Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
New dawn for mad road schemes? Boris's tunnels....
I'm not sure how many of you saw this piece in the Standard about Boris's idea of a 22 mile ring-road tunnel under London, at a cost of a mere £30 billion (or at least that's what they are saying now).
This seems to be his 'solution' to the predicted increase in congestion over coming decades, and the idea of providing additional orbital capacity, an inner North circular perhaps - see my other post on this.
There's a good chance it will never happen - the price tag is astounding, and could well be an underestimate. e.g. imagine the expense of a tunnel through Highbury & Islington, avoiding tube station, tube tunnels and overground station & track (not to mention the chaos created during building works.
But, whether it ever happens or not, there's quite a few issues. e.g.:
- The idea that it might happen may distract from the need to reduce traffic volumes. This would then create increased demand for new roads in an effort to (more cheaply) reduce congestion (i.e. back to an inner North Circular idea).
- If it did happen, it's worth remembering that it wouldn't just be a phenomenally expensive tunnel, but also lots of access roads dumping cars onto nearby streets (with lots of demolition to make space for these access roads.
- There would be a big increase in traffic volumes on more suburban roads (i.e. around here), due to more rapid travel times in the more central area, more road space etc. This would be unpleasant in itself, and would of course create more demand for new roads.
- If £30 billion is spent on this project, that won't be available to be spent on public transport improvements, or indeed other public services.
One parallel is the 'Big Dig' in Boston, US - a plan to bury a lot of roads in the central area of the city. Apart from being astoundingly over budget, costing $15 billion, it has just displaced the traffic jams to the suburbs, and (of course) it's generated more car journeys, as the Boston Globe reports:
While the Big Dig achieved its goal of freeing up highway traffic downtown, the bottlenecks were only pushed outward, as more drivers jockey for the limited space on the major commuting routes.
Ultimately, many motorists going to and from the suburbs at peak rush hours are spending more time stuck in traffic, not less. The phenomenon is a result of a surge in drivers crowding onto highways - an ironic byproduct of the Big Dig's success in clearing away downtown traffic jams.
Now, it's true that Boris likes to talk about expensive projects far into the future that appeal to his constituency & a gullible media (the estuary airport for example). But he is also quite good at creating expensive projects that do happen (cable car, Boris bus, Cycle hire), so we shouldn't completely rule it out - even possibly as a 'trojan horse' for something cheaper....
Tags for Forum Posts: Boris Johnston, Traffic, congestion
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by LSquared on
-
The whole thing is a ridiculous 20th century idea. There just is not enough space to accommodate the number of people who want to own and drive cars and that's not going to get any better.
The same applies to commercial vehicles: it doesn't matter how reasonable the need is, there just isn't enough space.
In fifty years' time, the idea of privately owned vehicles which are entirely used by one family or business will seem as archaic and unworkable as burning coal in individual London houses seems today.
-
Permalink Reply by phippsofacto on
-
As you righty pointed out, Boston benefited immensely from the Big Dig, but the traffic jams were mostly disbursed to the freeways coming in/going out of the city, rather than the suburbs. If this were to happen in London, it would have to go hand-in-had with a programme of traffic-free areas. Boston used to have 4 lane suspended freeways going right through the city, we have single lane, shared use roads.
I, personally, am on the fence. I think London in so wealthy that you can't price people out of their cars, and can't stop delivery trucks supporting businesses. Playing devil's advocate, why not divert traffic to make the journey for those willing to make it, on trains/tubes/bikes) happier and safer??
-
-
Sure you can price people out of their cars. Doesn't matter how wealthy they are - restrict supply and let them bid against each other. Introduce a London license which you must have to drive in London, restrict the numbers, and let the hedge fund managers and the oligarchs bid each other up to buy them.
They've done it with our houses to very little benefit for the rest of London, so let's be a bit smarter this time :) Use the money raised to pay for clean, fast and convenient shared transport, not just buses and trains but also pseudo-private transport like car clubs and public taxis.
The rest of us (including businesses) can use these, which due to the reduced traffic volume will still be faster than private vehicles are today. And even though we can't afford to run private cars we are happy because not only do we get around faster but we have a lot more money because we aren't paying private motoring costs.
What we can't do, with any amount of money, is create a never ending supply of space, which means limiting private vehicles numbers is going to happen, either explicitly through policy or implicitly through roads becoming so choked people who can avoid it just don't bother driving.
So the only question is do we do it sensibly in a way that preserves transport capacity for those prepared to share, or continue the current war of attrition until the roads are entirely clogged by those who will accept the worst possible conditions as long as it means they can drive themselves and we all - buses, taxis, car clubs, businesses, oligarchs and paupers - grind to a halt at the speed of the lowest common denominator.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_congestion#Brazil)
And speaking of hedge fund managers and oligarchs, once self-drive technology becomes widespread, oligarchs are the only ones who will be able to afford to insure and license a human-controlled car anyway, due to the massive increase in risk and decrease in efficiency the human-controlled car introduces into a predominantly automated system.
Self driven vehicles really are a game changer. There is no point in spending 10 years building infrastructure for today's traffic, it's going to be a completely different paradigm by then.
Basically - combine Google's self-driving car, zipcar's shared model and Amazon's unmanned drone deliveries. Call up exactly what transport you need for passengers, tools, deliveries, whatever. It comes to you, takes you and your stuff where it needs to go (not necessarily together in one vehicle, or even from the same starting point). You get out at your destination and it whizzes off to the next job. When you need transport again, back it comes. It might take a bit longer than walking to the car in your drive, but with less traffic to get through I bet it's still faster to get where you need to be.
-
-
On its way...
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/uber-plans...
In case you are wondering, that faint clanking is the sound of my great big crystal balls knocking together ;)
-
-
Worth noting the 20%+ increases in traffic on Boston's suburban routes, which were already wider then London suburban routes (Green lanes anyone?). Also worth noting that Boston's suburbs are much less densely populated than London's. The potential pent-up car demand in London is much, much higher.
Traffic reduction means expanded public transport. walking & cycling, limiting parking in new developments (residential & commercial), and ensuring that public transport is cheaper than driving.
Unfortunately all of these things aren't doing too well, with a major lack of strategy for new public transport under Boris (Cable car? Boris bus?), plus high increases in bus fares. Contrast with the previous Mayor - congestion charge, massive increase in bus services (& lower fares), oyster card, creation of the overground, tube investment programme, initiating crossrail etc
Is Haringey Council discouraging car use through planning controls I wonder? Though of course Eric Pickles is doing what he can to remove planning controls.
And I haven't even mentioned climate change....
-
-
The Boston Big Dig is indeed an 'iconic' (sorry) example of cost and time overruns. This is much bigger - longer and much more subterranean infrastructure to move or dodge under/over.
Oh, and I see it goes under northern Camden Town: given that Stanley Johnson, Boris' old man, has been jumping up and down about a (much smaller) tunnel under there (and under his house) for the proposed HS2 rail project, things could be fraught at Johnson family gatherings, were it ever to be initiated.
Ideas like this have been around since the 1940s. None have been implemented in more than fragmentary manner.
-
-
It's true that most schemes haven't been built - it's amazing how much of London would have been destroyed if they went ahead. However, the real problem is that when schemes start being talked about it reduces the pressure on new developments to be car-free, or very low car.
The reason this discussion is happening now is that the current Mayor's transport policy is not working, partly because it prioritises the wrong things (e.g. smooth traffic flow).
Even mad schemes can happen in the end - I used to live in Glasgow, where the (Labour) council has spent decades trying to build a motorway box around the city centre, despite big campaigns against it, e.g. see this.
-
-
Subscribers only, the 'see this' link above, but this tells some of the tale . Isn't Glasgow the 'bridges to nowhere' capital of the world?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I saw someone on twitter say that according to TfL's own costings they could build 23,000 miles of segregated cycle lanes for that money.
PS The bikes were one of Ken's plans. Boris Bikes are socialism (government provide you with a bicycle).
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
We'll never sort out traffic planning as long as we see cars as being about transport. Cars are about identity, 'freedom', a little mobile bit of home, a declaration of wealth etc etc. If this is not true, why does anyone choose to drive a huge 4x4 through a city, with maybe one child or wife safely strapped in the back? Why do the adverts show beautiful sunsets reflected under the wheel arches of a gleaming beast gliding along a mountain road?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
