The most congested city in the world......
Discussion
.....is London!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559...
That's a pretty s
t accolade to have achieved. Luckily after 15 years or so living in Zone 2, I moved to Surbiton last year, but I still play hockey at the weekends so London traffic for me isn't quite a thing of the past yet.
Is there much that can actually be done?! I can't imagine the cycle lanes being binned off at all, and everything seems to be going in the direction of making things less appealing to drive in London......but still, having the worst congestion in the world.....blimey. I thought Kathmandu was bad!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559...
That's a pretty s
t accolade to have achieved. Luckily after 15 years or so living in Zone 2, I moved to Surbiton last year, but I still play hockey at the weekends so London traffic for me isn't quite a thing of the past yet. Is there much that can actually be done?! I can't imagine the cycle lanes being binned off at all, and everything seems to be going in the direction of making things less appealing to drive in London......but still, having the worst congestion in the world.....blimey. I thought Kathmandu was bad!
The spinner of plates said:
It's what happens when an ancient footprint is asked to cope with modern demands,
I think the direction of travel for London is to improve mass-transit and continue to reduce cars.
Agreed. It's 'funny' that when cities first started popping up, being built around a river made perfect sense and is probably what made London so successful and grow etc.I think the direction of travel for London is to improve mass-transit and continue to reduce cars.
But of course now, the lack of options to cross the river in your car is half the reason so much of it is such a nightmare to drive around. I know that trying to drive out of Fulham over Putney bridge used to be my least favourite activity in the world. Not much that can be done about that though, I don't imagine new bridges are about to pop up!
From that linked news article:
A cycling charity says blaming new cycle lanes is "incredibly simplistic"
I would contend that view and argue that *both* cycling lanes and bus lanes are the biggest cause.
Up here in Leeds for example, we have seen the introduction of cycle lanes in many places, and along with this an increase in congestion.
It's patently obvious that removing space for cars is going to increase congestion.
A cycling charity says blaming new cycle lanes is "incredibly simplistic"
I would contend that view and argue that *both* cycling lanes and bus lanes are the biggest cause.
Up here in Leeds for example, we have seen the introduction of cycle lanes in many places, and along with this an increase in congestion.
It's patently obvious that removing space for cars is going to increase congestion.
When you compare London to similarly busy European capitals that have inherited very old road layouts, the thing that leaps out is the sort of motor vehicles people use. The bikes and mopeds exist in London, but proportionally there are far fewer of them. And where are the microcars? They would be much more suitable for most private car journeys in London than a Range Rover.
kick buttowski said:
I dont think that article can be right.
Anyone who has been to Manila in the Philippines or other big cities in SE Asia will agree that the congestion is far worse than London.
Indeed, hence my point about Kathmandu. I'm guessing they're not truly taking into consideration every city in the world. Anyone who has been to Manila in the Philippines or other big cities in SE Asia will agree that the congestion is far worse than London.
I appreciate if you run a business and have to deliver you may have little choice…. But why anyone would choose to drive in London is beyond me, it’s hideous. Done a couple of times when had no other choice- miserable.
I always just drive to a station with good connections and train. Then in London, walk/tube.
I always just drive to a station with good connections and train. Then in London, walk/tube.
whp1983 said:
I appreciate if you run a business and have to deliver you may have little choice…. But why anyone would choose to drive in London is beyond me, it’s hideous. Done a couple of times when had no other choice- miserable.
I always just drive to a station with good connections and train. Then in London, walk/tube.
The other day I was actually going to post a thread asking who actually does drive in central London (zone 1/congestion zone). On the few occasions I do go to the office, I train from Surbiton to Waterloo, then bus to Farringdon. I have to say, that bus journey on the whole is pretty quick, despite the fact there are lots of roadworks going on around the Strand, so it does actually seem there's not that much traffic in the centre. Perhaps it's more Zone 2/3 etc where all the traffic remains? I always just drive to a station with good connections and train. Then in London, walk/tube.
As someone who has driven and cycled in London for the last 30+ years there is no doubt in my mind that car traffic has been deliberately slowed in the last 2-3 years. It’s through a combination of measures, but the main one is a simple loss of road surface on which to drive. This has been achieved via both dedicated wider cycle lanes with segregating kerbs and 24/7 bus lanes. A secondary measure which is a bit more subjective is longer hold periods at red lights, mainly to gives pedestrians longer to cross. A tertiary measure is blanket 20mph limits, which allied to a lose of two lane roads means that if one car decides to drive at 13/15/17 mph (and they do) then everyone does.
As a cyclist I am ambivalent about the dedicated cycle lanes. I can see they encourage more people to ride in London which is good. But for experienced quick cyclists they are unnecessary.
No city in the world needs 24/7 bus lanes. They are nothing more than a measure to make car drivers’ experiences unpleasant.
As a cyclist I am ambivalent about the dedicated cycle lanes. I can see they encourage more people to ride in London which is good. But for experienced quick cyclists they are unnecessary.
No city in the world needs 24/7 bus lanes. They are nothing more than a measure to make car drivers’ experiences unpleasant.
BlackWidow13 said:
As someone who has driven and cycled in London for the last 30+ years there is no doubt in my mind that car traffic has been deliberately slowed in the last 2-3 years. It’s through a combination of measures, but the main one is a simple loss of road surface on which to drive. This has been achieved via both dedicated wider cycle lanes with segregating kerbs and 24/7 bus lanes. A secondary measure which is a bit more subjective is longer hold periods at red lights, mainly to gives pedestrians longer to cross. A tertiary measure is blanket 20mph limits, which allied to a lose of two lane roads means that if one car decides to drive at 13/15/17 mph (and they do) then everyone does.
As a cyclist I am ambivalent about the dedicated cycle lanes. I can see they encourage more people to ride in London which is good. But for experienced quick cyclists they are unnecessary.
No city in the world needs 24/7 bus lanes. They are nothing more than a measure to make car drivers’ experiences unpleasant.
Interesting point on the 24/7 bus lanes, I've not driven enough in London recently to notice if any have changed from the '7-10 4-7' which is standard for quite a lot of the ones I used to drive in. As a cyclist I am ambivalent about the dedicated cycle lanes. I can see they encourage more people to ride in London which is good. But for experienced quick cyclists they are unnecessary.
No city in the world needs 24/7 bus lanes. They are nothing more than a measure to make car drivers’ experiences unpleasant.
UTH said:
Interesting point on the 24/7 bus lanes, I've not driven enough in London recently to notice if any have changed from the '7-10 4-7' which is standard for quite a lot of the ones I used to drive in.
Very broadly, all of the bus lanes on arterial red routes are now 24/7. It’s a PITA. Is it a problem at all? It's a capital city, it's meant to be busy, noisy, and congested. It wouldn't be a very vibrant city otherwise. I get it's an issue for delivery vehicles, taxis, ambulances and the like. But for the private motorist, there's very little reason to drive in central London. The tube and bus network is brilliant. So if you make the choice to drive, suck it up.
I live in the London suburbs and the last time I drove in central London was 3 years ago, to take my wife to a hospital appointment when she really wasn't well enough to brave the tube. If I driven in more than 3 times in the last decade, I'd be surprised. And I go in a lot. I'll be at Leadenhall Market this evening with friends.
I live in the London suburbs and the last time I drove in central London was 3 years ago, to take my wife to a hospital appointment when she really wasn't well enough to brave the tube. If I driven in more than 3 times in the last decade, I'd be surprised. And I go in a lot. I'll be at Leadenhall Market this evening with friends.
BlackWidow13 said:
As someone who has driven and cycled in London for the last 30+ years there is no doubt in my mind that car traffic has been deliberately slowed in the last 2-3 years. It’s through a combination of measures, but the main one is a simple loss of road surface on which to drive. This has been achieved via both dedicated wider cycle lanes with segregating kerbs and 24/7 bus lanes. A secondary measure which is a bit more subjective is longer hold periods at red lights, mainly to gives pedestrians longer to cross. A tertiary measure is blanket 20mph limits, which allied to a lose of two lane roads means that if one car decides to drive at 13/15/17 mph (and they do) then everyone does.
As a cyclist I am ambivalent about the dedicated cycle lanes. I can see they encourage more people to ride in London which is good. But for experienced quick cyclists they are unnecessary.
No city in the world needs 24/7 bus lanes. They are nothing more than a measure to make car drivers’ experiences unpleasant.
I agree on the whole, but that bolded bit is the whole point of them isn't it. I'm an experienced cyclist who commuted on a bike in a busy local town for many years, and rarely did I see other cyclists riding confidently or properly in traffic. I won't turn this into a cycling thread, but clearly the intent of these lanes is to get people who aren't confident onto bikes. And in London from what I've seen it seems to be working. As a cyclist I am ambivalent about the dedicated cycle lanes. I can see they encourage more people to ride in London which is good. But for experienced quick cyclists they are unnecessary.
No city in the world needs 24/7 bus lanes. They are nothing more than a measure to make car drivers’ experiences unpleasant.
Take away the cycle lanes, and put everyone of the cyclists into a car and you've probably got worse traffic than you have now, even with more surface for them all to drive on.
donkmeister said:
. And where are the microcars? They would be much more suitable for most private car journeys in London than a Range Rover.
except the roads are s
t, I drive in, cambs to paddington 2-3 times a week in a mini usually, bought as a city/ station car with that view in mind, the reality is quite different; some of the road surfaces in London are boneshaking, plus there are some massive speed bump etc. whilst the mini is great for cutting through tightish spots and parking, I’ve never felt I wouldn’t have got through in something much bigger. An SUV or something big and wafty would be a far more suitable vehicle for most journeys so that is where my money will go next.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff