Charge drivers and expand the cycle network

[Tony Raven]

Paul Boyd wrote on 01/12/2006 09:48 +0100:
>
> Have you read the latest CTC magazine? There is a brief article about
> cycle-friendly towns. Needless to say, these aren't in the UK. Also a
> good article about a family cycle-touring in Holland, and the
> eye-opening attitudes of the Dutch towards cyclists compared to the
> hostile bus driver they encountered immediately on their return to the UK.
>

The Dutch bus driver would likely have been quite aggressive if they had
cycled on the road rather than the cycle path. The motorists there are
far worse for their "get off my road" attitude.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news[email protected],
Chris Johns <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> Scrap the ID card farce.
> Stop illegal wars.
> Control of immigration (note control, not stop).
> Reduce the benifits bill (benifits should be to get you buy in hard
> times, not a lifestyle choice where you can afford holidays abroad,
> sky tv etc).

And in case the gubbinsment gets any more funny ideas, do NOT spend a
gazillion quid on a new SLBM system, just because Trident doesn't have a
socket for an iPod, or whatever other bobbins reason Thee Military are
preparing to trot out to justify it.

Grr!

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Mushroom! Mushroom!

 

[Tony Raven]

Stephen Patterson wrote on 01/12/2006 10:24 +0100:
>
> We need to stop being London/SE centred and the government needs to
> make some big decisions such as increasing the rail network capacity
> & making it more available for mixed freight. Buses can also be
> organised more effectively to completely cover towns & villages
> within a local authority's area.
>

Nice idea but... There have been enormous sums of money invested over
many years to make the regions more attractive and to try to encourage
people and businesses to move out of the SE but they have voted with
their feet. These days for companies it is more a case of locate where
they want in the UK or locate overseas

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Mike the Unimaginative wrote:
> I really haven't made my mind up on this one.
> If the plan is to charge the highest for the busiest, most congested
> roads, then traffic *will* move onto the quieter, less congested roads -

which will cause them to become more congested and therefore more
expensive, and so traffic will move back onto the major roads.

Presumably they're presently quieter and less congested because they're
less direct or slower roads, so it won't take much extra traffic to fill
them up and thus it won't take long for "rebalancing" to have effect.

> I hate to agree with MattB but any charge will probably hit the lower
> paid the most, the ones who work the unsociable hours, and the rich will
> just shrug their shoulders and carry on as before.

Road users commuting at unsociable[*] times are unlikely to be
experiencing congestion either.

This all assumes that the congestion charging actually reflects
congestion levels instead of being set arbitrarily and only adjusted
every few years, which I realise is not axiomatic. It _could_ be done,
though, with current technology.


[*] personally I think 9-5 is pretty darned unsociable, but I appear to
be in a minority there.

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

 

[Andy Leighton]

On 1 Dec 2006 02:15:55 -0800, POHB <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> I totally disagree with this Government's plans to extract more TAX
>> out of people's earnings.
>> snip
>> More does need to be spent on cycle networks and public transport
>
> So you don't want more or higher taxes but you want more public money
> to be spent. I think most people would agree with your goal, but do
> you have a suggestion of how it might be achieved?

By spending less on some other things maybe. I am sure we can all think
of some useless spending by the government - ID cards and Trident
replacement for example.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[MJ Ray]

Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet>
> I'm thinking about going to the NEC on Sunday, from Weston-super-Mare.
> Whoops! No local trains - just a substitute bus service into Bristol.
> Minimum overall journey time 4.25 hours. Each way. [...]

Yep, they're working on BTM-WSM and some things show buses GCR-BHM.

Surprisingly, Nat.Ex service N11 runs between Bristol and the NEC
on Sunday, so you could drive into Bristol (it's too early/late for
cycling IMO and mass transport on Sundays is terrible, but it looks
like on-street parking is free Sundays) and catch the coach for 20 quid.
Times aren't exactly what was wanted:

Bristol: Marlborough St, Bus Stn, Bristol Depart: 7:45
Gloucester: Bus Stn, Gloucester Depart: 8:40
Cheltenham Spa: Royal Well Bus Stn, Cheltenham Spa Depart: 9:10
Birmingham, N.E.C.: National Exhibition Centre,, Birmingham, N.E.C. Arrive:10:30

Birmingham, N.E.C.: National Exhibition Centre,, Birmingham, N.E.C. Depart:17:30
Cheltenham Spa: Royal Well Bus Stn, Cheltenham Spa Arrive:18:45
Gloucester: Bus Stn, Gloucester Arrive:19:10
Bristol: Marlborough St, Bus Stn, Bristol Arrive:20:00

 

[Chris Johns]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Mark Thompson wrote:

>> Control of immigration (note control, not stop).
> You mean tighter, I presume.

Yes, although the controls at present seem so **** poor, or is that just
the media reporting that's **** poor?
--
Chris Johns

 

[Dave]

"POHB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
> > I totally disagree with this Government's plans to extract more TAX out
of people's earnings.
> > snip
> > More does need to be spent on cycle networks and public transport
>
> So you don't want more or higher taxes but you want more public money
> to be spent. I think most people would agree with your goal, but do
> you have a suggestion of how it might be achieved?
>

Money is there but how the government decide to spend it needs addressing.

If they want more people to use public transport then it should be public
transport that is well thought out and needs money spending on it. So spend
less on the roads and more on that.

Dave

 

[Matt B]

Mike the Unimaginative wrote:
>>
> I hate to agree with MattB but any charge will probably hit the lower
> paid the most, the ones who work the unsociable hours, and the rich will
> just shrug their shoulders and carry on as before.

I've not read the 15MB 5 volumes of the report yet, but I wonder if it
considered all the alternative methods of rationing road space. One
interesting idea is to reward less use, rather than to charge for more
use. The same technology can be adapted to work either way. There are
many ways to achieve this. One idea is to reward, via tax rebates, per
mile, those whose annual mileage is below the national annual average.
Another is to reward everyone not in a jam detected to be caused by
demand outstripping supply.

I also wonder if the system applied to PT operators was considered. PT
operators who fail to ensure that their system can cope with demand, in
terms of delays etc. are expected to compensate the customers. The same
principle could be applied to those who supply the road system. If it
fails to deliver, as in the case of congestion on motorways, then the
users should be compensated. This would apply commercial pressure to
ensure congestion was designed out, rather than the London system where
the London coffers benefit from the designed-in congestion there.
>
> What we do not need is any wholesale extension of the road network,

Well, for motorways we do, until we actually get a complete network.

> what
> is needed is a period of joined up thinking (not very British, I'm
> afraid) to look at all the options of:
> := increasing the desirability of cycling (and walking);

Absolutely. Make our streets usable.

> := the reach and accessibility of public transport - both urban and
> inter-urban; (by reach & accessibility I mean hours, routes, accomodation
> of vehicles and at stopping places, pricing structure etc etc).

Absolutely. We need, in fact, to review the desirability of allowing
large buses to enter our busy town centres, and the desirability of
handing over public road for commercial use. Free PT would increase
use. Free school buses would reduce the 'school run'.

> := the use of technology to reduce shopping and commuting;
> and to see how the railways, and water, can be used to move heavy goods
> around.

All good stuff!

> I know as I get older I am getting less tolerant (eeeek!) but I also
> beleive that we seriously need to reconsider the whole issue of school
> choice and catchment areas.
> When I was a lad (yawn) I walked to the local school, and so did all my
> neighbours' kids - when I went to secondary school I walked (and later
> cycled), my classmates came by bus, walked or cycled - no-one was
> transported half-way accross London by car, because the school was
> *local*.
> While there was congestion there was no such thing as 'the school run'-
> why do whe need it?
> (I can remember walking along Wightman Road in Harringay much quicker
> than the queing traffic in err 1968 ish)
> Give parents an assurance that their local school will meet the needs of
> local parents and do away with the false illusion of choice, and the
> retched school run (rant over).

We mustn't be tempted to allow congestion to be used as an excuse to
condemn poor children to be educated in poor schools.

--
Matt B

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Yes, although the controls at present seem so **** poor, or is that just
> the media reporting that's **** poor?

Its more a case of ****-poor media reporting, ****-poor management etc of,
and by, the bits of government that deal with immigration and lots of peeps
that want to come over here and work.

If I were an economist I'd prolly add that the controls were too, er,
controlling.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Dave wrote:
>
>Currently motorists pay a tax called the "Road Fund Licence" - the amount
>collected in this tax is spent by the government on whatever they want
>rather than the roads anyway.

Which will be why the governments stopped calling it that in 1936 when the
Road Fund was abolished.

 

[Paul Boyd]

Tony Raven said the following on 01/12/2006 11:19:

> The Dutch bus driver would likely have been quite aggressive if they had
> cycled on the road rather than the cycle path. The motorists there are
> far worse for their "get off my road" attitude.

I haven't been there, so I don't have first-hand experience (my brother
lives there, so he has!) The overall impression I get from many sources
is that the Dutch are a very tolerant race when it comes to cyclists.

Mind you, if they have cycle facilities that do actually work well,
unlike what we have over here, I can partly understand (but not agree
with) the "get off my road" attitude. It's the same attitude we get in
the UK from drivers who see a splash of white paint and try to force us
into it. If the cycle lanes here were actually designed and maintained
instead of splashed and glassed then there would be no need to use the
road. Just to pre-empt the obvious point, I'm not saying that cyclists
shouldn't use the road if they wish, but more along the lines of there
being an easy, useful and pleasant alternative to the road. That'll
never happen here then!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Paul Boyd]

MJ Ray said the following on 01/12/2006 11:43:

> Surprisingly, Nat.Ex service N11 runs between Bristol and the NEC
> on Sunday,

Ah - coaches - there's a possibility! I wasn't fussed about the times
being exact, I just wanted a reasonable amount of time there - just
being the same day is an improvement over the train service

I will consider that - thanks for reminding me about coaches. I do need
to find out about parking though because I don't imagine that anywhere
near the bus station will be free on Sunday because of the proximity to
Broadmead.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[[email protected]]

Dave wrote:

> If they want more people to use public transport then it should be public
> transport that is well thought out and needs money spending on it. So spend
> less on the roads and more on that.


Public transport (buses) uses the roads. We need more roads in some
places.. Outside major urban centres which need different answers the
answer is more road capacity.
There is a myth that new roads anywhere immediately fill up with
traffic. Nonsense. The M6 north of Preston was built 30? years ago and
is still under capacity. The M6 south of Manchester needs another
motorway parallel to take traffic away from it. Like the M6 toll
relief does but extended further south and north..
The motorway network was planned 50 years ago and is still
unfinished. There is no motorway the entire distance between Glasgow
and Edinburgh for example.
The best thing the government could do to encourage business to
locate outside the south east would be to provided adequate motorway
links. Rail works well between major city centres but other than that
can not compete with road transport (private and public)
Politicians talk green but all I have seen over the last few
years in my area anyway is talk. Talking green for votes but failing
to improve public transport for those that wish to use it. There has
been numerous example locally of planners giving permission for new
housing on sites adjacent to train stations which were the only
suitable place for park and ride car parks for example.
Talking green but not doing anything about bus or train companies
which ban bikes - even folders.
Talking green but providing inadequate and dangerous cycle
facilities because doing it properly would either cost money or
inconvenience motorists.
Talking green but not taking simple steps like abolishing VED and
purchase tax on cars and putting the equivilent amount on fuel so that
the standing cost of running a car falls but the cost of driving it
goes up.
Talking green but doing what is popular not what is correct.
Iain

 

[Tony Raven]

Paul Boyd wrote on 01/12/2006 12:31 +0100:
>
> I haven't been there, so I don't have first-hand experience (my brother
> lives there, so he has!) The overall impression I get from many sources
> is that the Dutch are a very tolerant race when it comes to cyclists.
>

Read what our local urc resident has to say
http://www.m-gineering.nl/touringg.htm

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 01/12/2006 16:10, Tony Raven said,

> Read what our local urc resident has to say
> http://www.m-gineering.nl/touringg.htm

That puts a different light on it! Thanks for the link.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Adam Lea]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike the Unimaginative wrote:
>>>
>> I hate to agree with MattB but any charge will probably hit the lower
>> paid the most, the ones who work the unsociable hours, and the rich will
>> just shrug their shoulders and carry on as before.
>
> I've not read the 15MB 5 volumes of the report yet, but I wonder if it
> considered all the alternative methods of rationing road space. One
> interesting idea is to reward less use, rather than to charge for more
> use. The same technology can be adapted to work either way. There are
> many ways to achieve this. One idea is to reward, via tax rebates, per
> mile, those whose annual mileage is below the national annual average.
> Another is to reward everyone not in a jam detected to be caused by demand
> outstripping supply.
>

And another is for people to drive in a more considerate manner:

http://www.smartmotorist.com/wav/wav.htm

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Mike the
Unimaginative ('[email protected]') wrote:

> "POHB" <[email protected]> writed in news:1164963630.164687.192850
> @h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> One of those "is expected to report" news stories:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm
>>
>> "Motorists should be asked to pay to drive on the nation's road
>> network"...
>> "Smaller projects, including an expansion of the UK cycle network, are
>> likely to receive strong backing."
>>
> I really haven't made my mind up on this one.
> If the plan is to charge the highest for the busiest, most congested
> roads, then traffic *will* move onto the quieter, less congested roads -
> that is to say the ones most suitable for cycling, and it *will not* (or
> at least initially) cause a sea change to flexible working in any
> meaningful way; neither will there be any sudden move to getting
> businesses away from the major connurbations ('cos that's where people
> live!)
> I hate to agree with MattB but any charge will probably hit the lower
> paid the most, the ones who work the unsociable hours, and the rich will
> just shrug their shoulders and carry on as before.

The plan is that the pricing is dynamic - that is, you're not charged a
fixed price for a particular piece of road, you're charged a price
dependent on how congested it was while you were using it. So if people do
try to 'rat run', they'll automatically be clobbered by the charges. So
they won't rat run.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Dave
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Currently motorists pay a tax called the "Road Fund Licence" - the amount
> collected in this tax is spent by the government on whatever they want
> rather than the roads anyway.

No they don't. The Road Fund Licence was abolished when my father was a
little boy. There are very, very few people left alive who have ever had a
Road Fund Licence.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, wafflycat
('w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com') wrote:

>
> "POHB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> One of those "is expected to report" news stories:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm
>>
>> "Motorists should be asked to pay to drive on the nation's road
>> network"...
>> "Smaller projects, including an expansion of the UK cycle network, are
>> likely to receive strong backing."
>>
>
> I fundamentally oppose the road-charging bit. All that'll succeed in
> doing is increase congestion on narrow, winding roads that simply aren't
> designed to take large numbers of motorised vehicles.

No, I don't think it will; that's exactly why it's a good idea. If people
shift to smaller roads and those get congested (which they quickly will)
the charge for using those roads will skyrocket. So you'll pay more for
using a narrow road.

Suppose you're on a major road and it's busy; you're paying, but you're
getting to your destination. You have the option of turning off onto a
minor road, but it's a gamble; if it's clear you'll pay less and get to
your destination a bit more slowly, if everyone else has had the same idea
you'll pay though the nose and probably not get to your destination in
reasonable time. I think people will stick to the main roads.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left