Pedway networks also will probably become ubiquitous in the age of driverless cars. Getting rid of pedestrians gets rid of the need for any stopping at intersections.
At the moment most layers of Government in the UK would disagree with you, and would rather get rid of the cars from the city centres rather then pedestrians.
Yes it does. All the more reason why induced demand is a bullshit reason not to build more roads.
London is lucky to not be surrounded by mountains or sea, it should take advantage.
London, and the UK, got exactly what it deserved. The Green Belt around London was put in place with support from London, to provide a countryside area around London that all Londoners could go to, such as Epping Forest and the like. It still enjoys general popular support at least in principle, although it's under pressure in some areas which already have motorways and railways through them.
And building more roads is just not politically doable. There were several large and well backed protests against new trunk roads (ie. motorways or dual carriageways) in the late 1980s and through the 1990s. In general, UK people just don't want new motorways built across the country. What people seem to want is a complete modernisation of the railway system to take some load off the roads, although, as ever, it's complicated due to the current organisational structure of the railway industry and that national politics is interlinked with a dozen other issues, some of which can and should take priority over rail. You only have to look at the furore over investments, or lack of, around the country to see what people think about public transit in the UK.
High Paddington looks absolutely hideous.
And high rises should only be built as a last resort. Buildings become more expensive per square foot as they get taller, because you need stronger supports and you need to put in more staircases and elevator shafts, the need to cut costs led to disasters like Ronan Point. So it's much cheaper to put Londoners in ranch houses on the outskirts than to put them in apartments.
Erm, weren't the transit people supposed to be the ones on their high horses? It's a free market; people can choose to live where they want. Given that property prices are a reflection of demand vs supply in the UK, rather than actual material cost, it would seem that demand for homes nearby to railway or Underground stations are in the highest demand, in contrary to a lot of previous statements. If someone wants to build a large high-rise apartment complex, and people choose to spend their money and want to live there, who are you to tell them otherwise? It's the free market at work.
Just let London spread out.
The rich snobs of Surrey can have their hunting grounds turned into strip malls.
I live in Surrey, and I can assure you I'm neither rich, I don't think a snob, and I've never hunted in my life (let alone even shot a gun). Nor do I particularly enjoy strip malls. I'd rather you kept the personal insults out of the debate though please.
