How to design a city?

if it wasnt in the middle of nowhere, i think dubai is pretty fcking ridiculous

@ Oliver
correct, when I was there it was roughly 1200 peeps living there.
Still, as I was not comparing to your post (I havent read it fully to be honest) .
I simply answered the thread's question

Auroville anyone ?
Its spaced out, but car free afterall

edited: Yes, this is on Earth. Pondicherry to be precise (famous through Life of Pi)

Ooh, that looks really nice from the air at least ;-)

At least this thing would be fun to ride down..

@bluequinn: dude thats a model ^^^

unless the whole thing is fenced out by a giant plastic wall

hippy, your posts are in the way, i know you're going for 20K posts, but ffs
and yes that thing would be ridicolously fun to ride. worlds easiest building to climb?

My posts are never in the way.. my posts show the way.. follow me and enlightened you shall become.. You need to learn to quote.

And the non-sporty people would of course gradually get more sporty. :)

Indeed, but it's the unfit we need to sell cycling to - the rest already do it. Real cycling cities like Amsterdam don't sell cycling as a sporting activity like the British feel the need to, but as an everyday part of life. It works.

The congestion charge did show that you can make driving less popular by showing up more of its real cost

Only to a very small degree. As a regular commuter through the centre, I never noticed a significantly smaller number of cars. I think making driving more expensive has a limit to its effectiveness, and we've pretty much reached it. Have you noticed by the way how almost all "normal" cars have minicab stickers on them these days, or is it just an A4 thing?

the Government still subsidises private motor traffic to the tune of billions and billions.

Are you entirely sure about this, because the billions the government rakes in through motoring taxes, fuel taxes, fines and so forth completely dwarfs the pittance invested in the road infrastructure. What is being subsidised?

We want higher-order solutions than cycle lanes and fortunately we've managed to keep those to a minimum in Hackney.

Hackney does have some nice little alleyways. It could use more. There are loads of blocked off streets in the borough, as well as Tower Hamlets and the City. And as for Islington, there are vast swathes of that borough that could benefit. Of course the cycle roads need to be shared use and overlooked by shops, businesses, houses, etc, or you get the Milton Keynes experience, where cycle paths become rich pickings for muggers who know they won't be seen.

The reason why the motorcycle option is not treated as seriously is of course because motorcycles share some of the same problems that cars create, while the comparison with pedal cycles isn't as straightforward as it may first appear.

Motorcycles should be addressed in any serious discussion of urban design as a unique tier of urban transport, rather than being ignored or lumped in to "cars" or "bikes" depending on which of the two the lobbyist is opposed to. It's difficult to think of an argument against either type of vehicle which also applies in the same way to motorcycles. Equally motorbike use has issues that car use or bicycle use probably doesn't, and these need to be considered on their own merits too.

^^^

what he said.

(I meant hippy - oh the levels of irony)

My posts are never in the way.. my posts show the way.. follow me and enlightened you shall become.. You need to learn to quote.

Quote your posts? Are you mad? ;)

I see what you did there.

I see what you did there.

He, he, and it does not increase your post count. Um, unless it gives you a reason to reply ...

Indeed, but it's the unfit we need to sell cycling to - the rest already do it. Real cycling cities like Amsterdam don't sell cycling as a sporting activity like the British feel the need to, but as an everyday part of life. It works.

I think you'll find that a lot of very fit people don't cycle but drive to the gym instead. Likewise, a lot of unfit people take up cycling to get fitter. Of course, 'selling' cycling as a sporting activity would only appeal to relatively few people, and you're absolutely right that it has to be promoted as a normal daily activity.

The Netherlands are a special case as they haven't had the same amount of 'road safety' indoctrination as this country, cycling has been promoted by the Government for more than 30 years, and crucially, average trip length is so low. (The Dutch currently fear that an increase in motor traffic of between 15-25% is likely in the coming years, as much new development will be created away from existing centres. Worrying.)

Only to a very small degree. As a regular commuter through the centre, I never noticed a significantly smaller number of cars. I think making driving more expensive has a limit to its effectiveness, and we've pretty much reached it. Have you noticed by the way how almost all "normal" cars have minicab stickers on them these days, or is it just an A4 thing?

That the CC resulted in an immediate drop of motor traffic of 15% is beyond dispute. If the CC had kept pace with inflation, the extent to which business passes the cost on to customers, etc., it would be significantly higher now than at present. I'm not going to venture a guess as to how much that would be. Of course, it was also a mistake to give the WECCZ the same tariff as the original CCZ.

Are you entirely sure about this, because the billions the government rakes in through motoring taxes, fuel taxes, fines and so forth completely dwarfs the pittance invested in the road infrastructure. What is being subsidised?

The hidden costs, e.g. to public health, other public services, pollution, loss of biodiversity, effects of climate chaos, etc. The estimates for the US are usually in the hundreds of billions of dollars. One American study put the subsidy for motoring there at 90%.

Here's some evidence:

Some more detail on the US:
**
http://tinyurl.com/94sul4**

In the UK, it's usually expressed by saying that motorists pay only about one third of the real cost of motoring (the degree of subsidy is less in the UK than in the US). There are academic papers giving figures which are not on-line but here are some snapshots (the issues are of course similar to the detail on the US):

The recent report by the Transport Select Committee, 'Ending the Scandal of Complacency: Road Safety beyond 2010' puts the annual cost of road 'accidents' (sic) at about 1.5% of GDP, or £18bn (pp3-4):

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtran/460/460.pdf

A very valuable read, one of the more lucid of Government reports (don't be put off by the length, as most of that is evidence).

Worth quoting:

1. Our witnesses pointed out how road accidents have an impact on society on multiple levels. At a personal level, road deaths are devastating not only for the victims but also for the families and friends left behind. Professor Danny Dorling of Sheffield University told us that road accidents were the largest single cause of death for people between the ages of 5 and 35 in Britain. Road accidents cost our economy about 1.5% of GDP – some £18billion each year. Dealing with road safety is a major item of public expenditure that extends far beyond the budgets and boundaries of the Department for Transport and its agencies. This involves not only the local highway authorities, and health and police services but also others whose involvement may not be so well appreciated. The Fire and Rescue Service, for example, now spends a large proportion of its resources on dealing with road traffic collisions. Road safety also affects wider transport policy. Making pedestrians and cyclists feel safer is crucial to promoting walking and cycling. On the railways the largest risk of a catastrophic train accident comes from road vehicles, mainly at level crossings.
   
   

Also see:
http://roadpeace.org/index.asp?PageID=128

Greenpeace view on climate chaos:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/global-warming-kills-the-real-cost-of-fuel

Road building is firmly back on the agenda:
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/climate_change/roads/blog

Here's an example of how the real cost of motoring has largely been constant or even fallen (there are hundreds of pages on this, but I like this up-to-date presentation):

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/2008/real-cost-of-motoring/

Finally, this is quite a nice article which ends with a description of what I, too, find the least acceptable cost of motoring:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article450247.ece

While this is usually not expressed in monetary figures, I'm sure you'd end up with a pretty impressive number if you tried to economise it.

Hackney does have some nice little alleyways. It could use more. There are loads of blocked off streets in the borough, as well as Tower Hamlets and the City. And as for Islington, there are vast swathes of that borough that could benefit. Of course the cycle roads need to be shared use and overlooked by shops, businesses, houses, etc, or you get the Milton Keynes experience, where cycle paths become rich pickings for muggers who know they won't be seen.

Work on permeability has only just picked up--there is still a large backlog of cycle-unfriendly measures to address. We're not necessarily keen on creating cycle-only streets, although that is an option in the toolkit. Germany, for instance, has a kind of Traffic Order that creates a 'cycle street' or "Fahrradstraße", which may be appropriate in certain circumstances.

Generally, though, where a Victorian or older street pattern can be restored, that will usually be the most beneficial approach. This is not to say that such patterns cannot be improved upon; they can, but there is always a danger that they may end up being changed into environments designed more with motorised traffic in mind. You're spot on about the need for social/commercial activity along routes. Islington has not adopted the permeability approach on a wide scale yet, but let's hope they do.

(I won't address the motorcycle issue again, as you indicated some time ago that you didn't want to debate it.)

i love this work, all generative and to me kinda shows that cities evolve. I think the cities that are interesting, quirky and diverse are evolved not planned to death.

http://www.complexification.net/gallery/machines/substrate/

Or indeed Mondrian's Broadway Boogie Woogie

One of my favourite cities, try riding a bicycle around here at this time of year, last week with windchill it was -34C in Chicago
[URL="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/409484853_04d0192fcd_b.jpg"][/URL]

The hidden costs, e.g. to public health, other public services, pollution, loss of biodiversity, effects of climate chaos, etc.

We're going off topic, but I raised the point so I'll answer it and then we'd better get back on topic. Your assertion was specifically that the government subsidises private motor traffic which not one of these sources backs up. Arguing that the government builds roads, road accidents cost money or that cars use fuel is not the same thing. Crucially, not one of your sources contains any measure of the benefit to motor traffic (and in particular private motor traffic, since that was your point) to the country. Without showing the financial benefits the car brings you have nothing to weigh the financial costs against, and therefore you cannot show that there is any kind of subsidy. quite apart from the tax income the motorist generates, there are the soft benefits - the possibility of transporting goods and people, the speed at which this happens, the things that it facilitates: business, export, getting people to work, school, holidays, shops, etc.

The American study - well the costs and taxes are completely different over there, as are patterns of car use and development. It addresses a different assertion to the one you made. (And if falls for the same traps as some of the other sources, but as it's not really relevant to your argument in the first place I won't go into these twice, but instead raise them below).

The UK study is interesting, but it fails to identify private motor traffic as a proportion of the total and it fails to attribute blame. To say that a driver died is not the same as saying a driver caused the accident. (It's interesting to note that deaths are falling in most categories (e.g. cars by 19%) but they are rising fast for motorcyclists).

The Roadpeace source is much more interesting. Unfortunately, the most interesting (i.e. controversial) cost, the "human cost" is the least comprehensively explained. Regardless, as a whole it does nothing more than show that road accidents cost the taxpayer money. Which is obvious.

So road building. It is simply not the case that roads are built solely for cars, and their costs cannot therefore be wholly dumped on the private car user. What do you cycle down? What what do you walk down? How are goods delivered to your local shops? What do buses run down? How many centuries before the car was even invented was the vast majority of the UK's, and especially London's entire road network built? Roads are and always have been the means by which people and goods are moved. Even tar paving predates the car. Roads benefit the motorist and non-motorist alike and their costs should be borne by the general purse. Cars are merely one occupant, and a very recent one at that.

We of course need existing roads to be kept in good repair, even to cycle or walk down and sometimes we need new roads to replace unsuitable old roads. The idea that new roads are inherently bad is nonsense, along with the idea that they inevitably reduce biodiversity. Take the A140 Dickleburgh bypass where I used to live. Here the old Roman road with the houses, trees, farms, etc was bypassed leaving those residents with a quiet, safe, clean village once more, while the new road was cut through some typical flat agricultural farmland. The miles of cuttings were planted with over 100 rare species of native British plant life, many saved from extinction just by their use in road and railway cuttings provision was made for fauna too, with hedgehog and badger tunnels, and a system of ponds for frogs and so forth. Within a few years there were far more ducks, pheasants, geese and so forth living in the area, which must be indicative of a wider success in introducing life. And the thing is, this is not unusual. This is typical of the British approach to building a new road. They are nearly all done like this.

I raise this last paragraph because we are talking about building a whole city here, so it's good to know the general practice is in fact to increase biodiversity ;-)

The Greenpeace article, like most of their output, is infantile, and if you think that biofuels are better for the world than dinosaur ones you need to do a lot more research - and maybe visit some of the people displaced from rainforests that have been cut down to grow fuel crops, or are starving because fuel crops displaced food ones to satisfy a demand manufactured entirely by the green lobby. Promoting them is naive and irresponsible. Then there's their bold and simplistic assertion that the car causes climate change. If (and it is a big if) climate change is caused by human activity, we are told that car emissions are a very small part of our output. And CO2 is a very small part of a car's output. And man-made CO2 is less than 0.3% of greenhouse gases. And that assumes that the greenhouse effect is a proven driver of climate change anyway, which so far remains to be seen. So if the "private car" causes climate change at all its effect should be barely measurable.

Then the times article. How do you quantify this? Well you can't, because it's just a woolly piece of opinion. Do people see others in cars and want one themselves? Maybe. but we don't, so it's not always the case. Isn't it more likely that people want cars because they have a transport need for which the car fills more suitably than any alternative? I think so, and I think therefore that it is the need that we need to change if we are to change the solution

@bluequinn: dude thats a model ^^^

unless the whole thing is fenced out by a giant plastic wall

yes, but it is at least as spaced out IRL!
What else do you expect from a universal city
http://www.auroville.org/panoramas/index.html

We're going off topic, but I raised the point so I'll answer it and then we'd better get back on topic. Your assertion was specifically that the government subsidises private motor traffic which not one of these sources backs up.

It is of course not a direct subsidy but an indirect subsidy. Sorry, I should have put that more clearly. Few governments could get away with sponsoring mass motoring overtly. The real cost of motoring has remained remarkably constant and those who (supposedly) reap the benefit cause huge problems (which are obvious although of course hotly denied by some), which burden general taxation.

Crucially, not one of your sources contains any measure of the benefit to motor traffic (and in particular private motor traffic, since that was your point) to the country. Without showing the financial benefits the car brings you have nothing to weigh the financial costs against, and therefore you cannot show that there is any kind of subsidy.
No. This misses the distinction between private and public wealth. Also, I don’t need to measure the supposed benefits as I’m not trying to make that utilitarian comparison. Besides, that motoring can bring economic benefits to people is obvious and not in dispute at all. The point is, firstly, that they’re not paying an adequate price to reap these benefits (as demonstrated by the shortfall from motoring-related taxes to address the problems), and consequently the benefits of motoring are distorted in the eyes of many. Secondly, consider the vast number of pointless discretionary trips undertaken by car that most assuredly do not bring any economic benefits.

The UK study is interesting, but it fails to identify private motor traffic as a proportion of the total and it fails to attribute blame. To say that a driver died is not the same as saying a driver caused the accident.
I don't understand the relevance of this? A death is a death is a death and causes damage. Why does it matter here who's to blame?

The Roadpeace source is much more interesting. Unfortunately, the most interesting (i.e. controversial) cost, the "human cost" is the least comprehensively explained. Regardless, as a whole it does nothing more than show that road accidents cost the taxpayer money. Which is obvious.
You'd be surprised how few people are aware of this. Most people when questioned estimate the cost to be much lower.

NB the point about public health is also, importantly, about the decline in physical health in all mass motorised countries (for instance as parents are scared of letting their children play outside).

So road building. It is simply not the case that roads are built solely for cars, and their costs cannot therefore be wholly dumped on the private car user. Roads benefit the motorist and non-motorist alike and their costs should be borne by the general purse. Cars are merely one occupant, and a very recent one at that.
Indeed, they are not. There hasn’t been a ring-fenced motoring tax that pays for road building since 1926. And the present system of financing them is quite unfair.

The estimated modal share of private motor traffic in the UK is around 60%. Have a look at the National Travel Survey over the years to see by how much motor mileage outstrips all the other modes that use roads.

While of course fewer roads should be built, the cost of this and especially maintenance should be overwhelmingly met from taxation on the mode that uses them the most. This is motor traffic. (It has to be said that a hugely disproportionate amount of damage is caused by HGVs. I've also heard it said that if hauliers and industry were fully taxed for the amount of damage HGVs do to the road network, we'd go straight back to rail (or at least a lot of hauliers would go out of business).

Even tar paving predates the car.
Interestingly enough, the first to campaign for better road surfaces was apparently the CTC!

The idea that new roads are inherently bad is nonsense
Of course. But a lot of people think that they are only good, or at least that they’re worth the price we’re paying for them. This is true up to a certain point, and we’re long past that point.

along with the idea that they inevitably reduce biodiversity. Take the A140 Dickleburgh bypass where I used to live. Here the old Roman road with the houses, trees, farms, etc was bypassed leaving those residents with a quiet, safe, clean village once more, while the new road was cut through some typical flat agricultural farmland. The miles of cuttings were planted with over 100 rare species of native British plant life, many saved from extinction just by their use in road and railway cuttings provision was made for fauna too, with hedgehog and badger tunnels, and a system of ponds for frogs and so forth. Within a few years there were far more ducks, pheasants, geese and so forth living in the area, which must be indicative of a wider success in introducing life. And the thing is, this is not unusual. This is typical of the British approach to building a new road. They are nearly all done like this.
Of course the road itself reduces biodiversity. It is of course those mitigating measures, not the building of a road, that is a positive here, and that does something for biodiversity. This could also quite conceivably have been done without the road as an ‘enabling development’.

There are legal requirements that have to be observed when building a road, and of course it would be very nice if this scheme voluntarily went beyond them. I’m not an ecologist, so I don’t know what they are in detail.

But whatever success such artifically induced local habitats may have, the simple fact is that new roads generate more motor traffic and that it is naïve to only see the greenwash.

The Newbury Bypass is probably the most notorious (relatively) new road in the country. From

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/climate_change/roads/facts/roadbuilding

A major independent study (Beyond Transport Infrastructure, a pdf) into the impact of the Newbury bypass and 2 other road schemes showed that traffic levels predicted for 2010 in Newbury were already reached by 2003 – and that traffic had increased by almost 50% in that period. New development around the road was partially to blame for the increases.
As Newbury is a major destination in itself, its case is of course quite different from Dickleburgh. But the additional level of motor traffic generated by the Newbury Bypass is just staggering. There is no question that the Dickleburgh Bypass will likewise have generated more motor traffic, even if it is not a destination in itself and traffic levels in the village itself haven't crept up as markedly as they have in Newbury.

Bypasses in particular are not just built to relieve small communities (out of interest, what is the demography of Dickleburgh? Affluent commuter village or deprived rural community or something in between?) but to reduce journey times. This means more traffic (motoring is a mobility mode, which means that it will generally saturate capacity in well-populated areas over time), more pollution and contributes to the huge environmental damage that motoring causes on a regional, national, and global scale. The cumulative effect such schemes have keeps creeping up when the situation is already ridiculously unsustainable as of now.

I raise this last paragraph because we are talking about building a whole city here, so it's good to know the general practice is in fact to increase biodiversity ;-)
He, he, this is unfortunately unlikely to happen in a city. (Also, in a city it would be predominantly streets rather than roads. I used to say ‘roads’ all the time, as it’s clearly more idiomatic in English, but ‘streets’ is becoming re-established to make a very meaningful distinction between places where the transport function is really secondary to all the other uses and roads where the transport function is primary.)

The Greenpeace article, like most of their output, is infantile, and if you think that biofuels are better for the world than dinosaur ones you need to do a lot more research - and maybe visit some of the people displaced from rainforests that have been cut down to grow fuel crops, or are starving because fuel crops displaced food ones to satisfy a demand manufactured entirely by the green lobby. Promoting them is naive and irresponsible.
Actually, the Greenpeace position on biofuels is more differentiated than you make out, which admittedly does not come out in the article from 2004. They may also have changed their position in the wake of more unsustainable production of biofuels showing up problems such as those you cite:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/biofuels-green-dream-or-climate-change-nightmare-20070509

I’m personally not massively in favour of biofuels as I’m more interested in reducing fuel consumption in the first place, but I fully accept the argument that they can be part of a solution.

Then there's their bold and simplistic assertion that the car causes climate change. If (and it is a big if) climate change is caused by human activity, we are told that car emissions are a very small part of our output. And CO2 is a very small part of a car's output. And man-made CO2 is less than 0.3% of greenhouse gases. And that assumes that the greenhouse effect is a proven driver of climate change anyway, which so far remains to be seen. So if the "private car" causes climate change at all its effect should be barely measurable.
This sounds worryingly like climate chaos denial. I’m not going to address those points here beyond noting that I’m not in that camp. I think you’ll find that your position is becoming increasingly exotic.

Then the times article. How do you quantify this? Well you can't, because it's just a woolly piece of opinion.
I was being ironic when I talked about quantifying this, but it was clearly too obscure an attempt. The article’s aim is actually to provoke thought. I certainly don’t find it a ‘woolly piece of opinion’. I find it perceptive and understanding. It is of course only a short newspaper article, so that the case can’t be argued fully in it.

Do people see others in cars and want one themselves? Maybe. but we don't, so it's not always the case. Isn't it more likely that people want cars because they have a transport need for which the car fills more suitably than any alternative? I think so, and I think therefore that it is the need that we need to change if we are to change the solution
There are of course many reasons why people want cars, the main one being that many people live in environments where car use is actively encouraged through all sorts of factors, and simple misinformation. Also, don’t make the mistake to think too strongly in terms of modes rather than trips. People are always classifying themselves as ‘cyclists’, ‘motorists’, and so forth, and of course we all use these shorthand forms to be briefer. But what matters are the properties of individual trips: While people have done it, I personally wouldn’t move house by freight bike. I’d hire a van instead. Most people use many modes, even if they may often choose the wrong mode through ignorance or bad luck.

Additional factors apply, like the following non-exhaustive list: (1) Many people are not aware of the properties of other modes for certain trips, e.g. they don’t realise how quickly you can get around by bike; (2) Few people understand transport very well; (3) People make a lot of journeys by car for which the car is demonstrably the worst mode of transport, e.g. for the proverbial short trip (under 2 miles) without passengers, without cargo, undertaken by a person without mobility difficulties, the car is at best an extremely unsatisfactory alternative; (4) To think of other modes as ‘alternatives’ to cars is the wrong way around in many cases. So, no, it isn’t ‘more likely that people want cars because they have a transport need for which the car fills more suitably than any alternative’. The reality is much more complex and not isolated to one mode.

Could I get that in a three word summary please, ta.

Could I get that in a three word summary please, ta.

No, you can't. Now go away and do some laconic sulking. ;)

That was more than 3 words. Counting Fail.

Could I get that in a three word summary please, ta.

20 mph please.

That was more than 3 words. Counting Fail.

He gave you a 3 word summary, just had a little addition to it that's all =P

The real cost of motoring has remained remarkably constant and those who (supposedly) reap the benefit cause huge problems (which are obvious although of course hotly denied by some), which burden general taxation.

Motoring as a whole. But you specifically stated private motoring. Does the private motorists tax really fall behind their fare proportion of the costs incurred?

No. This misses the distinction between private and public wealth. Also, I don’t need to measure the supposed benefits as I’m not trying to make that utilitarian comparison.

No it doesn't and yes you do. You said "subsidy". That implies a social cost over and above any social benefits is being borne. You must therefore do a proper cost/benefit analysis and to do that you must enumerate the benefits as thoroughly as you have the costs. Only any cost deficit can be counted towards the subsidy. You made the accusation: therefore the onus is upon you to prove it.

Besides, that motoring can bring economic benefits to people is obvious and not in dispute at all. The point is, firstly, that they’re not paying an adequate price to reap these benefits (as demonstrated by the shortfall from motoring-related taxes to address the problems), and consequently the benefits of motoring are distorted in the eyes of many. Secondly, consider the vast number of pointless discretionary trips undertaken by car that most assuredly do not bring any economic benefits.

If the benefits are felt by society as a whole, and not exclusively be the private motorist then before you can say the motorist is not adequately contributing, you have to also establish just how much of the benefit they are exclusively receiving. And even the most pointless trip uses fuel and wears out the car parts a bit, which all adds up in the tax coffers, the business profits, the employees' pay packets, the places they spend their money, the charities which benefit, the towns that prosper, and so forth. Then who are you to consider the trip pointless? A commute to work is a day's work done. A trip to the shops is shopping done and people employed. A visit to (or drive with friends) is holding the fabric of civilised society together. Is any trip pointless - and if the absence of the car would mean that trip was not made at all is the car so bad?

I don't understand the relevance of this? A death is a death is a death and causes damage. Why does it matter here who's to blame?

Because you are asserting that the private motorist is subsidised, not motor traffic as a whole. Therefore you cannot go including data from anything other than private motorists.

The estimated modal share of private motor traffic in the UK is around 60%.

so why try and lump the entire cost on that 60%?

While of course fewer roads should be built, the cost of this and especially maintenance should be overwhelmingly met from taxation on the mode that uses them the most.

Or the community which benefits from having them - such as the people who get their food cheaper and fresher, or the businesses who can now attract more customers, or the towns which can get more visitors.

There is no question that the Dickleburgh Bypass will likewise have generated more motor traffic, (out of interest, what is the demography of Dickleburgh? Affluent commuter village or deprived rural community or something in between?)

Traffic along there actually seems the same or less - it's a short bypass, moving traffic from a single carriageway with houses right on the street, to a dual carriageway across some fields (and there's nothing biodiverse about East Anglian grain farms. soil, chemicals and grain, and not much else.) Often the road is completely empty still. I think it was more a road safety thing. Dickleburgh is a deprived rural community I suppose. It's too far away from anywhere to be a commuter town.

This sounds worryingly like climate chaos denial. I’m not going to address those points here beyond noting that I’m not in that camp.

Well it isn't. (Although why not challenge such politically charged stuff? It should be a science, but it's more like religion.) I'm merely pointing out that if you include water vapour, which occurs naturally and makes up 95% of greenhouse gases, CO2 has a tiny part to play and man-made CO2 even less. And CO2 generated by private motor traffic even less. Greenpeace on the other hand would have you believe that the car is the primary cause of global warming, because it suits their politics to do so. Scientific fact can piss off.

Or the community which benefits from having them - such as the people who get their food cheaper and fresher, or the businesses who can now attract more customers, or the towns which can get more visitors.

these benefits are quantified when building a road see NATA. what is not quantified well is the dis benefits of road building e.g they screw a city up through noise, generally not being pleasant..etc. and not really moving that many people that efficiently.

Traffic along there actually seems the same or less - it's a short bypass, moving traffic from a single carriageway with houses right on the street, to a dual carriageway across some fields (and there's nothing biodiverse about East Anglian grain farms. soil, chemicals and grain, and not much else.) Often the road is completely empty still. I think it was more a road safety thing. Dickleburgh is a deprived rural community I suppose. It's too far away from anywhere to be a commuter town.

FACT: every single appraisal of a road building scheme has got the prediction extremely wrong. the highway authority admits this. see SACTRA 1998.

and i don't think this thread was about rural roads but about CITIES and how we want them...

Scientific fact can piss off.

glad you are so assertive on the matter. enjoy yelling at people in your car becuase they are ALWAYS FULL in urban areas.