Cycle paths or psyclepaths?

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:11:00 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> They built a motorway you can see it in the background.
>>> I can't see it.
>>
>> Nick is right. A motorway was built for through traffic. You can see
>> a roundabout above it in the background.
>
>That's north/south though - and is it a "motorway", or a public road?
>The main traffic in the picture is travelling west - isn't it?

The A102(M) was built as a motorway. It has since been downgraded to
the A102 so that it falls under the responsibility of Transport for
London and not the Highways Agency. Unusually for an A road, bicycles
are specifically excluded.

>>> All I can see is a normal public road, open to all
>>> modes of traffic. It appears to be snarled-up with, presumably,
>>> non-local traffic held up too. Better, I think, to segregate the
>>> non-local, longer distance, motor traffic onto a dedicated motorway.
>>> That way they will be happier, not having their journey delayed with
>>> local traffic, roundabouts, buses, delivery vans, cyclists, pedestrians,
>>> etc., and the locals will be happier, because their roads would be less
>>> clogged with traffic, and therefore more pleasurable to use.
>>
>> Most of the traffic on that section of the A2 will have come from the
>> dual carriageway section of the A2 or from the Blackwall Tunnel and be
>> heading into Central London.
>>
>> The traffic was flowing freely, probably within the 30mph speed limit.
>
>OK, I couldn't tell from the picture - it looks to be crawling from the
>spacing, but perhaps it's the foreshortening. If there's no congestion,
>then there's no excuse for a cycle lans, so it's probably your option
>"a" that is the best solution all round.

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Matt B wrote:
> I can't see it. All I can see is a normal public road, open to all
> modes of traffic. It appears to be snarled-up with, presumably,
> non-local traffic held up too. Better, I think, to segregate the
> non-local, longer distance, motor traffic onto a dedicated motorway.
> That way they will be happier,...

And others will see their happiness, and (over time) adjust their
lives to take advantage of the improved speeds by travelling further -
until congestion is back where it was and traffic volume is far higher.

We know this happens. The benefits to some individuals aren't enough
to justify the extra oil burnt.

Building or improving a railway would provide similar new journey
opportunities without increasing fuel usage.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 10, 1:17 pm, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> Colin McKenzie wrote:
> > Matt B wrote:
> >> I can't see it.  All I can see is a normal public road, open to all
> >> modes of traffic.  It appears to be snarled-up with, presumably,
> >> non-local traffic held up too.  Better, I think, to segregate the
> >> non-local, longer distance, motor traffic onto a dedicated motorway.
> >> That way they will be happier,...

I recall briefly exchanging postings with you on this topic once
before. I showed that it wasn't possible to build enough motorways in
urban areas to satisfy demand. So you said you meant you were talking
about rural areas. IIRC you wanted to criss-cross the triangle between
the M1/M4/M5 with more motorways, because fast dual carriageways don't
work (because of slow agricultural vehicles).

To repeat the basic argument, most British cities grew up with public
transport. Public transport favours a dense central core with radial
services, usually rail, to get people in and out. There simply isn't
enough room in the dense core to build enough roads to satisfy
unlimited road transport demand without knocking down huge numbers of
buildings.

The classic example of a city that grew up with the motor car is Los
Angeles. The car favours a much more spread out city with no obvious
central area, which is what you'll find if you look at LA. Public
transport is difficult in this urban form because few routes have the
density of demand that you need for good public transport. You either
run lots of nearly empty services (expensive) or make the services
infrequent (which means people choose alternative methods).

Despite growing up with the car and being very spread out, LA still
has traffic problems. There are lots of freeways but they can still
grind to a halt at rush hour. ICBW but I think it was one of the first
places to introduce car pool lanes to try and get the number of
occupants per vehicle up.

The road under discussion here is clearly urban, and you're proposing
motorway building as solution, which just won't work in densely
populated areas.

> > And others will see their happiness, and (over time) adjust their lives
> > to take advantage of the improved speeds by travelling further - until
> > congestion is back where it was and traffic volume is far higher.
>
> We have to keep one step ahead - plan.  It is only on congested roads
> that improvements appear to "generate" traffic.  

No, there's plenty of evidence that pretty much all road developments
generate traffic. People assess whether they will undertake a journey
based on how long it takes rather than how far it is. A new road may
open new opportunities for employment, shopping, leisure, etc. And
there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that in principle, if we have
space to build the roads and the benefits of that are not outweighed
by other disadvantages.

>   We need an infrastructure that supports free and unhindered movement,
> and individual choice of transport mode.  

Our country isn't big enough for that, and it would require huge
amounts of demolition in most of our dense cities. The exceptions are
places like Milton Keynes which were designed with the car in mind.

> Think of it in terms of
> housing, rather than travel.  If the misguided travel policies were
> applied to housing, we would be looking forward to a future with no
> private houses, with tent-living encouraged for the fit and able, and
> with shared dormitories in government regulated communal dormitory
> blocks for the rest.

A false argument. Peoples' housing needs are finite. You can only
sleep in one bedroom at a time, use one bathroom at a time, etc.
Bigger bedrooms, more low occupancy households, etc increase demand a
bit, but you don't get a step change in demand until people start
buying second homes, and there are policies to discourage that.

Travel demand is much more elastic. People travel much further to work
than they used to, go further to do the shopping, travel enormous
distances for a weekend break, take more holidays per year, etc. I've
nothing against any of this, but to say all this demand must be met
isn't practicable.

If you want to learn more about this, the OU have a course on cities
and technology which discusses the interaction between changing
technologies and their effects on peoples' lives. If you're really
interested in the subject it might be worth you're while taking it,
then you could post informed comment. Of course you'd have to take the
risk that it might change your views, possible substantially.

Rob

 

[dkahn400]

On Apr 9, 8:07 pm, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy

> >So you're smug as well as selfish?
>
> I'm delighted to appear both smug and selfish to you.

An example of the caring Sir Jeremy's own unselfish attitude: <http://
groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/5bf6cc485f72652b>

--
Dave...

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 10, 1:17 pm, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>> I can't see it. All I can see is a normal public road, open to all
>>>> modes of traffic. It appears to be snarled-up with, presumably,
>>>> non-local traffic held up too. Better, I think, to segregate the
>>>> non-local, longer distance, motor traffic onto a dedicated motorway.
>>>> That way they will be happier,...
>
> I recall briefly exchanging postings with you on this topic once
> before.

Possibly.

> I showed that it wasn't possible to build enough motorways in
> urban areas to satisfy demand.

Well, "expressed the view", possibly.

> So you said you meant you were talking
> about rural areas.

Motorways are only really suitable for journeys between urban centres, yes.

> IIRC you wanted to criss-cross the triangle between
> the M1/M4/M5 with more motorways,

No, I believe a motorway network is required, to be able to travel
efficiently between towns and cities, and to remove through traffic from
public roads and urban centres. It needs to be able to offer
alternative routes between all destinations, to tolerate outages and
closures, and to be self-balancing. If I am travelling from, say,
Southampton to Cheltenham, and there is a problem on the Andover to
Swindon link, then I want to be able to get to Swindon via Salisbury. I
don't want to sit stationary for 6 hours whilst the incident is
investigated, or set off into the wilderness along Wiltshire's
delightful country lanes.

> because fast dual carriageways don't
> work (because of slow agricultural vehicles).

No, more likely because public road dual carriageways aren't efficient.
With traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, cycle lanes, roundabouts,
50, 70, 40, 60, speed limits randomly dispersed, single carriageway
sections, and so on.

> To repeat the basic argument, most British cities grew up with public
> transport.

When do you think public transport became widespread? I would suggest
that most grew up around personal travel needs: walking, animal riding,
and animal powered vehicles.

> Public transport favours a dense central core with radial
> services, usually rail, to get people in and out.

Then let those who wish to live in those conditions have it, and pay for
it, and pay for the damage it does to the environment. But don't force
it upon the rest of us, don't deny the rest of us the use of our public
roads because of it and don't expect the rest of us to pay for it.

> There simply isn't
> enough room in the dense core to build enough roads to satisfy
> unlimited road transport demand without knocking down huge numbers of
> buildings.

There are many ways to "skin a cat". Why talk about building new roads,
when we haven't learnt how to efficiently use the ones we have yet. And
don't forget, "room" isn't confined to the 2-dimensional "room".

> [snip irrelevant LA distraction]

> The road under discussion here is clearly urban, and you're proposing
> motorway building as solution, which just won't work in densely
> populated areas.

Motorways to relieve the local roads of through traffic, remember.

>>> And others will see their happiness, and (over time) adjust their lives
>>> to take advantage of the improved speeds by travelling further - until
>>> congestion is back where it was and traffic volume is far higher.
>> We have to keep one step ahead - plan. It is only on congested roads
>> that improvements appear to "generate" traffic.
>
> No, there's plenty of evidence that pretty much all road developments
> generate traffic. People assess whether they will undertake a journey
> based on how long it takes rather than how far it is.

Amongst other things. So if a new road doesn't reduce the journey time,
what effect will building it, to pre-empt future economic growth, have
on current traffic levels? I'm sure you could think of several roads,
both old and new, which are never congested. I'm sure you could think
of many small towns and villages which have been transformed from
traffic hell-holes, into pleasant places, by the construction of a
bypass. Why accept discredited anti-car and greenwash propaganda as the
only way forward?

> A new road may
> open new opportunities for employment, shopping, leisure, etc. And
> there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that in principle, if we have
> space to build the roads and the benefits of that are not outweighed
> by other disadvantages.

Exactly.

>> We need an infrastructure that supports free and unhindered movement,
>> and individual choice of transport mode.
>
> Our country isn't big enough for that, and it would require huge
> amounts of demolition in most of our dense cities.

Why not think laterally, and forget the "demolition" scaremonger's
argument. Next time you're out and about, note how you often actually
get to the /front/ of a traffic jam. That suggests that it is a problem
with traffic management, not a shortage of road, that has caused the
jam. I passed through a small town earlier today which had a 500 yard
queue of cars up to a set of traffic lights. There was no queue after
the traffic lights, so it was the lights causing the queue.

> The exceptions are
> places like Milton Keynes which were designed with the car in mind.
>
>> Think of it in terms of
>> housing, rather than travel. If the misguided travel policies were
>> applied to housing, we would be looking forward to a future with no
>> private houses, with tent-living encouraged for the fit and able, and
>> with shared dormitories in government regulated communal dormitory
>> blocks for the rest.
>
> A false argument. Peoples' housing needs are finite. You can only
> sleep in one bedroom at a time, use one bathroom at a time, etc.

I don't know about you, but I can only use one vehicle at a time too.

> Bigger bedrooms, more low occupancy households, etc increase demand a
> bit, but you don't get a step change in demand until people start
> buying second homes, and there are policies to discourage that.
>
> Travel demand is much more elastic. People travel much further to work
> than they used to, go further to do the shopping, travel enormous
> distances for a weekend break, take more holidays per year, etc. I've
> nothing against any of this, but to say all this demand must be met
> isn't practicable.

It hasn't yet been given serious and intelligent consideration.

> If you want to learn more about this, the OU have a course on cities
> and technology which discusses the interaction between changing
> technologies and their effects on peoples' lives. If you're really
> interested in the subject it might be worth you're while taking it,
> then you could post informed comment.

I'm not sure that I want my mind narrowed thus, to only be able to see
the orthodox view.

> Of course you'd have to take the
> risk that it might change your views, possible substantially.

I'm not sure that it is my views that need changing. ;-)

--
Matt B

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 10 Apr, 14:05, dkahn400 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 8:07 pm, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> > >So you're smug as well as selfish?
>
> > I'm delighted to appear both smug and selfish to you.
>
> An example of the caring Sir Jeremy's own unselfish attitude:  <http://
> groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/5bf6cc485f72652b>
>
> --
> Dave...

I'm rather proud of that one.....

 

[GeoffC]

dkahn400 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 8:07 pm, Tom Crispin
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
>
>>> So you're smug as well as selfish?
>>
>> I'm delighted to appear both smug and selfish to you.
>
> An example of the caring Sir Jeremy's own unselfish attitude:
> <http://
> groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/5bf6cc485f72652b>

........lowest form of wit.....etc

--

Geoff

 

[Mark T]

Leandr42 writtificated

> I recall briefly exchanging postings with you on this topic once
> before.

MattB has never shown any sign of possessing learning skills. He's a
troll, desperate for human interaction. The minutes you spent explaining
things has been completely wasted.

 

[Matt B]

Mark T wrote:
> Leandr42 writtificated
>
>> I recall briefly exchanging postings with you on this topic once
>> before.
>
> MattB has never shown any sign of possessing learning skills.

ITYM "has never shown any sign of swallowing anti-car propaganda or
government spin".

--
Matt B

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:04:59 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
wrote:

>The road under discussion here is clearly urban, and you're proposing
>motorway building as solution, which just won't work in densely
>populated areas.

There was a proposal in the 1960s to bypass the A2 across Blackheath
with a motorway (part of the South Cross Route and a spur from the
South Cross Route). It was part of the London Motorway Box proposal.
That proposal was comprehensively rubbished in 1973; it is interesting
to note that Matt B still supports a scheme stuck 35 years in the
past.

 

[Matt B]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:04:59 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
> wrote:
>
>> The road under discussion here is clearly urban, and you're proposing
>> motorway building as solution, which just won't work in densely
>> populated areas.
>
> There was a proposal in the 1960s to bypass the A2 across Blackheath
> with a motorway (part of the South Cross Route and a spur from the
> South Cross Route). It was part of the London Motorway Box proposal.
> That proposal was comprehensively rubbished in 1973;

On what grounds?

> it is interesting
> to note that Matt B still supports a scheme stuck 35 years in the
> past.

Did you read my post, or are you making an assumption of what I might
support based on the unfair summary of my position posted by
"[email protected]"?

--
Matt B

 

[Tom C]

On 11 Apr, 18:51, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

[Posting from Google Groups as my server, without any prompting from
me, is treating Matt B's posts the same way as it treats the spam from
China. I wonder what lesson it is trying to teach me!?]

>> That proposal was comprehensively rubbished in 1973;
>
>On what grounds?

Presumably on the grounds that the proposal was rubbish.

> Did you read my post

Only bits.

 

[Matt B]

Tom C wrote:
> On 11 Apr, 18:51, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [Posting from Google Groups as my server, without any prompting from
> me, is treating Matt B's posts the same way as it treats the spam from
> China.

Thanks for your trouble

> I wonder what lesson it is trying to teach me!?]
>
>>> That proposal was comprehensively rubbished in 1973;
>> On what grounds?
>
> Presumably on the grounds that the proposal was rubbish.

On the contrary. It was scrapped because our road network is controlled
by politicians, and given some nimby-inspired unrest over it, they
decided that their seats were more important than the nation's economy.
The travelling public are still suffering the consequences of those
short-sighted decisions of the 1970s.

>> Did you read my post
>
> Only bits.



--
Matt B

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:05:43 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> That proposal was comprehensively rubbished in 1973;
>>> On what grounds?
>>
>> Presumably on the grounds that the proposal was rubbish.
>
>On the contrary. It was scrapped because our road network is controlled
>by politicians, and given some nimby-inspired unrest over it, they
>decided that their seats were more important than the nation's economy.
> The travelling public are still suffering the consequences of those
>short-sighted decisions of the 1970s.

I don't see the Paris peripherique doing much good for the travelling
public in Paris.

The bike loan scheme, the heavily subsidised Metro system and the
excellent high speed rail links on the other hand...

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane
>
> Would this road be better for cyclists:
>
> a. without a cycle lane
> b. with a segregated cycle lane
> c. with cycles banned
> d. left as it is
> e. other - please state
>
> Note - banning motor vehicles, though a favoured option of mine, is
> not a valid option.

There's lots of missing information. It would be silly to try to
develop a solution without obtaining that information.

From the green sign, behind all the traffic jam, we can see that this
is a trunk road. The high percentage of lorry traffic implies the
same thing, and also that the road can't get by with narrow lanes for
the motor vehicles. This also implies that it will be difficult to
close or divert the road.

The bike lane stripe is dashed, which means that the traffic
engineers know it is impossible for motor vehicles to keep out of the
bike lane.

Traffic is solid in both directions. We don't know whether that is
because of some unusual circumstances, such as road construction, or
an accident, or is because of traffic lights being red but about to
turn green, nor how much of the day the road is full, and how much of
the day, empty. We don't know why the photographer chose that time
to take the photo.

There is a bike lane in the uphill direction. It is impossible to
see what is provided for the fast downhill bikes, who, it looks like,
would want to go faster than the other traffic, not slower..

There seems to be just grass to the right of the roadway, and no
pavement, and yet, for some reason, making the road a foot or two
wider is not suggested.

There's no such thing as a "segregated bike lane". If it's
segregated, it's not a bike lane, it's a cycle track The only reason
to use the segregated euphemism is because the real name for it, a
cycle track, has developed such a bad reputation during the two
thirds of a century of its existence that it has become the facility
that dare not speak its name.

If there's room for the "segregated cycle lane", i.e. cycle track,
there's room to widen the road slightly instead. In fact, adding
extra width to the road might require less room, and be a better
solution for cyclists

Jeremy Parker.

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Colin McKenzie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:XKWdnSQqrI5taGDaRVnyvAA@plusnet...
> Matt B wrote:
>> I can't see it. All I can see is a normal public road, open to
>> all modes of traffic. It appears to be snarled-up with,
>> presumably, non-local traffic held up too. Better, I think, to
>> segregate the non-local, longer distance, motor traffic onto a
>> dedicated motorway. That way they will be happier,...
>
> And others will see their happiness, and (over time) adjust their
> lives to take advantage of the improved speeds by travelling
> further - until congestion is back where it was and traffic volume
> is far higher.
>
> We know this happens. The benefits to some individuals aren't
> enough to justify the extra oil burnt.
>
> Building or improving a railway would provide similar new journey
> opportunities without increasing fuel usage.

If this is Shooters Hill, then the railways, the North Kent lines,
are indeed about to be improved. This being so, people will abandon
their cars and switch to trains, until the lessened car traffic
causes motor vehicle travel times to decease to the new train travel
times

Jeremy Parker

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:56:41 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in
>message news:[email protected]...
>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/cyclane
>>
>> Would this road be better for cyclists:
>>
>> a. without a cycle lane
>> b. with a segregated cycle lane
>> c. with cycles banned
>> d. left as it is
>> e. other - please state
>>
>> Note - banning motor vehicles, though a favoured option of mine, is
>> not a valid option.
>
>There's lots of missing information. It would be silly to try to
>develop a solution without obtaining that information.
>
>From the green sign, behind all the traffic jam, we can see that this
>is a trunk road. The high percentage of lorry traffic implies the
>same thing, and also that the road can't get by with narrow lanes for
>the motor vehicles. This also implies that it will be difficult to
>close or divert the road.

Correct.

>The bike lane stripe is dashed, which means that the traffic
>engineers know it is impossible for motor vehicles to keep out of the
>bike lane.

I don't think that the criteria for making a cycle lane mandatory is
the possibility or otherwise of keeping motor vehicles out. It has
more to do with the requirement to get a traffic regulation order.

>Traffic is solid in both directions. We don't know whether that is
>because of some unusual circumstances, such as road construction, or
>an accident, or is because of traffic lights being red but about to
>turn green, nor how much of the day the road is full, and how much of
>the day, empty. We don't know why the photographer chose that time
>to take the photo.

A careful count of motor vehicles (I have 39 similar photos taken
within a minute) between the point where I was taking the photos and
the Blackheath roundabout shows traffic density to be about the same
as in this Google Earth image.
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/a2.JPG


The traffic usually flows in both directions, though held up from time
to time by a toucan crossing at the point where I am taking the photo,
and at a roundabout where trees appear to be in the middle of the
road.

If you download all 39 photos you can run an animation showing the
traffic flow.
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/a2/

>There is a bike lane in the uphill direction. It is impossible to
>see what is provided for the fast downhill bikes, who, it looks like,
>would want to go faster than the other traffic, not slower.

There is a similar advisory lane "downhill" though the gradient is
slight. Traffic approaches the roundabout at 30mph, slowing just
before it gets there. There is a wide, pedestrian free footway along
the other side of the road.

>There seems to be just grass to the right of the roadway, and no
>pavement, and yet, for some reason, making the road a foot or two
>wider is not suggested.

The grass is Blackheath. Widening the road would be difficult. Locals
are well organised and powerful and would quash any such suggestion.
They once agreed that concrete honeycomb blocks could be laid in the
ground to provide a grassed cycle track. Hahahaha. Other locals
quashed that ridiculous idea.

Another suggestion has been to tunnel under the Heath, that idea was
quashed when it was realised that a concrete ventilation shaft would
blight the middle of the Heath.

>There's no such thing as a "segregated bike lane". If it's
>segregated, it's not a bike lane, it's a cycle track The only reason
>to use the segregated euphemism is because the real name for it, a
>cycle track, has developed such a bad reputation during the two
>thirds of a century of its existence that it has become the facility
>that dare not speak its name.
>
>If there's room for the "segregated cycle lane", i.e. cycle track,
>there's room to widen the road slightly instead. In fact, adding
>extra width to the road might require less room, and be a better
>solution for cyclists

That may yet happen. The footway is unused.

However, I am of the opinion that this is a rare case where a simple
painted line on the road provides a cheap and useful facility -
certainly as far as the toucan crossing, and the right turn to take
cyclists through Greenwich Park.

 

[Matt B]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:05:43 +0100, Matt B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>> That proposal was comprehensively rubbished in 1973;
>>>> On what grounds?
>>> Presumably on the grounds that the proposal was rubbish.
>> On the contrary. It was scrapped because our road network is controlled
>> by politicians, and given some nimby-inspired unrest over it, they
>> decided that their seats were more important than the nation's economy.
>> The travelling public are still suffering the consequences of those
>> short-sighted decisions of the 1970s.
>
> I don't see the Paris peripherique doing much good for the travelling
> public in Paris.

Did the original plan for that include 3 other concentric rings which
were cancelled, as in London?

> The bike loan scheme, the heavily subsidised Metro system and the
> excellent high speed rail links on the other hand...

No forgetting their extensive, and continually expanding, autoroute
system. They already have about three-times the length we have per person.

Their system of planning and building transport infrastructure doesn't
pander to nimbys like ours though. If they think they need it, they
build it.

--
Matt B