Can we finally agree that building roads increases congestion?

[Mike Sales]

I thought the purpose of bypasses was to make more housing land available eg Uckfield (East Sussex) and Billingshurst (West Sussex). However in the case of Crawley and Horsham in West Sussex houses are now being built or have been built on other side of of the bypasses, so those roads don't bypass anything.

Urban creep. Not you, Mike, the phenomenon.

Yes, they and the retail sheds and their distribution centres, their drive in take-aways, generate that sort of roadscape which is so unfriendly for pedestrians and cyclists, while the town centre loses the shops easily accessible on foot, by bus.
The loss of shoppers helps doom other town centre retailers.
Probably we all can visualise our local example easily.

[irc]

If it's not true, what else would account for the congestion in the other places you named?
I'm just making the point that that feeling of "Isn't this community so much more pleasant to live in since the bypass was built" really doesn't last for long. The reduction in through motor traffic is soon replaced by increased stopping traffic.

You don't seem to understand. The places I named are not congested. If you define congested by journey delays due to traffic queues.

Most will have more traffic. This is not through traffic but due to the fact that compared to 30 years ago more locals drive cars. This is because of increased prosperity which is a good thing. Unless you believe we would be better off with the living standards of 30 years ago?

Had the towns not been bypassed then increased local traffic combined with through traffic would have choked them. That hasn't happened because of the bypasses. It isn't complicated.

[Mike Sales]

If we pander to the motorist by making driving cheaper, especially cheaper in relation to public transport, and carry on with the predict and provide road building policy we shall be continuing the direction of the last few decades which has not been a noticeable success in reducing congestion.
More importantly we will carry on with increasing pollution, both local and global, and the excessive use of the planet's resources which promises such ecological destruction.
We can consume only so much food for instance, but bigger and faster roads enable more and more consumption.
Where are we going to say "Enough"?

[MikeF]

If it's not true, what else would account for the congestion in the other places you named?
I'm just making the point that that feeling of "Isn't this community so much more pleasant to live in since the bypass was built" really doesn't last for long. The reduction in through motor traffic is soon replaced by increased stopping traffic.

You don't seem to understand. The places I named are not congested. If you define congested by journey delays due to traffic queues.

Most will have more traffic. This is not through traffic but due to the fact that compared to 30 years ago more locals drive cars. This is because of increased prosperity which is a good thing. Unless you believe we would be better off with the living standards of 30 years ago?

Had the towns not been bypassed then increased local traffic combined with through traffic would have choked them. That hasn't happened because of the bypasses. It isn't complicated.

Clearly there's a potential for massive house building in Scotland.

[mjr]

Most will have more traffic. This is not through traffic but due to the fact that compared to 30 years ago more locals drive cars. This is because of increased prosperity which is a good thing. Unless you believe we would be better off with the living standards of 30 years ago?

Had the towns not been bypassed then increased local traffic combined with through traffic would have choked them. That hasn't happened because of the bypasses. It isn't complicated.

And yet town centres are struggling, with the Anytown chain stores flying off to low-density walking/cycling-unfriendly mall sprawls on the edges of towns owned by the likes of UBS and other pension funds who can do deals for 20 or 30 branches at a time, while several types of government grants and schemes now prop up town centres, the latest being the Future High Streets funds. Why is this intervention needed if our towns have increased prosperity from building oversize relief roads while leaving the old roads open as a rat-run?

[mjr]

My Mum has "no access to a car" officially, in that she has not driven for several decades now and has no car, but she still gets driven by family members and occasionally calls a taxi. So she is a car user in reality. Most folk with "no access to a car" have their backsides on car seats from time to time.

Of course, such is the nature of the UK's car-based transport policy that it forces it sometimes. I bet she's not on the front line campaigning to demolish homes to build a new relief road, is she?

[mjr]

If I call a taxi to take me to a railway station that taxi will end up putting more car miles down than my own car which would not have to travel to get to me, so taxi use is fairly inefficient even by car standards.

That depends how you define efficiency! A taxi will probably be one of the most checked and cleanest cars on the road, driven by a driver with an obvious incentive to minimise fuel use. Journeys will be chained together to minimise the time spent carrying only the driver. And the car will take up no storage space at the railway station, which is usually in high demand (and often priced accordingly!)

Moreover, if you would have driven the whole way instead, any distance the taxi did with only the driver probably becomes insignificant compared to car miles saved overall.

But my point is, if we want to restrict car use (and most of us do to varying degrees) we need popular support and understanding for that. The changes must be accepted, or they won't happen. Most people use cars and need some convincing. Even those who don't have their own car but benefit from the use of a taxi or a family member's car. They need to feel that there is good reason behind any changes that cause them inconvenience.

My own preference is for new road where it can take the bulk of traffic away from where people are living, but with the old roads immediately made less hostile with traffic calming, low speed limits and sometimes dead ending.

As long as dead-ending is only "sometimes", all low speed limits are doing is deferring the point where sat navs and autonomous vehicles flood the town with traffic again. Maybe for years, but still only deferred. It needs at least to be restricted for non-residents, but probably even that is not enough, with over two-thirds of some towns' traffic being short internal journeys done despite extensive bus, cycling and walking networks. It's a

Yes, we need to build understanding and support of the need to stop choking our towns (including persuading the townspeople to stop gassing themselves and their neighbours!) but few politicians seem to be buildng this understanding. How do we get them to stop going for the cheap win of being the bypass-bringer and start putting their town on the real sustainable road?

There being so many on a cycling forum willing to defend mad motoring schemes is not exactly encouraging!

[pwa]

What is needed for towns and villages that are to get a bypass is a comprehensive plan to remove through traffic from close proximity to where people are living, whilst making roads within the bypassed community more civilised in a lasting way. Lower speed limits, traffic calming, one way systems to prevent through traffic, and facilities for alternative transport solutions. The new bypass in this scenario could be the enabler for a raft of measures to win back the streets for pedestrians and cyclists. And it could be popular because it offers an easily understood package.

[amaferanga]

The best example of keeping through traffic out to create a liveable town that I'm aware of is Houten in the Netherlands.

It's a wonderfully peaceful place that seems to function perfectly well despite limiting movements of cars and prioritising movement of people and people on bikes.

I'd recommend everyone visit Houten if they want to see how it's possible to live (mostly) without cars.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018 ... ands-2018/

This shows the ring road and the fact that you can't drive across town (the red lines are boundaries between neighbourhoods that can be crossed on bike, but not by car)

[pwa]

The best example of keeping through traffic out to create a liveable town that I'm aware of is Houten in the Netherlands.

It's a wonderfully peaceful place that seems to function perfectly well despite limiting movements of cars and prioritising movement of people and people on bikes.

I'd recommend everyone visit Houten if they want to see how it's possible to live (mostly) without cars.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018 ... ands-2018/

Interesting. If only we were starting with a blank sheet....

[amaferanga]

Well many towns have ring roads or bypasses. So this could be emulated by simply creating zones within the town and removing through traffic. It can be done, but not until British people accept that there's a different (better) way to live where people are much less dependant on cars.

[mjr]

The best example of keeping through traffic out to create a liveable town that I'm aware of is Houten in the Netherlands.

Interesting. If only we were starting with a blank sheet....

That's the Roman town of Houten. Not a blank sheet. What we lack is political will, not a blank sheet.

[amaferanga]

[pwa]

The best example of keeping through traffic out to create a liveable town that I'm aware of is Houten in the Netherlands.

Interesting. If only we were starting with a blank sheet....

That's the Roman town of Houten. Not a blank sheet. What we lack is political will, not a blank sheet.

The bit I was looking at was brand spanking new. But in terms of layout Roman towns were pretty rational with lots of straight lines. Real towns in the UK have mostly developed in an ad hoc fashion and present a wide variety of challenges for anyone wanting to make better sense of the layout. But surely one common aim should be to encourage any motor traffic that there is to exit the residential areas in a direct manner to get to a peripheral arterial road rather than passing through the rest of the built up area. Travelling by car through the built up area should be made less attractive than going around the edge. Barriers to through traffic can of course be permeable on bike or by foot. But the exact details will vary with each settlement because you start with what you already have on the ground.

[irc]

Most will have more traffic. This is not through traffic but due to the fact that compared to 30 years ago more locals drive cars. This is because of increased prosperity which is a good thing. Unless you believe we would be better off with the living standards of 30 years ago?

Had the towns not been bypassed then increased local traffic combined with through traffic would have choked them. That hasn't happened because of the bypasses. It isn't complicated.

And yet town centres are struggling, with the Anytown chain stores flying off to low-density walking/cycling-unfriendly mall sprawls on the edges of towns owned by the likes of UBS and other pension funds who can do deals for 20 or 30 branches at a time, while several types of government grants and schemes now prop up town centres, the latest being the Future High Streets funds. Why is this intervention needed if our towns have increased prosperity from building oversize relief roads while leaving the old roads open as a rat-run?

Our people have increased prosperity. Whether or not town centre shops benefit from it depends on other factors. The towns aren't struggling because of traffic congestion. They are struggling because car owners prefer to shop where parking is available and cheap/free. I can drive into Glasgow easily in 20 minutes off peak but a 2-3 hour trip would cost £9 for parking. So I rarely shop in Glasgow.
Aside from expensive parking town centres are suffering from the rise of online shopping.