transport planning favours cars

[Ian Smith]

Interesting article in New Statesman about (among other things) the
rules used for calculating the supposed benefits of building more
roads.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200708090012

The rules, for example, consider that motorists time is more valuable
than cyclists - saving journey time for a motorist is worth 44p per
minute, but a cyclist is only worth 28p per minute. This alone could
explain the idiot schemes that divert and deflect and obstruct
cyclists.

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

 

[[email protected]]

On 9 Aug, 18:03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> The rules, for example, consider that motorists time is more valuable
> than cyclists - saving journey time for a motorist is worth 44p per
> minute, but a cyclist is only worth 28p per minute.

Interesting, particularly in view of the link to a report somebody
posted a little while ago that showed that cyclists were more educated
and higher earners than the average car user.

Rob

 

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> Interesting article in New Statesman about (among other things) the
> rules used for calculating the supposed benefits of building more
> roads.
> ...
> The rules, for example, consider that motorists time is more valuable
> than cyclists - saving journey time for a motorist is worth 44p per
> minute, but a cyclist is only worth 28p per minute.

Yes. The rules explain why. The numbers are derived from the 1999-2001
National Travel Survey, based on individual incomes, and are averaged by
type, and applied only to journeys made in the course of work (excludes
commute journeys).

Taxi passenger journeys are valued at 74p/min, those of taxi drivers at
16p, and of car passengers at 32p. Sounds logical and reasonable to me.

--
Matt B

 

[Adrian Boliston]

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

> Interesting article in New Statesman about (among other things) the
> rules used for calculating the supposed benefits of building more
> roads.
>
> http://www.newstatesman.com/200708090012
>
> The rules, for example, consider that motorists time is more valuable
> than cyclists - saving journey time for a motorist is worth 44p per
> minute, but a cyclist is only worth 28p per minute. This alone could
> explain the idiot schemes that divert and deflect and obstruct
> cyclists.

I notice it talks about motorists "contributing more to the economy" but a
lot of their money is spent simply running their car! Ditching a car, or
only using it for essential trips instantly gives more "spending money" for
holidays, hobbies and suchlike, so cyclists contribute but just in different
ways.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

 

[iarocu]

On 9 Aug, 10:03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Interesting article in New Statesman about (among other things) the
> rules used for calculating the supposed benefits of building more roads


I wish they would build a few new roads near where I live north of
Glasgow. By far the most pleasant urban roads to cycle on are ones
where the through traffic is carried by a nearby motorway leaving
other roads for local motorised traffic and cyclists. Examples in
Glasgow being the A8 Paisley Rd and A8 Edinbiurgh Rd. Both former
trunk roads superceded by the M8 motorway and now pleasant to cycle on
due to light traffic.
The same thing applies to rural roads. The old A74 Glasgow
Carlisle Rd replaced by the M74 now carries close to zero traffic
south of Lanark and is great for cycling with easy gradients and good
surfaces. The old A9 where it still exists is another case where the
new road makes cycling pleasant on the old road.
I can't remember the last time any new roads were built within 7
miles of my town and traffic congestion has increased vastly as a
result. Of course my local council has also failed to do anything to
encourage reduced car use such as providing adequate park and ride
parking at train stations or a decent bus service. Granted there is
little they can do about improving the de-regulated bus service.

Iain

 

[Martin Dann]

Ian Smith wrote:
> Interesting article in New Statesman about (among other things) the
> rules used for calculating the supposed benefits of building more
> roads.
>
> http://www.newstatesman.com/200708090012
>
> The rules, for example, consider that motorists time is more valuable
> than cyclists - saving journey time for a motorist is worth 44p per
> minute, but a cyclist is only worth 28p per minute. This alone could
> explain the idiot schemes that divert and deflect and obstruct
> cyclists.

Motorists spend more time working to pay for their cars,
than they do driving them.
Cyclists spend less time working for their bikes that they
do riding them. (Reputedly)

If a car driver is held up for one minute on the road, it
costs him over two minutes of real time. e.g. 20p per
minute on the road, 24p per minute working for the car,
petrol etc.

A cyclist held up by one minute will loose 26p per minute
on the road, and 2p per minute paying for extra wear on
his bike. (These fiscal values are made up on the spot).

 

[burtthebike]

"iarocu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9 Aug, 10:03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I can't remember the last time any new roads were built within 7
> miles of my town and traffic congestion has increased vastly as a
> result.

No. The traffic congestion has increased vastly because of more traffic.
My experience, and there is much research to confirm it, is that new roads
have a very temporary effect on congestion, and within a short time the
situation is worse than if they had not been built.

 

[burtthebike]

"Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> A cyclist held up by one minute will loose 26p per minute on the road, and
> 2p per minute paying for extra wear on his bike. (These fiscal values are
> made up on the spot).

More reliable than DfT figures then!
>

 

[Roos Eisma]

"burtthebike" <[email protected]> writes:


>"iarocu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 9 Aug, 10:03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>> > I can't remember the last time any new roads were built within 7
>> miles of my town and traffic congestion has increased vastly as a
>> result.

>No. The traffic congestion has increased vastly because of more traffic.
>My experience, and there is much research to confirm it, is that new roads
>have a very temporary effect on congestion, and within a short time the
>situation is worse than if they had not been built.

I sort of remember reading once that people base their commuting distance
on time. So if travel time decreases with new roads they will move further
away and commute a longer distance.

Roos

 

[Tony Raven]

Roos Eisma wrote:
>
> I sort of remember reading once that people base their commuting distance
> on time. So if travel time decreases with new roads they will move further
> away and commute a longer distance.
>

Travel homeostasis?

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

burtthebike wrote:
>
> No. The traffic congestion has increased vastly because of more
> traffic. My experience, and there is much research to confirm it, is
> that new roads have a very temporary effect on congestion, and within a
> short time the situation is worse than if they had not been built.

That's what the current lot said in 1997 when they cancelled the other
lots road building plans......only to then announce their own massive
road building plans (shurley shome mistake - Ed)

Tony

 

[spindrift]

On 10 Aug, 07:40, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> burtthebike wrote:
>
> > No. The traffic congestion has increased vastly because of more
> > traffic. My experience, and there is much research to confirm it, is
> > that new roads have a very temporary effect on congestion, and within a
> > short time the situation is worse than if they had not been built.
>
> That's what the current lot said in 1997 when they cancelled the other
> lots road building plans......only to then announce their own massive
> road building plans (shurley shome mistake - Ed)
>
> Tony

Even the Americans concede that traffic expands to fill the network.
Every road ever built was promised to reduce congestion, remember.

 

[Roger Merriman]

burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:

> "iarocu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 9 Aug, 10:03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I can't remember the last time any new roads were built within 7
> > miles of my town and traffic congestion has increased vastly as a
> > result.
>
> No. The traffic congestion has increased vastly because of more traffic.
> My experience, and there is much research to confirm it, is that new roads
> have a very temporary effect on congestion, and within a short time the
> situation is worse than if they had not been built.

to be fair does depend on the area, south east wales has low traffic and
some bloody silly roads, ie empty.

but broadly your right certinly seems to hold true in england if it's
not a built up area, it's a honey pot where every one wants to go to.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[marc]

Roger Merriman wrote:
> burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "iarocu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 9 Aug, 10:03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > I can't remember the last time any new roads were built within 7
>>> miles of my town and traffic congestion has increased vastly as a
>>> result.
>> No. The traffic congestion has increased vastly because of more traffic.
>> My experience, and there is much research to confirm it, is that new roads
>> have a very temporary effect on congestion, and within a short time the
>> situation is worse than if they had not been built.
>
> to be fair does depend on the area, south east wales has low traffic and
> some bloody silly roads, ie empty.

Where??????

 

[Roger Merriman]

marc <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> > burtthebike <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "iarocu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>> On 9 Aug, 10:03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> > I can't remember the last time any new roads were built within 7
> >>> miles of my town and traffic congestion has increased vastly as a
> >>> result.
> >> No. The traffic congestion has increased vastly because of more traffic.
> >> My experience, and there is much research to confirm it, is that new roads
> >> have a very temporary effect on congestion, and within a short time the
> >> situation is worse than if they had not been built.
> >
> > to be fair does depend on the area, south east wales has low traffic and
> > some bloody silly roads, ie empty.
>
> Where??????

most of wales to be honest. not being on the way to any where helps. as
does a fairly low population.

localy the A40 from abergavenny to raglan is rarely busy most times it's
like the old shots of motorways. ie it's a rather empty dual carrage way
lots of speed vans as you'd expect.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Matt B]

Tony Raven wrote:
> burtthebike wrote:
>>
>> No. The traffic congestion has increased vastly because of more
>> traffic. My experience, and there is much research to confirm it, is
>> that new roads have a very temporary effect on congestion, and within
>> a short time the situation is worse than if they had not been built.
>
> That's what the current lot said in 1997 when they cancelled the other
> lots road building plans......only to then announce their own massive
> road building plans (shurley shome mistake - Ed)

So where are the results?

According to the DfT's 2006 transport statistics we have had an increase
in "major road" (motorways and "A" roads) length of only 40 miles per
year from 1997 until 2006.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> On 10 Aug, 07:40, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> burtthebike wrote:
>>
>>> No. The traffic congestion has increased vastly because of more
>>> traffic. My experience, and there is much research to confirm it, is
>>> that new roads have a very temporary effect on congestion, and within a
>>> short time the situation is worse than if they had not been built.
>> That's what the current lot said in 1997 when they cancelled the other
>> lots road building plans......only to then announce their own massive
>> road building plans (shurley shome mistake - Ed)
>>
>> Tony
>
> Even the Americans concede that traffic expands to fill the network.

All of them?

> Every road ever built was promised to reduce congestion, remember.

Are you implying that they don't?

In the UK traffic has grown by about 30% in the last 10 years, did the
increase in length of our road network of about 1% cause that?

I think you have been duped (again).

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

burtthebike wrote:
>
> "iarocu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 9 Aug, 10:03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I can't remember the last time any new roads were built within 7
>> miles of my town and traffic congestion has increased vastly as a
>> result.
>
> No. The traffic congestion has increased vastly because of more
> traffic.

Yes, without the road network capacity increase required to keep pace.

> My experience, and there is much research to confirm it, is
> that new roads have a very temporary effect on congestion, and within a
> short time the situation is worse than if they had not been built.

Can you cite any of the research? Traffic is increasing, yes. The
problem is forecasting it accurately, and especially the effect on the
dynamics that a new road may create, and, of course the political
problem of actually providing the thousands of extra miles of motorway
that are actually necessary.

The main problem with our road "network", and particularly with our
motorway "network" is that it isn't actually a true "network". There
don't tend to be alternative routes between destinations - thus creating
a very sensitive response to localised flow problems and restrictions.

Take the M1 around Milton Keynes for example. During the morning rush,
traffic is coming both ways on the M1 to MK, and is all concentrated at
junction 14. Although MK has an efficient road network, _all_ of the
traffic, from _all_ directions, has to enter it at the same node, the
Northfield Roundabout, so that node becomes a real bottleneck. The
consequences are tailbacks on the M1, and a consequential jamming and
queues of several miles each day. All motorists on the M1, not just
those travelling to MK, are inconvenienced because of a local problem.

If MK had a motorway "ring road" to distribute traffic to all the
external nodes of its network, and the motorway divided several miles
each side of the MK ring, to allow those not travelling into MK to
by-pass it altogether, then the problems would be reduced for those
going to MK, and eliminated for those not.

Now, if in addition to all that, there were motorways directly from
Peterborough, Bedford, Stevenage, Aylesbury, Oxford, and Banbury, in
addition to the one from Luton and Northampton (M1), then the M1 problem
would be eliminated for all those travelling to MK too!

--
Matt B

 

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, the resident troll wrote:
>
> Take the M1 around Milton Keynes for example. During the morning
> rush, traffic is coming both ways on the M1 to MK, and is all
> concentrated at junction 14. Although MK has an efficient road
> network, _all_ of the traffic, from _all_ directions, has to enter
> it at the same node, the Northfield Roundabout, so that node
> becomes a real bottleneck.

I missed teh announcement of the demolition of the A5 (both ways),
A421 (both ways), A4146, A422, A4012, and various unclassified roads.

 

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, [Matt B] wrote:
>> Take the M1 around Milton Keynes for example. During the morning
>> rush, traffic is coming both ways on the M1 to MK, and is all
>> concentrated at junction 14. Although MK has an efficient road
>> network, _all_ of the traffic, from _all_ directions, has to enter
>> it at the same node, the Northfield Roundabout, so that node
>> becomes a real bottleneck.
>
> I missed teh announcement of the demolition of the A5 (both ways),
> A421 (both ways), A4146, A422, A4012, and various unclassified roads.

What announcement?

The miscellaneous rag-bag of Roman roads, and country lanes "designed"
for horse traffic, that you mention hardly qualify as part of a 21st
century road network, capable of handling large volumes of fast motor
traffic, now do they. The A5 is only a half-decent "motor road" within
the boundary of MK, outside of which it is single carriageway, one lane
each way, with at-grade junctions, traffic lights, farm access and all
the charming features of the other roads you mentioned, which render it
useless for decent inter-urban motorised journeys.

Ideal for cycling, granted, but even for that they would be much
enhanced if the long-distance motor traffic was where it belonged - on a
motorway.

--
Matt B