Cars, cars, cars...

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Until the government realises the future of travel is removing cars from all but the longest journeys to remote locations and replacing them with the right infrastructure for electric bikes and high quality public transport, they will never solve the problem.

As the population increasingly becomes more urban, as it has the last 50 years, the geometrical constraints mean fewer and fewer people will be able to have their own cars.

The solution plainly is to provide adequate infrastructure within those centres to compensate for the lack of cars; the right infrastructure for bikes, large (cargo) and small, as well as local public transport, from busses to trams and even underground, where applicable.

Then for longer journeys we need to move more car journeys to trains, which involves heavy investment.

Ultimately the gov't has managed to get by with transport on the cheap but putting the major burden of the cost of travel onto the car owner. The future conditions do not allow for that, so the transition needs to be made.

Who would decide whether your journey qualifies as long and to a remote location? Would there be a committe and an application process?

I am struggling with the premise that a car is the best option for a long journey.

Try heading north from say the Devon or Dorset coast to lets say Manchester using public transport nad then come back to me and explain why a car isn't a hugely better option for the journey.

Oh god. I've unleashed AA routeplannerman.

It's just an example to demonstrate a pretty clear point,

First.Aspect

There is literally no hope.

pblakeney

The mistake is to have hope in the first place.

First.Aspect

Let's have a thread of places you can't drive to.

1. Northern Ireland.
2. Eigg

Just for balance.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Until the government realises the future of travel is removing cars from all but the longest journeys to remote locations and replacing them with the right infrastructure for electric bikes and high quality public transport, they will never solve the problem.

As the population increasingly becomes more urban, as it has the last 50 years, the geometrical constraints mean fewer and fewer people will be able to have their own cars.

The solution plainly is to provide adequate infrastructure within those centres to compensate for the lack of cars; the right infrastructure for bikes, large (cargo) and small, as well as local public transport, from busses to trams and even underground, where applicable.

Then for longer journeys we need to move more car journeys to trains, which involves heavy investment.

Ultimately the gov't has managed to get by with transport on the cheap but putting the major burden of the cost of travel onto the car owner. The future conditions do not allow for that, so the transition needs to be made.

Who would decide whether your journey qualifies as long and to a remote location? Would there be a committe and an application process?

I am struggling with the premise that a car is the best option for a long journey.

Try heading north from say the Devon or Dorset coast to lets say Manchester using public transport nad then come back to me and explain why a car isn't a hugely better option for the journey.

So it’s a question of the quality of the public transport. This is what I’m saying.

Fundamentally, the public transport system feeds into and out of London.
So say Bournemouth to Gloucester is simply not practical by public transport and it would be hugely expensive and inefficient to provide public transport between them.

Same could be said of say Exeter to Leicester etc, etc.

It wouldn’t be inefficient if everyone stopped using cars, right?

Au contraire, it would literally be **more** efficient

briantrumpet

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Until the government realises the future of travel is removing cars from all but the longest journeys to remote locations and replacing them with the right infrastructure for electric bikes and high quality public transport, they will never solve the problem.

As the population increasingly becomes more urban, as it has the last 50 years, the geometrical constraints mean fewer and fewer people will be able to have their own cars.

The solution plainly is to provide adequate infrastructure within those centres to compensate for the lack of cars; the right infrastructure for bikes, large (cargo) and small, as well as local public transport, from busses to trams and even underground, where applicable.

Then for longer journeys we need to move more car journeys to trains, which involves heavy investment.

Ultimately the gov't has managed to get by with transport on the cheap but putting the major burden of the cost of travel onto the car owner. The future conditions do not allow for that, so the transition needs to be made.

Who would decide whether your journey qualifies as long and to a remote location? Would there be a committe and an application process?

I am struggling with the premise that a car is the best option for a long journey.

Try heading north from say the Devon or Dorset coast to lets say Manchester using public transport nad then come back to me and explain why a car isn't a hugely better option for the journey.

So it’s a question of the quality of the public transport. This is what I’m saying.

Fundamentally, the public transport system feeds into and out of London.
So say Bournemouth to Gloucester is simply not practical by public transport and it would be hugely expensive and inefficient to provide public transport between them.

Same could be said of say Exeter to Leicester etc, etc.

It's the same in France. Getting a long way out of Paris quickly is easy, but thereafter it's a bit of a nightmare.

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Until the government realises the future of travel is removing cars from all but the longest journeys to remote locations and replacing them with the right infrastructure for electric bikes and high quality public transport, they will never solve the problem.

As the population increasingly becomes more urban, as it has the last 50 years, the geometrical constraints mean fewer and fewer people will be able to have their own cars.

The solution plainly is to provide adequate infrastructure within those centres to compensate for the lack of cars; the right infrastructure for bikes, large (cargo) and small, as well as local public transport, from busses to trams and even underground, where applicable.

Then for longer journeys we need to move more car journeys to trains, which involves heavy investment.

Ultimately the gov't has managed to get by with transport on the cheap but putting the major burden of the cost of travel onto the car owner. The future conditions do not allow for that, so the transition needs to be made.

Who would decide whether your journey qualifies as long and to a remote location? Would there be a committe and an application process?

I am struggling with the premise that a car is the best option for a long journey.

Try heading north from say the Devon or Dorset coast to lets say Manchester using public transport nad then come back to me and explain why a car isn't a hugely better option for the journey.

So it’s a question of the quality of the public transport. This is what I’m saying.

Fundamentally, the public transport system feeds into and out of London.
So say Bournemouth to Gloucester is simply not practical by public transport and it would be hugely expensive and inefficient to provide public transport between them.

Same could be said of say Exeter to Leicester etc, etc.

It wouldn’t be inefficient if everyone stopped using cars, right?

Au contraire, it would literally be **more** efficient

Eh? If it takes say 4 hours by public transport and 2 hours by car, how is the public transport option more efficient?

First.Aspect

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Until the government realises the future of travel is removing cars from all but the longest journeys to remote locations and replacing them with the right infrastructure for electric bikes and high quality public transport, they will never solve the problem.

As the population increasingly becomes more urban, as it has the last 50 years, the geometrical constraints mean fewer and fewer people will be able to have their own cars.

The solution plainly is to provide adequate infrastructure within those centres to compensate for the lack of cars; the right infrastructure for bikes, large (cargo) and small, as well as local public transport, from busses to trams and even underground, where applicable.

Then for longer journeys we need to move more car journeys to trains, which involves heavy investment.

Ultimately the gov't has managed to get by with transport on the cheap but putting the major burden of the cost of travel onto the car owner. The future conditions do not allow for that, so the transition needs to be made.

Who would decide whether your journey qualifies as long and to a remote location? Would there be a committe and an application process?

I am struggling with the premise that a car is the best option for a long journey.

Try heading north from say the Devon or Dorset coast to lets say Manchester using public transport nad then come back to me and explain why a car isn't a hugely better option for the journey.

So it’s a question of the quality of the public transport. This is what I’m saying.

Fundamentally, the public transport system feeds into and out of London.
So say Bournemouth to Gloucester is simply not practical by public transport and it would be hugely expensive and inefficient to provide public transport between them.

Same could be said of say Exeter to Leicester etc, etc.

It wouldn’t be inefficient if everyone stopped using cars, right?

Au contraire, it would literally be **more** efficient

Eh? If it takes say 4 hours by public transport and 2 hours by car, how is the public transport option more efficient?

Depends if you transport 1000 people on a train or 1 person in the car.

Dorset_Boy

First.Aspect said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Until the government realises the future of travel is removing cars from all but the longest journeys to remote locations and replacing them with the right infrastructure for electric bikes and high quality public transport, they will never solve the problem.

As the population increasingly becomes more urban, as it has the last 50 years, the geometrical constraints mean fewer and fewer people will be able to have their own cars.

The solution plainly is to provide adequate infrastructure within those centres to compensate for the lack of cars; the right infrastructure for bikes, large (cargo) and small, as well as local public transport, from busses to trams and even underground, where applicable.

Then for longer journeys we need to move more car journeys to trains, which involves heavy investment.

Ultimately the gov't has managed to get by with transport on the cheap but putting the major burden of the cost of travel onto the car owner. The future conditions do not allow for that, so the transition needs to be made.

Who would decide whether your journey qualifies as long and to a remote location? Would there be a committe and an application process?

I am struggling with the premise that a car is the best option for a long journey.

Try heading north from say the Devon or Dorset coast to lets say Manchester using public transport nad then come back to me and explain why a car isn't a hugely better option for the journey.

So it’s a question of the quality of the public transport. This is what I’m saying.

Fundamentally, the public transport system feeds into and out of London.
So say Bournemouth to Gloucester is simply not practical by public transport and it would be hugely expensive and inefficient to provide public transport between them.

Same could be said of say Exeter to Leicester etc, etc.

It wouldn’t be inefficient if everyone stopped using cars, right?

Au contraire, it would literally be **more** efficient

Eh? If it takes say 4 hours by public transport and 2 hours by car, how is the public transport option more efficient?

Depends if you transport 1000 people on a train or 1 person in the car.

Which train routes go from the south of England direct to the midlands and north then? And will they / do they serve all towns of say 30,000 and above? Course not, it simply wouldn't be practical. Look at the cost and delays of a major project like HS2. All the land needed to build all these new railways etc.

First.Aspect

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Until the government realises the future of travel is removing cars from all but the longest journeys to remote locations and replacing them with the right infrastructure for electric bikes and high quality public transport, they will never solve the problem.

As the population increasingly becomes more urban, as it has the last 50 years, the geometrical constraints mean fewer and fewer people will be able to have their own cars.

The solution plainly is to provide adequate infrastructure within those centres to compensate for the lack of cars; the right infrastructure for bikes, large (cargo) and small, as well as local public transport, from busses to trams and even underground, where applicable.

Then for longer journeys we need to move more car journeys to trains, which involves heavy investment.

Ultimately the gov't has managed to get by with transport on the cheap but putting the major burden of the cost of travel onto the car owner. The future conditions do not allow for that, so the transition needs to be made.

Who would decide whether your journey qualifies as long and to a remote location? Would there be a committe and an application process?

I am struggling with the premise that a car is the best option for a long journey.

Try heading north from say the Devon or Dorset coast to lets say Manchester using public transport nad then come back to me and explain why a car isn't a hugely better option for the journey.

So it’s a question of the quality of the public transport. This is what I’m saying.

Fundamentally, the public transport system feeds into and out of London.
So say Bournemouth to Gloucester is simply not practical by public transport and it would be hugely expensive and inefficient to provide public transport between them.

Same could be said of say Exeter to Leicester etc, etc.

It wouldn’t be inefficient if everyone stopped using cars, right?

Au contraire, it would literally be **more** efficient

Eh? If it takes say 4 hours by public transport and 2 hours by car, how is the public transport option more efficient?

Depends if you transport 1000 people on a train or 1 person in the car.

Which train routes go from the south of England direct to the midlands and north then? And will they / do they serve all towns of say 30,000 and above? Course not, it simply wouldn't be practical. Look at the cost and delays of a major project like HS2. All the land needed to build all these new railways etc.

Yeah you kind of miss the point by evaluating wherther car culture is a good idea based on public transport challenges in an existing car culture.

briantrumpet

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Until the government realises the future of travel is removing cars from all but the longest journeys to remote locations and replacing them with the right infrastructure for electric bikes and high quality public transport, they will never solve the problem.

As the population increasingly becomes more urban, as it has the last 50 years, the geometrical constraints mean fewer and fewer people will be able to have their own cars.

The solution plainly is to provide adequate infrastructure within those centres to compensate for the lack of cars; the right infrastructure for bikes, large (cargo) and small, as well as local public transport, from busses to trams and even underground, where applicable.

Then for longer journeys we need to move more car journeys to trains, which involves heavy investment.

Ultimately the gov't has managed to get by with transport on the cheap but putting the major burden of the cost of travel onto the car owner. The future conditions do not allow for that, so the transition needs to be made.

Who would decide whether your journey qualifies as long and to a remote location? Would there be a committe and an application process?

I am struggling with the premise that a car is the best option for a long journey.

Try heading north from say the Devon or Dorset coast to lets say Manchester using public transport nad then come back to me and explain why a car isn't a hugely better option for the journey.

So it’s a question of the quality of the public transport. This is what I’m saying.

Fundamentally, the public transport system feeds into and out of London.
So say Bournemouth to Gloucester is simply not practical by public transport and it would be hugely expensive and inefficient to provide public transport between them.

Same could be said of say Exeter to Leicester etc, etc.

It wouldn’t be inefficient if everyone stopped using cars, right?

Au contraire, it would literally be **more** efficient

Eh? If it takes say 4 hours by public transport and 2 hours by car, how is the public transport option more efficient?

Depends if you transport 1000 people on a train or 1 person in the car.

Which train routes go from the south of England direct to the midlands and north then? And will they / do they serve all towns of say 30,000 and above? Course not, it simply wouldn't be practical. Look at the cost and delays of a major project like HS2. All the land needed to build all these new railways etc.

Park & Ride is an example of a success in channelling people into a more efficient system, where the appropriate scale of transport is used for different parts of a journey, depending on the density of usage. I can't see cars ever being 'uninvented', but I would hope that systems develop whereby they are only used for the terminal bits where mass transport is unviable. Within and between population centres, they should be unnecessary for the bulk of journeys.

rick_chasey

I wonder what proportion of total spending is spent on either buying or running cars?

Gotta be a lot.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

I wonder what proportion of total spending is spent on either buying or running cars?

Gotta be a lot.

A lot on buying, but they've long been marketed as an aspirational item & status symbol, and one to be replaced frequently. (Suffice to say, I've not bought into that.) Last time I did a total expenditure v mileage calculation, it worked out to about 25ppm over the 12 months, on fairly low mileage. The only thing I didn't include was depreciation, as having paid £700 for the car, I'm hoping it'll last me ten years.

I might not be your typical driver though.

rick_chasey

Sure. Add all that up and imagine 80% of it was spent on public transport and cycling infrastructure.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Sure. Add all that up and imagine 80% of it was spent on public transport and cycling infrastructure.

I'm not arguing about that at all. It's been a real pleasure to see e-bikes really take off, as it's opened that possibility up to a lot more people who'd not have dreamt of riding a bike before. But you'll have to contend with the problem that all the money spent on cars alone (ignoring road expenditure) is individual choice, but that on public transport and cycling infrastructure will have to come from pooled resources (aka, taxation), and that's going to be a difficult nut to crack. Threatening the liberty of driving is like questioning the liberty to own a gun in the US.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure. Add all that up and imagine 80% of it was spent on public transport and cycling infrastructure.

I'm not arguing about that at all. It's been a real pleasure to see e-bikes really take off, as it's opened that possibility up to a lot more people who'd not have dreamt of riding a bike before. But you'll have to contend with the problem that all the money spent on cars alone (ignoring road expenditure) is individual choice, but that on public transport and cycling infrastructure will have to come from pooled resources (aka, taxation), and that's going to be a difficult nut to crack. Threatening the liberty of driving is like questioning the liberty to own a gun in the US.

Like I said, the geometry problem and the environmental problems will remove the agency from people anyway. Who wants to sit in a traffic jam to get somewhere without any space to park?

We keep moving closer and closer in proximity to each other (urbanisation is still a trend) so that problem only gets worse and transport is even more efficient.

The dream is a combination of train and bike removing a huge chunk of private car journeys.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

There is literally no hope.

Not if you want to get there on public transport and be vaguely happy when you get there.

photonic69

rick_chasey said:

The dream is a combination of train and bike removing a huge chunk of private car journeys.

What? More than 3 people on a train with bikes?! The rail network would go into meltdown!

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Who wants to sit in a traffic jam to get somewhere without any space to park?

A constantly amazing number of people, from what I see on my short daily cycle commute. No economic pain or time inconvenience, even when there are very viable alternatives, will prize them out of their expensive tin boxes.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

Who wants to sit in a traffic jam to get somewhere without any space to park?

A constantly amazing number of people, from what I see on my short daily cycle commute. No economic pain or time inconvenience, even when there are very viable alternatives, will prize them out of their expensive tin boxes.

Sure though usually that’s because the public transport alternative is worse or non-existent.

I think a genuine full network for bikes to handle the final 10 miles of public transport hub to your front door, universal use of electric bikes, and a genuine public transport system is the solution and we’ll work it out in 50 years.

Pross

Part of the work colleagues have done over the last 20 years in Green Travel Plans / Travel Plans / whatever they are calling it this year. These often involve questionnaires for the end users of a development covering their travel choices and barriers to using public transport or active travel. The results are depressing to read. The only one I worked on was for a factory being relocated a couple of miles and the excuses why 90% of the employees felt they had to drive (single occupant, not even car sharing) was staggering.

The carrots were things like vouchers for bikes (pre cycle to work), shower facilities, season ticket discounts and taxis provided by the company in the event of an emergency such as having to pick a sick child up from school. The stick would be reduced parking with priority to those car sharing but people would just drive and fly park before walking half a mile anyway.

Responses would generally agree how important it is to cut down car journeys but then a justification of why they are a special case who couldn’t possibly walk / cycle / catch the bus.

briantrumpet

Pross said:

Part of the work colleagues have done over the last 20 years in Green Travel Plans / Travel Plans / whatever they are calling it this year. These often involve questionnaires for the end users of a development covering their travel choices and barriers to using public transport or active travel. The results are depressing to read. The only one I worked on was for a factory being relocated a couple of miles and the excuses why 90% of the employees felt they had to drive (single occupant, not even car sharing) was staggering.

The carrots were things like vouchers for bikes (pre cycle to work), shower facilities, season ticket discounts and taxis provided by the company in the event of an emergency such as having to pick a sick child up from school. The stick would be reduced parking with priority to those car sharing but people would just drive and fly park before walking half a mile anyway.

Responses would generally agree how important it is to cut down car journeys but then a justification of why they are a special case who couldn’t possibly walk / cycle / catch the bus.

I suspect that the same is true of places like Cranbrook near Exeter, which had buses, a new train station, and good cycle routes to Exeter integrated into the initial planning. I bet the vast majority still drive. It's nuts.

Pross

briantrumpet said:

Pross said:

Part of the work colleagues have done over the last 20 years in Green Travel Plans / Travel Plans / whatever they are calling it this year. These often involve questionnaires for the end users of a development covering their travel choices and barriers to using public transport or active travel. The results are depressing to read. The only one I worked on was for a factory being relocated a couple of miles and the excuses why 90% of the employees felt they had to drive (single occupant, not even car sharing) was staggering.

The carrots were things like vouchers for bikes (pre cycle to work), shower facilities, season ticket discounts and taxis provided by the company in the event of an emergency such as having to pick a sick child up from school. The stick would be reduced parking with priority to those car sharing but people would just drive and fly park before walking half a mile anyway.

Responses would generally agree how important it is to cut down car journeys but then a justification of why they are a special case who couldn’t possibly walk / cycle / catch the bus.

I suspect that the same is true of places like Cranbrook near Exeter, which had buses, a new train station, and good cycle routes to Exeter integrated into the initial planning. I bet the vast majority still drive. It's nuts.

Yeah, there’ll be a huge amount of work put into developments like Cranbrook, Sherford and Comeytrowe. The internal layouts will be designed to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians; there’ll be money spent either directly or through S106 to upgrade public transport links and cycle / pedestrians links to key destinations and they’ll have to appoint a Travel Plan Co-ordinator who will carry out travel surveys and point new residents in the direction of things such as bus timetables, provide access to developer funding towards the cost of bikes (e-bike vouchers are popular now).

rick_chasey

^^ there we go, my chat about the future is already behind the curve.

The biggest challenge is persuading people that it's beneficial to make the switch away from cars.

MattFalle

What if - shock, horror - people don't want to/can't cycle.

Bit of a cycley blinkered view going on here, particularly from some.

Surely a holistic view of it is needed - ie making public transport available, reliable, convenient, close, etc rather than harping on about people cycling?

rick_chasey

MattFalle said:

What if - shock, horror - people don't want to/can't cycle.

Bit of a cycley blinkered view going on here, particularly from some.

Surely a holistic view of it is needed - ie making public transport available, reliable, convenient, close, etc rather than harping on about people cycling?

Not sure you've really understood the discussion Matt, but that's fine, we expect that.

Have a re-read and then try again

pblakeney

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

DeVlaeminck

Lifestyles have developed around car use I think it'll be quite a painful switch away.

Commutes from suburbs to centres are straightforward but a lot of journeys will end up being 3 legs each way - and for stuff like visiting a gym, playing football, popping in to see a friend - that probably is too much.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.