the lines are very slow though
| and need a lot of modernisation to give quick access. I
| wonder if some of this could be solved one day using
| small electric regional airlines that could land within
| the M25 and fly from small town airfields with parking.
| petercooper wrote:
| I believe such a thing happened a fair bit with Newquay
| until COVID caused services to cease. I live quite near a
| small airport that flies to Amsterdam. I can actually be
| in central Amsterdam quicker than London door to door and
| it's an appealing approach, but the CO2 situation is not
| so nice.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| The actual move is just to park on the street for free near a
| random outer tube station.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Just get a train why do you need the car?
| petercooper wrote:
| I'm an unusual case, but I live in one of the least
| accessible parts of the country with extremely poor
| transport links (even by road). It is, of course, totally
| possible to drive to other cities to then get the train,
| but then you have the same problems just in a different
| city (since amazingly few have particularly good parking +
| mass transit arrangements).
|
| Beyond that, once you're in the car and trundling along,
| switching transport modes isn't particularly appetising,
| particularly when trains are so costly if not booked in
| advance and you have zero idea if you'll even get a seat.
| Yes, I've stood for two hours on a train out of London. No,
| it's actually not more fun than sitting in two hours of
| traffic.
| jen20 wrote:
| If you failed to pre book a month in advance, it used to
| cost over PS150 for a return trip to London from Bath
| which got you in before normal business hours, and you
| very often did not get a seat for that (making it
| impossible to spend the time productively, one of the key
| benefits of train travel). If you have three colleagues
| travelling together for a meeting, driving or even taking
| a car service is invariably cheaper.
| kmlx wrote:
| the weather and personal comfort are probably the top two
| reasons. and recently the threat of getting covid is
| probably another serious reason.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| The weather? What's that got to do with trains?
| 867-5309 wrote:
| not living in the station?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Unless you live somewhere with a garage that you can get
| to without going outside, then I don't really see the
| difference with a car that you also have to walk to
| first.
|
| But even if not, are you made of sugar or something? Why
| can't you handle any weather?
|
| (Short of disabled people, but that's not what this
| discussion is about.)
| 867-5309 wrote:
| the distance can be hundreds of times the journey!
|
| a criterion for property selection is nearest public
| transport
|
| even if you aren't made of sugar, you're not going to
| have much fun being drenched on public transport
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > the distance can be hundreds of times the journey!
|
| You'd walk 100km to take a 1km train journey?
|
| How far is it even possible to live in London from a
| train station or bus stop?
| 867-5309 wrote:
| distance to car from house = 6 metres, distance to
| nearest train = 600 metres
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Don't get why one was a 'distance' and the other a
| 'journey'?
|
| But either way - wow a whole 600m! What a hardship just
| to have clean air and a future for your children!
| 867-5309 wrote:
| maybe because it's the same thing in this context
|
| they are hypothetical numbers, the point being walking in
| bad weather is a strong argument for not using public
| transport
|
| I don't care what other people do as much as you seem to,
| save the planet and all that, woo. if you want clean air
| move to a village on the coast. if you want to be kind to
| your children, raise them there
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Don't go to london then if you're scared of that. No one
| is social distancing in London.
| tomcart wrote:
| Crossrail will eventually (hopefully this year now) make it
| trivial for you to catch a fast, direct train from
| shenfield/romford to Bond Street - even today this is a
| straightforward journey with a change at stratford tbh.
| pjc50 wrote:
| See also Glasgow, where the megaproject did happen and the
| American-style M8 terminates directly in the center of the
| city. It's never quite caught up with good public transport
| options. I'd suggest trams if the massive cost and time
| overruns of the Edinburgh scheme hadn't put me off.
|
| (There _is_ a subway in Glasgow, but due to tunneling
| difficulties and its age the trains are unusually small. It
| feels like a 2/3 scale model of the London Underground)
| beardyw wrote:
| I have distant memories of an on ramp coming down on the
| right hand / fast lane side. Am I right?
| ilikejam wrote:
| Yep. Charing Cross exit, J18 is on the right side.
| choeger wrote:
| You're celebrating the fact that people _don 't own_ something
| that they probably (judging by looking at other people) would
| find _quite useful_. Many, many people pay a lot of money every
| month to own their own private mode of transportation. So are
| these 46% really voluntarily abstaining or are they forced into
| abstinence?
|
| I know that many, especially young, childless, people think
| they don't need a car. I know several such people that happily
| pay (and can afford to) quite a steep price for leaving their
| city, either by train, plane, or rental car. But they're not
| typical, I'd say.
|
| In my case, our family car is moved only very little, say
| 10000km/a. There are some use cases where a rental car or train
| tickets just don't cut it - we would pay double the price and
| still have longer travel and additional complications (mental
| load is a real thing for parents).
|
| Obviously, I am not driving through the city if I can avoid it.
| But every now and then I want to leave it/return to it. I
| consider ownership the best option here and I gladly pay for
| the parking space.
|
| So in conclusion, I think that every city should make it
| trivial to rent a parking space in some garage. People that
| don't own cars might benefit from such additional storage space
| as well. I also don't think it should be more expensive than
| renting a very simple apartment. But instead, cities try to
| cram more and more people with less and less space into the
| same buildings.
|
| And I would not be surprised if these road projects were
| designed with a much smaller and less densely populated city in
| mind.
| calcifer wrote:
| > There are some use cases where a rental car or train
| tickets just don't cut it
|
| I get trains, but what are some of these car-requiring
| scenarios where a rental won't cut it?
| mbirth wrote:
| E.g. pets. Most rental companies don't allow pets in their
| cars.
|
| And there might also be situations where the next rental
| company is far away and you'd spend a lot of time going
| there. Depending on how often you need a car, having your
| own in front of your house might be the better choice.
|
| Same for long holidays where the rent for a car can easily
| be a big chunk of your holiday budget even if you only need
| it for a few days during your trip.
| klelatti wrote:
| This argument doesn't take account of the impact on others of
| the thing that stays in your garage most of the time. The
| environmental impact of manufacturing it, of creating
| infrastructure to carry it etc.
|
| We should absolutely celebrate lower car ownership in cities
| and work towards making it a viable option for more people.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > In my case, our family car is moved only very little, say
| 10000km/a. There are some use cases where a rental car or
| train tickets just don't cut it - we would pay double the
| price
|
| Have you actually done full lifetime cost analysis of the
| owned car vs. a rental car under this scenario?
|
| The outcome can depend on a number of things, notably how
| much you pay for your own car initially. It's also obviously
| somewhat subjective how you price the inconvenience of
| picking up/dropping off the rental car.
|
| When I did this in Philadelphia in the mid-90s as
| neighborhood car shares started to become a thing (briefly,
| sadly), my conclusion was that since we already owned
| (outright) a small, useful vehicle at that point, it made
| more sense to continue doing so, but that if we were about to
| buy a more expensive replacement vehicle, the car share made
| more financial sense. This was with a child, btw.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-22 23:01 UTC)