leenewham wrote:Q "What can I do to protect my City"
A. Ensure the country shares investment, immigration, jobs, growth, housing, green every, infrastructure etc.
Do this by moving the British Government to the Midlands, link up all the major cities via high street rail links first, encourage businesses to move out of London, which will increase space in London, drive down cost of business rates and the pressure on housing.
Bring in aggressive new pollution rules for new cars, buildings and business in London. Ensure that all new buildings are carbon neutral, heavily insulated and employ solar panels, water run off/soakaways etc. Make some areas shared for bikes and pedestrians with a speed limit AND CLEAR SIGNAGE (many pavements are already shared, but it's not very clear!).
Allowing cities to grow forever is not sustainable. London's skyline is a dirty as I've ever seen in my 22 years here.
I was thinking of something more immediate, and with fewer complicating ramifications
Yes, I was, as if thinking on leenewham's rather grand scale, then we're really talking about the discovery that irreversible composite pollution isn't magically cleared by the wind blowing it away (like not being able to unscramble an egg).
People do things they shouldn't because they appear desirable or cool. The best way to change behaviour is to make the better way more desirable or more convenient.
Travel in London is incredibly expensive and at commuting times, it's horrible. For many people there is no choice.
The simple solution is to make it easer for people work form home, or have local workstations and offices where people can go, log in and work. This will also help local economies, especially at lunchtime. It would save a lot of commuting.
Travel outside of the rush to get to work before 9.00am is a lot nicer and less crowded. Going to London for meetings is much nicer at these times and could spread the load on the system. How can we stagger commutes?
Make travel cheaper, nicer and less people take the car = less pollution.
But Mosy is right in saying that we can't unscramble an egg. We need to think differently. It's not small solutions that will solve the problem.
Some people seem to think London can keep growing. I think it's like putting all our eggs in one basket, and eventually the eggs will break and it will become a mess (any more egg analogies welcome).
leenewham wrote:People do things they shouldn't because they appear desirable or cool. The best way to change behaviour is to make the better way more desirable or more convenient.
Travel in London is incredibly expensive and at commuting times, it's horrible. For many people there is no choice.
The simple solution is to make it easer for people work form home, or have local workstations and offices where people can go, log in and work. This will also help local economies, especially at lunchtime. It would save a lot of commuting.
Travel outside of the rush to get to work before 9.00am is a lot nicer and less crowded. Going to London for meetings is much nicer at these times and could spread the load on the system. How can we stagger commutes?
Make travel cheaper, nicer and less people take the car = less pollution.
But Mosy is right in saying that we can't unscramble an egg. We need to think differently. It's not small solutions that will solve the problem.
Some people seem to think London can keep growing. I think it's like putting all our eggs in one basket, and eventually the eggs will break and it will become a mess (any more egg analogies welcome).
leenewham wrote:Travel in London is incredibly expensive and at commuting times, it's horrible. For many people there is no choice.
And for many there is - faster, more reliable, no cost and pollution free. I did it from Sydenham to Euston Centre for years. 9 miles, 40 minutes. Beat that. Fit and ready for work at 9am in contrast to the Reggie Perrin impersonators rolling in at indeterminate times thereafter. These days more and more are seeing the light and doing the same.
Oh and later I walked my younger daughter to St Barts. Cost & pollution: zero. Its a disaster that we now encourage 'choice' of non-local schools clogging up the roads with parental ferrying back and forth.
stuart wrote:
Oh and later I walked my younger daughter to St Barts. Cost & pollution: zero. Its a disaster that we now encourage 'choice' of non-local schools clogging up the roads with parental ferrying back and forth.
Im losin weight quite quickly now Im back to work down 8 kilos since i started. My taregt is to get to 100 anotehr 25 to go so Im gonna buy a bike next week and try to go to work local jobs anyway on it. An dont worry Stuart Ill be cycling carefully and responsibly and not on the pavements!!!! Im on Eurostar to Frankfurt today fun for two days then two days of work maybe three. My second favourite city in Germany after Berlin.
The problem I see with cycling is the one the M25 was always accused of, i.e. the easier you make it for cars, the more there will be. So for as many that cycle (rather than using one-occupant cars), there'll be an increase in number to make up the difference.
There is a logic to this as well as the obvious one ("It's quicker by car now more are cycling"), which is that people have become accustomed to a slow speed for car journeys, like accepting that in Central London vehicles rarely go at more than 14mph (probably less to almost walking distance for some journeys), yet people would still rather use them (in other words an equilibrium whereby everyone remains in what they deem acceptable).
This thinking will no doubt become more ingrained with the introduction of borough-wide 20mph roads and streets.
----
School runs are a subject of their own really. A lot of walking and two buses and more walking is no way to get to school if laden with homework books and ludicrously heavy sport kit bags (seen the size and weight of a cricket kit bag? = future hunchbacks rivalling Notre Dame's famous one). No way can buses accommodate that amount of luggage anyway as they are. Why not have dedicated school pick-up buses or mini carriers (as private schools do) that stop at whatever pick-up points for the students being collected.
mosy wrote:The problem I see with cycling is the one the M25 was always accused of, i.e. the easier you make it for cars, the more there will be. So for as many that cycle (rather than using one-occupant cars), there'll be an increase in number to make up the difference.
That is a danger but one that can be avoided and is being avoided in central London (unlike Sydenham). Its a bit chicken and egg but the taking of half the road from private vehicles to give to buses, taxis and bikes is part of a shift in the relative attractiveness of the modes and also a shift in modal share. Buses make the most efficient use of roadspace anyway so they are the only real way to maximise road traffic if we measure it in people rather than vehicles. Whereas the absolute volume of cars will be held or will even drop.
It really is a squeeze them out strategy. It worked for me. I drove before I rode. Driving just got slower. Parking became more difficult and ridiculously expensive. Riding began to score on all counts.
IMHO the biggest boost to cycling has been ironically not the provision of cycle infrastructure which is mostly very poor and often downright dangerous but allowing them into bus lanes - well protected (ie enforced) and wide enough. The danger is of bikes edging buses out but this is a problem to look forward to!
