The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
So. Which government is going to take the financial hit to implement all this infrastructure prior to people ditching cars?rick_chasey said:
The reason is have collectively chosen to prioritise private car drivers over public transport users in everywhere but the biggest cities. That's a policy design. The reason places like Holland, which despite protestations has a similar density to large parts of the UK, can have tonnes of cyclists and far fewer car journeys is directly a result of policy decisions.pblakeney said:
This is why we get cross point arguing.pangolin said:
Essential today (although I bet the definition of essential is stretched by some). But the premise is discussing hypothetical situations where the infrastructure is such that fewer cars are essential. Thought that was clear after this many pages.pblakeney said:
The point people have been making is that if you need a car for essential use then any surplus use cost is minimal as the majority of cost is already baked in.pangolin said:
Before someone jumps in - yes I'm sure many of you will have a lower annual cost than that. Many other people will have cars on finance and be spending far more. The discussion isn't about anecdotal examples it's about the amount of money the country spends on cars.pangolin said:Pross said:
Who said that?pangolin said:OK so we've established cars are basically free.
Pross said:FWIW my car cost me nothing
It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).Pross said:Running costs have been minimal
Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.
If people live in an are where the infrastructure exists (or could exist) then car use can/will be reduced. This does not apply to all. There is no one catch-all solution.
My point from way back is that the choice already exists where it is suitable.
People simply choose not to use it for a multiple of reasons. Address those reasons first.
If you refuse to provide appropriate cycling infrastructure, so most people are literally too frightened to ride a bike, and you don't put in the investment required to make public transport usable, of course people will invest their money so they don't have to rely on that.
So I disagree that we've ended up in this situation because it's the optimal situation. It's only optimal for the policy decisions that have been made.
If the £2k a year everyone spends on car upkeep was instead spent on improving cycling infrastructure, bus routes and rail routes, I suspect there would be a material improvement all round - and those bus routes would look more appealing to run.
Which government is going to force us out of our cars to fund the implementation?
Which government is going to weather proof the trips outside of train/bus routes?
You know already from personal experience that train commuting is not where it needs to be. How much will it cost to upgrade all routes for everybody?
My guess is that next to nothing meaningful will happen to infrastructure.
All that's going to happen is an ever widening division between rich and poor.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 -
This is a fair point. I can walk to 2 shops. Expand them or add more shops to stock more and I don't need to drive to a shop or get deliveries. How it used to be.MattFalle said:none of us here can underrstand wtaf Rickis do obsessed with getting everything delivered instead g to the shop yourself.
we genuinly struggle to seemore than 3 good points of getting stuff delivered over popping fown to the shops - being a lazybastard is one of them
if he honestly thinks MF is waiting in to get somrone to drliver 20 Marlboro Red, 3 things of milk and a handfull of other its he's sorrly mistakenThe 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 -
Is that going to cover the lost tax revenue from motoring though?rick_chasey said:
The reason is have collectively chosen to prioritise private car drivers over public transport users in everywhere but the biggest cities. That's a policy design. The reason places like Holland, which despite protestations has a similar density to large parts of the UK, can have tonnes of cyclists and far fewer car journeys is directly a result of policy decisions.pblakeney said:
This is why we get cross point arguing.pangolin said:
Essential today (although I bet the definition of essential is stretched by some). But the premise is discussing hypothetical situations where the infrastructure is such that fewer cars are essential. Thought that was clear after this many pages.pblakeney said:
The point people have been making is that if you need a car for essential use then any surplus use cost is minimal as the majority of cost is already baked in.pangolin said:
Before someone jumps in - yes I'm sure many of you will have a lower annual cost than that. Many other people will have cars on finance and be spending far more. The discussion isn't about anecdotal examples it's about the amount of money the country spends on cars.pangolin said:Pross said:
Who said that?pangolin said:OK so we've established cars are basically free.
Pross said:FWIW my car cost me nothing
It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).Pross said:Running costs have been minimal
Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.
If people live in an are where the infrastructure exists (or could exist) then car use can/will be reduced. This does not apply to all. There is no one catch-all solution.
My point from way back is that the choice already exists where it is suitable.
People simply choose not to use it for a multiple of reasons. Address those reasons first.
If you refuse to provide appropriate cycling infrastructure, so most people are literally too frightened to ride a bike, and you don't put in the investment required to make public transport usable, of course people will invest their money so they don't have to rely on that.
So I disagree that we've ended up in this situation because it's the optimal situation. It's only optimal for the policy decisions that have been made.
If the £2k a year everyone spends on car upkeep was instead spent on improving cycling infrastructure, bus routes and rail routes, I suspect there would be a material improvement all round - and those bus routes would look more appealing to run.
Public transport / non-motorised transport infrastructure just needs to be viewed as an acceptable cost rather than something that has to pay for itself. If you want widespread bus provision you really need to accept that some services are going to run at a significant loss.0 -
How many times do see a car with one person in it, or it's in a driveway/road side?
Autonomous taxi cars; Elon Musks Model 3's vision and intent.
You don't own a car you pay for it's usage.
Car utopia relative to the ever growing congestion.
0 -
I mean, it's got to happen eventually. They're already making driving more difficult. LTNs, congestion charges, increasingly expensive parking.
Most modern housing developments round here do not leave enough space for every house to have a car.
Gov't by design or otherwise is making it difficult to use a car anyway. They might as well, as soemone put it here, get on with providing the carrot rather than just the stick.
The biggest barrier to new infrastructure is NIMBYs, not money.0 -
And yet these measures are only being implemented in highly congested urban areas, which are the solution? 🤔 Strange that.rick_chasey said:I mean, it's got to happen eventually. They're already making driving more difficult. LTNs, congestion charges, increasingly expensive parking.
Most modern housing developments round here do not leave enough space for every house to have a car.
Gov't by design or otherwise is making it difficult to use a car anyway. They might as well, as soemone put it here, get on with providing the carrot rather than just the stick.
The biggest barrier to new infrastructure is NIMBYs, not money.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 -
This solves nothing regarding congestion. Might increase it as they drive themselves to their next pickup location.focuszing723 said:How many times do see a car with one person in it, or it's in a driveway/road side?
Autonomous taxi cars; Elon Musks Model 3's vision and intent.
You don't own a car you pay for it's usage.
Car utopia relative to the ever growing congestion.0 -
Yeah. Obviously. That’s where most people live and travel to.pblakeney said:
And yet these measures are only being implemented in highly congested urban areas, which are the solution? 🤔 Strange that.rick_chasey said:I mean, it's got to happen eventually. They're already making driving more difficult. LTNs, congestion charges, increasingly expensive parking.
Most modern housing developments round here do not leave enough space for every house to have a car.
Gov't by design or otherwise is making it difficult to use a car anyway. They might as well, as soemone put it here, get on with providing the carrot rather than just the stick.
The biggest barrier to new infrastructure is NIMBYs, not money.
Round here funnily enough the biggest resistance is not from the people in town but the people who live in the villages outside.
Which makes sense.
0 -
That’s a breech of the City Council’s minimum parking standards https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/media/1290/car-and-cycle-parking-standards.pdfrick_chasey said:I mean, it's got to happen eventually. They're already making driving more difficult. LTNs, congestion charges, increasingly expensive parking.
Most modern housing developments round here do not leave enough space for every house to have a car.
Gov't by design or otherwise is making it difficult to use a car anyway. They might as well, as soemone put it here, get on with providing the carrot rather than just the stick.
The biggest barrier to new infrastructure is NIMBYs, not money.
All new houses should have at least one off-road space (at least 2 for houses with 3 bedrooms or more outside the CPZ). That is lower than many other Councils to be fair but Cambridge has long been at the forefront of reducing car use.0 -
Distinguish between the existence of technology, and whether it has actually been implemented yet. That's more in the sphere of economics.TheBigBean said:
The technology for batteries is more advanced than for hydrogen even if the concept for hydrogen is simple. There are no big electrolysers at the moment.First.Aspect said:
Trivial was probably a bit strong. But the technology already exists, which is less clear than the case for batteries at scale.TheBigBean said:
A hydroelectric plant can be used as storage simply by varying the flow. That's why the UK's interconnector with Norway is helpful. It still requires nature to do its thing which is why you have named countries with mountains.First.Aspect said:
87% of British Columbia's power is hydroelectric. Austria 57%. Switzerland 61%. I don't know how much of that capacity is susceptible to pump storage, but given the right geography, it seems possible that it could be a solution to storing renewable energy.TheBigBean said:
If you do the calculations on how much water you need to raise, you'll find it isn't trivial unless nature has built a convenient mountain and lake.First.Aspect said:
Energy storage is trivial. Either use some energy to raise the elevation of water and then run it through a turbine, or use some energy for electrolysis to store energy as hydrogen and burn it to turn a turbine, or use a fuel cell.
Hydrogen could act as form of storage, but a lot needs to happen before it does on any real scale. The government had a very positive consultation on the subject, but then the PM changed and nothing has happened since.
Power storage with water probably isn't a large part of any solution here, which is why I mentioned hydrogen. We store and transport methane for power generation and hydrogen isn't that much more difficult (leaks are the main issue, because it is such a small molecule, but it is achievable). A bigger challenge is turning that hydrogen into electricity because although you can burn it to generate power the same way, its not as energy dense as methane and that isn't the most efficient way to get electricity from hydrogen. But there is ultimately money to be made so given time large scale fuel cell energy generation would happen.
The fact a historically awful Tory government full of ostriches hasn't made progress in the few tens of seconds since the last time it ate itself is hardly relevant.
I have posted a lot in support of hydrogen. I was mostly taking issue with your usage of trivial. For example, there are proposal to use old salt mines, but it's far from easy and is mostly without precedent.
I work with some renewables companies and there are H2 production/storage/generation consortia being funded right now. Progress is glacial, but like everything else there will be a tipping point.0 -
That's quite interesting as I have a friend who lives in one and how they define the parking is quite interesting. a 5 min walk away; everyone who lives there walks off to the car park, picks up the car, drives it to the front of the house, fills up the car with everyone else and off they go.Pross said:
That’s a breech of the City Council’s minimum parking standards https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/media/1290/car-and-cycle-parking-standards.pdfrick_chasey said:I mean, it's got to happen eventually. They're already making driving more difficult. LTNs, congestion charges, increasingly expensive parking.
Most modern housing developments round here do not leave enough space for every house to have a car.
Gov't by design or otherwise is making it difficult to use a car anyway. They might as well, as soemone put it here, get on with providing the carrot rather than just the stick.
The biggest barrier to new infrastructure is NIMBYs, not money.
All new houses should have at least one off-road space (at least 2 for houses with 3 bedrooms or more outside the CPZ). That is lower than many other Councils to be fair but Cambridge has long been at the forefront of reducing car use.
No-one parks their cars in front of their house.0 -
See that you are still responding to any points made outside of urban areas but have no answers about how to get your desired infrastructure. Purely a wishlist then.rick_chasey said:
Yeah. Obviously. That’s where most people live and travel to.pblakeney said:
And yet these measures are only being implemented in highly congested urban areas, which are the solution? 🤔 Strange that.rick_chasey said:I mean, it's got to happen eventually. They're already making driving more difficult. LTNs, congestion charges, increasingly expensive parking.
Most modern housing developments round here do not leave enough space for every house to have a car.
Gov't by design or otherwise is making it difficult to use a car anyway. They might as well, as soemone put it here, get on with providing the carrot rather than just the stick.
The biggest barrier to new infrastructure is NIMBYs, not money.
Round here funnily enough the biggest resistance is not from the people in town but the people who live in the villages outside.
Which makes sense.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 -
@pangolinpangolin said:Pross said:
Who said that?pangolin said:OK so we've established cars are basically free.
Pross said:FWIW my car cost me nothing
It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).Pross said:Running costs have been minimal
Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.
Here is where you said £2k a year running your car."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
See above.pangolin said:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I've responded to them, people just disagree. I can't change what they think. I think with the money people save on cars they can spend on pumping up mass transit options in rural areas. More bus routes, tram routes etc.pblakeney said:
See that you are still responding to any points made outside of urban areas but have no answers about how to get your desired infrastructure. Purely a wishlist then.rick_chasey said:
Yeah. Obviously. That’s where most people live and travel to.pblakeney said:
And yet these measures are only being implemented in highly congested urban areas, which are the solution? 🤔 Strange that.rick_chasey said:I mean, it's got to happen eventually. They're already making driving more difficult. LTNs, congestion charges, increasingly expensive parking.
Most modern housing developments round here do not leave enough space for every house to have a car.
Gov't by design or otherwise is making it difficult to use a car anyway. They might as well, as soemone put it here, get on with providing the carrot rather than just the stick.
The biggest barrier to new infrastructure is NIMBYs, not money.
Round here funnily enough the biggest resistance is not from the people in town but the people who live in the villages outside.
Which makes sense.
I think with the level of car usage in those places, the switch to transport will justify it, plus there'll be more money for it as people aren't spending it on their cars and on the local transport instead.
Lots of people in rural areas are travelling to urban areas anyway. Most of the journeys are happening in urban areas, so obviously the focus will be there first. As it should.
0 -
Feels like a very old policy to be honest as it’s dated 2006 but still shows on their website. That said it isn’t unheard of for Council websites to have outdated info still shown! There are places doing car free developments but they need to be demonstrated to be viable (not much use to the developer when trying to sell them otherwise either).rick_chasey said:
That's quite interesting as I have a friend who lives in one and how they define the parking is quite interesting. a 5 min walk away; everyone who lives there walks off to the car park, picks up the car, drives it to the front of the house, fills up the car with everyone else and off they go.Pross said:
That’s a breech of the City Council’s minimum parking standards https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/media/1290/car-and-cycle-parking-standards.pdfrick_chasey said:I mean, it's got to happen eventually. They're already making driving more difficult. LTNs, congestion charges, increasingly expensive parking.
Most modern housing developments round here do not leave enough space for every house to have a car.
Gov't by design or otherwise is making it difficult to use a car anyway. They might as well, as soemone put it here, get on with providing the carrot rather than just the stick.
The biggest barrier to new infrastructure is NIMBYs, not money.
All new houses should have at least one off-road space (at least 2 for houses with 3 bedrooms or more outside the CPZ). That is lower than many other Councils to be fair but Cambridge has long been at the forefront of reducing car use.
No-one parks their cars in front of their house.0 -
People just love driving to the pretty rural supermarket.0
-
He says running it, that isn’t the same as maintenance costs as it includes insurance / VED etc.Stevo_666 said:0 -
I think you are drastically underestimating the cost of updating everything required to meet your objectives. The chancellor would sh!t a brick at the thought of losing tax income from cars alone. How many billions do the rail networks need? £2k ain't gonna cut it.rick_chasey said:
I've responded to them, people just disagree. I can't change what they think. I think with the money people save on cars they can spend on pumping up mass transit options in rural areas. More bus routes, tram routes etc.pblakeney said:
See that you are still responding to any points made outside of urban areas but have no answers about how to get your desired infrastructure. Purely a wishlist then.rick_chasey said:
Yeah. Obviously. That’s where most people live and travel to.pblakeney said:
And yet these measures are only being implemented in highly congested urban areas, which are the solution? 🤔 Strange that.rick_chasey said:I mean, it's got to happen eventually. They're already making driving more difficult. LTNs, congestion charges, increasingly expensive parking.
Most modern housing developments round here do not leave enough space for every house to have a car.
Gov't by design or otherwise is making it difficult to use a car anyway. They might as well, as soemone put it here, get on with providing the carrot rather than just the stick.
The biggest barrier to new infrastructure is NIMBYs, not money.
Round here funnily enough the biggest resistance is not from the people in town but the people who live in the villages outside.
Which makes sense.
I think with the level of car usage in those places, the switch to transport will justify it, plus there'll be more money for it as people aren't spending it on their cars and on the local transport instead.
It is a practical impossibility as well as financial for everyone to ditch cars and jump on public transport.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 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYIFny-FSlg
That is the intent.kingstongraham said:
This solves nothing regarding congestion. Might increase it as they drive themselves to their next pickup location.focuszing723 said:How many times do see a car with one person in it, or it's in a driveway/road side?
Autonomous taxi cars; Elon Musks Model 3's vision and intent.
You don't own a car you pay for it's usage.
Car utopia relative to the ever growing congestion.0 -
So, wait, you are telling me not only that I can't have my car, but that I've got to invest it in public transport that will benefit you?rick_chasey said:
The reason is have collectively chosen to prioritise private car drivers over public transport users in everywhere but the biggest cities. That's a policy design. The reason places like Holland, which despite protestations has a similar density to large parts of the UK, can have tonnes of cyclists and far fewer car journeys is directly a result of policy decisions.pblakeney said:
This is why we get cross point arguing.pangolin said:
Essential today (although I bet the definition of essential is stretched by some). But the premise is discussing hypothetical situations where the infrastructure is such that fewer cars are essential. Thought that was clear after this many pages.pblakeney said:
The point people have been making is that if you need a car for essential use then any surplus use cost is minimal as the majority of cost is already baked in.pangolin said:
Before someone jumps in - yes I'm sure many of you will have a lower annual cost than that. Many other people will have cars on finance and be spending far more. The discussion isn't about anecdotal examples it's about the amount of money the country spends on cars.pangolin said:Pross said:
Who said that?pangolin said:OK so we've established cars are basically free.
Pross said:FWIW my car cost me nothing
It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).Pross said:Running costs have been minimal
Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.
If people live in an are where the infrastructure exists (or could exist) then car use can/will be reduced. This does not apply to all. There is no one catch-all solution.
My point from way back is that the choice already exists where it is suitable.
People simply choose not to use it for a multiple of reasons. Address those reasons first.
If you refuse to provide appropriate cycling infrastructure, so most people are literally too frightened to ride a bike, and you don't put in the investment required to make public transport usable, of course people will invest their money so they don't have to rely on that.
So I disagree that we've ended up in this situation because it's the optimal situation. It's only optimal for the policy decisions that have been made.
If the £2k a year everyone spends on car upkeep was instead spent on improving cycling infrastructure, bus routes and rail routes, I suspect there would be a material improvement all round - and those bus routes would look more appealing to run.
Seriously, Rick, these ideas are about as realistic as a green party manifesto.
Anyway. The Netherlands. Has a population density about twice that of the UK, and fewer geographical challenges. So I did Google maps directions from Naarden, which looks lovely, to the European Patent Office in Rijswijk (which isn't). It is about 80 km which by car is supposed to take 54 minutes. By public transport, 2 h 18 minutes.
For me, a car/bike hybrid journey would be the best option.
0 -
Catch a tram to the Pie In The Sky café from Doddiscombsleigh.0
-
Yes. Running not maintaining. HTHStevo_666 said:
@pangolinpangolin said:Pross said:
Who said that?pangolin said:OK so we've established cars are basically free.
Pross said:FWIW my car cost me nothing
It's just disingenuous nonsense, and I don't think Rick is being "obtuse" for calling you out on it. I think people kid themselves about how much cars cost them each year, and you only really take stock if you are going from a position of having no car to working out whether you can afford one (if then even).Pross said:Running costs have been minimal
Mine was only £1k to buy, I spend about £2k every year running it.
Here is where you said £2k a year running your car.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Only runs twice a day.briantrumpet said:Catch a tram to the Pie In The Sky café from Doddiscombsleigh.
0 -
The intent is to increase congestion?focuszing723 said:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYIFny-FSlg
That is the intent.kingstongraham said:
This solves nothing regarding congestion. Might increase it as they drive themselves to their next pickup location.focuszing723 said:How many times do see a car with one person in it, or it's in a driveway/road side?
Autonomous taxi cars; Elon Musks Model 3's vision and intent.
You don't own a car you pay for it's usage.
Car utopia relative to the ever growing congestion.
0 -
Just think of a long line of Teslas as a train.kingstongraham said:
The intent is to increase congestion?focuszing723 said:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYIFny-FSlg
That is the intent.kingstongraham said:
This solves nothing regarding congestion. Might increase it as they drive themselves to their next pickup location.focuszing723 said:How many times do see a car with one person in it, or it's in a driveway/road side?
Autonomous taxi cars; Elon Musks Model 3's vision and intent.
You don't own a car you pay for it's usage.
Car utopia relative to the ever growing congestion.
Cue the car/pod/train video.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 -
Responding by essentially re-stating what that person was responding to you about doesn't count. Think of it as the same as "ignoring".rick_chasey said:
I've responded to them, people just disagree.pblakeney said:
See that you are still responding to any points made outside of urban areas but have no answers about how to get your desired infrastructure. Purely a wishlist then.rick_chasey said:
Yeah. Obviously. That’s where most people live and travel to.pblakeney said:
And yet these measures are only being implemented in highly congested urban areas, which are the solution? 🤔 Strange that.rick_chasey said:I mean, it's got to happen eventually. They're already making driving more difficult. LTNs, congestion charges, increasingly expensive parking.
Most modern housing developments round here do not leave enough space for every house to have a car.
Gov't by design or otherwise is making it difficult to use a car anyway. They might as well, as soemone put it here, get on with providing the carrot rather than just the stick.
The biggest barrier to new infrastructure is NIMBYs, not money.
Round here funnily enough the biggest resistance is not from the people in town but the people who live in the villages outside.
Which makes sense.0 -
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/cheap-car-insurance/average-cost-run-car-uk
so £3k per year just to run the car, which includes the cost of buying the thing.
You have 32,889,462 cars on the road in the UK.
So that' roughly £100bn. A year. That's not bad.
That is infact 4x what the govt spends on railways every year, and roughly 2x what the gov't currently spends on all transport.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/298675/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-transport-by-category/
Given that's an annual figure, that's quite a lot of money to play with.
1 -
Presumably that's a usage charge, so you don't incur it if you live in the zone but the car is parked?rick_chasey said:Interestingly, it looks like they're going to include a congestion charge here in the 'bridge which is £5 a day for using your car, even if you live there.
0 -
That’s much like the suggestion to use a taxi for the journeys you can’t do by bike or public transport. Taxis are less efficient than a private car for the same journey unless you get a pick up from the drop off location.kingstongraham said:
This solves nothing regarding congestion. Might increase it as they drive themselves to their next pickup location.focuszing723 said:How many times do see a car with one person in it, or it's in a driveway/road side?
Autonomous taxi cars; Elon Musks Model 3's vision and intent.
You don't own a car you pay for it's usage.
Car utopia relative to the ever growing congestion.0
