TheBoyConor wrote: » And even if you did do all that, the next problem you will have is speeding. Because cars parked either side of the road actually make for very effective passive traffic calming - they narrow the roadway and cause drivers to have to navigate their way through the street at a lower speed. So you do all that, driveways and double yellows, no parking on street. Next thing cars are flying up and down unimpeded. Then you'll have residents bitching about speeding and wanting traffic calming and ramps and speed display signs. Then they might get ramps, then you have a whole other set of busybodies and cranky residents bitching about the noise of cars hitting the speed ramps and wanting them taken out.
TheBoyConor wrote: » The OPs proposition is absolutely brain dead thinking, and the traffic reason I have outlined above is only one of many reasons that it is a silly idea. It also flies in the face of any sort of sustainable transport policy as it facilitates the private car, and it is an attack on urban biodiversity as you'd be pulling up small green patches everywhere. Also would result in greater run-off entering sewers and, taken together, all these drive ways would exacerbate local flooding to some degree. Very very bad idea and a very much outdated way of thinking. Probably belongs in the 1950s or 60s when car was king.
magicbastarder wrote: » yes, but people living in the suburbs usually have parking provision already.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I live in a suburb, but most people I know don't drive to work, except those with trades. Both my parents worked and there was only ever one car. I really think 2 cars per household is something we should be trying to move away from given how packed the streets are with cars already.
magicbastarder wrote: » your original post stated the driveways were big enough, that it'd just be the walls you'd need to modify. i can't fathom why someone should be given a grant to take out a metre or two of a wall.
Ush1 wrote: » I don't think having lots of cars parked on streets is a good traffic calming measure as people still do speed and have restricted vision because of the cars if a child for instance runs out. Seems an odd objection to be honest that I doubt many would agree with as you're basically saying private cars on public roads is the right place for them? Plenty of estates have public green areas and verges for drainage, wouldn't be an issue there. Likewise, peoples front gardens are private property, it's not really up to them to maintain "biodiversity" and it would be their choice at the end of the day. It's not facilitating the private car, it's facilitating clear roads. As I said previously any fear of induced demand could be restricted by date of when the car was registered to the owner but I personally don't think this would induce demand.
TheBoyConor wrote: » On street parking is a recognised and accepted way of providing passive traffic calming. One means of traffic calming is to restrict forward visibility so that drivers enticed to slow down. The chicaning effect of cars alternately parked on either side provides this effect and also the chicaning requires cars to slow down to negotiate the street. Speed ramps are regarded as a technique of last resort for traffic calming.
TheBoyConor wrote: » What you and OP are suggesting is clear streets, with straight runs with good visibility. I can tell you, from experience and research, that means SPEED. High speeds and lots of it, because there is no barrier to speeding in the type of streetscape you suggest. You advocate turning
TheBoyConor wrote: » Much of the current design guidance for urban streets aims to restrict speeds by providing narrower lanes, restricting forward visibility and tighter junction radii and prioritising pedestrians over vehicles by creating more shared space. You and OP are thinking more along the lines of 50 years ago by providing "runways" for cars, and everything and everyone else must make way for the mighty motor car. Ye are half a century too late with that outlook.
TheBoyConor wrote: » And on drainage - yeah runoff might go into verges and gulleys and whatnot. And then where? It does not just vanish. It goes on into storm or combined sewers and into watercourses. A few driveways would make no difference but paving hundred or thousands of gardens as the OP would suggest would all add up and together, have a not insignificant effect on flooding.
TheBoyConor wrote: » Sure, a private householder might not be obliged or compelled to provide biodiversity but it should be encouraged. To bring in a policy which knowingly will actively damage what little urban biodiversity remains would be a very poor practice.
Dulce Some Groundhog wrote: » How about ideas for reducing the number of cars on our roads? Not increase them?
TheW1zard wrote: » I live on a road where we park up one side of the road. Sometimes people park on the other side of the road making it very hard for people to pass. A fire engine for example would be unable to pass if someone on the other side of the road decides to park outside their house (which they are entitled to do) Im currently getting planning to widen my driveway to park two cars. Even if we only had one I would prefer a visitor parking off the road. I hope i get it! I dont think there should be a grant but I do think cars off the road is better than on.
Ush1 wrote: » The problem is some people could not easily afford to have the work done.
TheBoyConor wrote: » Straighter, clearer roads mean higher speeds. That is guaranteed. Please don't tell me otherwise because i have direct experience. No. If you look at any modern design guide, such as DMURS, or Traffic Management Guidelines by the DoT, you will see that speed ramps are absolutely the bottom of the list for traffic calming. Limiting forward visibility, chicaning and passive measures are the recommended means. Obviously, visibility at junctions and the like is to be maintained to an acceptable safe level. I also told you that there are as many complaints about noise after ramps go in as there are about speed before they go in. Clearer straighter roads with the resultant higher speeds are most certainly less inviting for pedestrians and the risks of accidents goes up, especially in a residential area where children may enter onto the road at any moment. To intentionally provide an environment which facilitates higher speeds in a residential area would be a massive backwards step. I feel that you have an ingrained car-centric view on this.
TheW1zard wrote: » Unfortunate for some I suppose.
Ush1 wrote: » It is but hey, most grants aren't means tested anyway, they are done to encourage a particular behaviour or goal. I have an electric car and got a grant to partially cover the install of the charger. It's not make or break but it may help encourage uptake.
magicbastarder wrote: » for residents parking; i was wrong, it's €50, or €80 for two years. the car has to be insured at an address where you want to park it. residents in permit parking areas can also buy 24 hour general passes for €1.25 each, for the aforementioned 'i've a plumber coming round' scenario.
MJohnston wrote: » There should in no way be a grant for this imo. Governments should be spending on money on public transport that reduces people's need to store a car anywhere. This modification requires planning permission anyway, which should tell you that the government/local authorities don't want it to happen.
Ush1 wrote: » That's exactly what this could do.
caff wrote: » Just get rid of the cars. In Japan you can't purchase a car unless you own a space to park it in.
Dulce Some Groundhog wrote: » This just shows that you haven't thought this through. You are suggesting a grant to improve infrastructure for cars. The city does not need that. It needs the opposite.
Ush1 wrote: » It's improving storage of existing cars.
MJohnston wrote: » Let me see, we want to tear up lawns and flora and replace them with driveways for cars....sure, of course, this is great.
Ush1 wrote: » But it's not subsidising private motoring, it's subsidising the clearing of public roads. As I said, you could introduce a date limit for when the car was purchased if there was a fear of induced demand. I don't think it would cost much regardless compared to many other incentives.
Carawaystick wrote: » If the subsidy is larger than the cost of double yellow lines (or single yellow lines and timeplate sign posts) then its a waste of money. you don't judge it against incentives, you judge it against the cost of alternative methods to achieve the same aim.
