We need more roads

[Vanguard1917]

Article (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2861/)

There is a serious road shortage in Britain. The government's answer to this problem is to make it more expensive to drive - and this is seen by all sections of the political landscape as a logical solution.

Why is no one calling for more investment in road-building?

[welshred]

I think the government wouldn't say it was going to build more roads because the current trend seems to be an environmental stance. They would be hipocritical saying the are serious about climate change then building more roads.

[ichneumon]

because more roads only leads to more cars and more congestion. seriously, environmentalism aside, it absolutely doesn't work. we know this in america. it's throwing money down the toliet - the traffic actually gets *worse*.

[Janus]

In cities, it's quite do-able but it's a pretty large endeavor nationally in terms of cost and maintenance. Many of the newer highways in the US are privately run and constructed these days.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:39 pm
because more roads only leads to more cars and more congestion. seriously, environmentalism aside, it absolutely doesn't work. we know this in america. it's throwing money down the toliet - the traffic actually gets *worse*.
This.

Also it would be a fuck of alot better to improve our rail infrastructure, maybe consider introduicng mag-levs. Roads are ineffeciant if you can get trains between cities and towns and then have some kind of public transport system within that town, or even cycle paths and a place for people to walk. I'm not even a fucking enviro-primmie but I'm not convinced that having shiteloads of cars eating our oil like a hungry factory owner is a good idea.

[apathy maybe]

Railways are the way to go. Both now and in the future. They are cheaper to build and maintain, they are better for the environment. And so on.


Basically, we don't need more roads. Cars and trucks are inefficient to move people and goods about. Roads are crap for moving people and goods for long distances in other words.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I agree with Jazzy-baby, investing in public transport is definitely the way to go. Not only are trains more efficient and environmentally friendly, but public transport in general is a positive thing because it is in fact an undeveloped form of communally-owned transport (or at least, it would be easier to convert it into such in the future).

[Fawkes]

I definitely support the train idea because roads are very bad for the environment. They split the land up into islands and as a result, many animals, particularly slow ones, are stuck on that particular island, and as that island shrinks due to more roads and development, the animal has nowhere to go and as a result dies.

Why do I always say that I'll go to bed and then wait an hour and still am not in bed?

[BreadBros]

Im not in Britain but in terms of reducing traffic simply building new roads will do almost nothing. Been there, done that in so many cities in the US. I dont think there is any ONE solution to transportation. Trains are GREAT for medium-distance traveling. Public transport is GREAT for commuting. Cars are GREAT for transporting personal goods and for enjoying the scenery/travelling. etc. etc. The trick is to strike a balance that creates an efficient transport network and satisfies peoples needs.

[Fawkes]

I was watching this really cool thing on Modern Marvels on the History Channel about the future of transportation and it was saying how in the future (I'm not sure how far off), cars will hover so roads themselves won't even be needed.

[Demogorgon]

Building more roads never works. The solution to congestion to me is so obvious, renationalise the railways and then set about improving them. Get them up to the standartds that the French or Japanese enjoy. THen we will see less congestion.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:34 pm
I was watching this really cool thing on Modern Marvels on the History Channel about the future of transportation and it was saying how in the future (I'm not sure how far off), cars will hover so roads themselves won't even be needed.
And you know the problem with that idea?


I won't be able to ride my bike. So FUCK OFF!


BreadBros: What you say is true, different needs require different modes of transport. As you say, personalised transport is the only real reason that individuals need cars. Most of the time they are going in a set path from A to B and back again. They don't need cars for this hey.


I think that because cars are so resource intensive, that in our glorious future we won't have a car for each person. Instead if you need a car, you call the car place and they'll deliver one to you for as long as you need. But anyway ...

[Fawkes]

And you know the problem with that idea?


I won't be able to ride my bike. So FUCK OFF!
You'd still be able to ride your bike. The roads would technically still exist, just there is no pavement or anything like that, so you can FUCK OFF!!!