kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
Hear hear on all of that.
50 (or more!) realistic, affordable Green transport ideas
- Thread starter Oswaldtwistle
- Start date
I'd need 2 buses, neither of which starts early enough to get me to Waverley/the airport. That's the problem with most forms of public transport - they run at their convenience not mine.
Last time I looked, Edinburgh didn't have one and Glasgow's doesn't start until after 6.
There isn't a rail link to Edinburgh/Glasgow airports, Heathrow doesn't have one either come to that......
Get real - we're not talking about commuting here......
Takes too long and messes with my hand tailored suiting, plus it's sweaty in summer and nasty in winter, apart from which, there's no buses to cycle slowly in front of at that time in the morning so where's the fun?
At last, a viable alternative to driving to the airport/station - I always use the taxi if I'm going away for more than a day and a half as it's cheaper than parking. Similarly, if I know it's likely that I'll be sharing a bottle or three with a client before leaving London (not possible without speed-drinking if I have to leg it promptly at 5:15 to get the last train), then I won't be driving home.
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
Hell, yeah, but I'm not sure how realistic this is. Especially as we are almost certainly 12 months away from a Tory government.
Two more from me (related)
1) Go through all "no cycling" restriction signs and check there is a good reason for each. 70% are there for a good reason, 20% are marginal and 10% are just plain silly. Start with the question 'do we need to ban cycling here?', rather than vice versa.
2) Go through all regulations on PT one by one, and check there is a good reason for each of them.
Two examples. Recently we had a thread wondering why carrying sealed tins of paint was banned on buses. No one could come up with a really good reason. Also my local bus company sells 'ten trips for £13 tickets'. Great, but the tickets have to be used within a month. Asked the CS why and got the reply "thats just how it has always been".
Endless silly rules like this wear people down and start them asking "would it be less hassle to own a car?"
Yes. And I also wanted to pick up on the taxing of cars thing for rural areas.
Nearly all of these ideas are predicated on good access to reliable, frequent public transport. That doesn't apply in rural areas, where it often is necessary to "railhead" just to make a journey achievable. When you start adding on the cost of per-day parking in usually completely insecure and rudimentary facilities, it tilts the playing field very much further against public transport. Which is a tough cross to bear when public transport is already hard to access, infrequent, and very expensive to start with, as it often is in rural areas.
I am all for swingeing increases in car taxation, provided EVERYONE has the option of an alternative. But to saddle the entire nation with punitive duty, car tax, etc., while only some of them have any realistic public transport option is harsh and inequitable. Rural communities are usually struggling economically enough as it is without adding on such a burden.
Much as I loathe the principle of the road pricing schemes, that would seem to me to be one of the best options to balance rural versus urban transport - routes with no PT provision could be priced very low indeed, while those where there was a wealth of PT alternatives could be priced extremely high.
My main problem with this is that I wouldn't trust any government to operate such a scheme in a way that was benificent and in the spirit it was set up in - it would quickly become a cash cow for political advantage, strategic manipulation, and stealthy taxation.
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
Like you, I'm begining to think this also. I was up in arms when London introduced congestion charging, but you can't deny the alternatives do exist there.
(When in Brixton a few weeks ago I had no trouble at all getting a bus at 8am on a Sunday morning with a very short wait, and many routes run 24 hours on a 5-10 minute frequency- try doing that in some other cities, let alone the countryside)
This x100 I'm afraid
Isn't that exactly what I said?
You'd need to do some serious research on current and potential demand to make a sweeping statement one way or the other... like "it's quicker". That's a complete non-sequiteur.
BTW - your arguments are exactly what used to be said about the London-Paris route. Build a decent (and not necessarily that cheap) rail service, and the business users will come - and there will be a slash in the air traffic.
Also, editor, having travelled on the sleeper: it was fun and better than driving, but I wasn't very refreshed at the other end and I wouldn't have wanted to go to a meeting right afterwards. For most business users, I don't think it will be a viable alternative.
But that's exactly what it is for roads. Do you mean for paths?
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
Ooh, can I have another, please?
We may not be able to re-nationalise our buses, but we *can* look at the case for a single operator in each town. Two or more is fine if they compete, but if they have different routes they aren't competing in any meaningful sense, and you get ticketing issues and silly rivarlies
eg in Derby we have Trent and Arriva. Trent use Mango (a Smartcard). Arriva use lo-tech 'ten trip' tickets which the driver punches. They aren't compatitable. And some routes take neither!!
We may not be able to re-nationalise our buses, but we *can* look at the case for a single operator in each town. Two or more is fine if they compete, but if they have different routes they aren't competing in any meaningful sense, and you get ticketing issues and silly rivarlies
eg in Derby we have Trent and Arriva. Trent use Mango (a Smartcard). Arriva use lo-tech 'ten trip' tickets which the driver punches. They aren't compatitable. And some routes take neither!!
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
I dunno. As a serious walker, I find it incredibly annoying when cyclists appear at great speeds on a foot path. But I suppose that is a debate for another time and place.
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
OK. Fair enough. Not one of my better suggestions perhaps, although I still think there is a signifcant minority of tarmac'd paths where it is safe to cycle slowly, covering the brake (I don't suppose the law can allow for this, though!)
For london (and other cities) the recent proposal that that you only pay once if you change buses within an hour would be a good encouragement. It could work on oyster, and would encourage people to use the bus when it's a relatively simple journey but you have to change buses (and would also mean that people would be happier to get on the first bus that came along, even if it wasn't the route that went the whole way, and change, so I think ease some overcrowding on buses).
I guess it would cost a bit, but not a huge amount. Boris said no
I guess it would cost a bit, but not a huge amount. Boris said no
Boycey
juvenile rave slut
i know- it would be beyond optimism to expect it to actually happen but it should. i don't think anyone could defend the privatisation of PT as it has been a complete disaster, costing the government and the users an utter fuckton while the service has diminished considerably (buses are a bit better admittedly).
sim667
All aboard the 303 bus.
Can we find fifty or more cheap, realistic ideas between us? Here's three to get us going...
1) Make the motorcycle CBT a compulsory part of the car test.
COSTS: None- born by learner driver. Learning to drive ain't cheap, this would only increase it slightly.
BENEFITS: I've already been greedy and started a whole thread on this, but basically it would encourage motorists to have a scooter or moped instead of a 2nd car (or a car at all)
I think it would also make new drivers more aware of motocyclists, and watch out for them more...... Ive always reckoned drivers should be forced to ride a moped for the first 6 months of their license
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
As a 50cc scooter is the most environmentally friendly vehicle (100mpg and they are basically made of tupperware and a chainsaw) let's remove the requirement on them for registration, insurance and car tax.
I've read articles which state that they release a laod of pollutants.
I wouldn't encourage trains or busses either as they're nasty and current buses could do with switching engines away from diesel because of the exhaust it puts out.
I think it would be better to concentrate on smaller cars and a cycle network while relaxing restrictions on using an electric bike without needing a license.
I wouldn't encourage trains or busses either as they're nasty and current buses could do with switching engines away from diesel because of the exhaust it puts out.
I think it would be better to concentrate on smaller cars and a cycle network while relaxing restrictions on using an electric bike without needing a license.
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
Mopeds can put out some pollutants, they are very good on CO2 though, and not only can they beat congestion, they also don't cause congestion, so it's a double benefit.
The latest diesel buses are much, much better on exhaust fumes- the latest standards are about 10 times as strict as those of 12 years ago on particulate fumes.
I think you can use an electric bike of up to 15 mph without a licence.
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
The new four stroke ones are Euro3 compliant and the engines are so small they are far less polluting than any car. Also they use a much smaller amount of energy, CO2, etc. to manufacture.
I'd like to see the TfL style "we set the routes and times, you run the services approach" farmed out the rest of the UK. Of course the likes of Stagecoach, First Group et all will scream blue bloody murder at the thought of the thier bloated snouts being hooked out the of public transport trough but fuck 'em. Also I'd put the rolling stock under the control of Network Rail - far better economy of scale and oppurtunity for increasing capacity by cascading stock throught the network. I like the way they use old underground rolling stock for the Isle of Wight line!
Roadkill said:
They're a disease risk,crime risk,stinky,noisy,cramped annoying modes of transport.They can be good but on the whole they aren't.
DownwardDog said:
While it takes less to make,they create smoke on the streets.
I don't suppose anyone has the figures comparing the exhaust of a small car to a scooter.
Oswaldtwistle said:
I think they're also limited to 200W.
I'd boost their power and speed because an average rider pedalling is going to be doing better than that.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Trains are a disease risk. Are you serious?
Of course they are.
The fact that offices, pubs, shopping centres and walking on the pavement are also disease risks obviously doesn't count.
Of course they are.
The fact that offices, pubs, shopping centres and walking on the pavement are also disease risks obviously doesn't count.
Of course. Silly me.
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
1) Double red line major arterial routes in major cities, like the Uxbridge Road in London, and also Oxford Road/Oxford Street/Wilmslow Road in Manchester.
Enforce a strict parking ban, with a GBP 1,000 fine for a first offence, and a car crushing for a second offence in the same vehicle.
People parking on arterial routes causes congestion, because you get a scenario where there should be two free flowing lanes of traffic, but you end up with bottle necks due to idiots parking, two lanes merging into one to pass parked vehicles, going out in two lanes again, free flowing, then a half a mile up the road bottle necking again, merging into one lane to pass more selfish f'wits, etc., etc., etc.
COSTS: publicity and enforcement, costs of crushing a few cars until the arrogant 'those parking restrictions don't apply to the special exempt from laws people like me that apply to the ordinary people.'
BENEFITS: It would be a simple but effective solution to a lot of bottle necking and resultant traffic congestion.
2) And on a related roads should be used for driving not for parking note: Require all commercial developers to provide free off-road parking sufficient to meet the needs of people using the offices, shops, restaurants or whatever they are building.
Too often, the emphasis in developments is to maximise revenue earning commercial prospects, office space to rent, leases for shops and restaurants. The developers just want to use the space to maximise revenues, regardless of the wider impact of the development. This has a knock on effect of making parking 'someone else's problem'. Developers should be required during the planning process to provide sufficient free off-road parking in order to obtain planning consents.
COSTS: Costs are laid on the balance sheet of the commercial developers, where they belong, instead of local authorities having to service lots of meter parking and providing parking services, and also it avoids business generally having to foot the bill for traffic congestion, lost working hours and so on. At the moment, we're all paying the price for the commercial developers' failures to provide on site parking, they're just maximising their lease income, and offloading the parking problem onto everyone else. This should not be allowed to continue.
BENEFITS: I'm aware this kind of thing would be unpopular with environmentally friendly types, but saying that people should use public transport and car parking shouldn't be provided doesn't reflect the reality. The reality is that people do use their cars for commuting and shopping, and the lack of parking clogs up the roads in city centres. Roads should be used for driving on, not for parking on. We have a situation at the moment where roads are used as car parks, and that's plainly stupid and an ineffective use of space, which causes traffic congestion.
Also, requiring commercial developers to provide sufficient parking spaces means that CO2 emissions will be cut down. At the moment, you have people driving round and round and round in circles unnecessarily, looking for parking spaces, more car parking should be provided to cut journeys short, so there isn't a lot of needless driving.
3) Nationalise rail and bus services. Why is the tax payer paying subsidies that effectively go straight into the pockets of private transport companies' executives and their shareholders? If the taxpayer is having to subsidise public transport, then *all* of the money should be spent on public transport, not siphoned off to provide profits, i.e. services requiring subsidies should be revenue neutral.
COSTS: the current levels of public subsidies would be reduced, as the monies required would be those directly needed to provided the service.
BENEFITS: Public transport run for the benefit of the public, not the bean counters who are more interested in maximising profits for the shareholders.
Enforce a strict parking ban, with a GBP 1,000 fine for a first offence, and a car crushing for a second offence in the same vehicle.
People parking on arterial routes causes congestion, because you get a scenario where there should be two free flowing lanes of traffic, but you end up with bottle necks due to idiots parking, two lanes merging into one to pass parked vehicles, going out in two lanes again, free flowing, then a half a mile up the road bottle necking again, merging into one lane to pass more selfish f'wits, etc., etc., etc.
COSTS: publicity and enforcement, costs of crushing a few cars until the arrogant 'those parking restrictions don't apply to the special exempt from laws people like me that apply to the ordinary people.'
BENEFITS: It would be a simple but effective solution to a lot of bottle necking and resultant traffic congestion.
2) And on a related roads should be used for driving not for parking note: Require all commercial developers to provide free off-road parking sufficient to meet the needs of people using the offices, shops, restaurants or whatever they are building.
Too often, the emphasis in developments is to maximise revenue earning commercial prospects, office space to rent, leases for shops and restaurants. The developers just want to use the space to maximise revenues, regardless of the wider impact of the development. This has a knock on effect of making parking 'someone else's problem'. Developers should be required during the planning process to provide sufficient free off-road parking in order to obtain planning consents.
COSTS: Costs are laid on the balance sheet of the commercial developers, where they belong, instead of local authorities having to service lots of meter parking and providing parking services, and also it avoids business generally having to foot the bill for traffic congestion, lost working hours and so on. At the moment, we're all paying the price for the commercial developers' failures to provide on site parking, they're just maximising their lease income, and offloading the parking problem onto everyone else. This should not be allowed to continue.
BENEFITS: I'm aware this kind of thing would be unpopular with environmentally friendly types, but saying that people should use public transport and car parking shouldn't be provided doesn't reflect the reality. The reality is that people do use their cars for commuting and shopping, and the lack of parking clogs up the roads in city centres. Roads should be used for driving on, not for parking on. We have a situation at the moment where roads are used as car parks, and that's plainly stupid and an ineffective use of space, which causes traffic congestion.
Also, requiring commercial developers to provide sufficient parking spaces means that CO2 emissions will be cut down. At the moment, you have people driving round and round and round in circles unnecessarily, looking for parking spaces, more car parking should be provided to cut journeys short, so there isn't a lot of needless driving.
3) Nationalise rail and bus services. Why is the tax payer paying subsidies that effectively go straight into the pockets of private transport companies' executives and their shareholders? If the taxpayer is having to subsidise public transport, then *all* of the money should be spent on public transport, not siphoned off to provide profits, i.e. services requiring subsidies should be revenue neutral.
COSTS: the current levels of public subsidies would be reduced, as the monies required would be those directly needed to provided the service.
BENEFITS: Public transport run for the benefit of the public, not the bean counters who are more interested in maximising profits for the shareholders.
maybe not go that far
, possibly have them limited to 20 if you havn't done cbt and unlimited if you haveI've been in New York recently, they're being amazingly proactive over there on their hydrogen-powered buses. fair enough the H2 come from natural gas ultimately, but with proper carbon capture/storage at the refinery this is less of a problem and the only time that CCS isn't shit and expensive
definately, they can keep the existing routes that are useful (they'd be mad not to really) and add ones that have been overlooked
Yes, yes, yes. since RBS who own 33% of the rolling stock have been nationalised, it'd be a wise, and I'd expect popular move, they can then use that as a starting point to buy up trains from HSBC and Santander (IIRC)
I'm quite keen on renationalising the railways by piecemeal, avoiding a repeat of the almighty clusterfuck that happenned when Major privitised themThis is a fair point, but experience in the rest of europe is that were there to be a high-speed rail line on the 400 or so miles between london and glasgow and/or edinburgh, that the majority of passengers would choose rail over air.
Paris-brussels flights have almost stopped completely; eurostar has around 74% share of the London-Paris/Brussels market; the AVE train has around 80% share of the madrid-seville market. Similar performance is expected of the madrid-barcelona high speed line which opened in feb 2008, covering 386 miles in 2hr38 - the same time that it takes virgin trains to get the 230 miles from london to liverpool!
I appreciate that these lines aren't served by high-speed trains at the moment and therefore the plane is more attractive. In my view increasing the price of domestic flights by exponentially increasing air passenger duty to subsidise train travel would speed up delivery of high speed rail by increasing demand - business cases for transport projects are mostly based on time savings for travellers and the more people using rail the more would benefit from high-speed lines!
A good summary of the kind of distances high-speed rail wins over air travel is on wiki here
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
Make it compulsory for all offices to have at least one shower unit. Make mending potholes at the side of the road more of a priority.
Similar threads
- Poll
