transport planning favours cars



"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>

A biased source, but one that backs up it's argument with actual data:

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml
 
Adam Lea wrote:
> "Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
>>
>
> A biased source, but one that backs up it's argument with actual data:
>
> http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml

Thanks for that. All it does of course, is use evidence from poor
schemes as "proof" that no scheme could work.

It is similar to offering a 1950s sink estate as evidence that it is
impossible to build a decent housing estate. What we need to see is
properly designed and properly controlled research which studies the
effect on congestion of adding road capacity.

We all know of roads and by-passes that have been built, and which have
solved, not created, congestion problems.

One of my favourite examples of a road which doesn't "generate traffic"
is the M45 motorway in the Midlands. Shortly after it was opened, as
part of the original M1 motorway system in the late 1950s, it was one of
the busiest roads in the country, carrying traffic from the south-east
to Birmingham. Since the opening of the M6 in 1972 it became, and
stayed, one of the quietest. You can drive its entire length (7 or 8
miles), at any time of the day, and not see another vehicle on either
carriageway.

We need more science and less prejudice if we are to solve our road
safety and road congestion problems.

--
Matt B
 
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:34:42 +0100 someone who may be Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote this:-

>We need more science and less prejudice if we are to solve our road
>safety and road congestion problems.

SACTRA 1994 provides a thorough study of traffic generation and the
circumstances in which it is likely to arise. We certainly need less
of the prejudice that traffic increases by magic.

SACTRA provided a good study of this and those that deny their
conclusions have yet to come up with convincing counter-arguments.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:34:42 +0100 someone who may be Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote this:-
>
>> We need more science and less prejudice if we are to solve our road
>> safety and road congestion problems.
>
> SACTRA 1994 provides a thorough study of traffic generation and the
> circumstances in which it is likely to arise. We certainly need less
> of the prejudice that traffic increases by magic.

SACTRA identified that roads running at, or close to capacity will hide
or suppress demand, so an increase in road capacity will need to also
factor-in the likely released latent demand, in addition to any forecast
traffic growth.

> SACTRA provided a good study of this and those that deny their
> conclusions have yet to come up with convincing counter-arguments.

The real lesson is that road capacity should be increased /before/ its
capacity is reached, and that forecasting demand becomes much more
difficult for at-capacity routes.

--
Matt B
 
"Matt B" wrote >
> SACTRA identified that roads running at, or close to capacity will hide or
> suppress demand, so an increase in road capacity will need to also
> factor-in the likely released latent demand, in addition to any forecast
> traffic growth.
>
..
>
> The real lesson is that road capacity should be increased /before/ its
> capacity is reached, and that forecasting demand becomes much more
> difficult for at-capacity routes.
>
> --
SACTRA was quite clear in distinguishing between suppressed demand and
induced growth. It was also clear that new roads generate extra growth, over
and above any growth due to suppressed demand.

Mike Sales
 
"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Adam Lea wrote:
>> "Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> A biased source, but one that backs up it's argument with actual data:
>>
>> http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml
>
> Thanks for that. All it does of course, is use evidence from poor schemes
> as "proof" that no scheme could work.
>
> It is similar to offering a 1950s sink estate as evidence that it is
> impossible to build a decent housing estate. What we need to see is
> properly designed and properly controlled research which studies the
> effect on congestion of adding road capacity.
>
> We all know of roads and by-passes that have been built, and which have
> solved, not created, congestion problems.
>
> One of my favourite examples of a road which doesn't "generate traffic" is
> the M45 motorway in the Midlands. Shortly after it was opened, as part of
> the original M1 motorway system in the late 1950s, it was one of the
> busiest roads in the country, carrying traffic from the south-east to
> Birmingham. Since the opening of the M6 in 1972 it became, and stayed,
> one of the quietest. You can drive its entire length (7 or 8 miles), at
> any time of the day, and not see another vehicle on either carriageway.
>
> We need more science and less prejudice if we are to solve our road safety
> and road congestion problems.
>

I would never claim that "no" scheme could work. What I claim (along with
others here) is that in general trying to build your way out of congestion
doesn't work. Yes I would accept that in certain circumstances building a
bypass or grade seperating a junction will have a positive benefit on
traffic flow in the long run. You seem to bring up the "build more roads"
argument every time congestion is mentioned on here as though it is the only
solution.

Regarding the M45, your reasoning seems back to front here. What is being
claimed is that if a new road is build to relieve an older road then the new
road will (in general) fill with traffic. Isn't that what the M6 has
effectively done (assuming what you say is correct)?

Anyway, I'd better shut up now before I get told not to feed the troll*.

*not totally convinced you are but I don't want to get killfiled.

Adam
 
On 9 Aug, 22:33, "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 depends on whether the roads are designed and built to meet the
capacity needed. The Cumbernauld "New Town" built in the 1950s and 60s
has more or less its original road system and there is still no
traffiic congestion.
Part of the problem with the road system is too much of it was
built without being well designed. Examples in Scotland being 50 odd
years after construction of the motorway system started there is still
no complete motorway link between Scotland and England and still no
complete motorway link between Glasgow and Edinburgh.
With inner London and other special cases continually building more
roads to meet capacity is not possible. In other places it is. New
roads generate more traffic? No. It's like saying if there wasn't
enough hospitals then building another one would just generate more
patients.

Iain
 
"iarocu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9 Aug, 22:33, "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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 depends on whether the roads are designed and built to meet the
> capacity needed. The Cumbernauld "New Town" built in the 1950s and 60s
> has more or less its original road system and there is still no
> traffiic congestion.
> Part of the problem with the road system is too much of it was
> built without being well designed. Examples in Scotland being 50 odd
> years after construction of the motorway system started there is still
> no complete motorway link between Scotland and England and still no
> complete motorway link between Glasgow and Edinburgh.
> With inner London and other special cases continually building more
> roads to meet capacity is not possible. In other places it is. New
> roads generate more traffic? No. It's like saying if there wasn't
> enough hospitals then building another one would just generate more
> patients.
>

Yes new roads can generate more traffic, simply because due to the initial
reduction in congestion, some people will migrate from public transport to
using their car. Also, a new fast road will encourage developers to build
housing estates and industry near the new road on the assumption that
everyone will drive and thus not think about alternative modes resulting in
areas where people are forced to use cars, as opposed to developing in
regions where multiple transport options are available.

As far as I know, building a hospital doesn't encourage people to become ill
just because they will be able to obtain treatment closer to home. In fact,
becoming ill is mostly involuntary.
 
"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.

No, no, the government has it exactly right. What those figures show
is that sitting in a car is 16p per minute more burdensome than
riding a bike, or to put it the other way round, riding a bike is 16p
per minute more fun than sitting in a car.

Ride a bike - it's more fun - the government says so.

Jeremy Parker
 
Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> [...] The A5 is only a half-decent "motor road" within
> the boundary of MK, outside of which it is single carriageway, [...]
> Ideal for cycling, granted,

Not really! It was only ideal for cycling during the morning rush when
the tailbacks from the Old Stratford roundabout allowed cyclists to
safely overtake the motor vehicles on the last hill.

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

No, it would be much enhanced if the nearby near-parallel unclassified
roads and bridleways through places like Furtho, Puxley and Passenham
had surfaces as good as the A5 (but no widening or other
car-encouragers). I seldom used them for my morning journey because
the A5 was faster and more reliable (less bike damage).

Adding motorways to feed the A5D would probably only shift the congestion
to its exits inside MK. The MK roads are a network and need to be treated
as such. At peak times, that means choosing the spread of congestion and
getting as many motor vehicles off of the roads as possible.

Regards from an ex-MKer,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
 
Mike Sales wrote:
> "Matt B" wrote >
>> SACTRA identified that roads running at, or close to capacity will hide or
>> suppress demand, so an increase in road capacity will need to also
>> factor-in the likely released latent demand, in addition to any forecast
>> traffic growth.
> .
>> The real lesson is that road capacity should be increased /before/ its
>> capacity is reached, and that forecasting demand becomes much more
>> difficult for at-capacity routes.
>>
> SACTRA was quite clear in distinguishing between suppressed demand and
> induced growth. It was also clear that new roads generate extra growth, over
> and above any growth due to suppressed demand.

Not quite. In 1994 they acknowledged that "induced growth" occurs (the
release of suppressed demand /and/ route shifts), in addition to new
demand created by economic growth.

It is something that those who were involved in specifying computer
networks, in the dark ages of mainframe computers, were well aware of,
back at least as far as the early 1980s, it was known as "latent demand"
then. It was also known that a certain amount of capacity increase on
networks running at capacity would be immediately consumed by the
release of the latent demand, which would need to be allowed for, in
addition to any natural and planned growth.

--
Matt B
 
Adam Lea wrote:
> "Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Adam Lea wrote:
>>> "Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> A biased source, but one that backs up it's argument with actual data:
>>>
>>> http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml
>> Thanks for that. All it does of course, is use evidence from poor schemes
>> as "proof" that no scheme could work.
>>
>> It is similar to offering a 1950s sink estate as evidence that it is
>> impossible to build a decent housing estate. What we need to see is
>> properly designed and properly controlled research which studies the
>> effect on congestion of adding road capacity.
>>
>> We all know of roads and by-passes that have been built, and which have
>> solved, not created, congestion problems.
>>
>> One of my favourite examples of a road which doesn't "generate traffic" is
>> the M45 motorway in the Midlands. Shortly after it was opened, as part of
>> the original M1 motorway system in the late 1950s, it was one of the
>> busiest roads in the country, carrying traffic from the south-east to
>> Birmingham. Since the opening of the M6 in 1972 it became, and stayed,
>> one of the quietest. You can drive its entire length (7 or 8 miles), at
>> any time of the day, and not see another vehicle on either carriageway.
>>
>> We need more science and less prejudice if we are to solve our road safety
>> and road congestion problems.
>>
>
> I would never claim that "no" scheme could work.

:)

> What I claim (along with
> others here) is that in general trying to build your way out of congestion
> doesn't work.

There is no convincing evidence though for that claim. The evidence of
road-building working is all around us. Congestion is limited to motor
vehicles in local geographic areas at specific times. Most of the road
network is congestion-free - most of the time. That wouldn't be the
case if we hadn't built so much as we have. Also evident are the
consequences of not providing a motorway network capable of
accommodating adequately the motor traffic upon which our economy
depends. Take a look at the pathetic coverage of the "blue roads" on
any road map of the UK.

> Yes I would accept that in certain circumstances building a
> bypass or grade seperating a junction will have a positive benefit on
> traffic flow in the long run. You seem to bring up the "build more roads"
> argument every time congestion is mentioned on here as though it is the only
> solution.

We /need/ a motorway network before we have a hope of /solving/ (as
opposed to suppressing) road safety and road congestion issues.
>
> Regarding the M45, your reasoning seems back to front here. What is being
> claimed is that if a new road is build to relieve an older road then the new
> road will (in general) fill with traffic. Isn't that what the M6 has
> effectively done (assuming what you say is correct)?

No, all I'm saying is that the M45, despite being a fast two-lane dual
carriageway, and despite being "new", in relation to the majority of the
rest of our road network, does not generate its own traffic.

Traffic is there for the purpose of making journeys, not for the purpose
of filling road space.

--
Matt B
 
Adam Lea wrote:
> "iarocu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 9 Aug, 22:33, "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 depends on whether the roads are designed and built to meet the
>> capacity needed. The Cumbernauld "New Town" built in the 1950s and 60s
>> has more or less its original road system and there is still no
>> traffiic congestion.
>> Part of the problem with the road system is too much of it was
>> built without being well designed. Examples in Scotland being 50 odd
>> years after construction of the motorway system started there is still
>> no complete motorway link between Scotland and England and still no
>> complete motorway link between Glasgow and Edinburgh.
>> With inner London and other special cases continually building more
>> roads to meet capacity is not possible. In other places it is. New
>> roads generate more traffic? No. It's like saying if there wasn't
>> enough hospitals then building another one would just generate more
>> patients.
>
> Yes new roads can generate more traffic, simply because due to the initial
> reduction in congestion, some people will migrate from public transport to
> using their car.

It's the release of suppressed demand, and if travellers would rather
use the road if it was suitable why should they be denied that right???

> Also, a new fast road will encourage developers to build
> housing estates and industry near the new road on the assumption that
> everyone will drive and thus not think about alternative modes resulting in
> areas where people are forced to use cars, as opposed to developing in
> regions where multiple transport options are available.

That is a planning issue, not an excuse to nobble our transport network.

> As far as I know, building a hospital doesn't encourage people to become ill
> just because they will be able to obtain treatment closer to home. In fact,
> becoming ill is mostly involuntary.

No, new hospitals, doctor's surgeries, dentist's, etc. all bring out the
"suppressed demand" of the hypochondriacs.

Still we pander to them, and the preferred political solution is tax,
tax, tax, build, build, build. Similar to the case with motorists
actually, except the "build, build, build" is absent ;-)

--
Matt B
 
MJ Ray wrote:
> Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> [...] The A5 is only a half-decent "motor road" within
>> the boundary of MK, outside of which it is single carriageway, [...]
>> Ideal for cycling, granted,
>
> Not really! It was only ideal for cycling during the morning rush when
> the tailbacks from the Old Stratford roundabout allowed cyclists to
> safely overtake the motor vehicles on the last hill.

Tailbacks, yes, because the road was not up to the job. If all the
jostling and polluting motor traffic was on a motorway the road would be
perfect.

>> but even for that they would be much enhanced if the long-distance
>> motor traffic was where it belonged - on a motorway.
>
> No, it would be much enhanced if the nearby near-parallel unclassified
> roads and bridleways through places like Furtho, Puxley and Passenham
> had surfaces as good as the A5 (but no widening or other
> car-encouragers). I seldom used them for my morning journey because
> the A5 was faster and more reliable (less bike damage).

The A5 /would/ become "unclassified", in effect, it'd become the B5000,
or something, if a motorway replaced it.

> Adding motorways to feed the A5D would probably only shift the congestion
> to its exits inside MK.

A motorway ring would allow the traffic to distribute more effectively
into the MK grid.

> The MK roads are a network and need to be treated
> as such. At peak times, that means choosing the spread of congestion and
> getting as many motor vehicles off of the roads as possible.

Yes, the main weakness today is the M1 dumping thousands of cars an hour
onto one node - the Northfield Roundabout. If each node on the outer
edges of the grid (network) was a motorway junction, the traffic would
be absorbed by the grid more readily.

--
Matt B
 
"Matt B" wrote
> Mike Sales wrote:

>> SACTRA was quite clear in distinguishing between suppressed demand and
>> induced growth. It was also clear that new roads generate extra growth,
>> over and above any growth due to suppressed demand.
>
> Not quite. In 1994 they acknowledged that "induced growth" occurs (the
> release of suppressed demand /and/ route shifts), in addition to new
> demand created by economic growth.
>

We are in danger of getting into a "yes they did"/" no they didn't" here.
Can you not see that "induced growth" is necessarily different to "supressed
demand". It should be clear even in your summation that what is induced by
the new road cannot be also demand supressed by its lack. As I wrote, SACTRA
was quite clear in making this distinction.

Mike Sales
 
On 10 Aug, 15:39, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes new roads can generate more traffic, simply because due to the initial
> reduction in congestion, some people will migrate from public transport to
> using their car.

More traffic is not a bad thing in itself. The economy depends on
movement of gods and people. Moe commuters driving into major cities
maybe is but every new road proposed needs to be treated on its own
merits.



Also, a new fast road will encourage developers to build
> housing estates and industry near the new road on the assumption that
> everyone will drive and thus not think about alternative modes resulting in
> areas where people are forced to use cars, as opposed to developing in
> regions where multiple transport options are available.

The A9 from Dunblane to Perth was upgraded to dual carriiageway 30 or
so years ago. It is neither congested or surrounded by housng estates
and factories. Another example of where enough road capacity was
provided and the road has not generated it's own traffic to the point
where there is congestion. The upgrading of the A9 from Stirling to
Inverness 30 years ago has undoubtedly generated more traffic. It is
easy drive to Inverness for the day if needed now whereas that would
have been a major undertaking before the upgrading. Is that a bad
thing? I don't think so.
I agree building more roads is not the answer in every case but
sometimes it is.

Iain
 
Mike Sales wrote:
> "Matt B" wrote
>> Mike Sales wrote:
>
>>> SACTRA was quite clear in distinguishing between suppressed demand and
>>> induced growth. It was also clear that new roads generate extra growth,
>>> over and above any growth due to suppressed demand.
>> Not quite. In 1994 they acknowledged that "induced growth" occurs (the
>> release of suppressed demand /and/ route shifts), in addition to new
>> demand created by economic growth.
>>
>
> We are in danger of getting into a "yes they did"/" no they didn't" here.

Let's try and be clear then.

> Can you not see that "induced growth" is necessarily different to "supressed
> demand".

Yes, "induced growth" is defined as the growth which arises when factors
that were previously suppressing it are removed. If a road which isn't
used because it is too congested is modified to eliminate the
congestion, then it will be used - the induced growth is the previous
suppressed demand!

> It should be clear even in your summation that what is induced by
> the new road cannot be also demand supressed by its lack. As I wrote, SACTRA
> was quite clear in making this distinction.

The "induced demand" arises because the factors previously suppressing
that demand are removed - as /I/ wrote.

--
Matt B
 
On 10 Aug, 20:57, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Adam Lea wrote:
> >> "Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> 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.
>
> >> A biased source, but one that backs up it's argument with actual data:
>
> >>http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml
>
> > Thanks for that. All it does of course, is use evidence from poor schemes
> > as "proof" that no scheme could work.
>
> > It is similar to offering a 1950s sink estate as evidence that it is
> > impossible to build a decent housing estate. What we need to see is
> > properly designed and properly controlled research which studies the
> > effect on congestion of adding road capacity.
>
> > We all know of roads and by-passes that have been built, and which have
> > solved, not created, congestion problems.
>
> > One of my favourite examples of a road which doesn't "generate traffic" is
> > the M45 motorway in the Midlands. Shortly after it was opened, as part of
> > the original M1 motorway system in the late 1950s, it was one of the
> > busiest roads in the country, carrying traffic from the south-east to
> > Birmingham. Since the opening of the M6 in 1972 it became, and stayed,
> > one of the quietest. You can drive its entire length (7 or 8 miles), at
> > any time of the day, and not see another vehicle on either carriageway.
>
> > We need more science and less prejudice if we are to solve our road safety
> > and road congestion problems.
>
> I would never claim that "no" scheme could work. What I claim (along with
> others here) is that in general trying to build your way out of congestion
> doesn't work. Yes I would accept that in certain circumstances building a
> bypass or grade seperating a junction will have a positive benefit on
> traffic flow in the long run. You seem to bring up the "build more roads"
> argument every time congestion is mentioned on here as though it is the only
> solution.
>
> Regarding the M45, your reasoning seems back to front here. What is being
> claimed is that if a new road is build to relieve an older road then the new
> road will (in general) fill with traffic. Isn't that what the M6 has
> effectively done (assuming what you say is correct)?
>
> Anyway, I'd better shut up now before I get told not to feed the troll*.
>
> *not totally convinced you are but I don't want to get killfiled.
>
> Adam- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

shocking, are there that sort of people here that would do that, just
because you have an opinion?
 
"The other view point, there is one you
know...http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 10 Aug, 20:57, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Adam Lea wrote:
>> >> "Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:[email protected]...
>> >>> 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.
>>
>> >> A biased source, but one that backs up it's argument with actual data:
>>
>> >>http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml
>>
>> > Thanks for that. All it does of course, is use evidence from poor
>> > schemes
>> > as "proof" that no scheme could work.
>>
>> > It is similar to offering a 1950s sink estate as evidence that it is
>> > impossible to build a decent housing estate. What we need to see is
>> > properly designed and properly controlled research which studies the
>> > effect on congestion of adding road capacity.
>>
>> > We all know of roads and by-passes that have been built, and which have
>> > solved, not created, congestion problems.
>>
>> > One of my favourite examples of a road which doesn't "generate traffic"
>> > is
>> > the M45 motorway in the Midlands. Shortly after it was opened, as part
>> > of
>> > the original M1 motorway system in the late 1950s, it was one of the
>> > busiest roads in the country, carrying traffic from the south-east to
>> > Birmingham. Since the opening of the M6 in 1972 it became, and stayed,
>> > one of the quietest. You can drive its entire length (7 or 8 miles),
>> > at
>> > any time of the day, and not see another vehicle on either carriageway.
>>
>> > We need more science and less prejudice if we are to solve our road
>> > safety
>> > and road congestion problems.
>>
>> I would never claim that "no" scheme could work. What I claim (along with
>> others here) is that in general trying to build your way out of
>> congestion
>> doesn't work. Yes I would accept that in certain circumstances building a
>> bypass or grade seperating a junction will have a positive benefit on
>> traffic flow in the long run. You seem to bring up the "build more roads"
>> argument every time congestion is mentioned on here as though it is the
>> only
>> solution.
>>
>> Regarding the M45, your reasoning seems back to front here. What is being
>> claimed is that if a new road is build to relieve an older road then the
>> new
>> road will (in general) fill with traffic. Isn't that what the M6 has
>> effectively done (assuming what you say is correct)?
>>
>> Anyway, I'd better shut up now before I get told not to feed the troll*.
>>
>> *not totally convinced you are but I don't want to get killfiled.
>>
>> Adam- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> shocking, are there that sort of people here that would do that, just
> because you have an opinion?
>

Most people on here don't like MattB because they suspect he is a troll,
because he always posts opposing viewpoints but never seems to actually
contribute to cycling specific discussion. Their solution is to killfile
MattB so they don't have to listen to him, but that doesn't work when people
reply to him because then they get all the half conversations. The typical
way of dealing with this is first to request people not to reply to him and
if that doesn't work, killfile the respondants.

I do get the impression on here that there is a "generic viewpoint" that
people are expected to hold and people who challenge this are killfiled. I
find this group a useful source of cycling information, so do not wish to be
killfiled so will sometimes refrain from challenging the views of the more
"passionate" posters.
 
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Most people on here don't like MattB because they suspect he is a troll,
> because he always posts opposing viewpoints but never seems to actually
> contribute to cycling specific discussion.

Partly, yes, but mostly because he has a tendency to say bloody
stupid things, like:

[I said]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 01 Jul 2007 14:54:41 GMT
> > I thought even you would find it difficult to argue that you're
> > more likely to be hit by a car if there are no cars present, but
> > evidently I was wrong.

[MattB responded]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:14:40 +0100
> > You are wrong - deliberately I think (I'll give you the benefit of
> > the doubt).

So, not only was I wrong to think that, but evidently I was being
deliberately contrary by suggesting that MattB would have difficulty
arguing that a non-existent car is more likely to knock you down than
one that is actually present.

> I do get the impression on here that there is a "generic viewpoint" that
> people are expected to hold and people who challenge this are killfiled.

Well, there's a generic viewpoint that only people who can maintain a
coherent point of view for a whole posting are worth talking to.
People who change their minds from one sentence to the next get pretty
short shrift.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

fietserq
Bicycle transport towards Greece by train and ferry
Replies
1
Views
2K
UK and Europe
byronlewis
byronlewis
VincentAugust
Best way to transport luggage on bike?
Replies
5
Views
5K
UK and Europe
googlebike
G
P
Comparing speed of cycling with public transport
Replies
1
Views
528
UK and Europe
POHB
P
N
Campaign for "Better" Transport
Replies
11
Views
446
UK and Europe
Philip Powell
P
D
Department for Transport apologises over usable cycle lane
Replies
3
Views
433
UK and Europe
AlanF
A
Top Bottom Back