Forum Topic

Traffic and Technology

Regards traffic, there is obviously too much for the road network.I would assume the LTNs and active travel initiatives may reduce some car journeys but are they reducing the volume of traffic on the roads?  I’m sure TomP and MichaelR can advise on that one.I would guess that in the next 20-30 years automated transport will be standard.  Deliveries, public transport and most private transport will be automated.Manual transport will be a thing of the past.If you want a car, you will request it and it will come to your house.All of this will be electric (or some other none polluting based energy).  Tyres will not produce any dangerous particulates.  (I think that is the correct term).So, my question is.  If the changes being made now are making absolutely no difference and only technology can solve the issues we currently have.Why no sit back, enjoy the ride and stop getting our knickers in a twist?

Kieran Fox ● 1958d33 Comments

"So, my question is.  If the changes being made now are making absolutely no difference and only technology can solve the issues we currently have."Or in other words - we're all screwed and nothing we can do will make any difference, so let's leave it for our kids to sort out!This nation just fought off a pandemic - not as well as the Germans or Antipodeans, but we invented a vaccine and all made drastic changes to our behaviour to contain it.  Not everyone was on board.  Some are vociferously opposed to lockdowns and vaccinations, but as a whole we understood what needed to be done and did it.Sorting out traffic and air pollution in London is going to be difficult.  But our Government - and the opposition - largely understand what needs to be done and the direction of travel is clear:- Rebalance road usage away from vehicles to other forms of higher density transport, including public transport, walking, scootering and cycling.- Ban ICE powered vehicles and in the meantime charge people more to drive the most polluting vehicles.- Use congestion charges to limit traffic in the most congested areas and eventually move to a road pricing model.We don't have to wait for flying cars and Amazon delivery drones.  We can start to fix this now and not abdicate responsibility for the problems we've all had a part in creating.

Ed Saper ● 1958d

Technology definitely can help enormously and is being criminally underused. A lot could be achieved by simply adopting a sensible approach to how councils interact with SatNav suppliers particularly Google. This would be cheaper and more just than trying to price vehicles off the road.There should be a standard mark for suppliers of Sat Navs and councils should be obliged to provide road data free of charge to any approved supplier. This would mean that access restrictions, temporary or otherwise would be reflect on apps like Waze as soon as they are implemented.In return councils should have the ability to redesignate road classifications in the data used by the SatNav providers so they can discourage rat-running when it is impacting a particular street. This would include the ability to temporarily designate a road local access only.

Mark Evans ● 1958d

Kieran,Personally I'd be sceptical about the degree to which automated vehicles will be introduced in urban environments.  A motorway is one thing but narrow twisty streets with lots of people and other types of things going on is a very complex problem."If you want a car, you will request it and it will come to your house."We have these already, they are called taxis.  Automation would remove the driver and reduce costs but it doesn't change the basic maths of the roadspace occupied by the vehicle and number of vehicles needed if everyone wants to do door to door journeys.  Take a look at todays traffic and already at least 7 cars out of 10 will only have one person in them.  That is a huge amount of space taken up by few people.  Driverless cars won't change any of that and may make it worse if all these automated cars are cruising around empty.Of course one technology you haven't mentioned is road pricing, so the ability to charge every vehicle journey based upon the time, location, type of vehicle etc.There isn't going to be increased supply of roadspace in London so if you want to reduce traffic, you need to limit the demand and pricing is one way of doing that.

Michael Robinson ● 1958d

I think I'm suggesting exactly the opposite Ed.  I'm not saying do nothing and that we are that we are all 'screwed'.  Technology is changing transport.  Energy production is changing.  It's an ongoing process.  I think technology advances will, if not solve, at least dramatically improve the current transport issues we have, and it is the only thing that will.I know that will not solve global climate issues, that was not what I was writing about though.  Globally we have a whole set of problems.  Not all traffic related.So, if the current changes are not making any significant difference to traffic volumes and pollution are we just making change for change’s sake?If the changes are about moving cars out of local village centres and making them a more pleasant place to walk and cycle.  Great I’m on board with that, but focus on that, not on reducing traffic volumes and pollution if they will not achieve that.I would suggest you check those knickers.

Kieran Fox ● 1958d

Mark - good luck trying to license and regulate the SatNav applications produced by global technology giants....  Do you really think that they are going to listen to local councils?Regulation and licensing of SatNavs isn't on any government agenda so isn't going to happen anytime soon.  Until then, a bollard is the best way of stopping SatNavs directing cars where people don't want them.

Michael Robinson ● 1958d

Hi Michael. I just don't think it is possible to assess where we will be in 20/30 years.  In the short-term automated technology will not work in town centres, but that is only the short term.  Technology is advancing so quickly.  I think driving a fossil fuel powered car in 20 years will be treated as smoking in a plane is now, the pollution argument will be gone.  The only question will be around volumes of traffic.  If a percentage of that is managed automatically and more efficiently then we should see congestion (if not volumes) improving.Regards satnav, changes must be made and eventually will be.  The satnavs we use now are not all connected, and they are just about speed of journey.  If we all used one centralised satnav system (think automated cars) then the traffic could be managed efficiently.  A route would be calculated that works with the whole system.  Until car automation is implemented you could be charge based on the route you take.  If you take the suggest system defined route it is cheap, if you take the rat run you pay through the nose.

Kieran Fox ● 1958d

'Do you really think that they are going to listen to local councils?'Yes. Access to reliable uptodate data would be very attractive to them. The only change would be that authorities would be allowed to dynamically update road classifications which Google and others would see as a feature.That the government is not currently considering it does not disqualify it for being a practical solution. Putting bollards in streets without proper consultation and analysis doesn't seem to be working because it is just displacing traffic. Technology allows us to respond flexibly to changing traffic patterns and manage flows to minimise harm. If the government are not considering ways to do this that is because they are incompetent.

Mark Evans ● 1958d

My car's SatNav is based on a DVD, so not susceptible to remote updates. Sometimes I come across an unexpected roundabout or bollard that it doesn't know about, but generally I am alert enough to manage such things.

Richard Greenhough ● 1958d

Have you used Waze to drive in London Mark?

Paul Campbell ● 1958d

problem is that all of these fantastic initiatives are being developed for, legalised by and sponsored by the increasingly few. Anyone whos been to russia and seen the reserved lanes for the secret service and elites, has a vision of the ( not too) distant future. Look at the G7 last week- any social distancing/ protocol/ travel conditions there? not a chanceLook a our lord mayor ( and no i didnt vote for the useless (&*(() countless times hes been caught being driven around in his RangeRover getting dropped around the corner, and then cycling/walking to the photo-opp to expound his fake green credentials...Hypocrytes and liars the lots of them- resist!

Tim Garfoot ● 1958d

Sadiq Khan (who I assume you are referring to) is not the Lord Mayor.

Richard Greenhough ● 1958d

Very true. The Lord Mayor is even worse. Once a year he closes the entire City to cars so he can be driven round in a priceless horse-drawn gilded carriage while wearing a gown and feathered hat and surrounded by an entourage in medieval dress carrying pikes and beating drums.

Paul Campbell ● 1958d

Kieran, technology doesn’t change geometry.  If you carry one person in a space of around 5m x 2m (more allowing stopping distance) and demand that space is used for door to door journeys then you can do the maths to see how many can be accommodated on the roads and it isn’t very many.As I said, supply isn’t increasing so if you want to reduce congestion then you need to manage demand.Also I can’t see any way that companies like Google. Apple, Microsoft et al will cooperate on some sort of common, centralised satnav system. Why should they unless mandated by governments and there is no evidence of this being on any government agenda.It is said that for these services that are available for free then you are the product as you are generating data the tech companies can monetise in other services.

Michael Robinson ● 1958d

Michael.  It is not just about the size of the box; it is about how it is controlled.  Human error, accidents, roadworks, basically human control, all drive congestion.  With automation you are controlling all the boxes, predicting when and where they will need/want to go and taking the human control element out of the equation.If transport were implemented as an automated service, you could integrate personal, shared, business-related vehicle control.  There would be more road space due to the lack of permanent parking.  Infrastructure would adapt accordingly, and journeys would be priced dynamically based on impact.As for not having a centralised control system, why?  It works for air traffic control, doesn’t it?  The government may not have the appetite to implement it now, but as the technology develops legislation will follow.  It’s just a shame they don’t start the process now.  If they stated, “Use the centralised system now or we will not tax your vehicle!” I think adoption would be increased.

Kieran Fox ● 1958d

Kieran,Roadworks aren't going away, collisions as a result of human error aren't going away (until such a time that human-controlled vehicles aren't allowed which I doubt will be in my lifetime).  You just need to look at journey times in the middle of the night compared to during the peak.  The increased times during the peak aren't a result of collisions and roadworks, it is simply the volume of vehicles using the road.  If you have a fixed geometry and door to door journeys, how the vehicles are controlled is immaterial, there is only the space for a small proportion of people in an urban environment to use this type of transport.  Of course you could take one of those autonomous vehicles, increase the density of people it carries, run it on a fixed route rather than door to doo and put a number like '65' or 'E3' on the front to show where it goes."There would be more road space due to the lack of permanent parking"So either they are spending all their time circling the roads using up their power and taking up road space or they will be parked, taking up parking space.  Given that on average today's vehicles are parked for about 95% of the time, you seem to be saying that autonomous vehicles will be parked less so there will be less road space available, not more.As I said, there is zero evidence that any government is looking to regulate and license satnav providers or develop their own so that is no basis for policy today.

Michael Robinson ● 1958d

Kieran, I think I accurately summed up your view that nothing we're doing now has any impact, so we need to pin our hopes on technology:"if the current changes are not making any significant difference to traffic volumes and pollution are we just making change for change’s sake"That's your assumption - none of the changes we've made so far have had any impact (which is probably incorrect)....and there are no changes we could make that would either.By your logic, there's no point introducing the ULEZ in September because "technology advances will... dramatically improve the current transport issues we have, and it is the only thing that will".You talk about "change for change's sake" which is similar to Councillor Sam warning not to "mistake change for progress".These sorts of arguments are seized on by reactionaries who aren't just opposed to change, but to progress, especially if they are inconvenienced or suffer any loss of status or entitlement.All progress is change.  And with traffic congestion and pollution, we don't need to change our behaviour by much to be part of the solution.  One big change happened years ago - we're no longer bulldozing neighbourhoods to build new motorways through the city because we realised that building them increases both traffic and congestion while making pollution worse.  The next change will close the loop on that logic - we have too many roads dedicated to cars and vehicles.  We'd have fewer cars and less pollution if we have more pedestrianised areas, more bus only routes and more cycle lanes.  And that's what scares the crap out of The OC - loss of roadspace for their vehicles.  This isn't about the local economy, disabled people, air pollution, lack of democratic consultation or emergency vehicles, this is about their entitlement.  We don't need new technology to fix our problems, we need to challenge our assumptions and fix our thinking and then the solutions are (relatively) easy.

Ed Saper ● 1958d

I thought autonomous cars were supposed to be on our roads by the end of the year but would only be allowed to drive at up to 37 mph in the slow lane of the motorway?The Demand Responsive Transport that was being trialled in some parts of the country I don't think ever reached Chiswick but that would surely be good for some travel. There were some of these in Oxford too.

Philippa Bond ● 1958d

"And that's what scares the crap out of The OC - loss of roadspace for their vehicles.  This isn't about the local economy, disabled people, air pollution, lack of democratic consultation or emergency vehicles, this is about their entitlement"If the argument is that pre-2019 LTNs are good and new LTNs are bad but there is no actual difference between what they do and their impact (if anything pre-2019 LTNs are more draconian with hard filters, being obviously positioned in a way that stops cars avoiding lights at major junctions and having no community-wide consultation) then, by a process of elimination, this looks like the most likely explanation for the reaction of the OC. Although some of them are probably just carrying grievances against the Council and /or feel compelled to oppose all change in order to feel more in control of their lives and / or they just hate cyclists especially the most irritating ones who vocally campaign for cycling and never go away.

Paul Campbell ● 1958d

EdForget OC for the moment.Are vehicle number still increasing? I believe the answer is yes.So why, transport requirements, lack of public transport,increased requirements for industry, increasing population size?If vehicle numbers are still increasing are the current schemes working?Personally i want change, but do we carry on with the same approach?You say we don't need technology,  I say we do.  I would put a big percentage of investment into it.Aim for transport as a service.When the technology gets there, how about no private vehicle ownership and a centralised vehicle navigation control system?As I say not there yet.  But I think it is what we should be aiming for.

Kieran Fox ● 1958d

Michael,I know we are some way off yet but what I was talking about is transport as a service, centrally managed with all aspects integrated.  No private car ownership, you ask for a car it comes to your door, either the nearest car available or from a central location.  There would be a lot less cars servicing the requested journeys.  At this point everyone rolls their eyes, but even with the technology we have today, we are not that far away from this being possible.But forget about the future, today we could have a centralised navigation system that is aware of traffic issues, predicts holdups, directs cars and charges for journeys.  If a driver follows the suggested route for the journey, which is dynamically updated to match road conditions, it costs less.  Go off route and choose your own path and you are charged more.  If you have more time select the low-cost option, it will take you around the houses, but will get you there.  You could charge more for peak times.  Reduce cost for certain driver categories.  Even have it means tested 😉  The costs would drive behaviour.This technology is available now, it would just cost a lot to implement it.  Also, there would be arguments over the government being aware of where all cars are and whom is driving.  Perhaps they could use the vaccination tracking chips?  I’m sure Michael Brown would have an opinion on this.

Kieran Fox ● 1958d

Kieran,On vehicle numbers, it depends what you are measuring...Car ownership in Chiswick has declined by about 10% in the last 10 years with the average now being about 0.44 cars registered per adult.  Some areas, for example, the west end of CHR around Gunnersbury, are less than 0.3 cars per adult.So car owners are a minority of adults in Chiswick.Numbers of cars registered in the UK has increased by over 3 million in the last 10 years and increased by over 20 million since 1994.  There will be a lot of detail behind this plus commercial vehicle registrations as well but I haven't looked at it.Over the last 10 years vehicle miles driven in Hounslow increased by 15% for cars and taxis and 20% for all vehicles.  This isn't adjusted for population.  The population will have increased over the last 10 years but I don't have the figures.DfT figures show a higher rate of growth of traffic on minor roads compared to major roads.  This possibly indicates the impact of satnavs.So the story seems to be a decline of car ownership in Chiswick but a growth in car use elsewhere.  In that respect, Chiswick is following central London trends rathathan more suburban trends.

Michael Robinson ● 1958d

I've written about car clubs before on here over the years.  I remember at the beginning that very few people were using them and then the last time I wrote something I was told that cars were never available when wanted.  More could be done with these I'm sure in getting and giving a better experience.  I know people who changed what they did eg instead of driving into London took the train and then used a car club car for site visits.  Or just found it less hassle and cheaper to just use a car club car when needed.

Philippa Bond ● 1958d

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluecity

Philippa Bond ● 1958d

'Do you really think that they are going to listen to local councils?'"Yes."HO HO. My car's satnav still tries to route me over Hammersmith Bridge. The car was manufactured well after the bridge was closed to motor traffic.

Ken Munn ● 1958d

Worth looking at some of the management consultancy reports on autonomous cars. McKinseys was the last one I saw. "No time at all soon" was the executive summary.

Ken Munn ● 1958d

Most predictions suggest that Level 5 autonomous vehicles (Sit back and have a beer as you don't have access to any controls) would start to be available 2030 onwards.  But these would just be commercial such as taxis as they will be expensive.  So realistically at least 15-20 years before they would be commonly available.

Kieran Fox ● 1958d

"loss of roadspace for their vehicles.  This isn't about the local economy, disabled people, air pollution, lack of democratic consultation or emergency vehicles, this is about their entitlement"For a second there, Ed, I thought you were talking about cyclists. Either way, the same applies to them. Obviously.As for bulldozing neighborhoods, here in the UK you just do that for expanding airports. So maybe join up the thinking and efforts.

David Lesniak ● 1957d

Drink driving no longer a problem in future then.

Janice Evans ● 1957d

"For a second there, Ed, I thought you were talking about cyclists. Either way, the same applies to them. Obviously."No, it doesn't.  Isn't there about 60 miles of dedicated cycle lanes in London?  Maybe a bit more now with the pop-ups?I make that about 0.007% of London's 10,000 miles of roads.  Cyclists aren't demanding and don't need 99.993% of the roads - unlike The "Only Car" local lobbying groups :-)And it isn't cyclists demanding a bigger share, but the Tory Government demanding more people become cyclists!https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904146/gear-change-a-bold-vision-for-cycling-and-walking.pdfI don't think you can say cyclists have the same sense of entitlement as someone who complains their car journeys are now slightly longer because of a cycle lane or because a rat run has been closed off.I shouldn't have to say this, but pedestrians, public transport users and cyclists take up a fraction of the space of a car and produce a fraction of the air pollution*, so perhaps check your privilege**?  *OK - buses do produce more than they should, but the government is committed to fixing.**Yes, we have a car but we do a fair number of trips on a bike, often because it is quicker than in a car, which doesn't make me a hypocrite, it makes me a Tory :-)

Ed Saper ● 1957d

Janice. I find that hard to believe. Can't imagine a self driving car full of drunkards rolling around being dropped off as they go home after a boozy night out, can you ?

Chris Vessey ● 1957d

It would be good to find a solution to deal with all the taxis driving around in circles waiting for fares.

Philippa Bond ● 1957d

Ed. I would make an amendment to the last line "Yes we have a car but we do a fair number of trips on a bike, often because it is quicker than in a car, which doesn't make me a hypocrite, it makes me a VERY WISE MAN "

Chris Vessey ● 1957d

Based on the front page article “New Call For London To Have Smart Road Charging” good to see “The Centre for London think tank” reads the W4 forum and agrees with my idea. 👍

Kieran Fox ● 1839d