Proposals for "Northern arc": linking north Oxfordshire (Banbury) with Northampton and Peterborough

[RT4038]

As a former resident of the area in question, I had no idea that the location had such an interesting history of local bus provision or so many memories associated with it, and confess to having been rather underwhelmed by services from Towcester in the late 2000s.

Whilst I don't see its relevance to EEH rail development strategy, the topic of Lost Bus Services in South Northamptonshire And surrounding Districts certainly seems to warrant its own thread which I would hope to follow (even if my opportunity to contribute might be limited!)

I think the relevance is looking at the historic public transport service provision in the Banbury to Northampton 'arc' [when there was not the car ownership levels of today], and the provision today, as an indicator of the likely demand for a new railway line. As has been shown, the historic 'through' provision was fairly minimal (by rail, withdrawn in 1951 or by bus, withdrawn in 1975), no such facility exists now, and the discussion moved on as to why this may be compared to some other towns at a similar distance from Northampton.

As has been suggested in other posts, EW rail will provide for new journey opportunities from Oxfordshire to Northampton, with change of trains at Bletchley or Milton Keynes. Should this be as successful as the wildest dreams of the promoters hope (perhaps with trains extended from MK to Northampton due to the high demand?) then consideration could be given to building a new line on a more northerly alignment. However, the fortunes of through bus service between Northampton and Oxford or Banbury doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in the economics of this.
Quite happy to contribute to a bus service thread on this area, but this should be in the Buses & Coaches section.

 

[RT4038]

Counter view: Beeching's theory was close the branches and low-usage lines and replace them with cheaper bus routes, and develop the trunk routes. Beeching's outcome outcome was that people don't like buses, so they bought cars, and once they had to drive to the nearest major station, they just drove the whole way instead, and the bus routes closed down just like the railways they replaced, and people who couldn't drive were left with no options.

Far from being some proof that people didn't like buses, many of the railway services carried so few passengers that a one-man-operated single deck replacement bus service was not going to be economical even if all of the former rail passengers traveled on it. When the 1968 Transport Act abolished the railway subsidy to the bus companies providing these services, it was curtains for them. Many were assimilated into the local bus network, but some links were inevitably lost.

 

[squizzler]

The EEH report makes a lot of an abstraction known as “generalised journey time” to benchmark current connections between population centres and corresponding speed. Anybody care to research what the “generalised journey time” on these old bus routes would have been between the key towns on proposed NAR? And what the average speed in mph might have been?

 

[edwin_m]

I think the relevance is looking at the historic public transport service provision in the Banbury to Northampton 'arc' [when there was not the car ownership levels of today], and the provision today, as an indicator of the likely demand for a new railway line. As has been shown, the historic 'through' provision was fairly minimal (by rail, withdrawn in 1951 or by bus, withdrawn in 1975), no such facility exists now, and the discussion moved on as to why this may be compared to some other towns at a similar distance from Northampton.

As has been suggested in other posts, EW rail will provide for new journey opportunities from Oxfordshire to Northampton, with change of trains at Bletchley or Milton Keynes. Should this be as successful as the wildest dreams of the promoters hope (perhaps with trains extended from MK to Northampton due to the high demand?) then consideration could be given to building a new line on a more northerly alignment. However, the fortunes of through bus service between Northampton and Oxford or Banbury doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in the economics of this.
Quite happy to contribute to a bus service thread on this area, but this should be in the Buses & Coaches section.

I don't think travel patterns or service provision in the 1950s and 1960s say very much at all about what might happen today or in the future. Big changes include loss of local employment, couples both working (not necessarily in the same place, so at least one may have a long commute), rigidity of home ownership (so people will commute rather than moving) and house price inflation leading to long-distance commuting into London. Car ownership has facilitated these changes and become essential to sustain them. In this region we also have Milton Keynes, which wasn't there in the 1960s and has clearly influenced travel in a big way, but like the rest of the region has relatively poor services to most of its neighbouring towns.

We now have a relatively highly populated region (less so in the western part) with the few reasonable public transport links mostly aimed at London commuters, but travel is now much more diverse and probably generates a fair amount of congestion. It's obviously nowhere near the levels seen in inner London where public transport is the logical choice, but it's also not at the other end of the spectrum where density is so low that roads are uncongested and even if everyone drives that doesn't contribute much to pollution and accidents. So the question is whether, under today's conditions, an improved network of public transport would make enough difference to be worth doing. I say "network" quite deliberately, because a rail route or two probably won't do much unless integrated with bus feeders, and it may be that a properly organized bus network could do the job on its own. Both of these are of course virtually impossible under deregulation.

 

[RT4038]

The EEH report makes a lot of an abstraction known as “generalised journey time” to benchmark current connections between population centres and corresponding speed. Anybody care to research what the “generalised journey time” on these old bus routes would have been between the key towns on proposed NAR? And what the average speed in mph might have been?

At the time of withdrawal in 1951, the train service between Northampton and Banbury, via Blisworth and Helmdon (26 miles) took about 1hr12m at an average speed of 21.58 mph. The motor bus service, taking a longer route via Silverstone and Brackley (31 miles) took 1h30m at an average speed of 20.66mph. However, as has been pointed out on another post, with the more widespread housing, employment and retail sites, the actual journey time centre to centre is probably less relevant now than it would have been then.

 

[RT4038]

I don't think travel patterns or service provision in the 1950s and 1960s say very much at all about what might happen today or in the future. Big changes include loss of local employment, couples both working (not necessarily in the same place, so at least one may have a long commute), rigidity of home ownership (so people will commute rather than moving) and house price inflation leading to long-distance commuting into London. Car ownership has facilitated these changes and become essential to sustain them. In this region we also have Milton Keynes, which wasn't there in the 1960s and has clearly influenced travel in a big way, but like the rest of the region has relatively poor services to most of its neighbouring towns.

We now have a relatively highly populated region (less so in the western part) with the few reasonable public transport links mostly aimed at London commuters, but travel is now much more diverse and probably generates a fair amount of congestion. It's obviously nowhere near the levels seen in inner London where public transport is the logical choice, but it's also not at the other end of the spectrum where density is so low that roads are uncongested and even if everyone drives that doesn't contribute much to pollution and accidents. So the question is whether, under today's conditions, an improved network of public transport would make enough difference to be worth doing. I say "network" quite deliberately, because a rail route or two probably won't do much unless integrated with bus feeders, and it may be that a properly organized bus network could do the job on its own. Both of these are of course virtually impossible under deregulation.

The service provision of the 50s & 60s (i.e. before car ownership became pretty much universal) are an indicator (but by no means an exclusive one) of the public transport travel patterns of today, particularly if viewed in conjunction with the service provision of today. In this 'arc' there is no through public transport today, and in the past it was minimal also. You are right that much has changed in the meantime, almost all car-centric and not easily catered for by public transport. The building of Milton Keynes has probably reduced the number of potential public transport trips between Banbury and Northampton rather than increased it!
There has been no bus service between Northampton and Banbury since 1975. Even in the de-regulated environment I suggest it would be fairly easy for the Local Authorities to establish one, except for the continuing funding of the losses. And these losses would be present whether regulated or deregulated.

 

[squizzler]

We now have a relatively highly populated region (less so in the western part) with the few reasonable public transport links mostly aimed at London commuters, but travel is now much more diverse and probably generates a fair amount of congestion. It's obviously nowhere near the levels seen in inner London where public transport is the logical choice, but it's also not at the other end of the spectrum where density is so low that roads are uncongested and even if everyone drives that doesn't contribute much to pollution and accidents. So the question is whether, under today's conditions, an improved network of public transport would make enough difference to be worth doing. I say "network" quite deliberately, because a rail route or two probably won't do much unless integrated with bus feeders, and it may be that a properly organized bus network could do the job on its own. Both of these are of course virtually impossible under deregulation.

I agree strongly with you that whilst Northamptonshire might be rural, it is certainly not a sparsely populated place like Mid Wales where I moved afterwards. You also identify characteristics of the mobility situation which from an environmental view seems to combine much of what is worst of rural and urban travel patterns, more so than suburbs where at least most people are heading predictably into one specific town centre. The planner in me thinks the correct term is exurban, although that is not one I recall anyone using when I lived there, presumably it went against the 'squires and spires' identity of rural Northamptonshire.

I regard area as having an extremely high proportion of those who could be described as hypermobile - the sorts who think nothing of driving hundred miles a day just on commute. Remember that phrase as I'll use it a bit this post. For instance at Towcester I recall a temporary member taken on to bolster the planning team who came in from Worcester a few days a week.

I agree a proper rural bus network is needed, but no matter how nice the busses, in isolation it would really only improve the lot of non-motorists. A laudable goal in itself, but not transformative.

At the time of withdrawal in 1951, the train service between Northampton and Banbury, via Blisworth and Helmdon (26 miles) took about 1hr12m at an average speed of 21.58 mph. The motor bus service, taking a longer route via Silverstone and Brackley (31 miles) took 1h30m at an average speed of 20.66mph. However, as has been pointed out on another post, with the more widespread housing, employment and retail sites, the actual journey time centre to centre is probably less relevant now than it would have been then.

I cannot imagine that those speeds cut the mustard anymore today than they did back in the day. The highway speeds you are competing against would be greater for one thing. I would suggest rail links whose station-station average speed is four times what you mention is needed to make a dent in car commuting by the 'hyper mobile'.

The service provision of the 50s & 60s (i.e. before car ownership became pretty much universal) are an indicator (but by no means an exclusive one) of the public transport travel patterns of today, particularly if viewed in conjunction with the service provision of today. In this 'arc' there is no through public transport today, and in the past it was minimal also. You are right that much has changed in the meantime, almost all car-centric and not easily catered for by public transport. The building of Milton Keynes has probably reduced the number of potential public transport trips between Banbury and Northampton rather than increased it!
There has been no bus service between Northampton and Banbury since 1975. Even in the de-regulated environment I suggest it would be fairly easy for the Local Authorities to establish one, except for the continuing funding of the losses. And these losses would be present whether regulated or deregulated.

I disagree fundamentally that the turn of the 1960's can be taken as an indicator of travel demand today. People's lifestyles would be totally different since it has changed over the intervening period from a rural economy to a one that is hyper-mobile and mainly non-farming.

I am not party to the evidence base that spawned NAR concept, but seem to have become the de-facto defender of such I speculate that perhaps a suitable geographic comparison to EEH and adjoining areas is with the Netherlands or Switzerland. These too are wealthy, mobile knowledge economy based; furthermore they are polycentric countries (as is high-tech cluster largely within EEH) in which no one city dominates. The way travel is addressed in these places is with a mesh of interlinking rail services allowing point to point journeys. I get the impression that EEH envision a railway mesh made up of horizontals and verticals. The verticals already exist in the form of legacy mainlines but the horizontals are absent, hence the Northern, Central and Southern arcs.

 

[BrianW]

I get the impression that EEH envision a railway mesh made up of horizontals and verticals. The verticals already exist in the form of legacy mainlines but the horizontals are absent, hence the Northern, Central and Southern arcs.

A bit like MK then!!
Of course a car can just turn left or right or straight ahead at any of the many MK roundabouts; not the same as changing trains with timeatbles that facilitate this change but not that one, unless all are timetabled to be at that same place simultaneously, and dwell, and not be late ...
OR so many rail routings as to not need to change, anywhere to everywhere (not likely!!)- a bit like the attraction and opportunities offered by 'the car'!
OR maybe something like the computerised network where vehicles 'transition' from this route to that- what happened to that freight idea from sometime back?
Oxford- Cambridge the Varsity line; Bletchley codebreakers; the Innovation arc; MK trialling robots:

 

[edwin_m]

not the same as changing trains with timeatbles that facilitate this change but not that one, unless all are timetabled to be at that same place simultaneously, and dwell, and not be late ...

Which is exactly what they do in the sorts of polycentric countries where public transport works well. In some denser areas they can just make each service frequent enough that connections don't matter. But they very rarely offer "everywhere to everywhere" train services because the frequency of those through services will be too low to be attractive. So people have to check the timetable, which with that type of service is probably too complicated for most people to bother.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The whole car-enabled 'hyper-mobility' thing is a real challenge to match. When I lived in Northamptonshire several years ago a family member found a relatively specialised job in Coventry (nowhere near the station) whilst they lived in Kettering (not really near the station). Accepting that Coventry is slightly north of the Northern Arc area this was a classic example of where long-distance car commuting around Northamptonshire was the only feasible option (via the A14 and M6).

Even if there was a good rail link from Kettering to Northampton (Castle), presumably via Wellingborough, there is no way that a local bus + walk + train + second train + Coventry local bus #1 + Coventry local bus #2 alternative would have been feasible, even if individual legs were co-ordinated or frequent.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The whole car-enabled 'hyper-mobility' thing is a real challenge to match....

Maybe it's not so much a question of matching it, but realising that we increasingly have to leave the age of such hyper-mobility behind if it's not sustainable

 

[squizzler]

The problem is that, in order to be competitive on the world stage, the 'knowledge based economy' in the locality needs to be more tightly integrated so it functions as one economic unit. Ideas and skills are envisioned to circulate unhindered between (say) the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and places in-between. Arguably the NAR follows an arc of motorsport expertise anchored in Banbury by Prodrive (who turn manufacturers' bog standard saloons into rally race cars) that runs through Brackley, silverstone, Northampton and beyond.

Whilst we should not be encouraging travel for the sake of it (and certainly not facilitating it by road enlargement), there are real benefits in connecting mutually supportive places, or 'centres of excellence' to use the fashionable term, many of which in the EEH are genuinely world class.

The whole car-enabled 'hyper-mobility' thing is a real challenge to match. When I lived in Northamptonshire several years ago a family member found a relatively specialised job in Coventry (nowhere near the station) whilst they lived in Kettering (not really near the station). Accepting that Coventry is slightly north of the Northern Arc area this was a classic example of where long-distance car commuting around Northamptonshire was the only feasible option (via the A14 and M6).

Even if there was a good rail link from Kettering to Northampton (Castle), presumably via Wellingborough, there is no way that a local bus + walk + train + second train + Coventry local bus #1 + Coventry local bus #2 alternative would have been feasible, even if individual legs were co-ordinated or frequent.

I agree it is the last mile that has always been the Achilles heel of switching to rail and other modes and I agree that four vehicles is too much. Perhaps even here we can learn from Switzerland and the Netherlands which have much higher levels of bicycle use within towns. The Chinese went into dockless bike share schemes in a big way, and now a lot of firms are looking to make a killing with micro scooters.

 

[A0wen]

Maybe it's not so much a question of matching it, but realising that we increasingly have to leave the age of such hyper-mobility behind if it's not sustainable

Good luck with that, given pretty much every other major country in the world isn't doing that. But you want Britain back in the dark ages with people's ability to travel governed by the state and transport unions. No sane person wants that.

 

[BayPaul]

The whole car-enabled 'hyper-mobility' thing is a real challenge to match. When I lived in Northamptonshire several years ago a family member found a relatively specialised job in Coventry (nowhere near the station) whilst they lived in Kettering (not really near the station). Accepting that Coventry is slightly north of the Northern Arc area this was a classic example of where long-distance car commuting around Northamptonshire was the only feasible option (via the A14 and M6).

Even if there was a good rail link from Kettering to Northampton (Castle), presumably via Wellingborough, there is no way that a local bus + walk + train + second train + Coventry local bus #1 + Coventry local bus #2 alternative would have been feasible, even if individual legs were co-ordinated or frequent.

I think we need to accept that rail (and indeed public transport) can't be a competitive option on more unusual flows, and concentrate more on high-demand flows, removing these cars from the road, making a significant reduction in pollution, and leaving the roads clear for the unusual flows. This study did rather annoy me in its base assumption that every single pair of towns in the region should have a competitve rail service - there is really no way that this is remotely practical, and by making reports that imply it is needed they can so easily be picked apart at the edges - a huge percentage of time on this thread has been occupied looking at the fairly ridiculous Northampton-Banbury flow, and not so much on some of the other sections that might well make more sense.

 

[edwin_m]

The problem is that, in order to be competitive on the world stage, the 'knowledge based economy' in the locality needs to be more tightly integrated so it functions as one economic unit. Ideas and skills are envisioned to circulate unhindered between (say) the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and places in-between. Arguably the NAR follows an arc of motorsport expertise anchored in Banbury by Prodrive (who turn manufacturers' bog standard saloons into rally race cars) that runs through Brackley, silverstone, Northampton and beyond.

While I agree the agglomeration effect is important, I think you're reaching somewhat to suggest that the common involvement in motorsport is enough for a rail link to create such an effect across this region. I suspect the actual numbers of people are small relative to their prominence, and suspect even more strongly that those people will be amongst the last to consider using public transport!

I think we need to accept that rail (and indeed public transport) can't be a competitive option on more unusual flows, and concentrate more on high-demand flows, removing these cars from the road, making a significant reduction in pollution, and leaving the roads clear for the unusual flows. This study did rather annoy me in its base assumption that every single pair of towns in the region should have a competitve rail service - there is really no way that this is remotely practical, and by making reports that imply it is needed they can so easily be picked apart at the edges - a huge percentage of time on this thread has been occupied looking at the fairly ridiculous Northampton-Banbury flow, and not so much on some of the other sections that might well make more sense.

Indeed. It's a question of where to draw the line to maximise modal shift from the car, without trying to cater for ridiculously small flows that would be unreasonably costly and probably worse environmentally than leaving those few people in their cars. With an integrated network and a fair dollop of public subsidy as in some Continental countries, that threshold can be surprisingly low.

I'm not highly familiar with the area and I haven't been involved in any formal studies, but my gut feel is that in a future where car use isn't the norm, a quality public transport link between say Northampton and Wellingborough is worth looking at, certainly as a bus and possibly even as a train.

 

[A0wen]

With an integrated network and a fair dollop of public subsidy as in some Continental countries, that threshold can be surprisingly low.

Which countries do you have in mind? Because I'm not sure any European country is offering the kind of connectivity being peddled here.

 

[edwin_m]

Which countries do you have in mind? Because I'm not sure any European country is offering the kind of connectivity being peddled here.

Something like this: https://www.kvv.de/fileadmin/user_u...rlsruhe-und-noerdlicher-Landkreis-Rastatt.pdf
Showing bus feeders to rail, with the bottom right of the map being well into the Black Forest. Most of the places on one of the most convoluted looking routes, the 115, are served at least every two hours.

 

[HSTEd]

We have average figures for bus operating costs per vehicle-km from the ONS, but do we have figures for say an Optare Solo bus route, or a low intensity tram or rail line?

 

[AlbertBeale]

Good luck with that, given pretty much every other major country in the world isn't doing that. But you want Britain back in the dark ages with people's ability to travel governed by the state and transport unions. No sane person wants that.

The logic of your comment is that you consider me to be insane?

Re "dark ages" - I see a planet where a dominant species is knowingly changing the ecosystem in ways that put the survival of that species at risk ... now that looks like a move towards the dark ages. The problem is not that people's ability to travel is governed by the state - I certainly wouldn't accept that - but people's ability to travel is already governed by corporate greed and other people's individual selfishness.

 

[A0wen]

The logic of your comment is that you consider me to be insane?

Re "dark ages" - I see a planet where a dominant species is knowingly changing the ecosystem in ways that put the survival of that species at risk ... now that looks like a move towards the dark ages. The problem is not that people's ability to travel is governed by the state - I certainly wouldn't accept that - but people's ability to travel is already governed by corporate greed and other people's individual selfishness.

If the cap fits....

Private motoring is a small %age of the total emissions - transport, which also includes commercial vehicles, aviation and public transport accounts for about 20% of the UK's greenhouse gas production. So 80% is coming from.outside of transport.

And 60% of diesel use comes from non-domestic vehicles - diesel being by far the most polluting of fuels.

Running around half empty diesel buses or trains to satisfy your fantasy of the state being able to direct people's lives and provide little used journeys inefficiently, dressed up under the figleaf of environmental concern is as dangerous as it is disingenuous.

 

[edwin_m]

If the cap fits....

Private motoring is a small %age of the total emissions - transport, which also includes commercial vehicles, aviation and public transport accounts for about 20% of the UK's greenhouse gas production. So 80% is coming from.outside of transport.

And 60% of diesel use comes from non-domestic vehicles - diesel being by far the most polluting of fuels.

Running around half empty diesel buses or trains to satisfy your fantasy of the state being able to direct people's lives and provide little used journeys inefficiently, dressed up under the figleaf of environmental concern is as dangerous as it is disingenuous.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...5/2018-final-emissions-statistics-summary.pdf (not quoteable)
Transport accounted for 28% in 2018 and is the only sector where emissions haven't reduced significantly since 1990.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/energy-and-environment-data-tables-env (table ENV0201, again not quoteable)
Cars and taxis accounted for 55% of transport greenhouse emissions in 2018.

 

[A0wen]

https://assets.publishing.service.g...5/2018-final-emissions-statistics-summary.pdf (not quoteable)
Transport accounted for 28% in 2018 and is the only sector where emissions haven't reduced significantly since 1990.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/energy-and-environment-data-tables-env (table ENV0201, again not quoteable)
Cars and taxis accounted for 55% of transport greenhouse emissions in 2018.

On the first, there are various figures out there - the problem is comparing like for like.

On the second, that 55% is for circa 90% of passenger journeys - suggesting the rate of pollution of private vehicles is far lower per mile travelled than the alternatives. TBF, my figures were looking specifically at diesel because (a) diesel is far more polluting than petrol and (b) the commercial sector's vehicles are overwhelmingly diesel powered.

 

[edwin_m]

On the first, there are various figures out there - the problem is comparing like for like.

On the second, that 55% is for circa 90% of passenger journeys - suggesting the rate of pollution of private vehicles is far lower per mile travelled than the alternatives. TBF, my figures were looking specifically at diesel because (a) diesel is far more polluting than petrol and (b) the commercial sector's vehicles are overwhelmingly diesel powered.

I'd believe the national statistics over most others.

When considering emissions the appropriate metric is passenger-miles not passenger-journeys. Buses and coaches are at 3% and rail at 2% of CO2 (which includes freight as well) so both do better relative to their share of passenger-miles. The percentages for passenger transport won't add up to 100 because of the contribution of freight transport.

I'm using CO2 because decarbonization is a primary policy aim, and because you quoted greenhouse gas not local emissions. Diesel actually has slightly lower CO2 per mile than petrol.

 

[sammorris]

Running around half empty diesel buses or trains to satisfy your fantasy of the state being able to direct people's lives and provide little used journeys inefficiently, dressed up under the figleaf of environmental concern is as dangerous as it is disingenuous.

This is an odd way of looking at it, to me. You may be unconcerned about climate change, but that doesn't mean those that are concerned are all making it up to cover for some malevolent ulterior motive.

As far as I'm concerned, I've long been convinced climate change is coming, and lifestyles are going to have to change to work around it, and that includes transport. That's not necessarily a 'good thing', but it is something my generation - and certainly my children's generation - will have to deal with. Many projects that are marginally viable today (without taking into account climate change) will probably be really obvious "why haven't we done it already" investments in 20 years time.

 

[A0wen]

This is an odd way of looking at it, to me. You may be unconcerned about climate change, but that doesn't mean those that are concerned are all making it up to cover for some malevolent ulterior motive.

As far as I'm concerned, I've long been convinced climate change is coming, and lifestyles are going to have to change to work around it, and that includes transport. That's not necessarily a 'good thing', but it is something my generation - and certainly my children's generation - will have to deal with. Many projects that are marginally viable today (without taking into account climate change) will probably be really obvious "why haven't we done it already" investments in 20 years time.

But as others have pointed out, tailpipe emissions from private cars are dropping year on year and with the shift to electric that drops to zero in the same way it does for an electric train, albeit the generation of electricity happens further upstream.

So on the basis private cars will be emitting no more emissions than an electric train, you have to question the motives of those who's push is "modal shift" - because they've used the climate change / green agenda for that, the motor industry is responding to that, in 20 years time the majority of cars won't be diesel or petrol engined, but still the push is for 'modal shift' - and the underlying demand for 'modal shift' seems to be from people on the left who want the government to exercise greater control over individuals and for individuals to have to use social rather than private means of transport.

All I'm saying is they should come clean about their motives and stop using fig leaves to hide behind.

 

[squizzler]

Wow, you are well into tinfoil hat territory here.

If these is the most convincing arguments that can be be deployed against the EEH and their programme, then their proposals must be worthy of serious consideration!

 

[A0wen]

Wow, you are well into tinfoil hat territory here.

If these is the most convincing arguments that can be be deployed against the EEH and their programme, then their proposals must be worthy of serious consideration!

Go on then, provide an alternative explanation - I'm all ears.

The fact remains the push for "modal shift" has been based on the green agenda for aeons - now the motor industry is dealing with that we still see the demand for "modal shift" mainly from the state - why?

 

[willgreen]

the underlying demand for 'modal shift' seems to be from people on the left who want the government to exercise greater control over individuals and for individuals to have to use social rather than private means of transport.

All I'm saying is they should come clean about their motives and stop using fig leaves to hide behind.

In fairness, the current government seem fairly keen on modal shift, and they aren't exactly a socialist rabble. You can argue about their motives, but I doubt Johnson and co. are keen on improving public transport in order to gift the state more control over individuals.

 

[A0wen]

So simple question - why the continued push for "modal shift" when private transport emissions are falling and will continue to do so ?

 

[squizzler]

So simple question - why the continued push for "modal shift" when private transport emissions are falling and will continue to do so ?

Over 28 years (1990 - 2018) transport sector fell by 3%. Big wows. The transport sector is the UK's standout failure for carbon emissions and in being the biggest carbon emitter, dragging down the rest of the country with it. Of course carbon is not the only issue, and dealing with the UK's disappointing economic productivity and making us a more civilised society in which to live matters too. Those of us troubled by modern public discourse as demonstrated by your debating style are likely to prefer forms of mobility that allow us to live and travel in a more humane fashion than the tired status quo.