NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/uk/transpor/287

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!uknet!acorn!steve
From: [e-mail] (Steve "daffy" Hunt)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:36:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Acorn Computers Limited, Cambridge, UK
Lines: 59
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

[e-mail] wrote:
: ==============================================================================
: The sight of long traffic queues on the main roads in Birmingham annoys the
: hell out of me especially when most of the cars contain the driver only.
: Of course everybody realises that a group of buses is better than the
: equivalent number of cars, in terms of fuel, the environment, accidents,
: travel time etc. Unfortunately the initiative is not going to come from
: the motorists. Birmingham City Council are planning to narrow some of
: the main roads in the south of the city and introduce bus lanes. They hope
: this will make it intolerable for motorists and get them onto the buses.

This is rather like trying to reduce a swelling in your body by
beating it with a hammer.  It is a sad example of treating the symptom
in a simpleminded way, rather than alleviating the cause.

I think they have it the wrong way round.  They should improve public
transport until it is really convenient, and then the car problem will
automatically reduce.  Most public transport systems are *desperately*
inconvenient when compared with cars; the fact that people prefer to
use their cars despite the queues you describe is strong evidence of
this.

I would very happily use public transport for more of my travel needs
if it had the following properties:-

1) Operates as near to "door-to-door" as practicable.
2) Operates frequently enough that I don't have to plan my life
   around the timetable.
3) Operates 24 hours a day without degradation of service at night.

Until they can claim these three properties, the public transport
lobby are not even *trying* to compete with the private vehicle.

: Anothe reason is the recognition that residential areas are nothing more than
: hell-holes for a few hours each day when the roads through them choke up with
: traffic, they say they want to improve the environment of these areas by
: reducing traffic, widening pavements and putting the trees back. I hope
: that this works in the long term. In the short term it will slow traffic down
: and cause long queues, this is the idea.

The habit of commuting itself is the source of many of our transport
problems, as it creates a very high demand twice a day.  Thus big road
schemes are needed to meet this high instantaneous demand; smaller
roads would suffice if the demand were spread out.  Rail operators
need much of their rolling stock just to service the two rush hours;
they could get by with far less if the demand was ironed out.

I never hear it mooted in transport debates, but it makes an awful lot
of sense: get rid of the rush hour.  Because 9 to 5 working is so
strongly ingrained in our culture, it would be necessary to introduce
legislation, or positive financial incentives, to encourage companies
to operate staggered hours or flexitime.

Spreading the load of commuter traffic over four or five hours in the
morning and evening rather than one or two should make the situation
much more tolerable.  And as a longer-term goal, the increase in
telecommuting promises even greater benefits.
--
                Steve Hunt    [e-mail]