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

Pross

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1615658769161101312?s=20&t=clW_6Wtbf-ejy5_GDkzBag

I'd be interested to know how he extrapolates trains on two services (one with known serious issues) to 'trains in Britain'.

I suspect the comparison with Ukraine is a bit spurious as well as I'd be very surprised if they still operate the same services as they did in peacetime.

I find that sort of thing really doesn't help any sensible debate.

Edit

There are 24 trains on that board if I've counted correctly and 19 are running on time. I can't tell which station that is or which operators are responsible for which service but it looks very much like most of the operators are performing well.

pblakeney

Ricktopia is a chicken and egg scenario. PT will not be made available until there are enough users. People can't use what doesn't exist.
Government has to take the under capacity hit in a "build it and they will come" way .

Pross

pblakeney said:

Ricktopia is a chicken and egg scenario. PT will not be made available until there are enough users. People can't use what doesn't exist.
Government has to take the under capacity hit in a "build it and they will come" way .

Yep, it has to be considered an infrastructure investment and not just spending.

To be fair to Rick (for the second time in a morning!) I suspect this is the sort of thing he was arguing we should have been spending money on when interest rates were at historic lows.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

I'll let you know when I get the bike rack for the car.

oh.

so no bus/train/walk/delivery combo.

Car journeys are acceptable where the RC convenience factor applies. It all comes down to the direction of travel in relation to a line between Château Chasey and Ricktopolis.

There is probably a graph that would help illustrate it.

This is why I end up repeating myself.

We currently have a car centric system. So obviously, you need a car.

The entire system needs to change for a car to no longer be the best way to get around.

Hate the game, not the player.

Lead by example, surely?

Besides, will there ever be a demand or an environmental justification for direct public transport from Cambridge to rural North Yorkshire? For all the other RCs put there, this would quickly add up the a bus route for every current car journey.

If not, because that's clearly demented, what is stopping you from taking the super fast train to London then the super fast East Coast mainline train to the railway city of York, then cycling the rest of the way?

You see, for that particular purpose, Rictopia already exists, yet you still don't want to use it.

Price, largely. Plus travelling via train at the weekend is nigh on impossible with engineering works.

When I lived in London I did use the train and it was fine.

Is it worth pointing out that proportionally, what is currently expensive for you will still be expensive for an average earner when it's cheap for you?

£160 for a train journey that I can do for £35 in petrol is quite a big gap. Would probably be more if you add on the taxi at the other end, as they recently closed the bus service to where I need to go.

Given the frequency with which I do the journey, that quickly covers the gap of running the car, let alone all the other journeys I have to do because there are no alternatives.

So if it was £35 you'd take public transport?

First.Aspect

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Ricktopia is a chicken and egg scenario. PT will not be made available until there are enough users. People can't use what doesn't exist.
Government has to take the under capacity hit in a "build it and they will come" way .

Yep, it has to be considered an infrastructure investment and not just spending.

To be fair to Rick (for the second time in a morning!) I suspect this is the sort of thing he was arguing we should have been spending money on when interest rates were at historic lows.

I think the point I was making is that no one will ever build direct public transport links for that trip or pretty much any trip like it, from any two places that are not hubs.

Cost aside, the public transport links that would exist in Ricktopia are already there. Question is whether the ideologue would himself take the extra 100%-200% of extra time to get there on public transport, if the costs were the same.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

I'll let you know when I get the bike rack for the car.

oh.

so no bus/train/walk/delivery combo.

Car journeys are acceptable where the RC convenience factor applies. It all comes down to the direction of travel in relation to a line between Château Chasey and Ricktopolis.

There is probably a graph that would help illustrate it.

This is why I end up repeating myself.

We currently have a car centric system. So obviously, you need a car.

The entire system needs to change for a car to no longer be the best way to get around.

Hate the game, not the player.

Lead by example, surely?

Besides, will there ever be a demand or an environmental justification for direct public transport from Cambridge to rural North Yorkshire? For all the other RCs put there, this would quickly add up the a bus route for every current car journey.

If not, because that's clearly demented, what is stopping you from taking the super fast train to London then the super fast East Coast mainline train to the railway city of York, then cycling the rest of the way?

You see, for that particular purpose, Rictopia already exists, yet you still don't want to use it.

Price, largely. Plus travelling via train at the weekend is nigh on impossible with engineering works.

When I lived in London I did use the train and it was fine.

Is it worth pointing out that proportionally, what is currently expensive for you will still be expensive for an average earner when it's cheap for you?

£160 for a train journey that I can do for £35 in petrol is quite a big gap. Would probably be more if you add on the taxi at the other end, as they recently closed the bus service to where I need to go.

Given the frequency with which I do the journey, that quickly covers the gap of running the car, let alone all the other journeys I have to do because there are no alternatives.

So if it was £35 you'd take public transport?

I don't get what you're driving at with this line of questioning?

I haven't given it much thought.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Ricktopia is a chicken and egg scenario. PT will not be made available until there are enough users. People can't use what doesn't exist.
Government has to take the under capacity hit in a "build it and they will come" way .

Yep, it has to be considered an infrastructure investment and not just spending.

To be fair to Rick (for the second time in a morning!) I suspect this is the sort of thing he was arguing we should have been spending money on when interest rates were at historic lows.

I think the point I was making is that no one will ever build direct public transport links for that trip or pretty much any trip like it, from any two places that are not hubs.

Cost aside, the public transport links that would exist in Ricktopia are already there. Question is whether the ideologue would himself take the extra 100%-200% of extra time to get there on public transport, if the costs were the same.

I would agree with that, except the capacity is not where it needs to be.
Neither is the cost.

MattFalle

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

I'll let you know when I get the bike rack for the car.

oh.

so no bus/train/walk/delivery combo.

Car journeys are acceptable where the RC convenience factor applies. It all comes down to the direction of travel in relation to a line between Château Chasey and Ricktopolis.

There is probably a graph that would help illustrate it.

This is why I end up repeating myself.

We currently have a car centric system. So obviously, you need a car.

The entire system needs to change for a car to no longer be the best way to get around.

Hate the game, not the player.

Lead by example, surely?

Besides, will there ever be a demand or an environmental justification for direct public transport from Cambridge to rural North Yorkshire? For all the other RCs put there, this would quickly add up the a bus route for every current car journey.

If not, because that's clearly demented, what is stopping you from taking the super fast train to London then the super fast East Coast mainline train to the railway city of York, then cycling the rest of the way?

You see, for that particular purpose, Rictopia already exists, yet you still don't want to use it.

Price, largely. Plus travelling via train at the weekend is nigh on impossible with engineering works.

When I lived in London I did use the train and it was fine.

Is it worth pointing out that proportionally, what is currently expensive for you will still be expensive for an average earner when it's cheap for you?

£160 for a train journey that I can do for £35 in petrol is quite a big gap. Would probably be more if you add on the taxi at the other end, as they recently closed the bus service to where I need to go.

Given the frequency with which I do the journey, that quickly covers the gap of running the car, let alone all the other journeys I have to do because there are no alternatives.

So if it was £35 you'd take public transport?

of course he wouldn't. he'd find another excuse. pram too big. wife's hair. bike too greasy. something. anything.

MattFalle

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

I'll let you know when I get the bike rack for the car.

oh.

so no bus/train/walk/delivery combo.

Car journeys are acceptable where the RC convenience factor applies. It all comes down to the direction of travel in relation to a line between Château Chasey and Ricktopolis.

There is probably a graph that would help illustrate it.

This is why I end up repeating myself.

We currently have a car centric system. So obviously, you need a car.

The entire system needs to change for a car to no longer be the best way to get around.

Hate the game, not the player.

Lead by example, surely?

Besides, will there ever be a demand or an environmental justification for direct public transport from Cambridge to rural North Yorkshire? For all the other RCs put there, this would quickly add up the a bus route for every current car journey.

If not, because that's clearly demented, what is stopping you from taking the super fast train to London then the super fast East Coast mainline train to the railway city of York, then cycling the rest of the way?

You see, for that particular purpose, Rictopia already exists, yet you still don't want to use it.

Price, largely. Plus travelling via train at the weekend is nigh on impossible with engineering works.

When I lived in London I did use the train and it was fine.

Is it worth pointing out that proportionally, what is currently expensive for you will still be expensive for an average earner when it's cheap for you?

£160 for a train journey that I can do for £35 in petrol is quite a big gap. Would probably be more if you add on the taxi at the other end, as they recently closed the bus service to where I need to go.

Given the frequency with which I do the journey, that quickly covers the gap of running the car, let alone all the other journeys I have to do because there are no alternatives.

So if it was £35 you'd take public transport?

I don't get what you're driving at with this line of questioning?

I haven't given it much thought.

the use of public transport should be the first thought for anyone preaching Ricktopian values.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Ricktopia is a chicken and egg scenario. PT will not be made available until there are enough users. People can't use what doesn't exist.
Government has to take the under capacity hit in a "build it and they will come" way .

Yep, it has to be considered an infrastructure investment and not just spending.

To be fair to Rick (for the second time in a morning!) I suspect this is the sort of thing he was arguing we should have been spending money on when interest rates were at historic lows.

I think the point I was making is that no one will ever build direct public transport links for that trip or pretty much any trip like it, from any two places that are not hubs.

Cost aside, the public transport links that would exist in Ricktopia are already there. Question is whether the ideologue would himself take the extra 100%-200% of extra time to get there on public transport, if the costs were the same.

But it would be viable for far people to make their journeys by public transport if we still had a network comparable to that in 1950 (people always go on about Beeching in 1963 but we'd already lost thousands of kms of track between 1950 and then). Despite that passenger numbers were higher pre-pandemic than they had ever been.

The last few miles argument is why I disagree with Rick that the private car would become irrelevant but we can certainly significantly increase the network and get more people making more journeys by public transport. The idea of public transport having to make money or even cover its own costs needs to be dropped though, it needs to be seen as necessary expenditure to reduce the rate of climate change, improve air quality and prevent congestion.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

I'll let you know when I get the bike rack for the car.

oh.

so no bus/train/walk/delivery combo.

Car journeys are acceptable where the RC convenience factor applies. It all comes down to the direction of travel in relation to a line between Château Chasey and Ricktopolis.

There is probably a graph that would help illustrate it.

This is why I end up repeating myself.

We currently have a car centric system. So obviously, you need a car.

The entire system needs to change for a car to no longer be the best way to get around.

Hate the game, not the player.

Lead by example, surely?

Besides, will there ever be a demand or an environmental justification for direct public transport from Cambridge to rural North Yorkshire? For all the other RCs put there, this would quickly add up the a bus route for every current car journey.

If not, because that's clearly demented, what is stopping you from taking the super fast train to London then the super fast East Coast mainline train to the railway city of York, then cycling the rest of the way?

You see, for that particular purpose, Rictopia already exists, yet you still don't want to use it.

Price, largely. Plus travelling via train at the weekend is nigh on impossible with engineering works.

When I lived in London I did use the train and it was fine.

As someone who doesn't drive and doesn't have a roof rack, I've managed to take my bike up to Derby for a weekend cycling with my brother. I've also taken my bike down to East Devon by cycling to Woking, catching the train there down to Crewkerne and cycling the rest of the way. All during weekends, although not post-covid collapse of service.

Sure, it's doable. Never said it wasn't. But at 4x the price and the likelihood of delays, plus about a 1 in 5 chance I can't get to the east coat main line without taking a rail replacement bus, I'm not gonna rush to do it.

I sure as hell didn't pay £160.

pblakeney

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Ricktopia is a chicken and egg scenario. PT will not be made available until there are enough users. People can't use what doesn't exist.
Government has to take the under capacity hit in a "build it and they will come" way .

Yep, it has to be considered an infrastructure investment and not just spending.

To be fair to Rick (for the second time in a morning!) I suspect this is the sort of thing he was arguing we should have been spending money on when interest rates were at historic lows.

I think the point I was making is that no one will ever build direct public transport links for that trip or pretty much any trip like it, from any two places that are not hubs.

Cost aside, the public transport links that would exist in Ricktopia are already there. Question is whether the ideologue would himself take the extra 100%-200% of extra time to get there on public transport, if the costs were the same.

But it would be viable for far people to make their journeys by public transport if we still had a network comparable to that in 1950 (people always go on about Beeching in 1963 but we'd already lost thousands of kms of track between 1950 and then). Despite that passenger numbers were higher pre-pandemic than they had ever been.

The last few miles argument is why I disagree with Rick that the private car would become irrelevant but we can certainly significantly increase the network and get more people making more journeys by public transport. The idea of public transport having to make money or even cover its own costs needs to be dropped though, it needs to be seen as necessary expenditure to reduce the rate of climate change, improve air quality and prevent congestion.

Now try and convince Rick that for PT to be a true alternative to the car it has to be inefficient.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Ricktopia is a chicken and egg scenario. PT will not be made available until there are enough users. People can't use what doesn't exist.
Government has to take the under capacity hit in a "build it and they will come" way .

Yep, it has to be considered an infrastructure investment and not just spending.

To be fair to Rick (for the second time in a morning!) I suspect this is the sort of thing he was arguing we should have been spending money on when interest rates were at historic lows.

I think the point I was making is that no one will ever build direct public transport links for that trip or pretty much any trip like it, from any two places that are not hubs.

Cost aside, the public transport links that would exist in Ricktopia are already there. Question is whether the ideologue would himself take the extra 100%-200% of extra time to get there on public transport, if the costs were the same.

But it would be viable for far people to make their journeys by public transport if we still had a network comparable to that in 1950 (people always go on about Beeching in 1963 but we'd already lost thousands of kms of track between 1950 and then). Despite that passenger numbers were higher pre-pandemic than they had ever been.

The last few miles argument is why I disagree with Rick that the private car would become irrelevant but we can certainly significantly increase the network and get more people making more journeys by public transport. The idea of public transport having to make money or even cover its own costs needs to be dropped though, it needs to be seen as necessary expenditure to reduce the rate of climate change, improve air quality and prevent congestion.

Easier, certainly. But you might then be looking at such low usage of many routes as to outweigh the benefits of their existence, even environmentally speaking.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

I'll let you know when I get the bike rack for the car.

oh.

so no bus/train/walk/delivery combo.

Car journeys are acceptable where the RC convenience factor applies. It all comes down to the direction of travel in relation to a line between Château Chasey and Ricktopolis.

There is probably a graph that would help illustrate it.

This is why I end up repeating myself.

We currently have a car centric system. So obviously, you need a car.

The entire system needs to change for a car to no longer be the best way to get around.

Hate the game, not the player.

Lead by example, surely?

Besides, will there ever be a demand or an environmental justification for direct public transport from Cambridge to rural North Yorkshire? For all the other RCs put there, this would quickly add up the a bus route for every current car journey.

If not, because that's clearly demented, what is stopping you from taking the super fast train to London then the super fast East Coast mainline train to the railway city of York, then cycling the rest of the way?

You see, for that particular purpose, Rictopia already exists, yet you still don't want to use it.

Price, largely. Plus travelling via train at the weekend is nigh on impossible with engineering works.

When I lived in London I did use the train and it was fine.

Is it worth pointing out that proportionally, what is currently expensive for you will still be expensive for an average earner when it's cheap for you?

£160 for a train journey that I can do for £35 in petrol is quite a big gap. Would probably be more if you add on the taxi at the other end, as they recently closed the bus service to where I need to go.

Given the frequency with which I do the journey, that quickly covers the gap of running the car, let alone all the other journeys I have to do because there are no alternatives.

So if it was £35 you'd take public transport?

I don't get what you're driving at with this line of questioning?

I haven't given it much thought.

This sums it up nicely.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

I'll let you know when I get the bike rack for the car.

oh.

so no bus/train/walk/delivery combo.

Car journeys are acceptable where the RC convenience factor applies. It all comes down to the direction of travel in relation to a line between Château Chasey and Ricktopolis.

There is probably a graph that would help illustrate it.

This is why I end up repeating myself.

We currently have a car centric system. So obviously, you need a car.

The entire system needs to change for a car to no longer be the best way to get around.

Hate the game, not the player.

Lead by example, surely?

Besides, will there ever be a demand or an environmental justification for direct public transport from Cambridge to rural North Yorkshire? For all the other RCs put there, this would quickly add up the a bus route for every current car journey.

If not, because that's clearly demented, what is stopping you from taking the super fast train to London then the super fast East Coast mainline train to the railway city of York, then cycling the rest of the way?

You see, for that particular purpose, Rictopia already exists, yet you still don't want to use it.

Price, largely. Plus travelling via train at the weekend is nigh on impossible with engineering works.

When I lived in London I did use the train and it was fine.

Is it worth pointing out that proportionally, what is currently expensive for you will still be expensive for an average earner when it's cheap for you?

£160 for a train journey that I can do for £35 in petrol is quite a big gap. Would probably be more if you add on the taxi at the other end, as they recently closed the bus service to where I need to go.

Given the frequency with which I do the journey, that quickly covers the gap of running the car, let alone all the other journeys I have to do because there are no alternatives.

So if it was £35 you'd take public transport?

I don't get what you're driving at with this line of questioning?

I haven't given it much thought.

This sums it up nicely.

Constructive as ever. I still don't understand why my own travel, in the current system, is relevant to a discussion about a different system?

The whole point is that the current system incentivises certain behaviour and that behaviour is unsustainable, so the system ought to change to incentivise different behaviour.

So me currently travelling in an unsustainable way, as that is most convenient *is just proving my point*

There are millions and millions of journeys each day. Taking apart one journey, which is taken in a very specific context, is basically irrelevant.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

I'll let you know when I get the bike rack for the car.

oh.

so no bus/train/walk/delivery combo.

Car journeys are acceptable where the RC convenience factor applies. It all comes down to the direction of travel in relation to a line between Château Chasey and Ricktopolis.

There is probably a graph that would help illustrate it.

This is why I end up repeating myself.

We currently have a car centric system. So obviously, you need a car.

The entire system needs to change for a car to no longer be the best way to get around.

Hate the game, not the player.

Lead by example, surely?

Besides, will there ever be a demand or an environmental justification for direct public transport from Cambridge to rural North Yorkshire? For all the other RCs put there, this would quickly add up the a bus route for every current car journey.

If not, because that's clearly demented, what is stopping you from taking the super fast train to London then the super fast East Coast mainline train to the railway city of York, then cycling the rest of the way?

You see, for that particular purpose, Rictopia already exists, yet you still don't want to use it.

Price, largely. Plus travelling via train at the weekend is nigh on impossible with engineering works.

When I lived in London I did use the train and it was fine.

Is it worth pointing out that proportionally, what is currently expensive for you will still be expensive for an average earner when it's cheap for you?

£160 for a train journey that I can do for £35 in petrol is quite a big gap. Would probably be more if you add on the taxi at the other end, as they recently closed the bus service to where I need to go.

Given the frequency with which I do the journey, that quickly covers the gap of running the car, let alone all the other journeys I have to do because there are no alternatives.

So if it was £35 you'd take public transport?

I don't get what you're driving at with this line of questioning?

I haven't given it much thought.

This sums it up nicely.

Constructive as ever. I still don't understand why my own travel, in the current system, is relevant to a discussion about a different system?

The whole point is that the current system incentivises certain behaviour and that behaviour is unsustainable, so the system ought to change to incentivise different behaviour.

So me currently travelling in an unsustainable way, as that is most convenient *is just proving my point*

There are millions and millions of journeys each day. Taking apart one journey, which is taken in a very specific context, is basically irrelevant.

I'm asking you to contemplate a journey that would be the same under your new system and asking whether you'd take it at all, by car, or by public transport. It is instructive that you can't answer it and haven't even thought about that sort of journey. It's not for the lack of effort on my part is it?

I think your hypothetical journey to Yorkshire is a pretty good illustration of why your notion of effectively banning cars and making people who live rurally either move to a city or lump it, is so naive. Simple solutions to complex problems always are.

That observation isn't incompatible with also believing public transport should be better.

But you can't uninvent cars.

rick_chasey

I mean, in a system without cars the public transport would be remarkably different.

You’re not really making the right comparison.

Criticising me for using a car in a car centric system, when that is the complaint, is stupid.

“Oh you’re not using the public transport in a car oriented system?” Ja duh

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

I mean, in a system without cars the public transport would be remarkably different.

You’re not really making the right comparison.

Criticising me for using a car in a car centric system, when that is the complaint, is stupid.

“Oh you’re not using the public transport in a car oriented system?” Ja duh

There will never be direct public transport between all the mutitudinous small towns in the UK, like Cambridge, or between pretty much any conurbation and rural Yorkshire or rural anywhere.

What you do have for the exemplary journey already is about as direct and fast as it will ever be.

Setting costs aside, is that not good enough for you?

Because if it isn't, the other option is a network of transport conduits, let's called them roads, that allow more resolution in journey selection.

We could have public transport on them, obviously, and to address the problems of very low passenger numbers on some routes, instead of large vehicles, we could have smaller vehicles for some journeys....

You see where I'm going with this.

rick_chasey

I just disagree with your view that "There will never be direct public transport between all the mutitudinous small towns in the UK, like Cambridge, or between pretty much any conurbation and rural Yorkshire or rural anywhere."

I think that something close to that is possible, with the right political will. You lot seem to think that the political will is impossible, but then so did the bike lot in the Netherlands in the 60s and now look at them.

I think some posters on here are probably too old to be witness to the vast transformation we're going to go through, and I suspect even people like me will only see the start, but it will happen and it will be as dramatic a transformation as the invention of the private car in the first place.

We have spent almost 100 years building how we live around the car. I suspect in the next 100 we will build a world around more sustainable and efficient transport, namely self-propelled (so bikes) and public transport.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

rick_chasey said:

I'll let you know when I get the bike rack for the car.

oh.

so no bus/train/walk/delivery combo.

Car journeys are acceptable where the RC convenience factor applies. It all comes down to the direction of travel in relation to a line between Château Chasey and Ricktopolis.

There is probably a graph that would help illustrate it.

This is why I end up repeating myself.

We currently have a car centric system. So obviously, you need a car.

The entire system needs to change for a car to no longer be the best way to get around.

Hate the game, not the player.

That assumes most people want to make this change. And therein lies another fundamental problem...

Dorset_Boy

Because many of us have real world experience of either living rurally or living in genuinely small towns (ie under 25k population), we can see that there will never be direct public transport between all the mutitudinous small towns in the UK, because how many people might want to travel from say Honiton to Skegness on any given day or week?
Any public transport solution will involve numerous changes, which all add to the time, and may render many connections impossible.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

I mean, in a system without cars the public transport would be remarkably different.

You’re not really making the right comparison.

Criticising me for using a car in a car centric system, when that is the complaint, is stupid.

“Oh you’re not using the public transport in a car oriented system?” Ja duh

There will never be direct public transport between all the mutitudinous small towns in the UK, like Cambridge, or between pretty much any conurbation and rural Yorkshire or rural anywhere.

What you do have for the exemplary journey already is about as direct and fast as it will ever be.

Setting costs aside, is that not good enough for you?

Because if it isn't, the other option is a network of transport conduits, let's called them roads, that allow more resolution in journey selection.

We could have public transport on them, obviously, and to address the problems of very low passenger numbers on some routes, instead of large vehicles, we could have smaller vehicles for some journeys....

You see where I'm going with this.

This, if I may say, is a really stupid argument. And you know it. And so do all the others posting that you'll never have a public transport system that covers absolutely every settlement of any size. Effectively: let's not bother because we can't achieve 100% success. Imagine using that argument with any other national level issue.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

Because many of us have real world experience of either living rurally or living in genuinely small towns (ie under 25k population), we can see that there will never be direct public transport between all the mutitudinous small towns in the UK, because how many people might want to travel from say Honiton to Skegness on any given day or week?
Any public transport solution will involve numerous changes, which all add to the time, and may render many connections impossible.

Why make this personal? I literally grew up in 2,000 person village. So what.

Public transport will involve multiple changes. Car travel, if we continue at the current rate, will be even slower for most journeys due to congestion > and again, as I keep repeating, *there isn't enough materials to make enough electric cars for everyone* so something has to give.

A big and material proportion of journeys are short enough that electric bikes etc are a genuine option.

Another big and material proportion of those journeys can and should be replaced by reliable, plentiful public transport.

There will be some left over for rural journeys, but bluntly, they make up a small proportion of all journeys, so they may well stick to their cars, but I suspect trying to get to any centre will be a nightmare in a car, so you'll end up traveling your "final mile(s)" to the nearest transport hub. Basically glorified park & ride.

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Because many of us have real world experience of either living rurally or living in genuinely small towns (ie under 25k population), we can see that there will never be direct public transport between all the mutitudinous small towns in the UK, because how many people might want to travel from say Honiton to Skegness on any given day or week?
Any public transport solution will involve numerous changes, which all add to the time, and may render many connections impossible.

Why make this personal? I literally grew up in 2,000 person village. So what.

Public transport will involve multiple changes. Car travel, if we continue at the current rate, will be even slower for most journeys due to congestion > and again, as I keep repeating, *there isn't enough materials to make enough electric cars for everyone* so something has to give.

Well start being realistic and not pie in the sky.
You lived in a village as a kid and hated it, and that has coloured your judgement.

None of us are saying public transport shouldn't be better, and for most journeys in the cities it should be the default. For many city to city journeys it should be a lot more attractive, but for small town to non-adjacent small town you need to start being realistic.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

I just disagree with your view that "There will never be direct public transport between all the mutitudinous small towns in the UK, like Cambridge, or between pretty much any conurbation and rural Yorkshire or rural anywhere."

I think that something close to that is possible, with the right political will. You lot seem to think that the political will is impossible, but then so did the bike lot in the Netherlands in the 60s and now look at them.

I think some posters on here are probably too old to be witness to the vast transformation we're going to go through, and I suspect even people like me will only see the start, but it will happen and it will be as dramatic a transformation as the invention of the private car in the first place.

We have spent almost 100 years building how we live around the car. I suspect in the next 100 we will build a world around more sustainable and efficient transport, namely self-propelled (so bikes) and public transport.

Public transport links can be improved I agree. And setting aside that making them more distributed and less based on hubs goes against what you were arguing earlier, perhaps this could be to the threshold of linking smaller places like Cambridge to York directly or at least not via London.

In which case its another example of I'm alright Jack from you isn't it? And anyone in a residential grouping below the threshold worthy of Ricktopian social engineering will have to lump it.

Seems clear to me, incidentslly, by your repeatedly dodging the question, that you either wouldn't visit your friend in Yorkshire, or you'd drive to avoid wasting half a day, even if they cost the same (and your cost for comparison didn't include buying and running the car itself, by the way).

rjsterry

It's also worth pointing out that for roughly 1in5 it isn't even a choice. Public transport or walking is their only option.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

...
Public transport links can be improved I agree. And setting aside that making them more distributed and less based on hubs goes against what you were arguing earlier, perhaps this could be to the threshold of linking smaller places like Cambridge to York directly or at least not via London.
...

This is an interesting example. A quick Google gives the current following times for Cambridge to York. Car = 2 hours 55 minutes. Train = 2 hours 38 minutes.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

...
Public transport links can be improved I agree. And setting aside that making them more distributed and less based on hubs goes against what you were arguing earlier, perhaps this could be to the threshold of linking smaller places like Cambridge to York directly or at least not via London.
...

This is an interesting example. A quick Google gives the current following times for Cambridge to York. Car = 2 hours 55 minutes. Train = 2 hours 38 minutes.

There you go. But he's still got to get to somewhere outside of York, so he will probably need to find someone with a horse he can borrow.

First.Aspect

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

...
Public transport links can be improved I agree. And setting aside that making them more distributed and less based on hubs goes against what you were arguing earlier, perhaps this could be to the threshold of linking smaller places like Cambridge to York directly or at least not via London.
...

This is an interesting example. A quick Google gives the current following times for Cambridge to York. Car = 2 hours 55 minutes. Train = 2 hours 38 minutes.

There you go. But he's still got to get to somewhere outside of York, so he will probably need to find someone with a horse he can borrow.

Would it really cost £160?

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

...
Public transport links can be improved I agree. And setting aside that making them more distributed and less based on hubs goes against what you were arguing earlier, perhaps this could be to the threshold of linking smaller places like Cambridge to York directly or at least not via London.
...

This is an interesting example. A quick Google gives the current following times for Cambridge to York. Car = 2 hours 55 minutes. Train = 2 hours 38 minutes.

There you go. But he's still got to get to somewhere outside of York, so he will probably need to find someone with a horse he can borrow.

... or his current bike.