BREAKING: London is Hit by a Power Outage following a Suspected National Grid Failure - CNN

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,418
True, but if South Africa had anywhere near the car ownership rate of the UK, it would be disastrous, and it would also require congestion charging and better PT.
*cough* or private roads *cough*

Think about it, if inner city roads were privately owned, their owners would benefit from having more moving traffic. Thus they are incentivised to do clever things with traffic.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
41,200
*cough* or private roads *cough*

Think about it, if inner city roads were privately owned, their owners would benefit from having more moving traffic. Thus they are incentivised to do clever things with traffic.
I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but making inner city roads privately owned would do nothing to solve the inherent spatial inefficiency of cars.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,418
I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but making inner city roads privately owned would do nothing to solve the inherent spatial inefficiency of cars.
Private housing is also spatially inefficient. You don't *need* your own kitchen, bathroom or anything like that. Just share it with your fellow countrymen good comrade.
Unsurprisingly you speak the same language as a Soviet Central planner.

Cars are perfectly efficient in what they need to do. The problem is that the roads are not managed by people who are incentivised to get as much traffic through as possible. The government officials who manage road traffic will never loose their jobs because their fckups cause 10 years of traffic jams.

The years of rubbish internet in South Africa was probably justified by some pr!ck in Pretoria telling everyone that fast internet is "inefficient" and that all the people really need is a 64k ISDN line.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,791
Private housing is also spatially inefficient. You don't *need* your own kitchen, bathroom or anything like that. Just share it with your fellow countrymen good comrade.
Unsurprisingly you speak the same language as a Soviet Central planner.

Cars are perfectly efficient in what they need to do. The problem is that the roads are not managed by people who are incentivised to get as much traffic through as possible. The government officials who manage road traffic will never loose their jobs because their fckups cause 10 years of traffic jams.

The years of rubbish internet in South Africa was probably justified by some pr!ck in Pretoria telling everyone that fast internet is "inefficient" and that all the people really need is a 64k ISDN line.
The problem is that roads (in cities and towns) were built with plans based on assumptions made centuries ago.

Once commercial, residential and industrial infrastructure built up around these roads, there is very little room for improvement.

It is near on impossible to expand the road network in London for example.

The most efficient way to reduce congestion in cities is to remove cars. You can never build your way out of congestion. The more lanes you add, just results in more people using that road, as opposed to the slower route they use to take.

I was involved on the Smart Motorway project on the M3 motorway in the UK that runs into London. We widened a 3 lane motorway to 4 lanes, by extending right up to peoples boundary fences. It cost £240 million.

Average journey times over the 20 mile stretch of highway we upgraded reduced for the first 3 months by 3 minutes. The average time now, 2 years later differs by 45 seconds from before we widened it to after we completed it.
 

Pitbull

Verboten
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
61,968
In the UK people do actually rely on public transport, since owning a car in London is completely impractical.
More than half of London owns at least 1 car. People in general don't own cars if they are young and single in London center. Families own cars. They use public transport to get to and from work. However have a vehicle for personal excursions. It's a myth that people in London don't own cars. The reason they don't use it for traveling to work and back is due to congestion tax and parking.

They do own vehicles though :p
 
Last edited:

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,418
The problem is that roads (in cities and towns) were built with plans based on assumptions made centuries ago.

Once commercial, residential and industrial infrastructure built up around these roads, there is very little room for improvement.

It is near on impossible to expand the road network in London for example.

The most efficient way to reduce congestion in cities is to remove cars. You can never build your way out of congestion. The more lanes you add, just results in more people using that road, as opposed to the slower route they use to take.

I was involved on the Smart Motorway project on the M3 motorway in the UK that runs into London. We widened a 3 lane motorway to 4 lanes, by extending right up to peoples boundary fences. It cost £240 million.

Average journey times over the 20 mile stretch of highway we upgraded reduced for the first 3 months by 3 minutes. The average time now, 2 years later differs by 45 seconds from before we widened it to after we completed it.
Ironic that you only look at a century old "solution" to the problem. The solution must be shortages says every single central planner.

Technology and innovation does not exist in transportation networks because they are government dominated, and governments are fundamentally incapable of meeting supply and demand because they do not have more information than a market.

Commercial, residential and industrial infrastructure isn't permanent. Property can easily be bought and sold to meet supply and demand. If the upgrading of a road would require the acquisition of nearby property, then that is what should be done. And this is fantastic for the people who own property next to major highways (who are typically poor) as they will be able to sell their property at a high price because there is demand for it.
Or there could be other solutions like making multi-level highways which can more efficiently use the space.

And there are simpler things that don't require massive building projects.
For example, if each road user has to pay a toll on the road and said road is in demand (thus it would be congested), the logical thing for the owner of said road would be to increase the price of using the road. This either creates funds for improving the road to meet its demand better, or it reduces the demand as people would want to use alternative routes if they think the tolls are too much. And this further incentivises competition to build alternative routes as well.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,791
Ironic that you only look at a century old "solution" to the problem. The solution must be shortages says every single central planner.

Technology and innovation does not exist in transportation networks because they are government dominated, and governments are fundamentally incapable of meeting supply and demand because they do not have more information than a market.

Commercial, residential and industrial infrastructure isn't permanent. Property can easily be bought and sold to meet supply and demand. If the upgrading of a road would require the acquisition of nearby property, then that is what should be done. And this is fantastic for the people who own property next to major highways (who are typically poor) as they will be able to sell their property at a high price because there is demand for it.
Or there could be other solutions like making multi-level highways which can more efficiently use the space.

And there are simpler things that don't require massive building projects.
For example, if each road user has to pay a toll on the road and said road is in demand (thus it would be congested), the logical thing for the owner of said road would be to increase the price of using the road. This either creates funds for improving the road to meet its demand better, or it reduces the demand as people would want to use alternative routes if they think the tolls are too much. And this further incentivises competition to build alternative routes as well.
Technology and innovation don't exist in transportation networks?

That is an ignorant statement.

Highways England for example, runs various pilot programs such as driverless trucks. They are rolling out a "Smart Motorway" project across the UK. Radars that measure the space between cars, then correspondingly alter speed limits. Improved information that is live for motorists.

Improved safety features as well that reduce severity of impacts.

The Netherlands has various technological developments that are industry leading and are being adapted.

Toll roads are used. Yet in London, it is just easier to pass the cost down to the end user. So transport and delivery companies just increase their fees and continue regardless etc.

The GFIP is a classic example of how toll roads can result in significant backlash and does nothing to reduce congestion.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,418
Technology and innovation don't exist in transportation networks?

That is an ignorant statement.

Highways England for example, runs various pilot programs such as driverless trucks.
Which means they haven't done anything. Besides, what does a government road agency know about the business of goods transportation and logistics? If anything that type of thing would get scuttled because some government official would tell everyone that trains are better.

They are rolling out a "Smart Motorway" project across the UK. Radars that measure the space between cars, then correspondingly alter speed limits. Improved information that is live for motorists.
Congratulations they developed speed cameras.


The GFIP is a classic example of how toll roads can result in significant backlash and does nothing to reduce congestion.
Well it can't because no-one else but the government can build alternative routes. I am shocked, truly shocked that a centrally planned transport system failed. :giggle:
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,791
Which means they haven't done anything. Besides, what does a government road agency know about the business of goods transportation and logistics? If anything that type of thing would get scuttled because some government official would tell everyone that trains are better.


Congratulations they developed speed cameras.



Well it can't because no-one else but the government can build alternative routes. I am shocked, truly shocked that a centrally planned transport system failed. :giggle:
Not speed cameras.

It manages congestion at peak times, opens additional lanes that are restricted at other times. The system regulates traffic flowing into the main highway from on ramps and off ramps etc.

The radars are able to detect breakdowns or accidents far quicker than allowing for manual detection through people monitoring cctv cameras. Response times are vastly improved.

Innovations with regards to stormwater management have also been instituted that have allowed what was previously a hard shoulder, to become a live running lane. Similarly, innovations with median concrete barriers have allowed traffic to travel closer to these systems, freeing up more space within existing motorways.

Interconnected IT systems so that what is happening on say the M25, near the M3 and M4 is then fed into those systems and traffic flows etc are then monitored and regulated so the knock on effect from one highway to the next is mitigated.

We trialled a system where information is sent to drivers wirelessly that advise them of which lane to take, or which alternative route to take, based on their position relative to an incident. The last I heard that this is very nearly in the final implementation stage and will be rolled out to trucks on the A2/M2 road.

Innovations in ground stabilisation, piling and earthworks have helped Highways England implement refuge and recovery areas at far greater frequency than before. A broken down vehicle cause absolute gridlock. With more refuge and recovery areas, vehicles are recovered quicker and the effect on congestion is minimised.

Highways England work in partnership with private companies to carry out these pilot systems. We were running the self driving vehicles on nightshifts when the whole highway was shut. Private companies were doing this. Highways England facilitate this to work with the private companies to see what technological infrastructure is needed to work in sync with those organisations. Companies were invited to submit proposals. Highways England then engages private companies like Atkins, Aecom and so on to design systems to facilitate this. They have a £150 Million budget, ringfenced for this purpose.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
41,200
Private housing is also spatially inefficient.
There are variations - single family detached homes on large lots are very inefficient, terraced housing and apartments are way more efficient. You can get a pretty good mix in a city if you want.

Over reliance on single family detached houses with big yards (especially close to city centres) lead to sprawl and congestion, as it's very difficult to implement proper public transit, and you embed car dependence, so people have no option but to drive, and the distances get further and further. I.e. more traffic, more congestion, more carbon emissions, more stress for people, more social isolation etc.

konfab said:
Cars are perfectly efficient in what they need to do.
They're efficient on the micro level, and as long as there aren't too many other people who also need to move around at roughly the same time. Which is not what happens in cities. So at the network level they're pretty bad.

Cars are big, heavy, cumbersome steel boxes that require an enormous amount of space, both in road and storage space, to move around small amounts of people (in relative safety), and in terms of energy required.

Your Randian fantasies about who builds/owns roads don't and can't change that.



The problem is that roads (in cities and towns) were built with plans based on assumptions made centuries ago.

Once commercial, residential and industrial infrastructure built up around these roads, there is very little room for improvement.

It is near on impossible to expand the road network in London for example.

The most efficient way to reduce congestion in cities is to remove cars. You can never build your way out of congestion. The more lanes you add, just results in more people using that road, as opposed to the slower route they use to take.

I was involved on the Smart Motorway project on the M3 motorway in the UK that runs into London. We widened a 3 lane motorway to 4 lanes, by extending right up to peoples boundary fences. It cost £240 million.

Average journey times over the 20 mile stretch of highway we upgraded reduced for the first 3 months by 3 minutes. The average time now, 2 years later differs by 45 seconds from before we widened it to after we completed it.
Yep, spot on. Law of induced demand.

And after you've spent all your money and space on more roads, there's much less available for modes that actually work.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,418
Over reliance on single family detached houses with big yards (especially close to city centres) lead to sprawl and congestion, as it's very difficult to implement proper public transit, and you embed car dependence, so people have no option but to drive, and the distances get further and further. I.e. more traffic, more congestion, more carbon emissions, more stress for people, more social isolation etc.
Large family houses causing social isolation? You are a special one.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but being crammed into a small box with 40 other people with bad BO, coupled with being sneezed on (which is what happened to me when I had the unfortunate experience of London's underground) is exactly why I love my car.

Cars and motorbikes make people feel more like individuals. They are expressions of freedom. There is something very special and gratifying when a person gets the means to their own transportation.

This is partly why I think the modern leftist types want to get rid of them. Too much freedom they say, would cause social isolation.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
41,200
Large family houses causing social isolation? You are a special one.
No, sprawl and congestion. How do you struggle so much to read simple sentences?

konfab said:
Cars and motorbikes make people feel more like individuals. They are expressions of freedom. There is something very special and gratifying when a person gets the means to their own transportation.
At least you admit you have to rely on feelings to justify your position. :)
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,418
At least you admit you have to rely on feelings to justify your position. :)
No, my position comes from living in country where major parts of society are publicly owned and are terrible.

Electricity- rubbish.
Water - rubbish.
Roads - rubbish.
Education - rubbish.
Public transport - rubbish.
Health - rubbish.
Post office - rubbish.
SAA - rubbish.
SABC - rubbish.

The parts of society that are privately owned are decent.
The parts of society that are publicly owned are rubbish.

The freedom that someone feels when driving a car is the same freedom that makes my internet work.
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
3,721
that which is equally owned by everyone is equally neglected by everyone

That said though it's illogical for every adult possible to have a motor car, one per family max with proper public transportation is always best..... when the transport SOE's went poof (some slow some fast) and freight started using public roads congestion increased and the roads (which were never designed for freight or heavy use) deteriorated faster.

In the area we have many abandoned railway tracks, proper rail transport still functioned travel between towns would be cheaper and more frequent. On the other hand in the few places where it still functions the trains get set on fire and the stations are unsafe.... and then there is the smell inside the trucks I have thankfully not had the pleasure of experiencing and only heard of.
 
Last edited:

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
24,920
No, my position comes from living in country where major parts of society are publicly owned and are terrible.

Electricity- rubbish.
Water - rubbish.
Roads - rubbish.
Education - rubbish.
Public transport - rubbish.
Health - rubbish.
Post office - rubbish.
SAA - rubbish.
SABC - rubbish.

The parts of society that are privately owned are decent.
The parts of society that are publicly owned are rubbish.

The freedom that someone feels when driving a car is the same freedom that makes my internet work.
You're finding flaws in the South African implementation, not the system as it's supposed to be.

If I moved to any major city in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands or the UK, I'd probably never get a car for daily commute, it's cheaper and generally faster (or easier due to parking) to take public transport.

South Africa is different, the only "working" one we have that can be considered similar is the MyCiti, which I still take if traveling on my own as it's cheaper than a car and I don't have to find parking in town.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,418
You're finding flaws in the South African implementation, not the system as it's supposed to be.
I hated travelling on public transport in the UK. Especially London.

The system "as it's supposed to be" is garbage.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,791
I hated travelling on public transport in the UK. Especially London.

The system "as it's supposed to be" is garbage.
Find me a system that moves people at the frequency, quantity and efficiency of the London Underground to places all over London, that is superior to this.

You will be the richest person on the planet.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,791
No, my position comes from living in country where major parts of society are publicly owned and are terrible.

Electricity- rubbish.
Water - rubbish.
Roads - rubbish.
Education - rubbish.
Public transport - rubbish.
Health - rubbish.
Post office - rubbish.
SAA - rubbish.
SABC - rubbish.

The parts of society that are privately owned are decent.
The parts of society that are publicly owned are rubbish.

The freedom that someone feels when driving a car is the same freedom that makes my internet work.
Intercity trains in the UK are privately owned, yet they are shockingly inefficient.

Just go to Reddit, British Problems and look at the complaints, following yesterdays announcement that ticket prices will rise by 2.8% next year.

A peak train ticket from Manchester to London is more expensive than a Norwegian Airlines flight from London to New York.
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
3,721
Intercity trains in the UK are privately owned, yet they are shockingly inefficient.

Just go to Reddit, British Problems and look at the complaints, following yesterdays announcement that ticket prices will rise by 2.8% next year.

A peak train ticket from Manchester to London is more expensive than a Norwegian Airlines flight from London to New York.
The problem there is monopoly though isnt it?
 
Top