Rail near Blackwell tunnel

[Antman]

I have no idea! But I have manually edited the post to show the correct attribution.

Oh well never mind
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When trains can get me home at 3am, don't take too long, and I don't have a lug a large amount of PPE with me, and my organisation stops advising us not to use public transport to go to work for safety reasons then I might use them. Until then, they are not an option.

Sorry but these do sound more like excuses than reasons, for instance there are plenty of night buses around at 3am although obviously driving at that time isn't going to cause congestion anyway.

Your organisation (I assume you mean employers?) really advise you not to use public transport?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Sorry but these do sound more like excuses than reasons, for instance there are plenty of night buses around at 3am although obviously driving at that time isn't going to cause congestion anyway.

So how am I going to get from central East London at 3am to my house? It's simply not possible - even if it was it would take me a couple of hours, and frankly, I'd rather be in bed between shifts than sitting on a train and then having to walk the 1.5 miles between the station and my house with one heavy bag of PPE and a backpack.

Your organisation (I assume you mean employers?) really advise you not to use public transport?

Ever since a member of staff was assaulted on a train in central London, yes.

 

[transmanche]

Your organisation (I assume you mean employers?) really advise you not to use public transport?

Ever since a member of staff was assaulted on a train in central London, yes.

Isn't that a huge overreaction? If a member of staff was assaulted in a pub, would they recommend to all employees that they should avoid pubs?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Isn't that a huge overreaction? If a member of staff was assaulted in a pub, would they recommend to all employees that they should avoid pubs?

They were travelling to work in uniform. The advice is that we shouldn't travel on public transport in uniform. I travel to work in uniform, so, along with a whole host of other reasons (being able to stay in bed longer being one of them!) I drive.

 

[A0]

Including band A at zero cost.

Clearly not, as some motorists pay nothing - including those driving electric cars, or cars more than 40 years old.

Even Band C only costs £30 a year (for petrol and diesel cars).

The amount paid varies - as you say some motorists pay nothing, though that is a very very small minority. They still have to apply for and display a valid tax disc though and the tax-disc is specific to the vehicle. So it is a motoring based tax. It just happens that the amount levied in most cases relates to the emissions of the car.

You can't claim it's an emissions tax though - it takes no account of how much the car is used. So to take an example - a Range Rover with a high CO2 will pollute much less if it only does 1000 miles than a VW Polo that does 100,000 miles in a year.

And other forms of "emission" as I pointed out, remain untaxed.

 

[Ironside]

Near the Blackwall tunnel, the Jubilee line connects North Greenwich with Canning Town, the (expensive) Emirates Airline cable car, along with the DLR extension to Woolwich Arsenal.

That corner of SE London will also have Crossrail from 2019 serving Abbey Wood, which should relieve some of the pressure off Southeastern's commuter routes from Dartford and to a lesser extent the Medway Towns for passengers who refuse to pay the HS1 premium.

I see woolwich also has a Crossrail station so hopefully that will help too.

 

[transmanche]

So it is a motoring based tax.

Ah, that's quite a different statement from your earlier assertion that "It is a tax on motorists".

You can't claim it's an emissions tax though - it takes no account of how much the car is used. So to take an example - a Range Rover with a high CO2 will pollute much less if it only does 1000 miles than a VW Polo that does 100,000 miles in a year.

So? The fact is that the motorist doing only 1,000 miles would pollute even less if they also had a VW Polo. Thus VED is formulated to encourage people to drive cars that pollute less.

And it's quite easy to avoid paying VED altogether by using an electric car.

 

[SF-02]

For most journies in London a car is certainly not the only option

It is for quite a few past zone 3 in south east London. The borough's there have pretty much no tube except north Greenwich which can take an age to get to from somewhere like Bexley - it can take 90 minutes to get to the nearest tube station. It's probably easier for someone in a village in Surrey to get to their nearest tube station. The DLR covers a tiny fraction of SE London - the stop in Woolwich is again right in the north tip of the borough and far away from many people. Train stations are far more prevalent but east-west heading to central London. There are very few north south links and river crossings are very poor.

A couple of new bridges with dedicated public transport would do wonders. Also crossrail is great, but it serves Abbey Wood and Woolwich - 2 places already with or very close to the DLR. Getting from, say Sidcup, to either of those will still take a long time.

 

[transmanche]

It is for quite a few past zone 3 in south east London. The borough's there have pretty much no tube except north Greenwich which can take an age to get to from somewhere like Bexley - it can take 90 minutes to get to the nearest tube station. It's probably easier for someone in a village in Surrey to get to their nearest tube station. The DLR covers a tiny fraction of SE London - the stop in Woolwich is again right in the north tip of the borough and far away from many people. Trains stations are far more prevalent but east-west heading to central London. There are very few north south links and river crossings are very poor.

But those rail services do also connect with the DLR at Lewisham, Woolwich and Greenwich, plus with London Overground at New Cross and New Cross Gate - which all offer north-south journey opportunities.

 

[SF-02]

FWIW the cheapest single bus fare in London is £ 2.40 and that's not going to take you 4 miles.

Bus fares have increased, but I don't think they've actually raced ahead of inflation.

Bus fares are £1.40 in London with Oyster. Practically no one pays in cash at £2.40 except drunk people at 3am! Oysters can be bought everywhere, and the cost is refundable.

Bus fares across the country have raced ahead of inflation. Someone posted a DfT report published yesterday on here and it showed the average increases over the last 5 years broken down into London, Wales, East England etc. It was way above RPI across the country last tear, and for most (maybe excluding London) the previous 4 years

 

[jopsuk]

So how am I going to get from central East London at 3am to my house? It's simply not possible - even if it was it would take me a couple of hours, and frankly, I'd rather be in bed between shifts than sitting on a train and then having to walk the 1.5 miles between the station and my house with one heavy bag of PPE and a backpack.

Ever since a member of staff was assaulted on a train in central London, yes.

You're not one of the ones that's sitting in the traffic jam at the same time every day during both rush hours, driving on their own to and from a day job (non shift), with little more than a brief case, wearing a suit. They're the majority, they're the problem. You, obviously, aren't the problem- though if your hours are variable I would assume that you get caught up in the problem...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

You're not one of the ones that's sitting in the traffic jam at the same time every day during both rush hours, driving on their own to and from a day job (non shift), with little more than a brief case, wearing a suit. They're the majority, they're the problem. You, obviously, aren't the problem- though if your hours are variable I would assume that you get caught up in the problem...

I try and avoid rush hour as much as possible. Sometimes it's inevitable though and I end up sitting on the North Circular for hours! Trust me, if I had a choice I wouldn't drive (petrol is expensive!), but for some of us there's no other way.

 

[Essexman]

For some driving is the only reasonable option. I drive 7 miles to work through mostly country roads. It takes 15 minutes. It would take 80 minutes by train and walking.

In most places it woudl need only a 10 - 20% cut in traffic to considerably reduce congestion (as shown in school holidays).

It is those who choose to drive unnecessarily and alone because they refuse to use public transport who I consider responsible for the congestion.

 

[jopsuk]

I try and avoid rush hour as much as possible. Sometimes it's inevitable though and I end up sitting on the North Circular for hours! Trust me, if I had a choice I wouldn't drive (petrol is expensive!), but for some of us there's no other way.

Well yes. You saying that you're going home at 3am, with considerable luggage, rather picks you out as being a bit different
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For some driving is the only reasonable option. I drive 7 miles to work through mostly country roads. It takes 15 minutes. It would take 80 minutes by train and walking.

I travel ten miles to work. Takes about 35-40 minutes, mainly quiet country roads.

Costs me nothing in petrol/diesel/electricity...

 

[DeeGee]

For some driving is the only reasonable option. I drive 7 miles to work through mostly country roads. It takes 15 minutes. It would take 80 minutes by train and walking.

And probably 25 minutes by bicycle.

 

[tsr]

And probably 25 minutes by bicycle.

No matter how many improvements are made to cycle facilities at workplaces and on trains/roads/sundry rights of way, the UK has large swathes of fast, narrow roads which can be treacherous even for highly experienced cyclists (I speak as one myself, in on and off road terms), and also many hills, some of which would be steep and frequent enough to make commuting by bike unpleasant. Sometimes these can't be avoided with a train or a neat shortcut. One rural area is not necessarily like another, as we all know. Also, some people are unable to cycle for genuine health reasons.

 

[edwin_m]

Someone driving in London has the ability to be in their own space, comfortable seat, ability to carry extra luggage etc. Why should they not pay more for those privileges? And those who go by bus and train are doing a favour to the motorist by reducing road congestion.

While motoring-related taxes may exceed the direct cost of the roads, do they pay for:
- Roads maintained by local authorities rather than Highways Agency?
- A fair chunk of the police force needed to detect and prosecute highways offences?
- A fair chunk of the NHS needed to deal with road traffic accidents?
- Sickness payments to people involved in same?
- Extra costs to bus councils to subsidise bus services which would be viable if (in urban areas) they weren't affected by congestion or (in rural areas) only carry small numbers of people but are socially necessary?

And costs which mostly aren't being paid but arguably should:
- Compensation to the many residents annoyed by road noise (apparently several times more in London than those annoyed by aircraft noise)
- Action to deal with traffic-related pollution and greenhouse emissions.

I don't have any figures for this (pointers to any evidence would be most welcome) but I suspect that if you look all these things into account the road user would be far short of paying their full cost to society. That may be justifiable, as even people without cars rely on services that in turn depend on the road network, but it suggests that car drivers shouldn't really be bleating about being hard done by.

It's also true that the costs of motoring (taking everything into account including vehicle purchase etc) have been falling in recent decades but the costs of public transport have been increasing.

 

[Goatboy]

Someone driving in London has the ability to be in their own space, comfortable seat, ability to carry extra luggage etc. Why should they not pay more for those privileges?

They already do - they've had to shell out the not inconsiderable sum of money to purchase the vehicle in the first place.

If you want to make public transport appealling to road users do so by making the price of public transport such that it makes using it a default option versus the car. Not by increasing car usage costs.

If I need to travel locally within Devon, I rarely bother with my car. Why? Because the rail fares are reasonable and the service quality is excellent. Therefore I use public transport.

 

[aleph_0]

No matter how many improvements are made to cycle facilities at workplaces and on trains/roads/sundry rights of way, the UK has large swathes of fast, narrow roads which can be treacherous even for highly experienced cyclists (I speak as one myself, in on and off road terms), and also many hills, some of which would be steep and frequent enough to make commuting by bike unpleasant. Sometimes these can't be avoided with a train or a neat shortcut. One rural area is not necessarily like another, as we all know. Also, some people are unable to cycle for genuine health reasons.

The road network in the UK is just as well suited to improvements for higher cycle use as any in other countries. The narrow of streets of London are no worse than the streets of Amsterdam. Fast country roads could either have higher-quality provision built alongside, or the speed reduced. But it would need a serious change in philosophy and reallocation of roadspace.

To give an on-topic example. If we look at crossings east of tower bridge for cyclists, there's the Rotherhite tunnel (cycling allowed, but fumes likely to ruin your lungs), the two foot tunnels (please dismount, dodgy lifts, and it was considered perfectly acceptable to close both at the same time), Blackwell Tunnel (no cycling) and the Woolwich ferry. For such journeys, the car looks very tempting.

 

[transmanche]

If we look at crossings east of tower bridge for cyclists, there's the Rotherhite tunnel (cycling allowed, but fumes likely to ruin your lungs), the two foot tunnels (please dismount, dodgy lifts, and it was considered perfectly acceptable to close both at the same time), Blackwell Tunnel (no cycling) and the Woolwich ferry. For such journeys, the car looks very tempting.

And if you're rich, you can take a bike on the AirLine cable car.

 

[Metrailway]

Someone driving in London has the ability to be in their own space, comfortable seat, ability to carry extra luggage etc. Why should they not pay more for those privileges? And those who go by bus and train are doing a favour to the motorist by reducing road congestion.

While motoring-related taxes may exceed the direct cost of the roads, do they pay for:
- Roads maintained by local authorities rather than Highways Agency?
- A fair chunk of the police force needed to detect and prosecute highways offences?
- A fair chunk of the NHS needed to deal with road traffic accidents?
- Sickness payments to people involved in same?
- Extra costs to bus councils to subsidise bus services which would be viable if (in urban areas) they weren't affected by congestion or (in rural areas) only carry small numbers of people but are socially necessary?

And costs which mostly aren't being paid but arguably should:
- Compensation to the many residents annoyed by road noise (apparently several times more in London than those annoyed by aircraft noise)
- Action to deal with traffic-related pollution and greenhouse emissions.

I don't have any figures for this (pointers to any evidence would be most welcome) but I suspect that if you look all these things into account the road user would be far short of paying their full cost to society. That may be justifiable, as even people without cars rely on services that in turn depend on the road network, but it suggests that car drivers shouldn't really be bleating about being hard done by.

It's also true that the costs of motoring (taking everything into account including vehicle purchase etc) have been falling in recent decades but the costs of public transport have been increasing.

Motorists pay approximately £40 billion in tax every year.

Roads (as a whole) cost around £9 billion every year

Subsidies to (English) buses cost the state £2.3 billion last year. (Source: DfT)

Estimated cost of Traffic accidents in GB is around £15.5 billion. This includes hospital costs, police costs, and various other costs. (Source: DfT)

 

[Antman]

The road network in the UK is just as well suited to improvements for higher cycle use as any in other countries. The narrow of streets of London are no worse than the streets of Amsterdam. Fast country roads could either have higher-quality provision built alongside, or the speed reduced. But it would need a serious change in philosophy and reallocation of roadspace.

To give an on-topic example. If we look at crossings east of tower bridge for cyclists, there's the Rotherhite tunnel (cycling allowed, but fumes likely to ruin your lungs), the two foot tunnels (please dismount, dodgy lifts, and it was considered perfectly acceptable to close both at the same time), Blackwell Tunnel (no cycling) and the Woolwich ferry. For such journeys, the car looks very tempting.

I agree and Amsterdam is what we should aspire too.

There is simply not the roadspace for unrestricted car use in London.

One controversial idea would be to convert the old Blackwall Tunnel to a cycle route with two way traffic using the new tunnel, there would have to be more priority measures for buses and commuter coaches but everybody else will have to like it or lump it.

 

[edwin_m]

Motorists pay approximately £40 billion in tax every year.

Roads (as a whole) cost around £9 billion every year

Subsidies to (English) buses cost the state £2.3 billion last year. (Source: DfT)

Estimated cost of Traffic accidents in GB is around £15.5 billion. This includes hospital costs, police costs, and various other costs. (Source: DfT)

Thanks for these figures. If this is the total cost of the road network then it is approximately £10 billion less than the taxes. But I suspect there are other costs I didn't think of before that we are or should be spending, like safe cycling facilities (if there was less traffic the roads would be safe for cycling) and perhaps even rail subsidies. All in all I don't think the road user is paying drastically over the odds.

 

[transmanche]

All in all I don't think the road user is paying drastically over the odds.

Indeed. Although I am unsure why anyone would expect motoring-based taxes to be spent solely on motoring-related items. The VAT I pay on a portion of chips is not hypothecated and spent only potato-related items. Neither is the VAT or duty I pay on a pint of beer spent only on beer-related items.

They're all just taxes that go into the general 'pot'. And taxes I can avoid paying by changing my behaviour.

 

[Metrailway]

Thanks for these figures. If this is the total cost of the road network then it is approximately £10 billion less than the taxes. But I suspect there are other costs I didn't think of before that we are or should be spending, like safe cycling facilities (if there was less traffic the roads would be safe for cycling) and perhaps even rail subsidies. All in all I don't think the road user is paying drastically over the odds.

Total government subsidy for the railways last year was £3.9 billion according to the ORR.

However, please remember that rail transport has been unprofitable for a large part of its existence - The LNER never made a profit and the other big three saw diminishing profits during the big four era. The UK rail system as a whole has been unprofitable since 1955.

Banning or severely restricting car use (so that car use was similar to how it was in 1955) would inevitably mean extra state spending to eye watering proportions on the railways, to make them fit to carry the huge number of extra passengers.

I am not going to quote figures for safe cycling as I don't know them but it is likely to be trivial in the whole scheme of things.

 

[edwin_m]

The UK rail system as a whole has been unprofitable since 1955.

About the same time that road competition became really significant.

However I do agree that we can't just shut down the roads. Trains are carrying more people now than at nationalisation (though much less freight) but cars account for about ten times more travel than trains and buses put together.

Broadly I believe that motoring should remain heavily taxed and trains and buses remain subsidised (more so in many cases), so as to provide an alternative for those who can't or don't drive and also to provide a workable alternative to the road system. I also believe that more integration between bus and rail, as seen in Germany and Switzerland, would help a lot in achieving this.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Motorists pay approximately £40 billion in tax every year.

Roads (as a whole) cost around £9 billion every year

Subsidies to (English) buses cost the state £2.3 billion last year. (Source: DfT)

Estimated cost of Traffic accidents in GB is around £15.5 billion. This includes hospital costs, police costs, and various other costs. (Source: DfT)

So if those figures are correct, that makes £24.5bn of benefits going to motorists, and they are paying £15.5bn more than that.

However, that doesn't account for the many other costs associated with motoring, some of which edmin_m mentioned, for example...

• CO2 emissions causing climate change
• Other pollutants (eg. particulates), causing health problems (medical treatment, loss of quality of life, etc.)
• Loss of quality of life to all those affected by noise pollution or congestion

Those are much harder to quantify financially. However, the £15.5bn 'surplus' paid by motorists from your figures, divided by 60million population comes to about £250 per person [per year]. By contrast, I'd imagine any reasonable estimate of these more subjective costs from motoring would come out in the thousands of pounds per person, it seems completely implausible to me that it would be as low as £250.

That would therefore suggest that, despite all the complaints from motorists about high taxation levels, motorists are in fact getting a net subsidy when all costs are taken into account.


(EDIT: I'm also unclear what is included in your figure of £9bn for the cost of roads. Does that refer to the cost of building and maintaining roads only, or does it also include the cost of policing, administrative costs from licensing vehicles, administrative costs of running MOT tests, etc.? If it doesn't include the latter then that would imply motorists are receiving an even bigger subsidy).


(EDIT2: On the other hand, in motorists' favour: How much, if any, of the costs of traffic accidents that you quoted is recoverable from insurance companies?)

 

[samxool]

One controversial idea would be to convert the old Blackwall Tunnel to a cycle route with two way traffic using the new tunnel, there would have to be more priority measures for buses and commuter coaches but everybody else will have to like it or lump it.

that's on its own is a ridiculous suggestion. I am very much in favour of a new third blackwall tunnel for cars, with the old being used for cyclists and buses. But not a chance in hell anyone with a sane mind will suggest reducing the blackwall crossing to 1 lane each way without some other kind of cross river capacity improvement.

 

[Antman]

that's on its own is a ridiculous suggestion. I am very much in favour of a new third blackwall tunnel for cars, with the old being used for cyclists and buses. But not a chance in hell anyone with a sane mind will suggest reducing the blackwall crossing to 1 lane each way without some other kind of cross river capacity improvement.

Really? Surely nobody with a sane mind would suggest building a third tunnel which will just encourage more car use and in a few years time we'll be back to square one, just as has happened with the Dartford Bridge. That really is a ridiculous suggestion

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To give an on-topic example. If we look at crossings east of tower bridge for cyclists, there's the Rotherhite tunnel (cycling allowed, but fumes likely to ruin your lungs), the two foot tunnels (please dismount, dodgy lifts, and it was considered perfectly acceptable to close both at the same time), Blackwell Tunnel (no cycling) and the Woolwich ferry. For such journeys, the car looks very tempting.

Don't forget: Two DLR lines and one tube line: Cycles banned at all times.

And one rather expensive cablecar - which according to Wikipedia actually can convey bicycles, though I haven't been able to find any confirmation on TfL's website.