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

First.Aspect

I think some people need to move past the silliness of the "move people from the countryside so they don't need cars" argument, in order to have a sensible conversation about ways of moving people around and between towns and cities.

This initial "alienation strategy" was an object lesson in how not to bring people along with your views, mind you...

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

I think some people need to move past the silliness of the "move people from the countryside so they don't need cars" argument, in order to have a sensible conversation about ways of moving people around and between towns and cities.

This initial "alienation strategy" was an object lesson in how not to bring people along with your views, mind you...

Where in this thread have I said that?

I find it remarkable that people on here cannot get their head around the fact that the vast vast majority of journeys made can be easily replaced by public transport & cycling/walking because the vast majority of us do live in urban areas (over 80%) and yet all people talk about is living in the countryside.

So we can talk about reorientating travel away from the car so that car travel represents a tiny proportion of travel or we can bang on about the countryside where only 1-in-5 live, and by 2050 only 1-in-10 live.

When we discussed Brexit I often wondered aloud how people don’t understand proportions.

Seems to be the case here too.


No one here has actually engaged with the fundamental premise I outlined above. They just bang on about the countryside.

kingstongraham

Should journeys in the countryside cost more because the upkeep of the road costs more per person journey that uses it?

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

Should journeys in the countryside cost more because the upkeep of the road costs more per person journey that uses it?

You could make the same argument for electricity, water and post.

In which case the answer is probably no. But then the spend on rural roads is lower as well. I think the road past mine is resurfaced around every 30 years.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

I think some people need to move past the silliness of the "move people from the countryside so they don't need cars" argument, in order to have a sensible conversation about ways of moving people around and between towns and cities.

This initial "alienation strategy" was an object lesson in how not to bring people along with your views, mind you...

Where in this thread have I said that?

I find it remarkable that people on here cannot get their head around the fact that the vast vast majority of journeys made can be easily replaced by public transport & cycling/walking because the vast majority of us do live in urban areas (over 80%) and yet all people talk about is living in the countryside.

So we can talk about reorientating travel away from the car so that car travel represents a tiny proportion of travel or we can bang on about the countryside where only 1-in-5 live, and by 2050 only 1-in-10 live.

When we discussed Brexit I often wondered aloud how people don’t understand proportions.

Seems to be the case here too.


No one here has actually engaged with the fundamental premise I outlined above. They just bang on about the countryside.

I suspect most of us don't disagree with the need to sort out urban transport in a way that (eventually) overturns the primacy of cars - I certainly don't - but perhaps if you didn't so casually dismiss everything to do with the countryside as not worth considering, you might get a more receptive audience. Your disdain for all things rural seems to infect everything you write. Yes, the rural population is a minority, and they shouldn't dictate macro policy, but even a bit of empathy would go a long way.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Should journeys in the countryside cost more because the upkeep of the road costs more per person journey that uses it?

You could make the same argument for electricity, water and post.

In which case the answer is probably no. But then the spend on rural roads is lower as well. I think the road past mine is resurfaced around every 30 years.

You could. If you choose to live somewhere that has higher associated costs, then why should us townies subsidise you?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

Remarkable how posting how other countries do it successfully is borderline troll worthy on here, a cycling forum.

because we're realists discussing it openly not living blindly in Ricktopia.

Holland was extremely car centric until the 70s.

We’ve already seen some minor success with LTNs.

We are literally running out of space and resources for cars. None of the arguments presented here addresses that challenge. Roads can only be so big, and as we become more and more urbanised, there is an increasing restriction on space to store cars near where the owners are.

Nor is there enough refinable metals for every existing car to be replaced with batteries, and plainly burning fossil fuels is also not sustainable. Plus, for the next decade there is a geopolitical challenge that China refines the vast majority of the metals to a point that that can be used in batteries (around 70-90% depending on the metal) so there is real geopolitical exposure there. China can’t be bossed about like the petrostates can, bluntly.

So unless you can find good arguments against those, the future of general transport cannot fundamentally be orientated around cars as it currently is.

That’s the situation. So if you don’t agree with my train/bike focus, what alternative are you proposing?

First you've picked on Holland which is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet outside of small islands and city states.

Then you've assumed that we are becoming ever more urbanised - in percentage terms the UK is already in the low to mid 80s and that hasn't moved significantly in recent years - probably because there are enough of us who don't want to live there for little reasons like quality of life.

Public transport in many cities is well developed and will probably continue to so. Outside of the big cities, cars are still a major part of getting around and will continue to be because of all their self evident advantages to the user. The only real question is what powers them. The wisdom of relying on electric only as the future is already being being questioned (for example by the head of Toyota) so it will likely end up being a mix. Petrol will be around for a while; batteries and electric will be part of it; Hydrogen may well make a comeback and synthetic fuels are on the horizon.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

Remarkable how posting how other countries do it successfully is borderline troll worthy on here, a cycling forum.

because we're realists discussing it openly not living blindly in Ricktopia.

Holland was extremely car centric until the 70s.

We’ve already seen some minor success with LTNs.

We are literally running out of space and resources for cars. None of the arguments presented here addresses that challenge. Roads can only be so big, and as we become more and more urbanised, there is an increasing restriction on space to store cars near where the owners are.

Nor is there enough refinable metals for every existing car to be replaced with batteries, and plainly burning fossil fuels is also not sustainable. Plus, for the next decade there is a geopolitical challenge that China refines the vast majority of the metals to a point that that can be used in batteries (around 70-90% depending on the metal) so there is real geopolitical exposure there. China can’t be bossed about like the petrostates can, bluntly.

So unless you can find good arguments against those, the future of general transport cannot fundamentally be orientated around cars as it currently is.

That’s the situation. So if you don’t agree with my train/bike focus, what alternative are you proposing?

First you've picked on Holland which is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet outside of small islands and city states.

Then you've assumed that we are becoming ever more urbanised - in percentage terms the UK is already in the low to mid 80s and that hasn't moved significantly in recent years - probably because there are enough of us who don't want to live there for little reasons like quality of life.

Public transport in many cities is well developed and will probably continue to so. Outside of the big cities, cars are still a major part of getting around and will continue to be because of all their self evident advantages to the user. The only real question is what powers them. The wisdom of relying on electric only as the future is already being being questioned (for example by the head of Toyota) so it will likely end up being a mix. Petrol will be around for a while; batteries and electric will be part of it; Hydrogen may well make a comeback and synthetic fuels are on the horizon.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/270369/urbanization-in-the-united-kingdom/#:~:text=The degree of urbanization in,increase over the past decade.

The degree of urbanization in the United Kingdom amounted to 84.15 percent in 2021. This shows almost a three percentage point increase over the past decade. The upward trend, though slow, has been consistently positive.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

...
No one here has actually engaged with the fundamental premise I outlined above. They just bang on about the countryside.

I did. The answer is simple and straightforward, even if you don't like it.
.

pblakeney said:

I'd say that in simple terms the options are there.
The fact is that the British public are simply not interested in using them.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Should journeys in the countryside cost more because the upkeep of the road costs more per person journey that uses it?

You could make the same argument for electricity, water and post.

In which case the answer is probably no. But then the spend on rural roads is lower as well. I think the road past mine is resurfaced around every 30 years.

You could. If you choose to live somewhere that has higher associated costs, then why should us townies subsidise you?

Careful what you wish for. If you follow your argument, you are paying for your own trains and upkeep of the many more roads and the much higher degradation of said roads due to all of the goods vehicles shipping stuff from the countryside so you can eat.

morstar

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Should journeys in the countryside cost more because the upkeep of the road costs more per person journey that uses it?

You could make the same argument for electricity, water and post.

In which case the answer is probably no. But then the spend on rural roads is lower as well. I think the road past mine is resurfaced around every 30 years.

You could. If you choose to live somewhere that has higher associated costs, then why should us townies subsidise you?

But that works both ways. Town dwellers should then pay more for any goods or services produced/processed outside of cities.

Utilities, food, most manufactured goods. FWIW, I don’t agree with this but the argument is not as Uni-directional as it often portrayed. The cities are massively serviced by non-city areas.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

Remarkable how posting how other countries do it successfully is borderline troll worthy on here, a cycling forum.

because we're realists discussing it openly not living blindly in Ricktopia.

Holland was extremely car centric until the 70s.

We’ve already seen some minor success with LTNs.

We are literally running out of space and resources for cars. None of the arguments presented here addresses that challenge. Roads can only be so big, and as we become more and more urbanised, there is an increasing restriction on space to store cars near where the owners are.

Nor is there enough refinable metals for every existing car to be replaced with batteries, and plainly burning fossil fuels is also not sustainable. Plus, for the next decade there is a geopolitical challenge that China refines the vast majority of the metals to a point that that can be used in batteries (around 70-90% depending on the metal) so there is real geopolitical exposure there. China can’t be bossed about like the petrostates can, bluntly.

So unless you can find good arguments against those, the future of general transport cannot fundamentally be orientated around cars as it currently is.

That’s the situation. So if you don’t agree with my train/bike focus, what alternative are you proposing?

First you've picked on Holland which is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet outside of small islands and city states.

Then you've assumed that we are becoming ever more urbanised - in percentage terms the UK is already in the low to mid 80s and that hasn't moved significantly in recent years - probably because there are enough of us who don't want to live there for little reasons like quality of life.

Public transport in many cities is well developed and will probably continue to so. Outside of the big cities, cars are still a major part of getting around and will continue to be because of all their self evident advantages to the user. The only real question is what powers them. The wisdom of relying on electric only as the future is already being being questioned (for example by the head of Toyota) so it will likely end up being a mix. Petrol will be around for a while; batteries and electric will be part of it; Hydrogen may well make a comeback and synthetic fuels are on the horizon.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/270369/urbanization-in-the-united-kingdom/#:~:text=The degree of urbanization in,increase over the past decade.

The degree of urbanization in the United Kingdom amounted to 84.15 percent in 2021. This shows almost a three percentage point increase over the past decade. The upward trend, though slow, has been consistently positive.

I looked at at same stats. We are pretty close to the limit and you cannot extrapolate ever upwards. Rick seems to think there is still major change in the pipeline, which there is not.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Should journeys in the countryside cost more because the upkeep of the road costs more per person journey that uses it?

You could make the same argument for electricity, water and post.

In which case the answer is probably no. But then the spend on rural roads is lower as well. I think the road past mine is resurfaced around every 30 years.

You could. If you choose to live somewhere that has higher associated costs, then why should us townies subsidise you?

Careful what you wish for. If you follow your argument, you are paying for your own trains and upkeep of the many more roads and the much higher degradation of said roads due to all of the goods vehicles shipping stuff from the countryside so you can eat.

Not to mention the higher cost of policing crime ridden urban areas etc.

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Should journeys in the countryside cost more because the upkeep of the road costs more per person journey that uses it?

You could make the same argument for electricity, water and post.

In which case the answer is probably no. But then the spend on rural roads is lower as well. I think the road past mine is resurfaced around every 30 years.

You could. If you choose to live somewhere that has higher associated costs, then why should us townies subsidise you?

Careful what you wish for. If you follow your argument, you are paying for your own trains and upkeep of the many more roads and the much higher degradation of said roads due to all of the goods vehicles shipping stuff from the countryside so you can eat.

Not to mention the higher cost of policing crime ridden urban areas etc.

I'm not paying for street lights in Kingston either.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

Remarkable how posting how other countries do it successfully is borderline troll worthy on here, a cycling forum.

because we're realists discussing it openly not living blindly in Ricktopia.

Holland was extremely car centric until the 70s.

We’ve already seen some minor success with LTNs.

We are literally running out of space and resources for cars. None of the arguments presented here addresses that challenge. Roads can only be so big, and as we become more and more urbanised, there is an increasing restriction on space to store cars near where the owners are.

Nor is there enough refinable metals for every existing car to be replaced with batteries, and plainly burning fossil fuels is also not sustainable. Plus, for the next decade there is a geopolitical challenge that China refines the vast majority of the metals to a point that that can be used in batteries (around 70-90% depending on the metal) so there is real geopolitical exposure there. China can’t be bossed about like the petrostates can, bluntly.

So unless you can find good arguments against those, the future of general transport cannot fundamentally be orientated around cars as it currently is.

That’s the situation. So if you don’t agree with my train/bike focus, what alternative are you proposing?

First you've picked on Holland which is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet outside of small islands and city states.

Then you've assumed that we are becoming ever more urbanised - in percentage terms the UK is already in the low to mid 80s and that hasn't moved significantly in recent years - probably because there are enough of us who don't want to live there for little reasons like quality of life.

Public transport in many cities is well developed and will probably continue to so. Outside of the big cities, cars are still a major part of getting around and will continue to be because of all their self evident advantages to the user. The only real question is what powers them. The wisdom of relying on electric only as the future is already being being questioned (for example by the head of Toyota) so it will likely end up being a mix. Petrol will be around for a while; batteries and electric will be part of it; Hydrogen may well make a comeback and synthetic fuels are on the horizon.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/270369/urbanization-in-the-united-kingdom/#:~:text=The degree of urbanization in,increase over the past decade.

The degree of urbanization in the United Kingdom amounted to 84.15 percent in 2021. This shows almost a three percentage point increase over the past decade. The upward trend, though slow, has been consistently positive.

I looked at at same stats. We are pretty close to the limit and you cannot extrapolate ever upwards. Rick seems to think there is still major change in the pipeline, which there is not.

Odd to say it hadn't moved significantly in recent years then.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

Remarkable how posting how other countries do it successfully is borderline troll worthy on here, a cycling forum.

because we're realists discussing it openly not living blindly in Ricktopia.

Holland was extremely car centric until the 70s.

We’ve already seen some minor success with LTNs.

We are literally running out of space and resources for cars. None of the arguments presented here addresses that challenge. Roads can only be so big, and as we become more and more urbanised, there is an increasing restriction on space to store cars near where the owners are.

Nor is there enough refinable metals for every existing car to be replaced with batteries, and plainly burning fossil fuels is also not sustainable. Plus, for the next decade there is a geopolitical challenge that China refines the vast majority of the metals to a point that that can be used in batteries (around 70-90% depending on the metal) so there is real geopolitical exposure there. China can’t be bossed about like the petrostates can, bluntly.

So unless you can find good arguments against those, the future of general transport cannot fundamentally be orientated around cars as it currently is.

That’s the situation. So if you don’t agree with my train/bike focus, what alternative are you proposing?

First you've picked on Holland which is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet outside of small islands and city states.

Then you've assumed that we are becoming ever more urbanised - in percentage terms the UK is already in the low to mid 80s and that hasn't moved significantly in recent years - probably because there are enough of us who don't want to live there for little reasons like quality of life.

Public transport in many cities is well developed and will probably continue to so. Outside of the big cities, cars are still a major part of getting around and will continue to be because of all their self evident advantages to the user. The only real question is what powers them. The wisdom of relying on electric only as the future is already being being questioned (for example by the head of Toyota) so it will likely end up being a mix. Petrol will be around for a while; batteries and electric will be part of it; Hydrogen may well make a comeback and synthetic fuels are on the horizon.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/270369/urbanization-in-the-united-kingdom/#:~:text=The degree of urbanization in,increase over the past decade.

The degree of urbanization in the United Kingdom amounted to 84.15 percent in 2021. This shows almost a three percentage point increase over the past decade. The upward trend, though slow, has been consistently positive.

I looked at at same stats. We are pretty close to the limit and you cannot extrapolate ever upwards. Rick seems to think there is still major change in the pipeline, which there is not.

Odd to say it hadn't moved significantly in recent years then.

It hasn't moved significantly. Even you said it was slow.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

Remarkable how posting how other countries do it successfully is borderline troll worthy on here, a cycling forum.

because we're realists discussing it openly not living blindly in Ricktopia.

Holland was extremely car centric until the 70s.

We’ve already seen some minor success with LTNs.

We are literally running out of space and resources for cars. None of the arguments presented here addresses that challenge. Roads can only be so big, and as we become more and more urbanised, there is an increasing restriction on space to store cars near where the owners are.

Nor is there enough refinable metals for every existing car to be replaced with batteries, and plainly burning fossil fuels is also not sustainable. Plus, for the next decade there is a geopolitical challenge that China refines the vast majority of the metals to a point that that can be used in batteries (around 70-90% depending on the metal) so there is real geopolitical exposure there. China can’t be bossed about like the petrostates can, bluntly.

So unless you can find good arguments against those, the future of general transport cannot fundamentally be orientated around cars as it currently is.

That’s the situation. So if you don’t agree with my train/bike focus, what alternative are you proposing?

First you've picked on Holland which is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet outside of small islands and city states.

Then you've assumed that we are becoming ever more urbanised - in percentage terms the UK is already in the low to mid 80s and that hasn't moved significantly in recent years - probably because there are enough of us who don't want to live there for little reasons like quality of life.

Public transport in many cities is well developed and will probably continue to so. Outside of the big cities, cars are still a major part of getting around and will continue to be because of all their self evident advantages to the user. The only real question is what powers them. The wisdom of relying on electric only as the future is already being being questioned (for example by the head of Toyota) so it will likely end up being a mix. Petrol will be around for a while; batteries and electric will be part of it; Hydrogen may well make a comeback and synthetic fuels are on the horizon.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/270369/urbanization-in-the-united-kingdom/#:~:text=The degree of urbanization in,increase over the past decade.

The degree of urbanization in the United Kingdom amounted to 84.15 percent in 2021. This shows almost a three percentage point increase over the past decade. The upward trend, though slow, has been consistently positive.

I looked at at same stats. We are pretty close to the limit and you cannot extrapolate ever upwards. Rick seems to think there is still major change in the pipeline, which there is not.

Odd to say it hadn't moved significantly in recent years then.

It hasn't moved significantly. Even you said it was slow.

Slow and significant have very different definitions.

Handy to know you view 3% as insignificant, I'll remind you when we next discuss tax rises.

You could view it as a 15% reduction in rural living if that helps.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

How does this work outside the cities then? Same big hole in the 'solution' as was debated upthread.

Urban population in the UK is 56 million. Rural is 10.6million. Even in London, around a third of journeys are still by private vehicle and air pollution from vehicle emissions is still bad enough to kill people, so there's still plenty to work on in cities. Bluntly, rural transport is just not that big an issue.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Should journeys in the countryside cost more because the upkeep of the road costs more per person journey that uses it?

You could make the same argument for electricity, water and post.

In which case the answer is probably no. But then the spend on rural roads is lower as well. I think the road past mine is resurfaced around every 30 years.

You could. If you choose to live somewhere that has higher associated costs, then why should us townies subsidise you?

Careful what you wish for. If you follow your argument, you are paying for your own trains and upkeep of the many more roads and the much higher degradation of said roads due to all of the goods vehicles shipping stuff from the countryside so you can eat.

Not to mention the higher cost of policing crime ridden urban areas etc.

I'm not paying for street lights in Kingston either.

This is true, it's my council tax pays for them.

But as regards road pricing, how should it be priced? Or do you disagree with price according to usage?

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

Remarkable how posting how other countries do it successfully is borderline troll worthy on here, a cycling forum.

because we're realists discussing it openly not living blindly in Ricktopia.

Holland was extremely car centric until the 70s.

We’ve already seen some minor success with LTNs.

We are literally running out of space and resources for cars. None of the arguments presented here addresses that challenge. Roads can only be so big, and as we become more and more urbanised, there is an increasing restriction on space to store cars near where the owners are.

Nor is there enough refinable metals for every existing car to be replaced with batteries, and plainly burning fossil fuels is also not sustainable. Plus, for the next decade there is a geopolitical challenge that China refines the vast majority of the metals to a point that that can be used in batteries (around 70-90% depending on the metal) so there is real geopolitical exposure there. China can’t be bossed about like the petrostates can, bluntly.

So unless you can find good arguments against those, the future of general transport cannot fundamentally be orientated around cars as it currently is.

That’s the situation. So if you don’t agree with my train/bike focus, what alternative are you proposing?

First you've picked on Holland which is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet outside of small islands and city states.

Then you've assumed that we are becoming ever more urbanised - in percentage terms the UK is already in the low to mid 80s and that hasn't moved significantly in recent years - probably because there are enough of us who don't want to live there for little reasons like quality of life.

Public transport in many cities is well developed and will probably continue to so. Outside of the big cities, cars are still a major part of getting around and will continue to be because of all their self evident advantages to the user. The only real question is what powers them. The wisdom of relying on electric only as the future is already being being questioned (for example by the head of Toyota) so it will likely end up being a mix. Petrol will be around for a while; batteries and electric will be part of it; Hydrogen may well make a comeback and synthetic fuels are on the horizon.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/270369/urbanization-in-the-united-kingdom/#:~:text=The degree of urbanization in,increase over the past decade.

The degree of urbanization in the United Kingdom amounted to 84.15 percent in 2021. This shows almost a three percentage point increase over the past decade. The upward trend, though slow, has been consistently positive.

I looked at at same stats. We are pretty close to the limit and you cannot extrapolate ever upwards. Rick seems to think there is still major change in the pipeline, which there is not.

Odd to say it hadn't moved significantly in recent years then.

It hasn't moved significantly. Even you said it was slow.

Slow and significant have very different definitions.

Handy to know you view 3% as insignificant, I'll remind you when we next discuss tax rises.

You could view it as a 15% reduction in rural living if that helps.

I don't view an annual change of 0.25% as significant.

Given that I struggle to see how it can be a key part of Ricks argument.

MattFalle

Quick couple of questions:

1. when everyone has moved from the countryside to Ricktopivville, where are they going to live?

2. when everyone has moved from the countryside to Ricktopiaville, what is going to happen to the countryside?

rick_chasey

Why is everyone still going on about the countryside when 4 out of 5 people don’t live there?

MattFalle

because lots of people do and its far nicer than living in a city.

please can you answer the questions that Matt posted above plus:

3. Why does Rick have beef with people living in the countryside?

rick_chasey

It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?

MattFalle

Please can you answer the 3 questions that Matt posted above thankyou.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?

Yes.

Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.

I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.

MattFalle

does Rick have a definition of what makes it into his grand plan and what should be evacuated for the greater good of the population who don't know any better and need to be moved for their own good?

for example, is a small town of, say, 50,000 allowed to prosper and thrive but a smaller place, say pop. 2,000, is inadequate for people's needs and must be emptied?

MattFalle

and what about some village say in the Highlands with 300 people?

what does Rick decree must happen to them?

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Should journeys in the countryside cost more because the upkeep of the road costs more per person journey that uses it?

You could make the same argument for electricity, water and post.

In which case the answer is probably no. But then the spend on rural roads is lower as well. I think the road past mine is resurfaced around every 30 years.

You could. If you choose to live somewhere that has higher associated costs, then why should us townies subsidise you?

Careful what you wish for. If you follow your argument, you are paying for your own trains and upkeep of the many more roads and the much higher degradation of said roads due to all of the goods vehicles shipping stuff from the countryside so you can eat.

Not to mention the higher cost of policing crime ridden urban areas etc.

I'm not paying for street lights in Kingston either.

This is true, it's my council tax pays for them.

But as regards road pricing, how should it be priced? Or do you disagree with price according to usage?

Ah well that's a different question entirely. Per mile? If it could be administered, that's an option.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?

Yes.

Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.

I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.

I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.