| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
London's traffic problems solved
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 |
London's traffic problems solved
Dave Arquati wrote:
Well, if you believe this site: http://www.func-junc.co.uk/ 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?! That's not the only one. I'm sure the author never tried to bike on a 2 metre wide, bi-directional bike path, for example ... I'm also sure he never saw the prices privately owned car parks charge e.g. in Californian cities ... And I'm also sure he thinks he's never going to move, never going to need something delivered or repaired, and his waste is collected by little green men from Mars - or why did he design roads completely useless to anything higher than a car? .... Martin |
London's traffic problems solved
Martin Bienwald wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: Well, if you believe this site: http://www.func-junc.co.uk/ 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?! That's not the only one. I'm sure the author never tried to bike on a 2 metre wide, bi-directional bike path, for example ... I'm also sure he never saw the prices privately owned car parks charge e.g. in Californian cities ... And I'm also sure he thinks he's never going to move, never going to need something delivered or repaired, and his waste is collected by little green men from Mars - or why did he design roads completely useless to anything higher than a car? You need to understand that the author (in his own words) "is an idiot .... This has not stopped him from becoming an architect ... He has designed telephone exchanges and the top security prison in England." Obviously well qualified for radical redesign of the transport infrastructure. He should get together with that other "architect" who planned to deface London's streets with monorails. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
London's traffic problems solved
"Richard J." wrote in message
... Martin Bienwald wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: Well, if you believe this site: http://www.func-junc.co.uk/ I'm also sure he thinks he's never going to move, never going to need something delivered or repaired, and his waste is collected by little green men from Mars - or why did he design roads completely useless to anything higher than a car? ....such as ambulances and fire engines. You need to understand that the author (in his own words) "is an idiot" But his wife thinks he's a genius, and that's what counts. Incidentally, the area of West Hampstead shown in the map has been exceptionally quiet whenever I've been through there, with the exceptions of West End Lane and Kilburn High Road. -- 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 |
London's traffic problems solved
"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. |
London's traffic problems solved
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 |
London's traffic problems solved
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 |
London's traffic problems solved
|
London's traffic problems solved
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 2001 figures for bike mode commuting share are Cambridge, 28% (which beats Amsterdam), Oxford 16%, York 13%, Hull 12%, Boston, Lincs. 11%. I'm not sure of the Milton Keynes figure, but I think its about 3% - about half that for the London borough of Hackney. See Jon Parkin "Comparisons of cycle use for the journey to work from the '81, '91 and 2001 census" TEC, Sept 2003 Jeremy Parker |
London's traffic problems solved
In message , at 20:17:04 on Tue,
24 Aug 2004, Jeremy Parker remarked: I'm not sure of the Milton Keynes figure, but I think its about 3% - about half that for the London borough of Hackney. The problem with cycling and MK is that the place is so spread out. That and it's not particularly difficult to drive around. But you probably do get quite a bit of leisure cycling. -- Roland Perry |
London's traffic problems solved
Jeremy Parker wrote:
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 2001 figures for bike mode commuting share are Cambridge, 28% (which beats Amsterdam), Oxford 16%, York 13%, Hull 12%, Boston, Lincs. 11%. I'm not sure of the Milton Keynes figure, but I think its about 3% - about half that for the London borough of Hackney. See Jon Parkin "Comparisons of cycle use for the journey to work from the '81, '91 and 2001 census" TEC, Sept 2003 Maybe this is because although MK has an excellent cycle network (I used it once and was very impressed apart from the signage!), it also has a relatively high-capacity road network, so cycling isn't really a way to beat congestion (e.g. London) or car restrictions (e.g. Hackney) (although I admit I have only driven in MK in rush hour once). -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Cycling (was London's traffic problems solved)
"Jeremy Parker" wrote in message
... 2001 figures for bike mode commuting share are Cambridge, 28% (which beats Amsterdam), Oxford 16%, York 13%, Hull 12%, Boston, Lincs. 11%. See Jon Parkin "Comparisons of cycle use for the journey to work from the '81, '91 and 2001 census" TEC, Sept 2003 Does it give any indication of how flat the various places are? I have to laugh when politicians openly wonder why cycling is less popular in London than in Amsterdam. -- 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 |
London's traffic problems solved
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
... Well, if you believe this site: http://www.func-junc.co.uk/ Some other thoughts...most of the east-west roads in the map area are currently one-way, because they are rather narrow and permanently packed with parked cars on both sides. Your man doesn't address this at all. Priory Road, the narrow straight north-south road about a third from the east (right) edge of the map, is currently divided into alternating northbound-only, southbound-only and two way sections, to prevent anyone from using the length of it as an alternative to West End Lane (the wide wiggly north-south road in the middle). His plan seems to turn Priory Road into a perfectly straight 2-way narrow rat run with no side roads and a succession of humped-back bridges. This would be terribly dangerous / Cool, I wanna go / Delete as appropriate. Would the shallow underpasses that he describes each have to have their own pumping stations? Wouldn't that in itself be a major expense? -- 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 |
London's traffic problems solved
"John Rowland" wrote in message ...
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Well, if you believe this site: http://www.func-junc.co.uk/ Some other thoughts...most of the east-west roads in the map area are currently one-way, because they are rather narrow and permanently packed with parked cars on both sides. Your man doesn't address this at all. Priory Road, the narrow straight north-south road about a third from the east (right) edge of the map, is currently divided into alternating northbound-only, southbound-only and two way sections, to prevent anyone from using the length of it as an alternative to West End Lane (the wide wiggly north-south road in the middle). His plan seems to turn Priory Road into a perfectly straight 2-way narrow rat run with no side roads and a succession of humped-back bridges. This would be terribly dangerous / Cool, I wanna go / Delete as appropriate. Would the shallow underpasses that he describes each have to have their own pumping stations? Wouldn't that in itself be a major expense? He says his underpasses would be higher than the level of the sewers, if that is true then drainage without pumping might be possible. If it is not possible then the pumping/drainage costs would be much the same as a conventional underpass, although less digging and building would still make the whole job cheaper. I've not read all the text on his site, let alone the book, but it seems to me that his proposals would only be physically feasible in a completely "new build" town or city - an architects daydream! I don't see how you could ever 'convert' London to this idea. He's right to say that shallow underpasses and low bridges are cheaper than deep/high ones but to say they are "100th of the cost" seems absurd. His plan also appears to show a couple of houses knocked down to make room for the bike-sheds. At London property prices? He also says that his plans depend upon "political certainty that there will be no restrictions" - this could only occur in a totalitarian dictatorship. |
London's traffic problems solved
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: |
London's traffic problems solved
"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 |
London's traffic problems solved
"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 :-) |
London's traffic problems solved
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 |
Cycling (was London's traffic problems solved)
Does it give any indication of how flat the various places are? I have to laugh when politicians openly wonder why cycling is less popular in London than in Amsterdam. There was a study that found that in Britain terrain is the biggest influence on amount of cycling. The figures are rather old, but Jon Parkin, who I quoted in my previous post, was planning to redo the study. I don't know how he's getting on. Hilly places are rainy places here, but apparently it seems to be hills, not rain, that likely makes the difference. This is consistent with Danish findings, that a 50m elevation gain halves cycling. It's also consistent with the rule of thumb that 100' elevation gain is equivalent to an extra mile on the flat, given that the average bike trip is about 2 miles. There are hilly cities where people ride bikes. Bristol in the UK is an example, and San fransisco and Seattle in the USA Jeremy Parker |
London's traffic problems solved
"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 |
London's traffic problems solved
"Jeremy Parker" typed
"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. So sinkish that the 204 bus wouldn't go there, following attacks on staff for several months last year... -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
London's traffic problems solved
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?! Hilarious bit - this guy wants to triple the speed (so three thirties are ninety mph), then put in a load of hump-back bridges! Aviation, anyone? |
London's traffic problems solved
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?! Nobody has commented yet about the idea of sacrificing everybody's back gardens for a system of bike paths and footpaths. In Stevenage the bike bike paths are 12' wide with an 8' pavement on one side, plus some grass on each side to account for "shy distance" needed near obstacles such as trees and houses. Modern bike paths are less generous, which is the reason, one reason anyway, why most cyclists tend to ride in the road instead. Jeremy Parker |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
"Jeremy Parker" wrote in message
... "John Rowland" wrote IMO every sink estate should be opened up to traffic, 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. In 1979 or so I explored the entire bus network of London, and came to the conclusion that Quakers Course in Grahame Park was the No 1 worst place in London. The sort of regeneration you are describing is a much more expensive and disruptive process that involves demolishing all of the large blocks of flats and replacing them with houses and small blocks of 6 flats or so, with lots of new dead end roads. This is being done on the periphery of the GP estate and will presumably spread to the core. I don't know how successful it will be in the long term - a resident of the similar new estate built on the site of the old Lordship Lane Lido in Tottenham told me "it was beautiful when we moved in, but it's heartbreaking to see what some of the residents have done to it." Incidentally, I recently noticed that the regeneration of the Taylors Lane area of Harlesden has involved removing the entire road network of recent years and reinstating the road positions and road names which existed in the 1950s. Smegging nanobots! -- 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 |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
"John Rowland" wrote the
following in: The sort of regeneration you are describing is a much more expensive and disruptive process that involves demolishing all of the large blocks of flats and replacing them with houses and small blocks of 6 flats or so, with lots of new dead end roads. This is being done on the periphery of the GP estate and will presumably spread to the core. I don't know how successful it will be in the long term - a resident of the similar new estate built on the site of the old Lordship Lane Lido in Tottenham told me "it was beautiful when we moved in, but it's heartbreaking to see what some of the residents have done to it." I have a friend who lives in an estate in Bow that is being threatened with the same kind of treatment. His view is that it's stupid because they'll do up the houses and knock down the tower blocks, then move the same people back in. They'll treat it exactly as they treated it before it was done up and it'll soon end up exactly as it always was. -- message by the incredible Robin May. "The British don't like successful people" - said by British failures Who is Abi Titmuss? What is she? Why is she famous? http://robinmay.fotopic.net |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
In article ,
Robin May wrote: "John Rowland" wrote the following in: The sort of regeneration you are describing is a much more expensive and disruptive process that involves demolishing all of the large blocks of flats and replacing them with houses and small blocks of 6 flats or so, with lots of new dead end roads. This is being done on the periphery of the GP estate and will presumably spread to the core. I don't know how successful it will be in the long term - a resident of the similar new estate built on the site of the old Lordship Lane Lido in Tottenham told me "it was beautiful when we moved in, but it's heartbreaking to see what some of the residents have done to it." I have a friend who lives in an estate in Bow that is being threatened with the same kind of treatment. His view is that it's stupid because they'll do up the houses and knock down the tower blocks, then move the same people back in. They'll treat it exactly as they treated it before it was done up and it'll soon end up exactly as it always was. This is not my experience. In my ward there are two council estates built almost opposite each other within a few years in the 1970s, one of which was well designed and the other of which was very badly designed. Both were populated by people from the Westminster City Council housing list. The well-designed estate has a consistently low crime rate and very little vandalism; the badly-designed one has lots of crime and anti-social behaviour. Look also at the sudden change in the Trellick Tower caused by the employment of a full-time concierge. -- http://www.election.demon.co.uk "The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders, and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September 1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62. |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:41:26 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote: In 1979 or so I explored the entire bus network of London, and came to the conclusion that Quakers Course in Grahame Park was the No 1 worst place in London. Having lived in Little Strand for around 12 months in 1988-89 I would tend to agree. Grahame Park gives ********s a bad name. greg -- Felicitations, malefactors! I am endeavoring to misappropriate the formulary for the preparation of affordable comestibles. Who will join me?! |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
This is not my experience. In my ward there are two council estates
built almost opposite each other within a few years in the 1970s, one of which was well designed and the other of which was very badly designed. Both were populated by people from the Westminster City Council housing list. The well-designed estate has a consistently low crime rate and very little vandalism; the badly-designed one has lots of crime and anti-social behaviour. Not being familiar with the location you allude to, could you explain what aspects of each estate you consider to be examples of good and bad design? |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
"Robin May" wrote in message
... "John Rowland" wrote the following in: The sort of regeneration you are describing is a much more expensive and disruptive process that involves demolishing all of the large blocks of flats and replacing them with houses and small blocks of 6 flats or so, with lots of new dead end roads. This is being done on the periphery of the GP estate and will presumably spread to the core. I don't know how successful it will be in the long term - a resident of the similar new estate built on the site of the old Lordship Lane Lido in Tottenham told me "it was beautiful when we moved in, but it's heartbreaking to see what some of the residents have done to it." I have a friend who lives in an estate in Bow that is being threatened with the same kind of treatment. His view is that it's stupid because they'll do up the houses and knock down the tower blocks, then move the same people back in. They'll treat it exactly as they treated it before it was done up and it'll soon end up exactly as it always was. Not necessarily - have you ever seen the North Peckham estate? By all accounts five years ago it was a complete no go area. Now it's fairly neat and well looked after low rise housing. If you give people something to take pride in, they will. Jonn |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
... Not necessarily - have you ever seen the North Peckham estate? By all accounts five years ago it was a complete no go area. Now it's fairly neat and well looked after low rise housing. If you give people something to take pride in, they will. How can you take pride in something that was given to you? -- 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 |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
"John Rowland" wrote in message
... "Jonn Elledge" wrote in message ... Not necessarily - have you ever seen the North Peckham estate? By all accounts five years ago it was a complete no go area. Now it's fairly neat and well looked after low rise housing. If you give people something to take pride in, they will. How can you take pride in something that was given to you? Linguistic paradox notwithstanding, but I stand by my point - that tenants are more likely to look after something that looks okay to start with. I suspect it's party to do with the fact that in low rise housing, everyone has their own patch and there are less communal areas that noone feels a responsibility for. Jonn |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
Pardon my ignorance but just what is a "sink estate"?
Thanks. "John Rowland" wrote in message ... "Jeremy Parker" wrote in message ... "John Rowland" wrote IMO every sink estate should be opened up to traffic, 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. In 1979 or so I explored the entire bus network of London, and came to the conclusion that Quakers Course in Grahame Park was the No 1 worst place in London. The sort of regeneration you are describing is a much more expensive and disruptive process that involves demolishing all of the large blocks of flats and replacing them with houses and small blocks of 6 flats or so, with lots of new dead end roads. This is being done on the periphery of the GP estate and will presumably spread to the core. I don't know how successful it will be in the long term - a resident of the similar new estate built on the site of the old Lordship Lane Lido in Tottenham told me "it was beautiful when we moved in, but it's heartbreaking to see what some of the residents have done to it." Incidentally, I recently noticed that the regeneration of the Taylors Lane area of Harlesden has involved removing the entire road network of recent years and reinstating the road positions and road names which existed in the 1950s. Smegging nanobots! -- 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 |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
In message
ble.rogers.com, at 02:02:27 on Wed, 1 Sep 2004, David Fairthorne remarked: Pardon my ignorance but just what is a "sink estate"? A run-down council estate where very few of the residents have jobs, and where there is a very high proportion of "problem" families. -- Roland Perry |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
"David Fairthorne" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com... Pardon my ignorance but just what is a "sink estate"? "You don't wanna go there!" Some people swim. Some people sink. People who sink end up in the sink estates. -- 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 |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
John Rowland wrote:
"David Fairthorne" wrote: Pardon my ignorance but just what is a "sink estate"? "You don't wanna go there!" Some people swim. Some people sink. People who sink end up in the sink estates. Some of the people who sink _were_ swimming, and may even be still trying; but conditions r just too hostile for them. And no doubt being on a sink estate doesn't help. :-/ ObTransport: the Rotherhithe tunnel -- narrow and windy? #Paul |
London's traffic problems solved
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". 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. 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 :-) Indeed not. -- 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: |
Rotherhithe tunnel [was: Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)]
--- wrote ... ObTransport: the Rotherhithe tunnel -- narrow and windy? Is that "windy" meaning it winds and twists and turns? Or meaning there's a lot of wind blowing through it? :-) |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
Thanks for your explanations of "sink estates".
When I asked about rental council housing (about 1970) I was told that there was a 25 year waiting list and I must already live in the area. So it must have been quite an achievement to qualify. Unfortunately I was unable to wait. 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". David. wrote in message ... John Rowland wrote: "David Fairthorne" wrote: Pardon my ignorance but just what is a "sink estate"? "You don't wanna go there!" Some people swim. Some people sink. People who sink end up in the sink estates. Some of the people who sink _were_ swimming, and may even be still trying; but conditions r just too hostile for them. And no doubt being on a sink estate doesn't help. :-/ ObTransport: the Rotherhithe tunnel -- narrow and windy? #Paul |
Sink estates (was London's traffic problems solved)
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". 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. 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. #Paul |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk