teuchter
je suis teuchter
Surprised you just accept the council's line on what's happened and why.Your point being?
Surprised you just accept the council's line on what's happened and why.Your point being?
Surprised you just accept the council's line on what's happened and why.
Surprised you just accept the council's line on what's happened and why.
The problem described by thebackrow to which I was responding was:
If satnavs are to blame for filling all minor roads to capacity, then preventing them from doing so through the reclassification of roads and determining how routes are allowed to be treated by satnavs would clearly go a long way to solving that issue. It's an imaginative and probably workable idea. Learned behaviour would take a little longer to sort out but would ease.
their scheme was devised through cooperation with residents. "The scheme follows numerous meetings between residents and the council, including a working party, to address the impact of the experimental closure of Harwood Terrace as well as long-standing local traffic issues."
their council still appears to have managed to base their scheme on a cooperative process with the residents.
They have done an experimental scheme. Learned the lessons from that and are now doing an altered scheme.
Local campaigners fighting H&F Council's closure of Harwood Terrace in Fulham have enlisted the help of celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman, or 'Mr Loophole'. The Evening Standard reports that the lawyer, who gained his nickname by helping rich clients avoid motoring convictions, described the closure as 'perverse' and 'poorly conceived'.
But On October 21, Hammersmith and Fulham Council took the controversial decision to close 90 metres of the road for six months, as a trial run to see the effect on local traffic.
The street’s inhabitants are universally in favour. They say the closure will end the many collisions and road rage incidents that have unfolded on their doorsteps for years.
Whereas residents in surrounding roads are now campaigning for the trial to be abandoned.
They say a majority of people opposed the scheme when a consultation was held in February, and point to increased congestion on New King’s Road.
Rob McGibbon, a freelance writer, said: “The council just plonked down these concrete blocks and it’s caused complete chaos.
“Imperial Road gets choked up and it follows onto Bagleys Lane.
“Every council would like to be able to cut off rat runs, but this has not been thought through properly.”
Property surveyor Charles Walker, 54, led the calls for Harwood Terrace to be closed, and praised Labour councillor Wesley Harcourt for making it happen.
“About 15 months ago I contacted Wesley to talk about this.
“There was a consultation in February and there was 100 per cent support in this road.”
Mr Walker added: “Now it’s become a political battleground.
Just to clarify - are you still sticking you the point to which I originally responded? Or agreeing with mind reader Teuchter that you meant something other than what was posted? It's getting very confusing.Isn't that exactly what's been done? The classification of those roads has been changed to 'no through road' with use of signage or physical closure. There are cameras to enforce against those who ignore the classification. That information is updated on the satnavs and they no longer route drivers down those roads.
I've no idea. I think your idea was that someone would ask the satnav makers nicely and they'd stop routing drivers down backstreets and I suggested that wouldn't work because someone would just launch a competing satnav product that continued to send drivers down rat runs.Just to clarify - are you still sticking you the point to which I originally responded? Or agreeing with mind reader Teuchter that you meant something other than what was posted? It's getting very confusing.
Secondly, this scheme failed because displaced traffic clogged the through routes, caused pollution and slowed down buses (who'd have thought?).
from here.Survey data presented to the Working Party by the council showed that congestion in Bagleys Lane had increased by 25 per cent due to Harwood Terrace closing. While New King's Road, King's Road and Imperial Road had seen a combined average reduction of 21 per cent.
I've no idea. I think your idea was that someone would ask the satnav makers nicely and they'd stop routing drivers down backstreets and I suggested that wouldn't work because someone would just launch a competing satnav product that continued to send drivers down rat runs.
Of course even if it did work (maybe legislation to ban satnav use) all it would do is take us back to pre-sat nav days when rat runs required a bit of intuition or local knowledge and anyone who drove a route on a regular basis would still find and use them.
(Edit - though I do see your confusion - it does look like I quoted the wrong post entirely. Sorry)
I'm not proposing either of those things. Our road classification system is an archane thing dating back to way before satnavs, GPS or even internet. Different road classifications allow different things; these can be reflected in the satnav routing (e.g. satnav knows you can do 70 on motorways), but they do not actually relate to the use of Satnav. There is no reason why road classifications could not be updated so that their classification governs how all roads can be used in routing technology. For instance (and I'm not being terribly specific here but just trying to illustrate my point) local roads classified LTN cannot be used in the planning of routes which do not start or end in or close to that road / zone. Maybe rather than reclassifying roads, LTNs are simply superimposed on top of them. Maybe it could be voluntary but I would imagine that it would need to be a statutory thing. I don't think it is really any more complicated than current route planning which calculates routes differently for bikes, pedestrians and vehicles according to road restrictions. In fact now that I think about it, I think it is unlikely that something like this will not happen.
Yeah, as soon as this would be permitted politically, you could remove all sorts of physical infrastructure and visual clutter from the streets, that only has to be there because of motor vehicles.One way of achieving this would be to use geofencing to control vehicle behaviour.
Yes - I really would like road user pricing. Not just because I drove barely over 1,000 miles last year and nearly all of that was off peak and about 99% outside London. Bit gutted that my campervan is going to cost £12.50 every time I move it in the ULEZ next year. Because I use it infrequently but for longer journeys it does not make financial sense to sell it.One way of achieving this would be to use geofencing to control vehicle behaviour. It could be a really good solution and far more sophisticated than the blunt instruments discussed on this thread. LA has applied this technology to electric scooters to control speed and there’s no technological reason why it can’t be applied to motor vehicles. It could also be used to introduce road-user pricing, which is another good option to limit congestion.
There are however huge political barriers to introducing this kind of scheme. In a world in which speed cameras are controversial it’s unlikely to happen. Politics Is the art of the possible, and sometimes all that Is possible is a half-baked solution.
Yes, great idea. GPS controlled speed limiters as well to make it impossible for vehicles to speed while your at it and also move to 'parking in marked bays only'. Could then remove all of the yellow lines and vast amount of other visual clutter that goes with it.Yeah, as soon as this would be permitted politically, you could remove all sorts of physical infrastructure and visual clutter from the streets, that only has to be there because of motor vehicles.
Yes - I really would like road user pricing. Not just because I drove barely over 1,000 miles last year and nearly all of that was off peak and about 99% outside London. Bit gutted that my campervan is going to cost £12.50 every time I move it in the ULEZ next year. Because I use it infrequently but for longer journeys it does not make financial sense to sell it.
The geofencing will surely come in with automated cars? and as young users get used to the idea on things like scooters. And even perhaps being tracked for insurance policies. But I can see that it would be a hot potato before then, as you say. I think my suggestion would be far less controversial in the meantime - it does not control you. It just stops satnavs sending traffic into smaller roads and zones in order to avoid busy main roads.
I‘ve got no problem with your objective. I just think it might be tricky to achieve legally.
You wouldn’t be able to stop Google Maps (for example) showing routes along the roads you wanted to exclude, because people would still be able to cycle/walk down them. So you’d end up with Google publishing a route with a disclaimer saying ‘not to be used by motor vehicles’. Motorists would use it anyway and you’d be back to the problem of enforcement.
Ever bought NO2 capsules? You used only used them to whip cream, right
Any modification is now to be considered appeasement.
There will be less rat-running and many more low-traffic neighbourhoods .
Residential side streets across the country can be blighted by rat-running. Low-traffic neighbourhoods will be created in many more groups of residential streets by installing point closures – for example, bollards or planters – on some of the roads. It would still be possible to access any road in the area, but motor traffic would not be able to use the roads as through routes. Streets within low traffic neighbourhoods will provide clear, direct routes for cyclists and pedestrians promoting walking and cycling. Accidents, pollution and noise will be dramatically reduced for residents.
We will consult on creating a community right to close side streets and create low-traffic neighbourhoods, with groups of residential side streets able to petition local authorities for rat-run closures.
We will create more “Mini-Hollands”
In London, three outer boroughs with low levels of cycling were chosen through competition as “Mini-Hollands,” with intensive, transformational spending on their roads and streetscapes to make them, over time, as cycle and pedestrian-friendly as their Dutch equivalents. Segregated lanes were installed on main roads, low-traffic neighbourhoods were put in, and pedestrians were given thousands of metres of extra space.
In the first of the areas treated, cycling increased by 18 per cent and walking by 13 per cent in a single year28. Vacancy rates for retailers on the first of the shopping streets to be made low-traffic streets are the lowest they have ever been, according to the council, and trade on those streets has significantly increased. Nor did congestion rise, because the changes allowed many people who had previously driven very short journeys to walk or cycle instead.
We will choose up to 12 willing local authority areas, to benefit from intensive investment in mini-Holland schemes.
As in London, we expect to stimulate a large number of proposals across the country, from which we will choose up to 12 willing non-London local authority areas, to benefit from intensive investment in mini-Holland schemes on the same model. The main focus will be on replacing short car trips. They must be places where cycling is currently low and where there is serious political commitment to dramatic change – not just for cyclists, but for everyone who lives and works there.