-
really smart people take the cars to the rubbish dump.
That's just gonna give people nightmares, i'll send Christine after you.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ5M11m9vI0 -
hey texas, I understand that London has been planned, and has changed and morphed through different ideas and theories, but its on top of what is already there, as time passes, and in this case, london grew different ideas were put into action on over and around the initial ramshackle collection of villages, and connections between them.
If you start a city from scratch, this aggregation doesn't occur, because your trying to design it in from the outset, which means that clash of ideas and differences in philosphies doesn't occur, which makes most planned cities/towns, canberra, brasilia, milton keynes* seem soulless.
does that make sense?*should be noted that I have been to none of these places, this description is based on supposition, television documentaries and some brief reading...
-
If the benefits are felt by society as a whole, and not exclusively be the private motorist then before you can say the motorist is not adequately contributing, you have to also establish just how much of the benefit they are exclusively receiving... who are you to consider the trip pointless? A commute to work is a day's work done. A trip to the shops is shopping done and people employed. A visit to (or drive with friends) is holding the fabric of civilised society together. Is any trip pointless - and if the absence of the car would mean that trip was not made at all is the car so bad?
Parable of the Broken Window. An enduring classic!
...
Also, climate change denial is weapons-grade arse.
-
see the 3rd post in this thread. traffic already is well below 20mph.
but not all the time and not on all public thoroughfares.
20 mph is about reducing danger and the culture of speed / danger so it perceived as safe to walk and cycle.
20 mph is about reducing noise levels which make sufferers feel wretched.
20 mph is about saying it is ok not to have a car.
i saw the third post. it is ftw.
-
but not all the time and not on all public thoroughfares.
20 mph is about reducing danger and the culture of speed / danger so it perceived as safe to walk and cycle.
20 mph is about reducing noise levels which make sufferers feel wretched.
20 mph is about saying it is ok not to have a car.
i saw the third post. it is ftw.
If you're talking about a 20mph speed limit (which I assume you are) i'm sorry, but that seems like a ridiculous idea, you honestly think forcing cars to go slower is going to improve congestion?
Also, noise and speed are not proportional, compare 30mph in 1st gear to 30mph in 4th gear.
It is ok not to have a car, it is ok to have a car.
Apologies if I have misunderstood your post.
-
Not 100% sure about that, but I won't disagree with you on that.
Not looking at private cars when designing a town is what would happen in a perfect world, but we don't have that, because people stil prefer their own cars to public transport, there will always be cars. Hopefully public transport will soon be so much better than private cars that the only people who drive cars are those that drive them for fun.
-
Well I am 100% sure about that...... I have a civils degree and i am just finishing of my architectural degree.
Not looking at private cars when designing a town is what would happen in a perfect world, but we don't have that,
errrrrr what does this mean??????? good job town planners/architects don't think like this.
"oh dear it's not a perfect world, lets settle for 2nd/3rd/4th best shall we" <----bollocks
-
So having private cars as the last thing on your mind when planning a town?!
So if you ever design a town, you're either gonna ban private cars, or else the roads will be a complete mess.
By the way, no need to act like that, there's nothing wrong with a bit of friendly disagreement.
-
Right, all the vehicles in central (or any other city) are there for a reason, you slow them down, the journey takes longer, they are in the city for longer, there are more cars in the city at any one point, what am I missing here?
What you're missing is that some (most?) journeys by car can be replaced by other forms of transport. While slowing down private cars will increase congestion during the time it takes drivers to slowly wake up to this fact, the net effect is to discourage car use and reduce congestion. You're thinking in the extreme short-term.
Also - even from your perspective - slower, more consistently moving traffic is faster over the span of a whole journey than faster, more frequently stopping traffic. It's kind of like the tortoise and the hare, except not a fable involving talking animals. Anyone that has witnessed a motorway traffic jam caused only by people slowing down (rather than an actual accident) will be able to understand this. Also, if you are ever caught in a traffic jam on the motorway, it's often worth being in the slow lane, which (despite the presence of slip roads) tends to proceed faster, because of driver psychology. This is the point that has been made about traffic lights and speed limits over and over again earlier in the thread.
-
What you're missing is that some (most?) journeys by car can be replaced by other forms of transport. While slowing down private cars will increase congestion during the time it takes drivers to slowly wake up to this fact, the net effect is to discourage car use and reduce congestion. You're thinking in the extreme short-term.
Also - even from your perspective - slower, more consistently moving traffic is faster over the span of a whole journey than faster, more frequently stopping traffic. It's kind of like the tortoise and the hare, except not a fable involving talking animals. Anyone that has witnessed a motorway traffic jam caused only by people slowing down (rather than an actual accident) will be able to understand this. Also, if you are ever caught in a traffic jam on the motorway, it's often worth being in the slow lane, which (despite the presence of slip roads) tends to proceed faster, because of driver psychology. This is the point that has been made about traffic lights and speed limits over and over again earlier in the thread.
Completely agree with that, like I said, i'm not 100% sure about the fast/slow traffic jam part. I said in my next reply that journeys can be made using public transport as opposed to cars, people don't do this because they prefer their cars, until people prefer public transport, this won't happen.
This is interesting though:
YouTube - Shockwave traffic jams recreated for first timeConclusion, congestion is caused by drivers with bad spatial awareness/reaction times.
-
I suppose it basically comes down to whether you think:
1) cars are inevitable and that's fine
2) cars are inevitable - a shame but life is shit
3) cars could be used a lot less but so what, they're not doing any harm, eh?
4) cars can and should be used a lot less
I reckon you hold either opinion 1) or 2), whereas I'd go for 4).
On the other hand I like being part of an oppressed underclass and I like having the moral highground (and mentioning it a lot), so the current situation of near-total car dominance is basically perfect.
Back to urban planning: if you really want to dissuade car drivers from entering the centre, you need to examine Sheffield as a test case. Despite the city's large geographical area and the expensive, privatised public transport network, very few people travel to the centre by car.
The council accomplished all this by putting a carefully-selected team of idiots in charge of transport planning, who instituted a fiendishly irrational one way system that is completely altered every three months and constantly disrupted by major roadworks. Plus they accidentally eliminated all parking. It worked a treat.
-
To be honest, I agree, cars could definitely be used a lot less, but people who use their cars don't have enough incentive to ditch thier cars. If they get that incentive (a public transport system that they will choose over their car) they will ditch the car.
Honestly, as a cyclist, I like traffic jams, it gives me a chance to show how silly the people who drive into central London are =P
-
Surely you would define congestion as lots of closely packed cars driving slowly. Ergo, slowing cars down, perhaps by means of a 20mph limit will make congestion worse. I doubt that traffic flow would improve. You'd still have the same stop-start burst speed thing as now, just slower longer-lasting. And emissions worse, as (thanks to the speeds the official fuel consumption figures are measured at) cars are not designed to be efficient at 20mph, but at 31 and 56. Car design has to change to make 20mph cleaner (but all that takes is for european union/member states to also demand an official fuel consumption reading at 20mph)
DaveH said "slower cars = increased flow of traffic as you can fit more cars on the road"
This is inaccurate or confused.
Slower cars, by definition, is actually decreasing the flow of traffic. It is increasing the density of traffic, which is a different thing. Increased traffic flow is defined as cars moving faster.To eliminate or severely reduce the use of cars in cities the most effective measure is probably to eliminate parking facilities. We all want nice roads to ride on, and buses need them too. If we ban all city centre developments from providing car parking spaces, and remove all car parks and street parking, then people won't drive into the centre of town simply because there is no point. I suppose we could actually just ban cars altogether, but given that you need people to have traffic sense so that police, ambulance, buses, taxis etc can still operate safely it's probably a good idea to allow cars and just rely on the fact that it will only be through traffic to massively reduce car use.
It is interesting how public transport is being touted as the solution, but really, how many of us use it unless we are forced to? We cycle in all weathers because tubes and buses are filthy, slow, dangerous, expensive and generally horrible. You can't eliminate any of those factors. Public transport is slow because it doesn't start and finish where you want it to and it keeps stopping to let other people on. It is dirty and dangerous because it lets the public on, who leave it in a state, spread their germs around, fail to wash, can be drunk, violent, homicidal etc. (and that's just the drivers, boom boom!). Ergo public transport will always be a less desirable option to those who drive a car, no matter how much you spend on it. I don't think you can price people out of their cars. you have to find other ways, and removing their practicality is probably the best option.
-
Oh, the other thing is to make journeys unnecessary - schools and shops close to home, work close to home, high-speed data infrastructure to facilitate home working. Homes with office space, and planning laws to encourage all this.
For most people any journey, including by car is a chore. It's the bit that happens between home and work. Eliminate the need for this and you eliminate traffic. Just take Christmas day traffic as evidence.
-
Agreed about getting rid of parking to discourage car use (those this doesn't address the problem of rat running). And agreed about the need for local amenities and a mix of working / living spaces that aren't too far apart.
Just take Christmas day traffic as evidence.
Check this out:
-
Surely you would define congestion as lots of closely packed cars driving slowly. Ergo, slowing cars down, perhaps by means of a 20mph limit will make congestion worse. I doubt that traffic flow would improve. You'd still have the same stop-start burst speed thing as now, just slower longer-lasting. And emissions worse, as (thanks to the speeds the official fuel consumption figures are measured at) cars are not designed to be efficient at 20mph, but at 31 and 56. Car design has to change to make 20mph cleaner (but all that takes is for european union/member states to also demand an official fuel consumption reading at 20mph)
DaveH said "slower cars = increased flow of traffic as you can fit more cars on the road"
This is inaccurate or confused.
Slower cars, by definition, is actually decreasing the flow of traffic. It is increasing the density of traffic, which is a different thing. Increased traffic flow is defined as cars moving faster.To eliminate or severely reduce the use of cars in cities the most effective measure is probably to eliminate parking facilities. We all want nice roads to ride on, and buses need them too. If we ban all city centre developments from providing car parking spaces, and remove all car parks and street parking, then people won't drive into the centre of town simply because there is no point. I suppose we could actually just ban cars altogether, but given that you need people to have traffic sense so that police, ambulance, buses, taxis etc can still operate safely it's probably a good idea to allow cars and just rely on the fact that it will only be through traffic to massively reduce car use.
It is interesting how public transport is being touted as the solution, but really, how many of us use it unless we are forced to? We cycle in all weathers because tubes and buses are filthy, slow, dangerous, expensive and generally horrible. You can't eliminate any of those factors. Public transport is slow because it doesn't start and finish where you want it to and it keeps stopping to let other people on. It is dirty and dangerous because it lets the public on, who leave it in a state, spread their germs around, fail to wash, can be drunk, violent, homicidal etc. (and that's just the drivers, boom boom!). Ergo public transport will always be a less desirable option to those who drive a car, no matter how much you spend on it. I don't think you can price people out of their cars. you have to find other ways, and removing their practicality is probably the best option.
This is why I have - until recently stayed out of this discussion.
Lots of long posts with untruths and uneducated assumptions.
mmccarthy
hippy
cornelius_blackfoot
Seeds
somebody
DaveH
bq-
Post a reply
About
How to design a city?
Posted by
@will...
Hippy - don't you think they should design it with more bike lanes...