|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How Nice London Would Look If All Motor Vehicle Traffic Was Underground
Nothing but pedestrians, cyclists and buses on the street. Maybe the
PM would appear in a car but that would be it. New York City represented the 20th Century and is _supposed_ to be scarey looking. Bret Cahill |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How Nice London Would Look If All Motor Vehicle Traffic WasUnderground
Bret Cahill put finger to keyboard:
Nothing but pedestrians, cyclists and buses on the street. Maybe the PM would appear in a car but that would be it. New York City represented the 20th Century and is _supposed_ to be scarey looking. Bret Cahill Not quite sure why buses aren't motor vehicles. And you'd have to allow delivery vehicles up top at some point! Plus all the road maintenance vehicles...oh, hang on... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How Nice London Would Look If All Motor Vehicle Traffic Was Underground
On 27/02/2013 15:33, Scion wrote:
Bret Cahill put finger to keyboard: Nothing but pedestrians, cyclists and buses on the street. Maybe the PM would appear in a car but that would be it. New York City represented the 20th Century and is _supposed_ to be scarey looking. Bret Cahill Not quite sure why buses aren't motor vehicles. And you'd have to allow delivery vehicles up top at some point! Plus all the road maintenance vehicles...oh, hang on... Plus the emergency services, the vehicles moving the 'Boris Bikes', utility companies vehicles, building maintenance vehicles,vehicles that maintain the rail network. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How Nice London Would Look If All Motor Vehicle Traffic Was Underground
Bret Cahill writes:
Nothing but pedestrians, cyclists and buses on the street. Maybe the PM would appear in a car but that would be it. The PM often goes by train as it is quicker and to pretend that `we are all in ``it'' together'. No doubt, he still has the motor car following behind with his lounge shoes :-/. New York City represented the 20th Century and is _supposed_ to be scarey looking. Sir Patrick Abercrombie proposed, inter alia, underground `special' roads for motor cars in London town centre in 1943. When the Whitehall treasury (national finance department) saw how much this would cost, they told the London county council to `foxtrot oscar'. But the cheaper ground level and elevated parts of his proposal outside the town centre were built piecemeal over the next 40-odd years. Indeed, it was only about 5 years ago when TPTB finally conceded that the remainder of his planned `E Ring' (later recycled into `Ringway 4 (Northern)') was not going to be built any time soon and stopped vetoing a toucan crossing on a 6-lane section which _had_ been built in the 1960s. -- Mark |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How Nice London Would Look If All Motor Vehicle Traffic Was Underground
On Feb 27, 3:33*pm, Scion wrote:
Bret Cahill put finger to keyboard: Nothing but pedestrians, cyclists and buses on the street. *Maybe the PM would appear in a car but that would be it. New York City represented the 20th Century and is _supposed_ to be scarey looking. Bret Cahill Not quite sure why buses aren't motor vehicles. Because they're accepted by the PC brigade, and thus suddenly and magically do not cause all of the "safety" and "environmental" and "noise" problems that cars supposedly do. It is funny watching Squashme (and others who have an ideological issue with the freedom cars give people and the fact that only some people can afford them) desperately trying to explain how cars cause [whatever problem they're alleging] while buses somehow don't, despite being the same things, except heavier and more polluting... In any case, the OP underestimates the sheer spite of many of the car- haters here. They wouldn't be happy with the cars merely underground...they want them gone completely. It's the same reason why they want ever increasing motorway restrictions: it's not about "cyclist safety", it's about relentlessly hounding car drivers even when they're affecting no-one. Squashme (for example) doesn't even cycle. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How Nice London Would Look If All Motor Vehicle Traffic Was Underground
On Feb 27, 8:35*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 27/02/2013 15:33, Scion wrote: Bret Cahill put finger to keyboard: Nothing but pedestrians, cyclists and buses on the street. *Maybe the PM would appear in a car but that would be it. New York City represented the 20th Century and is _supposed_ to be scarey looking. Bret Cahill Not quite sure why buses aren't motor vehicles. And you'd have to allow delivery vehicles up top at some point! Plus all the road maintenance vehicles...oh, hang on... Plus the emergency services, the vehicles moving the 'Boris Bikes', utility companies vehicles, building maintenance vehicles,vehicles that maintain the rail network. But they're all "good" vehicles which have zero pollution and which would just go straight through cyclists instead of impacting them if they collided. At least that must be the case, since they are mysteriously never implicated by Squashme when it comes to the safety and environment-related problems that I know he's so concerned about cars causing. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
How Nice London Would Look If All Motor Vehicle Traffic Was Underground
On Mar 20, 7:56*pm, Mark Williams ] wrote:
Bret Cahill writes: Nothing but pedestrians, cyclists and buses on the street. *Maybe the PM would appear in a car but that would be it. The PM often goes by train as it is quicker and to pretend that `we are all in ``it'' together'. *No doubt, he still has the motor car following behind with his lounge shoes :-/. New York City represented the 20th Century and is _supposed_ to be scarey looking. Sir Patrick Abercrombie proposed, inter alia, underground `special' roads for motor cars in London town centre in 1943. But of course those times were more enlightened in regard to the motor car, and so the above was proposed in addition to surface roads as a way of speeding up (!) drivers' journeys, rather than as silly punitive unworkable nonsense. Would have been interesting to see if it worked out. I think it would have...the Tube does after all. Having the roads underground would also head off objections (genuine and otherwise) regarding "eyesores" and maybe pollution as well. Is it still possible...? When the Whitehall treasury (national finance department) saw how much this would cost, they told the London county council to `foxtrot oscar'. *But the cheaper ground level and elevated parts of his proposal outside the town centre were built piecemeal over the next 40-odd years. *Indeed, it was only about 5 years ago when TPTB finally conceded that the remainder of his planned `E Ring' (later recycled into `Ringway 4 (Northern)') was not going to be built any time soon and stopped vetoing a toucan crossing on a 6-lane section which _had_ been built in the 1960s. You may want to check out http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk (and sites they link to) if you haven't already. A shame that the Ringways (or the "underground motorways") weren't completed. Seems much more sensible to accept that people are going to drive into London, treat that as a positive thing (for the economy etc), and thus make genuine and innovative efforts to accommodate them alongside everyone else, by having special roads for long-distance motor traffic, so that *everyone* can live happily (except those lovely people who wish to stop others driving when it doesn't even affect them...) In the end, we are in a democracy, and so if most of us drive, shouldn't our elected representatives be finding clever ways to let us do what we want, rather than just feebly, ineffectually and piously telling us we shouldn't? If they had such a pragmatic and reasoned "live and let live" attitude in the 40s then what a shame we've gone backwards in that regard. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
How Nice London Would Look If All Motor Vehicle Traffic Was Underground
On Mar 20, 8:59*pm, M Wicks wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:33*pm, Scion wrote: Bret Cahill put finger to keyboard: Nothing but pedestrians, cyclists and buses on the street. *Maybe the PM would appear in a car but that would be it. New York City represented the 20th Century and is _supposed_ to be scarey looking. Bret Cahill Not quite sure why buses aren't motor vehicles. Because they're accepted by the PC brigade, and thus suddenly and magically do not cause all of the "safety" and "environmental" and "noise" problems that cars supposedly do. It is funny watching Squashme (and others who have an ideological issue with the freedom cars give people and the fact that only some people can afford them) desperately trying to explain how cars cause [whatever problem they're alleging] while buses somehow don't, despite being the same things, except heavier and more polluting... In any case, the OP underestimates the sheer spite of many of the car- haters here. They wouldn't be happy with the cars merely underground...they want them gone completely. It's the same reason why they want ever increasing motorway restrictions: it's not about "cyclist safety", it's about relentlessly hounding car drivers even when they're affecting no-one. Squashme (for example) doesn't even cycle. Can't deny that. As a centenarian, I don't cycle. In fact, I'm very close to re-cycling. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
How Nice London Would Look If All Motor Vehicle Traffic Was Underground
Squashme writes:
Can't deny that. As a centenarian, I don't cycle. In fact, I'm very close to re-cycling. That can't be true. We can tell you cycle just by the consummate ease with which you wind up the usual suspects ;-). -- Mark |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How Often Do You Start Up Your Motor Vehicle To Lube the Seals? | Bret Cahill[_3_] | UK | 2 | January 5th 12 10:58 PM |
Motor vehicle driver responsibility | bluezfolk | General | 0 | September 4th 08 01:45 PM |
Motor vehicle driver responsibility | Kristian M Zoerhoff | General | 0 | September 4th 08 03:22 AM |
IMBA Epic Requires Motor Vehicle Support! | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 1 | April 18th 07 05:18 AM |
The best way to get back at motor vehicle drivers who think they own the roads. | Ken Marcet | General | 0 | February 21st 05 11:52 AM |