Well, if you believe this site:
http://www.func-junc.co.uk/

Car ownership will be 100% (not sure about letting all those toddlers
loose in cars) and road capacity will be 3x higher.

The one problem I can't quite work out is - if all roads go over and
under each other, how on earth do you turn left or right?!

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:

Well, if you believe this site:
http://www.func-junc.co.uk/

The one problem I can't quite work out is - if all roads go over and
under each other, how on earth do you turn left or right?!

That's not the only one. I'm sure the author never tried to bike on a
2 metre wide, bi-directional bike path, for example ...

I'm also sure he never saw the prices privately owned car parks charge
e.g. in Californian cities ...

And I'm also sure he thinks he's never going to move, never going to
need something delivered or repaired, and his waste is collected by
little green men from Mars - or why did he design roads completely
useless to anything higher than a car?

.... Martin

Martin Bienwald wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

Well, if you believe this site:
http://www.func-junc.co.uk/

The one problem I can't quite work out is - if all roads go over
and under each other, how on earth do you turn left or right?!

That's not the only one. I'm sure the author never tried to bike on
a 2 metre wide, bi-directional bike path, for example ...

I'm also sure he never saw the prices privately owned car parks
charge e.g. in Californian cities ...

And I'm also sure he thinks he's never going to move, never going to
need something delivered or repaired, and his waste is collected by
little green men from Mars - or why did he design roads completely
useless to anything higher than a car?

You need to understand that the author (in his own words) "is an idiot
.... This has not stopped him from becoming an architect ... He has
designed telephone exchanges and the top security prison in England."
Obviously well qualified for radical redesign of the transport
infrastructure. He should get together with that other "architect" who
planned to deface London's streets with monorails.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Martin Bienwald wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

Well, if you believe this site:
http://www.func-junc.co.uk/


I'm also sure he thinks he's never going to move,
never going to need something delivered or repaired,
and his waste is collected by little green men from
Mars - or why did he design roads completely
useless to anything higher than a car?

....such as ambulances and fire engines.

You need to understand that the author (in his own words) "is an idiot"

But his wife thinks he's a genius, and that's what counts.

Incidentally, the area of West Hampstead shown in the map has been
exceptionally quiet whenever I've been through there, with the exceptions of
West End Lane and Kilburn High Road.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Well, if you believe this site:
http://www.func-junc.co.uk/

Car ownership will be 100% (not sure about letting all those toddlers
loose in cars) and road capacity will be 3x higher.

The one problem I can't quite work out is - if all roads go over and
under each other, how on earth do you turn left or right?!

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

If you look at the "Lager Map" (sic) you will see that not all juncs are
func juncs.

Apparently you can make a turn at a T junction.

David Fairthorne wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Well, if you believe this site:
http://www.func-junc.co.uk/

Car ownership will be 100% (not sure about letting all those toddlers
loose in cars) and road capacity will be 3x higher.

The one problem I can't quite work out is - if all roads go over and
under each other, how on earth do you turn left or right?!

If you look at the "Lager Map" (sic) you will see that not all juncs are
func juncs.

Apparently you can make a turn at a T junction.


People get ****ed off with one-way systems... imagine what it'll be like
when you can only turn at T-junctions! Some of the more grid-like areas
of London will be great fun. And imagine Milton Keynes - you'll have to
drive to the edge of the city and back in again just to turn left!


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:29:31 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

People get ****ed off with one-way systems... imagine what it'll be like
when you can only turn at T-junctions! Some of the more grid-like areas
of London will be great fun. And imagine Milton Keynes - you'll have to
drive to the edge of the city and back in again just to turn left!

Leave our roundabouts alone!

Seriously, some of the things suggested on that site, in particular
the segregated cycle and footpath network, are in use in Milton
Keynes. It is possible to get from anywhere to anywhere in MK (more
or less) without having to cross a main road on the level.

They do, however, have their own problems, such as the amount of glass
and other tyre-puncturing debris that tends to accumulate on them, and
the general "unsafe" feeling that isolated paths, bridges and
underpasses tend to bring after dark - even if there's no basis in
fact for such a feeling.

The signposting of these paths is also pretty poor, meaning that
before you can realistically use them for a longer journey you need to
know where you're going. This is in marked contrast to the excellent
signing on the main grid roads.

That aside, the facility does seem to successfully promote cycling in
MK, to a level I've not seen elsewhere in the UK other than in Oxford
or Cambridge.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:47:42 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:



Seriously, some of the things suggested on that site, in particular
the segregated cycle and footpath network, are in use in Milton
Keynes. It is possible to get from anywhere to anywhere in MK (more
or less) without having to cross a main road on the level.

They do, however, have their own problems, such as the amount of glass
and other tyre-puncturing debris that tends to accumulate on them, and
the general "unsafe" feeling that isolated paths, bridges and
underpasses tend to bring after dark - even if there's no basis in
fact for such a feeling.


The idea of segregating different types of traffic - particularly
pedestrians and cars - at different levels was favoured by planners in
the 1960s and 1970s. You can see this put into practice in the
highwalks around the Barbican. The problem is that the pedestrian
ways, far from being the attractive green lanes described on the
func-junc site, become bleak and windswept. Also, this is easy enough
to implement if you are developing an area almost from scratch, but
very difficult to impose on an existing built-up area within a city

Martin

Martin Rich wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:47:42 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:



Seriously, some of the things suggested on that site, in particular
the segregated cycle and footpath network, are in use in Milton
Keynes. It is possible to get from anywhere to anywhere in MK (more
or less) without having to cross a main road on the level.

They do, however, have their own problems, such as the amount of glass
and other tyre-puncturing debris that tends to accumulate on them, and
the general "unsafe" feeling that isolated paths, bridges and
underpasses tend to bring after dark - even if there's no basis in
fact for such a feeling.


The idea of segregating different types of traffic - particularly
pedestrians and cars - at different levels was favoured by planners in
the 1960s and 1970s. You can see this put into practice in the
highwalks around the Barbican. The problem is that the pedestrian
ways, far from being the attractive green lanes described on the
func-junc site, become bleak and windswept. Also, this is easy enough
to implement if you are developing an area almost from scratch, but
very difficult to impose on an existing built-up area within a city

Martin

A further problem with segregated cycle and pedestrian facilities is
that, in areas where they predominate such as Milton Keynes, people do
not have the exposure to road traffic that they really need in order
to develop what is often called "road sense". The design of
segregated routes is often poor and the standard of maintenance often
low. All this can result in high rates of casualties both on and off
the segregated network.

Drivers are also likely to be more aware of the needs of pedestrians
and cyclists if they encounter a lot of them rather than very few.

Segregation may have a role to play at 'nightmare' junctions (and
motorways, of course) but I understand there is plenty of evidence to
suggest that cyclists and pedestrians are generally safer on
non-segregated roads.

That aside, the facility does seem to successfully promote cycling
in
MK, to a level I've not seen elsewhere in the UK other than in
Oxford
or Cambridge.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK

2001 figures for bike mode commuting share are Cambridge, 28% (which
beats Amsterdam), Oxford 16%, York 13%, Hull 12%, Boston, Lincs. 11%.
I'm not sure of the Milton Keynes figure, but I think its about 3% -
about half that for the London borough of Hackney.

See Jon Parkin "Comparisons of cycle use for the journey to work from
the '81, '91 and 2001 census" TEC, Sept 2003

Jeremy Parker