Chancellor to outline £25bn road upgrade projects

[A320Driver]

On the other hand, I can park for six hours at the Guildford's Friary Centre car park for the price of one adult tickets on the Park-and-Ride. For Basingstoke's Park-and-Ride, our usual two adults and two children equate to seven hours parking in Festival Place. And in both cases, there is not the faff of waiting for, then carrying stuff onto, a bus.

The Guildford P&R is £1.80 return for adults, whereas the multi-storey car parks are £1.30 per hour. For a lone traveller it is a no-brainer, I suppose once you have more than 2 passengers you would need to be in town for several hours to make it worthwhile.

[Fenlander]

On the other hand, I can park for six hours at the Guildford's Friary Centre car park for the price of one adult tickets on the Park-and-Ride. For Basingstoke's Park-and-Ride, our usual two adults and two children equate to seven hours parking in Festival Place. And in both cases, there is not the faff of waiting for, then carrying stuff onto, a bus.

The Guildford P&R is £1.80 return for adults, whereas the multi-storey car parks are £1.30 per hour. For a lone traveller it is a no-brainer, I suppose once you have more than 2 passengers you would need to be in town for several hours to make it worthwhile.

Is the P&R about vehicles or people? Surely if it's all about getting cars off the road and the occupants onto other forms of transport then there should be a charge per car load not per person? I bet the multi-storey in town doesn't charge more if you bring passengers.

[Micro The Maniac]

The Guildford P&R is £1.80 return for adults, whereas the multi-storey car parks are £1.30 per hour. For a lone traveller it is a no-brainer, I suppose once you have more than 2 passengers you would need to be in town for several hours to make it worthwhile.

Depends which P&R... Spectrum is £2.40 per adult - Bedford Road £2.50 for 3-6 hours

[KeithW]

Is the P&R about vehicles or people? Surely if it's all about getting cars off the road and the occupants onto other forms of transport then there should be a charge per car load not per person? I bet the multi-storey in town doesn't charge more if you bring passengers.

The trouble with that is what tends to happen is people who live nearby just use the free bus service. In Cambridge the Madingley Road Park and Ride is opposite the High Cross site where AVEVA and Schlumberger have their centres. In Cambridge you dont pay to park you just pay the bus fare and up to 3 kids go free with each fare-paying passenger. Park in the City Centre for the day and it can cost you nearly £30.

The other thing is that parking in the City Centre for couple of hours is quite cheap but prices ramp up sharply for long stay

1 Hour £2.80
2 hours £4.80
3 hours £7.40
4 hours £11.70
5 hours £20.40
over 5 hours £28.30

I had 2 colleagues who parked at Madingley road and cycled in from there which cost nothing.

[Debaser]

Yes, exactly. We hear people waffle on about how busy high streets were in the 1970s - but look how much of the pedestrian demand was given the minimal possible room. No wonder footways on, say, Newport St in Bolton were full. That's because more than half of the demand for the road space (shoppers on foot) was confined to a tenth of the space so cars with no intention of stopping could carry on through regardless.

An example.

Briggate in Leeds in 1982. The quintissential traffic sewer running through the heart of the city centre, with crowds of people confined to the margins. So much traffic that crossing signals had to be mounted on a gantry - in the heart of the shopping district! Unimaginable to anyone under 30. Sadly, I can remember it.

Briggate in Leeds in 1999. The council had tentatively removed private cars, but buses, taxis and other motor vehicles were still allowed as through traffic. Pedestrians still tended to keep out of the 'carriageway'.

Briggate in Leeds in 2010s. Pedestrians dominate. Only deliveries allowed at certain times.

Given the choice of these three layouts I can't see anyone in their right minds wanting the 1980s, or indeed the 1990s, back.

[Chris Bertram]

Yes, exactly. We hear people waffle on about how busy high streets were in the 1970s - but look how much of the pedestrian demand was given the minimal possible room. No wonder footways on, say, Newport St in Bolton were full. That's because more than half of the demand for the road space (shoppers on foot) was confined to a tenth of the space so cars with no intention of stopping could carry on through regardless.

An example.

Briggate in Leeds in 1982. The quintissential traffic sewer running through the heart of the city centre, with crowds of people confined to the margins. So much traffic that crossing signals had to be mounted on a gantry - in the heart of the shopping district! Unimaginable to anyone under 30. Sadly, I can remember it.

Briggate in Leeds in 1999. The council had tentatively removed private cars, but buses, taxis and other motor vehicles were still allowed as through traffic. Pedestrians still tended to keep out of the 'carriageway'.

Briggate in Leeds in 2010s. Pedestrians dominate. Only deliveries allowed at certain times.

Given the choice of these three layouts I can't see anyone in their right minds wanting the 1980s, or indeed the 1990s, back.

I remember Briggate - and its southbound counterpart, Vicar Lane - having signals on gantries from the late sixties at least. They weren't new in 1982, that's for certain.

[Bryn666]

Yes, exactly. We hear people waffle on about how busy high streets were in the 1970s - but look how much of the pedestrian demand was given the minimal possible room. No wonder footways on, say, Newport St in Bolton were full. That's because more than half of the demand for the road space (shoppers on foot) was confined to a tenth of the space so cars with no intention of stopping could carry on through regardless.

An example.

Briggate in Leeds in 1982. The quintissential traffic sewer running through the heart of the city centre, with crowds of people confined to the margins. So much traffic that crossing signals had to be mounted on a gantry - in the heart of the shopping district! Unimaginable to anyone under 30. Sadly, I can remember it.

Briggate in Leeds in 1999. The council had tentatively removed private cars, but buses, taxis and other motor vehicles were still allowed as through traffic. Pedestrians still tended to keep out of the 'carriageway'.

Briggate in Leeds in 2010s. Pedestrians dominate. Only deliveries allowed at certain times.

Given the choice of these three layouts I can't see anyone in their right minds wanting the 1980s, or indeed the 1990s, back.

I remember Briggate - and its southbound counterpart, Vicar Lane - having signals on gantries from the late sixties at least. They weren't new in 1982, that's for certain.

Late 1960s is right, it was part of the changes to flow whilst the Inner Ring Road was being built. I have seen photos showing the reverse side of said gantries having giant PEDESTRIANS CROSS HERE signs.

Hardly a sensible idea for a city centre if you want to create friendly shopping spaces; Birmingham made the same mistakes having markets in the middle of roundabouts.

[Chris5156]

An example.

Briggate in Leeds in 1982. The quintissential traffic sewer running through the heart of the city centre, with crowds of people confined to the margins. So much traffic that crossing signals had to be mounted on a gantry - in the heart of the shopping district! Unimaginable to anyone under 30. Sadly, I can remember it.

I remember Briggate - and its southbound counterpart, Vicar Lane - having signals on gantries from the late sixties at least. They weren't new in 1982, that's for certain.

I remember Briggate as a busy one-way street with its horrible battleship grey signal gantries too. They persisted until the early 1990s, I think; my memory is that the road was restricted to buses and taxis around 1993-95, and by the time the 1999 photograph above was taken, the road was fully closed as it is now but not repaved. It stayed in that state - closed but with what evidently used to be a roadway down the middle - until well into the 2000s.

I couldn’t agree more that it was awful when used as a through route and nobody in their right mind would want it changing back. In a town centre “passing trade” comes from people who have got out of their cars, not from people still in them.

The gantries originally had X-Way crossing signals and were later fitted with Pelicans when those came in. The structures date from 1967, if memory serves.

[Truvelo]

Hardly a sensible idea for a city centre if you want to create friendly shopping spaces; Birmingham made the same mistakes having markets in the middle of roundabouts.

At least with Birmingham there was no vehicle/pedestrian conflict as the markets were accessible by subways coming in from all directions. The subways themselves were lined with subterranean shops. The current Birmingham is a step backwards as everything is now at-grade forcing pedestrians to cross busy roads full of buses and taxis.

[Berk]

The reason we have no major moves to encouraging modal shift is because this country thinks cycling is beneath it.

Most congestion in urban areas is people looking for parking and making trips under 3 miles that can often be made by other means.

When this point is made we get ableist drivel about "but what about the disabled".

This may be anecdotal but the acres of empty disabled parking spaces suggest to me that disabled people are not as reliant on cars as the lazy but able bodied amongst us are.

They may also need a driver and a car too. I.e. they use their blue badges when their carer is available.

[Debaser]

[M]y memory is that the road was restricted to buses and taxis around 1993-95, and by the time the 1999 photograph above was taken, the road was fully closed as it is now but not repaved. It stayed in that state - closed but with what evidently used to be a roadway down the middle - until well into the 2000s.

Probably. I remember people resolutely sticking to what had been the footways for a long time after the restriction on private cars (and therefore 90% of the traffic) and despite the presence of planters and latterly seating 'in the road'. I don't think it was really used properly until the change in surfacing which completely removed the footway/carriageway difference.

[Chris5156]

[M]y memory is that the road was restricted to buses and taxis around 1993-95, and by the time the 1999 photograph above was taken, the road was fully closed as it is now but not repaved. It stayed in that state - closed but with what evidently used to be a roadway down the middle - until well into the 2000s.

Probably. I remember people resolutely sticking to what had been the footways for a long time after the restriction on private cars (and therefore 90% of the traffic) and despite the presence of planters and latterly seating 'in the road'. I don't think it was really used properly until the change in surfacing which completely removed the footway/carriageway difference.

Yes, I remember the same. The road was physically closed for years with metal barriers across each end and no chance of motor vehicles coming down the road, but the fact it still looked a bit like a road with footways evidently has a major psychological effect on the way people perceive the space.

[A303Chris]

The reason we have no major moves to encouraging modal shift is because this country thinks cycling is beneath it.

Most congestion in urban areas is people looking for parking and making trips under 3 miles that can often be made by other means.

When this point is made we get ableist drivel about "but what about the disabled".

This may be anecdotal but the acres of empty disabled parking spaces suggest to me that disabled people are not as reliant on cars as the lazy but able bodied amongst us are.

I don't and regularly cycle the 5 miles to the office, still thawing out now from todays ride in at -2c.

However, the apathy towards cyclists is poor, with the infrastructure quite useless. Here in Reading and surrounding areas the provision is shared footway / cycleways which the ICE are now against. I cycle at up to 20 mph, and therefore need to be on the road. If I'm on a shared path I get shouted at by pedestrians for going to fast and if I'm on the road I get shouted at for going to slow. At least TfL have got it right with the super cycle highways

[Vierwielen]

The reason we have no major moves to encouraging modal shift is because this country thinks cycling is beneath it.

Most congestion in urban areas is people looking for parking and making trips under 3 miles that can often be made by other means.

When this point is made we get ableist drivel about "but what about the disabled".

This may be anecdotal but the acres of empty disabled parking spaces suggest to me that disabled people are not as reliant on cars as the lazy but able bodied amongst us are.

I don't and regularly cycle the 5 miles to the office, still thawing out now from todays ride in at -2c.

However, the apathy towards cyclists is poor, with the infrastructure quite useless. Here in Reading and surrounding areas the provision is shared footway / cycleways which the ICE are now against. I cycle at up to 20 mph, and therefore need to be on the road. If I'm on a shared path I get shouted at by pedestrians for going to fast and if I'm on the road I get shouted at for going to slow. At least TfL have got it right with the super cycle highways

Having spent some time in the Netherlands (but not enough to actually buy my own bike), I have seen what proper cycle tracks are like. For those who have never been to the Netherlands, see here for a typical junction in suburbia adjacent to a busy city (Eindhoven). Not only that, but in the more densely populated areas, some people have converted the ground floor of their houses into bicycle parking garages for local residents.

[Debaser]

Here in Reading and surrounding areas the provision is shared footway / cycleways which the ICE are now against.

Is this official ICE policy, and if so is it stated anywhere?

[Scratchwood]

The reason we have no major moves to encouraging modal shift is because this country thinks cycling is beneath it.

Most congestion in urban areas is people looking for parking and making trips under 3 miles that can often be made by other means.

When this point is made we get ableist drivel about "but what about the disabled".

This may be anecdotal but the acres of empty disabled parking spaces suggest to me that disabled people are not as reliant on cars as the lazy but able bodied amongst us are.

I don't and regularly cycle the 5 miles to the office, still thawing out now from todays ride in at -2c.

However, the apathy towards cyclists is poor, with the infrastructure quite useless. Here in Reading and surrounding areas the provision is shared footway / cycleways which the ICE are now against. I cycle at up to 20 mph, and therefore need to be on the road. If I'm on a shared path I get shouted at by pedestrians for going to fast and if I'm on the road I get shouted at for going to slow. At least TfL have got it right with the super cycle highways

Having spent some time in the Netherlands (but not enough to actually buy my own bike), I have seen what proper cycle tracks are like. For those who have never been to the Netherlands, see here for a typical junction in suburbia adjacent to a busy city (Eindhoven). Not only that, but in the more densely populated areas, some people have converted the ground floor of their houses into bicycle parking garages for local residents.

But then some of the cycle lanes near that junction don't look much different from what we have, when you have older, narrow roads here

[Debaser]

But then some of the cycle lanes near that junction don't look much different from what we have, when you have older, narrow roads here

Even the most ardent campaigners accept streets with, for example, vehicle speeds at or below 20mph and with flows less than 2000 motor vehicles per day don't need the full on segregation treatment. The example clearly has a 30 kph limit and is a residential access road so presumably relatively low flows.

Not exactly the UK where some engineers stick cycle symbols in the hardstrip of dual carriageway trunk roads. Murderous halfwits.

[A303Chris]

Here in Reading and surrounding areas the provision is shared footway / cycleways which the ICE are now against.

Is this official ICE policy, and if so is it stated anywhere?

Here it is ICE Cycle Recommendations

Which states "Cycle traffic should, therefore, never be mixed with pedestrians. Exemptions to this basic rule might be at destinations, for example, central squares, or rural routes where pedestrian volumes are very low."

[jackal]

This is a very sensible rule. In too many places 'active travel' provisions actually amount to a relaxation of the usual prohibition of cycling on pavements, and therefore actually deter the dominant active travel mode (walking).

[Debaser]

Here in Reading and surrounding areas the provision is shared footway / cycleways which the ICE are now against.

Is this official ICE policy, and if so is it stated anywhere?

Here it is ICE Cycle Recommendations

Which states "Cycle traffic should, therefore, never be mixed with pedestrians. Exemptions to this basic rule might be at destinations, for example, central squares, or rural routes where pedestrian volumes are very low."

Thank you. Very positive approach. Unfortunately not enough engineers are going to see this statement unless ICE shout it from the rooftops. (I didn't see it and I've got the book)!