UK and Europe · Public discussion

Ease traffic congestion - ban cycles!

Started by Gonzalez · · Last activity · 6 posts · 658 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
2 January 2004
Last activity
2 January 2004
Original author
Gonzalez
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
658
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The subject line may sound like the start of a third rate troll - but banning bicycles from the
    streets of Shanghai to ease traffic congestion is official municipal government policy.

    I returned from a ten day trip to Shanghai today (New Year's Eve) and have had a chance to observe
    this seemingly absurd policy at first hand. This report is based on personal experience from three
    trips to Shanghai over a nine year period, and conversations with my brother who has worked as a
    property consultant in Shanghai since 1993.

    I first visited Shanghai in the summer of 1995. The roads were clear of private cars, but full of
    bicycles, small red VW taxis and the odd blue truck. Apart from the road from the airport, and a
    single road tunnel connecting Shanghai to Pudong, I saw no evidence of major roads. The first
    underground line opened while I was there, and I must have been about the first paying passenger on
    the creatively named Line No 1. The carriage I was on was empty except for my brother, me and a
    railway employee. There was evidence of major road construction all around the city: work had
    started on the Inner Ring Road.

    What a shock I had when I returned two years' later. Major road construction was going on all over
    the place. Shanghai was one big traffic jam. The small red taxis were now large red taxis, there
    were still few private cars, and the number of bicycles seemed little diminished. Metro Line No 2
    had just opened, and trains on both Line 1 and Line 2 were severely overcrowded. Getting about the
    city by taxi was very time consuming, so everyone cycled or went by Metro. The Inner Ring Road had
    been completed and traffic flowed reasonably freely on it. Work had begun on the east-west and north-
    south elevated highways, and construction was causing major congestion at street level. Two new
    bridges had opened over the Hungpu River, connecting either end of the Inner Ring Road with Pudong,
    and Pudong itself was being transformed from a rural backwater into a major area of office
    development.

    And again I was shocked at the pace of development on my return to the city for Christmas this year.
    Shanghai now boasts 21 metro or light railway lines, either completed, under construction or planned
    - named by the numbers 1 - 21 prefaced with the word "line", and a 30Km, 430 kph maglev railway.
    Roads are mostly congestion free, the Inner Ring Road had been completed, the East-West elevated
    highway, the North-South elevated highway and the Outer Ring Road. The Hungpu river now boasts seven
    road crossings, four metro crossings and three foot/cycle crossings (four if you include the
    passenger ferry). Pudong is full of high rise buildings, and all major roads in Pudong have
    excellent facilities for bicycles in the shape of wide segregated cycle lanes with their own traffic
    signals: cycling in Pudong is unlikely to be a problem for a great many years.

    Private car ownership has risen greatly in Shanghai, large red taxis have been replaced by large
    taxis of any colour other than red. Bicycles are still the favoured form of transport by a very
    large number of people in Shanghai. The rise in motorised traffic has been more than matched by the
    construction of the elevated highways and other major roads. Bicycles are banned from using the
    elevated highways and the Outer Ring Road. In the case of the elevated highways, this is not a
    problem as the cyclists can use the roads below, many of which have segregated cycle lanes.

    It is on the main grid system of ground level roads in downtown Shanghai where there is a conflict
    between cyclists and motorists. The municipal authority have a unique solution to the problem of
    traffic congestion - ban cycles.

    The ban applies to cycles in one direction only, in the other direction cycles (and mopeds) may
    travel freely and cars are banned. In other words, the grid system of two way vehicular and bicycle
    traffic is replaced by a grid of one way vehicular traffic with bicycle and moped traffic travelling
    in the opposite direction. On road parking in banned throughout the city.

    My impression is that both motorised and non-motorised traffic moves about the city more freely,
    and there are fewer cycle-car conflicts. In effect, there are separate road networks for cars
    and bicycles. Of course, not all roads have this system, but where it is in place, the system
    seems to work.

    Greater Shanghai's population is 170,000,000. The official population of the city is 20 million, but
    the actual population is closer to 30 million - 5 times the size of London.

    As an aside, I have obtained a copy of the questions and answers of the "Driver's and motorcycle
    operator's traffic regulations and safety driving knowledge study guide" [sic], from the Shanghai
    Public Security Bureau Vehicle Administration Office. The guide consists of 100 questions each with
    3 possible answers. To pass the driving test, the applicant has to answer a minimum of 16 out of 20
    randomly selected questions correctly. Over the coming months I will be cross-posting the questions,
    one at a time, to uk.rec.driving, uk.rec.transport and soc.culture.china, with the correct answer
    given in the following post.

    As a taster, here is the question and answers to number 28:

    A motor vehicle occurs traffic accident against a non-motor vehicle or pedestrian, and causes
    casualty to the other party, the motor operator is not at fault, but should share with the
    other party:
    a) 10% of economic loss
    b) 20% of economic loss
    c) 30% of economic loss [sic]

    You'll have to see post #28 in uk.tosspot for the answer.

  2. Massive snip...

    Quoted message said:

    You'll have to see post #28 in uk.tosspot for the answer.


    If this newsgroup isn't deemed good enough for a posting of the answer, I won't go seeking the
    answer in newsgroups that have even less interest for me than your answer.

  3. vernon.levy said:

    Massive snip...

    Quoted message said:

    You'll have to see post #28 in uk.tosspot for the answer.


    If this newsgroup isn't deemed good enough for a posting of the answer, I won't go seeking the
    answer in newsgroups that have even less interest for me than your answer.

    I deem this NG too good for off topic spam. uk.tosspot on the other hand...

  4. "vernon.levy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Massive snip...

    Quoted message said:

    You'll have to see post #28 in uk.tosspot for the answer.


    If this newsgroup isn't deemed good enough for a posting of the answer, I won't go seeking the
    answer in newsgroups that have even less interest for me than your answer.

    Lighten up! I found the OP interesting and the reference to uk.tosspot (slightly) humorous ;-)

    Pete

  5. Quoted message said:

    I deem this NG too good for off topic spam. uk.tosspot on the other hand...


    Not quite sure that you have got to grips with the definition of spam Gonzalez....My posting was
    highly focussed, placed in one newsgroup only (unlike you who's placed yours in several) and
    directly addressed an aspect of your message. Pot and kettle rears its cliched head...

    If your answer to your own question is relevant here then post it here otherwise go and dwell with
    the tossers in tosspot land :-)

    Vernon

  6. Quoted message said:

    Not quite sure that you have got to grips with the definition of spam Gonzalez....My posting was
    highly focussed, placed in one newsgroup only (unlike you who's placed yours in several) and
    directly addressed an aspect of your message. Pot and kettle rears its cliched head...

    A tight definition of spam is defined by the Breidbart Index, where a BI value greater than 20 is
    considered by many news administrators to be actionable spam.

    I use the term more loosely to refer to anything from mildly relevant but largely off-topic posts to
    the tighter definition given above.

    I have got to grips entirely with the definition of spam.

    My report into the measures introduced into Shanghai for vehicular and non vehicular traffic control
    measures came as a direct result of a request in this group prior to my travel to china. It was
    posted to one newsgroup alone with a pointer to a series of posts, to be made at some point in the
    future, which some may consider spam, and would certainly be off-topic for urc.

    I have not placed any posts in more than one newsgroup, within the past few weeks, although I intend
    to do so at some point in the near future.

    A pre-emptive charge of PKB is therefore a nonsense. I have not accused you of spam, and I am not
    guilty of spam myself... Yet.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.