Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: quixoticgeek on January 21, 2020, 10:57:32 am

Title: Road designers suck
Post by: quixoticgeek on January 21, 2020, 10:57:32 am

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51179688

Who would have thunk it?

J
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: FifeingEejit on January 21, 2020, 11:30:54 am
Didn't notice until reopening it there that the picture shows the classic "I can't possibly park in the big parking area at the back of my house, so I'll park on the pavement instead" x3.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: ian on January 21, 2020, 11:43:38 am
I mentioned somewhere else the new development I stumbled across at Christmas. In the middle of nowhere with a single narrow access road opening onto the town bypass. The only access is by vehicle* unless you fancy tackling a couple of miles of muddy public footpath or a stroll down the side of a dual carriageway (I think there may actually be a pavement, though it's not exactly practicable). No idea how it got approved, it seems to have been initially rejected.

Totally inappropriate on any measure, but there it is. Replaced a single farmhouse.

On the other hand, directly opposite a local station is a huge plot of derelict land (where some factory units were pulled down). It's been derelict since we moved to the area. Not that, tbh, we should be encouraging further development, it's all commuters and there's no commitment to improve transport services or provide any local services.

*it's not even that great for vehicles, since you can get there from the southerly lane of the bypass.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: matthew on January 21, 2020, 12:19:23 pm
Didn't notice until reopening it there that the picture shows the classic "I can't possibly park in the big parking area at the back of my house, so I'll park on the pavement instead" x3.

Do you want to try again. I think I see 10 examples. Add to this the new development limit on the number of parking spaces and the insistence that the garage is a 'parking space' while building the houses so small that the garage has to be storage for the house. This means most properties only have one designated parking space, yet both husband and wife will commute and have a car each. I dread to think what will happen on my estate when the kids reach driving age and each household gains a 3rd car. There just aren't enough visitors bays to go round.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: rogerzilla on January 21, 2020, 12:20:55 pm
Another favourite of crap designers is to include two parking spaces in tandem.  They rarely both get used.  One car goes on the road or pavement to avoid blocking the other one in.

A lot of cars won't physically fit through a standard 7' garage door now, at least not unless the door mirrors are folded first.  Then you can't open the door enough to get out inside the garage.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: matthew on January 21, 2020, 12:27:39 pm
Ditto the garages where the second space is invariably in front of the garage.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: psyclist on January 21, 2020, 12:27:55 pm
Altruistically, each town would have a strategic green transport plan, and an approach to ensure each new piece of development contributes towards that plan.

In practice, what might one expect? What joined up thinking is in place against which local developments are approved?

I'm just thinking how one might get involved in understanding at a local level what is in place, and how one might be able to challenge proposed developments that fall foul of sustainable and environmentally aware development. Bringing in an appropriate pressure group is one aspect, but that would depend upon the type of issue arising. That itself depends upon the standards / plans against which a new development can be assessed.

Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: rogerzilla on January 21, 2020, 12:28:38 pm
Ditto the garages where the second space is invariably in front of the garage.
That's less of an issue because the garage will be full of junk anyway!
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: bludger on January 21, 2020, 12:35:18 pm
I'm just thinking how one might get involved in understanding at a local level what is in place, and how one might be able to challenge proposed developments that fall foul of sustainable and environmentally aware development.

People should be made liable for the externalities they impose on others, not just in their neighbourhood but on their commute, and around the world. Basically a 'VED plus' that factors in particulate and rubber health impacts, carbon emissions, wear and tear on roads, etc. It should become a serious tax penalty to operate e.g. a jeep. And it should be HMRC doing the enforcement, not do-nothing councillors.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: grams on January 21, 2020, 12:38:31 pm
I once tried cutting through one of these new developments to get to a shop* on the road behind. The only way out the other side was to climb over a fence and down a grass bank. No wonder people drive to buy a pint a milk.

(* ironically, a petrol station)

Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on January 21, 2020, 12:42:54 pm
Quote
And he urged the government to make mandatory its own advisory Manual for Streets, which says: “Streets are not just there to get people from A to B. In reality, streets form vital components of residential areas and greatly affect the overall quality of life for local people.”
Let's hear it for (and maybe even from) the Manual for Streets!
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on January 21, 2020, 12:46:57 pm
Also:
Quote
Craig Bennett, chief executive of Friends of the Earth, said this was a "big shift in public opinion" which showed the public was "way ahead of politicians on this issue".[/qupte]
Possibly they are now. But:
Quote
People will have to get out of their cars if the UK is to meet its climate change targets, MPs say.

The Science and Technology Select Committee says technology alone cannot solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions from transport.

It says the government cannot achieve sufficient emissions cuts by swapping existing vehicles for cleaner versions.

The government said it would consider the committee's findings.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49425402

I think select committees are (inevitably) ahead of MPs in general and MPs are sometimes/often ahead of local councillors.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: rogerzilla on January 21, 2020, 12:57:32 pm
I think the current situation can be summed up as "money talks and bullshit walks".  Developers build whatever is easiest and most profitable.  They don't care one iota what it's like to live in; their interest ends as soon as the last plot is sold.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: ian on January 21, 2020, 01:14:21 pm
Didn't notice until reopening it there that the picture shows the classic "I can't possibly park in the big parking area at the back of my house, so I'll park on the pavement instead" x3.

Do you want to try again. I think I see 10 examples. Add to this the new development limit on the number of parking spaces and the insistence that the garage is a 'parking space' while building the houses so small that the garage has to be storage for the house. This means most properties only have one designated parking space, yet both husband and wife will commute and have a car each. I dread to think what will happen on my estate when the kids reach driving age and each household gains a 3rd car. There just aren't enough visitors bays to go round.

When we were looking at new builds before we plumped for The Asbestos Palace even estates with only half the houses finished were already blighted by pavement parking. Visitor bays are instantly taken for the 3rd or 4th car.

Also, as part of this, developers get to build private streets at a lower standard than a council would accept anyway (I don't think we saw a single development that wasn't entirely private streets), and then leave the residents to sort it out, which includes ongoing parking provision.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Jaded on January 21, 2020, 01:33:15 pm
I'm just thinking how one might get involved in understanding at a local level what is in place, and how one might be able to challenge proposed developments that fall foul of sustainable and environmentally aware development.

People should be made liable for the externalities they impose on others, not just in their neighbourhood but on their commute, and around the world. Basically a 'VED plus' that factors in particulate and rubber health impacts, carbon emissions, wear and tear on roads, etc. It should become a serious tax penalty to operate e.g. a jeep. And it should be HMRC doing the enforcement, not do-nothing councillors.

Councillors don't enforce. Officers do.

Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: hellymedic on January 21, 2020, 01:40:17 pm
Did anyone notice The report was from Professor Matthew Carmona?
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: bludger on January 21, 2020, 01:48:15 pm
I'm just thinking how one might get involved in understanding at a local level what is in place, and how one might be able to challenge proposed developments that fall foul of sustainable and environmentally aware development.

People should be made liable for the externalities they impose on others, not just in their neighbourhood but on their commute, and around the world. Basically a 'VED plus' that factors in particulate and rubber health impacts, carbon emissions, wear and tear on roads, etc. It should become a serious tax penalty to operate e.g. a jeep. And it should be HMRC doing the enforcement, not do-nothing councillors.

Councillors don't enforce. Officers do.
Councillors are surely accountable for the performance of the officers.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: ian on January 21, 2020, 01:56:53 pm
If as I councillor you want to not to be a councillor, simply propose to restrict someone's parking.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on January 21, 2020, 02:02:28 pm
It's not as if any of these are new observations. I'm almost inclined to believe they trot out the criticisms every couple of years as a sop for lack of action. This one was from August 2018: http://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk
Quote
New housing in the UK is too often built around car use, with residents having little choice but to drive for almost every journey. What are the specific elements that make up a non-car-dependent housing development? Transport for New Homes has produced a Checklist for new housing developments.
et cetera
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: bludger on January 21, 2020, 02:10:32 pm
It's a political economy problem. We know what the technical solution to problems is for basically everything, from nuclear weapons proliferation to dead cyclists to climate change. The actual problem is the balance of power, who gets to decide what.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: DuncanM on January 21, 2020, 02:26:21 pm
Councils have an obligation to ensure that they can house people. There are insufficient council houses and "affordable" housing. They also can be over-ruled by Westminster, should they decide to block a development.
All that means that when a developer turns up with a scheme for building houses, the council is concerned primarily about how many affordable homes they can get out of the deal and how they can minimise the objections of the local residents to avoid being kicked out of office. Additional local facilities paid for by the developer would also be nice (and help with point 2). Transport and sustainability and good design and proper neighbourhoods and all those other things that make somewhere worth living are way down the priority list.

If we want to do something about it, then we need central government to mandate national standards can't be undercut. Fat chance of that - it might impact on the profits of the housebuilders. Besides, central gov't have other things to get on with for the next n years now. ::-)
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Jaded on January 21, 2020, 04:40:19 pm
^ mostly this.

Planning regulations are skewed quite heavily in favour of developers.

Developers have significantly more money to fight planning application cases than councils do.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: caerau on January 21, 2020, 05:18:56 pm
'76% of people think that we should reduce the levels of driving....'


...action speaks louder than words.... if that fence down the bank to that petrol station was a navigable path.  How many would *really* walk?


Our next door neighbours when they see us walking to the bus stop (about 5 min walk) *insist* on giving us a lift if they catch us - seriously, they get mortally offended if we try to decline....


It simply doesn't occur to many to not use their car.  I wonder how many of this fabled 76% would actually do something about it personally....

Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: rogerzilla on January 21, 2020, 05:21:58 pm
"Everyone else should drive less"
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: SteveC on January 21, 2020, 05:42:34 pm
It always amazes me how many people drive round our village. We ended up chatting to a couple in the pub one night. Discovered they lived just round the corner from us, so at the end of the evening suggested we walk home together. They had the car. Apparently they always took the car, then had row about who was driving home. It's less than half a mile. And the parking in the village is so bad, getting a spot near the pub is pretty rare. Sigh.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Diver300 on January 21, 2020, 07:04:09 pm
An example:-
https://goo.gl/maps/NwXCj957JoV2rXCC7 (https://goo.gl/maps/NwXCj957JoV2rXCC7)
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: ian on January 21, 2020, 08:32:27 pm
It was notable this morning how many of the frantically car-scraping parents had kids in the local school uniform, ~10 minutes walk. At our last place, under 10 minutes walk to the station, we had neighbours who drove there and spent 15 minutes trying to find sub-optimal parking that would net them a parking ticket at least once a week. One of them used the excuse that they had to drop the kids at school (five minutes, and on the way to the station).

It's correct they think other people should drive less. Drivers always have an excuse for their own journey.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: FifeingEejit on January 21, 2020, 10:28:22 pm
Can beat that.

Parents setting off from home here:
https://goo.gl/maps/QQ9ziLzathcDSAvx8

And driving to the schools:
Here: https://goo.gl/maps/9Jj74mQyZ7k4FKiZ7
and Here: https://goo.gl/maps/om8VM69PNQskruqU6

Amazingly this takes them them the 20 mins it takes me to walk to the shops
here: https://goo.gl/maps/dBXzmPCSRxJz7vG97
And back while walking round the first school in the process...

Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: ian on January 22, 2020, 09:13:03 am
We live 12 minutes walk from the town centre*. There's one neighbour that walks (and she's the crazy lady) but other than her, I think I can safely say that everyone else drives (and once they're in the car, they generally don't go to the town centre other than for the supermarkets, of course).

*OK, I confess that if it's late in the evening or we have bags, we'll usually get a taxi.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: telstarbox on January 22, 2020, 09:54:35 am
Altruistically, each town would have a strategic green transport plan, and an approach to ensure each new piece of development contributes towards that plan.

In practice, what might one expect? What joined up thinking is in place against which local developments are approved?

I'm just thinking how one might get involved in understanding at a local level what is in place, and how one might be able to challenge proposed developments that fall foul of sustainable and environmentally aware development. Bringing in an appropriate pressure group is one aspect, but that would depend upon the type of issue arising. That itself depends upon the standards / plans against which a new development can be assessed.

Part of my job includes road design and its interaction with the planning process. To try to keep it simple: 

Your local council produces a Local Plan (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-plans) which should be on their website. This covers a period of 15-20 years and would typically include both area-wide policies, and "Allocations" (specific bits of land) which are expected to be developed in that timeframe. The Local Plan will be updated every so often via a formal consultation process, including an Examination in Public (which anyone can attend) overseen by an independent Planning Inspector.

Landowners and developers attempt to promote their sites via this process, as once a site becomes an Allocation it makes it much easier to apply for planning permission in due course. The council may also promote its own ideas through the plan, or in some cases safeguard land *against* development.

Example for one which is currently in the consultation stage: https://beta.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/local-plan

Another key consideration is the slightly Soviet Five Year Housing Land Supply (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-supply-and-delivery). Every council should, in theory, have a pipeline of land to build new housing for the next five years. In practice, many councils have fallen behind with their supply. When this happens, it becomes easier for developers to achieve permission for poor-quality or badly-located schemes to be given permission as they are "helping" to meet the five-year position.

There are also national policy documents which carry weight when councils make decisions on development. The main ones are:
National Planning Policy Framework
Manual for Streets - this emphasises the importants of streets as places where people live and spend time, rather than just corridors for cars
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges - more relevant for "big" roads rather than local ones.

Finally there are many other protections and designations which can limit how land can be developed, such as:
Conservation areas
Air Quality Management Areas
National Parks
Flood plains
Contaminated land (for brownfield sites)
etc

Further questions/abuse welcome!
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Regulator on January 22, 2020, 12:33:21 pm
I was at a Parish meeting yesterday to discuss a planning application.  There were more questions raised around parking than anything else.  It just demonstrates how car-centric we have become.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: psyclist on January 22, 2020, 12:36:05 pm
Superb reply telstarbox. Thank you very much  :thumbsup:

That gives me a bit of a structure on what to look out for, and to see whether it is feasible to get involved in the process of improving the local environment above and beyond what the planners might think they can get away with. There have been some very poor decisions in my local town centre in the recent past.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Regulator on January 22, 2020, 12:39:53 pm
I'm just thinking how one might get involved in understanding at a local level what is in place, and how one might be able to challenge proposed developments that fall foul of sustainable and environmentally aware development.

People should be made liable for the externalities they impose on others, not just in their neighbourhood but on their commute, and around the world. Basically a 'VED plus' that factors in particulate and rubber health impacts, carbon emissions, wear and tear on roads, etc. It should become a serious tax penalty to operate e.g. a jeep. And it should be HMRC doing the enforcement, not do-nothing councillors.

This comment would suggest that you don't actually understand the constraints that local councillors actually work under in relation to planning.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: caerau on January 22, 2020, 12:49:00 pm
I was going to say - in the last couple of years I was minorly involved in objections to a plan to build a waste dump very near my house that would involve (originally - this has now been tamed down) - about 8 large trucks full of said waste down a very residential street just down from my house an hour - ALL day.    Don't really want to get into the ins-and outs of this case as it's a long story but TWO of our local councillors got heavily involved in AIDING us in trying to stop this.  They turned out to be just as powerless as us.  It's all quite complicated but I got the impression that plans of councillors and others involved can be scuppered and ignored by the engineers who are actually involved in implementing such things*.  Would be interested to hear what Telstarbox might say on that... :-)

*for good reasons sometimes (or often)


(Briefly, though, the main reason we were scuppered and ignored was that this was a patch of land in the Vale of Glamorgan - and we are (just) in Cardiff.  So we had no say at all in this... apparently an adjacent council can do what they like over the neighbouring one's land and this is OK.... ::-)    Incidentally, I have no NIMBY attitude on this - waste has to be dumped somewhere I guess - what I objected to was large fleets of dumper trucks rumbling ALL DAY down a residential road where children DO actually play outside all the time still - plus their assessments of the suitability of the road were done essentially fraudulently... as I said... long story)

Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: bludger on January 22, 2020, 01:07:25 pm
I'm just thinking how one might get involved in understanding at a local level what is in place, and how one might be able to challenge proposed developments that fall foul of sustainable and environmentally aware development.

People should be made liable for the externalities they impose on others, not just in their neighbourhood but on their commute, and around the world. Basically a 'VED plus' that factors in particulate and rubber health impacts, carbon emissions, wear and tear on roads, etc. It should become a serious tax penalty to operate e.g. a jeep. And it should be HMRC doing the enforcement, not do-nothing councillors.

This comment would suggest that you don't actually understand the constraints that local councillors actually work under in relation to planning.
My point isn't about planning it's about 'governance' in a broader sense. My comment is more that councillors do not have the inclination or capacity to do real, impactful environmental health enforcements, or indeed much else. See e.g. this report on stagnant road safety in England: https://www.transport-network.co.uk/Local-road-safety-is-weak-and-failing-report-finds/15992

Quote
oncern was raised that cuts to funding may soon prevent LAs [local authorities] from fulfilling their statutory road safety duties while most LAs indicated that they no longer have the capacity to improve road safety, including meeting their own targets where these have been adopted locally.
Road safety governance was generally weak and most of the limited funding for road safety comes from the LA’s own budget
The loss of the central government road safety grant has been the most significant change in LA road safety funding in the last decade, respondents noting that this means there has been very limited funding for delivery beyond staff revenue
Road safety activities that have been cut include education, training and publicity activities and school crossing patrols; some casualty reduction partnerships have come to an end and the number and scale of engineering interventions on many collision-affected routes have been reduced, if not stopped altogether
Scotland’s safety performance has overtaken that in England over the last decade as a result of years of work including the use of formal casualty reduction targets and the establishment of multi-agency partnerships specifically tasked with achieving them.
The statutory framework that requires highway authorities to deliver safety in general terms is weak in comparison with, for example, modern health and safety or product liability legislation. LAs naturally give priority to legislation where the requirements on them are explicit.

In my view HMRC is one of this country's only really strong regulatory enforcement institutions. If it were to be purposes to levy pigovian taxes on the externalities people lumber the rest of us with that would be really switching the frighteners on. LAs are in a political economy problem (they are run by councillors who don't want to lose elections) and the facts are that enforcement of duties which they're given is slack. HMRC don't give a monkey's, they'll come for anyone and they have the resources and manpower to do it.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: rogerzilla on January 22, 2020, 01:17:33 pm
I was at a Parish meeting yesterday to discuss a planning application.  There were more questions raised around parking than anything else.  It just demonstrates how car-centric we have become.
It's not so much about "will the people who'll live there have trouble parking?".  It's really "if there's not enough parking, will cars spill over onto streets and pavements, making the place an eyesore and surrounding roads more clogged and dangerous?".  These are valid concerns; non-car owners in particular often hate having cars parked right outside their house.  It's in everyone's interests to keep cars off the roads when not being used. 

The theory that people will buy fewer cars if less parking is provided has been disproven over the last 20 years of shambolic new estates.  Most people lease newer cars and don't really care where they're left at night.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Clare on January 22, 2020, 01:20:49 pm
We went to a 'roadshow' for developments in Portsmouth a couple of weeks ago, one of the developments the council is hoping to get permission for is Tipner West and they want the whole development to be car free, the plans include a massive underground car park accessed from the M275. It looks impressive but what it will actually end up like is a different issue.

We got chatting with one of the planners who admitted that his ambition was to turn the whole of Portsea Island car free.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Regulator on January 22, 2020, 01:27:29 pm
I'm just thinking how one might get involved in understanding at a local level what is in place, and how one might be able to challenge proposed developments that fall foul of sustainable and environmentally aware development.

People should be made liable for the externalities they impose on others, not just in their neighbourhood but on their commute, and around the world. Basically a 'VED plus' that factors in particulate and rubber health impacts, carbon emissions, wear and tear on roads, etc. It should become a serious tax penalty to operate e.g. a jeep. And it should be HMRC doing the enforcement, not do-nothing councillors.

This comment would suggest that you don't actually understand the constraints that local councillors actually work under in relation to planning.
My point isn't about planning. My comment is more that councillors do not have the inclination or capacity to do real, impactful environmental health enforcements, or indeed much else. See e.g. this report on stagnant road safety in England: https://www.transport-network.co.uk/Local-road-safety-is-weak-and-failing-report-finds/15992

Quote
oncern was raised that cuts to funding may soon prevent LAs [local authorities] from fulfilling their statutory road safety duties while most LAs indicated that they no longer have the capacity to improve road safety, including meeting their own targets where these have been adopted locally.
Road safety governance was generally weak and most of the limited funding for road safety comes from the LA’s own budget
The loss of the central government road safety grant has been the most significant change in LA road safety funding in the last decade, respondents noting that this means there has been very limited funding for delivery beyond staff revenue
Road safety activities that have been cut include education, training and publicity activities and school crossing patrols; some casualty reduction partnerships have come to an end and the number and scale of engineering interventions on many collision-affected routes have been reduced, if not stopped altogether
Scotland’s safety performance has overtaken that in England over the last decade as a result of years of work including the use of formal casualty reduction targets and the establishment of multi-agency partnerships specifically tasked with achieving them.
The statutory framework that requires highway authorities to deliver safety in general terms is weak in comparison with, for example, modern health and safety or product liability legislation. LAs naturally give priority to legislation where the requirements on them are explicit.

In my view HMRC is one of this country's only really strong regulatory enforcement institutions. If it were to be purposes to levy pigovian taxes on the externalities people lumber the rest of us with that would be really switching the frighteners on. LAs are in a political economy problem (they are run by councillors who don't want to lose elections) and the facts are that enforcement of duties which they're given is slack. HMRC don't give a monkey's, they'll come for anyone and they have the resources and manpower to do it.

It's nothing to do with "inclination or capacity" - it's to do with power/authority.  It's nothing to do with local councillors not wanting to do anything because they're scared of losing elections (parking enforcement can actually be a vote winner) - that's just lazy stereotyping.   In reality. local authorities oftenhave little power/authority to take enforcement action on these matters.

Something as simple as the ability to enforce parking restrcitions varies from authority to authority.  Parking offences have been decriminalised but enforcement was not (with the exception of London) automatically transferred to local authorities.  Police authorities maintain jurisdiction unless they decide to devolve it to the relevant local authority.  Many police authorities have - but some simply refuse to do so.  Cambridgeshire is a case in point.  They have devolved parking enforcement for the City of Cambridge but refuse to do so for the other parts of Cambrdigeshire - despite repeated requests from the relevant local authorities. 

My parish and district council - and the county council as the main highways authority - can put in restrictions but have no ability to police them.  We have repeatedly asked the police authority to devolved enforcement powers - they've refused to do so.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on January 22, 2020, 01:28:05 pm
The theory that people will buy fewer cars if less parking is provided has been disproven over the last 20 years of shambolic new estates.  Most people lease newer cars and don't really care where they're left at night.
Simply not providing parking is not going to do anything, in part because people will assume they'll find somewhere. But if you provide very limited parking and enforce that, both financially and physically, it can do. Unfortunately we're back to the electability trap, people won't vote for councillors who introduce meaningful RPZs.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Regulator on January 22, 2020, 01:35:42 pm
I was at a Parish meeting yesterday to discuss a planning application.  There were more questions raised around parking than anything else.  It just demonstrates how car-centric we have become.
It's not so much about "will the people who'll live there have trouble parking?".  It's really "if there's not enough parking, will cars spill over onto streets and pavements, making the place an eyesore and surrounding roads more clogged and dangerous?".  These are valid concerns; non-car owners in particular often hate having cars parked right outside their house.  It's in everyone's interests to keep cars off the roads when not being used.

These are valid concerns but, as someone who deals with this sort of thing on a regular basis, the issue isn't necessarily about capacity - it's about selfishness. Often those parking on the roads/pavements are residents who have the ability to park off road but simply can't be arsed doing so.  We see it a lot in the village, as parking off road would mean them getting out and opening a gate or a garage door... they simply park on the road (or the pavement) instead.

Quote
The theory that people will buy fewer cars if less parking is provided has been disproven over the last 20 years of shambolic new estates.  Most people lease newer cars and don't really care where they're left at night.

I don't think there has ever really been a theory put forward that people will be fewer cars if less parking is provided.

That said, I'm all for the sort of restrictions on urban/suburban car ownership they have in Japan, combined with investment in public transport and alternative travel forms.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: caerau on January 22, 2020, 01:45:34 pm
Increased frustration with congestion on the roads was a large part of my decision to ditch my car.


But I am perhaps unusual.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Kim on January 22, 2020, 01:50:45 pm
The theory that people will buy fewer cars if less parking is provided has been disproven over the last 20 years of shambolic new estates.  Most people lease newer cars and don't really care where they're left at night.

I thought it was that people will drive less if there's less or more expensive parking at their destination.  That might result in less car ownership and therefore storage if the destination is an employer, but would generally result in different choice of destination, or the car spending marginally more time idle.

As such, it's effective for improving air quality and congestion in city centres, but probably has little effect on residential parking.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Regulator on January 22, 2020, 01:52:04 pm
The theory that people will buy fewer cars if less parking is provided has been disproven over the last 20 years of shambolic new estates.  Most people lease newer cars and don't really care where they're left at night.
Simply not providing parking is not going to do anything, in part because people will assume they'll find somewhere. But if you provide very limited parking and enforce that, both financially and physically, it can do. Unfortunately we're back to the electability trap, people won't vote for councillors who introduce meaningful RPZs.

Any actual evidence to support that assertion?

As a councillor, one of things that is often raised with me is parking enforcement - but it's people asking *for* it.  I've never had anyone suggest they didn't want parking enforcement or wouldn't vote for someone because they proposed it.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on January 22, 2020, 02:31:04 pm
The theory that people will buy fewer cars if less parking is provided has been disproven over the last 20 years of shambolic new estates.  Most people lease newer cars and don't really care where they're left at night.
Simply not providing parking is not going to do anything, in part because people will assume they'll find somewhere. But if you provide very limited parking and enforce that, both financially and physically, it can do. Unfortunately we're back to the electability trap, people won't vote for councillors who introduce meaningful RPZs.

Any actual evidence to support that assertion?

As a councillor, one of things that is often raised with me is parking enforcement - but it's people asking *for* it.  I've never had anyone suggest they didn't want parking enforcement or wouldn't vote for someone because they proposed it.
It's reckoned to be a large part of why Ferguson didn't get re-elected as mayor. He introduced RPZs and wanted to extend them to cover the entire city. Rees's two most prominent campaign promises were to halt the expansion of RPZs and 20mph zones, both of which he did immediately on being elected. People's support for RPZs once they've been introduced in their own area does not extend to support for their introduction from residents of proposed zones, particularly beyond the central areas. They're also unpopular in the outer areas because they're seen as 'elitist' and because those who drove to work in the centre were forced to pay for parking or take other transport.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Jaded on January 22, 2020, 02:43:26 pm
I thought it was because, as an independent, he had little electioneering support on the ground. It’s one way that party politics trump independence.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: ian on January 22, 2020, 04:13:51 pm
The theory that people will buy fewer cars if less parking is provided has been disproven over the last 20 years of shambolic new estates.  Most people lease newer cars and don't really care where they're left at night.
Simply not providing parking is not going to do anything, in part because people will assume they'll find somewhere. But if you provide very limited parking and enforce that, both financially and physically, it can do. Unfortunately we're back to the electability trap, people won't vote for councillors who introduce meaningful RPZs.

Any actual evidence to support that assertion?

As a councillor, one of things that is often raised with me is parking enforcement - but it's people asking *for* it.  I've never had anyone suggest they didn't want parking enforcement or wouldn't vote for someone because they proposed it.

Attempts to even discuss a parking restrictions/RPZ on the main street near where we live face concerted (admittedly small and vocal) opposition along the lines of 'they're taking your parking' (which isn't the case, of course). Our local councillor (very good) said that it certainly makes candidates avoid the issue (sadly, the road is awful and desperately needs some restrictions). The danger of course is that while people support an RPZ, they won't risk their own parking entitlement to get one and ultimately there's less space than cars to fill it, so something has to give. Ironically far more car owners would benefit than lose out.

I think every planning developer in our town gets bogged down in parking issues (in part because there's zero parking control, the council outsourced it to Reigate & Banstead who pocketed the money and no one ever saw them again, though apparently they're cancelling this agreement and we might actually see some enforcement). This despite that town having regular bus services (and cheap ones, it's TfL) and a station with four trains an hour.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: caerau on January 22, 2020, 04:50:56 pm
This despite that town having regular bus services (and cheap ones, it's TfL) and a station with four trains an hour.


I recall a few years back someone here pointing out an article on a local rag (commuter zone London territory) where an angry resident was ranting about his seasonal parking ticket at the the local rail station having been doubled in price (or thereabouts), causing him to have to pay an extra £800 a year.   It didn't take much googling for that original poster to track the guy's housing estate down and point out that it was less than a mile from this rail station.  I.e. about 15ish minutes walk - probably took him longer to drive it.
That people are prepare or willing to pay nearly £2k a year for parking spaces when they could easily walk shows you the lack of imagination and inertia in behaviour that designers are up against.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: rogerzilla on January 22, 2020, 06:45:21 pm
Swindon centre is all RPZs and they've sold far more permits than there are available spaces  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: DuncanM on January 22, 2020, 07:49:17 pm
There are all sorts of stupid conflicts within local government about RPZs as well.  At one stage, Oxford City Council introduced RPZs in Headington because they wanted people to use the Park and Ride instead of clogging up the roads driving to where parking was free (and cheaper to get the the bus). Oxfordshire County Council observed this, and then made every resident pay for their parking permit. Their reasoning was that in other parts of the county, the parking permit was introduced by request from the residents, and therefore a charging scheme was set up to pay for it!
Eventually they put the price of parking at the Park and Ride up (and the bus ticket price), so it's cheaper to drive into the centre of town and pay for 2 hours parking than it is to pay for a parking space at the park and ride and bus ticket to town. And gave permission to build a giant shopping centre in the middle of town with 1000 parking spaces. The result - more people drive into town than ever before and the whole place gridlocks regularly on Saturdays.  But it's OK because it's getting an ULEZ on 6 streets (that no-one ever drives on) next year. ::-)
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: caerau on January 22, 2020, 07:54:56 pm
Wow, Oxford has changed since my days of living there then.  Back in my day (1989-1993) it was cheaper to park illegally and risk a fine than pay for one of the car parks or meters.  Iirc the parking fine was about £16 back then but the spaces were £12 a day.  So if you managed a couple of days of getting away with it....  (I didn't drive there, it was just what was known). Last time I went back properly 10 years or so ago, the city centre car parking charges had risen commensurately with the time and were similarly eye-watering (trust me £12 a day in the early 90s was huge).
Where are these spaces that are cheaper than the £4.80 (I think) I had to pay at Peartree Park and Ride a couple of weeks ago?
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: DuncanM on January 22, 2020, 08:10:38 pm
Parking fines are £100 a pop now.
They have changed the machines, so they may have boosted the prices, but it was £4 for 2 hours on St Giles until just before Christmas. It's slightly cheaper in Jericho. It's significantly more expensive in the Westgate (not that the cost stops it getting so full the queue to get in clogs Oxpens road).
It's £2 to park for up to 11 hours at the park and ride, and £2.80 for a 1 person return on the bus.  Which is a cheek given it's £3.60 on the #8 and #9 busses that go to the housing estates either side of Thornhill Park and Ride.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: quixoticgeek on January 22, 2020, 08:27:26 pm
Wow, Oxford has changed since my days of living there then.  Back in my day (1989-1993) it was cheaper to park illegally and risk a fine than pay for one of the car parks or meters.  Iirc the parking fine was about £16 back then but the spaces were £12 a day.  So if you managed a couple of days of getting away with it....  (I didn't drive there, it was just what was known). Last time I went back properly 10 years or so ago, the city centre car parking charges had risen commensurately with the time and were similarly eye-watering (trust me £12 a day in the early 90s was huge).
Where are these spaces that are cheaper than the £4.80 (I think) I had to pay at Peartree Park and Ride a couple of weeks ago?

I don't know if it's just urban legend, but at one of the UK universities the student body realised that campus security only actually owned one wheel clamp. So they bought an old banger, pushed it onto campus, let it get clamped, then parked where the hell they liked, content in the knowledge that they couldn't be clamped... Dunno if true, but I like the story.

J
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: MikeFromLFE on January 22, 2020, 09:55:42 pm
Today's news story from my corner of the provinces seems to illustrate some of the above issues
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/council-decision-allow-hundreds-more-3762185 (https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/council-decision-allow-hundreds-more-3762185)
Yes, it's a historic site (in that it's been in use for a very long time - precendence seems to be the rule
Yes, there is widespread and longstanding avoidance of planning conditions (and I've been a 'victim' of one of these bloody great transporters on a narrow country lane thereabouts)
No, there is no chance of any enforcement. At all.
No, of course no one is going to suggest that the operators of the site might please like to pay (!) for a suitable road link to their depot, or road improvements through the villages - oh no!
As for the suggestions that the company might actually use the trackers fitted to the lorries, or even put up CCTV to monitor their own vehicles - well! That would seem to be a step much too far.
 
I confidently predict there will be much hand wringing and then bugger all will be done - except that the site operators will max out the movements to and from the site, villagers will suffer from increased transporter movements and increased traffic from the increased number of employees on the site (public transport to Bruntingthorpe? - don't make me giggle).

As I learned to my cost - getting involved in local planning consultations (objections) is a time consuming, and frustrating occupation - particularly when you find that the 'conditions' imposed are ignored, and the council's officials then refuse to take action because 'you're the only one complaining'.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: andrewc on January 22, 2020, 09:57:03 pm
The complex of flats where I live has more than adequate car parking space,  I've never seen it full.  This may be because we are so close to Liverpool city centre that everyone walks.


It also means we have a regular issue with staff & students from University of Liverpool which is directly adjacent, using us as a free car park.   The same residents who complain about this are the same ones who complained when we closed the gates & made the place access via key fob only.  The machinery for the gates was too noisy.... :facepalm:


I believe we are no longer allowed to clamp the buggers either. 
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: ian on January 22, 2020, 10:32:43 pm
I always wonder why – if housing is in such short supply* – councils don't just covenant non-car ownership. Is there a reason why a development has to support any parking? There's a big proposal in our little Surrey commuter town to overhaul the main shopping precinct, add flats, a cinema etc. which, of course, now rests faces a bleating chorus of 'what about the parking?' The development would be opposite the station and the bus stops, the town centre has shops, two supermarkets, etc. Not owning a car wouldn't have a significant impact on anyone living there. It would free additional space. And of course, having several hundred people who can't simply drive off to Croydon or Redhill would make them more dependent on the local high street and encourage locality.

*housing itself isn't really in short supply, affordable housing where people want it is. Those are different problems, but developers and governments conflate them.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: grams on January 22, 2020, 10:38:22 pm
They do that here (Islington). Residents of new developments aren't entitled to resident's parking permits, and given the whole borough and majority of adjacent boroughs are CPZs, that makes owning a car impractical.

(at least unless you find a loophole, which I'm sure some people must do)
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on January 22, 2020, 11:03:54 pm
There's an area of non-car ownership covenant in the centre of Bristol, too. And it seems it does mean non-ownership; someone was prosecuted for keeping a car outside the area.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on January 22, 2020, 11:08:43 pm
There are all sorts of stupid conflicts within local government about RPZs as well.  At one stage, Oxford City Council introduced RPZs in Headington because they wanted people to use the Park and Ride instead of clogging up the roads driving to where parking was free (and cheaper to get the the bus). Oxfordshire County Council observed this, and then made every resident pay for their parking permit. Their reasoning was that in other parts of the county, the parking permit was introduced by request from the residents, and therefore a charging scheme was set up to pay for it!

Not sure I understand this. Was the city issuing permits for free? When you say "every resident" does this mean the county literally charged every resident for a permit, a bit like a component of council tax, even if they had no car? Or something else?
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: psyclist on January 23, 2020, 05:00:43 am
As I learned to my cost - getting involved in local planning consultations (objections) is a time consuming, and frustrating occupation - particularly when you find that the 'conditions' imposed are ignored, and the council's officials then refuse to take action because 'you're the only one complaining'.

I got involved in challenging a local college who wanted to remove a footpath from crossing their grounds. The Ramblers and another national group got involved, and were able to bring in people with the knowledge to make the challenge stick. I would think any planned development being challenged would benefit from getting a recognised national group involved, perhaps FoE or similar.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Jaded on January 23, 2020, 06:07:01 am
Often those fighting a planning application have no, or little, funds. Those applying tend to be in the opposite state. Unless you have help (like you suggest) proper advice and representation will probably cost five figure sums.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Regulator on January 23, 2020, 07:54:14 am
I always wonder why – if housing is in such short supply* – councils don't just covenant non-car ownership. Is there a reason why a development has to support any parking? There's a big proposal in our little Surrey commuter town to overhaul the main shopping precinct, add flats, a cinema etc. which, of course, now rests faces a bleating chorus of 'what about the parking?' The development would be opposite the station and the bus stops, the town centre has shops, two supermarkets, etc. Not owning a car wouldn't have a significant impact on anyone living there. It would free additional space. And of course, having several hundred people who can't simply drive off to Croydon or Redhill would make them more dependent on the local high street and encourage locality.

*housing itself isn't really in short supply, affordable housing where people want it is. Those are different problems, but developers and governments conflate them.

Has happened in Norwich.  Residents have access to club cars.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: ian on January 23, 2020, 09:25:29 am
Sadly, parking seems a sine qua non in Surrey and to suggest otherwise a condition of madness. Some of the streets near the town centre are the worst for being snarled by parked cars, even in the evenings, so you can't blame sneaky commuters. These are households within a minute or two walk of all the facilities (and probably the same people who complain about the decline of the town centre). One of those streets was the one I picked up the complaint about 'double yellows' and that access by emergency vehicles shouldn't be at the 'expense of parking spaces.'

Those are people who are literally willing to die for their parking space.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on January 23, 2020, 09:37:55 am
Somebody literally did die because an ambulance couldn't get through in a street less than a mile from me last summer. And that was parking in officially marked spaces. There must be countless other instances we don't hear of or remember.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: caerau on January 23, 2020, 09:48:04 am
Sadly, parking seems a sine qua non in Surrey and to suggest otherwise a condition of madness. Some of the streets near the town centre are the worst for being snarled by parked cars, even in the evenings, so you can't blame sneaky commuters. These are households within a minute or two walk of all the facilities (and probably the same people who complain about the decline of the town centre). One of those streets was the one I picked up the complaint about 'double yellows' and that access by emergency vehicles shouldn't be at the 'expense of parking spaces.'

Those are people who are literally willing to die for their parking space.


Willing for someone else to die.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: caerau on January 23, 2020, 09:49:03 am
They should fit ambulances and fire engines with those snow-plough things they put on the front of US trains.




...Or bazookas.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Jurek on January 23, 2020, 10:14:26 am
I think that I may have aluded in an earlier post (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=26458.msg1958674#msg1958674) to what can happen when  emergency services cannot get their vehicle(s) from point A to point B, on account of (legally) parked vehicles preventing them from doing so.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Regulator on January 23, 2020, 10:36:27 am
They should fit ambulances and fire engines with those snow-plough things they put on the front of US trains.




...Or bazookas.

Fire engines are designed to be able to push their way through obstructions - and quite often do.  There was a case in Cambridge a year or so ago where a fire engine pushed through parked cars to get to get to a shout.  Some were legally/properly parked - others weren't.  The owners of the legally parked vehicles were compensated by the fire brigade's* insurers - the owners of the illegally parked vehicles to told to go and whistle...

The new proposed** mandatory design specification for ambulances in England includes reinforcement to enable them to push through obstructions such as illegally parked cars where this might be practicable.





* Strictly speaking the 'Fire and Rescue Service'.

** It's proposed... but some of the various ambulance trusts are arguing the toss as they have their preferred providers... the usual NHS 'devolution/local choice' that often gets in teh way of meaningful reform.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: ian on January 23, 2020, 11:05:59 am
My understanding is that if you're illegally parked, insurers won't pay up regardless (if they know). I'm sure we were told that at our last place when we had to clear badly parked cars on the access road (and also, as the management company, we were responsible for all reasonable steps to ensure access and our liability insurance wouldn't cover the estate if not, if insurers can wiggle they'll wiggle).

Car damage around here from bin lorries is standard. Cycling home last night, the small truck (speeding) in front of me removed three wing mirrors (you'd think he'd have slowed down after the first – he did stop and leave a note on the final one, I won't give odds on it being someone else's address). That's how bad it is. They've been contemplating an RPZ for over 25 years. Everyone complains about parking, issues befoul any attempted development, but there seems no meaningful aspiration to tackle it.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: rogerzilla on January 23, 2020, 11:33:51 am
The ever-increasing width of cars is a factor too.  Some SUVs can no longer be driven through the Rotherhithe Tunnel or Gunnersbury Park (I could barely get a Micra into Lionel Road).  Big cars overhang marked bays, especially when badly parked by a 5 foot nothing trophy wife who can barely see over the steering wheel.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on January 23, 2020, 11:36:15 am
...And Swindon, more than anywhere, needs a Roger Parking Zilla.  ;D
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: rogerzilla on January 23, 2020, 11:52:38 am
...And Swindon, more than anywhere, needs a Roger Parking Zilla.  ;D
https://youtu.be/MuV1QTkcteg

I don't stamp on all that many...
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Regulator on January 23, 2020, 12:39:05 pm
The ever-increasing width of cars is a factor too.  Some SUVs can no longer be driven through the Rotherhithe Tunnel or Gunnersbury Park (I could barely get a Micra into Lionel Road).  Big cars overhang marked bays, especially when badly parked by a 5 foot nothing trophy wife who can barely see over the steering wheel.

We have width restrictions on a number of roads in Cambridge.  Some of them, like those in Romsey, have been in place for so long that even some of the smaller modern cars struggle to get through...  if I have to go into those areas by car for any reason, I have to take Mr R's Hyundai i30 as my BMW doesn't fit.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: quixoticgeek on January 23, 2020, 12:47:32 pm
Sadly, parking seems a sine qua non in Surrey and to suggest otherwise a condition of madness. Some of the streets near the town centre are the worst for being snarled by parked cars, even in the evenings, so you can't blame sneaky commuters. These are households within a minute or two walk of all the facilities (and probably the same people who complain about the decline of the town centre). One of those streets was the one I picked up the complaint about 'double yellows' and that access by emergency vehicles shouldn't be at the 'expense of parking spaces.'

Those are people who are literally willing to die for their parking space.

The thing is there are probably journeys that are made by those residents that can only be made by car. Either due to the time of day, or the just generally shit service available.

There's a lot of talk about how to reduce car ownership, particularly through dis-incentives. But the fact of the mater is, if there is one journey that you need a car for (To go to Church on a Sunday? to go Mountain biking on a Saturday etc...), you'll hang on to it. Because for many the cost of the car is just absorbed into their finances the way that the mortgage payment or phone bill is, they don't associate that the £200 they are spending each month so they can drive to Church on Sunday once a week is effectively costing them £50 per journey. There then becomes the issue of "well I've got a car, I may as well use it", and so now the 2km round trip to the supermarket get's done by car, and thus into the pit they fall.

What this is a long winded way of saying is we need to really push the alternatives to car ownership, that means car share schemes, public transport, bikes, etc... Public transport especially really needs to be designed to transport the public, that means going where people want to go, and when they want to go, not just when it is most profitable to transport them. Buses and trains need to run late into the night, they need to goto the villages, and do so with a high frequency. If you have to stand for 15 minutes waiting for a bus, then after 5 mins you're gonna go home and get in the car, at least stuck in traffic you're warm.

I am in the privileged position that I live in a city with an exceptionally good public transport system. There is both a metro and tram stop within 100m of my flat, and even then I regularly moan at the company running them that it just isn't frequent enough, wait 7 minutes for a metro? are you taking the piss? The thing with such waits comes from trip chaining. Trip chaining is where you string multiple trips together, take the kids to school, stop by the pharmacist to get your meds, nip into the bakers to buy lunch, head to the office. The Dutch charging system for public transport means that if each stop is less than 35 minutes between getting off one public transport vehicle, and checking into the next, it's considered one journey. This is fine if the services come along every few minutes, but with typical UK frequencies of every 15+ minutes, if you miss one, it's a long wait. If you only have 35 minutes to run your errand between each leg, and you spend 20 minutes waiting for a tram, then you only have 15 mins to do your business. The other issue with the frequency is that rarely does a single vehicle go the whole way you want to go. For me to get to the cinema in the centre of the city requires either 2 metro's and a walk, or 4 trams. If you have to wait 5 minutes for each tram, that journey just got 20 minutes longer. This is really annoying as until July last year, there was a direct tram from 5 minutes walk from my flat, that stopped outside the cinema. They removed this route to improve the service we receive*. Public transport needs to be ridiculously cheap, incredibly frequent, and go where people want to go, when they want to go there. Until we have that, we can have all the parking enforcement and ULEZ we like, people are still going to insist on owning a car, because to not do so is just too damn hard.

J



*I'm actually really rather bitter about this, it was the first major timetable/route map shake up in 20+ years, and it seems to have made every single journey I make longer due to having to change more, and poor connections. I often will come into a tram stop and see the tram I need to connect to disappearing round the corner, meaning a 5-7 minute wait...
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: bludger on January 23, 2020, 01:11:42 pm
What I found in my dissertation research is that successful, transformative and rapid transportation/built environment reform has NEVER come from 'good governance'. The Dutch systems, Bogota cycleways, Copenhagen layout etc stem from direct action by grassroots community groups against road building and traffic on the grounds of environmental health and safety, particularly in the wake of the 1970s oil shocks and anarchist traditions like the Provo ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provo_(movement) ). The UK 'solutions' are always 'the government should do x y z technical fix (e.g. adjust road designs) to change the incentives' which is not historically proven to work, or at the least, work in a satisfyingly swift fashion. What is historically proven to work, and work very quickly, is enough people getting really mad and angry, and forcing the powers-that-be's hand on pain of mass, direct, disruptive action.

(https://file.ejatlas.org/img/Conflict/stop-de-kindermoord-stop-the-child-murder-protest-for-children-deaths-caused-by-motor-vehicles/carfreeprotest.jpg)

(https://file.ejatlas.org/img/Conflict/stop-de-kindermoord-stop-the-child-murder-protest-for-children-deaths-caused-by-motor-vehicles/stop_de_kindermoord_lay_down.png.jpg)

One of my favourite Provo schemes is this one:

Quote
White Victim Plan: proposed that anyone having caused death while driving would have to build a warning memorial on the site of the traffic collision by carving the victim's outline one inch deep into the pavement and filling it with white mortar.[4]
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Jaded on January 23, 2020, 02:29:31 pm
Public transport especially really needs to be designed to transport the public, that means going where people want to go, and when they want to go, not just when it is most profitable to transport them. 

Fundamentally people have to get to understand the they can't just go to where they went, when they want. That is only possible with cheap dino-fuel.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Socks on January 23, 2020, 02:29:41 pm
What I found in my dissertation research is that successful, transformative and rapid transportation/built environment reform has NEVER come from 'good governance'. The Dutch systems, Bogota cycleways, Copenhagen layout etc stem from direct action by grassroots community groups against road building and traffic on the grounds of environmental health and safety, particularly in the wake of the 1970s oil shocks and anarchist traditions like the Provo ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provo_(movement) ). The UK 'solutions' are always 'the government should do x y z technical fix (e.g. adjust road designs) to change the incentives' which is not historically proven to work, or at the least, work in a satisfyingly swift fashion. What is historically proven to work, and work very quickly, is enough people getting really mad and angry, and forcing the powers-that-be's hand on pain of mass, direct, disruptive action.

(https://file.ejatlas.org/img/Conflict/stop-de-kindermoord-stop-the-child-murder-protest-for-children-deaths-caused-by-motor-vehicles/carfreeprotest.jpg)

(https://file.ejatlas.org/img/Conflict/stop-de-kindermoord-stop-the-child-murder-protest-for-children-deaths-caused-by-motor-vehicles/stop_de_kindermoord_lay_down.png.jpg)

One of my favourite Provo schemes is this one:

Quote
White Victim Plan: proposed that anyone having caused death while driving would have to build a warning memorial on the site of the traffic collision by carving the victim's outline one inch deep into the pavement and filling it with white mortar.[4]

Although our government now classifies this sort of democratic protest as terrorism (eg Extinction Rebellion is now on the official 'prevent' list as an extremist activity or organisation).
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: ian on January 23, 2020, 02:46:25 pm
Public transport especially really needs to be designed to transport the public, that means going where people want to go, and when they want to go, not just when it is most profitable to transport them. 

Fundamentally people have to get to understand the they can't just go to where they went, when they want. That is only possible with cheap dino-fuel.

This is it really, we've created an unsustainable transport paradigm that is only facilitated by cheap fuel (ultimately it's not cheap, of course). Yes, people might have to send their kids to school five minutes earlier, wait 10 minutes for a bus, etc. If the journey is too painful to contemplate, then who knows, we might start to see local shops recover.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: DuncanM on January 23, 2020, 03:59:57 pm
There are all sorts of stupid conflicts within local government about RPZs as well.  At one stage, Oxford City Council introduced RPZs in Headington because they wanted people to use the Park and Ride instead of clogging up the roads driving to where parking was free (and cheaper to get the the bus). Oxfordshire County Council observed this, and then made every resident pay for their parking permit. Their reasoning was that in other parts of the county, the parking permit was introduced by request from the residents, and therefore a charging scheme was set up to pay for it!

Not sure I understand this. Was the city issuing permits for free? When you say "every resident" does this mean the county literally charged every resident for a permit, a bit like a component of council tax, even if they had no car? Or something else?
The parking spaces (in particular areas of the city) were not controlled in any way, and there was no problem with availability.
The City Council made all the on-road parking spaces RPZ, with the intention of allowing residents to apply for permits for free (because the purpose was to stop non-locals parking there and get them to use the Park and Ride which was free at the time).
The County Council applied a fee on the permit issuing process.

End result - to force non-residents to use P&R, they charged residents to park on their streets.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on January 23, 2020, 04:18:58 pm
Got it, thanks.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Greenbank on January 23, 2020, 04:20:13 pm
Although our government now classifies this sort of democratic protest as terrorism (eg Extinction Rebellion is now on the official 'prevent' list as an extremist activity or organisation).

They're not: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/01/11/world/europe/ap-eu-britain-climate-protests.html
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: bludger on January 23, 2020, 04:39:49 pm
I'm sorry but while the letter of the document doesn't say 'these groups are terrorists', the notion that they were just put in the same documentation as ISIS, The Continuity IRA, National Action and the Orange Volunteers for 'information purposes' is crazy. It is a deliberate decision to besmirch legitimate groups, including Critical Mass riders by the way, and psychologically associate them with terrorists who the fuzz can bang up in prison. It's a disgrace.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Greenbank on January 23, 2020, 04:41:33 pm
Sure, but they aren't on the "official 'prevent' list".
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: DuncanM on January 23, 2020, 04:55:00 pm
Sure, but they aren't on the "official 'prevent' list".
They were. And while everyone else was saying it was daft (including some of the police forces) our Home Secretary defended the decision to include them:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/13/priti-patel-defends-decision-add-extinction-rebellion-anti-terrorism/
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Regulator on January 23, 2020, 05:02:26 pm
Sure, but they aren't on the "official 'prevent' list".

I am the national Prevent Lead for my organisation.

There is no "official 'Prevent' list" (as opposed to the list of Proscribed Terrorist Organisations, which is a different thing altogether).  The Home Office and other relevant parties issue various pieces of guidance.  Counter-terrorism police in the South East of England involved in Prevent training issued guidance/a briefing which included non-violent protest groups - and these groups were included alongside violent extremist groups.

This was deliberate.  No-one would have credibly included the range of non-violent protest groups 'by mistake'.  One also only has to look at the response of various government officials and minister (e.g. the loathsome Priti Patel) to see where this approach is coming from.

This has led to the further undermining of the credibility of the Prevent programme - which does, in many cases, do important work.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Peat on January 30, 2020, 09:42:17 am
While trying to underpin another arguement I was having on the internet ::-), I did some research and actually found myself to be quite wrong.

I was banging the 'over-population' drum as being the reason for our cities congested roads and woeful parking situation, but found that my cities population had *only* increased by 35,000 since 1950, while in the same time frame households owning A car (nationally) went from <10% to >85% having multiple cars attached to them.

We've sleep-walked into this. It makes me ill looking around at all the cars littering pavements and turning any strip of grass near houses into a muddy quaqmire.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: bludger on January 30, 2020, 11:33:50 am
'Population' is basically never the problem under any circumstances. There's a reason it crops up in Daily Heil comment sections!
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on January 30, 2020, 04:13:49 pm
Cars are one of those many things which are a great idea when hardly anyone has one and absolutely shite when most most people have them.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: hatler on January 30, 2020, 08:29:34 pm
Cars are one of those many things which are a great idea when hardly anyone has one and absolutely shite when most most people have them.
Children ??   :-)
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Kim on January 30, 2020, 09:28:50 pm
Cars are one of those many things which are a great idea when hardly anyone has one and absolutely shite when most most people have them.
Children ??   :-)

Computers...
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: hatler on January 30, 2020, 09:31:59 pm
Cars are one of those many things which are a great idea when hardly anyone has one and absolutely shite when most most people have them.
Children ??   :-)

Computers...
Nuclear bombs.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: ScumOfTheRoad on May 06, 2020, 09:47:34 am
https://twitter.com/patrickdhaese/status/1257712261885542400

A concrete murder strip.  (run it through Google translate):

Too often the image on Flemish roads: new smooth #asphalt on the road. Outdated '# cycle path' / # murder strip in concrete slabs next to it. Catch-up movement for safe cycling infrastructure must step up its gear #KoningFiets

Reminds me of many on-road painted cycle paths in the UK
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on May 06, 2020, 11:37:21 am
I'd say I've rarely seen anything that narrow in the UK.

OT, interested to see the Dutch for smooth is the same as in Polish.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: arabella on July 24, 2020, 09:32:06 am

Elephant and castle.
I recall it from my childhood as a massive great roundabout and hadn't been there since, until my son decided to live near Oval.  So I've now been across it in a bus.  Which is just as well because more recently I've had to do on a bicycle.  What I haven't (yet) seen is any helpful signs telling (non-local) cyclists which way to go; only signs for the motorist saying A3 this way.  Where's the nice little blue sign saying London Bridge onna bicycle that way? & repeat for other junctions.
Is there some secret knowledge only shared with London cyclists?
tbh the rest of the country is no better, apparently only cars need to be given directions
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: grams on July 24, 2020, 10:28:40 am
London Bridge is completely inaccessible by bicycle:
https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/cycle

It’s policy that signs on cycle infrastructure only point to other cycle infrastructure. Which means where there is none (or none that TfL consider part of *their* cycle network), no signs.

Given how disjoint the TfL network is, this is bloody crazy, but there you go.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: hatler on July 24, 2020, 10:47:19 am
CS7 takes you from South of E&C to North of E&C without actually going round E&C itself. Not sure about an E W route though.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Aunt Maud on July 24, 2020, 02:45:37 pm

Elephant and castle.
I recall it from my childhood as a massive great roundabout and hadn't been there since, until my son decided to live near Oval.  So I've now been across it in a bus.  Which is just as well because more recently I've had to do on a bicycle.  What I haven't (yet) seen is any helpful signs telling (non-local) cyclists which way to go; only signs for the motorist saying A3 this way.  Where's the nice little blue sign saying London Bridge onna bicycle that way? & repeat for other junctions.
Is there some secret knowledge only shared with London cyclists?
tbh the rest of the country is no better, apparently only cars need to be given directions

The secret knowledge is to avoid it at all costs and ride safely across Vauxhall bridge to get to the Oval.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Andrij on July 24, 2020, 03:18:28 pm
London Bridge is completely inaccessible by bicycle:
https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/cycle

Incorrect.  London Bridge is closed to private and commercial motor vehicles; taxis, buses, and cyclists are permitted.  I've ridden both ways over the last few months.  Unless something has changed in the last week or two.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Redlight on July 25, 2020, 12:08:04 pm

Elephant and castle.
 
Is there some secret knowledge only shared with London cyclists?
tbh the rest of the country is no better, apparently only cars need to be given directions

I used to go through it every day without ever having a problem but the new arrangement is a joke. Even if you are fortunate enough to know which road you want to exit on the signage and road markings make it more, rather than less, difficult to navigate. I'm afraid that, as with some other supposedly beneficial bits  of 'cycle infrastructure', I stick to the road, as I did before.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on July 25, 2020, 12:32:33 pm
I just had a look at E&C on google, just to see what it's like now. It's not a roundabout anymore! When did that happen? I was last there on a bus in about 2012, I'm sure it was still a roundabout then. Or maybe it wasn't. I was on a bus, so wouldn't necessarily have noticed. Noticed several big cycle lanes but couldn't tell what was going where. Did see some cyclists, some on cycle lanes, some on road.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Jurek on July 25, 2020, 01:03:19 pm
I've lived in London most of my life, and consider myself to be something of a Londonista, but I've only just now found out that the box-like stainless steel structure in the middle of what was the E&C roundabout  is a memorial to Michael Faraday (who was born nearby in Newington Butts) and  (most appropriately) contains an electricity sub-station for London Underground.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: hatler on July 25, 2020, 01:35:42 pm
I've lived in London most of my life, and consider myself to be something of a Londonista, but I've only just now found out that the box-like stainless steel structure in the middle of what was the E&C roundabout  is a memorial to Michael Faraday (who was born nearby in Newington Butts) and  (most appropriately) contains an electricity sub-station for London Underground.
I had no idea. Brilliant. Faraday is a bit of a hero of mine.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Mr Larrington on July 25, 2020, 01:41:25 pm
Faraday even gets a namecheck in HMHB's "Bob Wilson, Anchorman".  Nigel expresses the wish to meet him and buy him a BEER :)
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Jurek on July 25, 2020, 02:13:21 pm
I've lived in London most of my life, and consider myself to be something of a Londonista, but I've only just now found out that the box-like stainless steel structure in the middle of what was the E&C roundabout  is a memorial to Michael Faraday (who was born nearby in Newington Butts) and  (most appropriately) contains an electricity sub-station for London Underground.
I had no idea. Brilliant. Faraday is a bit of a hero of mine.
I blame my late father - for it was he that told me it was something to do with ventilation on The Underground.
As a 6 year old, why would I question that?
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: hatler on July 25, 2020, 03:38:38 pm
:-)   My dad's second career was entirely based upon one of Faraday's discoveries - electrolysis. And the first part of his career depended in part for its continued existence on the same discovery.

He never once mentioned that the E&C thing was a Faraday memorial, and if he had known he would have told me.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Jurek on July 25, 2020, 03:44:11 pm
:-)   My dad's second career was entirely based upon one of Faraday's discoveries - electrolysis. And the first part of his career depended in part for its continued existence on the same discovery.

He never once mentioned that the E&C thing was a Faraday memorial, and if he had known he would have told me.
Over the years, I've uncovered so much London-based shit, and yet the Faraday Memorial has never come up.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on July 25, 2020, 03:45:11 pm
I've no idea of the history of it but it does look a bit like the sub-station was there anyway and probably needed some sort of enclosure against vandals/weather/pokey fingers, and the idea of making it a memorial came afterwards. Could be entirely wrong on that, of course.

And google shows it ceased to be a roundabout in 2015/16. I wonder if de-roundabouting is a gathering trend in urban areas? It's been done to a big junction in central Bristol recently. Releases a lot of land, in addition to giving more control of what turns are allowed and disallowed.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: hatler on July 25, 2020, 04:03:43 pm
:-)   My dad's second career was entirely based upon one of Faraday's discoveries - electrolysis. And the first part of his career depended in part for its continued existence on the same discovery.

He never once mentioned that the E&C thing was a Faraday memorial, and if he had known he would have told me.
Over the years, I've uncovered so much London-based shit, and yet the Faraday Memorial has never come up.
I think we can be forgiven. This from the wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday_Memorial) : -
Quote
Aspects of Gordon’s design which explained the connection to Faraday were left out when it was constructed, so few people realise why it is there.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Kim on July 25, 2020, 04:18:56 pm
Oh, that thing that looks a bit like a transformer?  Yeah, I knew there was a substation inside, but not the Faraday connection.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Mr Larrington on July 25, 2020, 06:49:27 pm
And google shows it ceased to be a roundabout in 2015/16. I wonder if de-roundabouting is a gathering trend in urban areas? It's been done to a big junction in central Bristol recently. Releases a lot of land, in addition to giving more control of what turns are allowed and disallowed.

The enormous former gyratory system in Tottenham has also been de-roundabouted since it used to form part of my commute and since I rarely have cause to go there any more it's a tad confusing when I do.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: grams on July 25, 2020, 09:13:00 pm
The enormous former gyratory system in Tottenham has also been de-roundabouted since it used to form part of my commute and since I rarely have cause to go there any more it's a tad confusing when I do.

In theory yes, in practice a huge proportion of traffic still uses it clockwise only, especially on the east and south sides, making it kind of pointless.

Other recent victims of this trend are Archway (confuse shite) and Highbury Corner. Old Street is under construction and they’re half-degyratoring Stoke Newington. They’ve been talking about doing Kings Cross and Nags Head for ages but no one seems to have a better alternative.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: orienteer on July 25, 2020, 09:21:22 pm
I remember Highbury Corner before the roundabout was built, which occurred after the trams were scrapped in 1952.

It hasn't quite returned to the original layout, but it's very similar!
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: ian on July 27, 2020, 10:17:59 am
I used to cycle around the Elephant when I was young and fearless and fairly stupid. I'm now older, more scared, and just as stupid, but not the change to those initial two parameters means I avoid big scary roundabouts (I wince every time I see a cyclist on our local three-lane affair).

There always was a bypass around the E&C roundabout even before they de-rounded it, but it involved a series of navigational Indiana Jones-style challenges. Much of London's cycling infrastructure still requires you to find it. If you were, in the day, as good at Tomb Raider as I was, then it's doable.

A lot of new stuff, while it's an improvement, suffers from over-complication. In the TfL mind space, they're still trying to make stuff for everyone – vehicles, cycles and pedestrians and the compromises often just make it a bit shit for all. All the best cycling and pedestrian infrastructure has one thing in common, but that upsets taxi drivers. Still, credit to TfL for doing something. People in London actually cycle.
Title: Re: Road designers suck
Post by: Guy on September 04, 2020, 09:57:56 am
Bloomfield Drive, a relatively modern, wide, straight road, houses all have drives (which the residents do actually use!), with wide footpaths on both sides, connects with Ampthill Road, has been made one-way.

New Street, which as the name suggests is the oldest side street in town, narrow, crooked, most front doors opening straight onto the street, cars parked both sides, with no footpath, which connects with Bloomfield Drive and Ampthill Road, has been left as two-way.  ???

It should have been the other way round :facepalm:

There's thinking, and there's council thinking.   ::-)