Roadspace for cars in London
Discussion
cb1965 said:
I ask as London isn't one of the Western world's most densely populated cities
This is the problem when you just read things on Wikipedia and assume they are gospel, btw.If you look at that list of cities (in the Wiki article that you're obviously referencing), London should stand out a mile to anyone objective. Only a couple of the other cities have >1m populations, whereas London's is >8m. That's not comparing apples with apples - that's including almost the entire population inside the M25, rather than just inner London (the area we're discussing - and one of the most densely populated in the Western world).
C70R said:
cb1965 said:
C70R said:
I'm sure someone with your obvious worldly-wise experience can list the many other cities in the world as old as London, with transport infrastructure which is 140+ years old that works better than that.
Nope as proper cities have modernised their transport infrastructure.
cb1965 said:
C70R said:
cb1965 said:
C70R said:
I'm sure someone with your obvious worldly-wise experience can list the many other cities in the world as old as London, with transport infrastructure which is 140+ years old that works better than that.
Nope as proper cities have modernised their transport infrastructure.oldaudi said:
You should try Bristol.
I did try Bristol recently. Due to a medical issue we called 111 and were sent to a drop in doctor 30 miles away in the centre of Bristol. As luck would have it, we arrived in the town centre at exactly 5pm on a Friday. I have never seen traffic like it. I've driven in London and this was worse (parking charges rivaled London too). Never again.cb1965 said:
It's likely the truth though, just get outside of the M25 and start canvassing some opinions if you think otherwise.... although I suspect you know I'm right, but like many who live and work in London you just think you know better than everyone else so you're having a bit of a toys out of pram moment over it!
PS As for authority - I'm a Londoner who got out and saw a large part of the world outside of your idea of Utopia so you'll just have to accept that at least my opinion has some level of qualification.
Lol. You certainly seem to state you know better, but accuse those living in London of thinking they know better. I dont know, but I'm struggling to see how London should care about what you think?PS As for authority - I'm a Londoner who got out and saw a large part of the world outside of your idea of Utopia so you'll just have to accept that at least my opinion has some level of qualification.
I'm sure London really felt your loss.
Jagmanv12 said:
Bus and cycle lanes are the reason congestion is worse. The current and previous mayors are to blame.
The requirement for a bus lane is that a bus should use it at the rate of 1 every minute. So a bus lane is acceptable on roads like Piccadilly, Park Lane, etc. How many times do we see an empty bus lane and all the other traffic squashed into the remaining lane and causing a tailback. If both lanes were open to all traffic, congestion (and therefore pollution) would be reduced.
The current mayor goes on about pollution but it is his fault due to his idiotic policies that cause it.
This obviously applies to other places as well as London. There's a bus lane from Kidlington into Oxford. It reduces the road to one lane. I can count on one hand the buses I have seen in that bus lane.
I used to drive 10,000 miles every 3 months in central London but now thankfully don't need to.
On the TFL website it had alternatives to avoid the pollution charge (LEZ), such as buying a new car.
They left off one alternative - Don't bother going into London.
Don;t agree about cycle lanes, the width they take up is negligible and its a popular form of transport, if they were to drive in you'd have worse traffic. It's also good for the economy, ppl like just ride into central sometimes, go to different places to eat, buy records, have a coffee, things I won't do by car, and less by public transport. The cycle is fantastic for getting round.The requirement for a bus lane is that a bus should use it at the rate of 1 every minute. So a bus lane is acceptable on roads like Piccadilly, Park Lane, etc. How many times do we see an empty bus lane and all the other traffic squashed into the remaining lane and causing a tailback. If both lanes were open to all traffic, congestion (and therefore pollution) would be reduced.
The current mayor goes on about pollution but it is his fault due to his idiotic policies that cause it.
This obviously applies to other places as well as London. There's a bus lane from Kidlington into Oxford. It reduces the road to one lane. I can count on one hand the buses I have seen in that bus lane.
I used to drive 10,000 miles every 3 months in central London but now thankfully don't need to.
On the TFL website it had alternatives to avoid the pollution charge (LEZ), such as buying a new car.
They left off one alternative - Don't bother going into London.
When I used to ride my motorcycle to work, Toyota Prius's (therefore Uber drivers) were ubiquitous at any time of the day and night. They were the ones blocking lanes collecting, dropping of passengers, or just driving aimlessly, or parked up on double yellows waiting or turning across lanes as they were in the wrong one, all this added to traffic queues. I believe Sadiq Khan is trying to limit their number now, there are 60K registered drivers, all suddenly just dumped on the streets without thought.
Killboy said:
cb1965 said:
It's likely the truth though, just get outside of the M25 and start canvassing some opinions if you think otherwise.... although I suspect you know I'm right, but like many who live and work in London you just think you know better than everyone else so you're having a bit of a toys out of pram moment over it!
PS As for authority - I'm a Londoner who got out and saw a large part of the world outside of your idea of Utopia so you'll just have to accept that at least my opinion has some level of qualification.
Lol. You certainly seem to state you know better, but accuse those living in London of thinking they know better.PS As for authority - I'm a Londoner who got out and saw a large part of the world outside of your idea of Utopia so you'll just have to accept that at least my opinion has some level of qualification.
swisstoni said:
Bike lanes should be time restricted.
They may be well used for certain hours of the day but for the rest of the time they are empty.
Lower/Upper Thames Street is a good example.They may be well used for certain hours of the day but for the rest of the time they are empty.
Google Earth shows the bike lane virtually empty and only one lane eastbound available for traffic (thus causing congestion and pollution - Mayor Kahn's pet subject.
swisstoni said:
Bike lanes should be time restricted.
They may be well used for certain hours of the day but for the rest of the time they are empty.
Similarly the 20mph limit in the centre makes no sense in the evenings when things do free up a bit.
Jesus. So much wrong in one post, I don't even know where to start...They may be well used for certain hours of the day but for the rest of the time they are empty.
Similarly the 20mph limit in the centre makes no sense in the evenings when things do free up a bit.
20mph isn't a mechanism to regulate traffic flow - it's about safety of areas in the very centre of London which are heavily used by pedestrians. If you spent any time at all in these areas "in the evenings", you'd know that the level of pedestrian use is still high enough to warrant it.
On the point of bike lanes, the VAST MAJORITY in the area we're discussing are less than half the width of an average car - what do you propose achieving by derestricting them?
Jagmanv12 said:
Lower/Upper Thames Street is a good example.
Google Earth shows the bike lane virtually empty and only one lane eastbound available for traffic (thus causing congestion and pollution - Mayor Kahn's pet subject.
OK, so you've found one photo of one bike lane which is empty. Go you. Should I trawl Google Earth for photos of empty London roads to justify why cars shouldn't be allowed? Google Earth shows the bike lane virtually empty and only one lane eastbound available for traffic (thus causing congestion and pollution - Mayor Kahn's pet subject.
Given that there's a kerb separating cars and bikes on this road (because, you know, of the MASSIVE volume of cyclists at rush hour), how do you propose we make this a multi-use lane?
I swear, some of you guys live on cloud-cuckoo land when it comes to trying to solve city centre congestion... Justifying why the least efficient means of transport should be given priority is hilarious.
Edited by C70R on Tuesday 21st August 12:16
The dedicated cycle lane is 'apparently' empty because it's such an efficient use of space. Fifty bikes have been and gone in the time five cars have passed. That's why central London cycle lanes 'appear' to be empty. Look at the official stats - there has been a spectacular increase in the number of people using cycles in central London. Huge volumes of folk are getting around London cleanly and using tiny amounts of road space.
Earthdweller said:
heebeegeetee said:
On the other hand and playing devil's advocate somewhat...
Leaving goods aside, surely the transportation of individuals by car has to be the most wasteful use of space and resource? Compared to space required for pedestrians and cyclists, the amount of space that has to be given so that individuals can travel by car has to be incredibly wasteful? When you think of the space needed, and the control of traffic, the infrastructure, the policing and so on.
Then there is the issue of parking cars on the road and even over-night keeping of cars on roads. Can there possibly be a more wasteful use of space? Were the roads ever designed for the use of personal storage, or were the roads designed for transportation? How much more freely might traffic/people be able to move if parking on street was restricted and certainly the keeping of cars/personal property on public road space banned completely?
Mumsnet is over there >>>>>>>>> Leaving goods aside, surely the transportation of individuals by car has to be the most wasteful use of space and resource? Compared to space required for pedestrians and cyclists, the amount of space that has to be given so that individuals can travel by car has to be incredibly wasteful? When you think of the space needed, and the control of traffic, the infrastructure, the policing and so on.
Then there is the issue of parking cars on the road and even over-night keeping of cars on roads. Can there possibly be a more wasteful use of space? Were the roads ever designed for the use of personal storage, or were the roads designed for transportation? How much more freely might traffic/people be able to move if parking on street was restricted and certainly the keeping of cars/personal property on public road space banned completely?
I believe this is a Car enthusiasts forum
keirik said:
Lived on London for 35 years. Drove a car into the city probably 5 times and stopped using motorbike 15 years ago..
No need to do it with the public transport and cycling options available.
Uk cities particularly london arent designed for cars and only fools insist on persevering.
I sort of agree, unless you need to carry something. No need to do it with the public transport and cycling options available.
Uk cities particularly london arent designed for cars and only fools insist on persevering.
My commutes across London (Hackney and Islington to Ealing then Richmond and Battersea, then Harrow to Battersea) tended to be quicker by car unless there was some almight foul up, which would’ve caught buses too).
C70R said:
swisstoni said:
Bike lanes should be time restricted.
They may be well used for certain hours of the day but for the rest of the time they are empty.
Similarly the 20mph limit in the centre makes no sense in the evenings when things do free up a bit.
Jesus. So much wrong in one post, I don't even know where to start...They may be well used for certain hours of the day but for the rest of the time they are empty.
Similarly the 20mph limit in the centre makes no sense in the evenings when things do free up a bit.
20mph isn't a mechanism to regulate traffic flow - it's about safety of areas in the very centre of London which are heavily used by pedestrians. If you spent any time at all in these areas "in the evenings", you'd know that the level of pedestrian use is still high enough to warrant it.
On the point of bike lanes, the VAST MAJORITY in the area we're discussing are less than half the width of an average car - what do you propose achieving by derestricting them?
Jagmanv12 said:
Lower/Upper Thames Street is a good example.
Google Earth shows the bike lane virtually empty and only one lane eastbound available for traffic (thus causing congestion and pollution - Mayor Kahn's pet subject.
OK, so you've found one photo of one bike lane which is empty. Go you. Should I trawl Google Earth for photos of empty London roads to justify why cars shouldn't be allowed? Google Earth shows the bike lane virtually empty and only one lane eastbound available for traffic (thus causing congestion and pollution - Mayor Kahn's pet subject.
Given that there's a kerb separating cars and bikes on this road (because, you know, of the MASSIVE volume of cyclists at rush hour), how do you propose we make this a multi-use lane?
I swear, some of you guys live on cloud-cuckoo land when it comes to trying to solve city centre congestion... Justifying why the least efficient means of transport should be given priority is hilarious.
Edited by C70R on Tuesday 21st August 12:16
C70R said:
OK, so you've found one photo of one bike lane which is empty. Go you. Should I trawl Google Earth for photos of empty London roads to justify why cars shouldn't be allowed?
Given that there's a kerb separating cars and bikes on this road (because, you know, of the MASSIVE volume of cyclists at rush hour), how do you propose we make this a multi-use lane?
I swear, some of you guys live on cloud-cuckoo land when it comes to trying to solve city centre congestion... Justifying why the least efficient means of transport should be given priority is hilarious.
Why is 20mph required for the safety of pedestrians?Given that there's a kerb separating cars and bikes on this road (because, you know, of the MASSIVE volume of cyclists at rush hour), how do you propose we make this a multi-use lane?
I swear, some of you guys live on cloud-cuckoo land when it comes to trying to solve city centre congestion... Justifying why the least efficient means of transport should be given priority is hilarious.
Edited by C70R on Tuesday 21st August 12:16
Jagmanv12 said:
swisstoni said:
Bike lanes should be time restricted.
They may be well used for certain hours of the day but for the rest of the time they are empty.
Lower/Upper Thames Street is a good example.They may be well used for certain hours of the day but for the rest of the time they are empty.
Google Earth shows the bike lane virtually empty and only one lane eastbound available for traffic (thus causing congestion and pollution - Mayor Kahn's pet subject.
oyster said:
Earthdweller said:
heebeegeetee said:
On the other hand and playing devil's advocate somewhat...
Leaving goods aside, surely the transportation of individuals by car has to be the most wasteful use of space and resource? Compared to space required for pedestrians and cyclists, the amount of space that has to be given so that individuals can travel by car has to be incredibly wasteful? When you think of the space needed, and the control of traffic, the infrastructure, the policing and so on.
Then there is the issue of parking cars on the road and even over-night keeping of cars on roads. Can there possibly be a more wasteful use of space? Were the roads ever designed for the use of personal storage, or were the roads designed for transportation? How much more freely might traffic/people be able to move if parking on street was restricted and certainly the keeping of cars/personal property on public road space banned completely?
Mumsnet is over there >>>>>>>>> Leaving goods aside, surely the transportation of individuals by car has to be the most wasteful use of space and resource? Compared to space required for pedestrians and cyclists, the amount of space that has to be given so that individuals can travel by car has to be incredibly wasteful? When you think of the space needed, and the control of traffic, the infrastructure, the policing and so on.
Then there is the issue of parking cars on the road and even over-night keeping of cars on roads. Can there possibly be a more wasteful use of space? Were the roads ever designed for the use of personal storage, or were the roads designed for transportation? How much more freely might traffic/people be able to move if parking on street was restricted and certainly the keeping of cars/personal property on public road space banned completely?
I believe this is a Car enthusiasts forum
some of the terminology can be a bit amusing / interesting
"What the Heck is a Road Diet?"
five videos here:
https://gizmodo.com/what-the-heck-is-a-road-diet-1...
swisstoni said:
Bike lanes should be time restricted.
They may be well used for certain hours of the day but for the rest of the time they are empty.
Similarly the 20mph limit in the centre makes no sense in the evenings when things do free up a bit.
I do agree when it comes to a lot of the 20mph limits, especially night time when there are very few pedestrians in those areas. They may be well used for certain hours of the day but for the rest of the time they are empty.
Similarly the 20mph limit in the centre makes no sense in the evenings when things do free up a bit.
Some of the 20 limits actually help though. Also it seems that the whole "20's Plenty" thing actually emboldens pedestrians to step into the road in front of moving cars, take more risks etc.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff