Cycling UK Forum

From the Netherlands (where else).

The coming decades, the number of inhabitants in Utrecht will grow and the city will expand mainly within the existing city limits. The Merwedekanaalzone has been designated as one of the most important densification areas in Utrecht. In addition to this densification task, Utrecht aims to be a healthy city and wants to deal with climate change in a smart way. Especially the increase in the amount of rainfall and the warming of the city demand climate-proof solutions. In this context, OTO conducted a design study for a climate adaptive public space in Deelgebied 5 of the Merwedekanaalzone, commissioned by the Province of Utrecht.
Merwedekanaalzone has the potential to set an example for a healthy city with a high urban density. Based on an analysis of the area, a vision is formed for the area to become part of the city fabric. In the future, the area will consist of a permeable street network focused on cyclists and pedestrians. Furthermore, a mix of functions will create urban synergy and great public places will attract people from all over Utrecht.

https://www.otolandscape.nl/nl/work/merwedekanaalzone-climate-proof/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/forward-thinking-utrecht-builds-car-free-district-for-12000-people

A civilised country

as yet, in this country only a few homes use rain water for flushing loos. One unintended consequence of the move towards a ban on plastics seemed to be that all useful things made from plastic such a large water butts, have doubled in price in recent years, where as plastic cups still get used once and thrown away. In the same way that solar panels were initially subsided by FIT payments, should water companies also give more rebate on bills for using waste water and rain water for loo flushing.

By reducing the amount of potable water sent through the water system just to flush a loo, we will also reduce flooding as that rain water falling is delayed from entering the drainage system. It's a win win as once set up it also means less energy wasted on cleaning water to drinking standards before piping it your loo to be wasted on pee.

There are so many small improvements that could be made, and when put together they start to really add up to useful change. I get tired of some people's attitude of why bother if 'the others' are making a much worse impact on the environment. every effort makes a difference and has a energizing effect on others.

All the good stuff follows high density levels which is something considered beneath the Englishman and his castle. With the exception of a few city center apartment complexes, all the housing projects underway around here are the traditional semi with front and rear gardens and at least a single garage. I don't blame the developers, they're a business and this is what sells, but it isn't sustainable and if people only left the prestige behind, for many it probably isn't even desirable.

^ I use rainwater to flush the toilet . . . and the P goes on the compost.

Tapwater now down to under 20ltrs per day - compared to national average of 140ltrs per person per day.

It's a sophisticated rain-water system : = rainwater barrel + stainless steel bucket.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=119502

fullupandslowingdown wrote:as yet, in this country only a few homes use rain water for flushing loos. One unintended consequence of the move towards a ban on plastics seemed to be that all useful things made from plastic such a large water butts, have doubled in price in recent years, where as plastic cups still get used once and thrown away. In the same way that solar panels were initially subsided by FIT payments, should water companies also give more rebate on bills for using waste water and rain water for loo flushing.

By reducing the amount of potable water sent through the water system just to flush a loo, we will also reduce flooding as that rain water falling is delayed from entering the drainage system. It's a win win as once set up it also means less energy wasted on cleaning water to drinking standards before piping it your loo to be wasted on pee.

There are so many small improvements that could be made, and when put together they start to really add up to useful change. I get tired of some people's attitude of why bother if 'the others' are making a much worse impact on the environment. every effort makes a difference and has a energizing effect on others.

What more discount do you want than the reduction in metered usage?

PH wrote:All the good stuff follows high density levels which is something considered beneath the Englishman and his castle. With the exception of a few city center apartment complexes, all the housing projects underway around here are the traditional semi with front and rear gardens and at least a single garage. I don't blame the developers, they're a business and this is what sells, but it isn't sustainable and if people only left the prestige behind, for many it probably isn't even desirable.

If you have kids you want some sort of garden. That is one way in which the traditional high rise flat fails families. But clever architecture can incorporate a small private outdoor space into a flat. It doesn't even have to be at ground floor level. I seem to remember images of a London complex that had a real lush garden feel to it in spite of being high density.

Graham wrote:^ I use rainwater to flush the toilet . . . and the P goes on the compost.

Tapwater now down to under 20ltrs per day - compared to national average of 140ltrs per person per day.

It's a sophisticated rain-water system : = rainwater barrel + stainless steel bucket.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=119502

+1, I must try that. Rinsing water from kitchen or shower could be used too

As an aside I found out recently that canal boats grey water goes straight from boat into the canal .Something I find astonishing to say the least.

reohn2 wrote:As an aside I found out recently that canal boats grey water goes straight from boat into the canal .Something I find astonishing to say the least.

I wonder where they draw their drinking water from...

I was struck by the way they design motor traffic out, and cycling and walking in.
The reverse of the way we do things.
If our government was really trying to be green, not just to sound green, they would insist all new housing should be designed like this, and use the money they propose to spaff on new roads to help.
New, greenfield developments could be built like this, as well as brownfield sites, as Merwede is.

If this is so good, why have they built roads for motors wider than the lanes for cycling?
Why are they ignoring that dutch males, usually 20s to 50s gen are the ones that drive instead of cycle and that by not providing wider lanes that mean you can cycle safely at their normal speed is one of the reasons that put people off cycling.

Narrow lanes that don't allow enough space for all cycling types/all speeds to flow in safety is why segregated is restrictive.

Why is there shared use in the centre (as depicted in the mock up photo) such that that slows down travel speeds and makes interactions with pedestrians more of a problem with increased footfall/velocipedes?
The idea is great but it doesn't go far enough IMO.

Wasn't there a development in Leeds that was supposed to be 100% car free but was basically tossed out?

The utility cyclist wrote:If this is so good, why have they built roads for motors wider than the lanes for cycling?
Why are they ignoring that dutch males, usually 20s to 50s gen are the ones that drive instead of cycle and that by not providing wider lanes that mean you can cycle safely at their normal speed is one of the reasons that put people off cycling.

Narrow lanes that don't allow enough space for all cycling types/all speeds to flow in safety is why segregated is restrictive.

Why is there shared use in the centre (as depicted in the mock up photo) such that that slows down travel speeds and makes interactions with pedestrians more of a problem with increased footfall/velocipedes?
The idea is great but it doesn't go far enough IMO.

Wasn't there a development in Leeds that was supposed to be 100% car free but was basically tossed out?

You are very hard to please! If our planners did as well as this it would be a very big improvement.

reohn2 wrote:As an aside I found out recently that canal boats grey water goes straight from boat into the canal .Something I find astonishing to say the least.

I have been on a canal boat several times and yes, water from the shower and the sink goes straight into the canal. But a lot of boaters are selective about detergents to minimise the problem. In the old days, when canal boats were for transporting goods, the sewage went in the canal too. I suspect the grey water from boats isn't actually that much of an issue. Less than run-off from farms, for example.

Mike Sales wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:If this is so good, why have they built roads for motors wider than the lanes for cycling?
Why are they ignoring that dutch males, usually 20s to 50s gen are the ones that drive instead of cycle and that by not providing wider lanes that mean you can cycle safely at their normal speed is one of the reasons that put people off cycling.

Narrow lanes that don't allow enough space for all cycling types/all speeds to flow in safety is why segregated is restrictive.

Why is there shared use in the centre (as depicted in the mock up photo) such that that slows down travel speeds and makes interactions with pedestrians more of a problem with increased footfall/velocipedes?
The idea is great but it doesn't go far enough IMO.

Wasn't there a development in Leeds that was supposed to be 100% car free but was basically tossed out?

You are very hard to please! If our planners did as well as this it would be a very big improvement.

Why do you think people use cars over cycles, still more driving in Netherlands than cycling, at least a 1/4 of all Dutch commuters have stated they would NEVER cycle (this was in a recent Dutch gov paper), if you do not totally dissuade driving by making it extremely difficult to get to places due to no actual roads then you will always have driving even if that means sitting in the boxes in traffic jams. You still see loads of motorised traffic jams on NL because they still built nice wide smooth motor roads that go directly to where people want to go.
Is this a pipe dream for the UK, sure, but if the so called best cycling country are still making the same errors then what hope is there for the rest of us.
There's a fairly recent suburb to the South of Utrecht that has lovely dual carriageways for motorised traffic and one pitiful cycle lane into Utrecht centre. If you don't aim high as per the Boardman plans for Manchester then you absolutely will not sway people to change!