Young couples are getting trapped in their cars

HoarseMann wrote:

Hannah spends 20mins driving 1.5miles to work and Peter can’t cycle as there are too many cars, so he drives. Depressing. These big developers need to be forced to do more to provide adequate active travel options. Not going to be much of a community with everyone isolated in their cars and the pavements deserted. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45970349

Depressing is putting it mildly.

"It can take us up to 20 minutes to drive a mile-and-a-half to work"

So why add to the congestion problem by choosing to drive?  Even if cycling is "too dangerous", how long do they think it would take to walk 1.5 miles?

OR_biker wrote:

Here in the U.S., we just call places like this "suburbs" 

I'm impressed you actually have an article in your media that's complaining about this type of housing conifguration.  The whole "car dependence" thing is pretty much a given for most people over here that they prefer living a bit "out of the way."  A home without at least a 2-car garage attached and a driveway in front that can handle 3-4 more vehicles is considered somewhat minimalist.  Even if they have a shop or restaurant somewhat close most would still hop in their huge SUV's to avoid walking very far.

But then they complain about their commute time and blame it on the people trying to add better cycling infrastructure 

Yep, sounds quite a bit like the UK. Except you'd be lucky if you get a house with a drive (let alone a garage) most places in the UK!

And some people wonder why most people in the UK and US are fat.

srchar wrote:

If they can get out of their housing estate in a car, they can get out of it on a bike.

Not everyone wants to cycle to and from Tesco to do the big shop.

vonhelmet wrote:

srchar wrote:

If they can get out of their housing estate in a car, they can get out of it on a bike.

Not everyone wants to cycle to and from Tesco to do the big shop.

Don’t bother. We have had this argument elsewhere recently and some people are totally incapable of understanding that a 10 mile cycle in all weathers is not everyone’s idea of fun... or that not everyone is confident dealing with the shit driving we see in the UK... or that there can be any possible reason why some people may not want to cycle and might want to walk or get public transport.

alansmurphy wrote:

I'd anticipate the 'young couples' is part of the problem.

 

Didn't grow up playing outside, want their little brick box the same as next doors with their catalogue minimalist crap inside, always driven to their job as they were driven to school.

 

I'd never live in one of these hell holes but guess what, I ride past my butcher, farm shop, the supermarket and all these people as they leave their shit estates to get to their shit jobs in a longer time than it takes me. As i get fitter, economic value et al the only opportunity they get to redress the balance is to close pass me and then tell me its my fault due to 'the road', 'the sun' or my 'invisible black top'...

I'm not sure you know many young people...

I'm in my early twenties and I cycle to work every day. My colleagues at work (same age as me) walk to work and a few of them don't even own cars, but that's because there isn't a massive housing issue in our local area.

My friends in Bristol aren't in such an ideal position, they can't get houses anywhere near their jobs, unfortunately - quite a few people living in Keynsham/Yate and commuting to Bristol for work.

Unsurprisingly, I and my friends don't really want to drive because it costs a lot and we don't want to spend ages sat in traffic - some people don't have the choice - because house prices are so high.

ktache wrote:

When I was reading this earlier today the question that hit me was why only couples and why young ones at that?

Presumably the houses serve young couples well in terms of layout, location and price.

mbrads72 wrote:

"It's come about because planners allowed edge-of-town housing estates where car travel is the only option."

I'll buy that if literally the only roads in and out are motorways (although buses can run on those). Otherwise it's BS.

Happy to let your 8 year old ride on those roads then? Or your 80 year old mother/grandmother? If not, it's not bs. 

StoopidUserName wrote:

mbrads72 wrote:

"It's come about because planners allowed edge-of-town housing estates where car travel is the only option."

I'll buy that if literally the only roads in and out are motorways (although buses can run on those). Otherwise it's BS.

Happy to let your 8 year old ride on those roads then? Or your 80 year old mother/grandmother? If not, it's not bs. 

If there is a road (whether suitable for cycling or not) it doesn't mean you must only use it in a car, or only travel to your destination using that road. Therefore, car travel is not the only option.

It also doesn't mean the only option other than cars is bikes. Making car travel the only option is lazy thinking. For many people their car is the only option because it's the only option they're prepared to consider. It's very rare that there is literally no other option.

Mark B wrote:

The large developments, basically new villages, tend to be a little better, and do include pubs, shops, doctors surgeries and schools. The problem is more with the smaller ones where they put a hundred houses on the edge of an existing town, and then a few years later another hundred on the next field.

Even when they are well designed with facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, the distances involved in going into the middle of town are often a bit far for a family with young children.

I agree that the article rather overstates the problem; most new estates either do have basic shops etc or they're on the edge of an existing town at a distance which is an easy cycle or a slightly annoyingly long but perfectly possible walk. I can well believe there are some estates which are bad, I don't know any of the ones mentioned in the article.

Cough, cough - Portishead! - cough, cough.

A small town, conveniently close to Bristol and the M5 motorway.  Build a few hundred houses.  Then a few hundred more.  Then fill in the gaps left.  "Doctor's surgeries", you say?  "Schools", you say?  "How the f will I actually get in and out of the town since there are only two small A roads?" you say?

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Mark B wrote:

The large developments, basically new villages, tend to be a little better, and do include pubs, shops, doctors surgeries and schools. The problem is more with the smaller ones where they put a hundred houses on the edge of an existing town, and then a few years later another hundred on the next field.

Even when they are well designed with facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, the distances involved in going into the middle of town are often a bit far for a family with young children.

I agree that the article rather overstates the problem; most new estates either do have basic shops etc or they're on the edge of an existing town at a distance which is an easy cycle or a slightly annoyingly long but perfectly possible walk. I can well believe there are some estates which are bad, I don't know any of the ones mentioned in the article.

Cough, cough - Portishead! - cough, cough.

A small town, conveniently close to Bristol and the M5 motorway.  Build a few hundred houses.  Then a few hundred more.  Then fill in the gaps left.  "Doctor's surgeries", you say?  "Schools", you say?  "How the f will I actually get in and out of the town since there are only two small A roads?" you say?

Just get the train.

You think that'll actually ever happen?

(If so, would you like to buy a bridge I've got in the back of my van...   )

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Mark B wrote:

The large developments, basically new villages, tend to be a little better, and do include pubs, shops, doctors surgeries and schools. The problem is more with the smaller ones where they put a hundred houses on the edge of an existing town, and then a few years later another hundred on the next field.

Even when they are well designed with facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, the distances involved in going into the middle of town are often a bit far for a family with young children.

I agree that the article rather overstates the problem; most new estates either do have basic shops etc or they're on the edge of an existing town at a distance which is an easy cycle or a slightly annoyingly long but perfectly possible walk. I can well believe there are some estates which are bad, I don't know any of the ones mentioned in the article.

Cough, cough - Portishead! - cough, cough.

A small town, conveniently close to Bristol and the M5 motorway.  Build a few hundred houses.  Then a few hundred more.  Then fill in the gaps left.  "Doctor's surgeries", you say?  "Schools", you say?  "How the f will I actually get in and out of the town since there are only two small A roads?" you say?

Just get the train.

You think that'll actually ever happen?

(If so, would you like to buy a bridge I've got in the back of my van...   )

It's as likely as Bristol getting a stadium.

Bristol or South Gloucestershire... 

kil0ran wrote:

Load of bollocks. I'm commuting from Salisbury through Amesbury at the moment, the new estate is right on NCN45 and has excellent cycle paths. In the rush hour it's probably slightly quicker by bike than it is in a car

Probably is: but then they'd have to ride a bike 

I think the article raises a more general point - that newbuild developments ("lets build a new town/district right here") seem to be designed as monocultures: this area will be residential, this area will be commercial/retail, this area under the bridge next to the sewerage treatment works behind a really big wall will be affordable housing, that sort of thing.   Few developments seem to be designed with their own 'additional stuff' - they rely upon surrounding areas for shops, even for schools or doctor's surgeries.   (And Poundbury, though it illustrates what could be done, is still really the Toytown of the Prince of Wales, isn't it?)

kil0ran wrote:

Load of bollocks. I'm commuting from Salisbury through Amesbury at the moment, the new estate is right on NCN45 and has excellent cycle paths. In the rush hour it's probably slightly quicker by bike than it is in a car

So one estate has good cycle provision? Does that mean they all do?