The Great Transport Improvement Thread

[speedy]

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.

You say it's an inconvenience, but your environmental impact is probably lower than most, and you're saving the costs of a second car.

In places like Taiwan and Vietnam mini motorbikes are king. I'm not sure if they're more fuel efficient than a car (presumably are?), but they're much more space efficient. Unfortunately bikes and motorbikes are statistically less safe than cars, but the irony is if more people used bikes, they would be safer as there would be fewer drivers to crash in to them

 

[Tim]

You say it's an inconvenience, but your environmental impact is probably lower than most, and you're saving the costs of a second car.

Except it's not because I'm having to drive 3 times the distance to work. We mainly moved so she didn't have a 2 hour commute to work by train. But it's come at the compromise of me driving more. Ironically if she could drive there was a job going much closer to home but without a car she couldn't get to it.

Pubic transport is great but only if you can live and work in a city. The reason I can't use it is because 1) My work is not in a city and 2) I start at 7 am. There is actually a bus that runs that route but it doesn't start until 9. They'll never change that because there's not enough demand. It would be a net negative on the environment to do so, as a bus with only a few people on it pollutes more than the equivalent number of cars.

 

[jon81uk]

The issue is not "better transport links" its getting these greedy estate builders to design estate where 2 3 cars can be parked. Instead of one. Better way of getting cars off the roads, so pedestrians can actually walk around.

Its both. Two spaces per property should be enough and there should be transport links.

We're moving to an estate with two spaces per property, plus some visitor spaces, so I think for 125 homes, there are 280 parking spaces. There is also a bus stop outside the estate and a train station 15 minutes walk.

 

[jon81uk]

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.

Imagine if all those train services were overseen en masse, you could then offer a standardised fare system!

 

[jon81uk]

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?)

You've just described Zipcar https://www.zipcar.com/en-gb

 

[speedy]

Except it's not because I'm having to drive 3 times the distance to work. We mainly moved so she didn't have a 2 hour commute to work by train. But it's come at the compromise of me driving more. Ironically if she could drive there was a job going much closer to home but without a car she couldn't get to it.

Pubic transport is great but only if you can live and work in a city. The reason I can't use it is because 1) My work is not in a city and 2) I start at 7 am. There is actually a bus that runs that route but it doesn't start until 9. They'll never change that because there's not enough demand. It would be a net negative on the environment to do so, as a bus with only a few people on it pollutes more than the equivalent number of cars.

So you can see first hand how poor public transport provision and companies siting themselves in the middle of nowhere limits the mobility of people who can't drive. I understand you'll never be able to connect everywhere, and I'll make sure I live in a city or along a good railway line. Once again we've hit the problem that it's chicken and egg - public transport is poor so people drive. More people drive which reduces demand for public transport so there's no incentive to improve it. I doubt it's going to happen, but the government needs a big program of better urban planning, transport improvements, incentives for companies to site their offices in city centres and cheaper fares and it'll encourage more people to use it.

 

[Tim]

But I don't think the coverage of our public transportation is as poor as you say. It's expensive and over crowded, but it does go to the places I expect it to. I travel to London all the time by bus and train. But there's a lot of remote attractions (*cough* Alton Towers) that are and will forever be a nightmare to get too by public transport because the demand for a proper link is just not there.
Take my old commute to work. It used to be 15 minutes by car. To get their on public transport I had to walk to my local station, get on a train to the next major station. Get on anouther train to my works local station. Get a bus to work. That was a combined journey time of 1 hour 30 when you factor in waiting.
Now if I didn't have to wait you could cut that down to an hour. But that's about all you could improve on. Running a train between the 2 local stations is impossible without building a new railway line connecting them, and you'd never get planning permission for it. They could run a bus between the 2 local stations (as they are both towns) but the journey time for that bus would still be the same as my drive and I'd still have to walk to the bus stop and catch a second bus, meaning the journey time would be 3 times longer overall.
This is why I don't think it's unreasonable to expect every working adult to want to own a car. You get the few exceptions (my brother can literally cycle everywhere he needs to go) but for the average person that's not a lifechoice they are happy to make.

 

[speedy]

But I don't think the coverage of our public transportation is as poor as you say. It's expensive and over crowded, but it does go to the places I expect it to. I travel to London all the time by bus and train. But there's a lot of remote attractions (*cough* Alton Towers) that are and will forever be a nightmare to get too by public transport because the demand for a proper link is just not there.
Take my old commute to work. It used to be 15 minutes by car. To get their on public transport I had to walk to my local station, get on a train to the next major station. Get on anouther train to my works local station. Get a bus to work. That was a combined journey time of 1 hour 30 when you factor in waiting.
Now if I didn't have to wait you could cut that down to an hour. But that's about all you could improve on. Running a train between the 2 local stations is impossible without building a new railway line connecting them, and you'd never get planning permission for it. They could run a bus between the 2 local stations (as they are both towns) but the journey time would still be the same as my drive and I'd still have to walk to the bus stop and catch a second bus, meaning the journey time would be 3 times longer overall.
This is why I don't think it unreasonable to expect every working adult to want to own a car. You get the few exceptions (my brother can literally cycle everywhere he needs to go) but for the average person that's not a lifechoice they are happy to make.

I'm not going to debate on what is or isn't commercially viable. However it's important to remember just because something isn't commercially viable doesn't mean it wouldn't be used and many subsidised services are a lifeline to people who can't drive. In the case of Alton Towers, it should be considered a public service to have at least one train/bus to the park every day which arrives before opening and leaves after closing. Unfortunately I doubt Merlin is interested in subsidising a service because they'll lose parking fees. When I say public transport coverage is poor and needs to be better, access to Alton Towers is an example of that. Transport is viewed as a profit making exercise rather than an essential service and as a result non drivers lose out.

 

[rob666]

You have to debate commercial viability, or else we are just building castles in the clouds!
Public transport comes as a considerable cost to the economy, yet most civilised countries subsidise it via the taxpayer to a greater or lesser extent, for the benefit of the whole community.
Lots of people subsidise public transport systems, but never ever use them.
Public transport in low population areas cannot be run at a profit, or without subsidy, even with volunteer drivers, despite it being seen as an essential service.
More monkey bikes and c5s is the answer.
And cablecars from stoke station to sort out the Towers.

 

[speedy]

You have to debate commercial viability, or else we are just building castles in the clouds!
Public transport comes as a considerable cost to the economy, yet most civilised countries subsidise it via the taxpayer to a greater or lesser extent, for the benefit of the whole community.
Lots of people subsidise public transport systems, but never ever use them.
Public transport in low population areas cannot be run at a profit, or without subsidy, even with volunteer drivers, despite it being seen as an essential service.
More monkey bikes and c5s is the answer.
And cablecars from stoke station to sort out the Towers.

It goes the other way too, for example the Scottish government is shelling out £6bn to dual the A9 and A96! Not really much else to add here. In my view, public transport should be viewed as an essential service and expanded. C5s are great for those who can ride but wouldn't be safe for me with my bad eyesight.

 

[James]

Take my old commute to work. It used to be 15 minutes by car. To get their on public transport I had to walk to my local station, get on a train to the next major station. Get on anouther train to my works local station. Get a bus to work. That was a combined journey time of 1 hour 30 when you factor in waiting.

That's pretty much my exact position now, and the reason why I drive to work every day!

II'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.

Bar one or two estates, all the new developments around me have one space or no spaces at all for parking - because the land the estates are on are so tightly packed with properties, there is no space for on street parking resulting in masses of cars lining the streets, half parked on the road and half parked on the payment. There seems to be the aim to compact as much as possible on plots of land with little thought as to parking, or other aspects infact. I think it doesn't help that we're near the Wales/England boarder, and developers are cramming estates all over the place to push cheaper houses to the Bristol workers who use here as a base.

I'm house hunting at the moment and I'm completely put off new developments. I agree with you that they are often poorly located. I would rather live in an older estate where parking is at least more flexible, there are public transport links (at least that offers alternative travel) and there are amenities closer to your front door.

I know I'm generalising a bit here and it's not true for all new housing estates across the country, however from where I live personally, they are far from great or practical.

 

[Tim]

I do wonder if the government should start restricting the number of cars that can be registered to a property. If a house is bought without any parking the owner can't register a car there. For each driveway or off-road parking space anouther car can be registered.
If they trialled this on all new property's I'm sure developers would very quickly up the number of parking spots.

 

[rob666]

And for the third of all households that rent?
The political party that legislated would be kicked out at the next general election, probably before implementation.
Oil, building and car manufacturing industries already have the politicians in their pockets, always have.
Taxation on cars and fuel should be increased again, drastically, to price them out of the easy choice they have become.
The revenue, coupled with realistic taxation on aviation fuel, could, and should, be used on alternative transport systems.
Oh, but the aviation industry would soon put a stop to that... again.

 

[Tim]

And for the third of all households that rent?

Does it matter if you rent or own the house? You still occupy the house.

I agree no government would actually do it, cars make them too much money. But it's the only way I could see developers being forced to leave parking spaces. Right now it's too easy for them not to leave space knowing that whoever buys the house will end up parking on the street.

Garage conversions are anouther problem. Where my parents live each house has a garage and drive. Half the people have concerted their garages but they still have at least 2 cars. The on road parking got so bad that when a fire engine tried getting down the street it struggled to get through.

 

[rob666]

There are roughly twenty million renting households currently.
Parking is a bigger issue for renters, due to historic households in multiple occupation.
Ten households.
Two parking spaces.
The issue wont be solved by additional parking for new builds.
Which are less than 1% of the residential stock.
.
Most cars run with three empty seats.
Bigger cars are just a crazy fashion, running directly against the science.
Smaller, lighter, cheaper plastic multifuel vehicles are a real alternative.
But their isnt as much profit in it for the manufacturers.

 

[Tim]

My mistake, I was only suggesting we do this with new builds as I thought the original complaint was houses being developed without enough parking.

Completely agree about the size of the cars. It doesn't help cars have got so much bigger. My house has a garage, I tried parking my small hatchback in their, but it didn't fit! Couldn't open the doors due to the cars width.

 

[rob666]

I can remember when Minis were mini.
An awful lot of modern garages have carpet on the walls!
Due to the bloody virus, most garages round here are full of skunk.

And back on topic.
Electric scooters on the pavement.
Good or evil.
Shoot the cluckers I say.

 

[speedy]

I can remember when Minis were mini.
An awful lot of modern garages have carpet on the walls!
Due to the bloody virus, most garages round here are full of skunk.

And back on topic.
Electric scooters on the pavement.
Good or evil.
Shoot the cluckers I say.

Evil, but I have some sympathy due to the lack of cycle infra in this country. Some of that cash from the tax you mentioned on cars and fuel could go towards developing a cycle network.

 

[rob666]

If I could get one with a tow truck for my lawnmower, I would.

 

[speedy]

If I could get one with a tow truck for my lawnmower, I would.

Ah but you do mobile gardening right? There are cargo bikes/trailers but even a die-hard cyclist isn't going to suggest you carry a lawnmower by bike!