The Great Transport Improvement Thread

[Rick]

The way I see it is integrating ticketing leads to integrating routes which would lower journey times.

Oyster works because the model essentially serves a single city (with exceptions). Said city has a vast, dense population with huge public transport needs.

TfL oversee this en-masse which allows for integrations, although many occur naturally due to the frequency of the services.

That doesn't work on an intercity basis, let alone at a regional and national level. If you take something like a bus service to Alton Towers, imagine the number of train services that you would ideally link up with at Stoke station - not local services either, five hour WCML services spanning the country which are already notionally aligned to connections at other interchange stations along the 400 mile route.

 

[imanautie]

Oyster works because the model essentially serves a single city (with exceptions). Said city has a vast, dense population with huge public transport needs.

TfL oversee this en-masse which allows for integrations, although many occur naturally due to the frequency of the services.

That doesn't work on an intercity basis, let alone at a regional and national level. If you take something like a bus service to Alton Towers, imagine the number of train services that you would ideally link up with at Stoke station - not local services either, five hour WCML services spanning the country which are already notionally aligned to connections at other interchange stations along the 400 mile route.

Cough cough ITSO national STR.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[speedy]

I'm not going to try and claim every person should/can use public transport and go car free. But we should be designing all infrastructure going forward to make it easier to use public transport. Sprawling estates with four parking spaces each don't do that. An example near me, leaving fields beside a railway station undeveloped and building a new town across a dual carriageway from an existing town (without a station) 5 mins down the line cements car dependency.

 

[Slugjc]

No, don't park your car on the pavement and pedestrians can get around just fine. You said the issue is not transport links, but your first paragraph clearly demonstrates that it is. Some people will still need cars, yes, but everyone driving to work and owning multiple cars just isn't sustainable. Cars don't just need to be "off the road" we all collectively need to drive less. I can't drive, so I'll be making sure I live somewhere accesible by public transport and will only be able to take up jobs which again are accessible by public transport. If I can manage it, surely most other people can too?

We need better public transport. We do not need to make owning a car easier.

My point is we need better planning
We are never going to get the public transport system we all want. People will always need and want the car more. Easier er for families, easier to commute to out of town jobs.

Get cars off the road. Proper parking, off paths, off the highways. Instead we design and build housing for a world that doesn't excist.

 

[Rojo]

I believe he's also used the words "a goose being interfered with" in one of his stand-up shows.

that was probably the correct quote. I was paraphrasing from my terrible memory

 

[Jonathan]

that was probably the correct quote. I was paraphrasing from my terrible memory

I think he's used both in the same sentence, to be fair.

 

[Rick]

Cough cough ITSO national STR.

That's either a Covid symptom or a half baked solution, or both! The complexities come in the commercials and the logistics, not the technology.

I'm not going to try and claim every person should/can use public transport and go car free. But we should be designing all infrastructure going forward to make it easier to use public transport. Sprawling estates with four parking spaces each don't do that. An example near me, leaving fields beside a railway station undeveloped and building a new town across a dual carriageway from an existing town (without a station) 5 mins down the line cements car dependency.

I think that assessment is too black & white. I don't disagree that we could do more to utilise existing lines with additional intermediary stations, but there are a number of complexities there, some more easily overcome than others. There is some traction on that in some areas of the country - but not in all.

The core thing that I don't think is understood or accepted by your crusade is that if you did build a new housing estate within spitting distance of a railway station, that doesn't eliminate the need or desire for 1 car per person in modern British families - they may use their cars less for specific journeys, but they typically don't do without them. The cost, complexity and duration of doing any point to point journey is simply too great and the car wins the day. I don't think any amount of money will fix that in the vast majority of this country and I don't think there is the desire to make it happen from the masses.

Get cars off the road. Proper parking, off paths, off the highways. Instead we design and build housing for a world that doesn't excist.

Agreed - it amazes me how the housing that is currently being built sells with so much ease.

 

[imanautie]

That's either a Covid symptom or a half baked solution, or both! The complexities come in the commercials and the logistics, not the technology.


I think that assessment is too black & white. I don't disagree that we could do more to utilise existing lines with additional intermediary stations, but there are a number of complexities there, some more easily overcome than others. There is some traction on that in some areas of the country - but not in all.

The core thing that I don't think is understood or accepted by your crusade is that if you did build a new housing estate within spitting distance of a railway station, that doesn't eliminate the need or desire for 1 car per person in modern British families - they may use their cars less for specific journeys, but they typically don't do without them. The cost, complexity and duration of doing any point to point journey is simply too great and the car wins the day. I don't think any amount of money will fix that in the vast majority of this country and I don't think there is the desire to make it happen from the masses.


Agreed - it amazes me how the housing that is currently being built sells with so much ease.

Agreed it's the agreements that's the issue, the systems are tested as its what powered ENCTS passes.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[speedy]

That's either a Covid symptom or a half baked solution, or both! The complexities come in the commercials and the logistics, not the technology.


I think that assessment is too black & white. I don't disagree that we could do more to utilise existing lines with additional intermediary stations, but there are a number of complexities there, some more easily overcome than others. There is some traction on that in some areas of the country - but not in all.

The core thing that I don't think is understood or accepted by your crusade is that if you did build a new housing estate within spitting distance of a railway station, that doesn't eliminate the need or desire for 1 car per person in modern British families - they may use their cars less for specific journeys, but they typically don't do without them. The cost, complexity and duration of doing any point to point journey is simply too great and the car wins the day. I don't think any amount of money will fix that in the vast majority of this country and I don't think there is the desire to make it happen from the masses.


Agreed - it amazes me how the housing that is currently being built sells with so much ease.

I don't think of myself as an extreme environmentalist or anything, but to me it's pretty clear we'll need to drive less to meet climate targets. Electric cars reduce inner city pollution, but they're not ideal for a number of reasons. Isn't it better to start approaching the problem from all sides - one of those being putting an end to sprawling detached housing estates with huge driveways and garages.

And if the environment isn't your thing, there are other benefits like reduced pollution in cities (including tire particulates), more walkable cities, better transport for those who can't drive, and fewer road accidents.

 

[Rick]

I think you can do all those things, but people will still want cars throughout our lifetimes and for perfectly legitimate reasons, in my opinion.

You've picked the wrong period in history to convince me I should spend more time with strangers in enclosed spaces, possibly stood up, without appropriate places for all our clobber on a journey where the door to door time is threefold.

 

[imanautie]

I should probably mention that for me personally smart ticketing options are an absolute necessity!

I don't think it's viable to completely get rid of private cars nor do I think large scale car sharing schemes are the answer.

I instead think the answer is to dramatically improve public transport (such as making use of the ITSO shell design fully) along with a shift to electric vehicles for those unable to efficiently use public transport, which with improvements to should be far less then it is currently.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Alsty]

The other way to fix the issue of having our urban areas filled with cars is to shift the concept of owning a car to hiring a car.

Not yet, but in the not-so-distant future we will have driverless cars. You can then argue, why does anybody need to own one? The cars could be parked up out of the way, and when you need one you book it and it turns up. When you get to your destination, you get out and then it carries on and gets parked up again, freeing it for someone else.

Effectively it's like a taxi service but without the driver, and as long as the prices were right it could be viable. I'd suggest a subscription model rather than pay per journey, but I guess you could support both with the same infrastructure. There would be less cars required than everybody owning one too. I mean how often per week are you actually driving it vs it being sat somewhere?

 

[BarryZola]

The other way to fix the issue of having our urban areas filled with cars is to shift the concept of owning a car to hiring a car.

Not yet, but in the not-so-distant future we will have driverless cars. You can then argue, why does anybody need to own one? The cars could be parked up out of the way, and when you need one you book it and it turns up. When you get to your destination, you get out and then it carries on and gets parked up again, freeing it for someone else.

Effectively it's like a taxi service but without the driver, and as long as the prices were right it could be viable. I'd suggest a subscription model rather than pay per journey, but I guess you could support both with the same infrastructure. There would be less cars required than everybody owning one too. I mean how often per week are you actually driving it vs it being sat somewhere?

If the prices were right I'm pretty sure I could live quite happily with that. If it were to even save you a third of your total motoring costs associated with owning a car then that would be great (just plucked a figure out of thin air).

First problem that comes to mind though is that as soon as everyone becomes accustomed to them and it's made very hard to own your own car they then wack the prices up so that you're paying as much or more than you would have been to own your own car, but you also lose the extra freedom that having your own car sitting there gives you.

I can imagine the Clarkson's of this world getting enraged at the idea of losing their muscle cars and ability to drive them at double the speed limit. Personally I use my car simply as a tool to get from place A to place B these days and don't feel the need to jizz over modding it or how fast it can go or how much better it can turn a corner at 85mph compared to the next car, so it wouldn't really bother me at all.

 

[speedy]

I'm wary of postponing investment in PT/accelerating investment in roads on the basis that driverless cars are coming, because they have been over-promised already (a few years back we were told they would be ready for the consumer by 2020), so who knows when we'll get them (and when people without a drivers' license will be allowed to use them).

That being said, I think a technology like you suggested @Alsty could work well. I don't think they could replace public transport for commuting, because you'd need the same number of cars as we have today and they would all be sitting around doing nothing for the rest of the day. But a hire-able driverless car could take you to the countryside (where there is no PT) or carry a heavy item for you from time to time. Having that option for inconvenient trips could allow many more to go car-free and the only thing you need a driveway for is a campervan if you have one (perhaps those could be hire-able in the future too?)

 

[James]

The problem I find with new housing developments (at least in the city where I live) is that they don't tackle any issues at all. Not enough car parking, no public transport links, no green spaces, no cycling routes... houses on top of houses all squashed together. I've looked around a few new estates and cars are pretty much on top each other. More fool the people that actually move into these developments.

I'm a car driver/owner so I'm a bit biased. However there needs to be some form of middle ground. Public transport needs to be improved and more cycling routes developed. At the same time there needs to be more consideration for the fact most households have at least 2 cars, whether you like it or not that is reality and cannot be ignored by those who simply disagree with this.

I'm open to the idea of utalising public transport more or cycling more. However neither are at a point where it replaces the convenience or cost of driving a car. For me personally, I'm more keen on seeing electric cars develop further as an alternative to 'protect the environment' more than I currently do.

 

[imanautie]

I'm wary of postponing investment in PT/accelerating investment in roads on the basis that driverless cars are coming, because they have been over-promised already (a few years back we were told they would be ready for the consumer by 2020), so who knows when we'll get them (and when people without a drivers' license will be allowed to use them).

That being said, I think a technology like you suggested @Alsty could work well. I don't think they could replace public transport for commuting, because you'd need the same number of cars as we have today and they would all be sitting around doing nothing for the rest of the day. But a hire-able driverless car could take you to the countryside (where there is no PT) or carry a heavy item for you from time to time. Having that option for inconvenient trips could allow many more to go car-free and the only thing you need a driveway for is a campervan if you have one (perhaps those could be hire-able in the future too?)

On a technicality they are ready, Tesla's for example would just be an ota update to enable true self driving.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[speedy]

On a technicality they are ready, Tesla's for example would just be an ota update to enable true self driving.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I stopped following development after the aforementioned over-promising and over-optimistic dates. If the technology is there, how long until people can own and use one without a license?

The problem I find with new housing developments (at least in the city where I live) is that they don't tackle any issues at all. Not enough car parking, no public transport links, no green spaces, no cycling routes... houses on top of houses all squashed together. I've looked around a few new estates and cars are pretty much on top each other. More fool the people that actually move into these developments.

I'm a car driver/owner so I'm a bit biased. However there needs to be some form of middle ground. Public transport needs to be improved and more cycling routes developed. At the same time there needs to be more consideration for the fact most households have at least 2 cars, whether you like it or not that is reality and cannot be ignored by those who simply disagree with this.

I'm open to the idea of utalising public transport more or cycling more. However neither are at a point where it replaces the convenience or cost of driving a car. For me personally, I'm more keen on seeing electric cars develop further as an alternative to 'protect the environment' more than I currently do.

I'm not sure what the housing developments near you guys look like, but near me the two new housing estates in my town all have two spaces per house, albeit with no front garden. So I'm not sure what the problem is? The estates are in bad locations, tiny gardens, detached but tightly packed, but they do have parking.

I'm not against having one or two spaces per house. My main gripe here is how estates are poorly located, and at the apparent trend near me of offices moving out of town, which makes using PT difficult.

 

[imanautie]

I stopped following development after the aforementioned over-promising and over-optimistic dates. If the technology is there, how long until people can own and use one without a license?

I'm not sure what the housing developments near you guys look like, but near me the two new housing estates in my town all have two spaces per house, albeit with no front garden. So I'm not sure what the problem is? The estates are in bad locations, tiny gardens, detached but tightly packed, but they do have parking.

I'm not against having one or two spaces per house. My main gripe here is how estates are poorly located, and at the apparent trend near me of offices moving out of town, which makes using PT difficult.

It's hard to say especially considering the EU keeps adding additional restrictions on what systems such as Tesla autopilot can do.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[rob666]

The problem with two spaces and no garden is increased flash flood risk and increased heat in heatwaves...the Heathrow effect.
Gardens reduce flash floods in urban areas, keep them cooler, and keep gardeners in season tickets.
Hence plastic grid lawns are best.
And sinclair c5's.

 

[Tim]

The trouble with the C5 Is that the idea is great but very few people actually bought them.

James's post above sums up my thoughts. I'm the only driver in my house and we make do, but it is a massive inconvenience. We had to move to our current location so my partner could commute to work and there's loads of things we can only do when I'm available (I need the car to get to work). When she learns to drive we'll deffientley want 2 cars.

As for self driving cars I've been in a Tesla and the technology is almost there. However its going to be a long time before they are truly driveless. The day I was riding in it the sun was too bright and it kept requiring the driver to take back control. So I still foresee them needing a driver with a valid licence for quite some time.
However what Alsty described is coming. Once self driving cars are seen to be safer than letting us humans drive I garenty govenments will be steeping in. Road accidents are one of the highest causes of death and if banning people from driving could solve that without being a big inconvenience they'll deffientley take that option. Once self driving cars can drive all terrain and in all weather (driveless or not) we'll start seeing normal cars phased out, which will push driveless development even more.