What do we do about cars?

2798 Views 28 Replies 11 Participants Last post by Wormella, Apr 12, 2006

Tony Sebo

Discussion Starter · Apr 9, 2006

Good debate ws started on the Princes Dock thread, re; car access, parking, pedestrianisation, Italian traffic jams etc!

please continue?

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

woody

· #2 · Apr 9, 2006

Car`s R us.............

Tony,are you in turbo drive, was about to start a new thread when i spotted your quick getaway. :runaway:

I will continue, last year I used the park and ride facility in Southport, main road approach from the Costal Rd.so avioding the town centre , parked for £1 and hopped on an FREE Ec o Friendly bus into the centre of the town. Cheap and convieniant, its this type of service that our downtown needs. Bring in the visitors and shoppers as well as the workers.

I do like a certain amount of pedestrian only areas also highway space thats shared equally between "man and machine", access for service vehicles must be maintained but the dominance of the car ( or bus) must be kerbed

:

JUXTAPOL

· #3 · Apr 9, 2006 (Edited)

I'm not against cars, but we have to do something to prevent the worsening traffic congestion, (which hinders economic growth), happening in our city's. Poeple are becoming so lazy these days, that they are double parking, parking in disabled bays, parking as close to the entrance to where they want to be, even when they are in a carpark. Park and ride is one good measure, and should be invested in more.

I dissagree about removing all the double yellows, as this would give a massive boost to car useage into the centre, and would increase pollution, jams, delays, and hinder public transport.

We need to reduce our reliance on Iraq'i oil.

Tony Sebo

Discussion Starter · #4 · Apr 9, 2006

Given that we would be looking at innovative solutions to traffic congestion downtown, the double yellows I was thinking about where more the ones on our high streets and main roads. Ask yourself a basic question as to why on busy shop lined streets 90% stop?

Also, a bit like the Princes thread, a multiple range of associated issues need to be established... where as the growth of PA needs to be about much more than buildings, the traffic issue does ned to account for building, further out as density is one way of having enough people in close enough proximity to transport routes to consider using them. A city made up of an intensively developed downtown with proper urban neighbourhoods, ecological and social considerations, based on enterprise as a prime engine of growth can begin to interplay and provide real opportunities to address other issues.

A much abused term but, taking a 'holistic' approach to any particular issue makes success of any strategy more likely.

So traffic is about more than traffic, housing is about more than housing etc... I'm rambling now.

See less See more

Toadboy

· #5 · Apr 9, 2006

The big issue with cars isn't even cars, it's shopping habits/patterns, employment access and housing.

Until supermarkets go down the pan and high streets come back, people live closer to work/businesses locate conviniently for people rather than road access and local authoritys encourage criticla massing of people and services rather than encourage cul de sac estates then the car will rule.

Oh and public transport needs sorting.

While we rely on cars though we have to accept them and work with them, not against them but not for them...if that makes any sense.

Tony Sebo

Discussion Starter · #6 · Apr 9, 2006

Spot on.. it isn't the car itself, rather the development patterns that have been used for 60 years that have nessecitated the USE of the car for even the most basic of things... stop wrecking cities and the areas you do not demolish provide a basis for the type of living that minimises the need to sue the car. Traffic jams are not the main problem as you say... we will always have them as long as we have cars... where we have gone wrong is the policies developed to turn everything over to moving them around as 'freely' as possible.. thus generating more need to use it... downward spiral.

Pietari

· #7 · Apr 10, 2006 (Edited)

What I don`t agree with is a two acre car park and a mud hut (sorry McDonalds) in the middle. (In fairness I do have snack attacks for their 99p double cheese burgers.....

)

Where do all the cars park in New York?

You go to LA and there is nothing but car parks - talk about hunt the building.

There has to be a better solution and Europe seems to have it.....but not the UK.

Certainly we should have many more `Park and Rides` and `free` transport where possible to the respective centre.....where ever that might be.

Let`s start imagining that some communities just aren`t going to go away (der) and start putting back in some infra structure.

You`d think it was rocket science - it isn`t.

See less See more

Toadboy

· #8 · Apr 10, 2006

New York has these little stacker things in every nook and cranny available, very ingenius.

Tony Sebo

Discussion Starter · #9 · Apr 10, 2006

There is one next door to the Albany in Old Hall St...someone posted a pic of it on this forum, but I can't find the thread now. Great idea.

Toadboy

· #10 · Apr 10, 2006

I was in New York in 1990 and they had all that stuff back then and it looked like it had been around for a while.

I'm amazed it hasn't taken off in a bigger way here.

Tony Sebo

Discussion Starter · #11 · Apr 10, 2006

Especially in Liverpool there has been a perception that we just didn't need to look at these solutions... as there wasn't a problem!

I used to argue this with planners as recently as five years ago that as the city recovers then traffic problems will magnify.... they seem convinced that the city would not recover so we could allow traffic plans to remain in their 80s' torpor!

John-MK

· #12 · Apr 10, 2006

Tony Sebo said:
Good debate ws started on the Princes Dock thread, re; car access, parking, pedestrianisation, Italian traffic jams etc!

please continue?

The problem with cars is that we accommodated them in the 1950/60/70s. We cut away whole channels to get them into cities, demolished building to park them. It was very wrong to have done that. The Italians never cut away their historic cities to accommodate car, so ended up with traffic jams. Then inventive transport schemes follow – park and ride etc. Urban areas have to be on a human scale, with or without cars.

Tony Sebo

Discussion Starter · #13 · Apr 10, 2006

In a nutshell John.

traffic managaement shoud never include massive schemes that strip away city districts and create caverns between those left standing. There are a few exceptions, I think Edge Lane is one, but these roads should be simply wider urban streets (boulevards?) rather than dedicated clearways.

Toadboy

· #14 · Apr 10, 2006

Spot on John, look at the scar that is Islington, it could almost be considered green belt it's that wide.

JUXTAPOL

· #15 · Apr 10, 2006

Tony Sebo said:
There is one next door to the Albany in Old Hall St...someone posted a pic of it on this forum, but I can't find the thread now. Great idea.

This is the one here.....Nice...innovative....groooovy.

Hope they clean up the facade though.

See less See more

Louis1986

· #16 · Apr 10, 2006

yeah it is very innovative, and yeah the building could do with a clean

Wormella

· #17 · Apr 10, 2006

It would be nice if there were better incentives for giving up cars. money of council tax or something, free shoes - that kind of thing.

JUXTAPOL

· #18 · Apr 10, 2006

Wormella said:
It would be nice if there were better incentives for giving up cars. money of council tax or something, free shoes - that kind of thing.

I agree with incentives to give up cars, but they would have to be fool proof, and not need monitoring. Imagine the thousands..erm..millions of people who would claim council tax reductions for not using their car, yet still use their car.

We all know that the best way is to invest heavily in convenient reliable public transport, that has priority over cars. Make it inconvenient to drive cars in the city centre, or to big events like the Grand National, and make, cough-cough, "Trams", and eco-buses seem very convenient.

Martin S

· #19 · Apr 10, 2006

Whilst I have never been a great fan of cars, I am not a great fan of pedestrianisation either. The question is whether you can have freedom of movement for cars without impeding pedestrian movement.

I think that is possible if we open up as many roads as possible to car traffic but stop this traffic more with the use of frequent pedestrian crossings, therefore ensuring that car speeds in the city centre are low.

Pavements should be as wide as possible, so encouraging pedestrian movement and measures such as closely spaced bollards introduced to stop parking on kerbs yet still allowing freedom of movement of pedestrians, which is often restricted by continuous barriers.

On wider streets, laybys should be installed to allow for offloading of vehicles in the morning and evening and car parking during the day.

Pedestrianisation should be restricted to very narrow streets where cars would be intrusive (eg. Mathew Street) or areas where the street is needed for markets, fairs, concerts etc (e.g. Williamson Square).

I would love to see Church and Lord Streets returned to vehicle access as it would permit sensible bus routes and there is sufficient room for wide pavements.

See less See more

woody

· #20 · Apr 10, 2006

Don`t bring `em back.........

Martin S said:
Whilst I have never been a great fan of cars, I am not a great fan of pedestrianisation either. The question is whether you can have freedom of movement for cars without impeding pedestrian movement.

I think that is possible if we open up as many roads as possible to car traffic but stop this traffic more with the use of frequent pedestrian crossings, therefore ensuring that car speeds in the city centre are low.

Pavements should be as wide as possible, so encouraging pedestrian movement and measures such as closely spaced bollards introduced to stop parking on kerbs yet still allowing freedom of movement of pedestrians, which is often restricted by continuous barriers.

On wider streets, laybys should be installed to allow for offloading of vehicles in the morning and evening and car parking during the day.

Pedestrianisation should be restricted to very narrow streets where cars would be intrusive (eg. Mathew Street) or areas where the street is needed for markets, fairs, concerts etc (e.g. Williamson Square).

I would love to see Church and Lord Streets returned to vehicle access as it would permit sensible bus routes and there is sufficient room for wide pavements.

Martin, I gree with MOST of what you say, but I totally disagree with your last paragraph. To have cars and worse still bus`s return to Church /Lord St would be dreadful. If you can recall those far off days when both these roads were ruled by bus`s it required about 6 policewoman to man the main crossing near Littlewoods. It was a nightmare for shoppers, dirty and far from safe.
The city does not have vast acres of pedestrian only areas,although Liverpool One will add more, the overall shopping enviroment will be far safer and cleaner than the bad old days .

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.