Gridlock in Greater Manchester

[RichardA626]

Exactly: they're being environmentally friendly by not releasing oodles of diesel fumes into the atmosphere.

If a permanent nationwide East Germany-style fuel shortage could somehow be engineered, that'd be even better for the environment.

Rather have the relatively small contribution from trains's diesel fumes than the hugely expensive spread of a rat's nest of wires (and all the additional crap that goes with them such as mile after mile of security fencing, bridges replaced with bulky lumps of concrete etc. - I really can't get my head around people who want this stuff and think the world's a better place for it, haven't you done more than enough damage already?).

Even without electrification there have been plenty of infrastructure upgrades like the ones you mention over the years.

Electrification allows for trains to run without the deadweight of an engine in board & can normally accelerate quicker to keep to a schedule on a service with frequent stops.

[Bryn666]

Exactly: they're being environmentally friendly by not releasing oodles of diesel fumes into the atmosphere.

If a permanent nationwide East Germany-style fuel shortage could somehow be engineered, that'd be even better for the environment.

Rather have the relatively small contribution from trains's diesel fumes than the hugely expensive spread of a rat's nest of wires (and all the additional crap that goes with them such as mile after mile of security fencing, bridges replaced with bulky lumps of concrete etc. - I really can't get my head around people who want this stuff and think the world's a better place for it, haven't you done more than enough damage already?).

Even without electrification there have been plenty of infrastructure upgrades like the ones you mention over the years.

Electrification allows for trains to run without the deadweight of an engine in board & can normally accelerate quicker to keep to a schedule on a service with frequent stops.

I think Helvellyn's primary objection is the aesthetics rather than the concept - by all means electrify railways but do we have to use the ugliest and nastiest ancillary equipment going?

I also agree that replacing some of the attractive Victorian stone bridges with single span concrete decks has been an error; at least try and face them even if with false stonework.

[DB617]

On a normal day I would agree with you. If you have a car and the public transport alternative is not sufficiently convenient, use it. However it's undeniable that commuters in this country have a real bloody mindedness problem. Roadworks is causing gridlock in the city? Jump in your car anyway, drive into the clusterf**k and then complain endlessly about the two hour traffic jam when, if you ever get where you're going. Major accident on a motorway? Drive towards the tailback and join the back of the queue through the B road diversion. And don't get me started on city drivers who jump in their car to go one mile and complain about all the pedestrians and cyclists they have to give way to/overtake.

More people need to engage brain like Bryn does, not just during roadworks but in general particularly in cities. Public transport and services including myself can no longer operate if the city streets are clogged with single - person cars wasting unbelievable amounts of space. Selfish or not, I give last priority to car commuters on the roads every time, save for mitigating factors like abysmal public transport.

[AndyB]

This insistence on car commutes is absolutely one of the worst things about being a city tradesman. I cannot get on a bike or train with my 500kg of payload. However plenty of car commuters could with their briefcase or rucksack. I refuse to accept the fact that I spend an extra hour or more out of the house and take 1 hour to go 20 miles during roadworks because people don't have the willingness or presence of mind to abandon their car privilege for a few weeks. This was particularly enraging when I was forced to join thousands of other drivers commuting into Cardiff when a utility company effectively closed the A48 between Cowbridge, Barry and the city for two months. I swear, sometimes it's easy to convince yourself that some drivers got their license despite having the brain of a slug.

I'm sorry but why should anyone who has a suitable public transport route not use it? My insistence that people should be able to drive freely because they have a driving licence and own a car so that it becomes inconvenient and/or knackering for those who have to drive is nothing more than a selfish argument.

FTFY. This is the fundamental point: there are people who need to drive, and people who do not need to drive. The antisocial selfishness of choosing to drive into congestion and making it worse because you own a car and not because you need to drive is ruinous to the economy, not just for you, not just for those who don't have the luxury of taking public transport, but for the economy as a whole.

[Helvellyn]

Where there is decent public transport it tends to be very busy at rush hour. It's all very well hoping people will stop driving but could public transport absorb enough extra to make much difference? A little, with a lot of spending, perhaps, but the way things are going that'll only be a stopgap. IMO public transport largely serves a slightly different role, for those who for whatever reason don't find a car a practical method.

[Helvellyn]

Even without electrification there have been plenty of infrastructure upgrades like the ones you mention over the years.

Electrification allows for trains to run without the deadweight of an engine in board & can normally accelerate quicker to keep to a schedule on a service with frequent stops.

I know the practical reasons for it (although the schedule is determined by the performance, whatever that happens to be - make them faster and the schedule will change correspondingly, resulting in just as much chance of it going to pot). I frequently encounter responses which assume that because I dislike something I don't understand the reasons for it. This generally isn't true. Incidentally they still have the weight of engines, but they're mostly lighter engines and obviously no fuel tanks are needed.

As Bryn suggested my real problem is that I find the net result of all these practical solutions to be an increasingly unpleasant world to live in - yes, for aesthetic reasons largely, but I put a great deal of importance on the aesthetics of our surroundings for quality of life (and in contradiction to most I don't put a great deal on being able to get around faster - as opposed to without delays, which is significantly different even if the end result in time is the same). It's not the only thing that matters of course - you could go back in time to a time where most of the country was probably aesthetically right up my alley but life would've been far too harsh to want to chose that.

[Bryn666]

This insistence on car commutes is absolutely one of the worst things about being a city tradesman. I cannot get on a bike or train with my 500kg of payload. However plenty of car commuters could with their briefcase or rucksack. I refuse to accept the fact that I spend an extra hour or more out of the house and take 1 hour to go 20 miles during roadworks because people don't have the willingness or presence of mind to abandon their car privilege for a few weeks. This was particularly enraging when I was forced to join thousands of other drivers commuting into Cardiff when a utility company effectively closed the A48 between Cowbridge, Barry and the city for two months. I swear, sometimes it's easy to convince yourself that some drivers got their license despite having the brain of a slug.

I'm sorry but why should anyone who has a suitable public transport route not use it? My insistence that people should be able to drive freely because they have a driving licence and own a car so that it becomes inconvenient and/or knackering for those who have to drive is nothing more than a selfish argument.

FTFY. This is the fundamental point: there are people who need to drive, and people who do not need to drive. The antisocial selfishness of choosing to drive into congestion and making it worse because you own a car and not because you need to drive is ruinous to the economy, not just for you, not just for those who don't have the luxury of taking public transport, but for the economy as a whole.

Reason is lost on "but my riiiiiights" types. With rights come responsibilities.

[M5Lenzar]

With rights come responsibilities.

Correct. And I use my car to fulfil my responsibility to get my son to school on time.

[AndyB]

The responsibility is to consider whether your choice of mode impacts on other people. As I recall, you’ve told us before that there isn’t a direct bus.

Transport systems don’t move vehicles, they move people and goods. When too many people choose to drive, they are responsible for the resulting congestion.

[nowster]

With rights come responsibilities.

Correct. And I use my car to fulfil my responsibility to get my son to school on time.

How old is the kid? How far away is the school? Is there provision of a school bus service near you?

[M5Lenzar]

The responsibility is to consider whether your choice of mode impacts on other people. As I recall, you’ve told us before that there isn’t a direct bus.

Transport systems don’t move vehicles, they move people and goods. When too many people choose to drive, they are responsible for the resulting congestion.

I can't agree with this. Part of the route to my son's school is congested. This is not because there are too many cars. The problem is a series of pedestrian crossings. Obviously I have no issue with crossings, (although Puffins are bad for traffic flow). The problem with these crossings is that they are too close together, and no attempt has been made to synchronise them. Compounded with a traffic light junction a little further along the road, that's four sets of lights that are not talking to each other.

Let me ask you - do you consider it selfish to push a crossing's button then cross anyway? A small holdup, but it adds up!

It's telling that the road is clear on the days where we've been 'lucky'!

[AndyB]

So basically in your view cars aren’t the problem but pedestrians are?

Puffin crossings reset if the person calling them gives up or crosses without waiting. As with all pedestrian crossings, they have to change within a period of time to not be ignored by the pedestrians, balanced with minimum timings for greens for traffic.

Presumably you think those horrible inconsiderate pedestrians who dare to cross roads should be driving like you and making congestion worse?

[M5Lenzar]

Presumably you think those horrible inconsiderate pedestrians who dare to cross roads should be driving like you and making congestion worse?

Try reading my post.

I have no issue with people crossing the road. I have to cross at least one even after parking the car.

What I very much do have an issue with, is people pressing the crossing, then deciding to cross anyway. Contrary to what you're saying, the crossings do still change to red, forcing people to stop for no valid reason. That behaviour absolutely is inconsiderate, not to mention dangerous.

[AndyB]

Neither inconsiderate nor dangerous.

If a pedestrian can cross the road safely without waiting for the Green man, there is a problem with the timing on the crossing, which is the fault of the highway authority, and by implication, if you can cross safely due to the lights not changing until there is no traffic approaching, it is not dangerous.

It’s considerably more rational to cross when safe than your “I hold a driving licence and drive a car therefore I should drive” line from earlier. And you’re still blaming pedestrians for acting safely and lawfully.

Unless by “dangerous” you mean “inconvenient.”

[M5Lenzar]

It’s considerably more rational to cross when safe than your “I hold a driving licence and drive a car therefore I should drive” line from earlier.

No it's not, but you've got the ideological blinkers on.

[Johnathan404]

What I very much do have an issue with, is people pressing the crossing, then deciding to cross anyway. Contrary to what you're saying, the crossings do still change to red, forcing people to stop for no valid reason. That behaviour absolutely is inconsiderate, not to mention dangerous.

So people who cross on a red light are... wrong?

It's hard to take an argument seriously when you're saying that you don't like having to stop at a crossing with no-one there, but you would rather stop at the same crossing for the same amount of time with somebody there, because that'll make your journey smoother. Why do we allow threads to be derailed with such nonsense?

[AndyB]

Put differently, the very last moment a pedestrian crossing should turn to amber is as the last vehicle to be detected reaches the crossing. Any longer than that and the pedestrian can safely cross using the Green Cross Code. Pedestrians should never find it safe to use the Green Cross Code at a mid-block crossing at peak times, the lights should have changed before they reach that point.

I’m afraid I’m not the one wearing the blinkers. I’m not the one who thinks that those who choose to drive should have the same priority as those who can’t use public transport and calls those who think otherwise selfish.

And those who reasonably could use public transport but won’t are the key to any congestion problems, because if they were on the buses and trains (allowing for the obvious statements about capacity and frequency), those without a choice would move a lot faster.

[M5Lenzar]

So people who cross on a red light are... wrong?

It's hard to take an argument seriously when you're saying that you don't like having to stop at a crossing with no-one there, but you would rather stop at the same crossing for the same amount of time with somebody there, because that'll make your journey smoother. Why do we allow threads to be derailed with such nonsense?

Again, I have no issue with the crossings being there. I have no issue with having to wait if someone's crossing.

I have issue with people making a very deliberate decision to push the button then cross anyway.

[Fenlander]

The congestion that makes my combined school run & commute longer is entirely caused by a previously manned level crossing being converted to automatic, a crossing that isn't even on my route. The red time before a train appears is longer now than it was before and that backs traffic up through a crossroads onto my route at a point where the road pinches in from 2 lanes wide to 1 causing a log jam for straight on traffic (which includes me and everyone heading into town) because the right turning traffic can't enter their road as they're effectively in the queue for the crossing. On days when there's no train due to cancelation or works there's no queue here and no resulting knock on queue on the other roads as a result.

[FosseWay]

What I very much do have an issue with, is people pressing the crossing, then deciding to cross anyway. Contrary to what you're saying, the crossings do still change to red, forcing people to stop for no valid reason. That behaviour absolutely is inconsiderate, not to mention dangerous.

So if they pressed the button and waited till it went green for them, it would make the remotest difference to how long you're held at red? I don't see how enforcing a strict never walk on red rule would help your problem - at the moment, many pedestrians won't bother pressing the button at all if they can see at the time they arrive at the crossing that there are no vehicles coming. If you apply the Belarusian "you will get arrested if you cross an empty street" policy,* you will end up with far more waiting at red lights, with or without pedestrians using them.

* I got a b----cking from a police officer for doing precisely this on a deserted street in Minsk. I probably should have noticed that I was right outside the KGB HQ at the time. I played the dumb non-Russian-speaking foreigner card and he couldn't be bothered to take it further.