Road traffic, I mean, not blog traffic. Everyone agrees that there are too many cars on Britain’s roads. Other people’s cars, of course. What we don’t agree about is what to do about it. Some say, “Build more roads.” Others, “Make driving more expensive.” I’m sure that there’s a case to be made for shifting the economics of private vs public transport, but that’s a long term issue and we have traffic congestion now. Something needs to be done right speedily if this place is not going to come to a complete standstill.
I have a partial solution to offer. which I confidently predict will be ignored completely by anyone with any authority to actually do anything about it.
We could create more space on the network without building a single yard of road. The simple expedient of reducing the speed limit to 55 mph would automatically allow more vehicles in. Secondly, the existing ‘matrix’ system could impose further compulsory reductions in top speed when traffic is heavy. Theoretically, this already happens on parts of the M25, but my experience suggests that the temporary speed limits are completely ignored. We need not only reduced speed limits on crowded roads, but draconian penalties for the breaking of them. As well as keeping the traffic moving (which is, after all, what traffic is supposed to do) these measures would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve road safety to boot - without costing anyone anything in tax or toll.
It won’t happen of course. Cars are bought and sold with speed being a key selling point. Most motorists would argue that speed limits on motorways are too low - even when they’re sitting in a line of stationary traffic.
Perhaps “queueing theory” should be intoduced into the national curriculum?
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
J 04.23.07 at 9:18 pm
“We need not only reduced speed limits on crowded roads, but draconian penalties for the breaking of them”
If the citizens of the UK are anything like the citizens of the US on this issue - and I’ll bet they are - you might want to encourage whichever political party you want to see out of power to promote this idea. Especially the draconian fines.
Richard 04.23.07 at 9:37 pm
Actually, I wasn’t thinking of fines. Something more along the lines of an automatic driving ban of perhaps 3 months.
But you’re right - the great British public would never wear it. They’d rather sit in traffic jams.
malc 04.23.07 at 10:43 pm
Boo, hiss……. - The Great British Public
Larry B 04.24.07 at 5:09 am
Richard,
So here’s a bit I’m curious about. With all the talk of global warming reduction over here in the states, a particularly popular idea is to increase the gas tax some more to at least what Europe has. But your own experience blogged here seems to indicate that high gas taxes isn’t reducing the driving. Do you agree that is the case? And how high do you think they would have to go before people would take public instead of private transport?
Richard 04.24.07 at 8:12 am
Taxing fuel isn’t sufficient - you have to provide an alternative. That (to me) means public investment in transport infrastructure. I doubt any US government would even contemplate the merest thought of raising fuel duties to anything approaching UK levels. We’re paying between 90p and £1 a litre at the pumps,and most of that is tax in one form or another. It’s about 70c a litre on your side isn’t it. 40p or so!
Wood 04.24.07 at 8:42 am
35p right now. To be honest, high petrol costs doesn’t stop people driving at all. Although making it too high, and the hauliers go on strike again, and no one wants that.
I remember visiting some friends in LA. I was being driven somewhere and we pulled into a petrol station. Someone else in the car, who was from San Francisco, said, “$2.75 a gallon!? That’s criminal!”
They didn’t understand why I found that so funny. Then I told them that a gallon over here was about nine dollars in their funny toytown money. Then they understood.
Richard 04.24.07 at 9:23 am
Don’t forget that we have a slightly bigger gallon than them…
Wood 04.24.07 at 10:19 am
Even if you use their version of the gallon, theor petrol’s ridiculously cheap.
dh 04.24.07 at 2:25 pm
“That (to me) means public investment in transport infrastructure.” Richard I agree in priciple woth this idea so don’t take this wrong. However, it takes for a city like Kansas City to have public transport costs in the billions. It seems to me it would take years and years to recoup this cost from a gas standpoint and use by individuals who go from cars to public transport. I think public transport works if people are willing to use it. If it is more convenient to use a car people will use a car and if it is more convenient to use public transport they will use transport. If people have to wait 15 minutes to get on public transport as opposed to immediately useing a car I think it is a difficult sell. I will say in areas that are more densely populated that it IS appropriate but it is a matter of building it in the most cost effiecent way. That at times, depending on the geopgraphic location, can be difficult. However, I do like the idea, if it is affordable, to having public transport.