Traffic Evaporation

From the latest issue of the London Cyclist:

Road building programmes in the 20th century have tried to accomodate present levels of motor traffic (capacity) and build in some room for growth and spare capacity (resilience).

Perhaps illogically the argument was that building bigger roads would reduce congestion and make journeys quicker. In our cities this approach has usually had the opposite result.

Bigger roads attracted more traffic, caused more congestion and has made town centres unattractive and little more than big car parks.

Some authorities faced with 'dead' town centres took the brave decision of severely reducing motor traffic capacity in certain areas. This has usually resulted in 'traffic evaporation'. Contrary to logical arguments and fears expressed by residents and businesses, gridlock did not occur; neither has motor traffic been pushed into neighbouring areas. It has 'evaporated'.

The argument that providing adequate space for cyclists at junctions will cause massive congestion can often be ignored. People make sensible choices. If driving is too inconvenient, they take the bus, they walk, or cycle. Or they may travel at other times.

Recent examples of this phenomenon at work are: Times Square (New York), Trafalgar Square, Vauxhall interchange, Wolverhampton, Oxford, Cambridge. They're not all a cycling paradise, but they prive that reducing traffic capacity doesn't necessarily cause gridlock.

More information can be found here http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/streets_people.pdf