Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
You challenged my point about London by giving an example of Stockport and Croydon which are neither that similar or hugely representative of their respective cities as a whole.
OK so how different are they on the fundamentals that we're discussing? And what's unrepresentative about them as fringe urban/suburban boroughs? There are places all across Britain and Ireland just like these boroughs, with a mixture of inner city urban density and some slightly less dense but still very built-up leafy suburbs. There are a smattering of residential towers in both. These are precisely the common kinds of areas where over three quarters of us live.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
At a considerable loss of convenience and freedom. The Netherlands and Germany, both often cited as exemplars of public transport, have very high car ownership and use levels. People want the convenience of their own vehicle, and most are not particularly concerned about saving money at the cost of the life change that goes with relying on public transport in all its guises.
The fact that lots of people across urban Germany and the Netherlands still keep cars, but use them far less than we do here while making far more use of urban bus or Metro and cycling, only proves that it's not difficult to achieve what is being described here.
If you want to see the ultimate horror of a car-centric society try the Inland Empire area behind LA in Southern California. Hideous suburban sprawl, chronic traffic congestion, next to no public transportation, no sense of community and no sidewalks on hardly any of the roads. Parts of the UK are in danger of going the same way if we keeping on pandering to the private car and building on green field sites.
I've never been to LA but I can imagine the horror. The love affair with the car was always deluded, but the environmental crisis (hardly alluded to in this thread BTW) shows up its total dysfunctionality. It has led (not just in California, but here in the UK) to sprawling suburbs with few facilities in walking distance for the majority of people, compelling them to rely on private alternatives. We need to rediscover the 15-minute city, which has never ceased to be a reality for much of continental Europe. Sadly British infatuation with the US has a long history and towns and cities have been allowed to expand as if they were on the endless plains of the Mid-west instead of a compact European country. London is lucky largely because much of its urban development predated the motor car.
Of course private transport will always be essential for some people, some occasions and some locations. But as the default in a mainly urban society it's a nonsense.
Subsidy of public transport isn't "bailing out", it's a conscious choice to fund something for a given outcome. It shouldn't be decided price-first, nor should any public service.
OK so how different are they on the fundamentals that we're discussing? And what's unrepresentative about them as fringe urban/suburban boroughs? There are places all across Britain and Ireland just like these boroughs, with a mixture of inner city urban density and some slightly less dense but still very built-up leafy suburbs. There are a smattering of residential towers in both. These are precisely the common kinds of areas where over three quarters of us live.
Well one doesn't have an eight lane motorway running through the middle of it for a start. But it doesn't change my point that London isn't representative of the wider UK by you choosing a fringe urban\suburban borough as the exemplar of the city.
I don't think that is quite right - 75% live in urban areas (which includes sprawling suburbs, market towns etc). In 'densely populated' urban areas will be measurably less. You are quite right to say that public transport is an issue, but not to everyone in urban areas, and probably only to a majority in the densely populated areas.
We've already established this several times but most recently at post #88.
If I didn't know better I'd question if your attempts to keep pointless caveats going while constantly missing the point of those responding to you weren't a good case of sealioning.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Well one doesn't have an eight lane motorway running through the middle of it for a start. But it doesn't change my point that London isn't representative of the wider UK by you choosing a fringe urban\suburban borough as the exemplar of the city.
Well unfortunately your point is wrong. Suburban London and suburban Manchester or Bristol or Newcastle or Glasgow have little to distinguish them in terms of the fundamentals. What works well in one will work similarly in the rest.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I've never been to LA but I can imagine the horror. The love affair with the car was always deluded, but the environmental crisis (hardly alluded to in this thread BTW) shows up its total dysfunctionality. It has led (not just in California, but here in the UK) to sprawling suburbs with few facilities in walking distance for the majority of people, compelling them to rely on private alternatives. We need to rediscover the 15-minute city, which has never ceased to be a reality for much of continental Europe. Sadly British infatuation with the US has a long history and towns and cities have been allowed to expand as if they were on the endless plains of the Mid-west instead of a compact European country. London is lucky largely because much of its urban development predated the motor car.
Of course private transport will always be essential for some people, some occasions and some locations. But as the default in a mainly urban society it's a nonsense.
Indeed. It's funny how daily car drivers in cities always seem the most unhappy with their lot out of everyone in this country. People who cycle or use buses, trams and trains always want to encourage others to do the same I've noticed, but never once have I heard someone who drives to work every day do anything but complain about other people doing precisely as they do.
We've already established this several times but most recently at post #88.
If I didn't know better I'd question if your attempts to keep pointless caveats going while constantly missing the point of those responding to you weren't a good case of sealioning.
Post #88 tells little. 75% live in urban areas. Public transport is an issue, but only in a proportion of those urban areas is it to sufficient people that it will be a majority political point. I think it unlikely to cause a radically divergent agenda outside of those areas.
Post #88 tells little. 75% live in urban areas. Public transport is an issue, but only in a proportion of those urban areas is it to sufficient people that it will be a majority political point. I think it unlikely to cause a radically divergent agenda outside of those areas.
Indeed, but I never said that transport would be the cause of the radical change of tack. Quite the opposite, most people aren't interested in transport except for when it's going badly for them. Instead the radical change will come from the overwhelming unpopularity of the current government among urban and suburban residents. That will leave a lot of room for big changes in transport policy as part of the new package.
Indeed the ideal is that transport requires little thought or debate time, given for nearly everyone it's only a derived demand anyway.
I've never been to LA but I can imagine the horror. The love affair with the car was always deluded, but the environmental crisis (hardly alluded to in this thread BTW) shows up its total dysfunctionality. It has led (not just in California, but here in the UK) to sprawling suburbs with few facilities in walking distance for the majority of people, compelling them to rely on private alternatives. We need to rediscover the 15-minute city, which has never ceased to be a reality for much of continental Europe. Sadly British infatuation with the US has a long history and towns and cities have been allowed to expand as if they were on the endless plains of the Mid-west instead of a compact European country. London is lucky largely because much of its urban development predated the motor car.
Of course private transport will always be essential for some people, some occasions and some locations. But as the default in a mainly urban society it's a nonsense.
I think this is important. The fact the US model has been applied to the UK almost as a whole since WW2 is a reason the pigeons are coming home to roost. Lousy infrastructure and an unhealthy obsession with cars which has resulted in the nations arteries being clogged and daft innovations like smart motorways are just hindering the issue further. So many people now won't use public transport as it's basically uncool. This has never been the case in Europe. As you point out there are times when it will always be necessary to use cars but clearly not on the same scale as now.
I can't speak from my own experience but on another thread here someone said that this is a common view in Spain - even more so than in the UK. (Which might go part way to explaining why their railways are the way they are).
I've never been to LA but I can imagine the horror. The love affair with the car was always deluded, but the environmental crisis (hardly alluded to in this thread BTW) shows up its total dysfunctionality.
I'm not sure what post 88 establishes. If you carry out a similar exercise om the municipalities of the Netherlands you come out with a slightly higher density than UK @ 90% and a significantly lower density at 75%. Which would suggest that the Netherlands as a whole is a more consistently dense than the much more varied UK. And it is that consistency that probably makes public transport (inc private bikes and walking) easier to provide.
Although as they have both higher car ownership and car modal share than the UK, bikes appear to replace buses rather than cars, I'm not sure the example holds.
Well unfortunately your point is wrong. Suburban London and suburban Manchester or Bristol or Newcastle or Glasgow have little to distinguish them in terms of the fundamentals. What works well in one will work similarly in the rest.
No I'm correct again. You have again moved the goalposts original comparison London vs rest of UK is now your're comparing the suburban areas of five of our biggest cities. So what works in one part of the UK won't work well in the rest.
Indeed. It's funny how daily car drivers in cities always seem the most unhappy with their lot out of everyone in this country. People who cycle or use buses, trams and trains always want to encourage others to do the same I've noticed, but never once have I heard someone who drives to work every day do anything but complain about other people doing precisely as they do.
I don't think that car drivers do seem the most unhappy and I've heard plenty of them extol the virtues of their latest steed particularly Tesla owners. Do they only go on about it in the hope they can use you as a referral and gain extra free charging miles?
There are comedy tropes based on the poor performance of rail, "11 minutes late due to a defective junction box, New Malden" and I'm sure colleagues of mine have moaned abut busses trains and the whether when cycling.
Or that publicly-funded bin emptying is bailing out Biffa?
I think the mental block is the idea of part-funding something. The NHS is free at the point of use so obviously it comes from taxation. OK, there are prescription charges, but that feels more like paying a pharmacist even though medication is part-subsidised exactly like train fares are! Not only that, but in fact some medication is cheaper than the prescription fee, thus resulting in some cross-subsidy - another thing that happens on the railway.
Indeed, but I never said that transport would be the cause of the radical change of tack. Quite the opposite, most people aren't interested in transport except for when it's going badly for them. Instead the radical change will come from the overwhelming unpopularity of the current government among urban and suburban residents. That will leave a lot of room for big changes in transport policy as part of the new package.
Indeed the ideal is that transport requires little thought or debate time, given for nearly everyone it's only a derived demand anyway.
I think what is needed is one or three places to (quickly) develop a comprehensive public transport system, which needs to be successful, affordable and be pretty squeaky clean of any wasteful practices. The most likely at present is Manchester, which is part of the way already. However, to be radical (but not necessarily too expensive) it is going to need comprehensive powers over Highways and Enforcement, as well as heavy rail. Unfortunately it won't easily be able to deal with some of the bad planning decisions taken over the last 40-60 years which will inhibit best practice in some areas. It will have to be pretty thick skinned, and be very politically astute (i.e the taxi issue mentioned above amongst others). Even if there is seemingly overwhelming unpopularity of the current government, that is not guaranteed to last long if unpopular policies are followed also, and all the possible good work could be undone.
I don't think that car drivers do seem the most unhappy and I've heard plenty of them extol the virtues of their latest steed particularly Tesla owners. Do they only go on about it in the hope they can use you as a referral and gain extra free charging miles?
Cars make people happy when they're enjoying driving them on the open road.
Nobody (other than a masochist) enjoys driving into a large town or city in the rush hour. They might think it's better than sitting in the same traffic jam in a bus, but that's different from liking it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They're not bailing anything out. They're putting the delivery of a service out to tender, and paying for the delivery of that service. It's no different from me going to Tesco and paying them for some bog rolls.
The service might be poor, but that doesn't mean they're "bailing" anyone "out". There will be contractual penalties for failure to carry the service out correctly.
No I'm correct again. You have again moved the goalposts original comparison London vs rest of UK is now your're comparing the suburban areas of five of our biggest cities. So what works in one part of the UK won't work well in the rest.
Sorry but you'll need to actually explain your points. I've been pretty clear about my point and you're simply coming along and saying no. You'll have to do slightly more work than that if you'd like to engage in reasoned discourse. Otherwise it's an exercise in mind reading, which I'm not prepared to engage in so I'll just assume you're wrong.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I don't think that car drivers do seem the most unhappy and I've heard plenty of them extol the virtues of their latest steed particularly Tesla owners. Do they only go on about it in the hope they can use you as a referral and gain extra free charging miles?
There are comedy tropes based on the poor performance of rail, "11 minutes late due to a defective junction box, New Malden" and I'm sure colleagues of mine have moaned abut busses trains and the whether when cycling.
Jokes only work about thinga being bad when at some level they are bad. Obviously, given the way they're funded it'd be astonishing of they weren't bad.
Despite acknowledging they're bad I try to persuade people all the time to use trains and buses to get where they're going. Many people I know do the same with cycling. Both are very common elements of discourse in conversations about equity, urbanism or environmentism.
By contrast I've never, ever once heard someone who drives to work in a city attempt to encourage others to do the same. Why is that, if it's not because private motoring in urban areas is fundamentally incompatible with modern, dense, cities, while cycling, walking or using a bus fit perfectly in?
I don't think that car drivers do seem the most unhappy and I've heard plenty of them extol the virtues of their latest steed particularly Tesla owners. Do they only go on about it in the hope they can use you as a referral and gain extra free charging miles?
There are comedy tropes based on the poor performance of rail, "11 minutes late due to a defective junction box, New Malden" and I'm sure colleagues of mine have moaned abut busses trains and the whether when cycling.
Most people who are enthusiastic about cars are only really enthusiastic about the car itself rather than actually driving it for a hobby. If you are driving for a hobby and can afford to, you're probably using a private track too, not the public highway.
But of course, none of this matters. Car enthusiasts are at no point going to be told to jump off a bridge. If you really want a care you'll always be able to get one.
Cars make people happy when they're enjoying driving them on the open road.
Nobody (other than a masochist) enjoys driving into a large town or city in the rush hour. They might think it's better than sitting in the same traffic jam in a bus, but that's different from liking it.
They're not bailing anything out. They're putting the delivery of a service out to tender, and paying for the delivery of that service. It's no different from me going to Tesco and paying them for some bog rolls.
The service might be poor, but that doesn't mean they're "bailing" anyone "out". There will be contractual penalties for failure to carry the service out correctly.
Do you have any experience of local government procurement? Waste disposal contracts are rife with poor value and various indemnities and get outs provided to the contractors by the councils.
Do you have any experience of local government procurement? Waste disposal contracts are rife with poor value and various indemnities and get outs provided to the contractors by the councils.
Sorry but you'll need to actually explain your points. I've been pretty clear about my point and you're simply coming along and saying no. You'll have to do slightly more work than that if you'd like to engage in reasoned discourse. Otherwise it's an exercise in mind reading, which I'm not prepared to engage in so I'll just assume you're wrong.
This has been discredited by others as it reflects infrastructure spending - notably at a time during the building of Crossrail which was Europe’s largest construction project for a time.
Well, motoring pollution is covered by the tax system in the way vehicles are taxed, the tax levied on fuel - an inefficient vehicle consumes more fuel ergo pays more tax. Unlike the rail industry which uses red diesel and therefore contributes nothing.
Policing costs - since policing is a general service which covers more than just roads policing it's difficult to separate for example roads policing is interlinked with things like tracking and capturing County Lines drug gangs.
Police spending in total is about £ 19bn.
Road fund licence raises about £ 7bn, fuel duty from motoring raises a further £ 28bn - so that's £ 35bn.
There are other taxes which motorists are paying as well - e.g. VAT on sales and servicing - all of that adds up.
What evidence? Can you point to some evidence that the railway is a “net drain” on the economy?
Ask yourself: why do you think the government (in this case one of the most right wing, small state, public-service-disinterested governments this country has ever had) continues to subsidise it?
Public transport is for losers, an image helped along by the motor car manufacturers of course. With a car you are free as a bird.... If you don't believe me, try working with these people.
It isn’t representative of the UK, which I suspect is what you meant, and in transport terms rail use in particular is focussed on London and the south east with over 50% of journeys either being within london, or starting or ending there.
London is also a powerhouse of the national economy, and very much a net contributor to the rest of the country - hence why subsidising rail makes good sense even for taxpayers in rural areas who rarely-to-never use the train. Those taxpayers are increasingly in a minority, as discussed ad nauseam.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But 80%+ of the population do, and that % is growing. As for your second sentence ULEZ, congestion charging to discourage private motoring and decent, affordable (at point of use) public transport are the obvious methods. London is the only place in the entire UK which really models this, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be replicated elsewhere.
In many cases it is a very poorly negotiated and drafted contract for services allowing said contractor to remain handsomely remunerated despite a failure to deliver. Surely if I was a hard right winger I would be extolling the virtues of contracting out a service to the private sector at extortionate cost and low service level not be critical of them.
In many cases it is a very poorly negotiated and drafted contract for services allowing said contractor to remain handsomely remunerated despite a failure to deliver. Surely if I was a hard right winger I would be extolling the virtues of contracting out a service to the private sector at extortionate cost and low service level not be critical of them.
In many cases it is a very poorly negotiated and drafted contract for services allowing said contractor to remain handsomely remunerated despite a failure to deliver. Surely if I was a hard right winger I would be extolling the virtues of contracting out a service to the private sector at extortionate cost and low service level not be critical of them.
A rather large number of contracts are obviously massively one-sided, but by definition if they still give consideration and they're still lawful in other ways they're freely entered into as bargains of one thing or set of things for another, and thus not bailouts. Even railway contracts with consumers are one-sided in respect of charging someone £10 to change their time of travel, but no £10 fee applying on the reverse direction if the train is cancelled or the reservation not honoured resulting in a changed time of travel! Obviously some retailers have thankfully done away with the crazy £10 charge but it's still in the Conditions so they would be 100% permitted to bring it back at any time.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Exactly, every British city is similar enough to London that what works there would work in others, scaled up and down according to the number of residents and funded at parity.
You're telling me I need to do more work and add more evidence to my argument or you won't engage and you have done it repeatedly, seems to meet the definition
I know what a bailout is. And I would argue that a poorly let waste management contract that allows the contractor facing insolvency on said contract to unilaterally increase fees or change the deliverables to return to a solvent position to be the equivalent of one.
We've tried to evidence as best we all can that few people live in rural areas. You just keep saying that's wrong but won't explain why, so I don't think we can go further.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And I would argue that a poorly let waste management contract that allows the contractor facing insolvency on said contract to unilaterally increase fees or change the deliverables to return to a solvent position to be the equivalent of one.
You're telling me I need to do more work and add more evidence to my argument or you won't engage and you have done it repeatedly, seems to meet the definition
I know what a bailout is. And I would argue that a poorly let waste management contract that allows the contractor facing insolvency on said contract to unilaterally increase fees or change the deliverables to return to a solvent position to be the equivalent of one.
That is at least tantamount to one. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about the ongoing normal rail subsidy, which categorically is not a bailout, just like letting the waste contract isn't.
Public transport is for losers, an image helped along by the motor car manufacturers of course. With a car you are free as a bird.... If you don't believe me, try working with these people.
Free as a bird eh. That analogy has set this country back decades. Whilst I think cars are a necessary evil I don't call sweating on the A303 M25 or M6 not to mention countless other blocked arteries free as a bird. I suppose many see the ideal driving conditions on car adverts. Mountains, valleys and open roads with not another car in sight. No one stuck in temporary lights and around ludicrous speed restrictions.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
