What is the ethical response to public transport deficiency?

[johncrossley]

What is the ethical response to public transport deficiency?

For example, if there is a viable public transport option to get to work, but the fares are high and it is sometimes late, should you still use it instead of the car?

During train strikes, it is ethical to use your car when you would otherwise had used the train, or should you stay at home?

Is it ethical to buy a house where there is little or no public transport meaning you have to use the car all the time?

 

[Bantamzen]

What is the ethical response to public transport deficiency?

For example, if there is a viable public transport option to get to work, but the fares are high and it is sometimes late, should you still use it instead of the car?

During train strikes, it is ethical to use your car when you would otherwise had used the train, or should you stay at home?

Is it ethical to buy a house where there is little or no public transport meaning you have to use the car all the time?

Not sure how you are defining ethical here? Is it wrong to choose a car over public transport where the latter can't be relied on? Not really, unless you want to risk losing your job. Is it ethical to live somewhere that has little or no public transport links, again no. Why would it be?

 

[johncrossley]

Not sure how you are defining ethical here? Is it wrong to choose a car over public transport where the latter can't be relied on? Not really, unless you want to risk losing your job. Is it ethical to live somewhere that has little or no public transport links, again no. Why would it be?

The argument would be that you are generating car journeys that could be avoided. I'm assuming the unreliability is just annoying and it doesn't cause you to lose your job.

 

[lachlan]

The argument would be that you are generating car journeys that could be avoided. I'm assuming the unreliability is just annoying and it doesn't cause you to lose your job.

Yes of course you should use public transport if that's a viable option as it is more sustainable and accessible to non-drivers. You are helping sustain a better service for them and reducing congestion. Though in times of strike action I don't think it's unethical to take your car if you have one.

I don't think it's "unethical" to buy a house in a place with poor public transport but I do think it's wrong that we are building so many low density housing estates with poor transport options instead of developing sites within cities.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't understand the question. Surely the question is one of practicality rather than morality?

 

[Iskra]

Public transport has and always will be deficient in that it can’t cater for individuals for all possible journey permutations that may arise, which is the main driver of car use- flexibility.

I don’t see it as somehow immoral to use a car where it is more responsive, reliable, faster, cheaper, more comfortable etc.

Rather than stigmatising car use, perhaps we should look at making public transport faster, cheaper, more comfortable, more reliable to tempt people out of their cars. Some kind of mega, contactless cross-modal ticketing system, as well as better and more consistent and transparent fare systems would help too.

 

[johncrossley]

I don't understand the question. Surely the question is one of practicality rather than morality?

It is possible to rely totally on public transport and not have a car but you have to make allowances. You can't just live wherever you want and get a job wherever you want. You have to live and work where public transport is an option. Obviously lots of people can't drive (especially on this forum) and so it is clearly possible to live such a life. The alternative argument is that you should do whatever you want, even if it makes public transport impractical for some or all trips and you just use public transport whenever you fancy.

 

[Iskra]

I don't understand the question. Surely the question is one of practicality rather than morality?

I think there are people on here who live in areas with great public transport who assume it’s like that everywhere and therefore everyone should always use it. Unfortunately, the reality is very different for the majority of people.

 

[johncrossley]

Rather than stigmatising car use, perhaps we should look at making public transport faster, cheaper, more comfortable, more reliable to tempt people out of their cars. Some kind of mega, contactless cross-modal ticketing system, as well as better and more consistent and transparent fare systems would help too.

At what point do you decide that public transport is good enough? Even in the countries with the best public transport in the world, the vast majority of trips are by car.

 

[Bantamzen]

The argument would be that you are generating car journeys that could be avoided. I'm assuming the unreliability is just annoying and it doesn't cause you to lose your job.

But is that really a matter of ethics?

 

[Iskra]

At what point do you decide that public transport is good enough? Even in the countries with the best public transport in the world, the vast majority of trips are by car.

That’s for the individual to decide on a per journey basis in my opinion.

The ethical response in my mind is to make public transport great, and if it isn’t don’t be surprised if people don’t use it and don’t judge them for it.

 

[johncrossley]

But is that really a matter of ethics?

It depends whether you think unnecessary use of the car is unethical.

 

[Bantamzen]

It depends whether you think unnecessary use of the car is unethical.

Define unnecessary.

 

[johncrossley]

Define unnecessary.

That is a matter of opinion. There are some people who won't use the car on principle, so they live their life accordingly. For them, moving to the middle of nowhere would be against their principles. Other people might be very sympathetic with the need to reduce car journeys, and will use public transport even when it isn't optimal, but will reluctantly use the car when they feel the alternative is impractical. Others don't have any qualms about using cars but are enthusiastic users of public transport when they feel it is good enough. Others won't use public transport at all no matter how good it is.

 

[Bantamzen]

That is a matter of opinion. There are some people who won't use the car on principle, so they live their life accordingly. For them, moving to the middle of nowhere would be against their principles. Other people might be very sympathetic with the need to reduce car journeys, and will use public transport even when it isn't optimal, but will reluctantly use the car when they feel the alternative is impractical. Others don't have any qualms about using cars but are enthusiastic users of public transport when they feel it is good enough. Others won't use public transport at all no matter how good it is.

That doesn't answer my question though, so I'll ask again. When & why is car driving wrong?

Now for context, I don't drive. In fact I literally walk further than I travel in a car annually, and I would much rather people use public transport over cars whenever & wherever they can. But I am not going to start to claim moral superiority over people that choose the car over other methods of transport. For a start I would be doing so to the vast majority of the country, as over 90% of all journeys made in this country are by car. And secondly I actually think all the "shame & blame" tactics some environmentalists have adopted is not only unhelpful, but actually counterproductive. Put simply the tactics of groups like Extinction Rebellion are making the issue of man made climate change look like some conspiracy theory made up by tinfoil hat wearing cranks. And it isn't.

Yes, we do need to make changes, we do need to reduce our overall impact on the planet. But the solutions will not come from fiddling around the edges, or by trying to shame & blame others. The solutions will take decades to implement, and probably centuries to impact. That's because climate change isn't a new thing discovered by a few younger wokers, its been happening for thousands of years ever since humanity started to turn forest into farmland. This is our reality, and it is time to start dealing with that instead of trying to be world savers, because no one person or generation will ever be that.

 

[johncrossley]

When & why is car driving wrong.

I thought there was a general assumption that car driving should be minimised for various environmental, economic and social reasons. Obviously even that view is not completely shared by everyone. For example, some people even deny manmade climate change, so such people would be unlikely to care about the environmental and social impact of driving. But they might care about the economic costs of congestion.

 

[nw1]

The argument would be that you are generating car journeys that could be avoided. I'm assuming the unreliability is just annoying and it doesn't cause you to lose your job.

I assumed the possible ethical issue of the "strike" one was that by using your car rather than the train, you were undermining the strike!

But if it's about public transport versus car, I prefer a non-fundamentalist approach to the issue. Though I am a non-driver, I think it's perfectly fine to use a car when public transport is unavailable/inconvenient/unreliable/expensive.

It's like air transport. While you might want to consider other options when travelling from London to Manchester, using the plane is generally the only viable way to reach more distant parts of Europe, or other continents.

As for buying a property, access to public transport is of course vital if you don't drive, but if you do have a car, the issue there is that it adds yet another limitation to where you can move - and moving is stressful enough as it is.

My view is that public transport needs to be made more attractive. I dislike "stick" approaches to environmental issues in general, I believe in "carrot" approaches. Rather than moralising about car use, governments need to put money into public transport to make it reliable. Right now the buses are probably the most unreliable I have ever known, and I first started using buses regularly in about 1987. We still have cut-back "Covid" timetables on both trains and buses: I am aware of the reasons for this, and they have been discussed at length in other threads, but if there is a genuine, real desire to encourage more people onto buses and trains, the issues need to be fixed.

Though, while Boris may have had an interest, and Labour almost certainly do, there's fat chance of that from the current lot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The argument would be that you are generating car journeys that could be avoided. I'm assuming the unreliability is just annoying and it doesn't cause you to lose your job.

Generally places with no public transport are places where car use causes little harm. But if that home was in rural Oxfordshire and you work in Oxford, say, you probably should drive an EV (or at least small engined petrol) and use the park and ride.

This is actually why I think Vehicle Excise Duty and Fuel Tax should be replaced by a levy on all urban parking. If it cost you fifty quid to park in central Oxford, you definitely would use the P&R - it addresses the principle that once you're in the car it is easier to go all the way.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Best thing is to fix your life so you do not need to travel much, by whatever method. Many people can not do that, but many can.

I did that when I retired and moved home, I am not especially rich either. I can walk or cycle to the shops and services.

I can afford to travel by train or bus but I do not use either much.

I did more than enough traveling and driving when working as a commercial traveler.

 

[Noddy]

What is the ethical response to public transport deficiency?

For example, if there is a viable public transport option to get to work, but the fares are high and it is sometimes late, should you still use it instead of the car?

During train strikes, it is ethical to use your car when you would otherwise had used the train, or should you stay at home?

Is it ethical to buy a house where there is little or no public transport meaning you have to use the car all the time?

If the car is EV and 100% powered by renewable energy (eg self generated or via your supplier) is it more ethical to drive than catch a diesel train?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the car is EV and 100% powered by renewable energy (eg self generated or via your supplier) is it more ethical to drive than catch a diesel train?

No unless the train would not run if you didn't catch it.

 

[Noddy]

No unless the train would not run if you didn't catch it.

The issue is the OPs question. What is it to be ethical and what it is to be moral. Everyone’s answer will be different and depend on their circumstances, priorities and beliefs. With no disrespect intended it’s not that well thought through.

 

[Halwynd]

I've been trying to use rail services more for the past six months. Frankly, in an area dominated by Avanti, Northern and TPE it is just a dreadful experience and I really do feel sorry for those who have to use them every day. The service is variously unreliable, infrequent at weekends, rammed and uncomfortable. I don't make any north/south point, but it is obvious that it is much easier to use public transport, and thus be 'ethical', in London and parts of the SE than it is in the rest of country.

Obviously, this forum has a large number of folk who are either rail enthusiasts or rail orientated. I'm one of them - but I'm not sure the general public are as keen. I recently suggested using the train to a neighbour and he gave me a look that I would have expected had I pee'd all over his shoes. People are just not impressed. I travelled on one of TPEs new trains last week and it really was like sitting on the proverbial hard ironing board for almost two hours - with people standing all down the isles and blocking the exits. I couldn't even get up to use the toilet facilities and began to worry about what might happen had there been a delay and I had become desperate - it was just an awful, awful experience. Why would anyone in their right mind choose that sort of travelling experience unless they had no alternative?

Honestly, I really want to use the railways, but the railway is doing the best that it can to send me away. Taking everything into account and on balance, in my view British Rail was superior in almost every way, particularly during the period from around 1987 until privatisation, compared to what we have today. I have a car but it is getting on a bit now. There's nothing wrong with it, it's reliable and has never let me down but fuel consumption is a bit heavy. I was hoping to get another few years out of it but after my recent experiences of the 'railway today', and particularly after my experience with TPE last week, a few days ago I was offered a good deal on a one year old pre-reg from Bristol Street Motors and I decided to sign the deal.

I say again, I really want to use the railways, but ethics is one thing, deliberately making your travelling life miserable on its alter is quite another.

 

[johncrossley]

The issue is the OPs question. What is it to be ethical and what it is to be moral. Everyone’s answer will be different and depend on their circumstances, priorities and beliefs. With no disrespect intended it’s not that well thought through.

Therefore there might not be a "right" answer. People are free to debate the point according to their own moral code.

 

[Noddy]

Therefore there might not be a "right" answer. People are free to debate the point according to their own moral code.

Absolutely. How much weight you apply to different benefits of train travel v car will be different for everyone and every scenario.

 

[66701GBRF]

It is possible to rely totally on public transport and not have a car but you have to make allowances. You can't just live wherever you want and get a job wherever you want. You have to live and work where public transport is an option.

With respect where I choose to live and work is nothing to do with you or anyone else. I work where my experience and skills take me, and I live where my budget allows. On the subject of public transport and allowances, I’m certainly not going to allow my work day to increase by 2-3 hours just so I can use public transport.

 

[johncrossley]

With respect where I choose to live and work is nothing to do with you or anyone else. I work where my experience and skills take me, and I live where my budget allows. On the subject of public transport and allowances, I’m certainly not going to allow my work day to increase by 2-3 hours just so I can use public transport.

Obviously I was explaining the constraints *IF* you choose to live without a car. *THOSE PEOPLE* have decided that their principles are so important that they are willing to restrict where they live and work. Admittedly there is still a lot of choice available, so it isn't THAT big a sacrifice. For example, living in London without a car gives you access to millions of potential jobs, possibly more choice than someone with a car who lives rurally and far from London.

 

[DarloRich]

It is possible to rely totally on public transport and not have a car but you have to make allowances.

I did for about 10 years. Lockdown meant i got a car and now i find it so much easier.

I think there are people on here who live in areas with great public transport who assume it’s like that everywhere and therefore everyone should always use it. Unfortunately, the reality is very different for the majority of people.

I have lived in a place where the last bus was 1973! TBH if i didn't have a station on my doorstep public transport would be much more difficult to use. The bus offering here isn't anywhere near as good as it should be. i am sure @Bletchleyite has views about that!

When i first moved here a mini cab was VERY cheap and was subject to bartering. Now a hackney carriage is only a £ or £4 more when it used to be the best part of £10 more!

 

[66701GBRF]

Obviously I was explaining the constraints *IF* you choose to live without a car. *THOSE PEOPLE* have decided that their principles are so important that they are willing to restrict where they live and work. Admittedly there is still a lot of choice available, so it isn't THAT big a sacrifice. For example, living in London without a car gives you access to millions of potential jobs, possibly more choice than someone with a car who lives rurally and far from London.

Apologies, the way the post sounded in my head when I read it was different to what you actually meant. So yeah, sorry about that.

 

[johncrossley]

Apologies, the way the post sounded in my head when I read it was different to what you actually meant. So yeah, sorry about that.

No worries!