tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post7832399100177944909..comments2024-03-29T04:56:21.385+00:00Comments on The Ranty Highwayman: It's A Network ProblemThe Ranty Highwaymanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17361350433158148025noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-34192579585127759322018-01-25T19:06:29.084+00:002018-01-25T19:06:29.084+00:00Yes, that is part of it - I think we lack the join...Yes, that is part of it - I think we lack the joined up thinking needed to get this going sadlyThe Ranty Highwaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17361350433158148025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-69149374112630332692018-01-09T15:18:06.724+00:002018-01-09T15:18:06.724+00:00Also useful to have a global strategy and set of g...Also useful to have a global strategy and set of goals that supports your hierarchy - for example, if you want to prioritise walking & cycling, you might need to start charging people to drive to reduce the road space needed for motorised transport without increasing congestion, you might need to plan a wide inclusive cycle network so those people who've found it more exepensive to drive have an opportunity to shift modes safely, etc etc. This is where, so far, Khan and Shawcross are failing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-79393178717930855162018-01-09T11:28:06.917+00:002018-01-09T11:28:06.917+00:00Yes, I can see the advantages of a grand plan with...Yes, I can see the advantages of a grand plan with a set of policies, such as:<br />- non-residents should not be parking in a residential area therefore the policy is CPZ above a defined threshold<br />- through traffic should be using defined arterial roads, not residential streets, therefore the policy is filtering residential streets above a defined threshold<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-24566493768268737302018-01-09T07:09:22.419+00:002018-01-09T07:09:22.419+00:00Thanks Jim - I'll add the suggestion to my dra...Thanks Jim - I'll add the suggestion to my drafts folder for the second edition!<br /><br />From what I read, even the Dutch get opposition to schemes (funny that with them being people). <br /><br />My gut feeling (yes anecdote) is there will be a hard core minority who want to drive no matter what, so don't waste too much energy on them; convince the waverers that it might be a bit of a long way round when you drive, but your road will be quiet; plus you might actually enjoy making those short trips by foot/ bike.The Ranty Highwaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17361350433158148025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-45501716489337150682018-01-09T07:05:33.152+00:002018-01-09T07:05:33.152+00:00And that's the rub - objections because people...And that's the rub - objections because people think it will be an issue (CS9) people objecting because they don't have an issue (CPZ). At least with a grand plan, the issues will have been thought about in the round and people can see where it is heading. I wonder how other cities and towns have managed it?The Ranty Highwaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17361350433158148025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-63875866575461263682018-01-09T00:28:03.919+00:002018-01-09T00:28:03.919+00:00Couple of points:
1. A precis of this blogpost wou...Couple of points:<br />1. A precis of this blogpost would make a useful (even a necessary) preamble to your modal filtering guide. Apologies if I missed seeing this when I read the guide but I recall thinking this a lot when reading it.<br />2. I don't believe anybody can make a *genuine* argument for allowing through traffic on residential streets. Everybody wants to live on a quiet, safe street with minimal motor vehicle traffic. Those who argue for allowing through traffic on other people's residential streets are just being callous and unfair to the people who live on these streets. Hence it is critical to have a monofunctional classification policy like the Dutch have for their road transport network, where there are only three road types and the function of residential streets is liveability for the residents, not transport capacity. As residents will always constitute close to 100% of an area where change to an arterial road corridor is proposed, this policy would eliminate the chance of inevitable arguing over removal of through traffic from residential streets. It won't guarantee democratic success for the arterial road proposal in itself but at least the arguments for the proposal will have to be made by and large on its own pros and cons, without the emotional heat about which residents will lose out or continue to lose out due to through traffic.Jim Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11396028149692613199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1828166865647185633.post-52567763512044347952018-01-08T14:40:08.997+00:002018-01-08T14:40:08.997+00:00I live in Chiswick *and* in one of the streets pro...I live in Chiswick *and* in one of the streets proposed for filtering because of rat-running so I've been up to my eyeballs with CS9 for the last few months.<br /><br />What you say all seems very sensible however to me, a difficulty seems to be prioritisation between different modes of motor transport. Chiswick High Rd now doesn't have bus lanes in both directions for the entire length of the street.<br /><br />TfL modelling predicts increased journey times for some journeys and opponents of the schemes use "won't anyone think of the buses" as an objection. In some cases this may be genuine but I think a lot are just using buses as a proxy for their car journey and what they really mean is "I will be delayed". <br /><br />Of course, any increase in journey time gets translated into a "it will cause pollution"" objection.<br /><br />Even if there was a bigger picture plan, I'm not sure it would make the process much easier. Filtering to block through traffic will still mean complaints from residents who no longer have that easy route out. Residents who don't suffer from parking problems won't want to pay for a CPZ even if it is highly likely an adjacent scheme will push traffic onto their streets. Lots will object to a PCZ until they actually experience inconvenience parking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com