do you really mean that? Are you suggesting that John Franklin might have had a hand in it? All to discredit those pesky Dutch folk?
Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling
- Thread starter downfader
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
As I recall you mentioned earlier meeting someone to discuss how to make city centre(?) infinitely more cycling friendly with zero cost and total support from constituents. How did that go? Would you mind sharing the magic, and maybe implement it UK wide as well since it sounded like no-brainer?
I'm undecided. It's probably more likely the designers were just morons. But then again, I like conspiracy theories as entertainment and my TV hasn't been able to find any channels in a few days now...
pretty good.
The basic question is this - how do you increase land values? If you offer developers the opportunity to increase the value of land, and, at the same time, make a more sustainable and congenial place then you can make S.106 payments an investment rather than a tax. Through traffic generally speaking decreases land value, and this is felt most acutely on high streets - the very high streets that, prior to the hegemony of the motor car had the highest land values.
(Richard, in his efforts to constrain the motor car in Oxford hasn't just made the town centre a more pleasant place - he's increased the land values)
Many of our high streets are now strategic routes. They suffer from noise, fumes and, most importantly, low, rushed footfall. The upper parts of shop premises are, typically, of low value. In the tug-of-war between land value and through traffic, through traffic has won, not least because planning authorities have constrained land values by protecting the two, three and four storey format of nineteenth century and early twentieth century commercial.
Ny argument is that if you choose your spot, the spot at which a place is most recognisable (this is usually around cross-roads) then you can write a planning brief which basically says build what the **** you want. You'll see that Newham have done this in the town centre of Ilford (although they've done nothing about the A118?), but, on a smaller scale there are tens of thousands of run-down, ossified high streets, besieged from within by the motor car, constrained by planning authorities, offering nothing by way of respite or joy to the pedestrian, or the cyclist, and not a lot by way of residential spending power.
So, choose your spot, turn it in to a haven for pedestrians, make allowance for buses and deliveries and severely constrain the car, and pay for the works by letting the developers rip and you've got yourself a walking, cycling, bus-using high street.
Something like most modest sized Italian towns, in fact. It's not an original thesis.........
.........now, will this inspire OGB to read the thread, or will he continue throwing stones at targets that don't exist?
The basic question is this - how do you increase land values? If you offer developers the opportunity to increase the value of land, and, at the same time, make a more sustainable and congenial place then you can make S.106 payments an investment rather than a tax. Through traffic generally speaking decreases land value, and this is felt most acutely on high streets - the very high streets that, prior to the hegemony of the motor car had the highest land values.
(Richard, in his efforts to constrain the motor car in Oxford hasn't just made the town centre a more pleasant place - he's increased the land values)
Many of our high streets are now strategic routes. They suffer from noise, fumes and, most importantly, low, rushed footfall. The upper parts of shop premises are, typically, of low value. In the tug-of-war between land value and through traffic, through traffic has won, not least because planning authorities have constrained land values by protecting the two, three and four storey format of nineteenth century and early twentieth century commercial.
Ny argument is that if you choose your spot, the spot at which a place is most recognisable (this is usually around cross-roads) then you can write a planning brief which basically says build what the **** you want. You'll see that Newham have done this in the town centre of Ilford (although they've done nothing about the A118?), but, on a smaller scale there are tens of thousands of run-down, ossified high streets, besieged from within by the motor car, constrained by planning authorities, offering nothing by way of respite or joy to the pedestrian, or the cyclist, and not a lot by way of residential spending power.
So, choose your spot, turn it in to a haven for pedestrians, make allowance for buses and deliveries and severely constrain the car, and pay for the works by letting the developers rip and you've got yourself a walking, cycling, bus-using high street.
Something like most modest sized Italian towns, in fact. It's not an original thesis.........
.........now, will this inspire OGB to read the thread, or will he continue throwing stones at targets that don't exist?
They did that in Slough a long time ago, leaving the A4 to carry the traffic a few hundred yards north of the High Street which they only allowed buses to use. It's still Slough, though. The story is the same with Bracknell, which has a very good ring road but remains, well, Bracknell inside it.
To prove the "one size doesn't fit all" theory, that approach worked well in Windsor and did ok in Maidenhead, although the latter suffers from the cachet of the former.
To prove the "one size doesn't fit all" theory, that approach worked well in Windsor and did ok in Maidenhead, although the latter suffers from the cachet of the former.
I've read the entire thread and, without wanting to go over the same old ground, I'd say segregationism versus vehicular cycling is missing the point, which is that we (the people) have enslaved ourselves to the car. (See http://cycleseven.org/first-year-free)
Arguing over whether we should try to live alongside our new masters, or just get out of their way, is like discussing the best form of life-jacket while the Titanic is sinking beneath us.
If anyone cares, I grew up in Stevenage but spent most of my life near Cambridge, so I don't see segregation as either necessary nor sufficient for cycling to have a decent modal share. Inconveniencing the car does seem both necessary and sufficient, and the Dutch seem to be doing this. Until society realises the suicidal collective madness we have inflicted on ourselves, such measures are viewed childishly as a "war on the motorist". I prefer to view it as a rebellion, so we once again rule the car instead of vice versa.
Arguing over whether we should try to live alongside our new masters, or just get out of their way, is like discussing the best form of life-jacket while the Titanic is sinking beneath us.
If anyone cares, I grew up in Stevenage but spent most of my life near Cambridge, so I don't see segregation as either necessary nor sufficient for cycling to have a decent modal share. Inconveniencing the car does seem both necessary and sufficient, and the Dutch seem to be doing this. Until society realises the suicidal collective madness we have inflicted on ourselves, such measures are viewed childishly as a "war on the motorist". I prefer to view it as a rebellion, so we once again rule the car instead of vice versa.
they didn't do 'that' in Slough, Norm. They diverted the traffic rather than choking it off. And the High Street remains pretty much as it was, although, no doubt, the land values went up when the traffic was diverted. As they did in Billingshurst (bypass) and Dartford (bypaas) and FAversham (bypass) although in each case the granting of permissions for retail warehouses on the roads around town undermine the high street. And Bracknell is a different thing entirely.......... (tbh I would just give up on Bracknell....)
Windsor is a special case. It's always going to thrive.
I think the commercial areas most in need of repair are those in cities of 100,000 or more, and the suburbs of great cities, where shopping parades have pretty much died, and the streets have become meaningless.
I think that's been fairly well covered. It's what you do about it, and Richard, Jonesy and others have laid out what people are doing about it.
I was thinking of their being built to get bikes out of the way so they didn't impede motorists. That happened in the 1920s with a big segregated cycle track building programme leading to the tracks becoming compulsory for cyclists in 1926, long before the rise of the Nazis (who got <3% of the vote in the 1928 elections so could hardly have had anything to do with it).
Which makes your comment rather an ironic own goal.
jonesy
Guru
So, you don't really believe it yourself, do you?
The idea that the appalling standard of segregated cycle paths in this country can be blamed on those who are most opposed to it is quite absurd and not really worthy of further discussion.
I know this sort of question can be used as something confrontational but I genuinely don't understand the difference between choking it off and diverting it.
Looking back at the post that I was responding to...
... that does seem to have been what has happened in Slough. The High Street is not a strategic route, as all the through traffic uses the A4 or the A412 to the south. As a result, (and joking aside, for a second or two) the High Street / Queensmere / Observatory is quite a pleasant place to shop and the variety of businesses there, including many excellent restaurants to show the variety that can be achieved by removing the cars.
All those in favour...
And against? Anyone? Someone?
Motion (in every sense) carried.
I'd be grateful if we could give it until the end of next month, though, I'm working there for another 8 weeks and it is a very pleasant cycle commute from Chateau Norm.
I think I said the same thing, although maybe only obliquely, in the "cachet for the former", although I think the council have shown how easy it still is to mess things up in the past, by driving away residents and focusing only on tourists. That's a fine plan for 4 months of the year but it fails on a wet and windy day in November.
All this is not, just to be clear, disputing what you say. I agree that the out of town stores have trashed many high streets and turned them into "sniper alleys" with the weapon of choice being a couple of tonnes of metal.
what I should have said, Norm, was using money generated by the regeneration of high streets was as much about the regeneration of high streets as it is about choking the traffic. What tends to happen, and it's understandable, is that the high street is set in planning aspic when the traffic is diverted.
I think we agreet that the difference between choking traffic and diverting it is that uses spring up along the diversion that are trip generators. I doubt a man of your discernment has ever been down the Purley Way, but it's a textbook example of diverted traffic spawning thousands and thousands of car spaces.
Thankyou for 'sniper alley', by the way.
I think we agreet that the difference between choking traffic and diverting it is that uses spring up along the diversion that are trip generators. I doubt a man of your discernment has ever been down the Purley Way, but it's a textbook example of diverted traffic spawning thousands and thousands of car spaces.
Thankyou for 'sniper alley', by the way.
Ah, right. Thanks for the clarification.
With Slough, for instance, the new large Tesco store on the A4 is creating it's own issues with a nasty little junction and traffic lights to try and improve the safety whilst, at the same time, pretty much taking over the entrance and exit to the train and bus stations. Similarly in Maidenhead, the traffic following the A4 now has extra junctions (for Sainsburys rather than Tesco) and the leisure centre.
With Slough, for instance, the new large Tesco store on the A4 is creating it's own issues with a nasty little junction and traffic lights to try and improve the safety whilst, at the same time, pretty much taking over the entrance and exit to the train and bus stations. Similarly in Maidenhead, the traffic following the A4 now has extra junctions (for Sainsburys rather than Tesco) and the leisure centre.
Binking heck, this thread is becoming silly. Segregation* everywhere, and almost at any cost is a stupid idea that ought to be shot at dawn. Sadly, so is the extreme opposite - the view that any segregation* is entirely wrong, and that idea deserves the same fate.
You asked for some pictures - David Hembow has some over on his blog: http://hembrow.blogs...dabouts-in.html
http://hembrow.eu/cy...isons.html#comp
Now before you go getting a hernia, let me state quite clearly that every road throughout cannot have segregation*. Even if it could, and there was limitless funding available, and it was all backed by political will, then every road still shouldn't have segregation*.
As many have pointed out, in a large number of cases, there are alternative options, such as speed reduction and traffic calming, which would be quicker, easier and cheaper to do. And no, I have no idea of the costs, so don't bother asking. I do however have a clear understanding that cycling brings with it a massively reduced NHS bill, which may be used to offset any costs, IF we had a government whose collective braincells didn't seem like they have taken vows of silence.
Segregation* CAN involve painted lines on roads, provided it is done right: http://willcycle.blo...n-plymouth.html
So what exactly is with all the opposition to segregation* on higher speed roads, and traffic calming, combined with (enforced!) speed reductions most other places?
Aren't we all just trying to create more civilised and safer streets? Streets that people can use and enjoy, without constantly fearing for their lives?
Now just because I believe there is a case for segregation in some instances don't try to call me barbaric, then duck behind some stupid explanation of what it supposedly means, as that would just underline the fact that you cannot carry on a grown-up debate without resorting to name-calling. So we're clear, have a look at what the Oxford English dictionaries define "barbaric" as: http://oxforddiction...nition/barbaric
Is Cyclecraft killing cycling? Cannot say, in all honesty, as I've never read it, and truthfully, I couldn't care less one way or the other. After all the arguments raised in this thread I cannot say I'm even slightly interested in reading it, either.
However, I suspect the person who made that claim wasn't quite being fair, or perhaps was trying to be controversial. If the latter, they certainly succeeded.
As long as the two extreme sides in this argument continue to bash each other, cycling overall is weakened. And how does that help all of us?
*By segregation I refer to infrastructure designed to separate cyclists from cars, done decently, and without forcing cyclists to yield to each and every entrance and certainly nothing like those shown on the famous "facility of the month" site.
-Edit- typo
You asked for some pictures - David Hembow has some over on his blog: http://hembrow.blogs...dabouts-in.html
http://hembrow.eu/cy...isons.html#comp
Now before you go getting a hernia, let me state quite clearly that every road throughout cannot have segregation*. Even if it could, and there was limitless funding available, and it was all backed by political will, then every road still shouldn't have segregation*.
As many have pointed out, in a large number of cases, there are alternative options, such as speed reduction and traffic calming, which would be quicker, easier and cheaper to do. And no, I have no idea of the costs, so don't bother asking. I do however have a clear understanding that cycling brings with it a massively reduced NHS bill, which may be used to offset any costs, IF we had a government whose collective braincells didn't seem like they have taken vows of silence.
Segregation* CAN involve painted lines on roads, provided it is done right: http://willcycle.blo...n-plymouth.html
So what exactly is with all the opposition to segregation* on higher speed roads, and traffic calming, combined with (enforced!) speed reductions most other places?
Aren't we all just trying to create more civilised and safer streets? Streets that people can use and enjoy, without constantly fearing for their lives?
Now just because I believe there is a case for segregation in some instances don't try to call me barbaric, then duck behind some stupid explanation of what it supposedly means, as that would just underline the fact that you cannot carry on a grown-up debate without resorting to name-calling. So we're clear, have a look at what the Oxford English dictionaries define "barbaric" as: http://oxforddiction...nition/barbaric
Is Cyclecraft killing cycling? Cannot say, in all honesty, as I've never read it, and truthfully, I couldn't care less one way or the other. After all the arguments raised in this thread I cannot say I'm even slightly interested in reading it, either.
However, I suspect the person who made that claim wasn't quite being fair, or perhaps was trying to be controversial. If the latter, they certainly succeeded.
As long as the two extreme sides in this argument continue to bash each other, cycling overall is weakened. And how does that help all of us?
*By segregation I refer to infrastructure designed to separate cyclists from cars, done decently, and without forcing cyclists to yield to each and every entrance and certainly nothing like those shown on the famous "facility of the month" site.
-Edit- typo
- Status