The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.0 -
Would a periscope be cheaper though?kingstongraham said:
If only there was some technology that would do the same kind of thing but cheaper.focuszing723 said:Hmmmm, a camera on the back and some type of Google Glasses thing?
0 -
focuszing723 said:
Wood a periscope be cheaper though?kingstongraham said:
If only there was some technology that would do the same kind of thing but cheaper.focuszing723 said:Hmmmm, a camera on the back and some type of Google Glasses thing?
Nope, I stand corrected only eleven quid!0 -
They're not in London.rick_chasey said:
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.0 -
They're definitely part of the mix for disabled people.TheBigBean said:
They're not in London.rick_chasey said:
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.0 -
0
-
Anyway, yep, smaller lighter more efficient delivery vehicles is a good idea.1
-
As everyone keeps telling me on this thread, there's more to life than London.TheBigBean said:
They're not in London.rick_chasey said:
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.
I'd agree that London has a pretty comprehensive public transport system and the rest of the UK could learn from it, especially urban areas.
I'd even go as far as to say the future of travel will look a lot like London does at the moment, but then that is a city where they have effectively discouraged car travel both because of the limits of geometry and abundant, useful public transport.
Most applicable to other urban areas, but, since the trend is more and denser urbanisation, that stands to reason.0 -
They're called mirrors 😀focuszing723 said:Hmmmm, a camera on the back and some type of Google Glasses thing?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You joke but a new convenience store has opened in our local rank of shops and the number of people who park on the pavement immediately outside rather than the parking spaces 30 yards away.First.Aspect said:
Yes but if people are on foot, and not driving, it's puts local shops out of business apparently. I have to say, the number of drive through newsagents has dropped dramatically in recent years.kingstongraham said:
The EV discount is going at the end of 2025 (!) - it's been there to encourage uptake, I guess, but not really any sense for it continuing.First.Aspect said:
So this is what confuses me. Most of the problem is cars per se, so why make the congestion charge component contingent on what you are driving? Even EVs create congestion and increase emissions by other vehicles.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
I guess if everyone is in EVs it's up to them how they spend the day, but we aren't there yet.
Additional measures like school streets, LTNs and reducing the space available for cars and increasing it for cycles and pedestrians also have an effect of reducing car use.
If you drive in central London, you really do have a van full of stuff or you massively prefer going slowly to seeing any of the public.
Funnily enough I like all of these ideas solely on the grounds of making somewhere nicer to live or work or visit.
Hey ho.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Too late for the rest of the UK cities. Retrofitting rail, light rail or underground is unaffordable. I've watched the team going in in Edinburgh for 15 years and at great expense. When kts done it'll be as good as the bus was 15 years ago.rick_chasey said:
As everyone keeps telling me on this thread, there's more to life than London.TheBigBean said:
They're not in London.rick_chasey said:
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.
I'd agree that London has a pretty comprehensive public transport system and the rest of the UK could learn from it, especially urban areas.
I'd even go as far as to say the future of travel will look a lot like London does at the moment, but then that is a city where they have effectively discouraged car travel both because of the limits of geometry and abundant, useful public transport.
Most applicable to other urban areas, but, since the trend is more and denser urbanisation, that stands to reason.
Manchester is pretty good, mind you.0 -
-
It's wide mind, hang on I will find a shot.rjsterry said:
They're called mirrors 😀focuszing723 said:Hmmmm, a camera on the back and some type of Google Glasses thing?
0 -
Yeah well, I've kind of p1ssed on me chips there.1 -
Birmingham is appalling, and also demonstrates why doing nothing is not an option. If you go to any area of high-density housing in Birmingham pretty much every pavement and patch of grass is covered with cars. There isn't room for everyone to have a car, never mind the space to actually get anywhere in it.First.Aspect said:
Too late for the rest of the UK cities. Retrofitting rail, light rail or underground is unaffordable. I've watched the team going in in Edinburgh for 15 years and at great expense. When kts done it'll be as good as the bus was 15 years ago.rick_chasey said:
As everyone keeps telling me on this thread, there's more to life than London.TheBigBean said:
They're not in London.rick_chasey said:
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.
I'd agree that London has a pretty comprehensive public transport system and the rest of the UK could learn from it, especially urban areas.
I'd even go as far as to say the future of travel will look a lot like London does at the moment, but then that is a city where they have effectively discouraged car travel both because of the limits of geometry and abundant, useful public transport.
Most applicable to other urban areas, but, since the trend is more and denser urbanisation, that stands to reason.
Manchester is pretty good, mind you.0 -
So far it's not far off £1Bn for 12 miles.rick_chasey said:Expense is all relative.
Given a few miles already existed, this seems relatively expensive.
0 -
When discussing whether private hire cars in London should pay the congestion charge, London does tend to be a significant part of the discussion.rick_chasey said:
As everyone keeps telling me on this thread, there's more to life than London.TheBigBean said:
They're not in London.rick_chasey said:
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.
I'd agree that London has a pretty comprehensive public transport system and the rest of the UK could learn from it, especially urban areas.
I'd even go as far as to say the future of travel will look a lot like London does at the moment, but then that is a city where they have effectively discouraged car travel both because of the limits of geometry and abundant, useful public transport.
Most applicable to other urban areas, but, since the trend is more and denser urbanisation, that stands to reason.0 -
Oh Musk, it's turned boring again.
Phfffff...0 -
Ja look UK has a problem with NIMBY stuff driving up the cost of this stuff. FT had an article about it last week. It is vastly more expensive to do this kind of stuff in the UK versus elsewhere.
Point still remains. There is an opportunity cost for also not doing it.0 -
"Boycott"
0 -
A lot of cost here is associated with moving the underground services out of the way, because we made the daft decision in the UK to bury all of the things that regularly need to be fixed.rick_chasey said:Ja look UK has a problem with NIMBY stuff driving up the cost of this stuff. FT had an article about it last week. It is vastly more expensive to do this kind of stuff in the UK versus elsewhere.
Point still remains. There is an opportunity cost for also not doing it.0 -
It doesn't have to cost that much. Edinburgh and Birmingham are exercises in absurdity. I think I saw somewhere that one is more expensive per km than HS2.First.Aspect said:
Too late for the rest of the UK cities. Retrofitting rail, light rail or underground is unaffordable. I've watched the team going in in Edinburgh for 15 years and at great expense. When kts done it'll be as good as the bus was 15 years ago.rick_chasey said:
As everyone keeps telling me on this thread, there's more to life than London.TheBigBean said:
They're not in London.rick_chasey said:
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.
I'd agree that London has a pretty comprehensive public transport system and the rest of the UK could learn from it, especially urban areas.
I'd even go as far as to say the future of travel will look a lot like London does at the moment, but then that is a city where they have effectively discouraged car travel both because of the limits of geometry and abundant, useful public transport.
Most applicable to other urban areas, but, since the trend is more and denser urbanisation, that stands to reason.
Manchester is pretty good, mind you.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Couple of mirrors on stalks and you're done.focuszing723 said:
Yeah well, I've kind of p1ssed on me chips there.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It was the wrong solution, given the nature of the city.rjsterry said:
It doesn't have to cost that much. Edinburgh and Birmingham are exercises in absurdity. I think I saw somewhere that one is more expensive per km than HS2.First.Aspect said:
Too late for the rest of the UK cities. Retrofitting rail, light rail or underground is unaffordable. I've watched the team going in in Edinburgh for 15 years and at great expense. When kts done it'll be as good as the bus was 15 years ago.rick_chasey said:
As everyone keeps telling me on this thread, there's more to life than London.TheBigBean said:
They're not in London.rick_chasey said:
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.
I'd agree that London has a pretty comprehensive public transport system and the rest of the UK could learn from it, especially urban areas.
I'd even go as far as to say the future of travel will look a lot like London does at the moment, but then that is a city where they have effectively discouraged car travel both because of the limits of geometry and abundant, useful public transport.
Most applicable to other urban areas, but, since the trend is more and denser urbanisation, that stands to reason.
Manchester is pretty good, mind you.
Borders Rail cost £350 million for 35 miles. So about 10 times better value. But that didn't require building many new bridges or embankments because it had only been closed for 50 years.
And it runs on pre existing lines in the city.
There's no getting away from the fact that if the city is already there, either you use infrastructure that's already there to some extent, or spend a shjt-ton of money moving a bit of the city or going under it.
0 -
They’re so slow. Just move your head.rjsterry said:
Couple of mirrors on stalks and you're done.focuszing723 said:
Yeah well, I've kind of p1ssed on me chips there.0 -
Almost all UK cities had a tram system - even hilly places like Bristol - so that really shouldn't be difficult to reinstate. Light rail is more difficult of course.First.Aspect said:
It was the wrong solution, given the nature of the city.rjsterry said:
It doesn't have to cost that much. Edinburgh and Birmingham are exercises in absurdity. I think I saw somewhere that one is more expensive per km than HS2.First.Aspect said:
Too late for the rest of the UK cities. Retrofitting rail, light rail or underground is unaffordable. I've watched the team going in in Edinburgh for 15 years and at great expense. When kts done it'll be as good as the bus was 15 years ago.rick_chasey said:
As everyone keeps telling me on this thread, there's more to life than London.TheBigBean said:
They're not in London.rick_chasey said:
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.
I'd agree that London has a pretty comprehensive public transport system and the rest of the UK could learn from it, especially urban areas.
I'd even go as far as to say the future of travel will look a lot like London does at the moment, but then that is a city where they have effectively discouraged car travel both because of the limits of geometry and abundant, useful public transport.
Most applicable to other urban areas, but, since the trend is more and denser urbanisation, that stands to reason.
Manchester is pretty good, mind you.
Borders Rail cost £350 million for 35 miles. So about 10 times better value. But that didn't require building many new bridges or embankments because it had only been closed for 50 years.
And it runs on pre existing lines in the city.
There's no getting away from the fact that if the city is already there, either you use infrastructure that's already there to some extent, or spend a shjt-ton of money moving a bit of the city or going under it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
This is an interesting point. I'm not sure that you are right as I think the goal is to make public transport accessible for all. I guess it depends on the disability.kingstongraham said:
They're definitely part of the mix for disabled people.TheBigBean said:
They're not in London.rick_chasey said:
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.
I know one blind person who manages fine on public transport, and I have seen plenty of people in wheelchairs on buses although that clearly comes with difficulties. Also, I've known some disabled people who say taxis won't stop for them.0 -
Try selling that idea to the residents of Edinburgh.rjsterry said:
Almost all UK cities had a tram system - even hilly places like Bristol - so that really shouldn't be difficult to reinstate. Light rail is more difficult of course.First.Aspect said:
It was the wrong solution, given the nature of the city.rjsterry said:
It doesn't have to cost that much. Edinburgh and Birmingham are exercises in absurdity. I think I saw somewhere that one is more expensive per km than HS2.First.Aspect said:
Too late for the rest of the UK cities. Retrofitting rail, light rail or underground is unaffordable. I've watched the team going in in Edinburgh for 15 years and at great expense. When kts done it'll be as good as the bus was 15 years ago.rick_chasey said:
As everyone keeps telling me on this thread, there's more to life than London.TheBigBean said:
They're not in London.rick_chasey said:
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.
I'd agree that London has a pretty comprehensive public transport system and the rest of the UK could learn from it, especially urban areas.
I'd even go as far as to say the future of travel will look a lot like London does at the moment, but then that is a city where they have effectively discouraged car travel both because of the limits of geometry and abundant, useful public transport.
Most applicable to other urban areas, but, since the trend is more and denser urbanisation, that stands to reason.
Manchester is pretty good, mind you.
Borders Rail cost £350 million for 35 miles. So about 10 times better value. But that didn't require building many new bridges or embankments because it had only been closed for 50 years.
And it runs on pre existing lines in the city.
There's no getting away from the fact that if the city is already there, either you use infrastructure that's already there to some extent, or spend a shjt-ton of money moving a bit of the city or going under it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It's a convenient argument but most UK towns and city centres were built pre-car.rick_chasey said:
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
1871-1956pblakeney said:
Try selling that idea to the residents of Edinburgh.rjsterry said:
Almost all UK cities had a tram system - even hilly places like Bristol - so that really shouldn't be difficult to reinstate. Light rail is more difficult of course.First.Aspect said:
It was the wrong solution, given the nature of the city.rjsterry said:
It doesn't have to cost that much. Edinburgh and Birmingham are exercises in absurdity. I think I saw somewhere that one is more expensive per km than HS2.First.Aspect said:
Too late for the rest of the UK cities. Retrofitting rail, light rail or underground is unaffordable. I've watched the team going in in Edinburgh for 15 years and at great expense. When kts done it'll be as good as the bus was 15 years ago.rick_chasey said:
As everyone keeps telling me on this thread, there's more to life than London.TheBigBean said:
They're not in London.rick_chasey said:
They're a material part of the final mile of public transport, unfortunately.Pross said:
Never understood the leeway taxis get when they are basically doing two trips instead of a private car’s single trip (unless they get another pickup straight away).TheBigBean said:
Trying to discourage usage of private hire vehicles is on topic I would have thought.pinno said:
Totally impractical if they had to go regularly in and out of the zone,TheBigBean said:
Except for taxis and private hire cars. Really wish they were made to pay.kingstongraham said:
No. It still exists for central London. £15 a day to drive in central London between 7am and 6pm weekdays, noon - 6pm weekends. That's on top of the ULEZ charge if you are in a non-compliant car.First.Aspect said:Hasn't congestion charging existed and then been replaced?
ULEZ previous boundary was "inner" London, which is a larger area than the congestion charge zone.
"Iwford you say mate?.. nah, not goin' out a the zone; cost you a faaaawtune".
Anyhoo, I thought you were bored of this current theme and here you are perpetuating?TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
if you arrange your society and towns around the car, you're gonna need cars to get non-car owners around.
I'd agree that London has a pretty comprehensive public transport system and the rest of the UK could learn from it, especially urban areas.
I'd even go as far as to say the future of travel will look a lot like London does at the moment, but then that is a city where they have effectively discouraged car travel both because of the limits of geometry and abundant, useful public transport.
Most applicable to other urban areas, but, since the trend is more and denser urbanisation, that stands to reason.
Manchester is pretty good, mind you.
Borders Rail cost £350 million for 35 miles. So about 10 times better value. But that didn't require building many new bridges or embankments because it had only been closed for 50 years.
And it runs on pre existing lines in the city.
There's no getting away from the fact that if the city is already there, either you use infrastructure that's already there to some extent, or spend a shjt-ton of money moving a bit of the city or going under it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Edinburgh#:~:text=Trams operated in Edinburgh from,in the city in 1888.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
