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

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

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.

Presumably that's a usage charge, so you don't incur it if you live in the zone but the car is parked?

Yeah. £5er for every day you actually use your car. So you're gonna pay nearly £2k a year if you want to drive every day.

focuszing723

kingstongraham said:

focuszing723 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYIFny-FSlg

kingstongraham said:

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.

This solves nothing regarding congestion. Might increase it as they drive themselves to their next pickup location.

That is the intent.

The intent is to increase congestion?

Couldn't it not pick up other people up if they are on the same route?

If people don't mind, say on a commute. A computer system could easily plan and arrange this.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Presumably that's a usage charge, so you don't incur it if you live in the zone but the car is parked?

Yeah. £5er for every day you actually use your car. So you're gonna pay nearly £2k if you want to drive every day.

Do you think that's a fair policy?

Pross

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Presumably that's a usage charge, so you don't incur it if you live in the zone but the car is parked?

Yeah. £5er for every day you actually use your car. So you're gonna pay nearly £2k if you want to drive every day.

Do you think that's a fair policy?

They should move out of the city to the countryside to avoid it!

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Trivial was probably a bit strong. But the technology already exists, which is less clear than the case for batteries at scale.

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.

Distinguish between the existence of technology, and whether it has actually been implemented yet. That's more in the sphere of economics.

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.

I presume you're just arguing for the sake of it. A concept that is proven is much easier to build and finance than one that works in theory, but hasn't been put to the test. At the moment, there are very few companies that make electrolysers and the biggest is around 1MW. SSE are supposed to be deploying a 20MW electrolyser. Going big etc.

There's lots of equity dabbling in hydrogen, because it has been the next big thing for a few years. There's a lot more in batteries, because they were the next big thing before that.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Presumably that's a usage charge, so you don't incur it if you live in the zone but the car is parked?

Yeah. £5er for every day you actually use your car. So you're gonna pay nearly £2k if you want to drive every day.

Do you think that's a fair policy?

Depends what you mean by fair. Flat pricing obviously is regressive.

Do I support it? Yeah.

I think it's about the right level to price out genuinely unnecessary journeys but not necessary journeys.

I think there are exceptions for disabled etc.

The biggest cause of traffic round here seems to be private schools - the traffic is significantly better outside of term time. Grinds to a halt in term time.

In that sense it won't put them off as if they can afford the schools around here and driving them there and back every day they can afford the £5 a day.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

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.

Think bigger. How much of that £100bn goes into government coffers? Delete that.
Deliveries are still going to be made so the roads still need maintaining.
Do the railway lines and stations have the capacity for the new load?

Chicken and egg, Which comes first, the infrastructure or people getting out of cars?
Which government is going to cover the cost of infrastructure in advance?
Which government is going to force people out of cars if there is no alternative?

kingstongraham

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Presumably that's a usage charge, so you don't incur it if you live in the zone but the car is parked?

Yeah. £5er for every day you actually use your car. So you're gonna pay nearly £2k if you want to drive every day.

Do you think that's a fair policy?

They should move out of the city to the countryside to avoid it!

Only need to move the car out.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Trivial was probably a bit strong. But the technology already exists, which is less clear than the case for batteries at scale.

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.

Distinguish between the existence of technology, and whether it has actually been implemented yet. That's more in the sphere of economics.

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.

I presume you're just arguing for the sake of it. A concept that is proven is much easier to build and finance than one that works in theory, but hasn't been put to the test. At the moment, there are very few companies that make electrolysers and the biggest is around 1MW. SSE are supposed to be deploying a 20MW electrolyser. Going big etc.

There's lots of equity dabbling in hydrogen, because it has been the next big thing for a few years. There's a lot more in batteries, because they were the next big thing before that.

I don't even know why you posted this, because I think I agree with you. Other than there's no particular barrier to scale up, other than cost.

How much equity is going into new battery chemistries, out of interest? I'm imagining not much, because any one technology is too high a risk and too long term.

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Presumably that's a usage charge, so you don't incur it if you live in the zone but the car is parked?

Yeah. £5er for every day you actually use your car. So you're gonna pay nearly £2k if you want to drive every day.

Do you think that's a fair policy?

They should move out of the city to the countryside to avoid it!

Only need to move the car out.

Quite the reverse for people to start cycling out of town to get in their cars. 🤣

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Trivial was probably a bit strong. But the technology already exists, which is less clear than the case for batteries at scale.

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.

Distinguish between the existence of technology, and whether it has actually been implemented yet. That's more in the sphere of economics.

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.

I presume you're just arguing for the sake of it. A concept that is proven is much easier to build and finance than one that works in theory, but hasn't been put to the test. At the moment, there are very few companies that make electrolysers and the biggest is around 1MW. SSE are supposed to be deploying a 20MW electrolyser. Going big etc.

There's lots of equity dabbling in hydrogen, because it has been the next big thing for a few years. There's a lot more in batteries, because they were the next big thing before that.

I don't even know why you posted this, because I think I agree with you. Other than there's no particular barrier to scale up, other than cost.

How much equity is going into new battery chemistries, out of interest? I'm imagining not much, because any one technology is too high a risk and too long term.

Not quite the answer but relevant: https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/05/batteries-have-become-vc-and-pes-most-electric-investment-opportunity/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJP9vJvZZ4cpLlOVd4Vl_dxefO_lKiWhk3r2E41aU2raLv-a-HuOCdqIGD5Ubukn69MVI70pOnbvH9Nn-Pi7HA9MGvfFoZEk-Zkhq85WkMkfxm7WhhLNmvhhefp93ynfrFpNwIvgp2wtsRbWmUKeRKbklIS_xzjSIj1Yo_bphJi8

$42bn, so not a lot in the grand scheme of things.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Trivial was probably a bit strong. But the technology already exists, which is less clear than the case for batteries at scale.

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.

Distinguish between the existence of technology, and whether it has actually been implemented yet. That's more in the sphere of economics.

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.

I presume you're just arguing for the sake of it. A concept that is proven is much easier to build and finance than one that works in theory, but hasn't been put to the test. At the moment, there are very few companies that make electrolysers and the biggest is around 1MW. SSE are supposed to be deploying a 20MW electrolyser. Going big etc.

There's lots of equity dabbling in hydrogen, because it has been the next big thing for a few years. There's a lot more in batteries, because they were the next big thing before that.

I don't even know why you posted this, because I think I agree with you. Other than there's no particular barrier to scale up, other than cost.

How much equity is going into new battery chemistries, out of interest? I'm imagining not much, because any one technology is too high a risk and too long term.

One example

Sodium-ion battery

As of 2022, sodium-ion batteries are not commercially significant, but this might change as CATL, the world's biggest battery manufacturer, starts mass producing in 2022. The technology is unmentioned in a United States Energy Information Administration report on battery storage technologies.[5] No electric vehicles use sodium-ion batteries. Challenges to adoption include low energy density and insufficient charge-discharge cycles

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Presumably that's a usage charge, so you don't incur it if you live in the zone but the car is parked?

Yeah. £5er for every day you actually use your car. So you're gonna pay nearly £2k a year if you want to drive every day.

Presumably that includes you?

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Presumably that's a usage charge, so you don't incur it if you live in the zone but the car is parked?

Yeah. £5er for every day you actually use your car. So you're gonna pay nearly £2k a year if you want to drive every day.

Presumably that includes you?

Nah. I use it once or twice a fortnight. I've got moss growing in the window seal.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Presumably that's a usage charge, so you don't incur it if you live in the zone but the car is parked?

Yeah. £5er for every day you actually use your car. So you're gonna pay nearly £2k a year if you want to drive every day.

Presumably that includes you?

Nah. I use it once or twice a fortnight. I've got moss growing in the window seal.

I go for the lichen trim myself.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

I'll admit I've entirely lost the point of this discussion, other than using up pixels.

I did put a suitable warning in the tread title as I had a hunch it would end up this way

On the upside, look at what we've kept out of the cars thread.

pangolin

Maybe some of us have learned the difference between running and maintaining a car.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Presumably that's a usage charge, so you don't incur it if you live in the zone but the car is parked?

Yeah. £5er for every day you actually use your car. So you're gonna pay nearly £2k a year if you want to drive every day.

Presumably that includes you?

Nah. I use it once or twice a fortnight. I've got moss growing in the window seal.

OK, so it does include you, but you only get stung for about £250 a year. Could be quite a lot for some who don't earn much but need to drive.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Presumably that's a usage charge, so you don't incur it if you live in the zone but the car is parked?

Yeah. £5er for every day you actually use your car. So you're gonna pay nearly £2k a year if you want to drive every day.

Presumably that includes you?

Nah. I use it once or twice a fortnight. I've got moss growing in the window seal.

OK, so it does include you, but you only get stung for about £250 a year. Could be quite a lot for some who don't earn much but need to drive.

There are a lot of chickens and eggs in the deprioritising of car transport, not least the economic choices that are taken. I find that most habitual car drivers will insist that nearly all of their car journeys are essential, and base their entire existence around cheap motoring, without considering other possibilities.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

Presumably that's a usage charge, so you don't incur it if you live in the zone but the car is parked?

Yeah. £5er for every day you actually use your car. So you're gonna pay nearly £2k a year if you want to drive every day.

Presumably that includes you?

Nah. I use it once or twice a fortnight. I've got moss growing in the window seal.

OK, so it does include you, but you only get stung for about £250 a year. Could be quite a lot for some who don't earn much but need to drive.

There are a lot of chickens and eggs in the deprioritising of car transport, not least the economic choices that are taken. I find that most habitual car drivers will insist that nearly all of their car journeys are essential, and base their entire existence around cheap motoring, without considering other possibilities.

If you look at somewhere like London I reckon cars have already been de-prioritised quite a bit. (I saw what you said upthread about this being something that is more for cities and big towns).

It's a bit black and white saying is something essential or non-essential. Pretty sure very few are absolutely essential but there are good reasons for a lot of them. A few examples of these:
- An old dear who is maybe a bit frail and slow moving around might struggle to get to the bus stop. Not essential as she could struggle to get to the bus stop and wait around in the cold and wet.
- My daughter at uni in Liverpool and often works until after dark in the campus library. A bus trip would take her through some pretty ropey parts of town - lone female with a phone and a laptop? Not essential as she could take the chance several times a week.
- Busy day on a weekend for your average bod like me who finds himself going to multiple places in a day to get things done (supermarket for a weeks worth of shopping, get things from a shop or two in town, DIY store to get some heavy things, take stuff to the tip, go to meet friends etc). Not essential but could I get that lot done without a lot of extra time and effort?

This brings us back to the key point that its all very nice theorising but it doesn't really work in practice, especially outside of the cities. All the stuff above about 'but cars costs money' is maybe answered by the inherent realisation by most people that they do, but its still worth it. Flexibility, convenience, versatility etc. And fun.

briantrumpet

Pfft, it's shifted a bit, but to go all Chasey, look at the difference between London or Bristol (or Lyon, come to that) and Amsterdam, and see how far the dial could be shifted, if the will was there. But cars still dominate massively, and will remain so unless the car's primacy in urban environments, both in policy and public perception, can been overturned. We're nowhere near that.

orraloon

I'm sure I posted a version of this Amsterdam street comparison pics before somewhere, but I know which version I prefer. Anyone favour the middle one?

briantrumpet

orraloon said:

I'm sure I posted a version of this Amsterdam street comparison pics before somewhere, but I know which version I prefer. Anyone favour the middle one?

My real petrolhead friend would definitely prefer that one, especially as they aren't modern cars

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Pfft, it's shifted a bit, but to go all Chasey, look at the difference between London or Bristol (or Lyon, come to that) and Amsterdam, and see how far the dial could be shifted, if the will was there. But cars still dominate massively, and will remain so unless the car's primacy in urban environments, both in policy and public perception, can been overturned. We're nowhere near that.

You're going all Chasey by assuming that cars 'dominate massively': Tfls own data for London shows that less than 1/3rd of journeys in london are by private car. And declining.

Amsterdam is an outlier, not necessarily a target.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Pfft, it's shifted a bit, but to go all Chasey, look at the difference between London or Bristol (or Lyon, come to that) and Amsterdam, and see how far the dial could be shifted, if the will was there. But cars still dominate massively, and will remain so unless the car's primacy in urban environments, both in policy and public perception, can been overturned. We're nowhere near that.

You're going all Chasey by assuming that cars 'dominate massively': Tfls own data for London shows that less than 1/3rd of journeys in london are by private car. And declining.

Amsterdam is an outlier, not necessarily a target.

Why not a target? If anywhere in the country is well placed to reduce car use even more, it's London.

I'd genuinely be interested in perceptions from Amsterdam inhabitants about if they think they've got it right, or whether car owners think they've 'lost a war'.

I think Copenhagen is the other 'outlier'.

MattFalle

orraloon said:

I'm sure I posted a version of this Amsterdam street comparison pics before somewhere, but I know which version I prefer. Anyone favour the middle one?

depends if i'm delivering a piano.

Dorset_Boy

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Pfft, it's shifted a bit, but to go all Chasey, look at the difference between London or Bristol (or Lyon, come to that) and Amsterdam, and see how far the dial could be shifted, if the will was there. But cars still dominate massively, and will remain so unless the car's primacy in urban environments, both in policy and public perception, can been overturned. We're nowhere near that.

You're going all Chasey by assuming that cars 'dominate massively': Tfls own data for London shows that less than 1/3rd of journeys in london are by private car. And declining.

Amsterdam is an outlier, not necessarily a target.

Why not a target? If anywhere in the country is well placed to reduce car use even more, it's London.

I'd genuinely be interested in perceptions from Amsterdam inhabitants about if they think they've got it right, or whether car owners think they've 'lost a war'.

I think Copenhagen is the other 'outlier'.

Both cities being pan flat, and much smaller than London must help. But they have changed their road layouts to favour alternatives to the car.

focuszing723

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Pfft, it's shifted a bit, but to go all Chasey, look at the difference between London or Bristol (or Lyon, come to that) and Amsterdam, and see how far the dial could be shifted, if the will was there. But cars still dominate massively, and will remain so unless the car's primacy in urban environments, both in policy and public perception, can been overturned. We're nowhere near that.

You're going all Chasey by assuming that cars 'dominate massively': Tfls own data for London shows that less than 1/3rd of journeys in london are by private car. And declining.

Amsterdam is an outlier, not necessarily a target.

Why not a target? If anywhere in the country is well placed to reduce car use even more, it's London.

I'd genuinely be interested in perceptions from Amsterdam inhabitants about if they think they've got it right, or whether car owners think they've 'lost a war'.

I think Copenhagen is the other 'outlier'.

Think it's flat and boring probably.

rick_chasey

E-bikes are the solution to not-flat towns however. They flatten out pretty much everything.

briantrumpet

Dorset_Boy said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Pfft, it's shifted a bit, but to go all Chasey, look at the difference between London or Bristol (or Lyon, come to that) and Amsterdam, and see how far the dial could be shifted, if the will was there. But cars still dominate massively, and will remain so unless the car's primacy in urban environments, both in policy and public perception, can been overturned. We're nowhere near that.

You're going all Chasey by assuming that cars 'dominate massively': Tfls own data for London shows that less than 1/3rd of journeys in london are by private car. And declining.

Amsterdam is an outlier, not necessarily a target.

Why not a target? If anywhere in the country is well placed to reduce car use even more, it's London.

I'd genuinely be interested in perceptions from Amsterdam inhabitants about if they think they've got it right, or whether car owners think they've 'lost a war'.

I think Copenhagen is the other 'outlier'.

Both cities being pan flat, and much smaller than London must help. But they have changed their road layouts to favour alternatives to the car.

I don't exactly think of London being like the Alps (though it does have one true col, I think).

Again, it sounds like excuses for doing little, as opposed to "How could we make this happen?"

The point I make to petrolheads is that the fewer cars there are on the road, the easier it is for the truly essential car journeys, but while everyone claims that their car journey is essential, nothing changes. I'm astonished how Exeter drivers or up with it day after day, while I fly past.

And electric bikes are a game changer too, in town, even (or especially) holy Exeter.