-
I like the idea of Holloway road and upper street including highbury corner, the A1, getting exhibition road treatment. I think roads where people walk and shop would be a improved if we encourage people to wander across from side to side and to chill in the space in between rather people having to negotiate streams of cars, then streams of cyclists just to cross the road. We need more time to learn how to use exhibition road and many more such roads.
In a short number of years petrol will be astronomically expensive, people will travel less and live and work locally and will wish to reclaim the spaces stolen by car culture. A big cycle lane along holloway road is too unambitious. The vision of the future is that of our public realm reclaimed for people
-
"The vision of the future is that of our public realm reclaimed for people"
A wonderfull vision and yes petrol is on the way up... way up!
But while we are waiting for all the lorries and delivery vehicles to just vanish so we can hang out together on our lovely new space, freshly clad in tons of imported chinese granite... we could be getting a load more people cycling. Not in 10 years but now. My NY experience shows me it works.
its not one OR the other... sharing can be cool and so can just having a clear lane to hack across town rapidly... the "corridor" thing is rather spiffy too for residential areas... and of course, training :-)
I also admire your optimisim.
-
A good read on what is happening in NY
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_nyc-transportation.html#.T8oFnlwj13M.twitter
It's not clear to me why there is any resistance amongst some in the cycling community to putting in a few good lanes. It just seems like such an obvious progression to me. Shared Space schemes are a very good thing too, used in the right places. Horses for courses innit...
SD, the idea that we can all get along in a shared enviroment but are unable to negotiate in the presence of some lanes seems like a contradiction. Bear in mind that the cyclists (on Holloway rd for example) are already there and the crossing points defined. What actually is the problem with making some more space to assist all thoise riders on the pavement into the road?
A quote from the above article:
"Ninety percent of the bikers who had been using the sidewalk took to the bike lane, even as bike ridership doubled."Pavement cycling is one of my personal pet hates. It generates more complaints then even RLJ! The elderly are particularly effected. I don't think it "too unambitious" to try to deal with this (and many other issues) in the short term, as they are in NY, with a good degree of success.
There is one major problem that is London specific though. We do not have anyone who is really in charge. The NY Mayor is in total control of transport policy. We have no such system. Our Balkanised local govt. structures ensure that even if we could all agree a policy there is no one with the power to carry it out.
-
Went to Estonia recently to speak at a conference and to train some instructors.
So many shared pedestrian/cyclists paths rather than shared roads.
Wanted to show the conference how London manages and people share the roads with little conflict and made this video (on my mobile) to show them:(Appols for X posting elsewhere on forum)
-
What happened when they turned the traffic lights off in Portishead?
Part 2: Roads FiT for People - YouTube
-
Fascinating stuff. I think a lot of the more aggressive arguments that take place on this forum are bound up in all that: about who has this right or that right, this legal obligation, about who is at fault, because we are deprived of the opportunity simply to be generous and human and to cooperate.
-
So true. Being uncooperative and having poor communication is a result of the mass of rules we have built up which we thought would help us live together.
I suppose an argument against such a radical move as to switch off all the traffic lights is the fear of the stronger/more dangerous (drivers) dominating
-
Well, not unlike cyclists, it's the aggressive ones who make you look twice before crossing even if the light has just changed to red.
You know the junction of Green Lanes/Brownswood/Lordship Park don't you? Where anti-skid tarmac had to be laid because so many collisions were being caused by drivers racing the lights. -
These experiments are very interesting, but you couldn't very easily replicate it at a tight urban junction without more work in the surrounding area. It's not always the winning concept. The reason why it doesn't cause too many crashes at larger, previously capacity-maximised junctions like the Portishead junction is because of the large junction envelope and relatively good sightlines. It is for that reason that Hans Monderman favoured roundabouts as junctions solutions; 'shared space' needs just that--space. As indicated in the video, there are also drawbacks.
Obviously, apart from any boring engineering stuff, the enhanced goodwill of people at this junction, as they can be assured of swift passage, is the decisive factor. People aren't naturally aggressive, but anyone can be at the end of their tether if they're stuck in traffic for hours.
-
That's an interesting question. There's evidence that denser urban traffic generates lower crash rates than less dense traffic (in which average speeds tend to be higher). To me, it's not so much a question of absolute numbers of trips, but of trip distances and the spread of origins and destinations.
The modal share of driving in Central and to some extent Inner London is actually quite low, but as much of that traffic originates in Outer London, average trip distances tend to be quite long (as for most trips in London). The longer distances driven go some way towards explaining the impression that motor traffic is much more dominant than it actually is.
London has also been congested (at least) since Roman times, so hoping for a significant change is perhaps a little too much. :)
I personally hope that London's city development will stop over-emphasising the centre only and even out activity, as it's the degree of separation of workplace, residence, and other destinations that needs changing. Oh well, work of generations.
-
Very interesting. I hadn't heard about this project before. I think what I like the best is the layout of the approaching carriageways.
Caveats, though--it has to be noted just how little pedestrian activity there is. This makes the presence of every pedestrian a special event and no doubt encourages courtesy. It would still work with more walking around, and perhaps that will develop in time, but I think stress levels would be slightly higher.
Also, I'm always worried about the build quality on such schemes, having seen too many such stretches of paving collapse under the weight of vehicles within months of being installed. The cost of the scheme indicates that they've laid a very solid sub-base, though, so fingers crossed.
The thing that always interests me the most is whether this sort of scheme actually leads to more people stopping there. It is clear that the high street is more attractive, but I'm always wary of the argument that you needn't change motor traffic capacity. The video doesn't address whether this has led to more local economic activity, e.g. so that people don't have to travel to the nearest bigger town, but perhaps it's too early to detect a marked change. That's my main question about it, though, as you don't reduce the need to travel unless you create more evenly-spread destinations.
And, finally, the report doesn't feature a single dissenting voice. There must be one or two people who don't like it, and it would have been nice to hear from them. Then again, maybe there aren't, and it really is appreciated by everybody.
(Don't get me wrong because of the caveats, I applaud this sort of place-led design and I think they show enough footage to make a convincing case.)
-
I've been through Poynton a few times, when I have been up at my brother's and off for a day out in the Peeks, though not since the junction was completed. In fact I remember telling my brother that I knew a few nerdy individuals who would get terribly excited about it. Before looking in the mirror.
I might ask him to take a detour there next time I am up. -
Good points Oliver, It would be good to hear some negative views for balance. what is your view on Robert Giffords point that such schemes can only work where there are low traffic volumes?
I suspect that as such schemes where rolled out traffic would evaporate as more people would be happy to change mode.Will, if you do go there take some snaps please.
-
Good points Oliver, It would be good to hear some negative views for balance. what is your view on Robert Giffords point that such schemes can only work where there are low traffic volumes?
You need to differentiate between different kinds of 'traffic'. Actually, I forgot about Rob (because he later sounded more positive, I think).
As you can see, at present by far the most dominant mode at the junction(s) is motor traffic. One reason why drivers are currently happy to stop is because of low pedestrian volumes. If these were higher, their effect would become more akin to traffic signals; drivers would occasionally not only have to stop but also wait. It is similar at that junction in Portishead.
Put simply, sharing becomes more difficult the more conflicting movements there are--try walking through a moving crowd against the predominant flow. Owing to pedestrians being on the footway, conflicting movements are often the result of people using different modes interacting (relatively few such conflicts between users of vehicular modes because of the 'roundel' design which, even though there is no legal requirement to do so, people still observe when driving).
If the level of walking was increased, people's patience and negotiating ability would be put to the test more. Right now, sightlines are generally easy and it's easy to see the occasional pedestrian.
So, yes, it can work, but there comes a point when the de-stressing effect of removing signalisation on its own is probably no longer sufficient to ensure smooth working. However, I don't think that this is necessarily a consequence of shared space; there comes a point when every junction is 'saturated', and with shared space, that point undoubtedly comes later than with a signalised junction. This is why I think that worries about shared space sometimes fail to grasp that it can create a few luxury problems.
Also observe that since the junction is so wide, few people cross on foot right across the middle (we should of course have data to say this for certain) but use the 'courtesy crossings' around the edges instead. That's the charge levelled at the Ashford shared space scheme by this oft-quoted paper, to which one of the designers, Stuart Reid of the TRL, wrote a well-argued riposte in LTT (sadly not available publicly in full). Steve Melia has replied since (again behind the paywall), and no doubt there's been a lot of further discussion.
To me, the perimeter/centre issue is not so much of a concern. Both the Ashford and Poynton junctions are quite wide, and that alone makes it less likely that people will want to cross directly across the middle, as the additional distance they incur if walking around the perimeter becomes less significantly greater than if we were dealing with a narrow and/or perfectly symmetrical junction. It is, of course, conceivable that there might be a junction where this could be the most desirable movement, and I have no doubt that this would be taken into account during the design. Where it isn't, this probably indicates that such movements are not as high-flow as that. I think the simple fact that you can/are allowed to cross in this way is already progress; only time will tell how such designs influence the places where they are located. The next stages might provide further proof of concept or lead it ad absurdum. We shall see.
As I said earlier, to me the main question isn't so much whether 'the traffic flows' but actually whether it stops in the town more as a result of a more attractive town centre. It is always worth considering the lower level of crashes, too, of course.
This must be the fountain that gave Fountain Place its name:
(Google StreetView and satellite view still have the old layout.)
deleted
Londonneur
Oliver Schick
Dammit-
Post a reply
About
Shared road space
Posted by
@skydancer
Amen to that.
However...
10,000 people did not come out and call for more sharing at any speed. They wanted some big cycle lanes.
For every person I train, I meet many others who will just tell you bluntly that they "would cycle if there was protected space"
When I was 12 (1979) I lived in Manhatten. Cycling was rough! Think Mean Streets/Taxi Driver on a bike. In 1980 Mayor Kotch put in just two long segregated lanes. One was on 5th ave and I can't remember where the other was. point is this... Virtually overnight the streets filled up with new riders. Seen it happen. People were able to make the long downtown leg on these lanes and were then quite happy to finish their journey in the smaller roads near their destination. The lanes came down because of voiciferous complaints from various dicks but while they were up, no one could deny their massive effect on cycling numbers.
I really feel we need a couple or three big continuous arterial cycling routes. Something the size of a bus lane that lets you cross the city. Not because I need them but because others do.
Fact is that the lanes are already there... sort of. During rush hour you get a fat phalanx of riders on the left with a "narrowed" car lane to their right. I see people doing it naturally, on the main routes anyway. We should build some of them in as a strong signal to those who need the "support" these lanes seem to offer.
Shared Space on the whole is a good thing I think, except where someone tries to use it on a main road as at Exhibition road. It's about using what is right where it is right. On Holloway Road... A big fat cycle lane would be a good thing.
My 2 cents.. x