London's traffic problems solved
 

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:26:53 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Martin Rich
writes
The village I live in is a mid-70s creation. It consists of a loop road
with lots of multi-branch cul-de-sacs stretching inwards. Between them
is a network of footpaths converging on an L-shaped "spine path" with
the village shops at the apex. The paths get plenty of use for walking
and cycling, and *do* form "attractive green lanes".

This sounds as though it's more influenced by the garden city
approach, which placed some emphasis on including footpaths between
roads, than by the notion of segregating pedestrians and vehicles at
different levels.

There's no separate levels within the village itself, no. As to
influence, I believe it's called something like the "McNaughten design".


Sounds interesting - I'll try and find out more about it

Though it also sounds as though the planners sought
to offer separate pedestrian and vehicle routes between houses and
shops.

Indeed, it was claimed that all schoolchildren could get to school
without crossing *any* road (though usually they'd have to walk along
the pavement at the side of a road for some distance before reaching a
separate path). The eventual layout has a couple of situations where
this isn't quite true.


Also an interesting point. There's a footpath very close to me, in
London, which is very heavily used by primary school children in
particular. It has the effect that one or two roads see almost no car
traffic, except for access by residents and their visitors, but do
have quite a lot of pedestrian traffic, especially at the start and
end of school days. On the whole that makes for a pleasant
environment

Martin

London's traffic problems solved
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ...
In article , Martin Rich
writes
The idea of segregating different types of traffic - particularly
pedestrians and cars - at different levels was favoured by planners in
the 1960s and 1970s. You can see this put into practice in the
highwalks around the Barbican. The problem is that the pedestrian
ways, far from being the attractive green lanes described on the
func-junc site, become bleak and windswept.

The village I live in is a mid-70s creation. It consists of a loop road
with lots of multi-branch cul-de-sacs stretching inwards. Between them
is a network of footpaths converging on an L-shaped "spine path" with
the village shops at the apex. The paths get plenty of use for walking
and cycling, and *do* form "attractive green lanes".

---------------------------------------

I am more than happy to discuss my book with any serious enquirer.
Please email me for my telephone number or my postal address.

The Functional Junction book costs £10 plus £2 postage.

David Hyde-Harrison

London's traffic problems solved
 

"David" wrote in message
om...

I am more than happy to discuss my book
with any serious enquirer. Please email me
for my telephone number or my postal address.

The Functional Junction book costs £10 plus £2 postage.

The vertical curves would be less severe if no road had two overpasses or
underpasses in a row. I've reworked your map of West Hampstead and come up
with this. http://stencilwithstyle.com/LL%20340...tic%20knot.gif

Incidentally, your source map at http://www.func-junc.co.uk/larger_map.htm
is many decades old, because you've gone to the trouble of planning an
underpass from Smyrna Road to Fresby Road, when Fresby Road was removed
decades ago. Also, you've planned an overpass to carry Nelson St over a
footpath, when Nelson St (just south of Netherwood St) was also removed
decades ago.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

The Rotherhithe tunnel (was: Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved))
 

wrote:

David Fairthorne wrote:
wrote:
ObTransport: the Rotherhithe tunnel -- narrow and windy?
[...]

It was be possible to cross the river on foot by the Rotherhithe tunnel
by using the stairs on each side of the river. It was noisy, especially
near sharp bends where tires scraped against the sidewalks. So I would
say "narrow and winding".

Do you remember whether the Rotherhithe tunnel had flowers growing above
the entrance in the early 80s?

It looks like it still is, in principle -- there are footpath-like
(er) "footpaths" on either side of the roads through it. But I
really wouldn't fancy trying to walk it, unless for some reason I
felt myself particularly resistant to exhaust fumes.

The trouble is it's not windy enough to get rid of those exhaust fumes!

And I agree "winding" is better than "windy"; the difference between
"windy" (winding) and "windy" (breezy) is clear when spoken, but
non-existant when written.

The solution is to spell it "windey". If enough people do, the
dictionaries will follow...