--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Fractal" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
>
> "dewatf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:58:11 +1100, "Bob"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
<Snippage>
> Besides, any motorist who cares about pollution would leave the car at
home
> and take a train or ride during peak hour. Most motorists dont give a toss
> about pollution, particularly if it means they might get to work a bit
late.
Odd one, this. "most motorists" don't work in the CBD. Most people work in
factories, retail, etc, etc, outside of the city - in the suburbs, in the
industrial areas, and so-on. Only admin people work in the city, and the
general ratio of admin (and I include management, etc) to 'workers' (by
that, I mean the hands-on employees) is about 1 to 4 (lifted from my org
management studies).
Much of the argument about traffic, public transport, cycling, etc. centres
around the CBDs - it's not relevent to most people. Similarly, PT is geared
toward getting people to and around the CBD for 'normal working hours'.
Again, not relevent to most people. More people work 'non-standard' hours
than the (increasingly rare) 9-5 that so much planning revolves around.
It seems to me that mre focus on getting people to places they need to go at
times they need to be there is much more productive than focussing on the
CBD, which, coincidentally, is where the 'top end of town' people tend to
work.
How about spreading the alternative transport net to include the people who
start work at, say, 6am for a day shift, in the industrial (light and heavy)
suburbs, shopping centres (often 8am - 6pm 'real' working time) and so-on?
Bugger the CBD. It's much less likely to get someone in a suit and/or makeup
to get on a bike for a day's work in the CBD than it is to get the labourer,
factory worker, etc to ride at least part way to work - they have less to
worry about appearance.
How's this for a start: A series of Park and Ride stations where you can
park your car and take your bike the rest of the way to work. If the
stations were situated within, say, 10-15 km of major areas of employment
(industrial reas, shopping centres, etc) and the employers in these areas
were required to provide secure bike parking, shower and change facilities,
etc, along with, perhaps, a voucher system that can be used to claim tax
incentives at tax return time, would a proportion of people be likely to use
the facility? May be even make bike parking free and secure but car parking
expensive and 'at your own risk'.
I think that, given the distances people travel between work and home it's
pretty unlikely that many people will cycle the whole way. I think that if
people can be encouraged (OK - HEAVILYencouraged!) to cycle part way it's a
gain. I suggested 10-15km as a distance because (wild guess - nothing to
back me up!) it's about half what people typically travel. If half a trip is
made by bike, then that's half the driving done - a net gain.
Just a thought...
Frank
>
> One other fact I read somewhere, capacity on a road (vehicles per hour) is
> pretty independent of speed and is actually best at slower speeds of about
> 30 or 40, because you can have a smaller gap between vehicles. Work it
out,
> leaving 2 secs gap between vehicles. So there is little point in trying to
> do 80 or even 60, you might as well slow down and the traffic will flow
> better.
>
> Bobm
> Sydnee
>
>