Decarbonisation of the country by using rail

[The Ham]

Given we are looking to be carbon neutral by 2050 which railway schemes would significantly help work towards this, this can be:

- new electrification (a good example is likely to be the MML), but remember that some small projects could remove a lot of under wire running and we are also likely to need to look at easy wins for local services as well

- new big projects (a good example could be Crossrail 2) especially those which release capacity for other lines (with Crossrail 2 this would give you 8tph or of Waterloo for the longer distance services)

- new technology (a good example could be hydrogen trains)

- crossover between trains and creating power for others (this could something like the use of air source heat pumps to cool tunnels whilst creating heating for nearby properties) or for the rail industry (solar panels on roofs or wind turbines within depots).

- anything else not covered above which is related

 

[PartyOperator]

The biggest thing would be to expand urban and suburban rail, especially outside of London. Currently about 70% of people commute by car in Greater Manchester, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire built-up areas, while it's about half that in Greater London. In England, I'd focus on significant improvements to (and new construction of) commuter rail systems (including trams and underground metros) in Manchester, the West Midlands, Leeds/Bradford and Liverpool. In addition, link these areas with each other and London using HS2 and some variant of Northern Powerhouse Rail connecting Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds. These are all big projects and need to be started soon.

London will remain the biggest single source of transport-related emissions despite its excellent public transport system, and the continued growth of London will be a good thing for emissions overall. Crossrail 2 should definitely happen.

Finally, a rolling program of electrification should work continuously. It shouldn't be split into individual projects that have to start from scratch, there should just be a priority list, a fairly stable budget/amount of work done per year and the assumption that completely electrifying the railways that link major cities is worth doing. Many rural branch lines may never be electrified but the vast majority of train journeys should be on electrified railways.

After private cars, the biggest source of transport-related CO2 emissions in the UK is international aviation. Rail can't solve this on its own, but assuming people can be convinced to fly a lot less this is likely to mean a large increase in tourist trips within the UK and to the UK's closest neighbours on the Continent so that's worth thinking about too.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Definitely Chiltern lines out of Marylebone to be sparked up

 

[Ken H]

Modal shift from cars is the big one for this
even electric cars use more power than a reasonably full train.
I actually done think it matters if the train is electric or diesel. The benefit would be large.
but we need good quality rail services into our cities to achieve this. A small modal shift of city centre commuting would be good.

But the big problem is the huge numbers of people who dont work in city centres, but work in the industrial estates on the outskirts of towns poorly served by public transport

My office (don't go often cos i work at home) is like that - is situated by a trunk road because there is a warehouse on the same site.
35 minutes from the city from a bus stn the opposite side of the city centre to the bus station. But many people come from other parts of the city and whizz round the ring road. Others come from nearby towns. all come by car except 1 bloke.
people will use their cars often because they need to get home quick because of child care issues. Adding an hour to their work day to use public transport isnt an option. And rail isnt an option for 'ring road' type journeys.
And a lot of these industrial estates dont generate the number of passengers to make a bus service viable.

Difficult one.

 

[Sweetjesus]

Modal shift from cars is the big one for this
even electric cars use more power than a reasonably full train.
I actually done think it matters if the train is electric or diesel. The benefit would be large.
but we need good quality rail services into our cities to achieve this. A small modal shift of city centre commuting would be good.

But the big problem is the huge numbers of people who dont work in city centres, but work in the industrial estates on the outskirts of towns poorly served by public transport

My office (don't go often cos i work at home) is like that - is situated by a trunk road because there is a warehouse on the same site.
35 minutes from the city from a bus stn the opposite side of the city centre to the bus station. But many people come from other parts of the city and whizz round the ring road. Others come from nearby towns. all come by car except 1 bloke.
people will use their cars often because they need to get home quick because of child care issues. Adding an hour to their work day to use public transport isnt an option. And rail isnt an option for 'ring road' type journeys.
And a lot of these industrial estates dont generate the number of passengers to make a bus service viable.

Difficult one.

To start the shift of car drivers to using public transport an incentive/disincentive is needed.

Perhaps salary sacrifice scheme for public transport tickets? Provide even more discount for those who travel outside peak periods? My job offers flexitime and it is a godsend for many of employees there. I travel outside peak times and I'm very surprised how few commuters I see on my commutes, clearly not enough companies take advantage of this.

 

[The Ham]

To start car drivers using public transport an incentive/disincentive is needed.

Perhaps salary sacrifice scheme for public transport tickets? Provide even more discount for those who travel outside peak periods? My job offers flexitime and it is a godsend for many of employees there. I travel outside peak times and I'm very surprised how few commuters I see on my commutes, clearly not enough companies take advantage of this.

Flexi time would be very useful for those who use public transport, often I would aim to get to work early so as to ensure that I was on time. However with Flexi time would have meant that I could have banked those hours for other times (like when trains were late) or just leave home a bit later and make up any lost hours due to late trains at another time.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm afraid the cheapest way to get rid of under wires running is no longer infill electrification.
It's just bi-modes at this point.

Freight operators should be compelled to buy bi-mode or electric locomotives exclusively in future, and all existing diesel locomotives should have mileage restrictions placed upon them based on their emissions and air pollution profiles.

 

[ac6000cw]

According to the latest UK annual transport statistics summary ( https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/787488/tsgb-2018-report-summaries.pdf ), the modal split of passenger journeys in 2017 was:

by trips:

62% by car/taxi/van
26% on foot
6% by bus
3% by train
2% by cycling

by distance:

78% by car/taxi/van
3% on foot
5% by bus
11% by train
1% by cycling

...so if you want to de-carbonise passenger transport it's road transport you really need to tackle. Modal shift to rail will help, but since many of those road journeys are short distance and/or have no sensible rail alternative that won't make a big difference compared to converting road vehicles to use carbon-free energy sources.

For UK freight transport in 2017 (based on tonne kilometres):

78% by road
9% by rail
13% by water

...again, many of the those journeys are quite local, even for HGV's - average haul distance for HGVs was only 105 km, and 43% of HGV journeys were with an area of roughly three local authority areas joined together. These short distances (plus myriad origin and destination points) mean even totally carbon-free rail freight isn't going to have a big impact on de-carbonising freight transport. A big push towards carbon-free trucking is far more important.

So given the above, if you were in government, where would you invest political and monetary capital to have the biggest impact on de-carbonising transport?

 

[Ken H]

According to the latest UK annual transport statistics summary ( https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/787488/tsgb-2018-report-summaries.pdf ), the modal split of passenger journeys in 2017 was:

by trips:

62% by car/taxi/van
26% on foot
6% by bus
3% by train
2% by cycling

by distance:

78% by car/taxi/van
3% on foot
5% by bus
11% by train
1% by cycling

...so if you want to de-carbonise passenger transport it's road transport you really need to tackle. Modal shift to rail will help, but since many of those road journeys are short distance and/or have no sensible rail alternative that won't make a big difference compared to converting road vehicles to use carbon-free energy sources.

For UK freight transport in 2017 (based on tonne kilometres):

78% by road
9% by rail
13% by water

...again, many of the those journeys are quite local, even for HGV's - average haul distance for HGVs was only 105 km, and 43% of HGV journeys were with an area of roughly three local authority areas joined together. These short distances (plus myriad origin and destination points) mean even totally carbon-free rail freight isn't going to have a big impact on de-carbonising freight transport. A big push towards carbon-free trucking is far more important.

So given the above, if you were in government, where would you invest political and monetary capital to have the biggest impact on de-carbonising transport?

commuting into cities. and stopping rail freight companies running diesels under the wires for long distances
car use in cities is most damaging. nothing to do with carbon, more to do with air quality. Particulates and tyre and brake dust.

 

[PartyOperator]

According to the latest UK annual transport statistics summary ( https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/787488/tsgb-2018-report-summaries.pdf ), the modal split of passenger journeys in 2017 was:

by trips:

62% by car/taxi/van
26% on foot
6% by bus
3% by train
2% by cycling

by distance:

78% by car/taxi/van
3% on foot
5% by bus
11% by train
1% by cycling

...so if you want to de-carbonise passenger transport it's road transport you really need to tackle. Modal shift to rail will help, but since many of those road journeys are short distance and/or have no sensible rail alternative that won't make a big difference compared to converting road vehicles to use carbon-free energy sources.

For UK freight transport in 2017 (based on tonne kilometres):

78% by road
9% by rail
13% by water

...again, many of the those journeys are quite local, even for HGV's - average haul distance for HGVs was only 105 km, and 43% of HGV journeys were with an area of roughly three local authority areas joined together. These short distances (plus myriad origin and destination points) mean even totally carbon-free rail freight isn't going to have a big impact on de-carbonising freight transport. A big push towards carbon-free trucking is far more important.

So given the above, if you were in government, where would you invest political and monetary capital to have the biggest impact on de-carbonising transport?

Ideally, introduce a land value tax and a carbon tax, implement sustainable planning standards to prevent car-dependent development, and invest heavily in cycling and rail infrastructure.

If that isn't possible, one could implement the following through a combination of expert trade policy and prioritisation of government spending:
- End domestic car manufacturing and make importing foreign-made cars more expensive
- Increase the price of all kinds of fuel
- Make international travel more expensive and more complex to discourage air travel
- Stop international hauliers from using the UK as a land bridge, reducing HGV traffic
- Support the development of large urban areas, particularly London, while neglecting small towns and less well connected areas
- Support low carbon service industries that are concentrated in these big cities (finance, law, professional services, IT)
- Crack down on high-carbon, transport-intensive industries, particularly farming and manufacturing
- In the long term, try to reduce population growth and GDP growth.

Maybe dress it up as some kind of rightwing populist thing to keep the masses on side.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Definitely Chiltern lines out of Marylebone to be sparked up

With Snow Hill lines/Leamington to Stratford/Banbury & Bicester to Oxford being part of that project

 

[GRALISTAIR]

With Snow Hill lines/Leamington to Stratford/Banbury & Bicester to Oxford being part of that project

Yes and being cynical because it is London and the only station not electrified (properly) it should get done. Some care will be needed with masts etc as Chilterns is an AONB

 

[The Ham]

According to the latest UK annual transport statistics summary ( https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/787488/tsgb-2018-report-summaries.pdf ), the modal split of passenger journeys in 2017 was:

by trips:

62% by car/taxi/van
26% on foot
6% by bus
3% by train
2% by cycling

by distance:

78% by car/taxi/van
3% on foot
5% by bus
11% by train
1% by cycling

...so if you want to de-carbonise passenger transport it's road transport you really need to tackle. Modal shift to rail will help, but since many of those road journeys are short distance and/or have no sensible rail alternative that won't make a big difference compared to converting road vehicles to use carbon-free energy sources.

For UK freight transport in 2017 (based on tonne kilometres):

78% by road
9% by rail
13% by water

...again, many of the those journeys are quite local, even for HGV's - average haul distance for HGVs was only 105 km, and 43% of HGV journeys were with an area of roughly three local authority areas joined together. These short distances (plus myriad origin and destination points) mean even totally carbon-free rail freight isn't going to have a big impact on de-carbonising freight transport. A big push towards carbon-free trucking is far more important.

So given the above, if you were in government, where would you invest political and monetary capital to have the biggest impact on de-carbonising transport?

A doubling of rail, cycling and bus would be a 17% reduction in car use.

Whilst rail is only a small amount of people's travel use it is still an important one.

For instance, to get people to give up their second cars then there's going to be several trips a year which would be reliant on using rail which otherwise would still be undertaken by car.

The lack of rail for some journeys could be addressed (although clearly not all) by extra rail provision. For instance, currently Mrs Ham can't get to work by public transport as it is a North/South trip when the train lines heading towards London are East/West. As such looking at pricing lines which are orbital to London would help with such travel.

Therefore schemes like:
- East West Rail
- Southern Approach to Heathrow
- improvements to those lines which already exist, such as Reading Gatwick services, & connectivity between it and the mainlines towards London
- looking at provision of junctions between existing lines to improve cross connectivity*

* As an example a new grade separated junction just east of Farnborough Main to allow a new Basingstoke/Ascot service. This could then also facilitate the provision of more stations in the main line (e.g. a second station at Farnborough and Fleet asking with a station at Old Basing) to create more opportunities for local rail travel.

However the big advantage would be the ability to get between places like Basingstoke, Fleet, Farnborough or Woking with Frimley, Camberley, Bagehot or Ascot which currently is not very easy. It would also create a different route, and one which is likely to be a little faster, between Camberley/Frimley and London.

If there was also a new station built on the junction then it would provide a fairly short (less than half a mile) walking interchange between there and the station at Farnborough North. This would further improve journey options (say Fleet to Wokingham).

In sure that others would be able to give other examples where there's significant population (Fleet, Farnborough and Basingstoke total about 200,000, and significantly improves connectivity between the whole Aldershot Urban Area which has a population of, excluding Farnborough, of about the same again) where such links could be very useful.

 

[ac6000cw]

- Crack down on high-carbon, transport-intensive industries, particularly farming and manufacturing

So you want to just encourage exporting more of the CO2 production problem - than we already have - to other countries? (like China, which mines - and presumably burns - roughly half of the coal production in the world?)

- In the long term, try to reduce population growth and GDP growth.

That's the really big issue, but it seems to be in the 'not to be discussed' category politically...

A doubling of rail, cycling and bus would be a 17% reduction in car use.

Yes, but could the UK rail network cope with a doubling of traffic without huge expenditure of public money, and would that money be better spent (in terms of getting the largest & quickest reduction in CO2 production, which is surely what we need to do) on serious incentives to convert road transport to zero-carbon fuels?

Note: as this thread is specifically about 'decarbonisation', I'm deliberately ignoring the other benefits of reducing car traffic in urban areas.

 

[Ken H]

A doubling of rail, cycling and bus would be a 17% reduction in car use.

Whilst rail is only a small amount of people's travel use it is still an important one.

For instance, to get people to give up their second cars then there's going to be several trips a year which would be reliant on using rail which otherwise would still be undertaken by car.

The lack of rail for some journeys could be addressed (although clearly not all) by extra rail provision. For instance, currently Mrs Ham can't get to work by public transport as it is a North/South trip when the train lines heading towards London are East/West. As such looking at pricing lines which are orbital to London would help with such travel.

Therefore schemes like:
- East West Rail
- Southern Approach to Heathrow
- improvements to those lines which already exist, such as Reading Gatwick services, & connectivity between it and the mainlines towards London
- looking at provision of junctions between existing lines to improve cross connectivity*

* As an example a new grade separated junction just east of Farnborough Main to allow a new Basingstoke/Ascot service. This could then also facilitate the provision of more stations in the main line (e.g. a second station at Farnborough and Fleet asking with a station at Old Basing) to create more opportunities for local rail travel.

However the big advantage would be the ability to get between places like Basingstoke, Fleet, Farnborough or Woking with Frimley, Camberley, Bagehot or Ascot which currently is not very easy. It would also create a different route, and one which is likely to be a little faster, between Camberley/Frimley and London.

If there was also a new station built on the junction then it would provide a fairly short (less than half a mile) walking interchange between there and the station at Farnborough North. This would further improve journey options (say Fleet to Wokingham).

In sure that others would be able to give other examples where there's significant population (Fleet, Farnborough and Basingstoke total about 200,000, and significantly improves connectivity between the whole Aldershot Urban Area which has a population of, excluding Farnborough, of about the same again) where such links could be very useful.

Try routes like Bolton-Bury-Rochdale. Its a no brainer at the minute, just use the M62.

 

[Kingspanner]

I'm afraid the cheapest way to get rid of under wires running is no longer infill electrification.
It's just bi-modes at this point.

Freight operators should be compelled to buy bi-mode or electric locomotives exclusively in future, and all existing diesel locomotives should have mileage restrictions placed upon them based on their emissions and air pollution profiles.

Not a mileage restriction but a fuel restriction, since carbon is carbon whether you run at full power or sit idling in a yard.
Anyway, for cars which are a much more serious problem, scrap Vehicle Excise Duty (which is a tax on ownership) and raise the tax on fuel (which is in effect a tax on emissions). Don't forget to protect certain special interest groups (folk in rural areas etc).

 

[Ken H]

Not a mileage restriction but a fuel restriction, since carbon is carbon whether you run at full power or sit idling in a yard.
Anyway, for cars which are a much more serious problem, scrap Vehicle Excise Duty (which is a tax on ownership) and raise the tax on fuel (which is in effect a tax on emissions). Don't forget to protect certain special interest groups (folk in rural areas etc).

Rural people already pay a lot for fuel. Often 5-6p/ltr over what is charged in large towns and cities. But there is no competition

So in Craven, 2 petrol stations in Skipton, one in Settle (Currently closed for redevelopment), one in Ingleton. One in Threshfield, near Skipton. One in crosshills.No competition. So they charge silly money.

So rural people pay more VAT too.

 

[PartyOperator]

So you want to just encourage exporting more of the CO2 production problem - than we already have - to other countries? (like China, which mines - and presumably burns - roughly half of the coal production in the world?)



That's the really big issue, but it seems to be in the 'not to be discussed' category politically...



Yes, but could the UK rail network cope with a doubling of traffic without huge expenditure of public money, and would that money be better spent (in terms of getting the largest & quickest reduction in CO2 production, which is surely what we need to do) on serious incentives to convert road transport to zero-carbon fuels?

Note: as this thread is specifically about 'decarbonisation', I'm deliberately ignoring the other benefits of reducing car traffic in urban areas.

I’d rather see the UK lead the way in sustainable industry, including the transport that supports this, but on recent form it seems more likely that UK decarbonisation will be achieved through deindustrialisation and offshoring. China seems more capable of pushing through big investments in things like high-speed rail, nuclear power and new housing so maybe it’s not the worst approach. Even though their emissions are terrible, they're improving faster than most in terms of CO2 per GDP.

Falling population growth seems to be a natural result of economic development - most of Western Europe, Japan, South Korea etc. are all seeing flat or falling populations so this will happen anyway. Policies that encourage people to go to university and get jobs in big cities will probably help more than any unwelcome authoritarian measures.

Much of the rail network outside the South East could double (or even quadruple) passenger capacity simply by getting longer trains. Even Birmingham to Manchester is mostly 4-5 car (diesel!) trains.

 

[The Ham]

Rural people already pay a lot for fuel. Often 5-6p/ltr over what is charged in large towns and cities. But there is no competition

So in Craven, 2 petrol stations in Skipton, one in Settle (Currently closed for redevelopment), one in Ingleton. One in Threshfield, near Skipton. One in crosshills.No competition. So they charge silly money.

So rural people pay more VAT too.

A potentially simple way to fix this would be to bring in rules starting that any company/brand had to have country wide fuel prices. However the bug problem with that is that most garages are not owned by the brand which they are shown as.

An alternative option would be to create a local tax for fuel stations, which adds an extra tax based on the level of public transport in the area near it, so that fuel in a town with public transport has higher taxes than in a village without any.

 

[Ken H]

A potentially simple way to fix this would be to bring in rules starting that any company/brand had to have country wide fuel prices. However the bug problem with that is that most garages are not owned by the brand which they are shown as.

An alternative option would be to create a local tax for fuel stations, which adds an extra tax based on the level of public transport in the area near it, so that fuel in a town with public transport has higher taxes than in a village without any.

If I go to leeds & often fill up there where its cheap. why should i pay a transport tax when there is none for me to use near home.

All these ideas are too parochial. people travel long distances these days. a county based solution is no use.

Anyway, people like their cars. any party looking to restrict its use, or increase its costs will struggle to win an election.
Think of the mum who works. She has her day planned. get up at 7. get kids fed and washed and dressed, and get herself ready to be out by 08:30. Dump kids at school, and then drive to work. At end of day, drive to childminders, pick up kids, feed and wash, put to bed. Remember, an hour travelling by public transport rather than 15 minutes in the car costs dearly in childminder charges. And eats into her evening.
You tell her she cant use her car.

 

[The Ham]

If I go to leeds & often fill up there where its cheap. why should i pay a transport tax when there is none for me to use near home.

All these ideas are too parochial. people travel long distances these days. a county based solution is no use.

Anyway, people like their cars. any party looking to restrict its use, or increase its costs will struggle to win an election.
Think of the mum who works. She has her day planned. get up at 7. get kids fed and washed and dressed, and get herself ready to be out by 08:30. Dump kids at school, and then drive to work. At end of day, drive to childminders, pick up kids, feed and wash, put to bed. Remember, an hour travelling by public transport rather than 15 minutes in the car costs dearly in childminder charges. And eats into her evening.
You tell her she cant use her car.

Why does it have to be a mother doing child pickup?

Having been in that situation myself (and using public transport to get back to home location to pick up children from childcare) it comes into the equation, it's not impossible and can be done and depending on public transport costs can still be cheaper to have them in childcare for longer than the costs of car ownership.

Anyway, it depends on why both parents are working a long distance from home, clearly if we are going to decarbonise the country we'll need more people living closer to where they work. Where such problems decrease.

 

[Ken H]

Why does it have to be a mother doing child pickup?

Having been in that situation myself (and using public transport to get back to home location to pick up children from childcare) it comes into the equation, it's not impossible and can be done and depending on public transport costs can still be cheaper to have them in childcare for longer than the costs of car ownership.

Anyway, it depends on why both parents are working a long distance from home, clearly if we are going to decarbonise the country we'll need more people living closer to where they work. Where such problems decrease.

So what about people with rare skills. I started in my line of work in the late 1980's. I have to chase the work where it is. Its a niche market that gets me a good income. But it means travelling. many people have a rare skills that mean travelling.

and to stop long distance commuting, you will first have to sort out the high house prices in Central London. And thats a whole new subject.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Given we are looking to be carbon neutral by 2050 which railway schemes would significantly help work towards this, this can be new big projects (a good example could be Crossrail 2) especially those which release capacity for other lines (with Crossrail 2 this would give you 8tph or of Waterloo for the longer distance services)

So, no HS2 but Crossrail 2 to continue, as it is south of the Watford Gap?

In 2050, I will have reached the ripe old age of 105 years old, so I may not be all that worried about carbon neutral technology, should I eventually be cremated.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Modal shift from cars is the big one for this, even electric cars use more power than a reasonably full train. I actually done think it matters if the train is electric or diesel. The benefit would be large.but we need good quality rail services into our cities to achieve this. A small modal shift of city centre commuting would be good.

But the big problem is the huge numbers of people who don't work in city centres, but work in the industrial estates on the outskirts of towns poorly served by public transport

I am sure that the RMT are in favour of a model shift from cars, as this will ensure future strike actions by them of the type seen over that last few years will be even more disruptive to "The Collateral Damage".

 

[apk55]

I ask the question "How many car trips could be easily done by public transport?" and we should split the car sector into two groups those where public transport is a option and those where it is not.
For those where public transport is a possible option we should be looking at why they are not using it. Where I live in Gtr Manchester part of the problem is the poorly co ordinated transport system, where a journey involving two different modes such as tram and bus becomes expensive and unattractive.
For those for which public transport is not a realistic option at present we need to look at what changes are required to bring at least some into the position where public transport becomes feasible. This will mean new services, 24 hour operation and co operation between different local operators and authorities. Other changes could also include better park and ride facilities to reduce car mileage.
One thing for certain is that to reduce car usage we will need a massive increase in public transport capacity - in Manchester for example we would need to more than double capacity to make serious inroads into car use.

 

[Ken H]

I ask the question "How many car trips could be easily done by public transport?" and we should split the car sector into two groups those where public transport is a option and those where it is not.
For those where public transport is a possible option we should be looking at why they are not using it. Where I live in Gtr Manchester part of the problem is the poorly co ordinated transport system, where a journey involving two different modes such as tram and bus becomes expensive and unattractive.
For those for which public transport is not a realistic option at present we need to look at what changes are required to bring at least some into the position where public transport becomes feasible. This will mean new services, 24 hour operation and co operation between different local operators and authorities. Other changes could also include better park and ride facilities to reduce car mileage.
One thing for certain is that to reduce car usage we will need a massive increase in public transport capacity - in Manchester for example we would need to more than double capacity to make serious inroads into car use.

One wonders how much traffic new to rail has been garnered by the new electric Blackpool - Manchester services. Faster trains, all 4 car. should have had some effect.

 

[AndrewE]

So what about people with rare skills. I started in my line of work in the late 1980's. I have to chase the work where it is. Its a niche market that gets me a good income. But it means travelling. many people have a rare skills that mean travelling.

You could commute (by rail) weekly to somewhere within a bus- or bike-ride of your jobs - and insist that the work is done in 3- or 4-day chunks

and to stop long distance commuting, you will first have to sort out the high house prices in Central London. And that's a whole new subject.

It would be far better to distribute the work around the country, which hopefully a transport system that skews fares against travelling in to London will help. Stop feather-bedding London and lots of employers might discover how attractive the rest of the country is!

If I go to leeds & often fill up there where its cheap. why should i pay a transport tax when there is none for me to use near home.
All these ideas are too parochial. people travel long distances these days. a county based solution is no use.
Anyway, people like their cars. any party looking to restrict its use, or increase its costs will struggle to win an election.
Think of the mum who works. She has her day planned. get up at 7. get kids fed and washed and dressed, and get herself ready to be out by 08:30. Dump kids at school, and then drive to work. At end of day, drive to childminders, pick up kids, feed and wash, put to bed. Remember, an hour travelling by public transport rather than 15 minutes in the car costs dearly in childminder charges. And eats into her evening.
You tell her she cant use her car.

I am afraid a lot of people are going to be upset by what has got to come. We have become used to this sort of pressurised life-style in the economy we suffer today, whereas if one adult wage could keep a family (and dad worked not too far away) mum would be able to get up at 7.30, see dad off and then get the kids up at 8 ready to get to school for 9 am. (or v.v. if mum was the bread-winner.)

I think it's ironic that after the end of the phoney war in 1940 or so people had to put up with serious restrictions on personal mobility, then progressively harsh austerity that lasted right through until the 1950s - bread rationing came in at the end of the war and I believe lasted until 1956! Austerity, by today's standards, lasted well into the 1960s...

Nowadays we have just had a decade of austerity and (if we are serious about decarbonising the whole economy) we are likely to be re-entering an era when unlimited travel becomes a luxury again (unless you have a horse and enough money to stay in hotels overnight - or are prepared to bike it further than most people...) I do admit I am exaggerating a bit!

 

[HSTEd]

It would be far better to distribute the work around the country, which hopefully a transport system that skews fares against travelling in to London will help. Stop feather-bedding London and lots of employers might discover how attractive the rest of the country is!

Why would it be?
City dwellers have far lower impacts than rural dwellers per unit GDP generated.
London is not "feather bedded", indeed it pays for it's transport infrastructure and more in generated tax revenues.
What you are actually suggesting is the strangulation of London, which will make everyone poorer and likely drive transport emissions ever higher.

It would be better to grow London further, or to produce a similar London sized conurbation out of another city in the North of England or Scotland.
If the population density in the rest of the country falls the environmental impacts in those areas can be reduced, and overall carbon emissions will fall.

Attempting to force people to move to random parts of the country is not a solution to this problem.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It would be better to grow London further, or to produce a similar London sized conurbation out of another city in the North of England or Scotland.

The problems of the supply of treated water to certain areas of the country with lesser annual rainfall has been noted in recent times and water abstraction from rivers is having an effect in the environment where this occurs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be better to grow London further, or to produce a similar London sized conurbation out of another city in the North of England or Scotland.

The North West conurbation is very large and surprisingly built up - it's far less rural than the South East outside the London Zones. Just needs more work.