Got my iPhone 2.2 software loaded and thought I'd check out some of the new features.
I haven't been able to get Google Street View to work yet for London, but I did come to try the new travel directions feature. Unfortunately the results are embarrassing - for Google, and I think this needs a lot more work on it.
Here's what I got for a simple route from Piccadilly in London to Battersea SW11. It's a route of about 4.5km or just under 3 miles, walkable in about 55 minutes. A single London bus (19) will do the journey in (hopefully) about half that time.
Google's instructions were as follows:
1. Walk 1.1km to Hyde Park corner (fair enough).
2. Take the 702 bus towards Ascot but getting off at Victoria station - 1 stop on. (For my American friends this journey is like getting on a greyhound bus in Manhattan and going 5 blocks down 5th Avenue).
3. Get the the 025 bus towards Eastbourne (a town on the south coast), but getting off at Gatwick airport.. Note, no suggestion about the much faster train service from exactly the same place also to Eastbourne and also stopping at Gatwick airport. Gatwick airport is about 25-30 miles from central London.
4. Now take the airport bus from South terminal to north terminal!.
5. Get a bus EB4 from Gatwick to Fulham Broadway back in Central London.
6. Finally walk 2.4km to SW11 (total walk of 3.5km).
This public transport version which saves just 1km of walking, takes 3 hours and 15 minutes and appears to travel at least 60 miles! There is no cost given, but I suspect it is substantial.
Google claims (on it's website) to use the travelinesoutheast.org.uk data. However, using this service throws up several London bus routes (though not the best ones). It would seem that Google has ignored 98% of the available alternatives (including all London buses, and all trains).
A year ago, we used a government service to find the best route to drive to Hastings on the south coast, and it threw up a route going via Ashford and over 90 miles in distance. The direct route (which google itself gave) was around 55 miles. The government site then added further futility by suggesting speed should be no more than 55mph to limit CO2 emissions! Sure, your CO2 emissions might be 10% less than they would have been, but their stupid route would have increased it by 50% over what it should have been anyway!
It seems we've still got a way to go in making these services useful. I'd hate to see what a tourist would have done with Google's information, and I'm glad I use my bike to get around London.
Tags: Google, iPhone, Transport, London
Showing posts with label London. Show all posts
Showing posts with label London. Show all posts
22 November 2008
30 October 2008
New Apple store in London White City
I queued up to get into the new Westfield Centre in White City this morning, then queued up to get into the new Apple Store (not helped by none of the centre staff knowing where it was - it's on the 3rd floor).
Anyhow, here's a photo of it. It's certainly not London Regent Street-size but bigger than some I've seen.
The Westfield Centre is quite an amazing experience - not exactly my cup of tea - but as the 3rd largest of its kind in UK (and largest inside a city), it is worth a visit.
I wonder now if London has more Apple stores than any other city? With Regent Street, Brent Cross and now Westfield/White City, that's as many/more than Manhattan I believe. Then Kingston, Lakeside and Bluewater would all count as Greater London by virtue of being in or around the M25. Can any large city beat 6 as of Nov 2008?
Tags: Apple Store, Apple, White City, London
22 July 2007
Surreal Experience
On Friday, we witnessed the most torrential rain I've ever seen in the UK - a truly massive amount of water descending in London in just an hour or so. We spent several hours sorting out the problems caused by an overflowing gully to the flat downstairs.
Having checked traffic reports which seemed to be generally ok (c'mon Highways Agency/AA/RAC/BBC etc can't you do better than this?), we headed off for the weekend at 7pm on a journey that usually takes us 2 hours. We arrived 6 hours later, but at least we arrived. We passed possibly 300-400 vehicles which had been left stranded at the side of the roads all the way from Swindon to Ross-on-Wye. We went under the M5 motorway, which at almost midnight was at a complete standstill. While we had numerous in-water experiences of our own, we probably didn't have anything worse than about 300mm. I think had we been earlier, we'd have been stranded like many of the others.
Here's a link to some photos on the BBC site by local people, the first one being the M50 motorway very close to us. Look also at number 37 to see it getting even worse! Here are some from Gloucestershire - including underwater Cotswold villages which we passed close to.
As my partner Sue pointed out, weather is a great equaliser. Among the stranded cars was a rather distraught Bentley!
What a summer this is turning out to be!
Tags: Flood, London, Hereford, Photos
Having checked traffic reports which seemed to be generally ok (c'mon Highways Agency/AA/RAC/BBC etc can't you do better than this?), we headed off for the weekend at 7pm on a journey that usually takes us 2 hours. We arrived 6 hours later, but at least we arrived. We passed possibly 300-400 vehicles which had been left stranded at the side of the roads all the way from Swindon to Ross-on-Wye. We went under the M5 motorway, which at almost midnight was at a complete standstill. While we had numerous in-water experiences of our own, we probably didn't have anything worse than about 300mm. I think had we been earlier, we'd have been stranded like many of the others.
Here's a link to some photos on the BBC site by local people, the first one being the M50 motorway very close to us. Look also at number 37 to see it getting even worse! Here are some from Gloucestershire - including underwater Cotswold villages which we passed close to.
As my partner Sue pointed out, weather is a great equaliser. Among the stranded cars was a rather distraught Bentley!
What a summer this is turning out to be!
Tags: Flood, London, Hereford, Photos
08 March 2007
Government, its (Cycling) Citizens, and the Internet
In my experience of our government's use of the internet to improve services, the scorecard is pretty low so far. Just yesterday I noticed that my favourite rail information site operated (strangely) by Wandsworth council could no longer be found. This site used to be incredibly fast, and give you information on any route in the UK including stops, and including all the stops the train took on each journey, the trains ultimate route etc. It was timetable nirvana. Only missing were prices. Why Network Rail could not take on this brilliant piece of work I don't know.
However, I have a good example finally of how a service can be delivered to everyone's benefit, and on my sample size = 1, appears to do the job.
A curse for cyclists is the state of some roads where subsidence, damage etc can result in a serious jolt and in fact be quite dangerous. We have been powerless to do much about this unless you have mountains of time and inclination to pursue through letters or waiting in phone queues.
Just recently, the CTC introduced FillThatHole.org which allows anyone to create a problem report for any road in the UK, including identifying it on a map and even including images. The report is then filed with the appropriate authority.
I thought I'd give it a try for one I noticed in Kensington and Chelsea, not expecting much. I got a confirmation back that it had been received, and another one that it had been forwarded on (yeh, so what!). But I was genuinely surprised that within 10 days or so, the repair had been made quite thoroughly. Even better, I got an email back within another day telling me that the hazard had been reported as fixed. Very cool.
Now, I have given credit to government for this, when in fact most of the credit goes to the CTC. And, I repeat, my sample size is 1. But, this is a great example of the sorts of things our governments (local and national) COULD be doing across their whole services portfolio to engage with its citizens. I'm sure it's not a huge system, but what I particularly liked was the way it kept you informed throughout the process, and closed it all off at the end.
Three cheers to the CTC, and one and a half cheers to the people in government somewhere who have at least allowed this to work!
UPDATE (9th March): The one thing missing from the system was the ability for the original reporter to re-open the case if the fix had not been made or not made satisfactorily. Within a day of me suggesting this feature, the CTC had added a button to do exactly this. So, that means four cheers for the CTC!
Tags: UK, Fillthathole, CTC, Cycling, Road, Pothole
However, I have a good example finally of how a service can be delivered to everyone's benefit, and on my sample size = 1, appears to do the job.
A curse for cyclists is the state of some roads where subsidence, damage etc can result in a serious jolt and in fact be quite dangerous. We have been powerless to do much about this unless you have mountains of time and inclination to pursue through letters or waiting in phone queues.
Just recently, the CTC introduced FillThatHole.org which allows anyone to create a problem report for any road in the UK, including identifying it on a map and even including images. The report is then filed with the appropriate authority.
I thought I'd give it a try for one I noticed in Kensington and Chelsea, not expecting much. I got a confirmation back that it had been received, and another one that it had been forwarded on (yeh, so what!). But I was genuinely surprised that within 10 days or so, the repair had been made quite thoroughly. Even better, I got an email back within another day telling me that the hazard had been reported as fixed. Very cool.
Now, I have given credit to government for this, when in fact most of the credit goes to the CTC. And, I repeat, my sample size is 1. But, this is a great example of the sorts of things our governments (local and national) COULD be doing across their whole services portfolio to engage with its citizens. I'm sure it's not a huge system, but what I particularly liked was the way it kept you informed throughout the process, and closed it all off at the end.
Three cheers to the CTC, and one and a half cheers to the people in government somewhere who have at least allowed this to work!
UPDATE (9th March): The one thing missing from the system was the ability for the original reporter to re-open the case if the fix had not been made or not made satisfactorily. Within a day of me suggesting this feature, the CTC had added a button to do exactly this. So, that means four cheers for the CTC!
Tags: UK, Fillthathole, CTC, Cycling, Road, Pothole
14 November 2006
Congestion Charge Rant
Those who don't know me may think the following rant is from a car-loving, card-carrying-Conservative. But while I do confess to having a rather nice car, I would like to point out that my travelling around London is done almost exclusively by bicycle with a bit of public transport thrown in (therefore 5.5 years = 26,000 miles). I have never once needed to pay a congestion charge fee (and nor have I ever needed to pay a parking fine in the UK). Furthermore, I think driving into and around Central London needs to be curtailed and I am in favour in principle of schemes which try to ration that space especially for purposes of aiding efficient commerce. Finally, I am of course in favour of finding ways to reduce environmental damage.
Last year, I spent many (angry) hours over my keyboard writing to my MP and local councillors about the scheme to extend the zone westwards to include Kensington and Chelsea. Not that I am averse to this in principle, but it's implementation is in my opinion, brain-damaged. You may criticise my views as nimbyist, but I reassert my GENERAL support for such a scheme. My particular beef concerns the ability of vehicles to use the Embankment on the river to travel the East-West direction outside of the zone. Apart from obvious bottlenecks that will be made worse, I have observed that for a resident of Battersea, they can make a journey out to, say, Heathrow, without entering the congestion charge zone, as indeed can most residents of South London and out to Kent. But the Battersea resident returning home will be signposted through about 200 metres of congestion charge zone in order to access either of the bridges into the area. A right turn is not permitted. I have been told that such a driver should make a detour of approximately 3 miles to enter the area turning right over Chelsea Bridge (which will be even more congested). So much for congestion charging being an environmental measure when a detour of 3 miles is required (or payment of £8 and see next paragraph). The driver going further to more eastward parts of South London however, would not have to make such a turn and therefore pay no penalty. Therefore the scheme is unreasonably discriminatory towards Battersea residents. The obvious solution was to allow a right turn on Battersea Bridge. An alternative would have been to eliminate the final southwestern block of about 200m by 100m from the charging scheme. Neither were done despite "extensive consultation". White van man will find a way of course to turn right, and over time even law-abiding citizens will do the obvious thing and make a u-turn on the main embankment past the first bridge so they can legally turn left over the bridge. Not a particularly safe thing to do, but better than 3 miles+20 minutes, or £8.
But today, what has got me more incensed is this news from the department of Red Ken. By 2009 the congestion charge for Category G vehicles will be increased by a factor of 3x such that it costs £25 to enter the zone no matter how far you drive or drive in it. A Category G vehicle includes many of the SUV, 4x4 type of vehicle as well as many people carriers. Of course, many sports cars and higher performance vehicles also come into this category. Strangely it would not affect me because (even if I did use my car) my vehicle is older than the cutoff date (another weakness with the scheme in principle). Now, I believe London would be better for less 4x4's and people carriers. But I believe London would be better off with less cars in general (at least moving ones). Sure polluters need to pay, but to have a scheme which is so black and white as to penalise a car emitting a theoretical 224g/km £8 when penalising a car emitting a theoretical 225g/km £25 is plain ridiculous. It is no longer a tax on congestion or an environmental tax, but the worst sort of tax - a tax borne out of chip-on-the-shoulder left-leaning cheap politics. You're better off having an £8 car and driving it like mad than you are having a £25 car and driving it carefully. Other bad behaviours are encouraged - drive as much in the congestion charge zone as you like for instance. (Aside: Why should taxis and users of taxis make no contribution towards congestion charge for instance? Answer = taxi drivers lobby pressurising Ken)
It is quite obvious what the right thing to do. For the environment it is to tax consumption - therefore the price of fuel. This penalises bad drivers, those who maintain their car badly as well as bigger/heavier/less fuel-efficient vehicles. It also encourages good behaviour. For congestion, the logical response is to penalise movement - especially movement at bad times of the day. By all means make that cost higher the larger/heavier the vehicle (we all know people carriers and large 4x4s are less efficient at navigating narrow roads and junctions and therefore make congestion worse) and by all means have an environmental factor applied. But to make it so ludicrously out of proportion does not fix the problem. A 224g/km driving 5 miles in the zone is far more polluting and congestion-generating than a 225g/km car driving just 300m. Attack the problem head-on if you want to change the behaviour!
It will neither make London a cleaner or less congested City to live in, and nor will it help the environment (note significant increase in new cars bought to squeeze under congestion charge limit will benefit the German economy and damage the German environment where they are primarily built!).
It is Ken at his worst and most vindictive.
[/End rant]
Tags: London, Ken Livingstone, Congestion Charge
Last year, I spent many (angry) hours over my keyboard writing to my MP and local councillors about the scheme to extend the zone westwards to include Kensington and Chelsea. Not that I am averse to this in principle, but it's implementation is in my opinion, brain-damaged. You may criticise my views as nimbyist, but I reassert my GENERAL support for such a scheme. My particular beef concerns the ability of vehicles to use the Embankment on the river to travel the East-West direction outside of the zone. Apart from obvious bottlenecks that will be made worse, I have observed that for a resident of Battersea, they can make a journey out to, say, Heathrow, without entering the congestion charge zone, as indeed can most residents of South London and out to Kent. But the Battersea resident returning home will be signposted through about 200 metres of congestion charge zone in order to access either of the bridges into the area. A right turn is not permitted. I have been told that such a driver should make a detour of approximately 3 miles to enter the area turning right over Chelsea Bridge (which will be even more congested). So much for congestion charging being an environmental measure when a detour of 3 miles is required (or payment of £8 and see next paragraph). The driver going further to more eastward parts of South London however, would not have to make such a turn and therefore pay no penalty. Therefore the scheme is unreasonably discriminatory towards Battersea residents. The obvious solution was to allow a right turn on Battersea Bridge. An alternative would have been to eliminate the final southwestern block of about 200m by 100m from the charging scheme. Neither were done despite "extensive consultation". White van man will find a way of course to turn right, and over time even law-abiding citizens will do the obvious thing and make a u-turn on the main embankment past the first bridge so they can legally turn left over the bridge. Not a particularly safe thing to do, but better than 3 miles+20 minutes, or £8.
But today, what has got me more incensed is this news from the department of Red Ken. By 2009 the congestion charge for Category G vehicles will be increased by a factor of 3x such that it costs £25 to enter the zone no matter how far you drive or drive in it. A Category G vehicle includes many of the SUV, 4x4 type of vehicle as well as many people carriers. Of course, many sports cars and higher performance vehicles also come into this category. Strangely it would not affect me because (even if I did use my car) my vehicle is older than the cutoff date (another weakness with the scheme in principle). Now, I believe London would be better for less 4x4's and people carriers. But I believe London would be better off with less cars in general (at least moving ones). Sure polluters need to pay, but to have a scheme which is so black and white as to penalise a car emitting a theoretical 224g/km £8 when penalising a car emitting a theoretical 225g/km £25 is plain ridiculous. It is no longer a tax on congestion or an environmental tax, but the worst sort of tax - a tax borne out of chip-on-the-shoulder left-leaning cheap politics. You're better off having an £8 car and driving it like mad than you are having a £25 car and driving it carefully. Other bad behaviours are encouraged - drive as much in the congestion charge zone as you like for instance. (Aside: Why should taxis and users of taxis make no contribution towards congestion charge for instance? Answer = taxi drivers lobby pressurising Ken)
It is quite obvious what the right thing to do. For the environment it is to tax consumption - therefore the price of fuel. This penalises bad drivers, those who maintain their car badly as well as bigger/heavier/less fuel-efficient vehicles. It also encourages good behaviour. For congestion, the logical response is to penalise movement - especially movement at bad times of the day. By all means make that cost higher the larger/heavier the vehicle (we all know people carriers and large 4x4s are less efficient at navigating narrow roads and junctions and therefore make congestion worse) and by all means have an environmental factor applied. But to make it so ludicrously out of proportion does not fix the problem. A 224g/km driving 5 miles in the zone is far more polluting and congestion-generating than a 225g/km car driving just 300m. Attack the problem head-on if you want to change the behaviour!
It will neither make London a cleaner or less congested City to live in, and nor will it help the environment (note significant increase in new cars bought to squeeze under congestion charge limit will benefit the German economy and damage the German environment where they are primarily built!).
It is Ken at his worst and most vindictive.
[/End rant]
Tags: London, Ken Livingstone, Congestion Charge
07 November 2006
Nice Photo (2)
On Monday evening I was cycling back over Battersea Bridge, and observed the moon rising over Albert. I rushed back to get my camera (and tripod) and snapped another load of shots of my favourite Thames Bridge. If you look carefully below the moon in the second shot, there's a glimpse of the London Eye.
I'm a bit disappointed about not being able to capture the moon's detail - I think that's a dynamic range issue that I can only overcome with a much better camera of som clever multiple shot/combination image. I have managed to get a good moon shot - when in India, but in daylight. You can see this on my webpage linked to here if you're interested. Any good photographers who are willing to share the secrets of how to do a good moon photo on a landscape are welcome to comment here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
