Safe Speed Forums

How they can say that is quite staggering, sure some journies would be more suitably accomplished by foot, but some can't - I helped my brother move house, all of 300m but I'd like to know how moving house could be accomplished without a van!

I understand and support anyones individual decision to drive rather then walk short distances, though my personal preferece is to get some exercise and fresh air! Where there are practical alternatives to the car then I can't see why they should be ignored, but again, I don't like being told I can't or shouldn't use my car so I'm not going to start preaching about it! There are benefits to walking and public transport, and not wooly environmental ones either. For a start there is no parking to worry about, you get into the heart of the town city, sometime there is the possibility of catching up with work, or just to have a a good sit down! Many a time coming home from work I'd love to be able to just shut my eyes - but I don't think that would be such a wise move. However, to pretend walking and PT can be a perfect subsititute for the car is laughable - I certainly couldn't get to and from work easily. Still I do enjoy walking into town(about 2.5miles) when I've got time and it's a nice day.

As for the whole time thing, sure many people do live very busy lives, but I don't see the difference in going to the gym by car rather then walking into town. They both take time! I love this picture:

True, but not necessarily the right question to ask. The fact that resources are finite is a truism, so what we really need to know is whether or not they are sufficient. Yes, there are limited quantities of fissile material that can be used to generate power, but if it turned out that the actual quantities were good enough for a few thousand years the problem would not be an immediate one. I don't know if they are in reality, I'm just saying that if that were the case the fact that they are finite doesn't really matter so long as they are also sufficient. Conservation is often going to be necessary, but I'd say sensible management is more important. For example, imagine if the world only had one energy supply which would run out in a century with normal use, but could also be used to develop a long term replacement at the cost of running out twice as fast. Conservation would not be the answer in that situation since it would only be putting off the day when we freeze in the dark. The better option would be the increased, even if apparently profligate, use of the existing resource in the creation of a new one.

The same applies to oil. Yes, it's going to run out someday, although it's hard to say when that will be while we keep finding more of the stuff and keep coming up with new ways to extract it where it was previously uneconomical to do so. But if human ingenuity, arguably the most important and least limited resource we have, can keep us ticking over the 'oil party' will be going for a while yet before it gets to the point where large numbers of people get their coats. It doesn't have to last forever, just until a practical alternative becomes available and more attractive.

However, when we have such an alternative to oil based transport it is likely if not certain to still require roads, and roadspace itself is also a resource. Thing is though, in many ways it's a resource unlike natural resources. It's finite in that there is a fixed quantity of land which you can pave over to create road space, but since we'd never need anything remotely close to that much road that limit isn't relevant. The real limiting factors are human ones - principally cost, political will, and NIMBYism. Overcome those and there is no real reason why we can't create more roadspace in a general sense, although there will always be places where it's just not practical to add lanes or routes and congestion has to be either tolerated or avoided by choosing another route. I don't think it's accurate to say that increased road use inevitably follows road construction. It can, but again there are limits. Population is one - we can't drive more than one vehicle at a time, and even if we could as far as private transportation goes there is no need to be able to do so. Time is another - we can choose to commute longer distances, but there are only 24 hours in a day and having already committed a third of those to work and about the same again to sleep most commuters will not be willing to extend their journey times much more. In any event it's practically impossible to extend them more than four hours each way, and most people with family lives would strongly object to even half that. Basically the real limits, as I said before, are human ones and therefore subject to change along with human needs.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

That was true until fairly recently - for every barrel of oil we used we 'found' a new one. However, we are now only finding 1 barrel for every 7 we use. Still plenty enough to keep us going, but new reserves are currently quite elusive.

As for commuting, if there are more roads then congested is reduced meaning people can live further away but still takes them the same amount of time. As a very general rule 30 miles seems to be the currently the longest commute most people will put up with - usually taking about an hour(or a little bit more) with congestion. More fast roads would allow that commute to increase to 40 or maybe even 50miles within an hour or so.

It'll all sort istelf out,

as towns get too conjested business will move to other towns, people will commute but eventually relocate.

etc etc etc as fuel reserves deplete, fuel will become more expensive, alternatives will become more attractive and so on and so on.

you could call it free market or evolution

but human ingenuity (when unharnessed) will save the day.

But you missed my point.
Short trips account for a very small part of the total mileage, nationwide - and therefore also a tiny part of total time on the road, fuel burned etc.
And they tend to take place during off-peak periods. I can't imagine there'd be many people who would drive a half a mile to the shops for a loaf of bread at rush-hour, sitting 20 minutes in the traffic when it would be quicker to walk. I'd say that the vast majority of short journeys take place when there's little traffic around, so I can't see that they contribute significantly to congestion.
Even the effects of the school run are, in my opinion, overblown. Yes, the traffic is a lot lighter during the holidays, but it's also a lot lighter out in the countryside, miles away from any school runs, at 7 in the morning. This is because many working people also take their holidays when the schools do.
I'm not saying that the school run isn't a problem, but the problem is normally confined to the immediate vicinity of schools. And let's face it, even with the best of intentions there will always be some children who cannot get to school any other way - often dropped off by working mums on their way to work, and who have a window of just a few minutes just before 9AM to do their dirty deed. And even as few as 20, or even 10 cars trying to park outside a school on a residential street in the space of a few minutes can create some fairly major jam-ups.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Yes. I generally dive into the first parking place I see, even if it is pi**ing down with rain. However, quite often the first empty parking you come across is near the door - because, ironically, people don't think they'll find parking there so they avoid the area.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Civil Engineer's argument is rather like my (tongue in cheek) response when I get tired of the green lobbyists.

I am a great believer in human ingenuity and technology. I think that the next generation, now so much better educated than mine (just see the exam results!) will easily come up with solutions to our environmental problems so I don't need to worry about these now. I then drive off in my 4x4 or sports car.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

The big problem is, they cannot hope to lay on anywhere near enough buses. Buses account for, IIRC, around 6% of commuter transport - which means they would have to lay on more than 20 times the number of buses currently in operation. And then what would they do with them outside of peak periods?

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

and those same 10 or 20 cars elsewhere on you journey will also cause some fairly major jam-ups.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as guilty as the next person here of taking unnecessary trips in the car, but there's plenty of people out there that just don't bother at all. Even if you want to dismiss the congestion argument you can't dismiss the health argument. Many of the people driving everywhere are probably also complaining that they just never have the time to exercise. The solution is often staring you in the face. It's one of the main reasons I started riding to work. Not that I'd drive, but it's faster anyway, about the same as PT and I get 1.5-2 hours exercise a day with no time 'wasted'.

It is open to debate. Some people believe this will happen, some believe demand is inelastic and cannot easily react to price changes. My personal belief is that demand is relatively inelastic, and the price can go up a lot without that much effect on demand, and when demand is curtailed that will bring its own serious problems, even though oil supply and demand might be evened out.


I've seen a figure of 100 years suggested for how long they would last if we replaced our current usage of other fuels with nuclear fission. But in any case, even if it would last a few thousand years, wasting it now could have disastrous consequences in future years, even if we won't personally be around.


The key point here is that you are assuming that the profligate use is contributing to the development of a solution. If someone takes their car to the shops when they could easily walk, how is that contributing to the development of the power source of the future? That is why conservation is so vital, because we don't know how much we will need to develop that future power source, I think there is actually a very reasonable argument for restricting the use of our precious resources for activities specifically aimed at devloping long term viable power sources.


But if having more roads causes us to run out of oil before we have a viable replacement, we'll have a lot of useless roads, and we might have used up oil that could have powered a development programme that would have succeeded.


Experience says it is.


Have you seen what is happening to the global human population? Are roads less congested now than at any time in the past, despite us having more capacity than ever before?


This is the whole point - more roads lets you commute longer distances in the same time. People are commuting further than ever before.


Actually, you need to say "finding", really, as the OPEC nations are only allowed to sell at a certain rate compared to their stated reserves, so it is widely believed that they invent non-existent reserves to allow them to keep selling at the rate they want to. I wouldn't be surprised if they were saying they have decades of oil left on the day they pump the last drop.

My commute to work is 40 miles. It's only tolerable because I'm on the road at 7 in the morning. If I left it till 8 or 9 it would be intolerable.
And a lot of us are losing much of the 'choice' we had over where we work - many people take work wherever they can find it.



I could move closer to work - but then my wife would have a long distance to commute instead of me, we'd lose touch with friends and family, have to find a decent school, the hassle of moving etc etc etc. And then if I changed jobs we'd have to repeat the whole process.
Stamp duty is only a small part.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

It is unfortunate yet a fact, that this Government could have done much more to alleviate much of the present congestion in and around our Citys and towns. many of the proposed bypasses that were to be built around towns etc, were dropped by New Labour when they succumbed to pressures of the 'green' lobby at the expense of the townsfolk whom live in these areas.

Now, because of under investment, County Councils are attempting to find short term solutions in the form of congestion charging to alleviate the problems as a result.

I accept that the whole country can't just be carpeted in tarmac, however there has to be a line drawn whereby the country as a whole continues to move. Another fault was the reversal (again by Labour) of the grants given to businesses to encourage large business to disperse their operations around the country, primarily up north but also in the West country. Such a programme would have benefitted not only the employment prospects of those areas but would have prevented billions of miles of commuting from those whom travel down to the South East during the week and return again for weekends. An opportunity lost IMO.

Did you see the comparative tax income / road expenditure figures from the BBC website? If not...

USA: Income £54.6Bn, Expenditure £54.6Bn, Ratio 1:1
Germany: £28.5Bn v £20.8Bn, 1.3:1
France: £20.8Bn v £10.4Bn, 2:1
UK: £38.0Bn v £7.0Bn, 5:1... !!!!!

Highest tax-take in Europe by a country mile and comparatively sod-all spent on the roads! But as our "betters" insist on telling us - "you can't build your way out of congestion"... So how come everyone else in Europe is doing precisely that?

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Talking about lazy... it took prices of a whopping 50p/L to get this guy to ride the whole 2-3km to work.

Yup:

Don't drive your kids to school.

Don't let half a million teachers drive to school.

Don't let a million public servants with child friendly jobs drive to work.

Don't let a few million mothers who only work in term time drive to work.

Don't let half a million college and university lecturers, students and even school kids taking their kid brothers and sisters with them drive.

Don't let school bus drivers drive.

And if all the rest of us take our summer hols in term time too:

We'll have cracked it:

Congestion free roads all the year round!

You're right!

350% tax on buses, trams, trains, electricity, gas and heating oil.

Can't have people wasting the dam stuff.

Driving empty buses around.

And heating up their gardens.

Can we?

I agree with one of Pauls article on this site, and dont really believe congestion in terms of hassle and lost time is such an issue. Its self regulating.

Which really leaves the polution aspect, which I'm guessing the likes of the USA are the biggets culprits.

Putting the prices up just serves one purpose, to make more cash for the Gov't. You could put £1 on a litre, and the likes of us in rural areas will still need to drive to work, and they know it.

I'm sure Capri2.8i will chip in with his views, but to me, a hilarious example of the effects of building more roads is the town centre bypass in Burnley. They built this bypass and pedestrianised the road that went through the town centre. Everything was good.

Then, because the bypass had some space next to it, big stores started popping up next to it, and roads to these stores were linked to the bypass. Traffic to these stores became so significant that traffic lights had to be installed, and there is now so much traffic turning in the various directions, that you have to wait for a lengthy multi-phases light system even if you're going straight through on the bypass. It's now so bad that it really needs another bypass to avoid all that mess if you just want to get straight through.......

Haha I sure will! Yes the bypass that needs a bypass! Your right, the signallised junction at Halfords is a real pain - all individual sequences and takes forever. A roundabout would have been better, and there is space to build a proper one. Personally I tend to avoid that route and will come into town on Eastern Avenue, then down by the College and up Centenary Way. That was great until they built Tesco's and now that has a signalised junction. Grrr. Not as bad as the Halfords one though. To get home to Harle Syke at rush hour I avoid the town completely and come off at the Brierfield junction of the M65.

Burnley though is just typical of a lot of towns in that the roads fall way way short of what the plans intended. Eastern Avenue and Casterton Avenue were supposed to be one half of a complete ring road, going round the back of Barden. That would have been great and cut a lot of congestion.

In my opinion there are quite a few bypasses that have to be built as peoples lives are seriously affected. I wouldn't put Burnley at the top of list, as at least we have the M65, but Shipley and the villages at the end of the M67 would be the top ones for me.

This all sounds to me like examples of how building more roads simply leads to more congestion.

The RAC have a point. If people will stop and consider if that journey by car is really necessary then the roads would free up.