The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
And yet it cost £100m a mile almost.rjsterry said:
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.
Combination of factors. Weight of trams and associated vehicle traffic was one issue. Both are much much heavier than in 1888. Surface around rails initially crumbled.
Also, no one had any idea where the sewers actually were. Quite possibly they'd have avoided the New Town had they known.
I'm a big fan of electric trolley busses. Light rail seems an expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist. A trolley bus on the right rpute with priority at lights can achieve basically the same thing. I would also say I've never seen a less space efficient way to carry passengers than the Edinburgh tram. So a bus shaped object is more space efficient as well.0 -
Yeah, I was referring to the re-installation, cost, time and hassle. Plus, AFAIK the trams simply replicate current bus routes which are now being made electric.rjsterry said:
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.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 -
Was it not simply a good idea badly executed?First.Aspect said:
And yet it cost £100m a mile almost.rjsterry said:
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.
Combination of factors. Weight of trams and associated vehicle traffic was one issue. Both are much much heavier than in 1888. Surface around rails initially crumbled.
Also, no one had any idea where the sewers actually were. Quite possibly they'd have avoided the New Town had they known.
I'm a big fan of electric trolley busses. Light rail seems an expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist. A trolley bus on the right rpute with priority at lights can achieve basically the same thing. I would also say I've never seen a less space efficient way to carry passengers than the Edinburgh tram. So a bus shaped object is more space efficient as well.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
No.pinno said:
Was it not simply a good idea badly executed?First.Aspect said:
And yet it cost £100m a mile almost.rjsterry said:
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.
Combination of factors. Weight of trams and associated vehicle traffic was one issue. Both are much much heavier than in 1888. Surface around rails initially crumbled.
Also, no one had any idea where the sewers actually were. Quite possibly they'd have avoided the New Town had they known.
I'm a big fan of electric trolley busses. Light rail seems an expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist. A trolley bus on the right rpute with priority at lights can achieve basically the same thing. I would also say I've never seen a less space efficient way to carry passengers than the Edinburgh tram. So a bus shaped object is more space efficient as well.0 -
Probably a good idea to work out where the sewers are though.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Was more a counter to the argument that rail has to be ridiculously expensive in the UK. Trolley buses sound like a good option.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I was referring to the re-installation, cost, time and hassle. Plus, AFAIK the trams simply replicate current bus routes which are now being made electric.rjsterry said:
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.
Since I was at primary school, Bristol has been fiddling with the idea of a light rail system to replace the actual railway that was ripped out within living memory, but still nothing to show.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
FWIW when I was in Edinburgh last year I found the public transport to be excellent. A combination of trams and buses did a great job along with walking (by choice in pouring rain).0
-
rjsterry said:
Was more a counter to the argument that rail has to be ridiculously expensive in the UK. Trolley buses sound like a good option.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I was referring to the re-installation, cost, time and hassle. Plus, AFAIK the trams simply replicate current bus routes which are now being made electric.rjsterry said:
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.
Since I was at primary school, Bristol has been fiddling with the idea of a light rail system to replace the actual railway that was ripped out within living memory, but still nothing to show.
At least they've just opened the new station at Portbury, and the Henbury loop seems to be in the pipeline.0 -
For 25 years I’ve worked on schemes with S106 contributions towards a Bristol tram / light rail scheme. In the end they spent it on a few extra bus services.rjsterry said:
Was more a counter to the argument that rail has to be ridiculously expensive in the UK. Trolley buses sound like a good option.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I was referring to the re-installation, cost, time and hassle. Plus, AFAIK the trams simply replicate current bus routes which are now being made electric.rjsterry said:
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.
Since I was at primary school, Bristol has been fiddling with the idea of a light rail system to replace the actual railway that was ripped out within living memory, but still nothing to show.0 -
International Olympic standard dithering. I think it's significant that most of the rail and tram network was built as commercial ventures. Some of them failed but there was a bit more ambition and drive and a bit less endless consultation.Pross said:
For 25 years I’ve worked on schemes with S106 contributions towards a Bristol tram / light rail scheme. In the end they spent it on a few extra bus services.rjsterry said:
Was more a counter to the argument that rail has to be ridiculously expensive in the UK. Trolley buses sound like a good option.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I was referring to the re-installation, cost, time and hassle. Plus, AFAIK the trams simply replicate current bus routes which are now being made electric.rjsterry said:
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.
Since I was at primary school, Bristol has been fiddling with the idea of a light rail system to replace the actual railway that was ripped out within living memory, but still nothing to show.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If you have a world full of FA’s you’d never get things done.
the cost of doing nothing is always massively underestimated with this sfuff0 -
The only bad decision is no decision.rick_chasey said:If you have a world full of FA’s you’d never get things done.
the cost of doing nothing is always massively underestimated with this sfuff
I read the same book I think.0 -
Are you referring to the original network built in the Victorian era?rjsterry said:
International Olympic standard dithering. I think it's significant that most of the rail and tram network was built as commercial ventures. Some of them failed but there was a bit more ambition and drive and a bit less endless consultation.Pross said:
For 25 years I’ve worked on schemes with S106 contributions towards a Bristol tram / light rail scheme. In the end they spent it on a few extra bus services.rjsterry said:
Was more a counter to the argument that rail has to be ridiculously expensive in the UK. Trolley buses sound like a good option.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I was referring to the re-installation, cost, time and hassle. Plus, AFAIK the trams simply replicate current bus routes which are now being made electric.rjsterry said:
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.
Since I was at primary school, Bristol has been fiddling with the idea of a light rail system to replace the actual railway that was ripped out within living memory, but still nothing to show.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Yes.pinno said:
Are you referring to the original network built in the Victorian era?rjsterry said:
International Olympic standard dithering. I think it's significant that most of the rail and tram network was built as commercial ventures. Some of them failed but there was a bit more ambition and drive and a bit less endless consultation.Pross said:
For 25 years I’ve worked on schemes with S106 contributions towards a Bristol tram / light rail scheme. In the end they spent it on a few extra bus services.rjsterry said:
Was more a counter to the argument that rail has to be ridiculously expensive in the UK. Trolley buses sound like a good option.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I was referring to the re-installation, cost, time and hassle. Plus, AFAIK the trams simply replicate current bus routes which are now being made electric.rjsterry said:
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.
Since I was at primary school, Bristol has been fiddling with the idea of a light rail system to replace the actual railway that was ripped out within living memory, but still nothing to show.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Careful what you wish for. Tram tracks are a shotshow for cyclists when they are new, and for cyclists and pedestrians once they've crumbled a bit.Pross said:
For 25 years I’ve worked on schemes with S106 contributions towards a Bristol tram / light rail scheme. In the end they spent it on a few extra bus services.rjsterry said:
Was more a counter to the argument that rail has to be ridiculously expensive in the UK. Trolley buses sound like a good option.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I was referring to the re-installation, cost, time and hassle. Plus, AFAIK the trams simply replicate current bus routes which are now being made electric.rjsterry said:
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.
Since I was at primary school, Bristol has been fiddling with the idea of a light rail system to replace the actual railway that was ripped out within living memory, but still nothing to show.0 -
How did we manage for the best part of 70 years?First.Aspect said:
Careful what you wish for. Tram tracks are a shotshow for cyclists when they are new, and for cyclists and pedestrians once they've crumbled a bit.Pross said:
For 25 years I’ve worked on schemes with S106 contributions towards a Bristol tram / light rail scheme. In the end they spent it on a few extra bus services.rjsterry said:
Was more a counter to the argument that rail has to be ridiculously expensive in the UK. Trolley buses sound like a good option.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I was referring to the re-installation, cost, time and hassle. Plus, AFAIK the trams simply replicate current bus routes which are now being made electric.rjsterry said:
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.
Since I was at primary school, Bristol has been fiddling with the idea of a light rail system to replace the actual railway that was ripped out within living memory, but still nothing to show.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Has it ever occurred to you that victorian technology might not be the best way forward?rjsterry said:
How did we manage for the best part of 70 years?First.Aspect said:
Careful what you wish for. Tram tracks are a shotshow for cyclists when they are new, and for cyclists and pedestrians once they've crumbled a bit.Pross said:
For 25 years I’ve worked on schemes with S106 contributions towards a Bristol tram / light rail scheme. In the end they spent it on a few extra bus services.rjsterry said:
Was more a counter to the argument that rail has to be ridiculously expensive in the UK. Trolley buses sound like a good option.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I was referring to the re-installation, cost, time and hassle. Plus, AFAIK the trams simply replicate current bus routes which are now being made electric.rjsterry said:
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.
Since I was at primary school, Bristol has been fiddling with the idea of a light rail system to replace the actual railway that was ripped out within living memory, but still nothing to show.
Traffic is bigger and there is massively more of it than 70 years ago. There is also more wilful disregard of anyone not driving by those that are. Crossing tracks on your own not under pressure is a doddle in all weathers. Crossing tracks at an angle forced by a driver next to you and being prevented from stopping by one right up your chuff is more difficult.0 -
This is because we have travel infrastructure that is geared towards car driving and not cycling.First.Aspect said:
Traffic is bigger and there is massively more of it than 70 years ago. There is also more wilful disregard of anyone not driving by those that are. Crossing tracks on your own not under pressure is a doddle in all weathers. Crossing tracks at an angle forced by a driver next to you and being prevented from stopping by one right up your chuff is more difficult.
It's bad design. Entirely solvable.0 -
Trams are not the solution in a day of electric buses. Unless you want to make things more expensive, dangerous and incur a decade of inconvenience during construction.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 -
Fairly sure I read somewhere that Trams are the most cost-effective public transport when done right.pblakeney said:Trams are not the solution in a day of electric buses. Unless you want to make things more expensive, dangerous and incur a decade of inconvenience during construction.
Plus, given we're worried about particulates in this thread; busses are much worse for that - tyre degradation, brake dust etc, than trams.0 -
I'm sorry you are going to need to evidence that. I would put money on any analysis that states that not including some other options that happen to be cheaper.rick_chasey said:
Fairly sure I read somewhere that Trams are the most cost-effective public transport when done right.pblakeney said:Trams are not the solution in a day of electric buses. Unless you want to make things more expensive, dangerous and incur a decade of inconvenience during construction.
Plus, given we're worried about particulates in this thread; busses are much worse for that - tyre degradation, brake dust etc, than trams.0 -
You know Trams have brakes, right?rick_chasey said:
Fairly sure I read somewhere that Trams are the most cost-effective public transport when done right.pblakeney said:Trams are not the solution in a day of electric buses. Unless you want to make things more expensive, dangerous and incur a decade of inconvenience during construction.
Plus, given we're worried about particulates in this thread; busses are much worse for that - tyre degradation, brake dust etc, than trams.
These are comparatively small contributions anyway, once you exclude all of the 2010 diesel astras and lifestyle wood burning heating systems in Finchley.0 -
But that was before the population was 60+ million and before elf and safety and before there was cabling and god knows what underground and that was before the era of bureaucracy and obfuscating planning depts and NIMBYism and politics...rjsterry said:
Yes.pinno said:
Are you referring to the original network built in the Victorian era?rjsterry said:
International Olympic standard dithering. I think it's significant that most of the rail and tram network was built as commercial ventures. Some of them failed but there was a bit more ambition and drive and a bit less endless consultation.Pross said:
For 25 years I’ve worked on schemes with S106 contributions towards a Bristol tram / light rail scheme. In the end they spent it on a few extra bus services.rjsterry said:
Was more a counter to the argument that rail has to be ridiculously expensive in the UK. Trolley buses sound like a good option.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I was referring to the re-installation, cost, time and hassle. Plus, AFAIK the trams simply replicate current bus routes which are now being made electric.rjsterry said:
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.
Since I was at primary school, Bristol has been fiddling with the idea of a light rail system to replace the actual railway that was ripped out within living memory, but still nothing to show.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I'm sure that you can see the issue right there in this country of everything being done (initially) on the cheap. Guarantee most of the budget blown on consultation.rick_chasey said:
Fairly sure I read somewhere that Trams are the most cost-effective public transport when done right.pblakeney said:Trams are not the solution in a day of electric buses. Unless you want to make things more expensive, dangerous and incur a decade of inconvenience during construction.
Plus, given we're worried about particulates in this thread; busses are much worse for that - tyre degradation, brake dust etc, than trams.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 -
I know the Scots are very good at f*cking public works up but that doesn't necessarily apply for the rest of the world.First.Aspect said:
I'm sorry you are going to need to evidence that. I would put money on any analysis that states that not including some other options that happen to be cheaper.rick_chasey said:
Fairly sure I read somewhere that Trams are the most cost-effective public transport when done right.pblakeney said:Trams are not the solution in a day of electric buses. Unless you want to make things more expensive, dangerous and incur a decade of inconvenience during construction.
Plus, given we're worried about particulates in this thread; busses are much worse for that - tyre degradation, brake dust etc, than trams.
https://bathtrams.uk/solving-baths-traffic/comparative-benefits-trams-vs-buses/#:~:text=As per above the cost,per passenger km than buses.
I can't find where I read it, but a quick google brings the above up. Essential argument seems to be that over a cycle of 40-50 years plus, the trams come up trumps, and that's before you get to the obvious sustainability argument; trams are more energy efficient.0 -
Traffic is bigger by choice. It's the result of deliberate town planning policies from the 1930s onwards. It didn't just happen. I'm not convinced that there is anything fundamentally different between UK cities and those in Europe that still use trams. Granted 90 years of prioritising motor vehicles can not be undone overnight, but fatalist can't-be-done-ism is not a way forward.First.Aspect said:
Has it ever occurred to you that victorian technology might not be the best way forward?rjsterry said:
How did we manage for the best part of 70 years?First.Aspect said:
Careful what you wish for. Tram tracks are a shotshow for cyclists when they are new, and for cyclists and pedestrians once they've crumbled a bit.Pross said:
For 25 years I’ve worked on schemes with S106 contributions towards a Bristol tram / light rail scheme. In the end they spent it on a few extra bus services.rjsterry said:
Was more a counter to the argument that rail has to be ridiculously expensive in the UK. Trolley buses sound like a good option.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I was referring to the re-installation, cost, time and hassle. Plus, AFAIK the trams simply replicate current bus routes which are now being made electric.rjsterry said:
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.
Since I was at primary school, Bristol has been fiddling with the idea of a light rail system to replace the actual railway that was ripped out within living memory, but still nothing to show.
Traffic is bigger and there is massively more of it than 70 years ago. There is also more wilful disregard of anyone not driving by those that are. Crossing tracks on your own not under pressure is a doddle in all weathers. Crossing tracks at an angle forced by a driver next to you and being prevented from stopping by one right up your chuff is more difficult.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
A projection over that timescale is speculative at best, because its based on current technology and energy mix.rick_chasey said:
I know the Scots are very good at f*cking public works up but that doesn't necessarily apply for the rest of the world.First.Aspect said:
I'm sorry you are going to need to evidence that. I would put money on any analysis that states that not including some other options that happen to be cheaper.rick_chasey said:
Fairly sure I read somewhere that Trams are the most cost-effective public transport when done right.pblakeney said:Trams are not the solution in a day of electric buses. Unless you want to make things more expensive, dangerous and incur a decade of inconvenience during construction.
Plus, given we're worried about particulates in this thread; busses are much worse for that - tyre degradation, brake dust etc, than trams.
https://bathtrams.uk/solving-baths-traffic/comparative-benefits-trams-vs-buses/#:~:text=As per above the cost,per passenger km than buses.
I can't find where I read it, but a quick google brings the above up. Essential argument seems to be that over a cycle of 40-50 years plus, the trams come up trumps, and that's before you get to the obvious sustainability argument; trams are more energy efficient.0 -
And you call me idealistic.rjsterry said:
Traffic is bigger by choice. It's the result of deliberate town planning policies from the 1930s onwards. It didn't just happen. I'm not convinced that there is anything fundamentally different between UK cities and those in Europe that still use trams. Granted 90 years of prioritising motor vehicles can not be undone overnight, but fatalist can't-be-done-ism is not a way forward.First.Aspect said:
Has it ever occurred to you that victorian technology might not be the best way forward?rjsterry said:
How did we manage for the best part of 70 years?First.Aspect said:
Careful what you wish for. Tram tracks are a shotshow for cyclists when they are new, and for cyclists and pedestrians once they've crumbled a bit.Pross said:
For 25 years I’ve worked on schemes with S106 contributions towards a Bristol tram / light rail scheme. In the end they spent it on a few extra bus services.rjsterry said:
Was more a counter to the argument that rail has to be ridiculously expensive in the UK. Trolley buses sound like a good option.pblakeney said:
Yeah, I was referring to the re-installation, cost, time and hassle. Plus, AFAIK the trams simply replicate current bus routes which are now being made electric.rjsterry said:
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.
Since I was at primary school, Bristol has been fiddling with the idea of a light rail system to replace the actual railway that was ripped out within living memory, but still nothing to show.
Traffic is bigger and there is massively more of it than 70 years ago. There is also more wilful disregard of anyone not driving by those that are. Crossing tracks on your own not under pressure is a doddle in all weathers. Crossing tracks at an angle forced by a driver next to you and being prevented from stopping by one right up your chuff is more difficult.
The only difference between cities with trams and those without is that the ones with trams, by and large, never did away with them in the first place.
And suggesting "not trams" is not suggesting "not anything". A trolley bus achieves the same thing in the same place without rails more cheaply (initially). They would use the infrastructure that already exists, plus some overhead lines and, in Firstopia, priority at every controlled junction.
People tend to think of busses as having the odd bus lane that's ignored, but otherwise being stuck in with the rest of traffic. There's no reason this should be so.
I think we can all agree that in addition to costs, the main barrier to anything resembling progress is the perception that reducing road space is bad. I mean it's hard enough getting 2 metres out of the side of one lane without that also being available for parking.
0 -
Trams carry a lot more people. The (electric) bus I was on yesterday only had seating in the rear two thirds. Also, due to the batteries, the seating is set really high leavng me getting thrown around and feeling a bit travel sick. Horses for courses really, trams / light rail for the main routes and buses for the spurs with lower demand. With both they tend to be significantly better when on their own dedicated infrastructure rather than sharing roads with other modes.pblakeney said:Trams are not the solution in a day of electric buses. Unless you want to make things more expensive, dangerous and incur a decade of inconvenience during construction.
Also, as for the comment above that trams are a bad idea around cyclists, a lot of cities where cycling is a popular means of transport also have extensive tram networks.0 -
Another difference between London and other places is that the buses seem to carry more people. The definition of full is quite a bit different.0
