Urban myths about traffic

 

Greater Cambridge partnership has proposed a “Sustainable Travel Zone” (essentially a congestion charge) for Cambridge City for 2027. FaceBook and NextDoor and probably other social media have lit up with people objecting. Many of the comments trot out tired old urban myths (or alternative truths.), Here is the start of a list and some comments. Feel free to suggest more, add comments or provide references. I will edit and expand this so do come back.

1. Closing roads will cause more traffic elsewhere

Of course, few roads are closed. Many ‘modal filters’ allow busses and other execemt traffic through. Even ‘dumb’ bollards and planters allow pedestrians, wheelchairs, mobility scooters, cyclists and even the odd motor scooter.

The motor traffic using rat runs cause unproportunate disturbance and danger to the residents, so the vehicals diverted to larger distributor roads will often not be noticed.

Closing rat runs has a significant affect in causing people to choose other modes of transport, other times to travel, combining journeys or even not travelling at all. This can be more significant than the increased mileage or journey times of those finding other routes

Few journeys are from one side of the restriction to the other. The increased mileage or journey times for alternative routes may not be very significant.

2. Road pricing/congestion charges penalise the poor.

Two thirds of all private vehicles are owned by the richest half of the population. Two thirds of the poorer half have no car at all.

Lots of people will have to pay to drive in the STZ and the GCP hopes to raise 50 million pouns from them, but in general better off people will use the STZ more and pay more.

(£50M collected from the GCP area of about 250,000, means we all pay £200 on average.)

3. Cyclists don’t pay for the roads they use.

Roads are mostly paid for from general taxation. Most of the construction and maintenance of roads is paid for by the local authority from the local rates and grants from central government.

“Road tax” is properly called “Vehicle Exise Duty” and is collected by central government and added to general tax receipts. In any case, VED does not cove the massive costs of road traffic, which does not just include construction and maintenance, but the cost of policing, accidents and pollution.

4. Electric cars will solve the pollution/climate change problem.

Electric vehicles are not pollution free. The electricity is not emissions free, its just created somewhere else. An increasing proportion is generated from renewable sources, but we will not get to 100% for some time.

Even if all electric cars were charged with 100% renewable electricity, we still have to account for the materials, energy and pollution from the construction and maintenance of the vehicle. There is also a problem the tyres slowly degrade and emit tiny particles (PM2.5) which contribute to urban pollution, causing respiratory and other health issues.

It is unlikely all new cars will be electric, as some people’s travel demands will be incompatible with the range or charging times. Lots of vans and most HGVs will continue to be diesel powered for some time.

Given cars last for 10- 15 years, it will be 2035 before we see the majority of petrol and diesel cars replaced by electric cars.

Of course, replacing every car with an electric model will do nothing about the congestion and parking problems.

5. Cyclists ride irresponsibly

“These are the restless roads, every one a war” (Mark Knopfler)

Most cyclists recognise in any collision between a bike and another vehicle, the cyclist comes of worst. It is true a small minority break the law and take unnecessary risks. However, actions that drivers may find surprising are often taken by the cyclist to protect themselves. For example:

• Cyclists may use the centre of the lane to discourage cars from overtaking and to give the cyclist room to manoeuvre if vehicles come to close. (This is now advice in the new Highway Code)
• They may also cycle in the middle of the road because the space next to the kerb is full of potholes, broken drain covers and the risk of pedestrians stepping in to their path. 
• When turning right, it may seem safer to dash across the road than to wait in the middle of a stream of traffic. (The highway code advises you may wait on the left and then cross both lanes when they are free, but can be equally problematic.)

Cyclists will use cycleways when they are well designed and safe, but often they leave something to be desired. In particular, in Cambridge there are sections that:

• end because the road has got narrow.
• end so there is room for two vehicle lanes at a junction.
• end before a junction or a roundabout
• have a stop line at each side road
• are too narrow for two cyclists to overtake
• are not signed, so you don’t know they are available.
• Are shared use and too congested to use
• are shared use but require you to get over the curb to join it.

If more facilities were designed and constructed to the national standard, more cyclists would follow them.

And of course, while most people drive carefully, its not as if some motorists do not do irresponsible or unexpected things, like speeding, parking in cycle lanes, passing too close to cyclists, turning with out indicating, talking on their mobile phones.