"Car dependency" - a depressing report

pwa
Posts: 8645
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby pwa » 5 Jan 2019, 9:52pm

basingstoke123 wrote:
brynpoeth wrote:Times changed, how? Surely people had to eat back then, just as much :?

The evidence would suggest that people now eat more? The growing population (at individual level, that is) cannot be due only to less physical activity.

There was a news item a few years back that said a study had established that people in the UK were eating more calories in the early twentieth century than at the end of the century. But instead of sitting at a desk all day they were digging holes etc.

Ian55
Posts: 4
Joined: 23 Dec 2016, 8:57pm

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby Ian55 » 6 Jan 2019, 12:12pm

Pete Owens wrote:Spot on report.

It is actually more depressing than the report makes out. It is not that developers are forcing car orientated development that the planning authorities are unable to resist, but planning policies forcing developers to design that way.

One of the settlements mentioned in the report is Chapleford in Warrington. The developers were genuinely motivated to do something different with a design that focused on people rather than cars. It was to be high density and mixed-use with the estate roads leading into informal plazas surrounded by shops. Minimum parking standards were to be dropped (this was before maximum standards became official goverment guidance) The busier bus routes through the estate were to be single-lane-duals to keep speeds down and prevent overtaking buses with a 20mph zone throughout, and the whole area was to be permeable on foot.

The planners were having none of it and resisted every non-conventional element. The single lane duals became wide dual carriageways (albeit encompassing cycle lanes), the plazas were dropped in favour of roundabouts - the shops had to be zoned by a huge dedicated car park. Individual residential parking spaces were insisted on, the speed limit was not allowed (though it has subsequently been adopted as borough policy). The housing plots have tended to be isolated cul-de-sac style. Mixed development was also out (even when this became national policy the local planners still got round it by creating zones for employment and residences miles apart claiming that it was "mixed use on a wider area scale"!) .. oh and they built a spanking new junction on the M62 to serve the area.

The estate is still recognisably different, but those differences are superficial rather than functional.

In order to make a real change a developer will need the single-minded determination to resist all this pressure from the planners plus the political clout to override them - which is probably why they managed to get away with it at Poundbury.


Despite Warrington BC having a LCWIP policy they still make little or no provision for cyclists. The recently made changes ( I won't use the word improvements) to two roads in Warrington. One got cycle lanes, but the other got no cycle provision. But they did manage to find the space to create car parking bays! On a different note, I live on an estate in Warrington. A lot of the residents use the pavement to park their cars on. No doubt these are the same people who complain about cyclists on pavements!

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 16006
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby Vorpal » 6 Jan 2019, 12:43pm

brynpoeth wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:That used to be the way. They were successful. Times changed and eventually nobody shopped in them. They closed, to open again clustered together in 'destinations'. These have prospered.

Times changed, how? Surely people had to eat back then, just as much :?
I would not care whether my local store was an a or a l or a coop

The biggest reasons are economic, though somewhat based upon false economies.

The village butcher, green grocer, etc. had trouble competing on the basis of price, and were disadvantaged when, for the sake of efficiency, someone could drive 5 miles and do all of their shopping in one location, and drive home again.

In reality, walking from one shop to another and home again might only be a few minutes slower altogether, but when you add to that the price difference of some goods, especially items that can purchased in bulk from a 'superstore', and it looks like driving 5 miles is better for efficiency.

If you add in the cost of petrol and the time to drive and park, it makes less difference.

But then if you can also drop off the dry cleaning, visit the office supply shop and the building goods superstore, drop off a package to post, and have a cafe lunch all in the same location... ?

Oh! you just reinvented the town centre.... with extra parking :cry:
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

reohn2
Posts: 32310
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby reohn2 » 6 Jan 2019, 12:53pm

al_yrpal wrote:In our villages latest housing development of 50 houses which lies on a pretty busy B road our Parish Council insisted on a cycle path to connect with the main village and that this path was extended to an older development and public open space further out. There is also a footpath through adjacent land to a bus stop.
There is also another new development of 70 houses and half the farmers land offered had to be allocated to a new village playing field and pavilion. And, they arent allowed to lay a single brick until this is landscaped and completed. We never had a playing field and the new villagers will be paying for it.

All this waa insisted upon by our fantastic local parish council. With great leadership they are transforming a mundane village into a great place to live. I would be quite happy if our Parish Council made all our laws, ran the Police and collected taxes. Local government that responds to local desires is great.It's one of the reasons I voted to leave the unresponsive EU Superstate, its remote, undemocratic and a total waste of money.

Al

And yet many countries within EU manage to do on a countrywide scale what your enlightened Parish council is doing on a very small scale,I'll put it to you that the EU it isn't some smothering superstate you claim it to be but an enlightened collection of "parish councils" not unlike your own seeking at the heart of it a better way of living for all it's members.
I'm not about to try and change the remit of this thread but you couldn't be more wrong in your assumption with regards to reducing car use in relation to countries that have the right to that autonomy within the EU.
The EU isn't a superstate and from a car use perspective the UK will be worse off out of it and won't have a seat at the table that decides whether the EU becomes a superstate or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

brynpoeth
Posts: 8430
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby brynpoeth » 6 Jan 2019, 6:54pm

Some lucky people including me can walk to the shops, I have two stores nearby :wink:
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras & STOP signs

atlas_shrugged
Posts: 171
Joined: 8 Nov 2016, 7:50pm

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby atlas_shrugged » 15 Jan 2019, 9:27am

Maybe these new developments should be called out for what they are:

Slave Camps.

If two parents are driven out to work (and the figures may vary from the below):
30% goes on the mortgage
30% goes on buying and running two cars
30% goes on taxes

Then very little is left to enjoy life. Any children just get deposited in far away inadequate child-care-dumps. Our replacement level is around 1.7 for the British population. The only conclusion then for the building of all these houses is that it is a Ponzi scheme. Great for the large international corporations. Not so great for the worker bee stuck in traffic.

brynpoeth
Posts: 8430
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: "Car dependency" - a depressing report

Postby brynpoeth » 15 Jan 2019, 10:04am

A motor firm was trying to recruit workers in Brazil
The personnel executive got talking through a translator to a man sitting by his hut by the river

'Come and work in our factory, you can earn $$$, then you can get a flat in town, later you can even own a car and get a cottage in the country and drive there for weekends!'

'No reason I should work for you for years to achieve what I am doing already!'
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras & STOP signs