Roadspace for cars in London
Discussion
warch said:
It's funny you should say that. I'm reading a book at the moment about the London Underground (published in about 1960). Traffic in London was described as intolerable during the 1840s and 50s when the plans for the Underground were first mooted. I don't think there was ever a golden age when it was congestion free.
As a Londoner, and one who likes all things London, including tv series and films set here, I once watched a B&W 50's film where they had a car chase from Fulham area to Notting Hill, not much traffic!There are websites devoted to Minder and The Sweeney shooting locations, and I love The Sweeney which if you watch the episodes now show a heavy London streets with as many vehicles parked then as there are now but less road traffic. Not very scientific, granted.
Harji said:
As a Londoner, and one who likes all things London, including tv series and films set here, I once watched a B&W 50's film where they had a car chase from Fulham area to Notting Hill, not much traffic!
There are websites devoted to Minder and The Sweeney shooting locations, and I love The Sweeney which if you watch the episodes now show a heavy London streets with as many vehicles parked then as there are now but less road traffic. Not very scientific, granted.
Snap! I'm a huge fan of the Professionals and also frequent the filming location website for that. http://www.mark-1.co.uk/Professionals/There are websites devoted to Minder and The Sweeney shooting locations, and I love The Sweeney which if you watch the episodes now show a heavy London streets with as many vehicles parked then as there are now but less road traffic. Not very scientific, granted.
I think most cars in London are assumed to have only one occupant (never really noticed tbh) so 87x1= err... 87. Can't imagine sitting on a bus with 86 other people though.
SlimJim16v said:
warch said:
I think this is the maximum capacity for a new shape Routemaster, which is pretty amazing when you think about it.
87 x 4 = 348 I don't think so. Source
Earthdweller said:
To expand on my previous post
traffic light sequences were altered to reduce flow rates, to allow longer pedestrian crossing times and cycle lights ... and actually deliberately cause congestion to both discourage drivers and provide a reason for road charging
The growth of bus lanes and cycles lanes has hugely reduced available road space, tie that to the tampering reducing flow rates me mentioned above and the restricting of rat runs and side streets forcing more vehicles into the restricted road space
In Liverpool they abolished ALL bus lanes saying they didn’t work and caused more problems for buses and other road users than they solved ( I think they have reinstated 4 in the city centre since)
So .. as I said Politicians
,traffic light sequences were altered to reduce flow rates, to allow longer pedestrian crossing times and cycle lights ... and actually deliberately cause congestion to both discourage drivers and provide a reason for road charging
The growth of bus lanes and cycles lanes has hugely reduced available road space, tie that to the tampering reducing flow rates me mentioned above and the restricting of rat runs and side streets forcing more vehicles into the restricted road space
In Liverpool they abolished ALL bus lanes saying they didn’t work and caused more problems for buses and other road users than they solved ( I think they have reinstated 4 in the city centre since)
So .. as I said Politicians
100% agree, it's taken a while for London to get as bad as it is now and it's by design. I first noticed this about 20 years ago when Edinburgh got its first openly anti car council. It seems crazy to reduce many of a city's main arterial roads from two to one lanes but that's what they did - with predictable results.
rallycross said:
,
100% agree, it's taken a while for London to get as bad as it is now and it's by design. I first noticed this about 20 years ago when Edinburgh got its first openly anti car council. It seems crazy to reduce many of a city's main arterial roads from two to one lanes but that's what they did - with predictable results.
Yes, it's awful! That's why nobody wants to live there and houses can be picked up for pennies. The whole local economy is lagging behind the more prosperous car-friendly regions.100% agree, it's taken a while for London to get as bad as it is now and it's by design. I first noticed this about 20 years ago when Edinburgh got its first openly anti car council. It seems crazy to reduce many of a city's main arterial roads from two to one lanes but that's what they did - with predictable results.
Same with other car-hating cities like Oxford, Cambridge or Bristol.
Oh... wait...
It's almost like they've done very well exactly by ignoring your total fantasy, isn't it?
cb1965 said:
C70R said:
London's public transport is fantastic and very comprehensive, considering the phenomenal limitations.
No, it's really not. I have lived in several other major cities around the world and all of them had far better transport infrastructures than London. In fact I haven't found a city harder to travel round in my entire 53 years on this planet.You think it's great because you have either have no other benchmarks and/or have been brought up with low expectations and like most people in Britain are happy to put up with crap.
I could name a whole shedload of places I've visited whose transport infrastructure isn't as good as London's. On the other hand, Seoul's Metro is very impressive - but then it would be, being only 40 years old, compared to the London Tube's 140 years.
paranoid airbag said:
rallycross said:
,
100% agree, it's taken a while for London to get as bad as it is now and it's by design. I first noticed this about 20 years ago when Edinburgh got its first openly anti car council. It seems crazy to reduce many of a city's main arterial roads from two to one lanes but that's what they did - with predictable results.
Yes, it's awful! That's why nobody wants to live there and houses can be picked up for pennies. The whole local economy is lagging behind the more prosperous car-friendly regions.100% agree, it's taken a while for London to get as bad as it is now and it's by design. I first noticed this about 20 years ago when Edinburgh got its first openly anti car council. It seems crazy to reduce many of a city's main arterial roads from two to one lanes but that's what they did - with predictable results.
Same with other car-hating cities like Oxford, Cambridge or Bristol.
Oh... wait...
It's almost like they've done very well exactly by ignoring your total fantasy, isn't it?
The anti-London brigade are always crowing about what a terrible place it is, and how they couldn't imagine why anyone would live there - completely ignoring the overwhelming evidence. It's not like the world's talent and elite are queueing up to buy property in Stoke-on-Trent, are they?
Unless you are delivering something or driving a bus or a taxi, why the hell are you driving into London anyway? There is absolutely no reason to do so.
Little tip. I used to do all my commuting at 6 in the morning or before or after rush hour in the evening. I could manage Hammersmith flyover to East Dulwich in quarter of an hour some mornings.
Little tip. I used to do all my commuting at 6 in the morning or before or after rush hour in the evening. I could manage Hammersmith flyover to East Dulwich in quarter of an hour some mornings.
warch said:
I could manage Hammersmith flyover to East Dulwich in quarter of an hour some mornings.
As someone who has done that journey MANY times, I find that incredibly hard to believe. You'd need to average something like 50mph, which is not only more double the limit for most of the roads you'd use, but doesn't take into account the need to stop for traffic lights or other cars.Sorry, but I'm calling b*llocks.
C70R said:
warch said:
I could manage Hammersmith flyover to East Dulwich in quarter of an hour some mornings.
As someone who has done that journey MANY times, I find that incredibly hard to believe. You'd need to average something like 50mph, which is not only more double the limit for most of the roads you'd use, but doesn't take into account the need to stop for traffic lights or other cars.Sorry, but I'm calling b*llocks.
See, when I visit London nowadays I bring my car and drive about quite a lot. I'm lucky enough to not have to travel so much during the rush hours, and when I used to live in London full-time I hadn't passed my test and therefore didn't drive, so living on the north-east side of town pre cross-rail and 'orange line' had to use the buses a lot. Now in general I'm not averse to using public transport and actually quite like catching the bus rather than the tube as I prefer seeing where I'm going, but now I am able to drive around it's simply incredible how much time I can save by driving, especially once I get to know a few back routes to avoid some of the worst traffic jam blackspots. The bus moves along quickly enough once it's under way but as pointed out above, the lanes aren't continuous so very often the bus gets caught up in bottlenecks. Then the bus stops are often only 200 meters or so apart, so by the time it stops to let people off and on with their luggage and prams and shopping, the bus generally spends more time static than moving. Then you get situations where people try and jump on the bus without paying or tapping in, or worse yet, the passenger has money but the driver doesn't have or won't give them change, and the bus driver refuses to move the vehicle until the situation is resolved - often causing a Mexican Standoff which can even turn violent - all the while time is ticking away and you're getting later and later for work or whatever else it is you're doing. Obviously the Routemasters were a lot better for this as the driver's job was to drive and the conductor's job was to take the money and deal with the people that wouldn't pay.
Then let's not forget the times when you get on the right bus, the driver suddenly receives instruction to return to base or to go on a different route and the whole busload of people is made to get off at the next stop and wait for the next one. Which is full, and so is the next one. Again, causing massive lateness.
Plus very often, especially late at night, the buses don't even bother stopping at request stops even when you wave at them very obviously. I lost count of the number of times I've been left standing by a bus stop,in a rough part of South London waving my arms around as a half-empty bus speeds by because the driver simply can't be bothered to stop or is running behind.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful for the existence of 24 hour public transport in London but relying on it is incredibly stressful and very often even with the many disadvantages of driving, driving is the better option.
Then let's not forget the times when you get on the right bus, the driver suddenly receives instruction to return to base or to go on a different route and the whole busload of people is made to get off at the next stop and wait for the next one. Which is full, and so is the next one. Again, causing massive lateness.
Plus very often, especially late at night, the buses don't even bother stopping at request stops even when you wave at them very obviously. I lost count of the number of times I've been left standing by a bus stop,in a rough part of South London waving my arms around as a half-empty bus speeds by because the driver simply can't be bothered to stop or is running behind.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very grateful for the existence of 24 hour public transport in London but relying on it is incredibly stressful and very often even with the many disadvantages of driving, driving is the better option.
I agree London has pretty good public transport but my comment was just reflecting on how despite the congestion charge, driving in London over the last 2 years has become so much worse than before. It can not be increase in volume of cars in that time period but must be due to a significant reduction in capacity on the road network. Its a shame that the ability to drive in London is now severely restricted but I can understand the health/ environmental reasons. I am not sure the current situation,however, is good for cars/ cyclists or trade.
paranoid airbag said:
rallycross said:
,
100% agree, it's taken a while for London to get as bad as it is now and it's by design. I first noticed this about 20 years ago when Edinburgh got its first openly anti car council. It seems crazy to reduce many of a city's main arterial roads from two to one lanes but that's what they did - with predictable results.
Yes, it's awful! That's why nobody wants to live there and houses can be picked up for pennies. The whole local economy is lagging behind the more prosperous car-friendly regions.100% agree, it's taken a while for London to get as bad as it is now and it's by design. I first noticed this about 20 years ago when Edinburgh got its first openly anti car council. It seems crazy to reduce many of a city's main arterial roads from two to one lanes but that's what they did - with predictable results.
Same with other car-hating cities like Oxford, Cambridge or Bristol.
Oh... wait...
It's almost like they've done very well exactly by ignoring your total fantasy, isn't it?
The reasons for London doing 'so well' are many, varied and complex, but put very simplistically money breeds money.... look how much more investment is made (both private and public money) in London than any other city in the UK. London is also very good as selling itself as the only place in England to the rest of the world so immigrants come there. I spoke to a Nigerian Uber driver in Manchester only last week and he had relocated to Manchester after 3 years in London and coudln't believe how much better off he was not only financially, but lifestyle wise too.
While there are many doing well in London there are also many living on the poverty line. Much of it is a s
thole whether the Londonista like it or not ( for instance tell me Lewisham is a lovely place to live if you dare) and anyway does more wealth mean London is better than somewhere else.... of course it doesn't unless you're a myopic money motivated **** and London has plenty of those.... I just hope they stay there.C70R said:
cb1965 said:
C70R said:
London's public transport is fantastic and very comprehensive, considering the phenomenal limitations.
No, it's really not. I have lived in several other major cities around the world and all of them had far better transport infrastructures than London. In fact I haven't found a city harder to travel round in my entire 53 years on this planet.You think it's great because you have either have no other benchmarks and/or have been brought up with low expectations and like most people in Britain are happy to put up with crap.
te! Come back when you have some real experience of the rest of the world not just of a capital city probably more hated by the rest of the country's inhabitants than any other capital city in the world.We have to face facts car ownership is only allowed as we are a huge cash cow both economically from manufacturing and on taxes for use. Council s hate cars because they are run by tree hugging anti car members. Bristol has been mentioned, it is nowhere near as bad as some make out, yet but give it time. The council is trying to build an arena complex in the centre with no provision for parking at all, and yet the outer lying areas of Bristol are not connected, a couple of park and ride schemes is all they have done, nothing is connected. london in comparison is easy to live without a car as all the major points are connected by train, tube or bus and more capacity is being built.
Motoring groups have no organisation and that is why our needs are ignored, new roads not a chance, ne rail to get people to London a bit quicker loads of cash there.
Need a new runway, no problem flatten a village move a motorway, not a problem but then again it is London.
Enthusiasts are a dying breed, young people are not starting to drive as they did and they would rather play need for speed than drive the real thing.
Motoring groups have no organisation and that is why our needs are ignored, new roads not a chance, ne rail to get people to London a bit quicker loads of cash there.
Need a new runway, no problem flatten a village move a motorway, not a problem but then again it is London.
Enthusiasts are a dying breed, young people are not starting to drive as they did and they would rather play need for speed than drive the real thing.
I grew up in London and live here now, so maybe I am biassed. I have a car, I drive in London. The current policy is to efficiently move the largest number of people too and from work in the shortest period of time possible (from increasingly greater distances). Cars lose that equation, but sometimes still win on convenience and door to door travel time.
If you wanted to make London less busy, we could just ban commuting from outside the M25. That would reduce rush hour congestion by around 50%. Surely they can find gainful employment in their own bumfk nowhere commuter towns?
If you wanted to make London less busy, we could just ban commuting from outside the M25. That would reduce rush hour congestion by around 50%. Surely they can find gainful employment in their own bumf
k nowhere commuter towns? Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff