congestion, roads discussion

MikeF
Posts: 3770
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: congestion, roads discussion

Postby MikeF » 30 Sep 2019, 9:00pm

mjr wrote:
irc wrote:
horizon wrote:I travel by train and have to pay the full upfront cost of my travel each timec.


Actually you don't. The taxpayer spends billions subsiding the trains.

Yes, billions. About £4bn a year, which amounts to a whopping £1.41 per journey in England.

Coincidentally, about £4bn a year is what is budgeted just on building new motorways and quasi-motorways in the RIS1 projects, let alone all the money spent repairing the damage done by motorists.

Meanwhile, cycling projects are budgeted to get just £33m in 2020/21 (just 72p per person - not journey, person). Something is seriously on the huh!
https://orr.gov.uk/news-and-blogs/press-releases/2019/rail-regulator-publishes-2017-18-rail-funding-and-expenditure-data
I wonder what a one for roads would be? :wink:
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13746
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: congestion, roads discussion

Postby gaz » 30 Sep 2019, 9:07pm

horizon wrote:I recently stayed in Hackney which AFAIK (no facts checked here either!) has the lowest car ownership in the UK.

If you want to check the facts here's a link to 2011 Census figures for % of households with access to a car/van by electoral ward.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

MikeF
Posts: 3770
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: congestion, roads discussion

Postby MikeF » 30 Sep 2019, 9:47pm

gaz wrote:
horizon wrote:I recently stayed in Hackney which AFAIK (no facts checked here either!) has the lowest car ownership in the UK.

If you want to check the facts here's a link to 2011 Census figures for % of households with access to a car/van by electoral ward.
Seems to confirm a statement that those that live in towns or cities pollute less than those that live elsewhere. :wink:
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

basingstoke123
Posts: 145
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm

Re: congestion, roads discussion

Postby basingstoke123 » 1 Oct 2019, 12:41am

mjr wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:
mjr wrote:Yes, but hopefully horizon has done this or seen something written by someone who has to make such a statement with so much certainty.


Isn't it obvious that those too poor to afford a car will have to travel by bus?

No. Isn't it obvious that those people may have bought a car before they became poor (and maybe they became poor because of the high costs of car operation) or may hire cars, belong to a car club or borrow a car from friends or family?


MikeF wrote:
gaz wrote:
horizon wrote:I recently stayed in Hackney which AFAIK (no facts checked here either!) has the lowest car ownership in the UK.

If you want to check the facts here's a link to 2011 Census figures for % of households with access to a car/van by electoral ward.
Seems to confirm a statement that those that live in towns or cities pollute less than those that live elsewhere. :wink:


The link (in the quote above) would seem to indicate that car ownership has more to do with where people live. Some of the wealthiest areas in the country, e.g. central Cambridge, central London, have the lowest levels of car ownership , while rural areas, e.g. in the South West or Wales, have some of the highest levels of car ownership.

Living in a town or city, you complain if the bus service is less frequent than once every 15 minutes. In many smaller towns, your are lucky to have a bus once every 2 hours, and the first bus is too late for a job starting before 9am, or too late for one finishing after 5.30pm (so, no good for most jobs one end or the other). Many villages have no bus service. (And looking at a map of bus routes can be very deceptive, as some of these routes are not even daily, but just weekly).

If you are better off, you can afford a new car that meets the latest emission standards, so avoid paying emission based charges, or benefit from lower road tax. While the poorest can only afford older cars that have higher tax. Very often increasing taxes or charges on older cars so as to reduce pollution has no adverse effect on wealthier people, as they would be buying new a new car anyway. But it does cost the poorest who usually have the oldest cars. Tighter standards can suddenly make what was a functional car no more than a pile of scrap metal, which you have to pay to get ride of!

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17321
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: congestion, roads discussion

Postby Vorpal » 1 Oct 2019, 8:09am

mjr wrote:
horizon wrote:BTW, poorer people are often the ones already unable to afford a car and who travel by bus.

Can anyone show that car ownership or access to a car or something like that correlates better with wealth than population density?

It correlates very well with wealth

carsbyincome.jpg

from the ONS https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... uktablea47

But the problem is more the other way around. High rates of car ownership and motor-centric land and transport planning has led to transport poverty and social exclusion for those who do not have cars. People who cannot afford cars are excluded from job opportunities. Poor people who have cars are sometimes forced (by lack of alternatives) to use them more than they can really afford.

A literature review from Better Transport UK https://bettertransport.org.uk/sites/de ... review.pdf

An evidence review https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... access.pdf

Specifically about job exclusion & transport https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/ ... e-out-work
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

MikeF
Posts: 3770
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: congestion, roads discussion

Postby MikeF » 1 Oct 2019, 9:00am

basingstoke123 wrote:
mjr wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:
Isn't it obvious that those too poor to afford a car will have to travel by bus?

No. Isn't it obvious that those people may have bought a car before they became poor (and maybe they became poor because of the high costs of car operation) or may hire cars, belong to a car club or borrow a car from friends or family?


MikeF wrote:
gaz wrote:If you want to check the facts here's a link to 2011 Census figures for % of households with access to a car/van by electoral ward.
Seems to confirm a statement that those that live in towns or cities pollute less than those that live elsewhere. :wink:


The link (in the quote above) would seem to indicate that car ownership has more to do with where people live. Some of the wealthiest areas in the country, e.g. central Cambridge, central London, have the lowest levels of car ownership , while rural areas, e.g. in the South West or Wales, have some of the highest levels of car ownership.

Living in a town or city, you complain if the bus service is less frequent than once every 15 minutes. In many smaller towns, your are lucky to have a bus once every 2 hours, and the first bus is too late for a job starting before 9am, or too late for one finishing after 5.30pm (so, no good for most jobs one end or the other). Many villages have no bus service. (And looking at a map of bus routes can be very deceptive, as some of these routes are not even daily, but just weekly).

If you are better off, you can afford a new car that meets the latest emission standards, so avoid paying emission based charges, or benefit from lower road tax. While the poorest can only afford older cars that have higher tax. Very often increasing taxes or charges on older cars so as to reduce pollution has no adverse effect on wealthier people, as they would be buying new a new car anyway. But it does cost the poorest who usually have the oldest cars. Tighter standards can suddenly make what was a functional car no more than a pile of scrap metal, which you have to pay to get ride of!

Indeed. But it doesn't alter the statement.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

Mike Sales
Posts: 3459
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: congestion, roads discussion

Postby Mike Sales » 1 Oct 2019, 11:31am

Being well off enough to afford running a car is a constraint on choice of where to live.

basingstoke123
Posts: 145
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm

Re: congestion, roads discussion

Postby basingstoke123 » 1 Oct 2019, 10:36pm

Mike Sales wrote:Being well off enough to afford running a car is a constraint on choice of where to live.

Being well off enough to choose where to live or to move is an even bigger constraint.

Mike Sales
Posts: 3459
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: congestion, roads discussion

Postby Mike Sales » 1 Oct 2019, 10:47pm

basingstoke123 wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:Being well off enough to afford running a car is a constraint on choice of where to live.

Being well off enough to choose where to live or to move is an even bigger constraint.


I think you are saying the same thing, really.