transport planning favours cars

Interesting article in New Statesman about (among other things) the
rules used for calculating the supposed benefits of building more
roads.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200708090012

The rules, for example, consider that motorists time is more valuable
than cyclists - saving journey time for a motorist is worth 44p per
minute, but a cyclist is only worth 28p per minute. This alone could
explain the idiot schemes that divert and deflect and obstruct
cyclists.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 9 Aug, 18:03, Ian Smith wrote:
The rules, for example, consider that motorists time is more valuable
than cyclists - saving journey time for a motorist is worth 44p per
minute, but a cyclist is only worth 28p per minute.

Interesting, particularly in view of the link to a report somebody
posted a little while ago that showed that cyclists were more educated
and higher earners than the average car user.

Rob

Ian Smith wrote:
Interesting article in New Statesman about (among other things) the
rules used for calculating the supposed benefits of building more
roads.
...
The rules, for example, consider that motorists time is more valuable
than cyclists - saving journey time for a motorist is worth 44p per
minute, but a cyclist is only worth 28p per minute.

Yes. The rules explain why. The numbers are derived from the 1999-2001
National Travel Survey, based on individual incomes, and are averaged by
type, and applied only to journeys made in the course of work (excludes
commute journeys).

Taxi passenger journeys are valued at 74p/min, those of taxi drivers at
16p, and of car passengers at 32p. Sounds logical and reasonable to me.

--
Matt B

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
...

Interesting article in New Statesman about (among other things) the
rules used for calculating the supposed benefits of building more
roads.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200708090012

The rules, for example, consider that motorists time is more valuable
than cyclists - saving journey time for a motorist is worth 44p per
minute, but a cyclist is only worth 28p per minute. This alone could
explain the idiot schemes that divert and deflect and obstruct
cyclists.

I notice it talks about motorists "contributing more to the economy" but a
lot of their money is spent simply running their car! Ditching a car, or
only using it for essential trips instantly gives more "spending money" for
holidays, hobbies and suchlike, so cyclists contribute but just in different
ways.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

On 9 Aug, 10:03, Ian Smith wrote:
Interesting article in New Statesman about (among other things) the
rules used for calculating the supposed benefits of building more roads


I wish they would build a few new roads near where I live north of
Glasgow. By far the most pleasant urban roads to cycle on are ones
where the through traffic is carried by a nearby motorway leaving
other roads for local motorised traffic and cyclists. Examples in
Glasgow being the A8 Paisley Rd and A8 Edinbiurgh Rd. Both former
trunk roads superceded by the M8 motorway and now pleasant to cycle on
due to light traffic.
The same thing applies to rural roads. The old A74 Glasgow
Carlisle Rd replaced by the M74 now carries close to zero traffic
south of Lanark and is great for cycling with easy gradients and good
surfaces. The old A9 where it still exists is another case where the
new road makes cycling pleasant on the old road.
I can't remember the last time any new roads were built within 7
miles of my town and traffic congestion has increased vastly as a
result. Of course my local council has also failed to do anything to
encourage reduced car use such as providing adequate park and ride
parking at train stations or a decent bus service. Granted there is
little they can do about improving the de-regulated bus service.

Iain

Ian Smith wrote:
Interesting article in New Statesman about (among other things) the
rules used for calculating the supposed benefits of building more
roads.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200708090012

The rules, for example, consider that motorists time is more valuable
than cyclists - saving journey time for a motorist is worth 44p per
minute, but a cyclist is only worth 28p per minute. This alone could
explain the idiot schemes that divert and deflect and obstruct
cyclists.

Motorists spend more time working to pay for their cars,
than they do driving them.
Cyclists spend less time working for their bikes that they
do riding them. (Reputedly)

If a car driver is held up for one minute on the road, it
costs him over two minutes of real time. e.g. 20p per
minute on the road, 24p per minute working for the car,
petrol etc.

A cyclist held up by one minute will loose 26p per minute
on the road, and 2p per minute paying for extra wear on
his bike. (These fiscal values are made up on the spot).

"iarocu" wrote in message
ps.com...
On 9 Aug, 10:03, Ian Smith wrote:

I can't remember the last time any new roads were built within 7
miles of my town and traffic congestion has increased vastly as a
result.

No. The traffic congestion has increased vastly because of more traffic.
My experience, and there is much research to confirm it, is that new roads
have a very temporary effect on congestion, and within a short time the
situation is worse than if they had not been built.

"Martin Dann" wrote in message
...


A cyclist held up by one minute will loose 26p per minute on the road, and
2p per minute paying for extra wear on his bike. (These fiscal values are
made up on the spot).

More reliable than DfT figures then!

"burtthebike" writes:


"iarocu" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 9 Aug, 10:03, Ian Smith wrote:

I can't remember the last time any new roads were built within 7
miles of my town and traffic congestion has increased vastly as a
result.

No. The traffic congestion has increased vastly because of more traffic.
My experience, and there is much research to confirm it, is that new roads
have a very temporary effect on congestion, and within a short time the
situation is worse than if they had not been built.

I sort of remember reading once that people base their commuting distance
on time. So if travel time decreases with new roads they will move further
away and commute a longer distance.

Roos

Roos Eisma wrote:

I sort of remember reading once that people base their commuting distance
on time. So if travel time decreases with new roads they will move further
away and commute a longer distance.


Travel homeostasis?

Tony