Thank you for replying but you have misunderstood all the issues.
1.
"an intervention like this, which increases road capacity"
My proposal is not about increasing capacity. It is about improving capacity of lanes that already exist.
It is a waste of resources if we cannot improve their efficiencies in the most economical way.
2. Congestion is wrongly defined. According to your definition, any long journey is a congestion then.
This is false. Congestion should be viewed as how frustrated users are, not how long the journey should take.
People are not frustrated if they know before hand how long a journey will take. Of course, everyone wants instant travel but
practically it is impossible.
3.
"reduce demand to travel"
You view as though travel is something that people want. With this wrong assumption, all research data is useless.
They don't like to travel.
They have to travel.
For example, going to the cinema. If we can have a cinema at home, it will be even better, but it will not be economical.
A) People travel because they want to enjoy a reasonable quality of life.
I notice that a lot of proposals are to reduce the quality of life the people. Any proposal that reduces the quality of life of people will
not succeed.
This is unacceptable. It is like the planned economy of the communists or socialist states.
B) People travel because they can get value out of the travelling. If they arrive faster, carry more things, less labour used.
4. "
increase the space- and energy-efficiency of the transport we do use, and reduce the ecological damage of transport"
A novel approach but they should not break rule 3A and 3B.
My proposal is just to improve efficiency of the transport, that is all.
Your proposal seems to remove road transport altogether.
5.
"re-allocating land from motor vehicles to footways, cycleways, green space (especially trees) and natural drainage system"
Motor vehicles are still the most efficient transport. Efficiency in time and mass. At least 50km/hr, 1000kg/trip.
A cyclist can only travel at 10km/hr safely. 20km/hr is considered racing already. Carrying 100kg luggage is already too dangerous.
You do not take into account all the weather hazards.
I agree that cycleways will remove traffic jams and will be more environmental friendly, but it breaks 3A and 3B. And so unnecessary.
We can improve our efficiencies and allow hybrids to cater for all types of vehicles.
It will be impossible for your proposal to get approval. Imagine disallowing busses and lorries in your vicinity.
Since you cannot get rid of them, why don't you design systems that allow them to co-exist. This is the zeist of my proposal.
6. To allow vehicles of different sizes to co-exist, you need bridges and underpasses.
I propose underpasses for small vehicles or pedestrians, instead of bridges. Bridges are too high for most people, especially elderly.
You can provide escalators like in Hong Kong, but even in such a dense population centre, they cannot afford escalators for all bridges.
7.
"addressing safety, the best solution is to reduce vehicle speed"
Reducing speed reduces compliance with 3A and 3B. You should realise that people are willing
to sacrifice safety for quality of life and economics. Any travelling itself is not safe.
My basic proposal is actually to reduce speed without reducing flow efficiency. Flow efficiency is independent of speed, but road
engineers do not like to reduce free flow speed.
I suspect you propose cycling which has reduced speed in order to increase safety. Safety of vehicles is actually dependent on the
type of vehicles. For bicycles, they are not safe at 20km/hr. For skateboards, they are not even safe at 10km/hr because they mingle with
pedestrians.
My basic proposal is to reduce speed in congested places to 50km/hr. A standard car is perfectly safe at 30km/hr because humans can respond
quickly enough. 50km/hr will require auto pilots. But more efficient auto pilots can handle even faster speeds.
30km/hr for cars is certainly much more efficient than bicycles.
8. "
incentivise people to walk, cycle, use public transport or car-share instead of driving solo"
My proposal is to increase efficiency of car use by any vehicle, even pedestrians. Not to encourage people to drive solo.
Most people also will agree that it is better to use public transport or share cars if they are able.
For example car sharing. Taxis is a good example of car sharing. The fares are so expensive that they cannot afford to do it
on a daily basis. During an emergency, the taxis may not come on time. Because of traffic congestion.
Ride sharing also creates a lot of problems. Safety is still poor although response time is much better.
9. Technology improvements to improve transportation
Your proposals have a lot of weaknesses. Technology is the most critical. Probably they were not prepared by Teletraffic Engineers.
You only mention ride-sharing but https://www.smartertransport.uk/smarter-cambridge-transport-urban-congestion-enquiry/ is even worse, because it does not.
"Reducing Traffic Congestion and Pollution in Urban Areas
Smarter Cambridge Transport
Submission to the UK Government Urban Congestion Inquiry"
The most crucial is the traffic light management. This is a useless attempt. Traffic lights cause traffic jams and congestions.
My proposal removes all traffic lights with little increase in area and of free flow speed.
The key is actually ride-sharing but ride sharing is useless if there is no efficient road traffic system. Solving them by using traffic lights is like flogging
a dead horse.
Ride sharing is a very old solution. But no attempt by your group to solve them by using technology. Uber is a good step, but Lyft may be safer.
You must solve the safety, comfort and efficiency of the ride-sharing systems. If you don't, any attempt to encourage people to cycle will be useless.
Maybe you should introduce women drivers and women only passengers. They are the most vulnerable group of people.
We can wait for self-driving solutions, or try to allow self-driving solutions like Wymo to operate in Cambridge. Since no drivers, they should be safer.
Further ahead, we can improve ride-sharing efficiency by using cars that join together. Flow efficiency is dependent on the distance between cars. The flow
efficiency is highest when they are joined together like trains.
Better still, self-driving cars do not need car parks.
10. My proposal does not need any new technology and will support all your solutions.
My proposal removes all traffic lights by using no-crossing U-turns or slow-speed underpasses, for vehicles, cycles or pedestrians.
What is the point of encouraging people to walk and cycle if they have to risk their lives by crossing roads? Ridiculous.
After making people risk their lives by crossing roads, you now reduce the efficiency of the roads by stopping cars from moving at traffic lights or road crossings.
Cars consume the most energy when stopping and starting. Traffic flow is zero when the cars stop, but the vehicles/hour does not change whether the vehicles
travel at high or low speed.
After reducing traffic flow efficiency by using traffic lights, you need to increase the number of lanes, instead of reducing the number of lanes. You make things
worse.
By removing traffic lights completely, you can improve flow so much that you only need one lane of roads so you can use the other lanes for other things such as pedestrian and cycling paths.
11. Learn from other places
All suggestions that had been forwarded had been tried in various forms all over the world. They all failed. Why still try solutions that had been known to fail?
Why not try something that has never been tried before, like my solution to replace all traffic lights completely?
12. My solution is complete, by why rejected?
I notice that you have made a lot of wrong assumptions and use wrong data. I wonder if you really understand my proposal a little bit.
One thing is certain though, that your rejection is complete. I suggest you reread my proposal. If you have difficulty in understanding,
please refer to Teletraffic Engineers to verify my design proposal.
Comments
Post a Comment