Congestion in London redux
October 4, 2016 7:07 AM Subscribe
As the capital’s traffic slows below pre-Congestion Charge speeds, difficult decisions loom. (via @felixsalmon )
The London Congestion Charge increased travel speeds. Now they're rising again - bikes, local traffic concerns, deliveries, encroachment by development construction. Maybe this is a problem that will be "solved" by hard Brexit, but
"London is close to proving that you can take away all the private cars and still have chronic congestion."
The London Congestion Charge increased travel speeds. Now they're rising again - bikes, local traffic concerns, deliveries, encroachment by development construction. Maybe this is a problem that will be "solved" by hard Brexit, but
"London is close to proving that you can take away all the private cars and still have chronic congestion."
In the meantime, it seems like they could raise the congestion charge to have supply meet demand, perhaps conditionally on classes of vehicles, like Uber cars and delivery vans. Supply-side economics.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 7:23 AM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 7:23 AM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
...or maybe the second or third to host such a trial. There will be kinks to work out. Maybe a less tightly packed environment would make them less painful :)
Really, though, maybe some approach that leads to fewer people needing to move around. Some kind of remote-working solution, or working fewer days, or having some things be available on a schedule. Logistical, thoughtful solutions, instead of just more technology.
posted by amtho at 7:24 AM on October 4, 2016
Really, though, maybe some approach that leads to fewer people needing to move around. Some kind of remote-working solution, or working fewer days, or having some things be available on a schedule. Logistical, thoughtful solutions, instead of just more technology.
posted by amtho at 7:24 AM on October 4, 2016
It would also be great if solutions didn't involve making people spend more money. That always seems to make access less fair, doesn't it?
posted by amtho at 7:25 AM on October 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by amtho at 7:25 AM on October 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
It is silly to use the speed of vehicles as the primary outcome. How many people are moved into and out of Central London? How many cubic meters of goods?
posted by grouse at 7:27 AM on October 4, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by grouse at 7:27 AM on October 4, 2016 [25 favorites]
If average speed is increased, presumably more people and goods are moved per unit of time, no? (All else the same.)
posted by a lungful of dragon at 7:30 AM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 7:30 AM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not necessarily. Speed differentials (friction) cause turbulence and turbulence can dramatically reduce flow.
But the questions above I think are the right ones. To what end are all these people and things being moved?
As an example, in my town, which has more than enough parking but not always a good way to find it, they have done studies showing that a significant part of traffic at certain times of day is caused by people looking for a place to put their car. That is the sort of flow that should ideally be eliminated.
posted by meinvt at 7:34 AM on October 4, 2016 [9 favorites]
But the questions above I think are the right ones. To what end are all these people and things being moved?
As an example, in my town, which has more than enough parking but not always a good way to find it, they have done studies showing that a significant part of traffic at certain times of day is caused by people looking for a place to put their car. That is the sort of flow that should ideally be eliminated.
posted by meinvt at 7:34 AM on October 4, 2016 [9 favorites]
Not necessarily. Speed differentials (friction) cause turbulence and turbulence can dramatically reduce flow.
If you keep the Reynolds number low enough, though, you will have laminar flow and it's all good. Maybe wait for a cold day.
posted by indubitable at 7:40 AM on October 4, 2016 [8 favorites]
If you keep the Reynolds number low enough, though, you will have laminar flow and it's all good. Maybe wait for a cold day.
posted by indubitable at 7:40 AM on October 4, 2016 [8 favorites]
Explaining a redesign of Elephant and Castle, a busy south London junction notorious for accidents, TfL says: “Currently, traffic dominates the area, and there are more collisions here than at almost any other junction in the capital. Changing the way traffic moves around the area is expected to reduce collisions by a third. Journey times are expected to increase for all road users.”The redesign (which is just down from the road from me), is, in fact, inexplicable. They took a less than ideal roundabout and turned it into a surreally awful two-way road. Richard Reynolds, of Guerrilla Gardening fame, was campaigning against the Bend before it was built, and is recording the ongoing chaos on Facebook from his flat high above it.
There are lots of minor incidents there, and the design also amplifies the effects of problems that have occurred elsewhere (for example the closure of Tower Bridge for repairs).
On the other hand they have put in a lot of benches for the street drinkers and skateboard kids.
The huge amount of construction that's going on around here is also having an effect, partly because the building sites overflow into the street, partly because they demand that an awful lot of heavy vehicles are on the roads at all times, often blocking up smaller roads that are wholly unsuitable for them.
But that's just SE1, of course. In any case, I have the impression that no one supposed to be in charge of planning really seems to know what they're doing.
posted by Grangousier at 7:57 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean, strictly from the perspective of congestion, the issue seems to be that people aren't internalizing the cost of driving in the city. Increasing the charge in a way that corrects that externality is the 'obvious' solution to the problem. If the issue appears to be that the demand to drive in the city is really tax-inelastic, well, then you get a bunch of revenue by cranking up the charge.
There's a distributive issue, since this kind of tax is regressive (in general). And a political economy issue, which is that people don't like to explicitly pay use fees things they think should be free (my SIL is a dyed-in-the-wool US lefty who is totally down for taxation, but hates toll roads because she doesn't like the idea of paying to drive. I haven't brought up gas taxes). But from the article, it sounds like a lot of the traffic is stuff like delivery vehicles, not personal cars, and a change towards encouraging non-vehicle transportation which has reduced road capacity. I understand people being concerned about people who have to drive to get to work, but that doesn't seem like it's really the source of congestion.
Has the charge changed since they implemented it? It's not like inflation in the UK has been zero in the past 13 years.
posted by dismas at 7:58 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's a distributive issue, since this kind of tax is regressive (in general). And a political economy issue, which is that people don't like to explicitly pay use fees things they think should be free (my SIL is a dyed-in-the-wool US lefty who is totally down for taxation, but hates toll roads because she doesn't like the idea of paying to drive. I haven't brought up gas taxes). But from the article, it sounds like a lot of the traffic is stuff like delivery vehicles, not personal cars, and a change towards encouraging non-vehicle transportation which has reduced road capacity. I understand people being concerned about people who have to drive to get to work, but that doesn't seem like it's really the source of congestion.
Has the charge changed since they implemented it? It's not like inflation in the UK has been zero in the past 13 years.
posted by dismas at 7:58 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is how the charge has grown since its introduction:
February 2003 £5 –
July 2005 £8 60% increase
January 2011 £10 25% increase
June 2014 £11.50 15% increase
posted by biffa at 8:03 AM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
February 2003 £5 –
July 2005 £8 60% increase
January 2011 £10 25% increase
June 2014 £11.50 15% increase
posted by biffa at 8:03 AM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
How exactly will automated vehicles help?
Putting aside my EXTREME SKEPTICISM about the timeline for autonomous vehicles to reach maturity (particularly in London, which has one of the most notoriously convoluted and difficult road networks in the West), they're still cars taking up space on the road.
If you're thinking of a decentralized transit network (ie. an automated version of Uber's carpooling thing), we've been studying that since the 1970s. Traffic modeling suggests that PRT will be fantastically expensive to implement, and won't do much to improve congestion.
Even when small vehicles are efficiently utilized (ie. full) and efficiently routed, you still get lots of congestion.
Increasing the size of the vehicle helps, and establishing a fixed network of routes helps further.
Once you've done that.... Congratulations! You've just built a bus!
posted by schmod at 8:04 AM on October 4, 2016 [29 favorites]
Putting aside my EXTREME SKEPTICISM about the timeline for autonomous vehicles to reach maturity (particularly in London, which has one of the most notoriously convoluted and difficult road networks in the West), they're still cars taking up space on the road.
If you're thinking of a decentralized transit network (ie. an automated version of Uber's carpooling thing), we've been studying that since the 1970s. Traffic modeling suggests that PRT will be fantastically expensive to implement, and won't do much to improve congestion.
Even when small vehicles are efficiently utilized (ie. full) and efficiently routed, you still get lots of congestion.
Increasing the size of the vehicle helps, and establishing a fixed network of routes helps further.
Once you've done that.... Congratulations! You've just built a bus!
posted by schmod at 8:04 AM on October 4, 2016 [29 favorites]
I don't know whether I find it that terrible yet. I wouldn't dream of driving through central London the way I once did, but it still seems worth my while to take a bus from Lancaster Gate up to the British Museum rather than walking, though walking is perfectly feasible. Mrs S finds that getting a bus from Victoria to Bloomsbury is still often competitive with getting the tube (though that might be a comment on how impossible the rush-hour tube is and how messed-up and badly managed Victoria Station in particular has become). If deliveries by white van weren't getting there, they'd be sending bikes.
Maybe FT readers feel that if they can't take the Mercedes through to Mayfair without dipping below 20 mph the place has gone to the dogs and we need to clear some of those bloody peasants off?
posted by Segundus at 8:04 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Maybe FT readers feel that if they can't take the Mercedes through to Mayfair without dipping below 20 mph the place has gone to the dogs and we need to clear some of those bloody peasants off?
posted by Segundus at 8:04 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Would it be possible to shift more of the bus traffic onto the tube? Like is there any more possible capacity (more frequent trains or whatever) without really extensive amounts of tunneling?
posted by bracems at 8:21 AM on October 4, 2016
posted by bracems at 8:21 AM on October 4, 2016
how are you going to drive all those buses underground, though? fit them for rail travel?
posted by indubitable at 8:29 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 8:29 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Really, though, maybe some approach that leads to fewer people needing to move around. Some kind of remote-working solution, or working fewer days, or having some things be available on a schedule. Logistical, thoughtful solutions, instead of just more technology.
Season tickets should be books of n tickets, rather than the right to travel on n consecutive days. The train system should not be set up to discourage remote working.
posted by Leon at 8:29 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Season tickets should be books of n tickets, rather than the right to travel on n consecutive days. The train system should not be set up to discourage remote working.
posted by Leon at 8:29 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
how are you going to drive all those buses underground, though? fit them for rail travel?
posted by bracems at 8:39 AM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by bracems at 8:39 AM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Would it be possible to shift more of the bus traffic onto the tube?
At busy times in the morning at Victoria the tube entrance is often closed for a while because there are so many people crowding onto the platforms that there is an imminent danger of people being pushed onto the line. I've had the same experience at other stations.
posted by Segundus at 8:43 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
At busy times in the morning at Victoria the tube entrance is often closed for a while because there are so many people crowding onto the platforms that there is an imminent danger of people being pushed onto the line. I've had the same experience at other stations.
posted by Segundus at 8:43 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
we already tried trainbuses and no one was that keen...
posted by terretu at 8:44 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by terretu at 8:44 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
"we already tried trainbuses and no one was that keen..."
Wait, according to that link, they're still in use 32 years later and are cheaper than train cars. Maybe that actually is a possible solution. Another solution (and this is my cyberpunk-fiction-addled mind talking) maybe build an elevated enclosed/semi-enclosed tube with no tracks and have buses drive through there? Have them go through buildings? I know, I know, the logistics of that might be too much but it's a thought.
posted by I-baLL at 8:55 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wait, according to that link, they're still in use 32 years later and are cheaper than train cars. Maybe that actually is a possible solution. Another solution (and this is my cyberpunk-fiction-addled mind talking) maybe build an elevated enclosed/semi-enclosed tube with no tracks and have buses drive through there? Have them go through buildings? I know, I know, the logistics of that might be too much but it's a thought.
posted by I-baLL at 8:55 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have no idea what the solutions are but I thought it was a good article--data, some analysis, historical perspective, no politics, opinions or posturing. Just a good read that asks the reader to think and not just agree or disagree.
posted by rmhsinc at 8:57 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by rmhsinc at 8:57 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
London is actually trialling automated vehicles. There is a trial program going on in greenwich (which I'm loosely involved in) of autonomous pods.
I believe one of the larger manufacturers (Mercedes maybe?) has a trial program set to start. I can't seem to find the details right now though.
The big big problem in London is that the centre is so expensive (for many reasons, but an important one being very rich people buying houses as investments and leaving them empty) that no one can really live very close to the middle. So you have millions of people commuting when you ought to have people living near where they work.
This kind of systemic view of cities is difficult to do when you have many different stakeholders with different priorities and so on, but a systemic smart city view is going to be key to liveable prsporous cities in the near future.
I would say that this (from the link):
"Meanwhile, many road junctions are being redesigned, making them less efficient at processing large numbers of vehicles and better for pedestrians and cyclists."
is a good thing, and very much the right direction.
A massive increase in cycling capacity will change the city for the better, but it doesn't address the traffic problem since much of it is light goods and deliveries.
If you're going to automate anything at all my first suggestion would be a fleet of automated transport boats.
You can move massive bulk of cargo up and down the river to a huge number of riverside drop off points.
Each of those drop off points can deal with last mile delivery in their own way (maybe by a fleet of bikes, maybe by drones, maybe by traditional means, but they'd only ever be operating around that micro port, so the rest of the network remains functional.
Also you can track all of your local delivery fleet and monitor and adjust as you go.
Also, re: trainbusses...
Oh, beaten to it by terretu.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 9:04 AM on October 4, 2016 [8 favorites]
I believe one of the larger manufacturers (Mercedes maybe?) has a trial program set to start. I can't seem to find the details right now though.
The big big problem in London is that the centre is so expensive (for many reasons, but an important one being very rich people buying houses as investments and leaving them empty) that no one can really live very close to the middle. So you have millions of people commuting when you ought to have people living near where they work.
This kind of systemic view of cities is difficult to do when you have many different stakeholders with different priorities and so on, but a systemic smart city view is going to be key to liveable prsporous cities in the near future.
I would say that this (from the link):
"Meanwhile, many road junctions are being redesigned, making them less efficient at processing large numbers of vehicles and better for pedestrians and cyclists."
is a good thing, and very much the right direction.
A massive increase in cycling capacity will change the city for the better, but it doesn't address the traffic problem since much of it is light goods and deliveries.
If you're going to automate anything at all my first suggestion would be a fleet of automated transport boats.
You can move massive bulk of cargo up and down the river to a huge number of riverside drop off points.
Each of those drop off points can deal with last mile delivery in their own way (maybe by a fleet of bikes, maybe by drones, maybe by traditional means, but they'd only ever be operating around that micro port, so the rest of the network remains functional.
Also you can track all of your local delivery fleet and monitor and adjust as you go.
Also, re: trainbusses...
Oh, beaten to it by terretu.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 9:04 AM on October 4, 2016 [8 favorites]
Would it be possible to shift more of the bus traffic onto the tube?
From what I remember, trying to take the tube to Dalston basically didn't.
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:07 AM on October 4, 2016
From what I remember, trying to take the tube to Dalston basically didn't.
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:07 AM on October 4, 2016
though that elevated train did a good job?
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:08 AM on October 4, 2016
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:08 AM on October 4, 2016
Another solution (and this is my cyberpunk-fiction-addled mind talking) maybe build an elevated enclosed/semi-enclosed tube with no tracks and have buses drive through there?
Monorail! MONOrail!! MONORAIL!!!!
posted by ennui.bz at 9:10 AM on October 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
Monorail! MONOrail!! MONORAIL!!!!
posted by ennui.bz at 9:10 AM on October 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
MONO! D'oh!
posted by Talez at 9:15 AM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Talez at 9:15 AM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Monorail! MONOrail!! MONORAIL!!!!"
No, not anything on rails but specifically buses (maybe even self driving since it's a controlled environment.) Why? Because when a train breaks down or has an emergency then it prevents other trains from moving on the same track. Buses, on the other hand, can drive around a stopped bus by going into a passing lane and then back onto the main lane. I think the future of self-driving vehicles is them having separate lanes and/or roads which will allow them to function as makeshift trains since they'll be able to better match the passenger demand at whatever time. Ah, the optimistic future can't come soon enough, and the pessimistic future should never arrive.
posted by I-baLL at 9:18 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, not anything on rails but specifically buses (maybe even self driving since it's a controlled environment.) Why? Because when a train breaks down or has an emergency then it prevents other trains from moving on the same track. Buses, on the other hand, can drive around a stopped bus by going into a passing lane and then back onto the main lane. I think the future of self-driving vehicles is them having separate lanes and/or roads which will allow them to function as makeshift trains since they'll be able to better match the passenger demand at whatever time. Ah, the optimistic future can't come soon enough, and the pessimistic future should never arrive.
posted by I-baLL at 9:18 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Monorail! MONOrail!! MONORAIL!!!!
Still waiting for my personal helicopters.
posted by Fizz at 9:29 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Still waiting for my personal helicopters.
posted by Fizz at 9:29 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Autonomous vehicles won't solve anything; in theory you could pack vehicles closer together on a freeway type facility (although I doubt this as well), but once you get to the complexities of intersections and junctions and so on there's much less potential for savings. It's as transit consultant Jarrett Walker likes to say, a geometry problem. A Mercedes C-class is 100 sq ft and holds 4 or maybe 5 people (3 if there's a driver); a New Routemaster double-decker bus is 300 sq ft and holds 80.
The article itself is a little problematic; it's wrong about residents - they do pay, but get a 90% reduction in their fee. It talks about the space taken for cycle lanes, but not about whether that space is used. In fact, the number of cyclists has risen dramatically - in 2000 there were 11 cars for every bike and today there are 2 cars for every bike. I suspect the modest amount of space taken for cycling facilities has actually reduced traffic.
It seems to me reasonably obvious that there is a scarce good of road space; we can't get more and we can't use it much more efficiently. So it should be priced more expensively. It also seems obvious that there are limits on what can be done with a single flat charge; it should be possible to achieve better results by charging delivery vehicles more, by charging more during peak periods, by charging cabs and Uber more, by creating space for dedicated bus lanes to use the road more efficiently. But, as the Iron Law of Congestion says, traffic will expand to fill up the available space.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 9:30 AM on October 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
The article itself is a little problematic; it's wrong about residents - they do pay, but get a 90% reduction in their fee. It talks about the space taken for cycle lanes, but not about whether that space is used. In fact, the number of cyclists has risen dramatically - in 2000 there were 11 cars for every bike and today there are 2 cars for every bike. I suspect the modest amount of space taken for cycling facilities has actually reduced traffic.
It seems to me reasonably obvious that there is a scarce good of road space; we can't get more and we can't use it much more efficiently. So it should be priced more expensively. It also seems obvious that there are limits on what can be done with a single flat charge; it should be possible to achieve better results by charging delivery vehicles more, by charging more during peak periods, by charging cabs and Uber more, by creating space for dedicated bus lanes to use the road more efficiently. But, as the Iron Law of Congestion says, traffic will expand to fill up the available space.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 9:30 AM on October 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
It seems to me reasonably obvious that there is a scarce good of road space; we can't get more and we can't use it much more efficiently. So it should be priced more expensively.
You can also reduce demand. Remote working, tax breaks for businesses moving out of the south east, etc. (I see what you're saying about traffic growing, though).
posted by Leon at 9:39 AM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
You can also reduce demand. Remote working, tax breaks for businesses moving out of the south east, etc. (I see what you're saying about traffic growing, though).
posted by Leon at 9:39 AM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
See also the Braess paradox.
"For each point of a road network, let there be given the number of cars starting from it, and the destination of the cars. Under these conditions one wishes to estimate the distribution of traffic flow. Whether one street is preferable to another depends not only on the quality of the road, but also on the density of the flow. If every driver takes the path that looks most favourable to him, the resultant running times need not be minimal. Furthermore, it is indicated by an example that an extension of the road network may cause a redistribution of the traffic that results in longer individual running times."
capably demonstrated by Paris, last year.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 9:44 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
"For each point of a road network, let there be given the number of cars starting from it, and the destination of the cars. Under these conditions one wishes to estimate the distribution of traffic flow. Whether one street is preferable to another depends not only on the quality of the road, but also on the density of the flow. If every driver takes the path that looks most favourable to him, the resultant running times need not be minimal. Furthermore, it is indicated by an example that an extension of the road network may cause a redistribution of the traffic that results in longer individual running times."
capably demonstrated by Paris, last year.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 9:44 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Autonomous vehicles won't solve anything; in theory you could pack vehicles closer together on a freeway type facility (although I doubt this as well), but once you get to the complexities of intersections and junctions and so on there's much less potential for savings. It's as transit consultant Jarrett Walker likes to say, a geometry problem. A Mercedes C-class is 100 sq ft and holds 4 or maybe 5 people (3 if there's a driver); a New Routemaster double-decker bus is 300 sq ft and holds 80. "
Uh, how will that not solve anything? Am I missing something? How will having autonomous Routemaster double decker buses not help out?
posted by I-baLL at 9:44 AM on October 4, 2016
Uh, how will that not solve anything? Am I missing something? How will having autonomous Routemaster double decker buses not help out?
posted by I-baLL at 9:44 AM on October 4, 2016
And why compare it to a Mercedes C class? Having autonomous pods that are specifically built for autonomous road travel will greatly improve efficiency. They can link to each other, talk to each other to find optimal patterns on isolated roads, etc. And...
". But, as the Iron Law of Congestion says, traffic will expand to fill up the available space."
Except that this is impossible with the current rail system. Autonomous buses can actually follow this "law" and come into use when necessary.
posted by I-baLL at 9:46 AM on October 4, 2016
". But, as the Iron Law of Congestion says, traffic will expand to fill up the available space."
Except that this is impossible with the current rail system. Autonomous buses can actually follow this "law" and come into use when necessary.
posted by I-baLL at 9:46 AM on October 4, 2016
The ways in which autonomy for vehicles helps, such as closer packing and synchronized movement, all depend on there not being regular vehicles on the same road. Autonomous buses will be subject to the same traffic patterns as regular buses, so I wouldn’t expect any gain from using them. Every argument for re-making roads for the exclusive benefit of autonomous vehicles is just an argument for trains and buses in disguise.
posted by migurski at 9:52 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by migurski at 9:52 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
How will having autonomous Routemaster double decker buses not help out?
Having autonomous buses should cut down on accidents (no trivial matter!) and perhaps provide modest gains in efficiency, but ultimately they won't provide the gains theorized for the pods of popping in and out of service.
Yet you don't have to use a C-class as the basis for comparison to work out that buses will always carry a significant greater density of passengers than any pod any human with choices would want to take.
If self-driving cars can just reduce accident rates to the degree it seems they should ultimately be able to and make it possible for people otherwise unable to drive to get around more easily, they will have proved themselves immensely useful to mankind. But, for congestion purposes, they're just tinkering around the edges.
posted by praemunire at 9:56 AM on October 4, 2016
Having autonomous buses should cut down on accidents (no trivial matter!) and perhaps provide modest gains in efficiency, but ultimately they won't provide the gains theorized for the pods of popping in and out of service.
Yet you don't have to use a C-class as the basis for comparison to work out that buses will always carry a significant greater density of passengers than any pod any human with choices would want to take.
If self-driving cars can just reduce accident rates to the degree it seems they should ultimately be able to and make it possible for people otherwise unable to drive to get around more easily, they will have proved themselves immensely useful to mankind. But, for congestion purposes, they're just tinkering around the edges.
posted by praemunire at 9:56 AM on October 4, 2016
"But all the government's attention and the taxpayers' money goes ultimately to helping the people in cars get nowhere quicker." -- quote from 1970 short film "Motor Car Madness" by the late London activist Alan Wakeman. The film suggests having traffic-free blocks in cities similar to The Pantiles in Tunbridge Wells.
posted by larrybob at 9:57 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by larrybob at 9:57 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
The ways in which autonomy for vehicles helps, such as closer packing and synchronized movement, all depend on there not being regular vehicles on the same road.
You can slave vehicles together in a mixed environment, for what it's worth. Nose to tail caravans. That's a bigger win for heavy goods vehicles on motorways, I admit. (Think M1 at night).
posted by Leon at 9:57 AM on October 4, 2016
You can slave vehicles together in a mixed environment, for what it's worth. Nose to tail caravans. That's a bigger win for heavy goods vehicles on motorways, I admit. (Think M1 at night).
posted by Leon at 9:57 AM on October 4, 2016
I've been mentioning a separate road for autonomous vehicles in almost every comment so far.
"Every argument for re-making roads for the exclusive benefit of autonomous vehicles is just an argument for trains and buses in disguise."
It's not "in disguise." Where did that idea come from? It specifically addresses the problems of putting more regular trains and buses into service and that is that normal buses and trains can't adapt to dynamically changing demand. Autonomous buses will be able to. Autonomous trains, maybe. But autonomous buses will be able to go into service as per existing current demand and will be able to drive around stuck buses since they're not physically bound to a track.
posted by I-baLL at 9:58 AM on October 4, 2016
"Every argument for re-making roads for the exclusive benefit of autonomous vehicles is just an argument for trains and buses in disguise."
It's not "in disguise." Where did that idea come from? It specifically addresses the problems of putting more regular trains and buses into service and that is that normal buses and trains can't adapt to dynamically changing demand. Autonomous buses will be able to. Autonomous trains, maybe. But autonomous buses will be able to go into service as per existing current demand and will be able to drive around stuck buses since they're not physically bound to a track.
posted by I-baLL at 9:58 AM on October 4, 2016
can't adapt to dynamically changing demand
Isn't demand pretty consistent and predictable? I don't know much about this stuff, but that sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me.
posted by Leon at 10:00 AM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Isn't demand pretty consistent and predictable? I don't know much about this stuff, but that sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me.
posted by Leon at 10:00 AM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Yet you don't have to use a C-class as the basis for comparison to work out that buses will always carry a significant greater density of passengers than any pod any human with choices would want to take. "
Except that you're implying that a pod can't be a bus. Why not?
These are the pods being tested in Finland:
http://www.curbed.com/2016/8/31/12691516/self-driving-bus-vehicles-finland-helsinki-transportation
posted by I-baLL at 10:00 AM on October 4, 2016
Except that you're implying that a pod can't be a bus. Why not?
These are the pods being tested in Finland:
http://www.curbed.com/2016/8/31/12691516/self-driving-bus-vehicles-finland-helsinki-transportation
posted by I-baLL at 10:00 AM on October 4, 2016
You can slave vehicles together in a mixed environment, for what it's worth. Nose to tail caravans.Yeah, like a train or an articulated bus. This is what I meant by an argument for trains and buses in disguise. Bruno Latour’s Aramis provides one of the most surprising and (I think) important criticisms of autonomous or PRT-style transport I’ve yet seen: with a train or a bus you can take advantage of the physical flexibility of human bodies to pack in people for rush hour, so your capacity has a built-in elasticity based on muscles, fat, and human patience. With a PRT or small-occupancy vehicle everyone expects a seat, so you your elasticity is reduced to that of metal, plastic, and safe stopping distances.
posted by migurski at 10:04 AM on October 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
"Isn't demand pretty consistent and predictable? "
As someone who ends up on trains and packed buses at 1-3am on a regular basis I can relatively safely say that it isn't. Also, a lot of demand seems to rely on different schedules. If there's a bus that goes once every hour and it misses a transfer with another bus that goes every hour then that next bus may not be able to fit all of the people waiting for it since the next bus will need to fit twice as many people as normal. Demand can be estimated overall but that ends up sacrificing efficiency and ends up increasing commute time.
posted by I-baLL at 10:05 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
As someone who ends up on trains and packed buses at 1-3am on a regular basis I can relatively safely say that it isn't. Also, a lot of demand seems to rely on different schedules. If there's a bus that goes once every hour and it misses a transfer with another bus that goes every hour then that next bus may not be able to fit all of the people waiting for it since the next bus will need to fit twice as many people as normal. Demand can be estimated overall but that ends up sacrificing efficiency and ends up increasing commute time.
posted by I-baLL at 10:05 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was born in London, learned to drive in London. When I go back there, driving is now no fun at all. It's not that the traffic numbers have increased, because they have not. It's that the local authorities have fucked up the road system. Pointless "no left turn" signs, pointless "no right turn" signs, roads blocked entirely, speed bumps even on bus routes, 20 mph limits for no reason, areas that are 100% residents parking so visitors have nowhere to stop, it goes on and on. If they ripped all that nonsensical stuff out and let the traffic do the natural flow it used to have around and through things, everything would be so much better.
Londoners don't have to be bullied into using public transport, it's something they will use anyway for most journeys. The existence of London Transport is not an excuse for sabotaging the road system.
posted by w0mbat at 10:06 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Londoners don't have to be bullied into using public transport, it's something they will use anyway for most journeys. The existence of London Transport is not an excuse for sabotaging the road system.
posted by w0mbat at 10:06 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Of course there can be "pod" buses. But if the noncommercial drivers currently clogging the London streets were willing to switch over to bus use, then the London streets wouldn't be clogged, because there are already buses available to them.
posted by praemunire at 10:06 AM on October 4, 2016
posted by praemunire at 10:06 AM on October 4, 2016
From the FPP:
"Among the alleged culprits, one is noticeable by its absence — the private car. The number of people travelling into central London in their own car in the morning rush hour has been declining steadily for years. It fell by half between 2000 and 2014 and now accounts for about one in 20 people entering London during the morning peak.
“The only private cars on the road are residents and rich people. We’ve priced off the rest of it,” says Leon Daniels, managing director for surface transport at Transport for London (TfL). (Residents of the congestion charge zone do not have to pay the £11.50 daily fee.)"
posted by I-baLL at 10:08 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Among the alleged culprits, one is noticeable by its absence — the private car. The number of people travelling into central London in their own car in the morning rush hour has been declining steadily for years. It fell by half between 2000 and 2014 and now accounts for about one in 20 people entering London during the morning peak.
“The only private cars on the road are residents and rich people. We’ve priced off the rest of it,” says Leon Daniels, managing director for surface transport at Transport for London (TfL). (Residents of the congestion charge zone do not have to pay the £11.50 daily fee.)"
posted by I-baLL at 10:08 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
So, no, it's not noncommercial drivers who are clogging the streets, it seems.
posted by I-baLL at 10:09 AM on October 4, 2016
posted by I-baLL at 10:09 AM on October 4, 2016
As someone who ends up on trains and packed buses at 1-3am on a regular basis I can relatively safely say that it isn't.
This isn't (generally) a problem of unpredictable demand, though, as illustrated by its happening to you regularly. It's a problem of costs versus perceived desirability of providing service at a particular time. I don't think autonomy will make it substantially easier to redeploy buses from one route to another (since the steps involved don't save much time by being automated), but it may cut down on labor costs, which may make it more feasible to run night service with greater frequency. Keep in mind, though, that a major reason the city isn't already devoting the resources required to provide greater frequency is the perceived lack of value of late-night traffic. So you'll have to fight to keep that money allocated in the system.
posted by praemunire at 10:13 AM on October 4, 2016
This isn't (generally) a problem of unpredictable demand, though, as illustrated by its happening to you regularly. It's a problem of costs versus perceived desirability of providing service at a particular time. I don't think autonomy will make it substantially easier to redeploy buses from one route to another (since the steps involved don't save much time by being automated), but it may cut down on labor costs, which may make it more feasible to run night service with greater frequency. Keep in mind, though, that a major reason the city isn't already devoting the resources required to provide greater frequency is the perceived lack of value of late-night traffic. So you'll have to fight to keep that money allocated in the system.
posted by praemunire at 10:13 AM on October 4, 2016
So, no, it's not noncommercial drivers who are clogging the streets, it seems.
(a) Extrapolating from one very limited stat to "not contributing to the problem at all" is not a good move. If you just look out your window while in London traffic, it will be glaringly obvious that a substantial portion of the traffic is not commercial.
(b) Since non-commercial traffic is the traffic that would make primary use of autonomous buses, then your claim that non-commercial traffic is insignificant to congestion actually cuts against your argument that autonomous buses would be very helpful in reducing congestion.
posted by praemunire at 10:18 AM on October 4, 2016
(a) Extrapolating from one very limited stat to "not contributing to the problem at all" is not a good move. If you just look out your window while in London traffic, it will be glaringly obvious that a substantial portion of the traffic is not commercial.
(b) Since non-commercial traffic is the traffic that would make primary use of autonomous buses, then your claim that non-commercial traffic is insignificant to congestion actually cuts against your argument that autonomous buses would be very helpful in reducing congestion.
posted by praemunire at 10:18 AM on October 4, 2016
How much of this is deliveries? Julius Caesar made the Romans deliver all their stuff at night, for basically this reason.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 10:19 AM on October 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 10:19 AM on October 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
"(a) Extrapolating from one very limited stat to "not contributing to the problem at all" is not a good move. If you just look out your window while in London traffic, it will be glaringly obvious that a substantial portion of the traffic is not commercial.
(b) Since non-commercial traffic is the traffic that would make primary use of autonomous buses, then your claim that non-commercial traffic is insignificant to congestion actually cuts against your argument that autonomous buses would be very helpful in reducing congestion."
Okay, I'll ignore research and the FPP and will just "look out the window" to see what's going on.
Also, to address point B, from the FPP:
"The latest front in the battle is the argument that if travelling by car suddenly becomes much easier and cheaper, more people will do it and congestion will increase. Uber, however, points out that most of its business is away from the centre of town and at night. According to a study of its data by Inrix, only 6 per cent of Uber trips last year were in central London, during the daytime and on a weekday.
Less controversial but harder to tame is “white van man”. The number of light goods vehicles is rising sharply, which TfL suspects is because of the tendency for people to have personal parcels delivered to their place of work in central London. "
So the 2 biggest causes are on-demand car services (Uber) and delivery vehicles. Having autonomous vehicles is not going to solve this, in your opinion?
posted by I-baLL at 10:22 AM on October 4, 2016
(b) Since non-commercial traffic is the traffic that would make primary use of autonomous buses, then your claim that non-commercial traffic is insignificant to congestion actually cuts against your argument that autonomous buses would be very helpful in reducing congestion."
Okay, I'll ignore research and the FPP and will just "look out the window" to see what's going on.
Also, to address point B, from the FPP:
"The latest front in the battle is the argument that if travelling by car suddenly becomes much easier and cheaper, more people will do it and congestion will increase. Uber, however, points out that most of its business is away from the centre of town and at night. According to a study of its data by Inrix, only 6 per cent of Uber trips last year were in central London, during the daytime and on a weekday.
Less controversial but harder to tame is “white van man”. The number of light goods vehicles is rising sharply, which TfL suspects is because of the tendency for people to have personal parcels delivered to their place of work in central London. "
So the 2 biggest causes are on-demand car services (Uber) and delivery vehicles. Having autonomous vehicles is not going to solve this, in your opinion?
posted by I-baLL at 10:22 AM on October 4, 2016
I do wonder if the question is badly framed; perhaps it's not 'is there too much traffic?' but instead 'is London too large to function?'. This, of course, is not a question that the FT or readers of the FT want to tackle.
posted by The River Ivel at 10:39 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by The River Ivel at 10:39 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
No one ever gets excited about autonomous freight, or clever freight solutions, or pneumatic delivery tunnels or any of that good stuff.
The traffic generated per person ina city is not limited to a commute back and forth, it's also all the deliveries you need to keep that person alive. Food, mail, spare parts for the electrical and water systems. Maintenance workers moving around, other people in the customer service industries that the person needs.
example:
Every male person* in the city has a haircut once a month**.
If we assume a hair cut takes 30 minutes and a barber works 8 hours a day (with an hour for lunch) and they work 5 days a week, with 2 weeks holiday then a barber does 3500 haircuts a year,
Therefore each male resident requires 0.35% of a barber, or 0.7% (because they commute both ways) of a person traffic per day. Add on all essential services, bar staff, bank tellers and so on and of course they need those services too, so you have a sort of exponential decay of service use.
Wait, I got a bit distracted by making a fun number, what was the point again?
Oh yeah, it's all like... systems man!
My point is that thinking of traffic as routes to move people is hugely reductive.
You need to take into account the total necessity to move any stuff. That capacity needs some fixed load (which is generally tubes and light/heavy rail, and a lot of flexibility.
And if the conversation is always focussed on how you get a million pinstriped business drones from Richmond to
The City everyday you're only dealing with part of the problem.
The most important thing is TFL need to hire me to develop autonomous delivery boats, instead of the fairly tedious railway data analysis I normally do.
*male because I could find referencable data sources** for barbers
**I mean, they're rubbish, but...
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 10:45 AM on October 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
The traffic generated per person ina city is not limited to a commute back and forth, it's also all the deliveries you need to keep that person alive. Food, mail, spare parts for the electrical and water systems. Maintenance workers moving around, other people in the customer service industries that the person needs.
example:
Every male person* in the city has a haircut once a month**.
If we assume a hair cut takes 30 minutes and a barber works 8 hours a day (with an hour for lunch) and they work 5 days a week, with 2 weeks holiday then a barber does 3500 haircuts a year,
Therefore each male resident requires 0.35% of a barber, or 0.7% (because they commute both ways) of a person traffic per day. Add on all essential services, bar staff, bank tellers and so on and of course they need those services too, so you have a sort of exponential decay of service use.
Wait, I got a bit distracted by making a fun number, what was the point again?
Oh yeah, it's all like... systems man!
My point is that thinking of traffic as routes to move people is hugely reductive.
You need to take into account the total necessity to move any stuff. That capacity needs some fixed load (which is generally tubes and light/heavy rail, and a lot of flexibility.
And if the conversation is always focussed on how you get a million pinstriped business drones from Richmond to
The City everyday you're only dealing with part of the problem.
The most important thing is TFL need to hire me to develop autonomous delivery boats, instead of the fairly tedious railway data analysis I normally do.
*male because I could find referencable data sources** for barbers
**I mean, they're rubbish, but...
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 10:45 AM on October 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
I do wonder if the question is badly framed
Oh, also a million points for you!
When you're trying to solve a complex systemic problem you should always start with "Maybe the question is wrong"
I had the question "Does a dog have a buddha nature?" written on my (transport modelling) team whiteboard last week, with the interpretation of unasking the question in mind.
" no answer can exist in the terms provided. Zhaozhou's answer, which literally means that dogs do not have Buddha nature, has been interpreted by Robert Pirsig and Douglas Hofstadter to mean that such categorical thinking is a delusion, that yes and no are both correct and incorrect."
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 10:50 AM on October 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh, also a million points for you!
When you're trying to solve a complex systemic problem you should always start with "Maybe the question is wrong"
I had the question "Does a dog have a buddha nature?" written on my (transport modelling) team whiteboard last week, with the interpretation of unasking the question in mind.
" no answer can exist in the terms provided. Zhaozhou's answer, which literally means that dogs do not have Buddha nature, has been interpreted by Robert Pirsig and Douglas Hofstadter to mean that such categorical thinking is a delusion, that yes and no are both correct and incorrect."
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 10:50 AM on October 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
Therefore each male resident requires 0.35% of a barber, or 0.7% (because they commute both ways)
As a systems person who has an advanced urban planning degree from the school of SimCity, London and San Francisco could solve their overburdened commute problems not so much by making sure techies can telecommute (they already can), but by making sure service workers – the cashiers, barbers, repair folks, etc – can live near their work.
posted by zippy at 10:51 AM on October 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
As a systems person who has an advanced urban planning degree from the school of SimCity, London and San Francisco could solve their overburdened commute problems not so much by making sure techies can telecommute (they already can), but by making sure service workers – the cashiers, barbers, repair folks, etc – can live near their work.
posted by zippy at 10:51 AM on October 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yes, most definitely!
If you have a good mix of relatively decent housing and services then you can cut down on all those hairdressers commuting in from Croydon.
The City is like a ghost town on the weekend, and that, I would say, is a problem (maybe it's even THE problem).
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 10:54 AM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you have a good mix of relatively decent housing and services then you can cut down on all those hairdressers commuting in from Croydon.
The City is like a ghost town on the weekend, and that, I would say, is a problem (maybe it's even THE problem).
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 10:54 AM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
In San Francisco, I've seen the service worker commute pushed out to Vallejo. People commuting to the city from there take a bus across a bridge to a BART stop near the end of the Richmond line, and then BART to the city.
Bus plus bridge plus train equals three unique possibilities for your commute to become a hellscape on a daily basis. It also means each passenger increases the load on two sifferent underfunded, overcapacity transit systems.
posted by zippy at 10:57 AM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bus plus bridge plus train equals three unique possibilities for your commute to become a hellscape on a daily basis. It also means each passenger increases the load on two sifferent underfunded, overcapacity transit systems.
posted by zippy at 10:57 AM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't have parcels delivered to work by choice, but because I have no control over the conditions of delivery. So there's a clear opportunity for TfL there.
posted by doiheartwentyone at 11:00 AM on October 4, 2016
posted by doiheartwentyone at 11:00 AM on October 4, 2016
Oh, yeah. I wonder if you could quantify the difference to traffic things like Amazon lockers have made?
But actually thinking about it, surely work deliveries would be better traffic wise?
Isn't it going to be faster to do one big drop off for 100 people in the company post room than drive around 100 different houses (many of whom won't be in, so you need to come back day after doy, or they need to come to the parcel office)?
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 11:08 AM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
But actually thinking about it, surely work deliveries would be better traffic wise?
Isn't it going to be faster to do one big drop off for 100 people in the company post room than drive around 100 different houses (many of whom won't be in, so you need to come back day after doy, or they need to come to the parcel office)?
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 11:08 AM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
I do wonder at what level average speed/commuting time would have to be before people decided to leave London. Surely a 2 hour commute would not be acceptable?
Anecdotally I know a number of people who have left the city for a much better quality of life.
I do find it surprising how much money is spent on London and SE infrastructure compared to other English regions.
posted by 92_elements at 11:11 AM on October 4, 2016
Anecdotally I know a number of people who have left the city for a much better quality of life.
I do find it surprising how much money is spent on London and SE infrastructure compared to other English regions.
posted by 92_elements at 11:11 AM on October 4, 2016
Guessing with the Amazon drop offs that they might live outside central London but work inside it.
Concentrating the destinations?
posted by 92_elements at 11:14 AM on October 4, 2016
Concentrating the destinations?
posted by 92_elements at 11:14 AM on October 4, 2016
Money spent on London and SE infrastructure is money which artificially boosts house prices, so makes the economy look better. It probably doesn't do as much for actual productivity as HS3 / Transpennine electrification or any kind of investment in the north would have.
The BBC moved to Salford, which was a good start.
Parliament should ABSOLUTELY move north while they rebuild their stupid twiddly building, maybe it should in fact move for good.
Then you'd see some transport investment in the north.
Huddersfield, or Halifax maybe.
Build a nice big government building designed for a modern parliament with proper sized offices and a House of Commons which doesn't have that weird two sided thing going on.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 11:17 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
The BBC moved to Salford, which was a good start.
Parliament should ABSOLUTELY move north while they rebuild their stupid twiddly building, maybe it should in fact move for good.
Then you'd see some transport investment in the north.
Huddersfield, or Halifax maybe.
Build a nice big government building designed for a modern parliament with proper sized offices and a House of Commons which doesn't have that weird two sided thing going on.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 11:17 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
York would be a nice choice for parliament to move to. Historic city with a good rail connection to London and Edinburgh.
Might help distance the MPs from the City people too. Which I think would be healthy.
posted by 92_elements at 11:19 AM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Might help distance the MPs from the City people too. Which I think would be healthy.
posted by 92_elements at 11:19 AM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
I blame Amazon: just another example of the tech industry stealing everything, from everyone, all the time. Worth 71 billion, pays basically no taxes, and certainly doesn't contribute to the environmental cost of the enormous expansion of unregulated delivery services (Yodel, DPD etc.)
Obviously, ordinary low-income consumers have little choice but to use Amazon because it's usually cheaper and easier. The goods have to come to your place of work in central London because otherwise they are likely to be stolen if left on your doorstep. We all do it. But who pays for all that extra traffic - much of it consisting of shitty, noisy, polluting old vans owned by poor people doing 16 hour days? Not Amazon. Not Google Maps/Waze, which they're all navigating with and increasing traffic down side streets. That's how they do it cheaper than the old services, and the same applies to their fellow traffic-multipliers, Uber and Deliveroo.
posted by Coda Tronca at 11:24 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Obviously, ordinary low-income consumers have little choice but to use Amazon because it's usually cheaper and easier. The goods have to come to your place of work in central London because otherwise they are likely to be stolen if left on your doorstep. We all do it. But who pays for all that extra traffic - much of it consisting of shitty, noisy, polluting old vans owned by poor people doing 16 hour days? Not Amazon. Not Google Maps/Waze, which they're all navigating with and increasing traffic down side streets. That's how they do it cheaper than the old services, and the same applies to their fellow traffic-multipliers, Uber and Deliveroo.
posted by Coda Tronca at 11:24 AM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
w0mbat: "It's that the local authorities have fucked up the road system. Pointless "no left turn" signs, pointless "no right turn" signs, roads blocked entirely, speed bumps even on bus routes, 20 mph limits for no reason, areas that are 100% residents parking so visitors have nowhere to stop, it goes on and on. If they ripped all that nonsensical stuff out and let the traffic do the natural flow it used to have around and through things, everything would be so much better. "
Much of the infuriating to drivers changes are due to increasing the priority of cyclists and pedestrians (and reducing the deaths and injuries of same). Letting traffic do it's thing is letting traffic mow down pedestrians and fatally interact with cyclists.
92_elements: "I do wonder at what level average speed/commuting time would have to be before people decided to leave London. Surely a 2 hour commute would not be acceptable?"
As someone who has talked to lots of people about commute times in Vancouver, BC, Canada: Ha, haaa, ha, haaa! People don't love it but they put up with it. I worked with a guy who previously had a 3 hour commute in and a 2 hour commute out.
posted by Mitheral at 11:25 AM on October 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
Much of the infuriating to drivers changes are due to increasing the priority of cyclists and pedestrians (and reducing the deaths and injuries of same). Letting traffic do it's thing is letting traffic mow down pedestrians and fatally interact with cyclists.
92_elements: "I do wonder at what level average speed/commuting time would have to be before people decided to leave London. Surely a 2 hour commute would not be acceptable?"
As someone who has talked to lots of people about commute times in Vancouver, BC, Canada: Ha, haaa, ha, haaa! People don't love it but they put up with it. I worked with a guy who previously had a 3 hour commute in and a 2 hour commute out.
posted by Mitheral at 11:25 AM on October 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
The article doesn't include some data I'd like to know, namely:
1) # of trips completed to move people, by all forms of transit (including bike, tube, bus as well as private vehicle), both before the fee, right after, and now.
2) volume of goods transported, by all methods, again before the fee, after, and now.
3) occupancy rates for London housing. I was under the impression they've changed somewhat, due to use of property as an investment vehicle, but I'm curious.
posted by nat at 11:29 AM on October 4, 2016
1) # of trips completed to move people, by all forms of transit (including bike, tube, bus as well as private vehicle), both before the fee, right after, and now.
2) volume of goods transported, by all methods, again before the fee, after, and now.
3) occupancy rates for London housing. I was under the impression they've changed somewhat, due to use of property as an investment vehicle, but I'm curious.
posted by nat at 11:29 AM on October 4, 2016
My commute by car is 30 mins. By bus it's over an hour. I find that irritatingly long. To think people choose to accept over double that. A 5 hour round trip is 20 hours a week. That's half my work week!
Must be what you get used to I guess.
posted by 92_elements at 11:29 AM on October 4, 2016
Must be what you get used to I guess.
posted by 92_elements at 11:29 AM on October 4, 2016
(via @felixsalmon)
Obligatory mention that if you're not listening to Felix on the Slate Money podcast weekly, he is hilarious and knowledgeable and unreservedly snarky about anything that has even a whiff of "Slate pitch" bullshit to it.
posted by psoas at 11:32 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Obligatory mention that if you're not listening to Felix on the Slate Money podcast weekly, he is hilarious and knowledgeable and unreservedly snarky about anything that has even a whiff of "Slate pitch" bullshit to it.
posted by psoas at 11:32 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's why they need to move north. :)
You let London people make decisions about the north and they'll do something stupid like sticking parliament in Halifax.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 11:35 AM on October 4, 2016
You let London people make decisions about the north and they'll do something stupid like sticking parliament in Halifax.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 11:35 AM on October 4, 2016
Winter hill I also live and work in Leeds! We've probably crossed paths IRL.
The price of housing in the centre put me off buying there.
I agree that telecommuting really should have picked up by now. I think part of it is that we are using the new technology in ways that suit the old ways of working/living.
posted by 92_elements at 11:47 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
The price of housing in the centre put me off buying there.
I agree that telecommuting really should have picked up by now. I think part of it is that we are using the new technology in ways that suit the old ways of working/living.
posted by 92_elements at 11:47 AM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
If average speed is increased, presumably more people and goods are moved per unit of time, no? (All else the same.)
But all else is not the same. Devoting space that single-occupancy vehicles used to use to bus lanes can involve a decrease in average speed but an increase in the number of people moved.
posted by grouse at 12:35 PM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
But all else is not the same. Devoting space that single-occupancy vehicles used to use to bus lanes can involve a decrease in average speed but an increase in the number of people moved.
posted by grouse at 12:35 PM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've been mentioning a separate road for autonomous vehicles in almost every comment so far.
I put those comments in the ignore as unfeasible lane since we can't even get easily done right now actual completely dedicated bus lanes in any major city.
posted by srboisvert at 12:36 PM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
I put those comments in the ignore as unfeasible lane since we can't even get easily done right now actual completely dedicated bus lanes in any major city.
posted by srboisvert at 12:36 PM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Autonomous vehicle systems will be owned an operated by large private corporations, so I'm sure city planners will move heaven and earth to accommodate the kickbacks headed toward their wallets, er I mean the autonomous vehicle lanes.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:54 PM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 12:54 PM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
winterhill, every worker moving painfully into the "winner" cities knows why centralization: that's where the only jobs are. And if you ask businesses why they're moving into the cities, they explain that it's actually much easier to find employees there. And in both cases they're paying a lot, so they probably (as a group) consider alternatives. Is it a terrible coordination failure? Should would-be small-city workers and employers have some Tindr equivalent to find each other? Something like the med-school-hospital matching system?
Maybe, but I think it's also an effect of short job tenure and two-job families. Workers take a big risk if they think they're going to have a long-term job in a one-company town; even worse than being fired, bad times for the company mean you lose your job and your house equity at once. If a family needs two jobs, especially for risk-smoothing, they *really* shouldn't be two jobs at the same company. So we all want to work someplace with varied jobs, and everything centralizes and here we are.
posted by clew at 1:20 PM on October 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
Maybe, but I think it's also an effect of short job tenure and two-job families. Workers take a big risk if they think they're going to have a long-term job in a one-company town; even worse than being fired, bad times for the company mean you lose your job and your house equity at once. If a family needs two jobs, especially for risk-smoothing, they *really* shouldn't be two jobs at the same company. So we all want to work someplace with varied jobs, and everything centralizes and here we are.
posted by clew at 1:20 PM on October 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
It talks about the space taken for cycle lanes, but not about whether that space is used.
Yes, this was rather disappointing.
I was in London just after the new segregated cycle superhighways opened, and I cycled from my hotel to my destination along the Embankment and then over Blackfriars Bridge. It looked like this (filmed that day - not my video, but absolutely my experience). How much more space would all those people be taking up if they were in single-occupant cars instead of bikes?
posted by Catseye at 1:40 PM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, this was rather disappointing.
I was in London just after the new segregated cycle superhighways opened, and I cycled from my hotel to my destination along the Embankment and then over Blackfriars Bridge. It looked like this (filmed that day - not my video, but absolutely my experience). How much more space would all those people be taking up if they were in single-occupant cars instead of bikes?
posted by Catseye at 1:40 PM on October 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Catseye: " It looked like this "
One of the sidebarred videos on that page shows regular, mid block, bus stops in the median with uncontrolled pedestrian crossings further on that route. That must be fun if traffic levels are that steady.
posted by Mitheral at 2:03 PM on October 4, 2016
One of the sidebarred videos on that page shows regular, mid block, bus stops in the median with uncontrolled pedestrian crossings further on that route. That must be fun if traffic levels are that steady.
posted by Mitheral at 2:03 PM on October 4, 2016
Autonomous vehicles won't solve anything
Thinking of Los Angeles and San Francisco and DC, there are traffic problems that could be addressed with autonomous vehicles that humans can't seem to deal with. Putting up a "don't block the box" sign might help keep people from pulling into an intersection just before a signal change, but there are always stragglers. And automated vehicle can be told, "do not pull into an intersection until there is room to accommodate you in your destination lane." That's not limited to automated vehicles, but I suspect human drivers would be reticent to buy a car that could override their impulse to pull forward at will. Small measures like that alone would make a considerable difference to congestion within a system comprised of many independent units.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 2:16 PM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thinking of Los Angeles and San Francisco and DC, there are traffic problems that could be addressed with autonomous vehicles that humans can't seem to deal with. Putting up a "don't block the box" sign might help keep people from pulling into an intersection just before a signal change, but there are always stragglers. And automated vehicle can be told, "do not pull into an intersection until there is room to accommodate you in your destination lane." That's not limited to automated vehicles, but I suspect human drivers would be reticent to buy a car that could override their impulse to pull forward at will. Small measures like that alone would make a considerable difference to congestion within a system comprised of many independent units.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 2:16 PM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
And automated vehicle can be told, "do not pull into an intersection until there is room to accommodate you in your destination lane.
In heavy traffic, this would create a choke-point at every intersection.
I think a lot of people in this thread are missing the fact that small vehicles on surface streets are inherently inefficient. They simply take up too much room. We might be able to achieve some marginal gains through automation, but nothing that would even approach the capacity increase that would be provided by even a single rapid-transit line.
The problem of providing transportation during off-peak or low-demand times is very different than the problem of handling huge masses of commuters during rush hour, and I'm not sure why that keeps getting dragged into this conversation...
At the end of the day, the options are to build rapid transit, or enable people to live near their work. To their own detriment, Britain and America's wealthiest and most congested metropolitan areas are unwilling to do either.
posted by schmod at 2:54 PM on October 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
In heavy traffic, this would create a choke-point at every intersection.
I think a lot of people in this thread are missing the fact that small vehicles on surface streets are inherently inefficient. They simply take up too much room. We might be able to achieve some marginal gains through automation, but nothing that would even approach the capacity increase that would be provided by even a single rapid-transit line.
The problem of providing transportation during off-peak or low-demand times is very different than the problem of handling huge masses of commuters during rush hour, and I'm not sure why that keeps getting dragged into this conversation...
At the end of the day, the options are to build rapid transit, or enable people to live near their work. To their own detriment, Britain and America's wealthiest and most congested metropolitan areas are unwilling to do either.
posted by schmod at 2:54 PM on October 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
Because when a train breaks down or has an emergency then it prevents other trains from moving on the same track.
Conversely, rails are more durable than pavement, and provide a much better ride-quality.
If you're that concerned about redundancy, you could build a 3-track system that has crossovers at every station. It would be difficult to justify the cost, but it's possible.
posted by schmod at 2:55 PM on October 4, 2016
Conversely, rails are more durable than pavement, and provide a much better ride-quality.
If you're that concerned about redundancy, you could build a 3-track system that has crossovers at every station. It would be difficult to justify the cost, but it's possible.
posted by schmod at 2:55 PM on October 4, 2016
"keep people from pulling into an intersection just before a signal change"
You could also have the situation where turn lanes with no dedicated signals never moves. There is at least one intersection near my home where you just can't turn if you don't enter the intersection before you can clear the intersection. It is double idiotic because the city removed the alternate route that let you go straight through (eliminating the need to turn at all) because "no one ever does that". Sure municipal planner, except for the people living in the few hundred homes serviced by this intersection.
But I'm not bitter.
Ok, maybe a little.
posted by Mitheral at 3:04 PM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
You could also have the situation where turn lanes with no dedicated signals never moves. There is at least one intersection near my home where you just can't turn if you don't enter the intersection before you can clear the intersection. It is double idiotic because the city removed the alternate route that let you go straight through (eliminating the need to turn at all) because "no one ever does that". Sure municipal planner, except for the people living in the few hundred homes serviced by this intersection.
But I'm not bitter.
Ok, maybe a little.
posted by Mitheral at 3:04 PM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
But all else is not the same. Devoting space that single-occupancy vehicles used to use to bus lanes can involve a decrease in average speed but an increase in the number of people moved.
You can’t sell that to commuters.
They’re already among the people being moved. They would like their journeys to be faster, cheaper, and/or more comfortable. They’re only interested in changes that improve at least one of the three and certainly doesn’t make anything worse.
They don’t particularly care if people who were previously unable to travel are now able to do so, and they will fight your proposal if they feel it goes against their own interests.
posted by Fongotskilernie at 4:10 PM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
You can’t sell that to commuters.
They’re already among the people being moved. They would like their journeys to be faster, cheaper, and/or more comfortable. They’re only interested in changes that improve at least one of the three and certainly doesn’t make anything worse.
They don’t particularly care if people who were previously unable to travel are now able to do so, and they will fight your proposal if they feel it goes against their own interests.
posted by Fongotskilernie at 4:10 PM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
The cycle superhighway down Blackfriars Road operates sort of like a storm drain - twice a day the floodgates open and thousands of cyclists flood up and down it (up in the morning, down in the evening). It's fairly quiet the rest of the time - cycling seems to be a commuting thing, while the vans and trucks go all the time, so certainly for a lot of the day it is basically a net loss of capacity. And, yes, the semi-marooned bus stops do make some older and infirm people rather nervous. I think you'd be surprised how scary flocks of cyclists moving at speed are if you're confronted with them as a pedestrian.
posted by Grangousier at 4:26 PM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Grangousier at 4:26 PM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
> You can’t sell that to commuters.
You say that, but San Francisco's about to do just that all along Van Ness Ave, one of the city's major car thoroughfares. They're still working on getting permits, but the design including a bus-only lane is basically finalized. Additionally, southbound Mission St, also in San Francisco has already been converted, so instead of two south bound lanes, there is a dedicated bus-only lane and an "everyone else" lane.
On the subject of buses-train crossover systems, Adelaide's O-Bahn busway system is exactly that - the specially designed bus and rail system has buses that drive in the suburbs on tires as regular buses, but are able to use the tram system's rails while in the urban core to avoid congestion.
posted by fragmede at 4:37 PM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
You say that, but San Francisco's about to do just that all along Van Ness Ave, one of the city's major car thoroughfares. They're still working on getting permits, but the design including a bus-only lane is basically finalized. Additionally, southbound Mission St, also in San Francisco has already been converted, so instead of two south bound lanes, there is a dedicated bus-only lane and an "everyone else" lane.
On the subject of buses-train crossover systems, Adelaide's O-Bahn busway system is exactly that - the specially designed bus and rail system has buses that drive in the suburbs on tires as regular buses, but are able to use the tram system's rails while in the urban core to avoid congestion.
posted by fragmede at 4:37 PM on October 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
I was in London just after the new segregated cycle superhighways opened, and I cycled from my hotel to my destination along the Embankment and then over Blackfriars Bridge. It looked like this (filmed that day - not my video, but absolutely my experience). How much more space would all those people be taking up if they were in single-occupant cars instead of bikes?
Watching that video made me realize that while I am totally comfortable driving on the left, it would definitely take a while before cycling on the left would feel natural.
There is obviously more that can be done to increase transport capacity by prioritizing cycle and bus access, but at some point you will hit an upper limit on moving people and the goal will have to change to either move people closer to their work, or decentralize the jobs.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:08 PM on October 4, 2016
Watching that video made me realize that while I am totally comfortable driving on the left, it would definitely take a while before cycling on the left would feel natural.
There is obviously more that can be done to increase transport capacity by prioritizing cycle and bus access, but at some point you will hit an upper limit on moving people and the goal will have to change to either move people closer to their work, or decentralize the jobs.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:08 PM on October 4, 2016
I think you'd be surprised how scary flocks of cyclists moving at speed are if you're confronted with them as a pedestrian.
I wouldn't - the Victoria Embankment cycle lane is unbelievably bad for pedestrians, many of whom are tourists with children getting off boats and so pretty vague in their movements. The cyclists at rush hour tend to accelerate very hard towards the crossings in order to beat the lights, in a way I didn't see in Amsterdam, which famously has bikes and people mixing it up all over the place. Perhaps because it's called a 'cycle superhighway' and they're all so stoked up on the supposed millions of injustices they face all day.
posted by Coda Tronca at 11:51 PM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wouldn't - the Victoria Embankment cycle lane is unbelievably bad for pedestrians, many of whom are tourists with children getting off boats and so pretty vague in their movements. The cyclists at rush hour tend to accelerate very hard towards the crossings in order to beat the lights, in a way I didn't see in Amsterdam, which famously has bikes and people mixing it up all over the place. Perhaps because it's called a 'cycle superhighway' and they're all so stoked up on the supposed millions of injustices they face all day.
posted by Coda Tronca at 11:51 PM on October 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is worth noting that the article explicitly points out that:
"Among the alleged culprits, one is noticeable by its absence — the private car. The number of people travelling into central London in their own car in the morning rush hour has been declining steadily for years. It fell by half between 2000 and 2014 and now accounts for about one in 20 people entering London during the morning peak.
“The only private cars on the road are residents and rich people. We’ve priced off the rest of it,” says Leon Daniels, managing director for surface transport at Transport for London (TfL)."
It isn't a case of swapping private car drivers for cyclists. It's a case of cyclists taking space from public transport, and in particular busses.
There is some further discussion of this issue in the comments below the article.
posted by lucien_reeve at 2:22 AM on October 5, 2016
"Among the alleged culprits, one is noticeable by its absence — the private car. The number of people travelling into central London in their own car in the morning rush hour has been declining steadily for years. It fell by half between 2000 and 2014 and now accounts for about one in 20 people entering London during the morning peak.
“The only private cars on the road are residents and rich people. We’ve priced off the rest of it,” says Leon Daniels, managing director for surface transport at Transport for London (TfL)."
It isn't a case of swapping private car drivers for cyclists. It's a case of cyclists taking space from public transport, and in particular busses.
There is some further discussion of this issue in the comments below the article.
posted by lucien_reeve at 2:22 AM on October 5, 2016
It's a case of cyclists taking space from public transport
The cycle lanes didn't replace bus lanes, though? And 'cyclists' and 'public transport users' are not mutually exclusive groups.
Look, I know we have a valued national tradition of grumbling about Those Bloody Cyclists, but when it is increasingly clear that our cities can't cope with ever-increasing levels of motor traffic, part of the solution to that is by making space for non-motor-traffic. Cycle commuters are not a special interest group of Lycra-wearing vigilantes who materialise from nowhere as soon as a cycle lane appears - they are still people travelling from A to B, who would be making that trip via another means of transport if they weren't on a bike.
So: cycle lanes reduce the overall space for motor traffic, which includes buses. They also reduce the number of people travelling via motor traffic, because some of those people are now in that cycle lane. All lanes of the road itself are still being used.
This is why it would have been good to see the article actually address the use and capacity of the segregated cycle lanes, to see what effect they're actually having on getting people in to and out of the city.
posted by Catseye at 2:55 AM on October 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
The cycle lanes didn't replace bus lanes, though? And 'cyclists' and 'public transport users' are not mutually exclusive groups.
Look, I know we have a valued national tradition of grumbling about Those Bloody Cyclists, but when it is increasingly clear that our cities can't cope with ever-increasing levels of motor traffic, part of the solution to that is by making space for non-motor-traffic. Cycle commuters are not a special interest group of Lycra-wearing vigilantes who materialise from nowhere as soon as a cycle lane appears - they are still people travelling from A to B, who would be making that trip via another means of transport if they weren't on a bike.
So: cycle lanes reduce the overall space for motor traffic, which includes buses. They also reduce the number of people travelling via motor traffic, because some of those people are now in that cycle lane. All lanes of the road itself are still being used.
This is why it would have been good to see the article actually address the use and capacity of the segregated cycle lanes, to see what effect they're actually having on getting people in to and out of the city.
posted by Catseye at 2:55 AM on October 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Give everyone -- residents, commuters, and tourists, with or without bicycles -- free public transport during non-rush hours, and hop on and off as you like, so you can travel into and around London for nothing as long as you stay out of the way during peak hours.
During peak hours, close the gates to anyone without a valid monthly pass and squeeze a giant congestion charge out of anyone (including residents) driving a private car.
posted by pracowity at 4:33 AM on October 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
During peak hours, close the gates to anyone without a valid monthly pass and squeeze a giant congestion charge out of anyone (including residents) driving a private car.
posted by pracowity at 4:33 AM on October 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
You can’t sell that to commuters.
Most commuters are not in small-occupancy vehicles. So, yeah, you can sell, say, speeding up the commute for most people even if it slows down a smaller number of other people.
posted by grouse at 9:02 AM on October 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Most commuters are not in small-occupancy vehicles. So, yeah, you can sell, say, speeding up the commute for most people even if it slows down a smaller number of other people.
posted by grouse at 9:02 AM on October 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
But all else is not the same. Devoting space that single-occupancy vehicles used to use to bus lanes can involve a decrease in average speed but an increase in the number of people moved.
I think one of the questions raised in the article is how movement of the congestion zone charge (as a variable) related to the movement of the average speed statistic.
All else the same, for the same average set of cars, trucks and buses going in and out of London — dropping off and picking up the same average set of goods and people within some unit of time, per hour, per minute, etc. — once you increase the average speed of their collective travel through the city, more goods and people per unit of time can be moved.
Once you start adding variables like vehicle type, occupancy, capacity, etc. you have to have some way to measure all of that. This may be complicated not only by how you initially decide on those categories and their valuations, but how you (as a city transportation manager, say) actually implement measuring that with the vehicles going in and out of the zone.
Do you have special software running on the zone cameras that count how many people actually sit in the vehicles? Do you have weigh stations at various points that progressively track a truck or van's weight, as contents are delivered? It seems like a tougher problem to solve, for a marginal improvement in clarity.
At the very least, measuring average vehicle speed seems like data that is relatively easy to collect, and it is a useful statistic because it gives a direct measurement of the relative efficiency of traffic, in the same way that a faster CPU generally does more computational work in a unit of time than a slower CPU. A faster processor can be bogged down with deliberately bad code, but by and large, for the types of things most people do with computers, there are more immediate gains from pushing processor improvements than in algorithm improvements.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:57 PM on October 5, 2016
I think one of the questions raised in the article is how movement of the congestion zone charge (as a variable) related to the movement of the average speed statistic.
All else the same, for the same average set of cars, trucks and buses going in and out of London — dropping off and picking up the same average set of goods and people within some unit of time, per hour, per minute, etc. — once you increase the average speed of their collective travel through the city, more goods and people per unit of time can be moved.
Once you start adding variables like vehicle type, occupancy, capacity, etc. you have to have some way to measure all of that. This may be complicated not only by how you initially decide on those categories and their valuations, but how you (as a city transportation manager, say) actually implement measuring that with the vehicles going in and out of the zone.
Do you have special software running on the zone cameras that count how many people actually sit in the vehicles? Do you have weigh stations at various points that progressively track a truck or van's weight, as contents are delivered? It seems like a tougher problem to solve, for a marginal improvement in clarity.
At the very least, measuring average vehicle speed seems like data that is relatively easy to collect, and it is a useful statistic because it gives a direct measurement of the relative efficiency of traffic, in the same way that a faster CPU generally does more computational work in a unit of time than a slower CPU. A faster processor can be bogged down with deliberately bad code, but by and large, for the types of things most people do with computers, there are more immediate gains from pushing processor improvements than in algorithm improvements.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:57 PM on October 5, 2016
Maybe it would help if the government and businesses recognised that there is life OUTSIDE London and stopped trying to do everything there.
The amount of public money spent on the infrastructure for the benefit of London is more than for the whole of the rest of the country.
posted by Burn_IT at 3:19 PM on October 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
The amount of public money spent on the infrastructure for the benefit of London is more than for the whole of the rest of the country.
posted by Burn_IT at 3:19 PM on October 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
It would also be great if solutions didn't involve making people spend more money. That always seems to make access less fair, doesn't it?
If you provide a good alternative, then why should it matter?
I never liked this argument, because it feels like it centers on entitlement. Like i should be able to drive in the city for a reasonable price, and it should be convenient/work right too.
Why not make it ridiculously expensive, and fill the now almost empty space with light rail/buses/other transit and taxis and such, and make that dirt cheap?
The goal should be to discourage people from driving in and go do this instead. A lot of these solutions that just discouraged people from driving were doomed to fail in the first place, but also kind of missed the point. It's a bandaid on a bullet wound.
posted by emptythought at 6:25 PM on October 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you provide a good alternative, then why should it matter?
I never liked this argument, because it feels like it centers on entitlement. Like i should be able to drive in the city for a reasonable price, and it should be convenient/work right too.
Why not make it ridiculously expensive, and fill the now almost empty space with light rail/buses/other transit and taxis and such, and make that dirt cheap?
The goal should be to discourage people from driving in and go do this instead. A lot of these solutions that just discouraged people from driving were doomed to fail in the first place, but also kind of missed the point. It's a bandaid on a bullet wound.
posted by emptythought at 6:25 PM on October 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older "So we made it out of plywood" | Provoke Joy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Homemade Interossiter at 7:19 AM on October 4, 2016 [3 favorites]