The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

To make useable space for walking, cycling and buses, cars need to be displaced and/or slowed down. Call it a rebalancing.

Plenty of space for walking and cycling and there are bus lanes for buses. Sorted.

Things have improved slightly in some places in the face of opposition, agreed. Still plenty more improvements to be made.

The fact that buses can be described as slow because they are just "part of traffic" is not ideal.

Look at this beauty that was consulted on for the A48 between Newport and Cardiff

It's a bit clashy, but graphically very strong.

pblakeney

pinno said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

There are over 30,000 recruitment agencies in the UK all charging excessive fees and inflating wages in specific areas. If we tax them a bit more, we might raise enough money to fund and kick start the planning of the mega integrated transport, taxation and social reconfiguration process.

What's excessive if the buyer/renter pays for it? It's a pretty regulation free market - lot of competition (57,600 of them), very low barriers to entry (a phone and an email address), so how did you arrive at "excessive?".

And sure, I've argued for higher corp tax here, so I'm not being hypocritical?

How does that stack up with estate agents and house prices?

How does me being sarcastic stack up?

It seems to get skipped. Although anyone seriously suggesting that taxing people in over-priced houses or agencies will solve the country's issues is deluded.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

Did I mention how much I enjoy traveling on the top deck of a bus?

Not so fun when you get blocked trying to get down & off.

rick_chasey

Have often wondered about the efficiency of double decker busses, given how they're fairly unique to the UK.

Clearly the bendy busses were a disaster in London, but I have always wondered why it hasn't been done elsewhere.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Have often wondered about the efficiency of double decker busses, given how they're fairly unique to the UK.

Clearly the bendy busses were a disaster in London, but I have always wondered why it hasn't been done elsewhere.

Plenty of double decker trains, though.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Have often wondered about the efficiency of double decker busses, given how they're fairly unique to the UK.

Clearly the bendy busses were a disaster in London, but I have always wondered why it hasn't been done elsewhere.

Plenty of double decker trains, though.

Yup. I always had assumed the UK would have had it not done most of the tunnelling in the 19th century.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

Have often wondered about the efficiency of double decker busses, given how they're fairly unique to the UK.

Clearly the bendy busses were a disaster in London, but I have always wondered why it hasn't been done elsewhere.

More common than you'd think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-decker_bus

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Have often wondered about the efficiency of double decker busses, given how they're fairly unique to the UK.

Clearly the bendy busses were a disaster in London, but I have always wondered why it hasn't been done elsewhere.

I know your view of the world is limited to the Netherlands, but there are even some there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-decker_bus

Netherlands

It is only very recently that double-decker buses have started to be used in the Netherlands. On 10 December 2017 Connexxion put 18 three-axle double-deckers into service on route 346 between Haarlem and Amsterdam Zuid, a heavily used commuter route not served by rail. They are Futura FDD2s built by VDL Bus & Coach in Valkenswaard, are 14.1 metres (46 feet) long, and carry 86 seated passengers.[18] Their introduction was not entirely without issues since their route initially had to be diverted to avoid passing under a dangerously low tram overhead wire near the VU Medical Centre stop.[19]

Also in December 2017, Qbuzz introduced five double-deckers on its route 300 between Groningen and Emmen. These are Van Hool TDX27 Astromegas, also 14.1 metres (46 feet) long and carrying 85 passengers.[20]

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Did I mention how much I enjoy traveling on the top deck of a bus?

Not so fun when you get blocked trying to get down & off.

I know you mentioned some childhood incident but I've not found bus passengers any less likely to get out of the way than those on crowded trains.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Did I mention how much I enjoy traveling on the top deck of a bus?

Not so fun when you get blocked trying to get down & off.

I know you mentioned some childhood incident but I've not found bus passengers any less likely to get out of the way than those on crowded trains.

Or when the driver is behind schedule and doesn't want to stop so they swing the bus around a bit and declare they didn't see you coming down as they sail past the stop.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Have often wondered about the efficiency of double decker busses, given how they're fairly unique to the UK.

Clearly the bendy busses were a disaster in London, but I have always wondered why it hasn't been done elsewhere.

Plenty of double decker trains, though.

Yup. I always had assumed the UK would have had it not done most of the tunnelling in the 19th century.

Factoid: for quite a while no-one had accurate data on the size of the LU tunnels. They sized new trains based on the previous model minus a few millimetres for tolerance.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

To make useable space for walking, cycling and buses, cars need to be displaced and/or slowed down. Call it a rebalancing.

Plenty of space for walking and cycling and there are bus lanes for buses. Sorted.

Things have improved slightly in some places in the face of opposition, agreed. Still plenty more improvements to be made.

The fact that buses can be described as slow because they are just "part of traffic" is not ideal.

Look at this beauty that was consulted on for the A48 between Newport and Cardiff

I used to commute that way by bike regularly but along the coast road that ran parallel (I did have to use the A48 for a while due to a road closure). I also did some work on that section of road back in the late 90s and even then the traffic levels were so low that it seemed an obvious solution to divide it up along those lines.

I've never voted for Labour in the Welsh Government elections and disagree with some of their transport decisions such as scrapping the M4 relief road around Newport and putting a blanket embargo on new road schemes but do admire that they are prepared to stand their ground in the face of vocal opositon to their policies. It's quite refeshing compared to the constant u turns and bending whichever way the wind is blowing strongest that we see in Westminster.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Have often wondered about the efficiency of double decker busses, given how they're fairly unique to the UK.

Clearly the bendy busses were a disaster in London, but I have always wondered why it hasn't been done elsewhere.

Plenty of double decker trains, though.

Yup. I always had assumed the UK would have had it not done most of the tunnelling in the 19th century.

Factoid: for quite a while no-one had accurate data on the size of the LU tunnels. They sized new trains based on the previous model minus a few millimetres for tolerance.

Yikes.

Stevo_666

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

Pross

rjsterry said:

Had a genuinely enjoyable commute yesterday evening. Left the office slightly too late to catch the direct train from Farringdon so got the next to East Croydon, a few stops on the tram, a five minute walk to a bus stop, A short bus ride and then walk the last mile. It struck me that almost as important as the transport itself is the integrated contactless ticketing, so I'm not constantly rummaging for change and just get one charge for the day.

I think this is the key and why London is so far ahead. It would make life so much easier if you could just use a card and get charged a single price for the journey. Unfortunately, with deregulated buses and various train franchises it makes it all far too complicated.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Out of interest when was last time, and was this run by the same people sorting out the Edinburgh tram?

In fairness I'm usually on a bike behind a bus breathing it in. But busses were my best plan b for commuting until 2020.

Lothian busses haven't quite made the switch to hybrid, hydrogen or electric.

There is progressive electrification of rail, except on the newest lines, which still use diesel electric. They have replaced the 1980s rolling stock woth 1990s stuff though.

You could argue that's short sighted.

I'm beginning to see why you are trying to leave the place 🙂

It's multiplicative stupidity up here. Two halfwits don't make a wit, they make a quater wit.

There is talk of a wealth tax. Wealthy is one in 8. Who would have to put their hands on at least £10k.

But it's based on assets not income, so a lot of people with those assets will not be able to pay.

And to make it worse, it will include "high value items". So the Intellectual pigmys in charge somehow think they will be able to assess that. Excuse me sir, but how much is that Lencowitz worth?

If people want to tie up all their wealth in illiquid assets that’s their problem.

There’s a liquidity premium in the world. Get over it.

For the same reason I don’t lock up all my savings in a 2 year fixed.

God you are a pillock.

It's about people with pension pots and a home worth more than £1m. This will capture a lot of pensioners.

Stupid stupid people for letting their houses rise in value and for having saved for a pension.

Oh no, how tough for them.

That’s the real problem. Your house going up in value *too much*

May your empathy block towards anyone older than you come back to haunt you in the blinknof an eye it will take you to get there.

The bleeting about your own circumstances really jars with your dismissal of others. If I might be so bold.

You've been on top form lately. Must have been a good month in terms of smugness in recruitment.

We’ve got schools and hospitals falling apart, police don’t have enough officers to catch criminals or keep them in prison blah blah blah.

Keeping criminals in prison is literally nothing to do with the police.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Had a genuinely enjoyable commute yesterday evening. Left the office slightly too late to catch the direct train from Farringdon so got the next to East Croydon, a few stops on the tram, a five minute walk to a bus stop, A short bus ride and then walk the last mile. It struck me that almost as important as the transport itself is the integrated contactless ticketing, so I'm not constantly rummaging for change and just get one charge for the day.

I think this is the key and why London is so far ahead. It would make life so much easier if you could just use a card and get charged a single price for the journey. Unfortunately, with deregulated buses and various train franchises it makes it all far too complicated.

Isn't contactless how most of them work these days?

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Dorset_Boy

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Out of interest when was last time, and was this run by the same people sorting out the Edinburgh tram?

In fairness I'm usually on a bike behind a bus breathing it in. But busses were my best plan b for commuting until 2020.

Lothian busses haven't quite made the switch to hybrid, hydrogen or electric.

There is progressive electrification of rail, except on the newest lines, which still use diesel electric. They have replaced the 1980s rolling stock woth 1990s stuff though.

You could argue that's short sighted.

I'm beginning to see why you are trying to leave the place 🙂

It's multiplicative stupidity up here. Two halfwits don't make a wit, they make a quater wit.

There is talk of a wealth tax. Wealthy is one in 8. Who would have to put their hands on at least £10k.

But it's based on assets not income, so a lot of people with those assets will not be able to pay.

And to make it worse, it will include "high value items". So the Intellectual pigmys in charge somehow think they will be able to assess that. Excuse me sir, but how much is that Lencowitz worth?

If people want to tie up all their wealth in illiquid assets that’s their problem.

There’s a liquidity premium in the world. Get over it.

For the same reason I don’t lock up all my savings in a 2 year fixed.

God you are a pillock.

It's about people with pension pots and a home worth more than £1m. This will capture a lot of pensioners.

Stupid stupid people for letting their houses rise in value and for having saved for a pension.

Oh no, how tough for them.

That’s the real problem. Your house going up in value *too much*

May your empathy block towards anyone older than you come back to haunt you in the blinknof an eye it will take you to get there.

The bleeting about your own circumstances really jars with your dismissal of others. If I might be so bold.

You've been on top form lately. Must have been a good month in terms of smugness in recruitment.

We’ve got schools and hospitals falling apart, police don’t have enough officers to catch criminals or keep them in prison blah blah blah.

Keeping criminals in prison is literally nothing to do with the police.

And Khalif is far from the first person to have escaped from prison.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Had a genuinely enjoyable commute yesterday evening. Left the office slightly too late to catch the direct train from Farringdon so got the next to East Croydon, a few stops on the tram, a five minute walk to a bus stop, A short bus ride and then walk the last mile. It struck me that almost as important as the transport itself is the integrated contactless ticketing, so I'm not constantly rummaging for change and just get one charge for the day.

I think this is the key and why London is so far ahead. It would make life so much easier if you could just use a card and get charged a single price for the journey. Unfortunately, with deregulated buses and various train franchises it makes it all far too complicated.

Isn't contactless how most of them work these days?

Buses and trams probably but they lack integration. Trains still need a ticket, whether physical or electronic, it would be good if you could just tap and go at the barriers but with the ridiculous pricing structures I'm not sure it could work and the whole franchise system presumably makes it even harder.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

To make useable space for walking, cycling and buses, cars need to be displaced and/or slowed down. Call it a rebalancing.

Plenty of space for walking and cycling and there are bus lanes for buses. Sorted.

Things have improved slightly in some places in the face of opposition, agreed. Still plenty more improvements to be made.

The fact that buses can be described as slow because they are just "part of traffic" is not ideal.

Look at this beauty that was consulted on for the A48 between Newport and Cardiff

I used to commute that way by bike regularly but along the coast road that ran parallel (I did have to use the A48 for a while due to a road closure). I also did some work on that section of road back in the late 90s and even then the traffic levels were so low that it seemed an obvious solution to divide it up along those lines.

I've never voted for Labour in the Welsh Government elections and disagree with some of their transport decisions such as scrapping the M4 relief road around Newport and putting a blanket embargo on new road schemes but do admire that they are prepared to stand their ground in the face of vocal opositon to their policies. It's quite refeshing compared to the constant u turns and bending whichever way the wind is blowing strongest that we see in Westminster.

Look at the wording of the start of this article from 2008: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/a470-bus-lane-plan-improve-2170459

Pross

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

To make useable space for walking, cycling and buses, cars need to be displaced and/or slowed down. Call it a rebalancing.

Plenty of space for walking and cycling and there are bus lanes for buses. Sorted.

Things have improved slightly in some places in the face of opposition, agreed. Still plenty more improvements to be made.

The fact that buses can be described as slow because they are just "part of traffic" is not ideal.

Look at this beauty that was consulted on for the A48 between Newport and Cardiff

I used to commute that way by bike regularly but along the coast road that ran parallel (I did have to use the A48 for a while due to a road closure). I also did some work on that section of road back in the late 90s and even then the traffic levels were so low that it seemed an obvious solution to divide it up along those lines.

I've never voted for Labour in the Welsh Government elections and disagree with some of their transport decisions such as scrapping the M4 relief road around Newport and putting a blanket embargo on new road schemes but do admire that they are prepared to stand their ground in the face of vocal opositon to their policies. It's quite refeshing compared to the constant u turns and bending whichever way the wind is blowing strongest that we see in Westminster.

Look at the wording of the start of this article from 2008: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/a470-bus-lane-plan-improve-2170459

It's painful!

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

Look up "Scotland" online. Already done, and it is not only more progressive, it is simply more.

At £50k, a taxpayer already pays about £130 more each month than in England. Under the new plans that would be more like £150 a month, which most people would notice.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

Look up "Scotland" online. Already done, and it is not only more progressive, it is simply more.

At £50k, a taxpayer already pays about £130 more each month than in England. Under the new plans that would be more like £150 a month, which most people would notice.

I'm assuming you understand that there has been a progressive income tax in the UK since before it was the UK. The USA has had one since 1862. Etc.

I'm just pointing out that according to your "logic" relating to a wealth tax being counter productive, any progressive income tax would deter people from wanting to earn more?

But that's a bit off topic for here, and should probably be on a different thread.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

Look up "Scotland" online. Already done, and it is not only more progressive, it is simply more.

At £50k, a taxpayer already pays about £130 more each month than in England. Under the new plans that would be more like £150 a month, which most people would notice.

I'm assuming you understand that there has been a progressive income tax in the UK since before it was the UK. The USA has had one since 1862. Etc.

I'm just pointing out that according to your "logic" relating to a wealth tax being counter productive, any progressive income tax would deter people from wanting to earn more?

But that's a bit off topic for here, and should probably be on a different thread.

Agreed, on both points. It presumes that tax should rise per se, of course, which I'm not sure about.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

Depends where you are in the country. You seem to have your 'city blinkers' on like Rick. Unfortunately those who you want to feel the suffering are sufficient in number that your objective will have a hard time succeeding. There are others on here who realise that the best way to get public acceptance/adoption is via carrots, rather than sticks

The thing is, we've come to accept that the roads are there primarily for cars as that has been the dominant form of transport for 60 years or so but they were mainly built originally for pedestrian and horse traffic. If you try to reallocate them for other uses motoring lobbies act of though they were built specifically for their use and it is yet another war of drivers.

Not convinced that the roads like the M1 or M25 were built for that purpose?

The discussion was about within towns so I didn't think I needed to caveat but OK, outside of motorways and some trunk roads / main roads that were built specifically for motor vehicles the vast majority of the road network pre-dates motor vehicle domination and was originally built to accommodate pedestrian and horse traffic.

It's a bit tricky to design roads for cars before cars exist. But now that they are a major and for many essential form of transport, makes sense to adapt older road to them where needed (as well as building new ones). Which is exactly what has happened, for a good reason.

My point is that motorists / motoring organisations treat those roads as 'their' domain and that any proposals to benefit other road user groups is bad, especially if it adversely affects use by motorists. Why should that be the case?

Not sure you can make a sweeping generalisation like that. But in any event I think that's fair enough, given that motorists get charged if they want to use public roads (regardless of what people call what is really road tax).