In pictures: Do cars take up too much space on city streets?

Traffic in Bangkok, Thailand. Image: Roland Dobbins at Wikimedia Commons.

A while ago, we ran some images of cyclists in Latvia protesting in favour of more bike lanes. They'd strapped neon pieces of wood to their bike frames so as they cycled on Riga's rush-hour roads, they took up the same amount of space as cars:

 

The protest made an important point: that, of all the arguments in favour of cutting the number of cars on our roads, perhaps the most compelling is one that doesn't rely on a belief in climate change, or even statistics on car-releated deaths. It's their sheer size. 

The fact is, in cities where space is limited, giant, motorized boxes carrying an average of two or three people are a massively inefficient form of transport. Handing over a huge proportion of our public space (it's around 80 per cent in London) to roads populated overridingly by cars might not be the best idea either. 

The Latvian protest was far from the first to make this argument. Here are some of the other visualisations we think make the point best.

How much space do cars actually take up?

The Copenhagenize cycling blog recently analysed transport modes at intersections in Paris, Calgary and Tokyo. The resulting diagrams, which compare the number of transporation devices with the space given over to them, look a little like this:

Image: Copenhagenize

The clusters of dots in small areas shows how space for cars seems to be prioritised. Or, as the blog's creator, Mikael Colville-Anderson, would have it, the "blatant injustice of space allocation". 

What if roads were giant holes in the ground?

Twitter, via @ThinkCritical12.

Ok, this one's a bit dramatic. But for busy streets, or in cities where jaywalking's illegal, it's not such a ridiculous representation. At the very least, the picture highlights just how much space is taken up by roads, compared to crosswalks and sidewalks. 

How much space do 69 people take up?

This next image was created by the Cycling Promotion Fund earlier this year. It shows how much road space a group of people take up using cars, a bus, bikes, or standing in a group:

Turns out it's not such a new concept, though. This bus promotion poster circulated in London in the 1960s:

Passive aggressive bike parking spaces

These bike parking areas, like our friends the Latvian cyclists, make a pointed comment on how space usually occupied by cars can be used. A single parking space, it turns out, could store 10 to 15 bikes.

Image: Cyclehoop.

For more on parking, see this video on how Zurich froze the number of downtown parking spaces in 1996 and, amazingly, the city continued to function. In this case, demand fell with parking supply: once cars weren't so convenient, residents turned to walking, cycling and public transport. 

 
 
 
 

London’s rail and tube map is out of control

Aaaaaargh. Image: Getty.

The geographical limits of London’s official rail maps have always been slightly arbitrary. Far-flung commuter towns like Amersham, Chesham and Epping are all on there, because they have tube stations. Meanwhile, places like Esher or Walton-on-Thames – much closer to the city proper, inside the M25, and a contiguous part of the built up area – aren’t, because they fall outside the Greater London and aren’t served by Transport for London (TfL) services. This is pretty aggravating, but we are where we are.

But then a few years ago, TfL decided to show more non-London services on its combined Tube & Rail Map. It started with a few stations slightly outside the city limits, but where you could you use your Oyster card. Then said card started being accepted at Gatwick Airport station – and so, since how to get to a major airport is a fairly useful piece of information to impart to passengers, TfL’s cartographers added that line too, even though it meant including stations bloody miles away.

And now the latest version seems to have cast all logic to the wind. Look at this:

Oh, no. Click to expand. Image: TfL.

The logic for including the line to Reading is that it’s now served by TfL Rail, a route which will be part of the Elizabeth Line/Crossrail, when they eventually, finally happen. But you can tell something’s gone wrong here from the fact that showing the route, to a town which is well known for being directly west of London, requires an awkward right-angle which makes it look like the line turns north, presumably because otherwise there’d be no way of showing it on the map.

What’s more, this means that a station 36 miles from central London gets to be on the map, while Esher – barely a third of that distance out – doesn’t. Nor does Windsor & Eton Central, because it’s served by a branchline from Slough rather than TfL Rail trains, even though as a fairly major tourist destination it’d probably be the sort of place that at least some users of this map might want to know how to get to.

There’s more. Luton Airport Parkway is now on the map, presumably on the basis that Gatwick is. But that station doesn’t accept Oyster cards yet, so you get this:

Gah. Click to expand. Image: TfL.

There’s a line, incidentally, between Watford Junction and St Albans Abbey, which is just down the road from St Albans City. Is that line shown on the map? No it is not.

Also not shown on the map: either Luton itself, just one stop up the line from Luton Airport Parkway, or Stansted Airport, even though it’s an airport and not much further out than places which are on the map. Somewhere that is, however, is Welwyn Garden City, which doesn’t accept Oyster, isn’t served by TfL trains and also – this feels important – isn’t an airport.

And meanwhile a large chunk of Surrey suburbia inside the M25 isn’t shown, even though it must have a greater claim to be a part of London’s rail network than bloody Reading.

The result of all these decisions is that the map covers an entirely baffling area whose shape makes no sense whatsoever. Here’s an extremely rough map:

Just, what? Image: Google Maps/CityMetric.

I mean that’s just ridiculous isn’t it.

While we’re at it: the latest version shows the piers from which you can get boats on the Thames. Except for when it doesn’t because they’re not near a station – for example, Greenland Pier, just across the Thames to the west of the Isle of Dogs, shown here with CityMetric’s usual artistic flair.

Spot the missing pier. You can’t, because it’s missing. Image: TfL/CityMetric.

I’m sure there must be a logic to all of this. It’s just that I fear the logic is “what makes life easier for the TfL cartography team” rather than “what is actually valuable information for London’s rail passengers”.

And don’t even get me started on this monstrosity.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.