David Jaques

"I've never seen a car drive over a crossing while pedestrians are on it"

"I've never seen a car drive over a crossing while pedestrians are on it"

Skeptics of waterfront street redesigns will say "we aren't Paris." You can remind them that Paris wasn't always Paris.

Cyclist don't create traffic jams....

For the sake of balance and because my timeline is always full of people proclaiming that renewables are flawed - today at noon, electricity in U.K. was generated •🌬️ Wind: 55% •☀️ Solar: 20% •🌿 Other renewables (biomass + hydro): ~3–5% •☢️ Nuclear: ~12–13% •🔥 Gas: ~6% •🌍 Imports: ~5–7% 91–92% low-carbon (renewable + nuclear). The grid didn’t fall over and won’t because that is a myth. This statistic is also, honestly meaningless. The big picture (latest full-year data) •Renewables: ~42–50% •Fossil fuels (mostly gas): ~30–36% •Nuclear: ~15–16% •Other/imports: small remainder Or simplified: ~2/3 low-carbon vs ~1/3 fossil fuels Clearly as we look to the future; and at the risk of being controversial! 1) The more sources of energy the better - wind, solar, nuclear and gas. Being at the mercy of one commodity is “rule 101 stupid”. 2) We need to break the business model where electricity prices are set by the most expensive commodity ie usually gas 3) We need to encourage the robustness of the grid in energy storage of all kinds and the robustness of the same (sometimes called inertia) 4) Decentralisation and democratisation of energy generation is enabled by technology such as solar and battery and will ultimate challenge monopolistic practices For those of us that believe in a free market, we must embrace a multitude of competing technologies; for competition will result in keener pricing For those of us who care about the planet, the use of a greater proportion coming from renewables must be welcome. So ultimately I struggle with the idea that anyone would object to a more diverse mix of energy supply or the idea that we would block the emergence of any new technology; ultimately the market will decide and I’m pretty sure the market will demand the best solutions……. emphasis on plurality!

It appears from this report that the study only compared walking and cycling with driving. Public transport doesn't seem to feature at all. A serious flaw.

New data shows a big fall in deaths, serious injuries and casualties on Welsh roads since the 20mph limit came it. Plus it is saving people money on their car insurance (this doesn't mean your premium won't have gone up as other things can impact it).

Why take 70 cars when one bus will do the job? 🤷‍♂️

People will count the empty seats on public transportation as an excuse to not fund it. If we counted the empty seats in cars too, then we would see a fair picture. Transit is simply more space-efficient at moving people.

Paris boosting property values and quality of life merely by making streets traffic free

Warwickshire council is set to spend £322,710 to upgrade just 400 metres of cycle path, that’s £800 per metre. For a path on an old railway line that barely connects anything essential. Meanwhile: potholes go unfixed, schools need repairs, buses are crowded. Is this a good use of tax payer funds?