good news from teh engineering press

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The current edition of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers has an encouraging paper (number 14775) "Cheong Gye Cheon
restoration in Seoul, Korea". The Koreans have spent 200 million
pounds taking out a 6km, 10-lane motorway that ploughs into the heart
of Seoul and reinstating the river that was there before. This now
has public space, art, riverside walks and fountains.

Nobody else seems to have replied to this. It's particularly of interest to
those seeking to troll-wrestle those advocating the provision of more road
space. They removed a _very_ busy road, and it didn't result in the city
collapsing in a big heap.

Another article on it here:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,1936011,00.html

cheers,
clive

Ian Smith came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

So, as a comparison to the observation that building
more motorways just makes more traffic without reducing congestion,
it seems at least one location can demolish a motorway without
increasing congestion either.

But isn't that exactly the point, that they didn't just demolish a motorway
... They also introduced many other measures to make Public Transport viable.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

Paul - censored said:

Ian Smith came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

So, as a comparison to the observation that building
more motorways just makes more traffic without reducing congestion,
it seems at least one location can demolish a motorway without
increasing congestion either.

But isn't that exactly the point, that they didn't just demolish a motorway
.. They also introduced many other measures to make Public Transport viable.

Yes, but some people would have you believe that the only possible way
to address congestion is to build more road, and that public transport
will never work.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

Paul - censored said:

Ian Smith came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

So, as a comparison to the observation that building
more motorways just makes more traffic without reducing congestion,
it seems at least one location can demolish a motorway without
increasing congestion either.

But isn't that exactly the point, that they didn't just demolish a
motorway .. They also introduced many other measures to make Public
Transport viable.

Yes, but some people would have you believe that the only possible way
to address congestion is to build more road, and that public transport
will never work.

My view is it can work, but doesn't at the moment ... which needs to be
addressed before forcing people out of their personal transport.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

"Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Paul - [censored] <[email hidden]> wrote:

Yes, but some people would have you believe that the only possible way
to address congestion is to build more road, and that public transport
will never work.

My view is it can work, but doesn't at the moment ... which needs to be
addressed before forcing people out of their personal transport.

Chicken, meet the egg. You can't have good public transport until you get
all the congestion-causing cars off the road and: you can't get all the
congestion-causing cars off the road until you've got good public transport.
Discuss.

burt wrote on 05/11/2006 08:32 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Chicken, meet the egg. You can't have good public transport until you get
all the congestion-causing cars off the road and: you can't get all the
congestion-causing cars off the road until you've got good public transport.
Discuss.

You don't need to get the cars off the road to improve the railways.
The problem being at the moment that a lot of the trains I travel on are
reaching capacity for passengers. Until that capacity is increased,
then you cannot move many more people off the roads into trains,
especially for the long distance journeys.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Paul - censored said:

My view is [public transport] can work, but doesn't at the moment ...

which needs to be

Quoted message said:

addressed before forcing people out of their personal transport.

It's got me to work and back every day for the past year or so. It
gets me into town at weekends and to the airport when I go abroad
(gets me to the destination airport as well, I suppose, though most
people are not thinking of air travel when they talk about public
transport)

Perhaps it doesn't work /for you/, but be careful with those sweeping
generalisations, eh?

-dan

Quoted message said:

Paul - censored said:

My view is [public transport] can work, but doesn't at the
moment ...

which needs to be

Quoted message said:

addressed before forcing people out of their personal transport.

Chicken and egg. If there's a demand for public transport,
there are plenty of people to fill it.

--
not me guv

Tony Raven said:

burt wrote on 05/11/2006 08:32 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Chicken, meet the egg. You can't have good public transport until you get
all the congestion-causing cars off the road and: you can't get all the
congestion-causing cars off the road until you've got good public transport.
Discuss.

You don't need to get the cars off the road to improve the railways.
The problem being at the moment that a lot of the trains I travel on are
reaching capacity for passengers. Until that capacity is increased,
then you cannot move many more people off the roads into trains,
especially for the long distance journeys.

public transport is still woeful, if you use it for any thing other than
local use in a city/large town.

it tends (though not allways) to end up being that it is cheaper and
faster by car which frankly is wrong on so many levels.

roger

Roger Merriman wrote on 06/11/2006 16:56 +0100:

Quoted message said:

public transport is still woeful, if you use it for any thing other than
local use in a city/large town.

it tends (though not allways) to end up being that it is cheaper and
faster by car which frankly is wrong on so many levels.

I disagree. I use the trains and my Brompton, with the occasional taxi,
to go all over the country on public transport. With the Brompton I
find little need for in city public transport but use PT a lot between
cities. I've cut about 10,000 miles of driving a year out of my life
and now have much more time to read, catch up on the computer or work or
watch DVDs/listen to music. Can't see much point in wasting time being
my unpaid chauffeur.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

In article said:

Roger Merriman wrote on 06/11/2006 16:56 +0100:

Quoted message said:

public transport is still woeful, if you use it for any thing other than
local use in a city/large town.

it tends (though not allways) to end up being that it is cheaper and
faster by car which frankly is wrong on so many levels.

I disagree. I use the trains and my Brompton, with the occasional taxi,
to go all over the country on public transport. With the Brompton I
find little need for in city public transport but use PT a lot between
cities.

It depends. If you want to take a family of four somewhere 12 miles from
the nearest station (with a bus service twice a week), it's very easy for
a car to be cheaper. I've occasionally even found it cheaper to hire a
car than to get trains just for one of me.

Probably the most extreme was "do the four of us get up early and share
a car to the meeting the customer wants, or do we go down by train the
night before because there is no morning train early enough and get hotel
rooms". We got up early and drove.

Alan Braggins wrote on 06/11/2006 18:56 +0100:

Quoted message said:

It depends. If you want to take a family of four somewhere 12 miles from
the nearest station (with a bus service twice a week), it's very easy for
a car to be cheaper. I've occasionally even found it cheaper to hire a
car than to get trains just for one of me.

Probably the most extreme was "do the four of us get up early and share
a car to the meeting the customer wants, or do we go down by train the
night before because there is no morning train early enough and get hotel
rooms". We got up early and drove.

I don't have too much problem with a full occupancy car but its the
large number of single occupancy journeys that take place.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven said:

Alan Braggins wrote on 06/11/2006 18:56 +0100:

Quoted message said:

It depends. If you want to take a family of four somewhere 12 miles from
the nearest station (with a bus service twice a week), it's very easy for
a car to be cheaper. I've occasionally even found it cheaper to hire a
car than to get trains just for one of me.

Probably the most extreme was "do the four of us get up early and share
a car to the meeting the customer wants, or do we go down by train the
night before because there is no morning train early enough and get hotel
rooms". We got up early and drove.

I don't have too much problem with a full occupancy car but its the
large number of single occupancy journeys that take place.

guess your lucky or i'm unlucky but for me public transport is massivly
slower, the trains don't reach that far to me and have to change etc so
even if you discount the cost it still ends up dramaticly slower, for my
drive to my GF's its 2 1/4 hours on a good day 3 hours plus on a bad
day. with all the changing trains etc it's around 6 hours for her and i
drive her 40 miles to avoid one more change by the trains.

this is exasibated by my remoteness and her living on the edge of london
so has to go in and then back out.

on the other hand near my GF's place people will sit in long traffic
jams when you can ride a bike quicker, though the parks (some thing i
love no mountains but very pritty), unfortantly no bus lanes in some
bits so they get snarled up just as well as cars,

i'm not saying cars are better than public transport but public
transport is by it's nature expects a type of travel if you don't
conform then it can suck big ones.

roger

Roger Merriman wrote on 06/11/2006 21:31 +0100:

Quoted message said:

guess your lucky or i'm unlucky but for me public transport is massivly
slower, the trains don't reach that far to me and have to change etc so
even if you discount the cost it still ends up dramaticly slower, for my
drive to my GF's its 2 1/4 hours on a good day 3 hours plus on a bad
day. with all the changing trains etc it's around 6 hours for her and i
drive her 40 miles to avoid one more change by the trains.

this is exasibated by my remoteness and her living on the edge of london
so has to go in and then back out.

on the other hand near my GF's place people will sit in long traffic
jams when you can ride a bike quicker, though the parks (some thing i
love no mountains but very pritty), unfortantly no bus lanes in some
bits so they get snarled up just as well as cars,

i'm not saying cars are better than public transport but public
transport is by it's nature expects a type of travel if you don't
conform then it can suck big ones.

London is an advantage. Most of my journeys its easier to take the hour
and a bit journey into London and then catch a train from London to my
destination. I usually go for the fewer changes and not bother too much
about time - then you can settle in and do something rather than be
looking out for the next change and jumping up and down all the time.
On Thursday I will do a four hour train journey into London and out
again that I could drive direct in about 2hrs - but for me that is a
choice of two wasted hours or one wasted hour changing trains and three
useful hours. YMMV

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

Quoted message said:

Roger Merriman wrote on 06/11/2006 21:31 +0100:

Quoted message said:

guess your lucky or i'm unlucky but for me public transport is massivly
slower, the trains don't reach that far to me and have to change etc so
even if you discount the cost it still ends up dramaticly slower, for my
drive to my GF's its 2 1/4 hours on a good day 3 hours plus on a bad
day. with all the changing trains etc it's around 6 hours for her and i
drive her 40 miles to avoid one more change by the trains.

this is exasibated by my remoteness and her living on the edge of london
so has to go in and then back out.

on the other hand near my GF's place people will sit in long traffic
jams when you can ride a bike quicker, though the parks (some thing i
love no mountains but very pritty), unfortantly no bus lanes in some
bits so they get snarled up just as well as cars,

i'm not saying cars are better than public transport but public
transport is by it's nature expects a type of travel if you don't
conform then it can suck big ones.

London is an advantage. Most of my journeys its easier to take the hour
and a bit journey into London and then catch a train from London to my
destination. I usually go for the fewer changes and not bother too much
about time - then you can settle in and do something rather than be
looking out for the next change and jumping up and down all the time.
On Thursday I will do a four hour train journey into London and out
again that I could drive direct in about 2hrs - but for me that is a
choice of two wasted hours or one wasted hour changing trains and three
useful hours. YMMV

Part of the problem for me with travelling for such a long time on so
many trains, is that eats into the time you get to spend at the
destination. I could spend another six hours with my other half at
weekends if I could get behind the wheel of a car.

--
Sara

I've lost Lord Byron's pic somehow. When I find it linky will be resumed.

Sara Kirk wrote on 06/11/2006 22:56 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Part of the problem for me with travelling for such a long time on so
many trains, is that eats into the time you get to spend at the
destination. I could spend another six hours with my other half at
weekends if I could get behind the wheel of a car.

Well get jobs closer together then. Then you could have evenings
together too and save a fortune on housing and travel ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

Quoted message said:

Sara Kirk wrote on 06/11/2006 22:56 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Part of the problem for me with travelling for such a long time on so
many trains, is that eats into the time you get to spend at the
destination. I could spend another six hours with my other half at
weekends if I could get behind the wheel of a car.

Well get jobs closer together then. Then you could have evenings
together too and save a fortune on housing and travel ;-)

That's being dealt with, but selling houses and finding jobs take time.
It'll be much nicer when we're both travelling around on bikes in the
same country. Much, much nicer.

--
Sara

I've lost Lord Byron's pic somehow. When I find it linky will be resumed.

Alan Braggins said:

It depends. If you want to take a family of four somewhere 12 miles
from the nearest station (with a bus service twice a week), it's very
easy for a car to be cheaper. I've occasionally even found it cheaper
to hire a car than to get trains just for one of me.

Yes. If you need to transport an army of budgerigars, it might be
better to hire a van than take them on your bike.

Only a tiny, tiny proportion of people will be in that situation. The
vast majority of people in the UK live within easy walking distance of
a bus service that runs at least every hour.

The only time I can see it would ever be cheaper to hire a car than
travel solo by train would be if you are travelling into London at
times when you can't get a Saver or Advance ticket. Out of the people
who do travel to London in the peak times, I can't see that many of
them would want to give up the luxury of the train for the chance to
drive an unfamiliar car through the capital's streets at the busiest
time of the day and then hunt round for somewhere to park it.

Quoted message said:

Probably the most extreme was "do the four of us get up early and
share a car to the meeting the customer wants, or do we go down by
train the night before because there is no morning train early enough
and get hotel rooms". We got up early and drove.

Fair enough. A car with 4 people in is a reasonably efficient form of
transport. It's cars with just one or two people in that are not.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________