How Do You Beat Congestion On UK Roads?

Where do all these thousands of cars go to when they get to the terminus station?

I concur. Having lived in several major cities where Interstate roads service the downtown, the major issue is ramp off-loading and internal distribution of vehicles once the arrive on city streets. Rapid transport to the city has no advantage if the internal roads cant easily handle the masses.

At last some one who knows a thing or two.

I recommend spending a few months in Houston or LA before you embrace the wonders of the automobile.

Your idea was brought within days of fruition in Columbus Ohio only to be squelched at the last moment by the exorbitant expense of insurance. Public transportation could advance technically very well if not for the public liability inflicted by private insurance companies.

The daily risk of public responsiblity to safely transport thousands of people routinely is a risk factor of mechanical failures, wear, o&M, knowledgeable terrorism and obvilious tourism.

One possibility is to slow down the rate of licensing of both drivers and new road vehicles. Despite being an option under government control, in line with carbon emission reduction policies and one that could be done surreptitiously, it would probably be unpopular were it to be discovered. One might even argue that such a move would line the pockets of the shareholders of the UK's now-privatised "public" transport systems...

With the tendency of cars to move currently with much surplus capacity (unoccupied seats), one possibility is to make them narrower: consider a radical design concept where the car is one seat wide instead of two, and seating "pods", for want of a better word, are attached to the main compartment when required; often cars with four or more seats today only carry one person - the driver. With such a concept vehicle becoming commonplace, road lanes can now be made half the width, leading to an increase in vehicle numbers capacity for the existing network with only a modest investment in lane re-marking. Conventional width vehicles, where they survive long term, would occupy two lanes instead of one. Widespread adoption of narrower vehicles would introduce greater flexibility for their occupants to bypass traffic stationary in other lanes. Narrower vehicles would present less wind resistance per occupant than a wide vehicle carrying one occupant, leading to fuel consumption reductions per occupant as compared with wide vehicle use. Call the narrow car a "Nar", perhaps, for discussion purposes?

Another way forward would be to continuously re-engineer road systems so that the number of incidents is reduced or eliminated completely. Incidents are extremely disruptive to those engaged in journeys, leading to delays and congestion, and increased carbon emissions from the fuel spent by the stationary vehicles behind the jam, the emergency vehicles travelling at high speed to and from the incident, and the helicopters used by emergency services and news agencies. What about a carbon penalty to the vehicle user that caused the incident (argaubly there is no such thing as an accident)?

Another way forward is to introduce higher standards to the test where one qualifies for a licence to operate a road vehicle, and more frequent re-tests. With fewer candidates passing each test, the numbers of people using the roads may flatten out or reduce over time. Of course, it presupposes that alternatives to private vehicle use both exist and are practicable.

Pick the bones out of that lot.

In the 1880s it was predicted that with the rise in personal mobility being seen, the roads in New York would be knee-deep in horse droppings by 1920. Along came the infernal combustion road motor vehicle, which avoided that problem. Such a change was a radical technological leap.

Maybe the Nar is the next one.

I hope you're being sarcastic...

Certainly not.

For lack of information of which "Guest" was replying I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood. I was replying to the OP Guest, not the Guest in #7.

I've been on the train systems of England, Denmark, Germany, France, Japan and the US. By far the best systems are the German and Japanese (haven't been on the TGV). Both systems are geared such a way that you need your own car like a hole the head. Get off at the airport, walk downstairs to the train station, rdie the train to your destination (or switch between high speed trains and local trains). Switch to a bus, taxi or walk because your so close to your destination. The US sucks with the esmasculated remnants of a rail system (save a few minor vestiages in some of the larger metropolitan areas (NYC, SFO-SJC, CHI, BOS)). I definitely agrre with one of the other repliers, come drive through the San Francisco, LA, Boston areas at rush hour and you will be begging for a mass transit system. One problem in the US is that for an efficient, safe system we would need to have a completely seperate system for high speed rail travel that doesn't have grade crossings. We used to call Amtrak, Slamtruck because of the number of collisions with trucks at the grade crossings. Another problem is that the US rail system is at capacity because of the high level of freight (container / piggyback) traffic. Europe and Japan do not have anywhere near the volume of freight. The problem I saw in England was the fact that some of the stations were in areas that might not be the most centrally located anymore. But that means adding stations or some other way to shuttle passengers to other transit facilities.

I am NOT smart enough to know that I can't do it!

The Swiss transport system is particularly impressive. One can set one's watch by the network. On my last visit to Zurich, my wife and I needed to catch the first timetabled tram at 05:17 on a Sunday morning, to connect with a train at Zurich Hauptbahnhof to the airport, to connect with our plane home. It was on time. As was the train.

On a previous visit, 200mm of snow fell overnight, the night before flying home. The major roads were all passable by 07:00, the railways ran on time and the airport remained open with no delays to flights.

20mm of snow is often sufficient to bring the UK to a standstill because of heavy dependence on road transport.

What else can be learned?

Culturally and economically, the U K rail system simply is not realistically (dump-able). What powers them, however, should be under vigorous study.

In those (few?) UK communities laid out in (nearly) a grid pattern, alternating one-way streets could offer some relief.

I have never heard of an earthquake occuring in the British Isles, so two-teir roadways might seem logical, but would be very costly.

Taller buildings, with businesses at ground level, and "flats" above, might reduce the need to do as much traveling in personal four-wheel vehicles.

More quiet, fuel-efficient motorcycles, and frequent speed-bumps and stop signs, might be a helpful combination. Similar (motor-tricycles) might be a tolerable compromise, as well.

Separating truck routes from car routes is probably not economically practical.

I think the railway gauge(s) is/are more narrow in Europe than in the U.S., but being able to drive a car, motorcycle, bicycle, onto a train, secure it, and ride to a distant city, within the passenger portion of the train, could possibly become economical at some distances, at some point in the future. (I understand that riders used to be able to similarly ride their motorcycles on the train in California and ride them off in San Diego (I think...), but that option was discontinued for lack of ridership back a few years ago (?))

The rail gauge in the US is the same as in Europe (except for the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) 6 foot and Russia 5 foot, at 4 foot 8 1/2 inch (hooray for the Brits). As far as motorcycles on trains, I've never heard of that, but bicycles on both buses and trains in the US, definitely.

The Peldon earthquake of 1888 caused structural damage over a large part of Colchester, in England. A shock wave from the earthquake bounced off a fault underneath the river Colne, travelled south east and was felt as far away as Belgium. Peldon church spire became twisted as a result of the earthquake and is still twisted. Bradwell Nuclear Power Station is now on a direct path for a similar shockwave, and geologists have suggested that a repeat of Peldon is overdue...

The track gauge (the distance between the running edges of the rails) is the same as that in the USA. The USA loading gauge (how wide and high the vehicles may be) is much larger.

Driving a vehicle onto a train and off again is one of the methods of using the Channel Tunnel between England and France.

Er, it was 1884, not 1888.

http://www.historyhouse.co.uk/articles/earthquake.html

No earth quakes there are at least twenty a year mostly too small to be felt but a couple of years ago and woke me up it felt like an express train had just run under our house. We also get more tornedos than most places but only a few that do damage. Our land is riddled with abandoned mine workings and most people would object to have their homes demolished for another road. the real solution is for a major disaster to wipe out several million people. We are far too crowded. It is the terminus roads that make for the congestion not the motor ways (free ways).

Note to CR4 don't moan at my wanting to get rid of all these people we have 4.5 million surplus.

Envoke the "right" hand rule every other day, that should clear out a few lanes, or increase the speed limit (with higher speeds, roads could handle more cars, er, lorries). Or, as in Texas, design a 10 mile wide transportation corridor.

Ban driving?