Re: Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
- From: "Jeremy Parker" <JeremyParker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:04:39 +0100
"Colin McKenzie" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XKWdnSQqrI5taGDaRVnyvAA@xxxxxxxxxx
Matt B wrote:
I can't see it. All I can see is a normal public road, open to
all modes of traffic. It appears to be snarled-up with,
presumably, non-local traffic held up too. Better, I think, to
segregate the non-local, longer distance, motor traffic onto a
dedicated motorway. That way they will be happier,...
And others will see their happiness, and (over time) adjust their
lives to take advantage of the improved speeds by travelling
further - until congestion is back where it was and traffic volume
is far higher.
We know this happens. The benefits to some individuals aren't
enough to justify the extra oil burnt.
Building or improving a railway would provide similar new journey
opportunities without increasing fuel usage.
If this is Shooters Hill, then the railways, the North Kent lines,
are indeed about to be improved. This being so, people will abandon
their cars and switch to trains, until the lessened car traffic
causes motor vehicle travel times to decease to the new train travel
times
Jeremy Parker
.
- References:
- Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
- From: Tom Crispin
- Re: Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
- From: Matt B
- Re: Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
- From: Tom C
- Re: Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
- From: Matt B
- Re: Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
- From: Nick
- Re: Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
- From: Matt B
- Re: Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
- From: Colin McKenzie
- Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
- Prev by Date: Re: Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
- Next by Date: Re: Over 200,000 could get speed camera refund
- Previous by thread: Re: Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
- Next by thread: Re: Cycle paths or psyclepaths?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
