Government - Increase use of public transport

[yorksrob]

Indeed, if it's known that Tuesday/Thursday are busy on the trains/roads then you'll probably find a fair few opting to work from home on those days. You'll also find bosses are more likely to accept them as WFH days as they know that they can load the person to with work and can check on progress on the days around them. Whilst a Friday/Monday, with the weekend disrupting the work flow, would be looked upon less favourably.

Also although Fridays do give you a long(er) weekend, if you've got children you may not gain that much anyway.

I Indeed. I pobably would for a mid-week lay-in, plus the trains were noticably busier mid-week. For the weekend, I'd rather take the Friday as leave.

 

[Purple Orange]

If everybody who could worked from home one day a week, and rotated the day (perhaps the fares system could be set up to discourage everyone just doing Friday?), that's 1/5 reduction in necessary peak capacity. Even that is massive.

This already happens with most office workers. If all workers who can work remotely one day a week do so after this crisis is over, it will result in no change in demand. But if people work 2 days a week at home, then we would certainly see a change in demand.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This already happens with most office workers. If all workers who can work remotely one day a week do so after this crisis is over, it will result in no change in demand. But if people work 2 days a week at home, then we would certainly see a change in demand.

True. Fridays are already a very quiet day, with a particular train I use often (0711 ish off Bletchley) routinely reaching Euston full and standing Monday to Thursday but with seats for all on Fridays.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There is no way fuel taxes will be increased! That has proved politically impossible in good times, the uproar if they tried to increase them when people are short of cash would be huge.

It's also a dead-end tax. Electric cars are coming, whether people are prepared for them or not. Increases to fuel taxes would result in an even faster shift away from internal combustion vehicles, meaning the tax base shrinks even more.

The government should focus on coming up with a tax which will work in a world of electric cars. Until now, we've been able to use fuel taxation as a proxy for vehicle use (bigger vehicles driven more will use more fuel, so more tax is paid). Since electric cars will be charged in domestic settings and possibly even using locally-sourced renewable power, there's no longer any centralised point to apply fuel taxes. The only way to get around this and still charge by kWh used would be for cars to report their energy usage. This is obviously entirely technically possible, but once you're at the the point of cars performing mandatory reporting of energy consumption, you may as well just make them report all their movements for pay-by-use road charging too.

In a world where rubber tyred vehicles move over to electric propulsion, the damage they do will reduce down to their land use and safety. A 2.5 ton Tesla used to do a school run in a dense area of London is doing a lot more damage than a 1 ton petrol car used out in the countryside, or a rattly old 3 litre diesel Land Rover up in the Highlands and Islands.

The ideal tax system for vehicles would mean all journeys are pay-per-use and vehicle tax ratings would be based on factors like mass and size, or whether they're equipped with extra safety features like pedestrian collision avoidance. It would be best for any such tax to be applied universally across all vehicles, even commercial and public transport ones, as the point would be to reveal the costs of driving. We need a tax system which still encourages bus companies to buy lighter and safer buses - the extra tax cost can be made up with increased subsidy in the short term.

 

[edwin_m]

It's also a dead-end tax. Electric cars are coming, whether people are prepared for them or not. Increases to fuel taxes would result in an even faster shift away from internal combustion vehicles, meaning the tax base shrinks even more.

The government should focus on coming up with a tax which will work in a world of electric cars. Until now, we've been able to use fuel taxation as a proxy for vehicle use (bigger vehicles driven more will use more fuel, so more tax is paid). Since electric cars will be charged in domestic settings and possibly even using locally-sourced renewable power, there's no longer any centralised point to apply fuel taxes. The only way to get around this and still charge by kWh used would be for cars to report their energy usage. This is obviously entirely technically possible, but once you're at the the point of cars performing mandatory reporting of energy consumption, you may as well just make them report all their movements for pay-by-use road charging too.

In a world where rubber tyred vehicles move over to electric propulsion, the damage they do will reduce down to their land use and safety. A 2.5 ton Tesla used to do a school run in a dense area of London is doing a lot more damage than a 1 ton petrol car used out in the countryside, or a rattly old 3 litre diesel Land Rover up in the Highlands and Islands.

The ideal tax system for vehicles would mean all journeys are pay-per-use and vehicle tax ratings would be based on factors like mass and size, or whether they're equipped with extra safety features like pedestrian collision avoidance. It would be best for any such tax to be applied universally across all vehicles, even commercial and public transport ones, as the point would be to reveal the costs of driving. We need a tax system which still encourages bus companies to buy lighter and safer buses - the extra tax cost can be made up with increased subsidy in the short term.

I broadly agree with this but please don't forget tyre particulates. Brake particulates may largely disappear due to regenerative braking, but as an EV is heavier than the equivalent IC vehicle the tyre particulates will probably be more (also meaning shorter tyre life and more road wear).

In the absence of a road pricing system I think a mileage charge is an acceptable compromise - the rate per mile could be made dependent on the vehicle weight. Or perhaps even a tax on tyres - although that might encourage people to keep them in use longer than is safe.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/states-move-closer-to-taxing-you-by-how-far-you-drive/

With gas tax revenues falling, at least 18 states have given some consideration to taxing motorists by how far they drive. And next year a pilot program in Oregon will help measure the feasibility of such a tax.

 

[underbank]

Charging for major road use (major A roads and motorways) will discourage/penalise long distance travellers who have more scope for alternatives such as rail, but wouldn't harm local/rural communities without alternatives. That's why I'd advocate in car transponders being "pinged" at various points on the major roads like they do in Portugal.

 

[Meerkat]

If they can make a secure, uncheatable, odometer then that would be the best way.
Preferably multiplied by a factor based on the car weight and power source.

 

[Horizon22]

All well and good, but as fuel duty has been frozen since 2011...

 

[underbank]

If they can make a secure, uncheatable, odometer then that would be the best way.
Preferably multiplied by a factor based on the car weight and power source.

But that isn't acceptable for those who live in areas without good public transport alternatives.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that isn't acceptable for those who live in areas without good public transport alternatives.

Why? They pay it now via fuel.

 

[underbank]

Why? They pay it now via fuel.

Well yes, if the new road pricing worked out the same as we have now, but I thought we were talking about disincentivising car use by increasing road pricing - that's what would be unacceptable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well yes, if the new road pricing worked out the same as we have now, but I thought we were talking about disincentivising car use by increasing road pricing - that's what would be unacceptable.

It wouldn't be wildly difficult to have the per-mile rate banded based on where you live, for example.

 

[Meerkat]

It wouldn't be wildly difficult to have the per-mile rate banded based on where you live, for example.

Indeed - as it is already an offence to not have your car registered to your address.

 

[al78]

Charging for major road use (major A roads and motorways) will discourage/penalise long distance travellers who have more scope for alternatives such as rail, but wouldn't harm local/rural communities without alternatives. That's why I'd advocate in car transponders being "pinged" at various points on the major roads like they do in Portugal.

How about road pricing where price is proportional to demand (not unlike the railways). The most congested roads would be the most expensive to drive on, and the quietest roads the cheapest. That would encourage spreading the load away from honeypot routes and would not penalise people who live in quiet rural areas, rather it would penalise people who live in dense urban areas where walking, cycling and public transport are alternative options. It would need some way of communicating updates to drivers as to which roads are the most congested so they can route plan accordingly. Sat-navs almost do that when they take information from traffic reports and re-route if there is significant congestion.

 

[PTR 444]

I do think the rail industry is going to have a tough time after this crisis. In addition to public transport being associated with infection, working from home will likely become a lot more common. I think the rail industry will have to considerably reduce fares, ease ticket conditions and maintain frequencies at current levels if they want to avoid a decline in passengers numbers in the next few years. All of this off course would be costly to the government which could be unpopular with those who do not use the railway.

The whole thing about people being put off using transport because it is associated with viruses is nonsense. Travelling in a 5-coach train is no worse than sitting in a stadium or arena filled with thousands of people, and they are going to want to attend football matches and concerts more than ever after this has all blown over.

Obviously, the London Underground is a different story with people literally packed in like sardines and a need to increase capacity, but with Crossrail opening in the near future and an increase in home working, I think train loads will become more manageable throughout the day on the Central and Jubilee lines at least.

 

[edwin_m]

It wouldn't be wildly difficult to have the per-mile rate banded based on where you live, for example.

But it seems unfair for rural dwellers to have a cheaper rate to drive in cities. Maybe a per-mile rate that depends only on vehicle type plus London-type flat rate congestion charges to enter urban areas, with park and ride available before the charging boundary. But that raises the question of what to charge those living within the zones, and how to police it if cameras are needed to monitor journeys within a well as at the boundary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How about road pricing where price is proportional to demand (not unlike the railways). The most congested roads would be the most expensive to drive on, and the quietest roads the cheapest. That would encourage spreading the load away from honeypot routes and would not penalise people who live in quiet rural areas, rather it would penalise people who live in dense urban areas where walking, cycling and public transport are alternative options. It would need some way of communicating updates to drivers as to which roads are the most congested so they can route plan accordingly. Sat-navs almost do that when they take information from traffic reports and re-route if there is significant congestion.

I must admit to being very surprised that the M6 Toll does not do this, it would be amazingly easy to implement, the price charged would be the price displayed when your car was ANPRed passing a specific sign.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The whole thing about people being put off using transport because it is associated with viruses is nonsense. Travelling in a 5-coach train is no worse than sitting in a stadium or arena filled with thousands of people, and they are going to want to attend football matches and concerts more than ever after this has all blown over.

Neither of those things is in fact really bad. You probably come close to maybe 10-20 people in a large football stadium. It's people gathering before and after matches that posed a more considerable risk.

Before the "full" lockdown, the cessation of football wasn't anything to do with crowds, but was to protect the clubs' valuable assets - the players.

 

[edwin_m]

The whole thing about people being put off using transport because it is associated with viruses is nonsense. Travelling in a 5-coach train is no worse than sitting in a stadium or arena filled with thousands of people, and they are going to want to attend football matches and concerts more than ever after this has all blown over.

Obviously, the London Underground is a different story with people literally packed in like sardines and a need to increase capacity, but with Crossrail opening in the near future and an increase in home working, I think train loads will become more manageable throughout the day on the Central and Jubilee lines at least.

That's probably true, but the message coming from government is about avoiding public transport and there is a risk people will use that as a reason/excuse to drive instead going into the future, especially if the virus remains as a hazard once the main outbreak is over.

 

[yorksrob]

Neither of those things is in fact really bad. You probably come close to maybe 10-20 people in a large football stadium. It's people gathering before and after matches that posed a more considerable risk.

Before the "full" lockdown, the cessation of football wasn't anything to do with crowds, but was to protect the clubs' valuable assets - the players.

Even few on a train - even if it's crush loaded.

 

[Meerkat]

I must admit to being very surprised that the M6 Toll does not do this, it would be amazingly easy to implement, the price charged would be the price displayed when your car was ANPRed passing a specific sign.

It’s a private road so they are presumably aiming for max revenue, not max congestion relief.
It is already cheaper at night. Your ANPR system would be all new equipment and legislation to allow them to use the database for charging?
A truly flexible pricing system would be complicated - the price would have to be shown before decision point which would be some way before the cameras that prove which route you took, and I am not sure how you manage the lag.

 

[Skymonster]

Nothing is going to change - irrespective of the taxation regime - until the true elephant in the room is dealt with and that is: a car gets cheaper per person as more people occupy it, while public transport gets more expensive for those same people when they travel together.

Take for example a short journey into the city where I live. By public transport: one person - £4.50 return, two people £9.00 return. Alone, public transport just about makes sense taking into consideration costs such as parking, while once there are two of us going into town it makes no sense to take the bus. For a family of four public transport makes even less sense. Commuting to work I share a ride with a colleague, alternating the driving. That way we both get to work for half the price of travelling alone, whereas using public transport would be double the costs of one. The pattern is similar for longer journeys.

Until there is complete reform of the fare systems on public transport (and no, I'm not talking about token gestures like two-together and family railcards) making it substantially cheaper per head for groups travelling with a common purpose, more than one person travelling together will opt for a private vehicle / car and the taxing regime will never be punative enough to counter that benefit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Until there is complete reform of the fare systems on public transport (and no, I'm not talking about token gestures like two-together and family railcards) making it substantially cheaper per head for groups travelling with a common purpose, more than one person travelling together will opt for a private vehicle / car and the taxing regime will never be punative enough to counter that benefit.

I've said before my view on that - GroupSave should apply nationally for any group of 2 or more travelling together throughout, and should also discount child fares like it used to, though perhaps less drastically, say 33% off across the board. Then bin off Two Together, Family Railcard etc as they would be no longer needed; the Railcard offering would then only need to concentrate on those wishing to pay extra for the same discount travelling alone. Same deal for large groups too; most of the large group discounts are inferior to GroupSave/Railcards so there's no point anyone even going there anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

Overall journey costs by rail need to be looked at as well. It cannot be sensible that a slow, middling jorney such as Wakefield - Crewe for example costs over forty quid.

 

[underbank]

Obviously, the London Underground is a different story with people literally packed in like sardines and a need to increase capacity, but with Crossrail opening in the near future and an increase in home working, I think train loads will become more manageable throughout the day on the Central and Jubilee lines at least.

Not if population continues to rise - any capacity will get filled up again.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Obviously, the London Underground is a different story with people literally packed in like sardines and a need to increase capacity, but with Crossrail opening in the near future and an increase in home working, I think train loads will become more manageable throughout the day on the Central and Jubilee lines at least.

In the morning peak westbound Central Line trains from Hainault and Epping are packed solid before they reach Stratford (with the reverse situation in the evening peak) They are also very busy throughout the day and during weekends. Crossrail/Elizabeth Line will not provide any relief for Central Line passengers from the relevant suburbs.

 

[PeterC]

The whole thing about people being put off using transport because it is associated with viruses is nonsense. Travelling in a 5-coach train is no worse than sitting in a stadium or arena filled with thousands of people, and they are going to want to attend football matches and concerts more than ever after this has all blown over.

Obviously, the London Underground is a different story with people literally packed in like sardines and a need to increase capacity, but with Crossrail opening in the near future and an increase in home working, I think train loads will become more manageable throughout the day on the Central and Jubilee lines at least.

Perception has nothing to do with facts.

 

[yorksrob]

Perception has nothing to do with facts.

I still don't really see that people would percieve public transport to be any more germ ridden than all those other crowded places we will be flocking to.

 

[yorksrob]

In the morning peak westbound Central Line trains from Hainault and Epping are packed solid before they reach Stratford (with the reverse situation in the evening peak) They are also very busy throughout the day and during weekends. Crossrail/Elizabeth Line will not provide any relief for Central Line passengers from the relevant suburbs.

To be fair, London already has a very high proportion of public transport usage. I would have thought that any effort to encourage modal shift would have to focus on everywhere else instead.

 

[Bikeman78]

Take for example a short journey into the city where I live. By public transport: one person - £4.50 return, two people £9.00 return. Alone, public transport just about makes sense taking into consideration costs such as parking, while once there are two of us going into town it makes no sense to take the bus. For a family of four public transport makes even less sense. Commuting to work I share a ride with a colleague, alternating the driving. That way we both get to work for half the price of travelling alone, whereas using public transport would be double the costs of one. The pattern is similar for longer journeys.

Some bus companies do try to address this. On Cardiff Bus, an adult return if you pay with cash is four quid. If you use the mobile app that reduces to £3.20. A family day to go on the app is £5.50, for up to two adults and three children. Two adults can use this without any children. Or you can get a group day to go (for up to five people) for ten quid.