Re: Car free London?
- On Tuesday 2007-10-02 17:11, William T Goodall wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2007, at 22:38, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:In Phoenix the problem is car-enabled urban sprawl combined with relatively
> > At 09:25 AM Tuesday 10/2/2007, Charlie Bell wrote:
> >> On 30/09/2007, at 8:50 PM, Gary Nunn wrote:
> >>> Holy Cow!!
> >>> I make a post and step away for a few weeks and find this topic ran
> >>> rampant
> >>> - and I missed it!
> >> Yep. I'm still wondering what bits of London are 20 mins apart by car
> >> and hours apart by public transport
> > I don't know about London, but most cities I have lived in in the
> > U.S. are like that if the two points are both on the edge of the city
> > proper, as the only bus routes or other public transportation
> > available tends to run more or less radially from the downtown
> > terminal, so to get from one point on the edge of the city (e.g.,
> > your house) to another relatively nearby on the edge of the city
> > (e.g., your place of employment or in some cases the nearest shopping
> > center), rather than going directly there which would be a 20-minute
> > drive you must board the bus which comes closest to your house, ride
> > all the way to the terminal downtown (taking the better part of an
> > hour),
> Sounds like your public transport is designed by people who want to
> discredit public transport.
> Works here Maru
low ridership. The city is big enough that it has subsidiary hubs as well as
bus lines that run along the grid. If you are lucky enough to have a direct
line or have connections on heavily used routes then travel times can be
reasonable. On the other hand you can have an infrequent route with a 1 hour
connection in 110F with a half-mile walk at each end.
That assumes that the bus system gets to your part of the eternal sprawling
What the world needs is something like the Mercedes Smart car that is plug-in
hybrid diesel electric. You combine that with heavy rail and heavy truck
single-level car carriers then you have something. If you had a car carrier
system there would be no freezing, or wet, or sweltering 1/2 mile walk to the
center of a grid rectangle. If you had a form factor for carrier ready cars
you could work or party late even if the public transit system went to sleep
for the night. Just get in your little mini car and go home.
(It would be best if the little cars fit width-wise so you could just roll on
to the heavy-rail carrier and roll off at your destination.)
On 03/10/2007, at 11:07 AM, Dan Minettte wrote:
>> Yep. I'm still wondering what bits of London are 20 mins apart by car
>> and hours apart by public transport (apart from at 3am, at which time
>> most of London is 20 mins by car and unreachable at all by public
> I thought it would be obvious...trips that require several transfers.
Maybe, but I'm having trouble thinking of real-world examples within
inner or outer London, and certainly had no trouble getting from
Hammersmith to Acton or whatever (which is radial...). Took an hour
on the bus instead of 40 mins in the car.
> Anyways, the example is Exmouth Rd. and Appledore Ave to Balmoral and
> Waverly and back on a Sunday afternoon....
I like the way you sneak the "and back" in there, as I was figuring
on two places 20 mins apart, not two place 20 mins there and back,
which obviously changes things drastically by adding extra waiting
time for the turnaround, along with specifying Sunday when traffic is
at its best and public transport on its worst day (and people would
be making different sorts of journey to a weekday).
Also, not giving the proper road names - "Balmoral and Waverly" means
*nothing* to a Brit - and no suburbs makes it way harder than it
needed to for me to look. There are over 30 streets called Balmoral
something inside the M25 London Orbital. There are none called
Waverly something. There are 40-ish called "Waverley" something. In
fact, I can't find where there are two roads intersecting called
those things, and I've looked. I found the junction of "Exmouth and
Appledore" at http://tinyurl.com/3xoy4y but the other one eludes me.
You're also talking "Greater London", which is out beyond "outer
London" as referred to in the original article. Places like Harrow,
Kingston and Ruislip aren't considered London proper (they don't have
This is called "stacking the deck"...
> FWIW, the frequency of the outlying busses was a bit more than I
> would have
It's pretty good in the UK. And, as I pointed out, any limitation on
private transport would lead to an increase in routes and frequency
of public transport.
If you actually point out where you were talking about (try a google
maps pointer) and I'll check your work against the public transport