"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Well, if you believe this site:
http://www.func-junc.co.uk/

Car ownership will be 100% (not sure about letting all those toddlers
loose in cars) and road capacity will be 3x higher.

The one problem I can't quite work out is - if all roads go over and
under each other, how on earth do you turn left or right?!

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

If you look at the "Lager Map" (sic) you will see that not all juncs are
func juncs.

Apparently you can make a turn at a T junction.

David Fairthorne wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Well, if you believe this site:
http://www.func-junc.co.uk/

Car ownership will be 100% (not sure about letting all those toddlers
loose in cars) and road capacity will be 3x higher.

The one problem I can't quite work out is - if all roads go over and
under each other, how on earth do you turn left or right?!

If you look at the "Lager Map" (sic) you will see that not all juncs are
func juncs.

Apparently you can make a turn at a T junction.


People get ****ed off with one-way systems... imagine what it'll be like
when you can only turn at T-junctions! Some of the more grid-like areas
of London will be great fun. And imagine Milton Keynes - you'll have to
drive to the edge of the city and back in again just to turn left!


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:29:31 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

People get ****ed off with one-way systems... imagine what it'll be like
when you can only turn at T-junctions! Some of the more grid-like areas
of London will be great fun. And imagine Milton Keynes - you'll have to
drive to the edge of the city and back in again just to turn left!

Leave our roundabouts alone!

Seriously, some of the things suggested on that site, in particular
the segregated cycle and footpath network, are in use in Milton
Keynes. It is possible to get from anywhere to anywhere in MK (more
or less) without having to cross a main road on the level.

They do, however, have their own problems, such as the amount of glass
and other tyre-puncturing debris that tends to accumulate on them, and
the general "unsafe" feeling that isolated paths, bridges and
underpasses tend to bring after dark - even if there's no basis in
fact for such a feeling.

The signposting of these paths is also pretty poor, meaning that
before you can realistically use them for a longer journey you need to
know where you're going. This is in marked contrast to the excellent
signing on the main grid roads.

That aside, the facility does seem to successfully promote cycling in
MK, to a level I've not seen elsewhere in the UK other than in Oxford
or Cambridge.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:47:42 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:



Seriously, some of the things suggested on that site, in particular
the segregated cycle and footpath network, are in use in Milton
Keynes. It is possible to get from anywhere to anywhere in MK (more
or less) without having to cross a main road on the level.

They do, however, have their own problems, such as the amount of glass
and other tyre-puncturing debris that tends to accumulate on them, and
the general "unsafe" feeling that isolated paths, bridges and
underpasses tend to bring after dark - even if there's no basis in
fact for such a feeling.


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. Also, this is easy enough
to implement if you are developing an area almost from scratch, but
very difficult to impose on an existing built-up area within a city

Martin

Martin Rich wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:47:42 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:



Seriously, some of the things suggested on that site, in particular
the segregated cycle and footpath network, are in use in Milton
Keynes. It is possible to get from anywhere to anywhere in MK (more
or less) without having to cross a main road on the level.

They do, however, have their own problems, such as the amount of glass
and other tyre-puncturing debris that tends to accumulate on them, and
the general "unsafe" feeling that isolated paths, bridges and
underpasses tend to bring after dark - even if there's no basis in
fact for such a feeling.


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. Also, this is easy enough
to implement if you are developing an area almost from scratch, but
very difficult to impose on an existing built-up area within a city

Martin

A further problem with segregated cycle and pedestrian facilities is
that, in areas where they predominate such as Milton Keynes, people do
not have the exposure to road traffic that they really need in order
to develop what is often called "road sense". The design of
segregated routes is often poor and the standard of maintenance often
low. All this can result in high rates of casualties both on and off
the segregated network.

Drivers are also likely to be more aware of the needs of pedestrians
and cyclists if they encounter a lot of them rather than very few.

Segregation may have a role to play at 'nightmare' junctions (and
motorways, of course) but I understand there is plenty of evidence to
suggest that cyclists and pedestrians are generally safer on
non-segregated roads.

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".

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin Rich
writes

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. The paths
get plenty of use for walking
and cycling, and *do* form "attractive green lanes".

What happens in cul-de-sacs and footpaths all depends on who live in the
neighbourhood.

IMO every sink estate should be opened up to traffic, in fact the nearby
roads should have barriers, one-way sections and bus-only sections applied
so that the best driving route from anywhere to anywhere is through the sink
estates. They will become much safer and more pleasant places to live.

--
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

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin Rich
writes

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. The paths
get plenty of use for walking
and cycling, and *do* form "attractive green lanes".

What happens in cul-de-sacs and footpaths all depends on who live in the
neighbourhood.

IMO every sink estate should be opened up to traffic, in fact the nearby
roads should have barriers, one-way sections and bus-only sections applied
so that the best driving route from anywhere to anywhere is through the
sink
estates. They will become much safer and more pleasant places to live.

Somehow I get the impression that Clive Feather doesn't live on a sink
estate. But I could be wrong :-)

"John Rowland" wrote

[snip]

IMO every sink estate should be opened up to traffic,

[snip]

They are doing just that, apparently, here in the London borough of
Barnet, on the Grahame Park estate, in Colindale, on the site of the
old Hendon Aerodrome. I don't know how sinkish it is, but the fact
that it is being "regenerated" probably says something.

Jeremy Parker

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:08:02 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

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".

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

Footpaths are a particular feature of (most notably) Hampstead Garden
Suburb, and the garden city at Letchworth, though of course there are
plenty of footpaths in other parts of London. And they can be very
pleasant and are often well-used; my criticism was directed towards
plans which corrall *all* pedestrian traffic into sepearate, and often
elevated, walkways.

I'm drafting this off-line so can't easily check, but seem to remember
that the func-junc proposal included draconian fines for pedestrians
who strayed onto the roadway for vehicles. I'm guessing that this
isn't a feature of your village :-)

Martin