Did you know that the original rationale for parking meters was as a temporary measure unitl enough revenue had been raised to pay for free off road parking in city centres sufficient to hold all the cars in a city?
Think how much faster traffic would flow in London with all the lanes of parked cars nicely out of the way off the road. Unfortunately, the plan was changed for short-term revenue reasons by politicians. Now the same politicians are planning to charge us just to use city roads, let alone park.
|
In London there is very little speed difference between parking and driving anyway :-)
Same applies to the M25 and parts of the M6.
When will the so-called experts get the motorway system sorted out?. A lot of the problems are due to local traffic hopping on for one or two junctions, particularly around London and Birmingham, because the local "main" roads are so slow. But because the local traffic diverts onto the motorway there is little incentive for the local authority to get its' finger out.
My solution for the M6 and M25 would be to reduce the number of junctions near the cities by about one third so that the motorways are available for the long-distance traffic that really needs them, so fulfilling their original intended function.
|
Not living in the London area, I can look at this without emotion.
(1) if enough off-street parking were provided for all the cars that entered London, the surface area would probably consist of 15% roads, 40% parking, which leaves 45% for anything else. If there are to be any open spaces there isn't a great deal left for things like shops & offices;
(2) the main access routes are choked because they are so good at their job of feeding cars into the centre. There are just too many cars (or buses, if you prefer). Putting artificial constraints on the feeder roads will just add a new source of frustration for everyone.
Glad I live 180 miles away !!
|
|
|
|
A study a few years ago suggested allowing entry to the M25 only where a major road joined (e.g. M3, M4, A2 etc). This would allow it to return to its original purpose of being a way of getting round London when on cross-country journeys, rather than a short cut for local trips.
Spineless politicians killed it, of course.
|
|
|
|
Good idea - ban all those private cars from most entries to motorways. Just allow buses, taxies and vans unrestricted access!
|
|
|
Andrew
I don't follow your logic about allowing taxis. Surely these are just chauffeur-driven cars for the rich. The only thing is that they don't take up parking space.
|
|
Buses are one of the main causes of city congestion. The change to one man operation alone is responsible for major traffic disruption, where we all have to queue behind one of these big red dinasours while some old dear fiddles in the bottom of her bag for a pile of loose change. Add to that bus lanes which achieve the twin distinction of cutting traffic flow in half without making bus journeys any faster. There are many bus stops sited on the edge of the kerb where there would be plenty of room to cut a lay-by into the pavement so that traffic does not suffer unnescessary disruption, but ease of car use does not suit the political adgendas of the Little Hitlers who brown nose their way into positions where they can influence the lives of the rest of us.
|
Tom Shaw wrote:
>
> Buses are one of the main causes of city congestion. The
> change to one man operation alone is responsible for major
> traffic disruption, where we all have to queue behind one of
> these big red dinasours while some old dear fiddles in the
> bottom of her bag for a pile of loose change.
Er, if we're "lucky" we'll all be old one day. And in any case, buses are far more efficient at carrying lots of people in a small space than cars are. Seventy people in a Mondeo? In city centres (note not always) it's the cars that hold up the buses and make them unreliable and smoky.
Chris
|
|
|
|
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/fallback/coming-soon.jpg)
