• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Car ownership vs. car use

Status
Not open for further replies.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Anecdotal evidence admittedly, but it's definitely having an impact. My parents got rid of their Diesel Touran and shifted to an Outlander PHEV purely because of the upcoming (2021) ULEZ expansion to the North/South Circular, despite me repeatedly pointing out that it won't actually cover their house, and they rarely actually drive into the enlarged zone!
I suspect the next step if Sadiq is re-elected would be to extend the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) out to the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) boundary.

Do they ever plug in the Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV), or is it just used as a slightly more efficient fossil fuel vehicle?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
My parents got rid of their Diesel Touran and shifted to an Outlander PHEV
4.6m and 1,800kg of 30mile range utter greenwash- the idea of these being seen as a good thing to buy in an urban area blows my mind.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I suspect the next step if Sadiq is re-elected would be to extend the ULEZ out to the LEZ boundary. Do they ever plug the PHEV in or is it just used as a slightly more efficient fossil fuel vehicle?

They plug it in religiously, they've really come round to the idea of having to plug a car in. I expect that their next car will be a BEV in a few years time, presuming there's something that's cheap enough and meets their needs.

4.6m and 1,800kg of 30mile range utter greenwash- the idea of these being seen as a good thing to buy in an urban area blows my mind.

It's fairly sensible for what they do, and was pretty much their only choice. It's almost always driving on electric, the only times it switches to petrol is when it's on the occasional longer run. That said, it is quite large (and visibly hangs halfway across the pavement) although at least they park it nose-in to minimise how much it sticks out compared to another PHEV a few doors down. However, when you decide that it must be some sort of hybrid (particularly if you want Plug in) but you also want to be able to move large amounts of stuff at semi-regular times, there isn't too much else choice unfortunately.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
They plug it in religiously, they've really come round to the idea of having to plug a car in. I expect that their next car will be a BEV in a few years time, presuming there's something that's cheap enough and meets their needs.
That's good to know - I suspect many of the buyers of these vehicles do indeed get taken in by the greenwash and never bother to plug them in.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
However many people will probably have already replaced their vehicles in anticipation of the new charge, so he faces a different kind of unpopularity from people who say they have wasted their money if he cancels it. I have the feeling that a majority in London, who have to live with the consequences of traffic and have seen the benefits of the congestion charge, are in favour of increased restrictions on driving.

I think that will depend upon the area. There may well be some support from someone in a Lambeth high-rise, but I can't see it being popular in the traditional suburbs where car ownership and use is pretty high.

As far as London goes the elephant in the room is of course rising population, yet Khan seems to have absolutely no policy ideas to try to deal with that.

Having said that, reading today that places like Stevenage and Luton have worse pollution issues than London. Not really surprised by that TBH, both these places are incredibly car-oriented for pretty much everything except London commuting journeys. For somewhere like Stevenage it's pretty much the default choice to depart home by car, especially in those estates further away from the centre. I wouldn't be surprised there's people in parts of Stevenage who pretty much *never* leave their house except by car (or perhaps occasionally taxi).
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
That's good to know - I suspect many of the buyers of these vehicles do indeed get taken in by the greenwash and never bother to plug them in.
There's lots of stories where they've been used as a company car, and then leaving the charging cables in the boot underfloor still in the bags!

Generally speaking, I think if people have made the decision to buy a plug in, they're generally quite good at actually plugging it in. Perhaps not to the same extent as my parents do (3 pin socket installed in porch, extension lead and charge cable in the boot anytime they go on a long trip, and even installing a charger at their holiday house) but buying a plug in at least implies a willingness to do so, otherwise you'd have gotten a toyota (or 'self-charging' hybrid)
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
What could fairly easily happen is that ultimately each urban area (location with a population over 10,000) has its own charge LEZ and ULEZ, maybe with a few smaller ones grouped together or the charge based on the size of the population (say £3 for 10,000 to 25,000, £5.50 for 25,000 to 50,000, £8 for 50,000 to 150,000, £12 for 150,000 to 300,000, £17 for 300,000 to 1,000,000 and £25 for over 1,000,000). The charges applied over two zones, the ULEZ being the town centre and within 400m of any school (for non residents), whilst the LEZ (with charge of 50% of the above).

In doing so those arguments about "what about those in rural areas" can still get around without being charged overly much.

There may be certain through routes permitted and daily caps applied.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
To my mind complications such as making the amount dependent on the actual amount of congestion are pointless, as a driver having started their journey is unlikely to turn round and go home simply because when they reach the charging zone the charge is a bit higher than they expected.

True, though there are similar cases where it might work. The M6 Toll, for example, might work better were the prices yield managed. You'd get the price based on when you pass the last price gantry, your registration number could be read to ensure you get the correct price.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
True, though there are similar cases where it might work. The M6 Toll, for example, might work better were the prices yield managed. You'd get the price based on when you pass the last price gantry, your registration number could be read to ensure you get the correct price.

The M6 Toll is hopeless though, most people would rather wade through the congestion rather than pay a toll.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
The M6 Toll is hopeless though, most people would rather wade through the congestion rather than pay a toll.
It’s expensive, but you don’t have to look at Birmingham and it’s a nice rest in a long journey - a decent blat without stressing about the car in front or all the sodding speed cameras!
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
The M6 Toll is hopeless though, most people would rather wade through the congestion rather than pay a toll.

Why do you think that? I always use the toll road if heading that way. It always seems busy enough. True nowhere near as busy as the toll-free alternative, but usually just as busy as most non-congested rural motorways. Given how bad the other Birmingham motorways are, I'd rather we had the M6 toll than be without it - the congestion would be far worse without it.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
The M6 Toll is hopeless though, most people would rather wade through the congestion rather than pay a toll.

At end of the day it offers choice, and people make their decision. Certainly I enjoy using it as it offers a good opportunity to have a more relaxed segment of a long-distance journey.

I'd go that way even if heading to North Wales simply to avoid the hassle even though for that journey it generally doesn't offer a time saving off-peak.

Having said that, for London to North West journeys I find the A50 gives the opportunity to avoid the West Midlands altogether, which generally works well at most times of day.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
The only problem with the M6 Toll is that it doesn’t go from Leamington to Preston!
 

TrafficEng

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
419
Location
North of London
What could fairly easily happen is that ultimately each urban area (location with a population over 10,000) has its own charge LEZ and ULEZ, maybe with a few smaller ones grouped together or the charge based on the size of the population (say £3 for 10,000 to 25,000, £5.50 for 25,000 to 50,000, £8 for 50,000 to 150,000, £12 for 150,000 to 300,000, £17 for 300,000 to 1,000,000 and £25 for over 1,000,000). The charges applied over two zones, the ULEZ being the town centre and within 400m of any school (for non residents), whilst the LEZ (with charge of 50% of the above).

This will never happen.

To start with, the existence of the LEZ and ULEZ is not something that was planned, it has happened as a result of circumstance and opportunity. The original LEZ was a bit of a vanity project. The Mayor wanted to be seen to be doing something, but didn't want to upset too many people. So the result was a scheme that covered as much of London as feasibly possible, but with such a low level of restriction that it didn't really impact that much on individuals (unless they owned a large van). The enforcement regime was minimal.

The ULEZ is more worthwhile in terms of the restrictions it applies, but happened due to opportunity - people are very concerned about pollution in Central London and the existing Congestion Charge infrastructure allowed a quick and cheap 'win'. In essence the ULEZ is a Congestion Charge surcharge by another name.

Now, to implement a cordon charge like the LEZ it is a legal necessity to place signs on every entry point into the zone. If each of your urban areas wants to implement one zone then they need to pay for signs at every entry point. To have both a LEZ and ULEZ they would need two lots of signage. Moreover, the zone boundary has to be designed so drivers have the opportunity to turn back and avoid entering the zone. This means exempting some routes, with additional signs required on those routes and any diversions.

Not to mention the need for enforcement. Either by fixed camera (but not just any old cameras, they have to be certified) or mobile patrols. (or both).

It becomes a very expensive business, not least because the aim is to keep people out so payments and penalties are far lower than (say) civil parking enforcement where there is an endless queue of drivers willing to park where they shouldn't.

If we have reached the point where each urban area has a scheme, the owners of non-compliant vehicles will have scrapped them already. So the scheme income will be negligible.

A far more likely scenario would be a national scheme to ban the most polluting vehicles, probably by first increasing VED levels to levels where owners decide scrapping makes sense.

The only issue then is how the Government(s) would handle 'classic' vehicles, or those with historical significance. Possibly by allowing the owners to pay a daily VED charge on the days they want to use them (rather than an annual charge) with enforcement done the same way DVLA currently do.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
The only issue then is how the Government(s) would handle 'classic' vehicles, or those with historical significance. Possibly by allowing the owners to pay a daily VED charge on the days they want to use them (rather than an annual charge) with enforcement done the same way DVLA currently do.

My second car is a 'high emission' one with VED to match. I pay a lower insurance premium in exchange for limiting the mileage I do in it and would welcome a lower VED on the same basis. This could be implemented more easily than a daily charge as mileage is recorded at each MOT.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
This will never happen.

To start with, the existence of the LEZ and ULEZ is not something that was planned, it has happened as a result of circumstance and opportunity. The original LEZ was a bit of a vanity project. The Mayor wanted to be seen to be doing something, but didn't want to upset too many people. So the result was a scheme that covered as much of London as feasibly possible, but with such a low level of restriction that it didn't really impact that much on individuals (unless they owned a large van). The enforcement regime was minimal.

The ULEZ is more worthwhile in terms of the restrictions it applies, but happened due to opportunity - people are very concerned about pollution in Central London and the existing Congestion Charge infrastructure allowed a quick and cheap 'win'. In essence the ULEZ is a Congestion Charge surcharge by another name.

Now, to implement a cordon charge like the LEZ it is a legal necessity to place signs on every entry point into the zone. If each of your urban areas wants to implement one zone then they need to pay for signs at every entry point. To have both a LEZ and ULEZ they would need two lots of signage. Moreover, the zone boundary has to be designed so drivers have the opportunity to turn back and avoid entering the zone. This means exempting some routes, with additional signs required on those routes and any diversions.

Not to mention the need for enforcement. Either by fixed camera (but not just any old cameras, they have to be certified) or mobile patrols. (or both).

It becomes a very expensive business, not least because the aim is to keep people out so payments and penalties are far lower than (say) civil parking enforcement where there is an endless queue of drivers willing to park where they shouldn't.

If we have reached the point where each urban area has a scheme, the owners of non-compliant vehicles will have scrapped them already. So the scheme income will be negligible.

A far more likely scenario would be a national scheme to ban the most polluting vehicles, probably by first increasing VED levels to levels where owners decide scrapping makes sense.

The only issue then is how the Government(s) would handle 'classic' vehicles, or those with historical significance. Possibly by allowing the owners to pay a daily VED charge on the days they want to use them (rather than an annual charge) with enforcement done the same way DVLA currently do.

Let's take the example of CPZ's, they started in major cities, but now most places of a reasonable size have them.

Given that there's signs for them you could fairly easily have a combined sign covering both parking and access for the ULEZ.

Most towns have name signs on the way into them, these could also double up as the LEZ limits.

These are signs which they would already need to pay for and maintain, the small increase in cost to add a plate to then in the short term or to replace them altogether is fairly insignificant.

Enforcement could be done by camera, however the more there are the cheaper that they become. It's likely that such cameras start becoming much more normal (what with bus lane enforcement, using cameras to enforce turning bands and parking restrictions), as such as long as major junctions within the zone are covered you needn't cover every little road into the zone.

Also from what you said that you think that this would happen all at once, it's much more likely that it would come in over a decade or maybe even two. It is also likely to be run at a County Council level, so once there's a scheme for a major city or town the cost to expand it to more places gets cheaper.

For local residents you could even have a prepay system or a direct debit system where they pay upfront and use up the credit and top up as needed (reducing the admin costs of lots of small charges).

That's assuming that is how that it's enforced, there could be other ways of doing so.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Maybe rather than constructing ever more expensive and sophisticated restriction systems, we should just make public transport fast, ubiqitous and cheap so that people chose to use it?

Going from Grantham to Nottingham via train, for example, is a pain because despite having two trains per hour they are 45 minutes apart so the effective service is 1.33tph.
They are very expensive and drop you at the bottom of a hill outside the city centre, oh and they are somehow slower than they were at the introduction of Sprinters in the 80s.

And people wonder why cars are attractive.
 

Tom B

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2005
Messages
4,602
The arguments vary considerably depending on the area and flow of traffic.

In London, especially inner London, use of a car for many day-to-day activities is limited - most will get the train or bus. Primarily they will be used a couple of times per week to go to the supermarket, or go outside town, or perhaps by shift workers. (I live in north London and probably 75% of the time I take the car out, it'll be to go outside the M25). I'd suggest that congestion/traffic and parking are the reasons for this, rather than cost.

I've used car clubs before and they are good for those who need a car only occasionally, and they are good - and probably cheaper overall for many. That said, many people seem to view a car as a necessity and thus the 'fixed' costs of it they consider as a given, and they think only of petrol/parking as the cost - despite the fact that when you add an MoT, insurance, VED, oil/filters etc you could reach £500/year easily, before any other parts/repairs. I think this is a cultural thing which does vary between cities and towns/villages - in the latter, it's much more important to people to have a car, and this reflects in their attitude (some of the parking I see in quiet towns would never happen in London!).

You can't even be guaranteed the general size. We took the train down to the South coast and we ordered an estate car for 4 adults and 4 full sized suitcases (as per the hire firms' website showing pictures of people and luggage) to drive around whilst we were there (hopping from place to place so several different overnight stays). When we arrived to pick up the car, they were all enthusiastic about giving us a free upgrade to some kind of Merc. When we saw it, it was tiny - we could barely get 2 suitcases in let alone 4. So went back to the desk and they were still going on about the free upgrade to a "quality" car, completely ignoring us re it's size. Then it turned out they had no estates nor any larger vehicles, so basically they said "take it or leave it". Not good when there were no other hire car firms close by. Even worse, they wouldn't give us an immediate refund and said we'd have to contact their customer services dept. This wasn't some hick firm either, it was one of the big international firms. We've not taken the risk since and drive our own car now.

A few years ago I hired a swb Transit from a firm, and on arrival they told me that all their swb Transits were actually out, and would I be ok with a lwb one. Fine, no problem, I said. They then tried to bill me the higher price for a lwb!
The large firms I have found to be quite disreputable - they buy brand new vehicles, don't look after them, bill customers inflated prices for repairs, and punt them on after 2 years or so. I've had a couple of vans on hire from such firms which have had badly slipping clutches, knackered gearboxes etc. Conversely, the local firm I now use will buy vehicles and hold onto them for a number of years, looking after them and giving them proper maintenance.

As an aside, the motor trade really is (in my experience) one where being 'known' and 'regular' and finding the right firm to deal with is of much more importance than others I've come across.
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
In London, especially inner London, use of a car for many day-to-day activities is limited - most will get the train or bus.

Which is because London has a very good train/bus system. If it didn't, people WOULD use cars more - they'd have no choice. Most people outside London don't enjoy the same kind of public transport system and so car travel is more necessary and widespread.
 

TrafficEng

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
419
Location
North of London
Which is because London has a very good train/bus system. If it didn't, people WOULD use cars more - they'd have no choice. Most people outside London don't enjoy the same kind of public transport system and so car travel is more necessary and widespread.

Even within London the bit in bold isn't really the case.

The centre of London has a very good public transport system, and London as a whole has a good rail system for moving people in and out of the centre.

But until London Overground was developed London (especially North London) had terrible bus/train services for people making orbital journeys and realistically making the journey by car was the only sensible option (hence the North Circular and M25 being very busy).

Beyond the zone of influence of the North London Line orbital public transport in London remains poor - which is why people still use their cars and why policies like congestion charging in these areas would be deeply unpopular.

I'm not disagreeing with what either of you have said - my point is that even London (outside the core) doesn't yet have public transport provision that enables people to go car free, unless they are willing to live with restricted travel opportunities.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Even within London the bit in bold isn't really the case.

The centre of London has a very good public transport system, and London as a whole has a good rail system for moving people in and out of the centre.

But until London Overground was developed London (especially North London) had terrible bus/train services for people making orbital journeys and realistically making the journey by car was the only sensible option (hence the North Circular and M25 being very busy).

Beyond the zone of influence of the North London Line orbital public transport in London remains poor - which is why people still use their cars and why policies like congestion charging in these areas would be deeply unpopular.

I'm not disagreeing with what either of you have said - my point is that even London (outside the core) doesn't yet have public transport provision that enables people to go car free, unless they are willing to live with restricted travel opportunities.

I'd agree with that to some extent. If I recall correctly, the statistic I saw is that, in outer London, 2/3 of journeys are still made by car. However, I do think that there is an additional problem that too many people selfishly choose to drive even for journeys that could easily be made by public transport. You can see this clearly in central London. Places like Trafalgar Square, Covent Garden, or in the vicinity of Oxford Street and Regent Street are invariably totally clogged up with - from the look of it, mainly taxis and private hire vehicles. And this is an area where almost no-one should need to drive unless they have huge amounts of luggage or are very seriously mobility-impaired, and yet cars are still clogging up the roads, basically ruining journeys for everyone else.

In outer London I think the problem is a bit more nuanced: You're correct that trains are only really good in most places if you are going to central London, and are generally very poor for orbital journeys. But for short orbital journeys, there is a pretty good bus network - the problem again is that most of these buses are too slow because of the congestion caused by too many cars. There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation where if only you could get half the cars off the road, the buses in many places would suddenly become excellent for short orbital journeys (still need better rail links for long orbital journeys though). There's also a problem that the flat Oyster bus fare of £1.50 is pretty off-putting if you're only going a mile or so.

To me all this speaks of the need for imiproved public transport and much stronger discouragement of driving (eg. through a much more extensive and higher congestion charge, and making more roads bus/cycle only and removing or charging heavily for most parking in city centres and retail parks). You'll never get a decent sustainable transport system with most people using it by only doing one or the other - it has to be both.
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
However, I do think that there is an additional problem that too many people selfishly choose to drive even for journeys that could easily be made by public transport. You can see this clearly in central London. Places like Trafalgar Square, Covent Garden, or in the vicinity of Oxford Street and Regent Street are invariably totally clogged up with - from the look of it, mainly taxis and private hire vehicles. And this is an area where almost no-one should need to drive unless they have huge amounts of luggage or are very seriously mobility-impaired, and yet cars are still clogging up the roads, basically ruining journeys for everyone else.

Ironically, people seem to regard taxis as public transport, hence why they're allowed to use bus lanes, access only roads, etc., which is a view I've never been able to understand.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Ironically, people seem to regard taxis as public transport, hence why they're allowed to use bus lanes, access only roads, etc., which is a view I've never been able to understand.

Likewise. The amount of congestion and pollution in London caused by taxis and the like must be astronomical. Unfortunately the taxi trade has a very strong voice.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Ironically, people seem to regard taxis as public transport, hence why they're allowed to use bus lanes, access only roads, etc., which is a view I've never been able to understand.

They sort of ease public transport use, but as they are private transport I would not allow them in bus lanes, for instance, not even for dropping off. They cause no end of delays to London buses by stopping in front of them. Other than buses at stops, all bus lanes should be red routes (no stopping or loading) throughout their period of operation, whatever the vehicle.

There is really no need to use them in London; they are slower than the Tube and costlier too.
 

TrafficEng

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
419
Location
North of London
...I do think that there is an additional problem that too many people selfishly choose to drive even for journeys that could easily be made by public transport. You can see this clearly in central London. Places like Trafalgar Square, Covent Garden, or in the vicinity of Oxford Street and Regent Street are invariably totally clogged up with - from the look of it, mainly taxis and private hire vehicles...
Taxis and PHVs have an important role to play in an integrated transport system.

In the years before Congestion Charging was introduced I regularly walked along the streets you mention, as well as those in the City and further West. My conclusion when people said Congestion Charging would make a big difference was that it wouldn't, because a high proportion of traffic in the zone was buses, taxis, PHVs and white vans. All of which have exemptions or are being used because there is no practical alternative. Private car use in central London was already quite low, and a significant percentage of those there were would be exempt or discounted (Residents, Blue Badge holders, Low-emissions) and others were being driven/used by people whose wealth means only an outright ban would have any significant impact on them.

One of the reasons there are a lot of taxis and PHVs in central London is they are popular with tourists. Residents and commuters get used to public transport systems and like them. Visitors and tourists often don't understand how they work and see taxis and PHVs as an easier option, especially with luggage or children.

Another factor is that when bus congestion reaches the level it has on some central London roads (it really is quicker to get off and walk) then taxis and PHVs are attractive because they aren't fixed on a particular route and can dive off into the back streets to get to the destination quicker.

London's black cab industry has a powerful voice, but it (along with the PHV one) is backed up with strong support from the public and business. Eliminating black cabs in London would have a damaging impact on the tourist industry (and the City).

...But for short orbital journeys, there is a pretty good bus network -

In relative terms (compared to most of the UK) it is fairly good, but it all depends where you want to travel to/from and the proximity of those places to rail stations. It doesn't take much before a journey into the centre on one rail/tube line and back out on another is faster than taking an orbital bus.

...the problem again is that most of these buses are too slow because of the congestion caused by too many cars.

I disagree. The buses tend to be slow because the routes are designed to meet many competing demands, they have to stop to allow people to get on and off, and London has a great many junctions and pedestrian crossings.

If we take an example of a North London orbital bus route - the 251 - there are few places along that route you are likely to encounter significant traffic congestion and there ought to be bus priority measures in place at all of them. The worst part is probably going to be Burnt Oak to Edgware along the A5.

If we take a shorter section of the route - say Arnos Grove to Mill Hill Broadway - TfL give an off-peak journey time of about 40 mins. It would be about half that by car, 39 mins by cycle, and 49 mins via King's Cross (including a generous 12min walk from tube to TL). With a daytime 251 bus frequency of 9 to 12mins it doesn't make the bus the most obvious choice.

There's also a problem that the flat Oyster bus fare of £1.50 is pretty off-putting if you're only going a mile or so.

It is a lot better now it is for a 1 hour journey than it was per boarding. If you needed to do a short journey with a route change part way it was a massive disincentive. But in real terms I don't think a £1.50 bus fare is extortionate in comparison to the cost of providing the service. That is a hard issue to solve and only gets harder the more extensive you make the bus service.

To me all this speaks of the need for imiproved public transport and much stronger discouragement of driving (eg. through a much more extensive and higher congestion charge, and making more roads bus/cycle only and removing or charging heavily for most parking in city centres and retail parks). You'll never get a decent sustainable transport system with most people using it by only doing one or the other - it has to be both.

Although this makes sense in theory, in practice it isn't going to happen.

It hinges on what you define as a "sustainable transport system". If the requirement is to provide a bus/rail system which comes close to the convenience and flexibility of the private car then the system will have unsustainable costs and environmental impact. Otherwise people are going to have to accept a step-change reduction in their expectations when it comes to mobility and their choices about where they live, work, study and how they spend their leisure time.

The real answer lies in a blended/integrated transport system where people are incentivised to use the most appropriate mode of travel for their journey. That won't come about through the demonisation of cars.
 

TrafficEng

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
419
Location
North of London
...I would not allow them in bus lanes, for instance, not even for dropping off...

Good luck placating a not insignificant number of disabled/limited mobility people who will no longer be able to be dropped off as close to their destination as possible.

There is really no need to use them in London; they are slower than the Tube and costlier too.

I guess you've not experienced the fun of using the tube in a wheelchair?
 

Tom B

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2005
Messages
4,602
Don't forget that, though the £1.50 bus fare in London may be more expensive for short trips than a car (presupposing that parking is free and we have already paid the fixed costs of ownership), it's still significantly cheaper than outwith London.

There are a number of ways in which the numbers of PHVs and delivery vehicles could be managed - I haven't heard much on this from TfL. Many PHVs (which, remember, should be pre booked) circulate or unofficially rank awaiting their next job. The numbers of PHVs have increased, in part due to the price reductions which firms such as uber have introduced.

Delivery firms, I feel need some radical re thought in London and other cities. I used to work in a large building in central London. We had a goods entrance which would receive, on average, 2 or 3 large vans worth of deliveries per day. These were delivered, in actual fact, by at least a dozen vehicles, each from different firms, coming to drop off one or two packages. This can't be the most efficient use of resources. Why not divvy up the areas and give the parcel firms contracts to deliver to a particular area each, thus allowing the vehicles to be used more efficiently and, thus, reduce the number of movements?

As an aside, later today (8pm) I'm heading out to one part of north London to pick up some heavy electrical equipment, then going to a large hypermarket for shopping, dropping some of it off at a friend's house, then coming home. It'd take far, far longer to do this by bus, and I'd have to return home a couple of times as I'd not be able to carry everything. I purposefully choose the quiet times to avoid traffic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top