Before cars became obese it was possible for cars traveling in opposite directions to pass one another safely at the bends. Now you get two "fat" 4x4s meeting each other head-to-head.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Minister for trunk roads
(70 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
Just think about this for a minute. Imagine someone gave you £380,000,000 and asked you to find a transport problem in Scotland that needed sorting. Would you really choose widening a lightly used section of the A82, which also runs through a national park?
Never mind the fact in 20 years cars will be driving themselves and the tight corners are unlikely to be a problem.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@morningsider brilliant idea: will computer driven cars be able to negotiate with each other (in advance) so they don't meet at narrow points.
Could create huge capacity in the existing network.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@Morningsider, here's your answer, from the Hootsmon leader cited above:
"At a cost of up to £380 million, the work is not cheap, but it is a prudent use of public money compared to a £4 billion plan for a tunnel."
So that's how they do it. Propose a series of ridiculously extravagant "solutions" to the problem, then get the one you wanted originally funded as it is "prudent" in comparison!
See also a certain junction on the Edinburgh City Bypass...
It's a good racket these road builders have set up, I'll give them that.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to scotch the idea of a tunnel under Princes St, then?
Posted 7 years ago # -
crowriver - yep:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534981/car-to-car-communication/
Posted 7 years ago # -
It seems good value compared to other projects such as the tram which duplicated the bus service cheaper per mile. A tunnel would have been horrible to cycle in with the smog
Posted 7 years ago # -
"seems good value compared to other projects such as the tram "
The tram carries nearly 15,000 passengers per day on average, sometimes almost double that. A83 carries 4,000 vehicles per day at most. Given that we know most motor vehicle journeys are single occupant, the tram is looking like a "prudent" use of taxpayers' money compared to widening the A83.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Well in summer with buses and holiday travellers may be more than 1 person per car. The tram may move people on average 4 miles or something but people may use this route for longer. The reason think better value is more because the tram provides little more utility than the bus apart from for me with bike on Sunday evenings. I agree with cars getting too wide problem it was a lot easier driving this road in my mgb than in a wide modern car if every one drive old cars would be effectively wider . I think cars should be taxed by width
Posted 7 years ago # -
Well in summer with buses and holiday travellers may be more than 1 person per car.
But surely those are all frivolous unnecessary journeys for beer and holidays, the extra road width will encourage more users and get in the way of locals doing purely utility journeys.
Whilst the tram duplicates the function of the busses it adds a vast amount of capacity which had you had the misfortune to need to use the 22 for work you'd know was (is) desperately needed. Edinburgh really is at peak bus throwing more units at the problem was not the answer.
I'm not defending the catastrophic waste of money on the tram nor the reckless indifference of the planning process. But something did need to be done that wasn't just a rejig of the timetable.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Cars should be taxed by width, height, weight and engine capacity in urban areas anyway. My commute if on main road is past a static stream of very wide, very tall, big engined four tonne Chelsea tractors. All with only one occupant. Drivers should have to pay to drive a single occupant vehicle into Edinburgh.
Fiat 500, Smart cars. And those tiny daihatsu sports cars take up about half the space and only have two seats.
These should be the only cars allowed into Edinburgh, well ok, minis too (if they are actually small).
Posted 7 years ago # -
Cars should be taxed by width, height, weight and engine capacity in urban areas anyway.
But then they already are, big bulky, heavy vehicles with poor aerodynamics such as the current craze for s(udo)uv's, have terrible fuel economy compared to a micro and as everyone knows the bulk of fuel is tax.
IMO more tax isn't the answer. Far more dramatic action might start to change behaviour but otherwise people who can afford to run these large vehicles will simply write off the tax a the cost of comfort or whatever excuse they currently use for not getting the likely far cheaper bus.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Maybe 'don't drive, it just gives money to the Government' might appeal to some...
Posted 7 years ago # -
Well there may be more friverlous journeys yes with a wider road I supose it should have been widened but made an offical secrete so no one would know. A car could be wide but small and with a small engine and pay little tax. A new mini look as wide as an old land cruiser a new festa wider than a old seria cars with small names have been getting wide. The council should have a gate with an old mini shaped gap that they close at peak times and old cars that fit through the old mini shaped gate allowed to drive through wide cars banned at peak time
Posted 7 years ago # -
@Ed1 - I do like the idea of "old mini shaped gates" everywhere
Posted 7 years ago # -
"I do like the idea of "old mini shaped gates" everywhere"
Sounds a bit like the "old BMX" shaped gates/chicanes dotted around the UK's cycle path network. Any bike longer or wider cannot get through...
Posted 7 years ago # -
@ed1 also think th mini-shaped gates is good idea. Imagine if that happened - cue traffic chaos
Posted 7 years ago # -
I also like the silhouette gate idea for pedestrians. If you're wider than you would have been in 1970 you can't use the pavements.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"cue traffic chaos"
Ahem. It's MAYHEM these days, ye ken.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I also like the silhouette gate idea for pedestrians. If you're wider than you would have been in 1970 you can't use the pavements.
I was 2 in 1970. I'm never going to fit through that now.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Approx. £2m a mile to design an upgrade to the trunk road between Huntly and Aberdeen:
https://www.transport.gov.scot/news/multi-million-pound-contract-awarded-for-a96-dualling/
This £50m design contract could easily pay for the construction of a complete Edinburgh cycle superhighway network. Still, Edinburgh might win the next 15 years worth of Community Links + competitions...
Posted 7 years ago # -
If you're wider than you would have been in 1970 you can't use the pavements.
I didn't exist in 1970... oh well I'll just have to cycle everywhere.Posted 7 years ago # -
You are all being very obtuse. The '1970 Gate' is based on what you, now, at your current age but discounted back to 1970 to allow for sedentary lifestyles and overeating.
The one guy in my primary class everyone thought was fat would barely count as normal weight now. We really have changed.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"You are all being very obtuse"
Obtuse is a useful CCE trait.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Oh I see. I have to fit through a gate based on the average 45-year-old woman in 1970.
Mind you, it should be the other way round. If you can't fit through the '1970 Gate' then you are banned from driving and must walk or cycle until you can fit through the Gate.Posted 7 years ago # -
@fimm
An excellent proposal. I concur.
Posted 7 years ago # -
They ran a campaign like this down in England - fronted by Anton Du Beke and Dale Winton. I think the slogan was "Bring on the Wall!".
Posted 7 years ago # -
You are all being very obtuse.
Only the posters who ride "normal" bicycles. The recumbent riders have an acute profile.
Robert
Posted 7 years ago # -
"If you can't fit through the '1970 Gate' then you are banned from driving and must walk or cycle until you can fit through the Gate."
If only!
Of course there is a real societal issue here -
How much is it desirable/acceptable/justifiable to blame individuals for 'wrong' choices?
For decades there has been massive encouragement (with substantial incentives) to buy/use cars, consume more (especially manufactured foods with substantial fat/sugar content).
Now governments are seeing the disadvantages of obesity/congestion and saying 'YOU should change YOUR behaviour - eat less, take the bus'.
Not so much is being done to address (and counter) the forces that (in general) initiated the problems.
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
