Traffic Management: politics & ideology defeat logic. News?!

[turbobloke]

From a report in the latest LTT...the Institute of Economic Affairs has reported that thousands of traffic signals, bus lanes, cycle lanes, speed cameras and parking restrictions provide benefits that are negligible or non-existent, while costs are substantial. As a result they should be removed from Britain’s roads.

In their report Martin Cassini and IEA research director Richard Wellings said:

There is a risk that policy prescription and funding (mechanisms) incentivise transport authorities to expand such measures beyond reason. The fact that TfL implements such poor value schemes suggests that politics and ideology override economic logic.

In addition to removing traffic signals, they want a cull of bus and cycle lanes “where efficiency or safety benefits are too insubstantial to justify their consumption of road space”. The authors also suggest phasing out government grants to councils for traffic management schemes.

If only.

[turbobloke]

There's a large and complex junction in Gloucester which flows far better when the lights fail - can't recall a shunt due to the lights going out either.

It's a pity that more didn't come of this:

www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8404278/Traffic-...

[turbobloke]

Our local council is making noises about free car parking from 6pm to support local businesses with late opening, at the moment just about everywhere is pay-to-park up to 8pm. Clearly they know the harm to the local economy that their current policy represents, not least by the number of empty retail units. Scale this up nationally and the harm is significant, predicated on nothing but anti-car ideology. It's useless as a strategy for improving journey times as parking fees increase congestion because motorist who make the journey anyway then circulate looking for a rare free parking space in a decreasing number of locations. Park and ride is used but can't handle the numbers or the people who want to park nearby while they shop because it's obvious to do so or necessary due to the purchases involved. We need a new generation of traffic managers which isn't already brainwashed, but as per the OP 'if only'.

[turbobloke]

Type R Tom said:

The problem is the average trip length in this country is 7 miles, easily a distance that could be completed by another means be it public transport or cycling. Now before everyone starts with “I live in the country side I must drive” or “I’ve hurt my back and can’t cycle” etc. etc. etc. it’s obvious that using other methods isn't suitable for everyone but I think if a lot of people took a long honest look at themselves they could find other means, you can’t moan about traffic if you are the traffic

Firstly the people making a journey are better placed to determine the mode of transport that best meets their needs, better than any manager in an office miles away. The fact that a journey could be make in another way is no basis for anyone to get jiggy with transport totalitarianism by dictating that it must be made another way, As for moaning about the traffic, this is deep irony! The entire point of the report, which strikes a chord with its motoring readers due to a perfect match with experience over many years, is that congestion and delays are being engineered-in under the claim of engineering them out.

Type R Tom said:

With cycle lanes it seems like you’re dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t. People say cycling is dangerous so segregation is introduced but that is wrong as it slows traffic.

It's down to use of logic (and common sense) which the report rightly identifies as absent. Take parts of the A40 from the west country towards Gatspoxfordshire. Single carriageway with long delays, as motorists sit in traffic jams watching one lycra-clad zealot sweat past every 5 minutes along barely used cycle lanes on both sides that are meant to be a positive thing when in fact that entire stretch of the A40 needs to be dual carriageway.

Type R Tom said:

The traffic light thing makes me laugh too, removing them introduces ambiguity thereby making it safer as people negotiate the area more slowly.

No, it doesn't, practical experience of junctions where lights fail at rush hour show that traffic flow can be and is far better without the lights. I gave one example, sonebody else provided another. I doubt that either of us would claim that this is always the case or that no junctions benefit from traffic light use, it's that logic and commom sense thing again so that where it's bleedin' obvious locally that the lights are part of the problem not the solution then they are ripped out faster than they were installed.

Type R Tom said:

Until driver-less cars are introduced and everything is computer controlled, we only have a finite amount of space so you need to decide how you want it used, unfortunately the majority of people want to get from A to B as quickly as possible and everyone else can fk off! It’s the height of selfishness.

Yes, which is why it's criminal that traffic managers see removal of road space as a good thing...two lanes become one with white diagonal hatchings either side, roads are closed to funnel traffic onto selected routes (try convincing me this wasn't in anticipation of road charging), no turns and so on. Local knowledge shows these are by no means always there because of safety. As to Presclot's bus lanes, what a joke.

Type R Tom said:

The country is getting bigger, cars are getting cheaper. We only have a small amount of space and can't keeping going as we are.

No, we can't. We need more common sense and logic in traffic management and less politicking around anti-car ideology, exactly as per the article. Let's not kid ourselves that it doesn't exist - a Reading traffic management bigwig was interviewed after his appointment and commented that it was his job to make car use as unpleasant as possible. Reading residents may not have heard this but may have noticed the results. Then there's the Highways Agency bod who described car commuters as 'the lowest of the low'.

[turbobloke]

Jasandjules said:

I truly believe that over the last 20 years the sole aim of Traffic Policy has been to make using a personal car awful.

It's been successful, so far. The initiative near me to allow free parking after 6pm, if implemented, would be one small step in the right direction.

Adrian W said:

Junction 7 M11, chaos in the rush hour, always queues, when the lights fail it all flows perfectly.

The thing is, some traffic managers don't notice, possibly they're looking the other way.

[turbobloke]

Type R Tom said:

turbobloke said:

Jasandjules said:

I truly believe that over the last 20 years the sole aim of Traffic Policy has been to make using a personal car awful.

It's been successful, so far. The initiative near me to allow free parking after 6pm, if implemented, would be one small step in the right direction.

Adrian W said:

Junction 7 M11, chaos in the rush hour, always queues, when the lights fail it all flows perfectly.

The thing is, some traffic managers don't notice, possibly they're looking the other way.

Probably too busy trying to fix the lights instead of seeing how it's working!

[turbobloke]

Dr Jekyll said:

People don't use their cars for every possible journey. When the trains and tubes go on strike traffic increases, how are those extra drivers travelling the rest of the time? The car parks at commuter stations near London are jammed most days, because motorists have made a rational decision that train rather than car is preferable for the bulk of their journey. The notion that everyone with a car drives everywhere because they are too stupid to think of alternatives is absurd.

Well said.

Dr Jekyll said:

Why does 'something have to be done'? Why can't you leave people to make their own decisions? A) People take congestion into account when deciding between transport modes so congestion will find it's own level. B) If you really believe people don't do this and will carry on using cars until there is total gridlock, then how in blazes is reducing road space going to discourage car use?

Exactly.

Dr Jekyll said:

Type R Tom said:

We need to get people out of cars for a lot of their journeys (benefits health too) and you feel the current methods are wrong, so what do we do?

No, we don't.

If you really believed what you are saying, you would want the same warped logic applied to trains.

Precisely.

Dr Jekyll said:

But nobody is so daft as to say that train commuters have no right to complain about overcrowding because they contribute to it. Or that there is no point in laying on extra carriages because they will only fill up with passengers. Or that millions must be spent reducing passenger capacity because increased overcrowding will discourage train use and thereby reduce overcrowding.

All spot on, an excellent post with more logic than current transport planning has seen in decades.

Also, with regards to our well-being, about which transport planners nationwide are full of anxiety every waking hour, car use makes people healthy compared to public transport use.

Article reporting on a study from the Medical Research Council said:

According to a government-funded survey, driving is good for you. The evidence was unearthed last year and is reported by the Medical Research Council’s social and public health sciences unit in Glasgow. Ironically, the purpose of the report was to reduce our reliance on private cars and to promote public transport, but instead it found that car drivers benefited from increased self-esteem, sense of security and control over their lives.

All these factors lead to increased psychological wellbeing, which has been linked to better general health and happiness. The report has allowed for different economic factors, so this is not simply about car owners being wealthier and therefore happier.

Anne Ellaway, the psychologist who wrote the report with her colleagues, claims that there has always been a contradiction between the use of cars and health. “It is widely accepted that driving can lead to increased obesity, road traffic accidents and pollution,” she says.

“The paradox is that research has also shown that car owners are healthier and live longer. This has been explained away by saying that car owners come from a higher social class and have bigger incomes, which are connected to better health.

“[But] after eliminating the effects of age, social class and income, we found drivers to have better general health and less depression than people who used public transport.”

The study produced psychological profiles of the participants based on measurements in three key areas: self-esteem, control over one’s environment and security. In all areas those who had access to a car were found to generate higher scores than those who did not.

The results also measured the differences between male and female responses. The findings emphasised the practical rather than symbolic importance of cars in women’s lives. In particular it was found that security and a sense of being in control of their lives were more important factors for women, while for men the most important area was a sense of self-esteem.

Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, welcomed the findings. “We only hear about the negative side of cars,” he says. “Congestion, pollution and car crime are important but the car has given us immense freedom. Driving gives everyone a fuller life, particularly when they get older. I am not surprised it is good for your health.”

The findings are also backed by Dr Peter Marsh, a psychologist and co-director of the Social Issues Research Centre in Oxford. “We do get psychological satisfaction from being drivers. If a man has a good car, he would think better of himself, and that is good for his health,” he says. “It is one of the few areas where we are in control of our lives. We make all the decisions and we are in our own territory.”

Even after 'adjusting' the data, the superior health benefits of car use remained.

There's no evidence that not using their car would stop people eating too many burgers and drinking too much fizzy sugar, sitting on the sofa, or indeed sitting on a bus or train. That MRC research was from a different era, if the same investigation was undertaken today then the people paying the piper would expect the results to play their tune.

[turbobloke]

For anyone interested, the research ^ was carried out 12 years ago and has no use-by date.

[turbobloke]

hairyben said:

Then when you get there you can't park because of more anti-motorist BS- tradies like me are employing people to drive their vans round the block all day while they're on a job as it's easier than trying to jump through the hoops required to park the thing!

Jeez! That's bad, I stopped using London venues for conferencing and F2F training well over a decade ago; that experience is far worse than anything I experienced back in the day. I've already mentioned the phenomenon of cars circulating to find one of the few free parking spaces that may exist in the ever fewer free parking sites, but circulating all day because it's impossible to park is a massive indictment of the anti-car anti-enterprise intelligent fools in TfL and elswhere (that's not aimed at any individual).

[turbobloke]

hairyben said:

turbobloke said:

hairyben said:

Then when you get there you can't park because of more anti-motorist BS- tradies like me are employing people to drive their vans round the block all day while they're on a job as it's easier than trying to jump through the hoops required to park the thing!

Jeez! That's bad, I stopped using London venues for conferencing and F2F training well over a decade ago; that experience is far worse than anything I experienced back in the day. I've already mentioned the phenomenon of cars circulating to find one of the few free parking spaces that may exist in the ever fewer free parking sites, but circulating all day because it's impossible to park is a massive indictment of the anti-car anti-enterprise intelligent fools in TfL and elswhere (that's not aimed at any individual).

Hasn't come to that yet for me but it might, some of their stores in the city I'll take my kindle and have a read while I sit in the van and wait by some parking bays ready to pounce, with the van sat pushing out carcinogens have waited an hour+ on several occasions

the absolute monumentally blinkered, hypocritical self destructive nonsense that this is, I wonder that we're a society in it's final days I really do.

Another friend in the email address list mentioned a quote only an hour or so ago in their reply, attributed as below - it's a belter.

Kristine Beuret said:

Take away the parking space at the end of the journey and you take away the car journey.

http://www.transport-associates.net/memberDetails.php?memberID=8

[turbobloke]

OpulentBob said:

As for the whole Policy thing of making the experience of using a car awful, that is just paranoia.

It can't be "just" paranoia when it's a matter of widespread experience over many years.

[turbobloke]

Otispunkmeyer said:

I bet all these traffic schemes work a dream on the computer. It just all falls apart when you stick a load of real humans on it.

A very good point. Which reminds me of Suffolk. Quite a few years ago, they went in for a blanket reduction in speed limits across the piece. The next year, the number of road fatalities increased. However a computer model run by academics hired by Suffolk said that roads were safer under the new regime. A district Coroner at inquest laid part of the blame for road deaths he was presiding over on the too-low limits.

oyster said:

turbobloke said:

Firstly the people making a journey are better placed to determine the mode of transport that best meets their needs.....

Individual actions can't dictate policy (in anything, not just transport). For that we, as an advanced society, employ clever people to make and enforce policy on our behalf. We trust that they make decisions that take into account our personal decisions on mode of transport, but plainly not everyone can get their way 100% of the time.

It's not dictating policy though, given that the roads exist already. It's simply making an informed choice at the scene as opposed to somebody making an uninformed choice in a remote office using dogma. How the transport mismanagers go about causing delays on those roads, that's the policy side of the quesiton and car uses get precious little say in that, if any, so they're not dictating policy at the moment.

oyster said:

The problem is that those clever people are employed by less clever politicians!

Agreed! And even if they are clever - some must be, based on the law of percentages - they need to have wisdom as well as intelligence to do the job well.

[turbobloke]

oyster said:

I have NEVER seen a lycra clad cyclist hold up a car at traffic lights. I do however see lots of old dears at the front holding up lots of other cars.

I've had to attend meetings in London at clients' offices and given the parlous and unreliable nature of both road and rail travel in this country I tend to arrive early on those days when the delays aren't severe. Preferring the good clean air of London Town I tend to remain outdoors rather than sit in a reception area, given that the average indoor air in a UK building is ten times more polluted than urban outdoor air, and many junctions have traffic lights where a herd of cyclists will block the entire road width waiting for green with or without a little red box painted at considerable expense just for them. It happens exactly as described, nobody in a vehicle can get going while the pedalers try to get going. Not all are lycra clad, there are some serious two wheel warriors in everyday garb. It may not be quite the same in some other towns and cities.