Birmingham Transport Plan, remove parking spaces
Discussion
grumbledoak said:
Type R Tom said:
Everybody else? 80% of people visit Stratford via sustainable methods; you are in the minority.
What are you classing as "sustainable" ? I doubt 80% are walking in from all those "future human settlement" style residential blocks around there.MrBig said:
Type R Tom said:
grumbledoak said:
Killboy said:
One would have thought the planners looked at the cautionary tale that is London's West End and famous shopping streets now crippled by lack of parking and exorbitant charges before deciding on a similar fate.
They probably won't. Ideology and ego blinds them. As ex-market towns up and down the country can attest.I'm in London. I don't go shopping on Oxford Street. If I actually want to go shopping I drive to one of the Westfields and park. Like everyone else.
What will it take to make the grey men accept reality? Don't know. Past experience doesn't seem to work.
Type R Tom said:
Walking, cycling, public transport. Pretty standard definition, generally anything but private car
There is nothing particularly sustainable about public transport. It requires construction, maintenance, and energy to run just like private cars. All that differs is who owns it. It is a rigged definition to push the result that the state wants.What percentage get to these places on foot, skateboard, scooter, or cycling?
defblade said:
You need a bike: pedal, e-, or motor-
Ebike is likely the simplest/cheapest answer (conversion kits for a bike you already have cheaper than buying new), and you'll roll in sweat-free at an assisted 15mph, so about half an hour's ride. Quicker if you'd like to sweat
I’ve just pulled up at Millennium Point car park now. It’s almost completely full, so plenty of people still driving into the city.Ebike is likely the simplest/cheapest answer (conversion kits for a bike you already have cheaper than buying new), and you'll roll in sweat-free at an assisted 15mph, so about half an hour's ride. Quicker if you'd like to sweat
That 8 mile journey once again has taken me 1:30!
I’ve thought about an hour e-bike, but transporting our larger inspection drone means you need a vehicle like have right now just to fit it in the back!
Here’s the full car park at Millennium point right now.
nigelpugh7 said:
defblade said:
You need a bike: pedal, e-, or motor-
Ebike is likely the simplest/cheapest answer (conversion kits for a bike you already have cheaper than buying new), and you'll roll in sweat-free at an assisted 15mph, so about half an hour's ride. Quicker if you'd like to sweat
I’ve just pulled up at Millennium Point car park now. It’s almost completely full, so plenty of people still driving into the city.Ebike is likely the simplest/cheapest answer (conversion kits for a bike you already have cheaper than buying new), and you'll roll in sweat-free at an assisted 15mph, so about half an hour's ride. Quicker if you'd like to sweat
That 8 mile journey once again has taken me 1:30!
I’ve thought about an hour e-bike, but transporting our larger inspection drone means you need a vehicle like have right now just to fit it in the back!
Here’s the full car park at Millennium point right now.
OTOH, it's raining heavily and blowing hard here today, and to an extent, I think I'd take 90 mins listening to the radio in the warm and dry...
Interesting thread.
I live in Leeds although I don’t work in the city.
I’ve lived here since 2008 and I’ve seen huge changes in my time, it’s clear they want to push motorists out but as all the car parks are not in council hands they will struggle to remove any.
It’s clear to me the amount of people living in the very centre or 5 mins walk from the centre has shot up all in apartment accommodation that number looks only likely to increase so I guess they will support the city business in a big way.
If it was made difficult to come to the city centre I wouldn’t be sat in a city centre cafe now having breakfast, I made an impulse decision this morning to visit the centre for a wander around and probably do some shopping but if I had to use public transport I wouldn’t have bothered. I live just off a bus route and get free bus travel but the service is so unreliable I don’t bother, times I’ve had to rely on it and busses haven’t turned up and instead I’ve had to pay for Uber is frustrating to say the least
I live in Leeds although I don’t work in the city.
I’ve lived here since 2008 and I’ve seen huge changes in my time, it’s clear they want to push motorists out but as all the car parks are not in council hands they will struggle to remove any.
It’s clear to me the amount of people living in the very centre or 5 mins walk from the centre has shot up all in apartment accommodation that number looks only likely to increase so I guess they will support the city business in a big way.
If it was made difficult to come to the city centre I wouldn’t be sat in a city centre cafe now having breakfast, I made an impulse decision this morning to visit the centre for a wander around and probably do some shopping but if I had to use public transport I wouldn’t have bothered. I live just off a bus route and get free bus travel but the service is so unreliable I don’t bother, times I’ve had to rely on it and busses haven’t turned up and instead I’ve had to pay for Uber is frustrating to say the least
grumbledoak said:
There is nothing particularly sustainable about public transport. It requires construction, maintenance, and energy to run just like private cars. All that differs is who owns it. It is a rigged definition to push the result that the state wants.
What percentage get to these places on foot, skateboard, scooter, or cycling?
You would think that public transport runs on fairy dust. What percentage get to these places on foot, skateboard, scooter, or cycling?
In reality passengers travelling by bus likely have a lower co2 per mile, on average, than those travelling by car, but that is an average and someone driving a fuel efficient city car may well have less co2 per mile than a passenger on a mostly empty bus.
It is more of an attitude that private freedom is an evil that should be curtailed.
JagLover said:
You would think that public transport runs on fairy dust.
In reality passengers travelling by bus likely have a lower co2 per mile, on average, than those travelling by car, but that is an average and someone driving a fuel efficient city car may well have less co2 per mile than a passenger on a mostly empty bus.
It is more of an attitude that private freedom is an evil that should be curtailed.
But it's not a war on private transport, no no no. In reality passengers travelling by bus likely have a lower co2 per mile, on average, than those travelling by car, but that is an average and someone driving a fuel efficient city car may well have less co2 per mile than a passenger on a mostly empty bus.
It is more of an attitude that private freedom is an evil that should be curtailed.
And it's pure coincidence that the state's environmental statistics will lead to everyone depending on state owned transport that we all pay for and then have to hope and pray it even arrives.
We rant a fair bit in PH about the national policies regarding cars but in reality these are progressive. In total contrast are the regional anti car policies of devolved powers. Such devolved powers are all too often fiscally incompetent and highly prejudiced while running the default setting of it all being someone else's fault. They are childlike in their actions and thoughts.
More worryingly is the aspect that under the next Westminster government they are collectively going to take control.
The uncomfortable reality is that the car is essential and integral to a thriving community and policies to ban them are simply third world extremism from parochial minds.
On the other side, unfettered use of cars, weak alternatives and excessive vehicle size are equally bad for an urban community.
The solution, as it always is, is to not tollerate extremists but to work in the middle ground and to devise policy that is sensible, prudent, beneficial and most importantly does not impinge on the economic mobility of the least well off.
Such a policy would need to accept that cars are essential but to progressively steer users via a top down approach into not just much smaller cars but their less frequent use.
All urban transport pollution studies since the 70s have shown that it is the size and frequency of use of private motor vehicles that are the root drivers of congestion, pollution and lost economic activity.
The smaller the vehicles the greater the space available for alternate transport expansion, the higher the traffic flow rates, the lower the pollution, the safer the roads and the higher the economic generation as a result.
A very simple and beneficial policy would be to favour it via local taxation the use of the smallest private vehicles while not favouring the use of the largest. The argument being that excessive vehicle size is a waste but also a function of individuals with the economic means to easily change.
In an extreme case you could simply prohibit cars greater than a certain width and length from operating within the area, charge vehicles below those sizes but above a minimum a sufficient amount to discourage their use but not inhibit and absolve the smallest vehicles completely.
But parochial governments do not by their nature function on practicality but instead by extremism, prejudices and lower levels of intelligence, education and ability of those individuals able to reach the higher levels of authority.
More worryingly is the aspect that under the next Westminster government they are collectively going to take control.
The uncomfortable reality is that the car is essential and integral to a thriving community and policies to ban them are simply third world extremism from parochial minds.
On the other side, unfettered use of cars, weak alternatives and excessive vehicle size are equally bad for an urban community.
The solution, as it always is, is to not tollerate extremists but to work in the middle ground and to devise policy that is sensible, prudent, beneficial and most importantly does not impinge on the economic mobility of the least well off.
Such a policy would need to accept that cars are essential but to progressively steer users via a top down approach into not just much smaller cars but their less frequent use.
All urban transport pollution studies since the 70s have shown that it is the size and frequency of use of private motor vehicles that are the root drivers of congestion, pollution and lost economic activity.
The smaller the vehicles the greater the space available for alternate transport expansion, the higher the traffic flow rates, the lower the pollution, the safer the roads and the higher the economic generation as a result.
A very simple and beneficial policy would be to favour it via local taxation the use of the smallest private vehicles while not favouring the use of the largest. The argument being that excessive vehicle size is a waste but also a function of individuals with the economic means to easily change.
In an extreme case you could simply prohibit cars greater than a certain width and length from operating within the area, charge vehicles below those sizes but above a minimum a sufficient amount to discourage their use but not inhibit and absolve the smallest vehicles completely.
But parochial governments do not by their nature function on practicality but instead by extremism, prejudices and lower levels of intelligence, education and ability of those individuals able to reach the higher levels of authority.
grumbledoak said:
JagLover said:
You would think that public transport runs on fairy dust.
In reality passengers travelling by bus likely have a lower co2 per mile, on average, than those travelling by car, but that is an average and someone driving a fuel efficient city car may well have less co2 per mile than a passenger on a mostly empty bus.
It is more of an attitude that private freedom is an evil that should be curtailed.
But it's not a war on private transport, no no no. In reality passengers travelling by bus likely have a lower co2 per mile, on average, than those travelling by car, but that is an average and someone driving a fuel efficient city car may well have less co2 per mile than a passenger on a mostly empty bus.
It is more of an attitude that private freedom is an evil that should be curtailed.
And it's pure coincidence that the state's environmental statistics will lead to everyone depending on state owned transport that we all pay for and then have to hope and pray it even arrives.
It’s nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with a small number of entitled people thinking that they should be the most important, as evidenced by the previous comments on travelling to shopping centres in London.
nigelpugh7 said:
I’ve just pulled up at Millennium Point car park now. It’s almost completely full, so plenty of people still driving into the city.
That 8 mile journey once again has taken me 1:30!
I’ve thought about an hour e-bike, but transporting our larger inspection drone means you need a vehicle like have right now just to fit it in the back!
Here’s the full car park at Millennium point right now.
I visited B’ham for a concert just before Christmas. Booked a secure reserved parking spot via JustPark within 5 mins walk of the venue and it cost less than the mulitstory nearby. This type of app is my goto now for city centre parking, excluding London. That 8 mile journey once again has taken me 1:30!
I’ve thought about an hour e-bike, but transporting our larger inspection drone means you need a vehicle like have right now just to fit it in the back!
Here’s the full car park at Millennium point right now.
grumbledoak said:
Killboy said:
One would have thought the planners looked at the cautionary tale that is London's West End and famous shopping streets now crippled by lack of parking and exorbitant charges before deciding on a similar fate.
They probably won't. Ideology and ego blinds them. As ex-market towns up and down the country can attest.I'm in London. I don't go shopping on Oxford Street. If I actually want to go shopping I drive to one of the Westfields and park. Like everyone else.
What will it take to make the grey men accept reality? Don't know. Past experience doesn't seem to work.
Evercross said:
alangla said:
Glasgow is now a ghost town during the day thanks to this sort of s
t, but the shopping centres and retail parks on the edges are insanely busy. Be careful what you wish for.
This, plus Glasgow is about to declare itself insolvent.t, but the shopping centres and retail parks on the edges are insanely busy. Be careful what you wish for.Anyone see a pattern here?
Walking from Queen Street to Trongate was eye opening. Never seen so many empty units before, place is really suffering.
Phil. said:
I visited B’ham for a concert just before Christmas. Booked a secure reserved parking spot via JustPark within 5 mins walk of the venue and it cost less than the mulitstory nearby. This type of app is my goto now for city centre parking, excluding London.
I've used JustPark for years in London. Even more so now I don't live there. It's very handy for just dumping the car on a nice driveway a few minutes walk from a tube station that ferries you to your exact desired location. And as London traffic becomes slower I've found I've just migrated slowly to drive ways further out. This year iyall be mostly parking by Brent Cross station. But it might not be long before Rickmansworth will become my default tube station!DonkeyApple said:
We rant a fair bit in PH about the national policies regarding cars but in reality these are progressive. In total contrast are the regional anti car policies of devolved powers. Such devolved powers are all too often fiscally incompetent and highly prejudiced while running the default setting of it all being someone else's fault. They are childlike in their actions and thoughts.
More worryingly is the aspect that under the next Westminster government they are collectively going to take control.
The uncomfortable reality is that the car is essential and integral to a thriving community and policies to ban them are simply third world extremism from parochial minds.
On the other side, unfettered use of cars, weak alternatives and excessive vehicle size are equally bad for an urban community.
The solution, as it always is, is to not tollerate extremists but to work in the middle ground and to devise policy that is sensible, prudent, beneficial and most importantly does not impinge on the economic mobility of the least well off.
Such a policy would need to accept that cars are essential but to progressively steer users via a top down approach into not just much smaller cars but their less frequent use.
All urban transport pollution studies since the 70s have shown that it is the size and frequency of use of private motor vehicles that are the root drivers of congestion, pollution and lost economic activity.
The smaller the vehicles the greater the space available for alternate transport expansion, the higher the traffic flow rates, the lower the pollution, the safer the roads and the higher the economic generation as a result.
A very simple and beneficial policy would be to favour it via local taxation the use of the smallest private vehicles while not favouring the use of the largest. The argument being that excessive vehicle size is a waste but also a function of individuals with the economic means to easily change.
In an extreme case you could simply prohibit cars greater than a certain width and length from operating within the area, charge vehicles below those sizes but above a minimum a sufficient amount to discourage their use but not inhibit and absolve the smallest vehicles completely.
But parochial governments do not by their nature function on practicality but instead by extremism, prejudices and lower levels of intelligence, education and ability of those individuals able to reach the higher levels of authority.
I find myself nodding in agreeement. Also Japan and the Kei car.More worryingly is the aspect that under the next Westminster government they are collectively going to take control.
The uncomfortable reality is that the car is essential and integral to a thriving community and policies to ban them are simply third world extremism from parochial minds.
On the other side, unfettered use of cars, weak alternatives and excessive vehicle size are equally bad for an urban community.
The solution, as it always is, is to not tollerate extremists but to work in the middle ground and to devise policy that is sensible, prudent, beneficial and most importantly does not impinge on the economic mobility of the least well off.
Such a policy would need to accept that cars are essential but to progressively steer users via a top down approach into not just much smaller cars but their less frequent use.
All urban transport pollution studies since the 70s have shown that it is the size and frequency of use of private motor vehicles that are the root drivers of congestion, pollution and lost economic activity.
The smaller the vehicles the greater the space available for alternate transport expansion, the higher the traffic flow rates, the lower the pollution, the safer the roads and the higher the economic generation as a result.
A very simple and beneficial policy would be to favour it via local taxation the use of the smallest private vehicles while not favouring the use of the largest. The argument being that excessive vehicle size is a waste but also a function of individuals with the economic means to easily change.
In an extreme case you could simply prohibit cars greater than a certain width and length from operating within the area, charge vehicles below those sizes but above a minimum a sufficient amount to discourage their use but not inhibit and absolve the smallest vehicles completely.
But parochial governments do not by their nature function on practicality but instead by extremism, prejudices and lower levels of intelligence, education and ability of those individuals able to reach the higher levels of authority.
One of the main benefits of public transport over cars is the road space aspect. Every urban area is now blighted by the sheer number of vehicles dumped along our transport infrastructure. Every journey into the town centre will see me delayed, waiting for oncoming vehicles to pass parked cars.
gazza285 said:
One of the main benefits of public transport over cars is the road space aspect. Every urban area is now blighted by the sheer number of vehicles dumped along our transport infrastructure. Every journey into the town centre will see me delayed, waiting for oncoming vehicles to pass parked cars.
How are they delaying you if you're on public transport? gazza285 said:
One of the main benefits of public transport over cars is the road space aspect. Every urban area is now blighted by the sheer number of vehicles dumped along our transport infrastructure. Every journey into the town centre will see me delayed, waiting for oncoming vehicles to pass parked cars.
Damn straight! Here in London the busses just pass through the busses waiting at the bus stops. They don't cause any congestion at all. It's like magic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff