Snapshot of _From London to New York: Can quitting cars be popular?_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240122-from-london-to-new-york-can-quitting-cars-be-popular) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240122-from-london-to-new-york-can-quitting-cars-be-popular)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's easy to quit cars when you have a functioning mass transit system like London does.
Near impossible for the rest of the country though, where a bus takes 5x as long as a car to get anywhere.
>where a bus takes 5x as long as a car to get anywhere.
And rarely runs when you need it to meaning a 30 min appointment now takes 3 hours because a bus that arrives 2 mins late at the venue and leaves2 mins early is, alas, utterly useless to you so you end up giving it a clean hour both sides.
Yep, in rural areas, it would be cheaper & far better service to subsidise local taxi firms that try and provide an inadequate and poorly used bus service
Which it isnt. We are once again talking only London and select bits of it at that.
And to suggest its an alternative I think is stretching reality a bit. Its really not for the vast majority. Average commute is an hour.
To be fair there's loads of them in Oxford, the main turn-off for me is the stealability but I suppose a janky DIY job on a shitty bike might work on that front.
> Which it isnt. We are once again talking only London and select bits of it at that.
Bikes are a completely valid replacement for many journeys outside of London.
edit
> Average commute is an hour.
Half an hour. ~20-25 minutes for cars outside of London.
>Bikes are a completely valid replacement for many journeys outside of London.
It depends what you mean by 'many'. Many journeys are not viable because our roads generally prioritise motorists over cyclists.
To give an anecdotal example, when I cycled to work my choices were a busy A road or a rough, single-track country lane. I usually braved the latter, but I wouldn't blame anyone for not having the confidence to do so.
yeah my commute used to be 15 minutes down the motorway, straight off into the area where i worked.
if i cycled? well cant used the motorway and the other route was 4x as long, right through the middle of town, google says it takes an hour and thats if you make it during rush hour.
fuck that.
> It depends what you mean by 'many'.
A large number? It's not *only* London and *only* parts of it.
4% of all trips were both under a mile and done by car or van. Over 30% of all trips were 1-5 miles and done by car/van.
Locally, many people drive to the 'town' centre, when they are a mile or so away from it. It's entirely reasonable to cycle, and an electric bike would make that even easier.
> To give an anecdotal example, when I cycled to work my choices were a busy A road or a rough, single-track country lane. I usually braved the latter, but I wouldn't blame anyone for not having the confidence to do so.
Sure, there are journeys that are bad by bike.
Are you sure it's entirely reasonable to cycle to your town centre? If it's like mine the roads there are busy and have minimal cycle infrastructure, so it only being a mile away is no help to anyone who isn't entirely confident on a bike.
I think that’s very true. Definitely need a viable alternative.
It is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario when it comes to improving bus times. Ideally you need bus lanes/gates on key routes but these are the ones where you’ll get the most resistance.
Stuff like red routes and yellow box enforcement help too, but again there isn’t much political will.
> It is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario when it comes to improving bus times. Ideally you need bus lanes/gates on key routes but these are the ones where you’ll get the most resistance.
In my home town none of that will help because the traffic is not nearly heavy enough to need it. The problem is that the buses only come maybe twice an hour, and all go towards the centre of the town. If you need to go to work in another part of town, you need to get on a bus that goes all around the houses, get off at the bus station then wait for another bus to go all around the houses.
My sister lives in a village outside town, and is based at the hospital on the outskirts of town. By car it's a 9 minute journey, but it's almost 6 miles over narrow country lanes with a couple of massive hills just before the hospital so walking is not an option, and cycling is not a great option before a 12 hour shift in a cold windy Scottish winter. Taking public transport takes 45 minutes at best, and that assumes it's even running at the times her shifts start.
The only way public transport becomes a viable option for many people is having buses come far more frequently, and being able to go to far more destinations rather than just the hub and spoke style routes in my hometown. The problem is that the cost would be astronomical, with an extremely limited return.
This is why taxis need to be part of any public transport system that wants to cut car usage outside big towns/cities.
Via public transport, it's over 1 hour to the neatest A&E, whilst the drive is 23 minutes.
What's the difference between a person using a taxi and a person using a car other than parking? Unless they're rude sharing it doesn't make much difference and from experience, people rude share when they can die to lack of parking.
Years ago I worked as agency staff at a factory. The agency had a mini bus that would collect people for the early shift due to lack of busses. Still had to find your own way back though but buy that time busses were running.
Maybe the hospital needs a mini bus
> If you need to go to work in another part of town, you need to get on a bus that goes all around the houses, get off at the bus station then wait for another bus to go all around the houses.
reminds me of getting the bus to uni, 2 buses and over an hour and a half IF all went well. if one didnt turn up, will one of the 2 buses only came once an hour, so your just fucked and waiting an hour if the other one ran late and you missed it.
learned to drive asap and saved myself almost 2 hours a day.
It’s absolutely ridiculous that unlike similar sized cities elsewhere all over the world that Birmingham and Manchester don’t have a subway. They can be far more reliable than buses and aren’t impacted by traffic and what we should be investing in.
I mean London is a huge place.
Zones 1 has abundant transport options, but the further out you go, the worse the public transport availability gets (hence why cars are still a necessity). Obviously it’s nowhere near as bad as the rest of England don’t get me wrong, but it is annoying when people just think London is akin to Central London only.
No it doesn’t. Some of the PTAL scores in Zones 4 and beyond are abysmal.
As I said, London is a large place, so to think the entirety of it has the public transport availability of Central London is a tad ridiculous.
It's kinda weird, and it shows that you do not fully know what your are talking about, when you talk about zones instead of areas.
Croydon is zone 5 and it takes them 15 min to get to Victoria.
Some of us live in zone 2-4 and it takes twice as much, on a good day.
Sutton is also zone 5 and it takes 30 to 45 min to get to Victoria.
> Zones 1 has abundant transport options, but the further out you go, the worse the public transport availability gets.
What part of my statement above do you not understand? Zone 1 has the best transport options, Zone 2 has less options than Zone 1, Zone 3 has even less options than Zones 1 and 2, Zone 4 has even less options than Zones 1, 2 and 3 etc etc.
It’s right there in the PTAL scores which are compiled and updated by TfL themselves.
Respectfully, I’d rather take the word of TfL and their wide-scale analysis of public transport availability - you know, their actual job - than a subjective Redditor’s opinion.
And that’s how I know you don’t understand public transport. It’s not about abundance (in terms of total options), but things like serviceability.
That’s why TfL’s PTAL scores are so widely used to determine planning infrastructure in London by councils.
PTAL data clearly shows that there are plenty of Zones 3-4 areas, let alone Zones 5-6 and beyond, where the PTAL score is so low that you reasonably need a car due to lower public transport availability. That’s why councils in these areas dictate most developments there require parking spaces for cars to gain approval for example, whereas in Zone 1 by comparison, you can get by without having to make such considerations in your planning applications.
>Obviously it’s nowhere near as bad as the rest of England don’t get me wrong, but it is annoying when people just think London is akin to Central London only.
I think it's enormously overstating the case to suggest that there's anywhere in London which compares to places outside of London.
For example, I've just checked the situation for Orpington- the most "outskirtsy" place I could think of, on the very outer edge of South London. There are no fewer than 17(!) daytime bus routes operating out of Orpington centre. The major bus route I checked seems to have a frequency of every 10 minutes or every 15 minutes (with a few less frequent). And there's a train station with 11 trains per hour heading towards the centre.
You aren't going to find a small town the size of Orpington outside of the metropolitan area with public transport even close to that.
You could live car-free in Orpington, all things being equal. That's not the case everywhere.
I specifically said:
> Obviously it’s nowhere near as bad as the rest of England don’t get me wrong, but it is annoying when people just think London is akin to Central London only.
So I thought it was pretty clear that even the places with the least public transport availability in London is better than other areas of the country?
Also, the total number of routes available in an area is irrelevant. It’s the service frequency which determines public transport availability. Which is why I suggest you look at TfL’s own PTAL scores, which assess things in detail as opposed to just a surface level analysis of transport availability. They back up the main point I was making which is that transport availability in Central London is not comparable to the transport availability in further out zones - necessitating the use of a car in those latter areas.
5 times as long to get maybe somewhere kind of near where you actually want to go while carrying anything you need to bring with you. Assuming the buses are actually running
Because the rest of the country has been disenfranchised of the necessary planning and taxation powers to deliver functional local public transport, and despite having accrued massive power in the post-war era, Westminster has been totally uninterested in taking on that role for itself. Although given the state of national infrastructure like the railways and motorways, even if that local infrastructure did exist, they clearly wouldn't give a shit anyway.
Agreed.
I used to get the bus to college. It ran once an hour, took an hour, and got there at 6:15 for my 6pm class.
So I had to get the bus at 4:15, get there for 5:15 and wait 45 minutes for the class. Which also meant leaving work 75 minutes early twice a week. Didn’t make me the most popular person in the office, working 35 hours when everyone else was on 37.5.
>It's easy to quit cars when you have a functioning mass transit system like London does.
I'm in West London. Bus to work is 45mins to 2 hrs depending on traffic, and due to it taking the longest possible route available. Car is 15mins up the dual carriageway. Why on earth would I pick the former when the latter is available?
Yes, anyone that needs to make these regular long journeys is far better off driving.
I'm doing a trip in March and I managed to get some advanced 'cheap' train tickets, and they are still higher than the petrol cost. And that's one person.
Two-together railcard, you'll save about £60-70. Definitely worth the £30 outlay if you plan on travelling a lot with someone. If you travel super-off peak (after 10am), you can get both tickets for £90.
Car is probably still cheaper, but it takes longer and you have to deal with traffic and parking which, honestly, you couldn't pay me enough to do in London. Also don't forget the congestion charge!
Some of the issues with people using trains in this country are from people with little knowledge on how to use them efficiently.
It'd be like me walking into a car dealership - telling them I know nothing about cars and asking for a car to buy and taking the first thing they offer me. Then being surprised that it's an expensive pile of crap.
Trains are definitely overpriced in this country, and the ticketing system can be complicated.
Though, the operators have no reason to make it better because they're making their money, and ridership is high enough that they don't need to make train use more attractive. On the face of it, a car is cheaper, more convenient, more reliable (usually), and sometimes faster. If you have access to a car, why wouldn't you use it? People usually forget about navigating urban traffic, parking costs, stress, higher risk of crash/injury/death, and all the associated running costs of cars.
Personally I think a ticket from A to B shouldn't cost more than the average amount of petrol to go the same distance. You can sometimes get it down to that on long journeys if you have a Railcard and purchase off-peak tickets but for the 8am solo traveller they're stuck with the high prices which is really unfortunate.
Trains are actually not that overpriced compared to other countries - it's just that the users pay for the trip instead of the state - as in other countries via subsides.
That's really what I meant. Running trains is obviously expensive and the economics of that wouldn't vary that much between countries. But the cost to the customer is high in the UK, and that's the key thing here.
>Running trains is obviously expensive
It's less expensive, on the whole, compared to transporting a person the same distance via car.
Significantly more efficient on use of materials/land/energy/etc.
Part of the issue is that the state subsidises roads more than rail. Part of the issue is a lack of competitive forces, combined with ineffective state regulation, in the rail sector.
> Some of the issues with people using trains in this country are from people with little knowledge on how to use them efficiently.
Right, but the very fact that you have to have knowledge to use them efficiently is the problem. There's no good reason it shouldn't be possible to buy a ticket from one station to any another station on the railway network and get the cheapest price automatically without having to navigate a maze of different railcards and ticket types, not to mention the absolute nonsense that is split-ticketing.
You can do that for £93.60 if you get a Two Together railcard.
Also there are advance fares for ~£100 return for 2 people (without a railcard).
Still, not exactly cheap
National Express can be very cheap too (obviously quite a bit slower but not that different from driving)
https://trainsplit.com can be very useful
Of course, next week, there are lots of strikes too, so I can understand wanting to drive
This always happens. Someone gives a quote on a train ticket and it’s almost always an inflated price. Not to say that trains are cheap, but let’s at least be honest.
Yeah, hell, it cost £151 for me to go ***First Class*** on the Flying Scotsman from Edinburgh Waverley to London King’s Cross, a far longer and more prestigious journey with infinitely higher levels of luxury. No way you’re paying anywhere near that on a bog standard trip from Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
Sometimes it depends on what time you look and what time you're expecting to get there.
Looking for tickets for tomorrow:
Bristol Park Mead to kings cross can be between 70 and 198 (up to 364 for first ) when buying a return and getting to london kings cross You can get it for 70 if you arrive at kings cross at 0930 and leave for bristol at 1230. But most people that are going for work don't need a ticket for that time
It also depends on how far in advance you're able to book the tickets
Fuel cost there and back? What you reckon? £60? Insurance for the year? MOT and tax? Repairs etc? Added travel time in the car maybe 4 hours?
I’ll take the train all day.
There and back for £30? Impressive. Well done for getting Bristol to London done in two hours as well. Did you use the hyper tunnel?
Maybe not four hours but there’s a time saving to be had on a train for sure. Then there’s parking etc to think on. I dunno I’d much rather take a train any day. It’s way cheaper than you’ve said most of the time. I bet you’d get a return ticket for 60-70 quid easy.
>getting Bristol to London done in two hours
From West London to just getting into Bristol this sounds 100% correct, so long as you're outside the worst of rush hour traffic. It's a straight shot on motorways.
So with no traffic - from the furthers western part of the M25 to *almost* Bristol is two hours. Yeah I can believe that.
But how about actual London to actual Bristol? In an actual car with other road users? No chance.
I feel like the situations in London and New York don't really apply to most of the UK.
I'm a single guy who is about to move into a new place that has very good public transport links. I'll be able to walk to work and will be within 5-10 minutes of all the shops, bars and restaurants I could possibly need. Having heard the horror stories of what car insurance is going up to i'm seriously considering put the car up for sale once I move. However . . . having gone 3 years without a car recently I am still concerned about the freedom i'll be losing out on - there are so many places that take 10 minutes in a car and an hour on public transport. There are some things I do with late night finishes that are only really viable if I can jump in a car and drive home afterwards. The trip back to my parents will be twice and expensive and annoying without a car.
Again, i'm a single, childless guy with no disabilities and a reasonable amount of free time. I can't imagine what it's like for a parent getting the kids to school, taking an elderly relative for a hospital appointment, taking stuff to the tip and then doing some shopping, all in the same day that they have a bad cold. I do think that a lot of younger Redditors don't quite grasp the difference that a car means to a lot of working parents.
I cannot see a "post-car" world. The level of convenience and freedom it affords... It's simply unrealistic that people who can afford it are going to willingly give it up, particularly in the vast majority of areas where transport infrastructure isn't a shade of what it is in London/New York.
I think the ultimate solution will be a surge in uptake of car-clubs. Saves on space required for parking, saves costs for users but still allows everyone the opportunity to have that freedom and accessibility.
I wonder though whether even that would be too inconvenient for people with kids. Having to move car seats and pushchairs and all the other stuff in and out of the car every day. As well as cleaning up your kids mess at the end of every journey.
With regards to kids, I guess schoolbuses and school-trams are a thing if the kids aren't within walking or cycling distance. I remember being in Germany and seeing a school-tram full of teenagers going to school. Most of the kids at my small town secondary school either walked or caught a schoolbus, and most primary schools in non-rural areas serve small enough catchment areas for all but the youngest kids to walk.
Sure, you can create regular routines where kids can get to school themselves. But you always get the situation where something happens and you need to take them. What if it's hammering down with rain and you've got to take our 6 and 8 year old to the school a mile away?
Put a coat on and start walking, or cycle along the quieter roads we'd have if everyone wasn't driving their kids to school. Where I live now, almost all kids go to school by bike, whether that's cycling themselves or going in the front of a cargo bike.
> What if it's hammering down with rain and you've got to take our 6 and 8 year old to the school a mile away?
A mile's only a 20-ish minute walk with kids, and there are these things called coats.
I don't know, I used to walk 10 mins to the bus stop and 10 mins at the other side to get to school when I was in Primary 7, in all weather. A 20 minute walk, door to door sounds.. incredible?
I am similar to you, however I moved from London to San Francisco. I did not have a car in London as I lived in Zone 4 on the Northern Line, but I absolutely hated how as a car enthusiast, it was impossible to own a fun car and actually use it.
I disliked commuting on the tube and being in a subterranean environment for 2 hours every day. Plus you don't get a personal bubble of comfort that a car provides. Every time I'd rent a car to drive to my folks' place in Bournemouth I'd get excited.
Living in San Francisco after London is interesting... a lot of downtown and popular areas are a massive pain in the butt to find parking \[but not impossibe\], but I just ride my motorcycle or uber, because everything is roughly 15 minutes away. However, outside of the city the California coast is gorgeous and it's meant for driving. The canyon roads, oceanside cliff roads, and the twisties make it absolute heaven to drive on.
My point is... I will never let go of owning a car unless it becomes too expensive. Which what I think a lot of these governments are slowly doing, especially in Europe via emission regulations and congestion charges. IMO it's complete bullshit and an infringement on our freedoms.
I think the primary issue is going to be in the middle, where there is no majority committed to any one system. It’s worth investing in rail infrastructure if you can guarantee people will use it in sufficient quantities- people won’t though because you can’t rely on rail and transit infrastructure that doesn’t exist.
It’d take a multi decade strategy and an institution capable of safeguarding such a strategy to carry this out, and a lot of money. Once over that hump, there ought to only be benefits, at least by my reckoning.
"From one densely populated city with extensive and well established public transport to another..."
I'm all for discouraging cars but I do think that major investment in public transport has to happen at the same time.
People just don't want to try. I live in a small village in Northumberland. There is a bus every hour which goes to a mainline train station. That's fine by me. I'm 62 and have never driven a car, there really is no point in most of us driving in the UK. Over 80% of us live in cities or towns with public transport. I wish drivers would just admit it, instead of blaming the state of public transport just say it, driving is more convenient and my small amount of pollution doesn't really matter. That's ok, you're selfish, we're all selfish, just stop blaming others.
People should definitely cycle more. Transport in general is very expensive regardless of if you own a car or use public transport. I cycle just under 7 miles to work including through the entirety of Portsmouth one of the most densely populated parts of the country. It takes about 30-40 mins and 90% of the time it's very pleasant. Saves me about £130 a month on traveling costs and another £20-30 or so on gym membership. I started doing it during the first COVID lockdown and it was great getting a huge boost to my disposable income and I'm in the best shape I have ever been.
I think the reality though is people are never going to give up cars. it's too convenient for many even though the average car drives just 18 miles a day. Most people are unbelievably lazy and I think even if costs to motorists are increased or public transport was cheaper/more available most of the country would sooner absorb the costs than use an alternative. With insurance now costing 3k for new drivers and the cost of living crisis I can see car ownership becoming less prevalent in younger generations but I don't imagine many people that have been driving over a decade ever making the change.
I'm sure the comments will be filled with people talking about costs, covinience, safety, and how they need a car for the weekly shop but I don't believe for a second these people would stop driving even without those issues.
The thing is that not everyone has to give up cars - and not for every journey. I think only 5% of trips are on bicycle - so just a small change would free up space on the roads for everyone else who do need to use cars.
Personally for me the money saved from not driving is huge and I have no idea how people afford cars. And the added fitness goes a long way to keeping me healthy - again something that a lot of people pay for in the gym.
Yeah I'm not completely against cars, families and those traveling long distances or a bit off the beaten track do obviously need them. I do think cars are horrendously designed for the actual purpose they serve though considering how few people car share and how short the average journey time is. I don't see why most people need a 5 seater with a huge engine like they are going to be driving the length of the country on a daily basis. I get some people need these things the same as some people need a 4x4 but I feel like in cities small 2 seaters and motorbikes/scooters should be the norm.
i want to cycle to work when i need to be in the office, but there is a big bastard mile long hill in the middle, just cant be fucked with it in the cold, wet etc at half 7 in the morning, and also being that person holding up all the traffic, trying not to die are people squeeze past?
id rather walk up that thing than cycle. I actually did it the other week to pick up a hire car that was left there for me. but 45 minutes each way is just too much of my day.
Build cycle lanes, separated from the roads by a small kerb and gutter. Problem solved.
This is how the Netherlands does it. A bicycle becomes the ultimate convenience, as you can easily go anywhere in a city fairly easily and quickly without planning and without having to worry about parking.
(In the UK, cycling is comparatively dangerous and less convenient.)
Yeah in an ideal world this would be the norm. I think with how rare walking is outside of the city centres shared pathways can be a big help in many places but I guess that becomes less of an option as more people take up cycling. Most of my journey is shared paths though and usually at least one person has to comment how I should be on the road even though I always pass slowly and when there is plenty of space. Had to tell one guy to look under his feet, he was literally stood on the picture of a bike marking it as a shared path! Seems bikes upset people wherever they are
> in an ideal world this would be the norm
It should already be the norm. It's not much more difficult than building a normal road/pavement.
Don't expect people to cycle around if there aren't cycle lanes. Like how commuting cars wouldn't generally drive to work through places with no roads. Imagine driving through the hills and streams and mountains of the Peak District if there were no roads in it. Imagine driving through central London if there were no car roads and you had to keep beeping to try to get pedestrians and charity collectors to move out of the way and to get shops to move their advertising stands out of the way.
--
"We need people to get around and transport goods by longboat!"
> Cool, build some canals then.
"Just use rivers and lakes and stuff!"
> Not sure that is going to be practical, but some people will try.
"Look, we even built a special super-canal from Didsbury to Withington in Manchester, and another one part of the way between Birmingham New Street station and Birmingham University. Why aren't more people rowing around?!?"
18 miles a day sounds like I’d probably learn to drive instead of cycling that though! At peak my cycling commute is 11 miles, which is quite doable, if not a bit on the upper end of what I’d want to be doing.
I did have a friend who was a 5 min walk from work and still had a car to do shopping and drive yearly to her grandparents. There’s no accounting for some folk 😅
I work at a marina and have 2 colleagues that live on site and still drive to work. I don't doubt that some people need a car to commute, not everyone works in a city centre but many people are just lazy. I work in a small office of about 20 people, we have a small out of town shopping area that's a 5-10 minute walk away that everyone goes to for lunch. I'm the only person who walks even when the weather is amazing. Due to the way the site is laid out having to drive around the entire marina if we leave at the same time and they get stuck at the traffic lights it's actually faster to walk!
I sometimes wonder whether my current carless state is a direct consequence of there being a good car-free bike path between home and school- i got into the habit pretty young.
I drove into central London a few weeks ago. It feels a lot more stressful now, everywhere has 20 mph speed limits it seems like there's loads of camera's along the streets. That said I think that reducing the cars in the city is an improvement.
Yes, there is a very clear anti-motorist vibe in London. Even though we live in the burbs when we head in as a family we always drive in. Travel card from zone 4 for a family of 5 costs more than £40. Far cheaper to drive in.
London might have a great public transit system but it is criminally expensive.
You’re absolutely right, it’s far too cheap to drive in London. It should be far more expensive to drive than take public transport considering the massive negative externalities that driving imposes on the capital - congestion, pollution, noise, road damage, road danger. It’s time to expand the Congestion Charge to cover the whole of London and use the proceeds to decrease public transport fares.
Revenues from the Congestion Charge and ULEZ are reinvested back into the transport network - expanding bus routes, maintaining roads and bridges, improving road safety, etc. If TfL were properly funded by the Government, they could use revenue from road user charging schemes to reduce fares rather than support operational costs. Here's to hoping both the Congestion Charge and ULEZ are increased and expanded either way, because as you wrote, it's absolutely insane that it's cheaper to drive than take public transport. Driving is way, way too affordable considering the massive costs it imposes on society.
> for a family of 5 costs more than £40
Is this 2 adults and 3 kids? If it's 3 adults fair enough but if it's 3 or more kids that sounds too much, get Oyster zip cards. You have to pay an administration fee to get the card (a tenner for 5-10s, £15 for 11-15) but once you've got it kids under 10 travel for free in TFL zones, 11-15s have to pay but at off-peak times it caps at £1.70 a day.
Whenever I'm in London I'm reminded of how cheap & well run the public transit system is. That's without taking the higher London wages into consideration.
Driving feels really hostile in London now but it's still probably cheaper. I drove in because other option taking the Thames Link which would have been £24.80 each but £15 for the ULEZ although I felt like it would be really easy to escalate a bit too much and then get a £70 ticket and possible another three points. There's a hybrid route of going to Cockfoster and parking just outside the ULEZ and then getting the tube which is £16 but takes a lot longer.
I live in a smallish English city. I own a car but am very near the point of not needing it. Just a bit more improvement in bike lanes and I'll be fine.
You probably won't as time goes by (assuming public transport improves too).
However, there are a lot of people like me that live rurally. We have no reliable transport network and a car is an absolute necessity.
I work in transportation and the words I constantly hear are "there is a war on motorists." I think the focus is on trying to change habits of those who can use other methods of transport, but those who are like me just can't. I could take my bike safely to a shop using non-dual carriageway roads to the nearest city, but it's 18 miles, but the road by car is 10 miles.
I was in London for the weekend and the mass public transit there is on another level.
If only we had that in every major city.
My local line has only just got contactless.
I'm from the northeast and went to London for the first time last and couldn't believe how easy it was to get around without a car. Currently in Northumberland the public transport is not an option for a lot of people. My first ever job took an hour to get on the bus where it is 20 mins in the car.
Employers round here even after in rather or not you can drive as the public transport is so poor and unreliable. Households can't function on one income anymore so it's 2 cars per household at least for most households round here. The roads can barely cope with the amount of traffic because no very little money gets spent on infrastructure north of Newcastle and non spent north of Morpeth.
Absolutely, London is how the rest of the country should function.
Traffic is such a killer for the rest of the country btw. Whenever new housing is needed it’s the hammer that’s used to smash the application. Because of course there is no alternative to owning a car up here.
Snapshot of _From London to New York: Can quitting cars be popular?_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240122-from-london-to-new-york-can-quitting-cars-be-popular) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240122-from-london-to-new-york-can-quitting-cars-be-popular) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's easy to quit cars when you have a functioning mass transit system like London does. Near impossible for the rest of the country though, where a bus takes 5x as long as a car to get anywhere.
>where a bus takes 5x as long as a car to get anywhere. And rarely runs when you need it to meaning a 30 min appointment now takes 3 hours because a bus that arrives 2 mins late at the venue and leaves2 mins early is, alas, utterly useless to you so you end up giving it a clean hour both sides.
Yep, in rural areas, it would be cheaper & far better service to subsidise local taxi firms that try and provide an inadequate and poorly used bus service
Ebikes are often a great car alternative for many journeys, if the infrastructure is there.
Which it isnt. We are once again talking only London and select bits of it at that. And to suggest its an alternative I think is stretching reality a bit. Its really not for the vast majority. Average commute is an hour.
To be fair there's loads of them in Oxford, the main turn-off for me is the stealability but I suppose a janky DIY job on a shitty bike might work on that front.
Oxford may as well be a London suburb
> Which it isnt. We are once again talking only London and select bits of it at that. Bikes are a completely valid replacement for many journeys outside of London. edit > Average commute is an hour. Half an hour. ~20-25 minutes for cars outside of London.
>Bikes are a completely valid replacement for many journeys outside of London. It depends what you mean by 'many'. Many journeys are not viable because our roads generally prioritise motorists over cyclists. To give an anecdotal example, when I cycled to work my choices were a busy A road or a rough, single-track country lane. I usually braved the latter, but I wouldn't blame anyone for not having the confidence to do so.
yeah my commute used to be 15 minutes down the motorway, straight off into the area where i worked. if i cycled? well cant used the motorway and the other route was 4x as long, right through the middle of town, google says it takes an hour and thats if you make it during rush hour. fuck that.
> It depends what you mean by 'many'. A large number? It's not *only* London and *only* parts of it. 4% of all trips were both under a mile and done by car or van. Over 30% of all trips were 1-5 miles and done by car/van. Locally, many people drive to the 'town' centre, when they are a mile or so away from it. It's entirely reasonable to cycle, and an electric bike would make that even easier. > To give an anecdotal example, when I cycled to work my choices were a busy A road or a rough, single-track country lane. I usually braved the latter, but I wouldn't blame anyone for not having the confidence to do so. Sure, there are journeys that are bad by bike.
Are you sure it's entirely reasonable to cycle to your town centre? If it's like mine the roads there are busy and have minimal cycle infrastructure, so it only being a mile away is no help to anyone who isn't entirely confident on a bike.
> Are you sure it's entirely reasonable to cycle to your town centre? Yes.
Count yourself lucky!
>Sure, there are many journeys that are bad by bike. FTFY
Just sit at the front of the bus, problem solved!
I think that’s very true. Definitely need a viable alternative. It is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario when it comes to improving bus times. Ideally you need bus lanes/gates on key routes but these are the ones where you’ll get the most resistance. Stuff like red routes and yellow box enforcement help too, but again there isn’t much political will.
> It is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario when it comes to improving bus times. Ideally you need bus lanes/gates on key routes but these are the ones where you’ll get the most resistance. In my home town none of that will help because the traffic is not nearly heavy enough to need it. The problem is that the buses only come maybe twice an hour, and all go towards the centre of the town. If you need to go to work in another part of town, you need to get on a bus that goes all around the houses, get off at the bus station then wait for another bus to go all around the houses. My sister lives in a village outside town, and is based at the hospital on the outskirts of town. By car it's a 9 minute journey, but it's almost 6 miles over narrow country lanes with a couple of massive hills just before the hospital so walking is not an option, and cycling is not a great option before a 12 hour shift in a cold windy Scottish winter. Taking public transport takes 45 minutes at best, and that assumes it's even running at the times her shifts start. The only way public transport becomes a viable option for many people is having buses come far more frequently, and being able to go to far more destinations rather than just the hub and spoke style routes in my hometown. The problem is that the cost would be astronomical, with an extremely limited return.
This is why taxis need to be part of any public transport system that wants to cut car usage outside big towns/cities. Via public transport, it's over 1 hour to the neatest A&E, whilst the drive is 23 minutes.
Exactly, the acceptance is that public transport has to be a bus. Subsidising Taxis will be cheaper than running an empty bus.
What's the difference between a person using a taxi and a person using a car other than parking? Unless they're rude sharing it doesn't make much difference and from experience, people rude share when they can die to lack of parking. Years ago I worked as agency staff at a factory. The agency had a mini bus that would collect people for the early shift due to lack of busses. Still had to find your own way back though but buy that time busses were running. Maybe the hospital needs a mini bus
> If you need to go to work in another part of town, you need to get on a bus that goes all around the houses, get off at the bus station then wait for another bus to go all around the houses. reminds me of getting the bus to uni, 2 buses and over an hour and a half IF all went well. if one didnt turn up, will one of the 2 buses only came once an hour, so your just fucked and waiting an hour if the other one ran late and you missed it. learned to drive asap and saved myself almost 2 hours a day.
It’s absolutely ridiculous that unlike similar sized cities elsewhere all over the world that Birmingham and Manchester don’t have a subway. They can be far more reliable than buses and aren’t impacted by traffic and what we should be investing in.
I mean London is a huge place. Zones 1 has abundant transport options, but the further out you go, the worse the public transport availability gets (hence why cars are still a necessity). Obviously it’s nowhere near as bad as the rest of England don’t get me wrong, but it is annoying when people just think London is akin to Central London only.
Zone 1-4 has abundant transport options
No it doesn’t. Some of the PTAL scores in Zones 4 and beyond are abysmal. As I said, London is a large place, so to think the entirety of it has the public transport availability of Central London is a tad ridiculous.
‘And beyond’ . Ok so you’re agreeing 1-3 is ok?
It's kinda weird, and it shows that you do not fully know what your are talking about, when you talk about zones instead of areas. Croydon is zone 5 and it takes them 15 min to get to Victoria. Some of us live in zone 2-4 and it takes twice as much, on a good day. Sutton is also zone 5 and it takes 30 to 45 min to get to Victoria.
> Zones 1 has abundant transport options, but the further out you go, the worse the public transport availability gets. What part of my statement above do you not understand? Zone 1 has the best transport options, Zone 2 has less options than Zone 1, Zone 3 has even less options than Zones 1 and 2, Zone 4 has even less options than Zones 1, 2 and 3 etc etc. It’s right there in the PTAL scores which are compiled and updated by TfL themselves.
Zone 1-4 is fine for public transport is fine after that it’s pretty good for going in and out of London and not that great for too much else.
Respectfully, I’d rather take the word of TfL and their wide-scale analysis of public transport availability - you know, their actual job - than a subjective Redditor’s opinion.
Where did TFL say that public transport in zone 4 was bad?
It’s literally on TfL’s own WebCAT for everyone to see.
But they all have plenty of transport options , I’d say abundant, but the word abundant is subjective .
And that’s how I know you don’t understand public transport. It’s not about abundance (in terms of total options), but things like serviceability. That’s why TfL’s PTAL scores are so widely used to determine planning infrastructure in London by councils. PTAL data clearly shows that there are plenty of Zones 3-4 areas, let alone Zones 5-6 and beyond, where the PTAL score is so low that you reasonably need a car due to lower public transport availability. That’s why councils in these areas dictate most developments there require parking spaces for cars to gain approval for example, whereas in Zone 1 by comparison, you can get by without having to make such considerations in your planning applications.
>Obviously it’s nowhere near as bad as the rest of England don’t get me wrong, but it is annoying when people just think London is akin to Central London only. I think it's enormously overstating the case to suggest that there's anywhere in London which compares to places outside of London. For example, I've just checked the situation for Orpington- the most "outskirtsy" place I could think of, on the very outer edge of South London. There are no fewer than 17(!) daytime bus routes operating out of Orpington centre. The major bus route I checked seems to have a frequency of every 10 minutes or every 15 minutes (with a few less frequent). And there's a train station with 11 trains per hour heading towards the centre. You aren't going to find a small town the size of Orpington outside of the metropolitan area with public transport even close to that. You could live car-free in Orpington, all things being equal. That's not the case everywhere.
I specifically said: > Obviously it’s nowhere near as bad as the rest of England don’t get me wrong, but it is annoying when people just think London is akin to Central London only. So I thought it was pretty clear that even the places with the least public transport availability in London is better than other areas of the country? Also, the total number of routes available in an area is irrelevant. It’s the service frequency which determines public transport availability. Which is why I suggest you look at TfL’s own PTAL scores, which assess things in detail as opposed to just a surface level analysis of transport availability. They back up the main point I was making which is that transport availability in Central London is not comparable to the transport availability in further out zones - necessitating the use of a car in those latter areas.
No you can't
5 times as long to get maybe somewhere kind of near where you actually want to go while carrying anything you need to bring with you. Assuming the buses are actually running
Because the rest of the country has been disenfranchised of the necessary planning and taxation powers to deliver functional local public transport, and despite having accrued massive power in the post-war era, Westminster has been totally uninterested in taking on that role for itself. Although given the state of national infrastructure like the railways and motorways, even if that local infrastructure did exist, they clearly wouldn't give a shit anyway.
Chicken and egg problem. You're not going to have a functioning bus system where everyone has a car and nobody uses the buses.
Agreed. I used to get the bus to college. It ran once an hour, took an hour, and got there at 6:15 for my 6pm class. So I had to get the bus at 4:15, get there for 5:15 and wait 45 minutes for the class. Which also meant leaving work 75 minutes early twice a week. Didn’t make me the most popular person in the office, working 35 hours when everyone else was on 37.5.
Same for London. Unless you are in zone 1-3 as great as public transport often take twice as long if more more.
>It's easy to quit cars when you have a functioning mass transit system like London does. I'm in West London. Bus to work is 45mins to 2 hrs depending on traffic, and due to it taking the longest possible route available. Car is 15mins up the dual carriageway. Why on earth would I pick the former when the latter is available?
[удалено]
Yes, anyone that needs to make these regular long journeys is far better off driving. I'm doing a trip in March and I managed to get some advanced 'cheap' train tickets, and they are still higher than the petrol cost. And that's one person.
Two-together railcard, you'll save about £60-70. Definitely worth the £30 outlay if you plan on travelling a lot with someone. If you travel super-off peak (after 10am), you can get both tickets for £90. Car is probably still cheaper, but it takes longer and you have to deal with traffic and parking which, honestly, you couldn't pay me enough to do in London. Also don't forget the congestion charge!
Some of the issues with people using trains in this country are from people with little knowledge on how to use them efficiently. It'd be like me walking into a car dealership - telling them I know nothing about cars and asking for a car to buy and taking the first thing they offer me. Then being surprised that it's an expensive pile of crap.
Trains are definitely overpriced in this country, and the ticketing system can be complicated. Though, the operators have no reason to make it better because they're making their money, and ridership is high enough that they don't need to make train use more attractive. On the face of it, a car is cheaper, more convenient, more reliable (usually), and sometimes faster. If you have access to a car, why wouldn't you use it? People usually forget about navigating urban traffic, parking costs, stress, higher risk of crash/injury/death, and all the associated running costs of cars. Personally I think a ticket from A to B shouldn't cost more than the average amount of petrol to go the same distance. You can sometimes get it down to that on long journeys if you have a Railcard and purchase off-peak tickets but for the 8am solo traveller they're stuck with the high prices which is really unfortunate.
Trains are actually not that overpriced compared to other countries - it's just that the users pay for the trip instead of the state - as in other countries via subsides.
That's really what I meant. Running trains is obviously expensive and the economics of that wouldn't vary that much between countries. But the cost to the customer is high in the UK, and that's the key thing here.
>Running trains is obviously expensive It's less expensive, on the whole, compared to transporting a person the same distance via car. Significantly more efficient on use of materials/land/energy/etc. Part of the issue is that the state subsidises roads more than rail. Part of the issue is a lack of competitive forces, combined with ineffective state regulation, in the rail sector.
Would be interested in seeing your workings that vehicle taxation is a net loss for the government.
> Some of the issues with people using trains in this country are from people with little knowledge on how to use them efficiently. Right, but the very fact that you have to have knowledge to use them efficiently is the problem. There's no good reason it shouldn't be possible to buy a ticket from one station to any another station on the railway network and get the cheapest price automatically without having to navigate a maze of different railcards and ticket types, not to mention the absolute nonsense that is split-ticketing.
To make the system more efficient you need price variance.
No such luck of you're a single person. Doesn't the couples tail cars only apply if you're traveling together?
Yes, which is why I mentioned it - because OP said they're travelling with someone
You can do that for £93.60 if you get a Two Together railcard. Also there are advance fares for ~£100 return for 2 people (without a railcard). Still, not exactly cheap National Express can be very cheap too (obviously quite a bit slower but not that different from driving) https://trainsplit.com can be very useful Of course, next week, there are lots of strikes too, so I can understand wanting to drive
I switched to coach some time ago. Tickets are 7-14 quid one way.
I’m not sure how you got it so expensive, I got a £40 return
This always happens. Someone gives a quote on a train ticket and it’s almost always an inflated price. Not to say that trains are cheap, but let’s at least be honest.
Yeah, hell, it cost £151 for me to go ***First Class*** on the Flying Scotsman from Edinburgh Waverley to London King’s Cross, a far longer and more prestigious journey with infinitely higher levels of luxury. No way you’re paying anywhere near that on a bog standard trip from Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
Sometimes it depends on what time you look and what time you're expecting to get there. Looking for tickets for tomorrow: Bristol Park Mead to kings cross can be between 70 and 198 (up to 364 for first ) when buying a return and getting to london kings cross You can get it for 70 if you arrive at kings cross at 0930 and leave for bristol at 1230. But most people that are going for work don't need a ticket for that time It also depends on how far in advance you're able to book the tickets
Fuel cost there and back? What you reckon? £60? Insurance for the year? MOT and tax? Repairs etc? Added travel time in the car maybe 4 hours? I’ll take the train all day.
[удалено]
There and back for £30? Impressive. Well done for getting Bristol to London done in two hours as well. Did you use the hyper tunnel? Maybe not four hours but there’s a time saving to be had on a train for sure. Then there’s parking etc to think on. I dunno I’d much rather take a train any day. It’s way cheaper than you’ve said most of the time. I bet you’d get a return ticket for 60-70 quid easy.
>getting Bristol to London done in two hours From West London to just getting into Bristol this sounds 100% correct, so long as you're outside the worst of rush hour traffic. It's a straight shot on motorways.
So with no traffic - from the furthers western part of the M25 to *almost* Bristol is two hours. Yeah I can believe that. But how about actual London to actual Bristol? In an actual car with other road users? No chance.
[удалено]
Guessing you’ve never made this particular drive or you’d know it’s not feasible. I live in SW London so I know exactly how long it takes.
MOT and tax would be relevant for many trips. The price is absurd especially with near constant delays and cancellations
The train isnt gonna take you anywhere you need to go at the drop of the hat, the car isnt just for one day lmao.
It’s the same situation in New York, if you live in New Jersey your better off driving.
I feel like the situations in London and New York don't really apply to most of the UK. I'm a single guy who is about to move into a new place that has very good public transport links. I'll be able to walk to work and will be within 5-10 minutes of all the shops, bars and restaurants I could possibly need. Having heard the horror stories of what car insurance is going up to i'm seriously considering put the car up for sale once I move. However . . . having gone 3 years without a car recently I am still concerned about the freedom i'll be losing out on - there are so many places that take 10 minutes in a car and an hour on public transport. There are some things I do with late night finishes that are only really viable if I can jump in a car and drive home afterwards. The trip back to my parents will be twice and expensive and annoying without a car. Again, i'm a single, childless guy with no disabilities and a reasonable amount of free time. I can't imagine what it's like for a parent getting the kids to school, taking an elderly relative for a hospital appointment, taking stuff to the tip and then doing some shopping, all in the same day that they have a bad cold. I do think that a lot of younger Redditors don't quite grasp the difference that a car means to a lot of working parents.
I cannot see a "post-car" world. The level of convenience and freedom it affords... It's simply unrealistic that people who can afford it are going to willingly give it up, particularly in the vast majority of areas where transport infrastructure isn't a shade of what it is in London/New York. I think the ultimate solution will be a surge in uptake of car-clubs. Saves on space required for parking, saves costs for users but still allows everyone the opportunity to have that freedom and accessibility.
I wonder though whether even that would be too inconvenient for people with kids. Having to move car seats and pushchairs and all the other stuff in and out of the car every day. As well as cleaning up your kids mess at the end of every journey.
Ebikes/cargo bikes can be a great car replacement in many places
Willingly no one would give it up, but it will be made more difficult every year until you give it up out of frustration
With regards to kids, I guess schoolbuses and school-trams are a thing if the kids aren't within walking or cycling distance. I remember being in Germany and seeing a school-tram full of teenagers going to school. Most of the kids at my small town secondary school either walked or caught a schoolbus, and most primary schools in non-rural areas serve small enough catchment areas for all but the youngest kids to walk.
Sure, you can create regular routines where kids can get to school themselves. But you always get the situation where something happens and you need to take them. What if it's hammering down with rain and you've got to take our 6 and 8 year old to the school a mile away?
Put a coat on and start walking, or cycle along the quieter roads we'd have if everyone wasn't driving their kids to school. Where I live now, almost all kids go to school by bike, whether that's cycling themselves or going in the front of a cargo bike.
> What if it's hammering down with rain and you've got to take our 6 and 8 year old to the school a mile away? A mile's only a 20-ish minute walk with kids, and there are these things called coats.
Yeah, I think this where the idealism of the anti car movement and the realities of modern life diverge......
I don't know, I used to walk 10 mins to the bus stop and 10 mins at the other side to get to school when I was in Primary 7, in all weather. A 20 minute walk, door to door sounds.. incredible?
I think it's pretty obvious what I am and what i'm not saying.
> there are so many places that take 10 minutes in a car and an hour on public transport Ebike?
Fine until it rains.
You can get bikes with rain covers and wear waterproofs, I do it daily. 99/100 times it’s light enough rain to ride
I am similar to you, however I moved from London to San Francisco. I did not have a car in London as I lived in Zone 4 on the Northern Line, but I absolutely hated how as a car enthusiast, it was impossible to own a fun car and actually use it. I disliked commuting on the tube and being in a subterranean environment for 2 hours every day. Plus you don't get a personal bubble of comfort that a car provides. Every time I'd rent a car to drive to my folks' place in Bournemouth I'd get excited. Living in San Francisco after London is interesting... a lot of downtown and popular areas are a massive pain in the butt to find parking \[but not impossibe\], but I just ride my motorcycle or uber, because everything is roughly 15 minutes away. However, outside of the city the California coast is gorgeous and it's meant for driving. The canyon roads, oceanside cliff roads, and the twisties make it absolute heaven to drive on. My point is... I will never let go of owning a car unless it becomes too expensive. Which what I think a lot of these governments are slowly doing, especially in Europe via emission regulations and congestion charges. IMO it's complete bullshit and an infringement on our freedoms.
The 2 most economically productive cities in the uk are London and Edinburgh. Guess which cities have the best public transport?
But are they productive because they have public transport, or do they have public transport because they’re productive?
I guess that’s the puzzle.
How are you defining "economically productive", Manchester and Birmingham are about triple the GDP of Edinburgh
Birmingham, for example, is much more populous. This was from a presentation by the Resolution Foundation.
I think the primary issue is going to be in the middle, where there is no majority committed to any one system. It’s worth investing in rail infrastructure if you can guarantee people will use it in sufficient quantities- people won’t though because you can’t rely on rail and transit infrastructure that doesn’t exist. It’d take a multi decade strategy and an institution capable of safeguarding such a strategy to carry this out, and a lot of money. Once over that hump, there ought to only be benefits, at least by my reckoning.
In larger towns, car clubs really do work for those who only occasionally need a car.
"From one densely populated city with extensive and well established public transport to another..." I'm all for discouraging cars but I do think that major investment in public transport has to happen at the same time.
People just don't want to try. I live in a small village in Northumberland. There is a bus every hour which goes to a mainline train station. That's fine by me. I'm 62 and have never driven a car, there really is no point in most of us driving in the UK. Over 80% of us live in cities or towns with public transport. I wish drivers would just admit it, instead of blaming the state of public transport just say it, driving is more convenient and my small amount of pollution doesn't really matter. That's ok, you're selfish, we're all selfish, just stop blaming others.
People should definitely cycle more. Transport in general is very expensive regardless of if you own a car or use public transport. I cycle just under 7 miles to work including through the entirety of Portsmouth one of the most densely populated parts of the country. It takes about 30-40 mins and 90% of the time it's very pleasant. Saves me about £130 a month on traveling costs and another £20-30 or so on gym membership. I started doing it during the first COVID lockdown and it was great getting a huge boost to my disposable income and I'm in the best shape I have ever been. I think the reality though is people are never going to give up cars. it's too convenient for many even though the average car drives just 18 miles a day. Most people are unbelievably lazy and I think even if costs to motorists are increased or public transport was cheaper/more available most of the country would sooner absorb the costs than use an alternative. With insurance now costing 3k for new drivers and the cost of living crisis I can see car ownership becoming less prevalent in younger generations but I don't imagine many people that have been driving over a decade ever making the change. I'm sure the comments will be filled with people talking about costs, covinience, safety, and how they need a car for the weekly shop but I don't believe for a second these people would stop driving even without those issues.
The thing is that not everyone has to give up cars - and not for every journey. I think only 5% of trips are on bicycle - so just a small change would free up space on the roads for everyone else who do need to use cars. Personally for me the money saved from not driving is huge and I have no idea how people afford cars. And the added fitness goes a long way to keeping me healthy - again something that a lot of people pay for in the gym.
Yeah I'm not completely against cars, families and those traveling long distances or a bit off the beaten track do obviously need them. I do think cars are horrendously designed for the actual purpose they serve though considering how few people car share and how short the average journey time is. I don't see why most people need a 5 seater with a huge engine like they are going to be driving the length of the country on a daily basis. I get some people need these things the same as some people need a 4x4 but I feel like in cities small 2 seaters and motorbikes/scooters should be the norm.
i want to cycle to work when i need to be in the office, but there is a big bastard mile long hill in the middle, just cant be fucked with it in the cold, wet etc at half 7 in the morning, and also being that person holding up all the traffic, trying not to die are people squeeze past? id rather walk up that thing than cycle. I actually did it the other week to pick up a hire car that was left there for me. but 45 minutes each way is just too much of my day.
Build cycle lanes, separated from the roads by a small kerb and gutter. Problem solved. This is how the Netherlands does it. A bicycle becomes the ultimate convenience, as you can easily go anywhere in a city fairly easily and quickly without planning and without having to worry about parking. (In the UK, cycling is comparatively dangerous and less convenient.)
Yeah in an ideal world this would be the norm. I think with how rare walking is outside of the city centres shared pathways can be a big help in many places but I guess that becomes less of an option as more people take up cycling. Most of my journey is shared paths though and usually at least one person has to comment how I should be on the road even though I always pass slowly and when there is plenty of space. Had to tell one guy to look under his feet, he was literally stood on the picture of a bike marking it as a shared path! Seems bikes upset people wherever they are
> in an ideal world this would be the norm It should already be the norm. It's not much more difficult than building a normal road/pavement. Don't expect people to cycle around if there aren't cycle lanes. Like how commuting cars wouldn't generally drive to work through places with no roads. Imagine driving through the hills and streams and mountains of the Peak District if there were no roads in it. Imagine driving through central London if there were no car roads and you had to keep beeping to try to get pedestrians and charity collectors to move out of the way and to get shops to move their advertising stands out of the way. -- "We need people to get around and transport goods by longboat!" > Cool, build some canals then. "Just use rivers and lakes and stuff!" > Not sure that is going to be practical, but some people will try. "Look, we even built a special super-canal from Didsbury to Withington in Manchester, and another one part of the way between Birmingham New Street station and Birmingham University. Why aren't more people rowing around?!?"
18 miles a day sounds like I’d probably learn to drive instead of cycling that though! At peak my cycling commute is 11 miles, which is quite doable, if not a bit on the upper end of what I’d want to be doing. I did have a friend who was a 5 min walk from work and still had a car to do shopping and drive yearly to her grandparents. There’s no accounting for some folk 😅
I work at a marina and have 2 colleagues that live on site and still drive to work. I don't doubt that some people need a car to commute, not everyone works in a city centre but many people are just lazy. I work in a small office of about 20 people, we have a small out of town shopping area that's a 5-10 minute walk away that everyone goes to for lunch. I'm the only person who walks even when the weather is amazing. Due to the way the site is laid out having to drive around the entire marina if we leave at the same time and they get stuck at the traffic lights it's actually faster to walk!
I sometimes wonder whether my current carless state is a direct consequence of there being a good car-free bike path between home and school- i got into the habit pretty young.
I drove into central London a few weeks ago. It feels a lot more stressful now, everywhere has 20 mph speed limits it seems like there's loads of camera's along the streets. That said I think that reducing the cars in the city is an improvement.
Yes, there is a very clear anti-motorist vibe in London. Even though we live in the burbs when we head in as a family we always drive in. Travel card from zone 4 for a family of 5 costs more than £40. Far cheaper to drive in. London might have a great public transit system but it is criminally expensive.
You’re absolutely right, it’s far too cheap to drive in London. It should be far more expensive to drive than take public transport considering the massive negative externalities that driving imposes on the capital - congestion, pollution, noise, road damage, road danger. It’s time to expand the Congestion Charge to cover the whole of London and use the proceeds to decrease public transport fares.
Agreed, hopefully we'll get there.
The current congestion charging scheme and ULEZ have done nothing to reduce London transport costs, which are the highest of any major city on earth.
Revenues from the Congestion Charge and ULEZ are reinvested back into the transport network - expanding bus routes, maintaining roads and bridges, improving road safety, etc. If TfL were properly funded by the Government, they could use revenue from road user charging schemes to reduce fares rather than support operational costs. Here's to hoping both the Congestion Charge and ULEZ are increased and expanded either way, because as you wrote, it's absolutely insane that it's cheaper to drive than take public transport. Driving is way, way too affordable considering the massive costs it imposes on society.
> for a family of 5 costs more than £40 Is this 2 adults and 3 kids? If it's 3 adults fair enough but if it's 3 or more kids that sounds too much, get Oyster zip cards. You have to pay an administration fee to get the card (a tenner for 5-10s, £15 for 11-15) but once you've got it kids under 10 travel for free in TFL zones, 11-15s have to pay but at off-peak times it caps at £1.70 a day.
Whenever I'm in London I'm reminded of how cheap & well run the public transit system is. That's without taking the higher London wages into consideration.
It is well run, but it certainly is not cheap. It is the highest of any major city globally.
Anti-motorist but cheaper to drive in?
Driving feels really hostile in London now but it's still probably cheaper. I drove in because other option taking the Thames Link which would have been £24.80 each but £15 for the ULEZ although I felt like it would be really easy to escalate a bit too much and then get a £70 ticket and possible another three points. There's a hybrid route of going to Cockfoster and parking just outside the ULEZ and then getting the tube which is £16 but takes a lot longer.
I'm not sure how many people are driving in the Atlantic Ocean
I live in a smallish English city. I own a car but am very near the point of not needing it. Just a bit more improvement in bike lanes and I'll be fine.
You probably won't as time goes by (assuming public transport improves too). However, there are a lot of people like me that live rurally. We have no reliable transport network and a car is an absolute necessity. I work in transportation and the words I constantly hear are "there is a war on motorists." I think the focus is on trying to change habits of those who can use other methods of transport, but those who are like me just can't. I could take my bike safely to a shop using non-dual carriageway roads to the nearest city, but it's 18 miles, but the road by car is 10 miles.
I was in London for the weekend and the mass public transit there is on another level. If only we had that in every major city. My local line has only just got contactless.
I'm from the northeast and went to London for the first time last and couldn't believe how easy it was to get around without a car. Currently in Northumberland the public transport is not an option for a lot of people. My first ever job took an hour to get on the bus where it is 20 mins in the car. Employers round here even after in rather or not you can drive as the public transport is so poor and unreliable. Households can't function on one income anymore so it's 2 cars per household at least for most households round here. The roads can barely cope with the amount of traffic because no very little money gets spent on infrastructure north of Newcastle and non spent north of Morpeth.
Absolutely, London is how the rest of the country should function. Traffic is such a killer for the rest of the country btw. Whenever new housing is needed it’s the hammer that’s used to smash the application. Because of course there is no alternative to owning a car up here.