Public Transport

[Mercadante]

PMG wrote:

simplistic views of things - as in if we all stop driving tomorrow

people who can avoid the need to use a car may be very fortunate and can be tempted to grab the moral high ground

Hey, I didn't say anything about tomorrow, or claim personal virtue. Some non-drivers can fairly claim the moral high ground, as far as I'm concerned, but I don't, because I sometimes drive. I feel I have to, because I live in Cornwall, there is very little public transport, and the few local shops don't sell much.

But what caused that situation? Everyone having cars caused that. We aren't going to get from our current position to a better one until driving costs drivers more.

[Mercadante]

Vectisbirder wrote:

habitat destruction, rainforest clearance and burning and agriculture do more damage to the climate than cars do.

I agree, but that doesn't mean the significant damage cars cause shouldn't be reduced as well. And I know very well that people need to drive, often very long distances, to work - but that is a result of cars, too.

Since I think it would be good if less driving were done, I think I have to be willing to accept measures that make driving cost more, one way or another.

[PMG]

How on earth is it going to be better (or fairer?) if only those who can afford the spiralling costs are still in their cars and those who can no longer afford it are priced out of their cars and out of the earning economy and onto the dole ......... the car is not the problem - the system is ...... penalising people will only backfire as folk are forced off the road and out of the economy and ultimately onto the dole - weigh it up if its going to cost more to travel to work than sitting at home drawing benefits then some folks are going to swallow their pride and dignity, stop trying to do proper work and slide into letting those that can afford to work keep us...........

If there was a genuine workable alternative to the car and people were still not using it then they - and only they could be charged - but its never going to happen because a huge proportion of this country cannot ever be covered by public transport - we are not in the 1950's scenario where a privilleged few owned a car and the rest walked to work in the factory at the end of the street....... we've moved on and the genie cannot go back in the bottle. We're living a modern life whether we want to our not .......... sending the weakest to the wall by taxing them out of existance is evil and should be illegal. Our modern life has brought all the dark ages trappings with it - we are approaching serfdom again and it beats me why anyone would think this is a good idea. Anyone who has to drive every day for work, for their families, for whatever reason is bound to think being charged an arm and leg for it is unreasonable. A casual car user is not going to feel the pinch quite the same - but to keep adding charges to folks who cannot avoid it unless they stop working is evil and counter productive.

Its already proven that folks will travel to work earlier and come home later in order to avoid paying the congestion charge - that isn't less congestion - its the same amount of pollution spread out over more hours..........

Pauline

[pressld2]

Very well said Pauline, I agree with all of that.

One other point is that the way the London congestion charge works and the way the proposed Manchester one will work is far too much of a blunt instrument and hits the least well off hardest. This means that the first cars forced off the road will be the Mini Metros, Nissan Micras, Fiat Pandas, etc. - the least polluting cars in common usage. The charge has zero impact on drivers of Bentleys, Jags and Porsches, most of whom don't pay it - their company does.

In London, hybrids like the Toyota Prius are exempt from the charge. They should extend that principle so that all charges are linked to emmissions and people in 3 litre gas-guzzlers get priced off the roads first, not last.

Dave P.

[Mercadante]

I'm sorry, but I can't accept all this stuff about us having no choice and not being able to change the way we live even if we want to. Yes we can, to quote someone or other. There is no genie, there is just us.

Of course changing habits can be painful in the short term. But when people cannot afford to drive long distances to work, public transport will get more customers, and/or employers will have to decentralize so that long distances aren't necessary, and that's good for everyone.

And the poor are more hurt by the existing car culture than anyone else. We get to live in the most polluted areas, our children are more likely to be run over because they have no gardens to play in, and we suffer most from social exclusion because everything is geared around the cars lots of us can't afford.

Certainly there are fairer ways of moving away from the car than taxation - like progressively banning it. I'd be very happy with that too, but I don't think any government would dare.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Mercadante

...I'm sorry, but I can't accept all this stuff about us having no choice and not being able to change the way we live....

I have been reading this thread with a great deal of interest, and can remain silent no longer.

I would suggest that you should refrain from sermonising as to what people should or shouldn't be able to do regarding their driving necessities, until such time as you have taken your own advice and have got rid of your car.

Since, you can't accept that you have no choice, then you obviously do have a choice, and you have chosen to keep your car.

I presume that getting rid of it would be inconvenient for you - but hey, what's a bit of inconvenience, you would be saving the planet.

However, as you keep stressing, you can change your habits if you want to - so why haven't you?

Let me know when you've actually gone green, and I'll engage you in conversation again.

Regards
Mike.

[Mercadante]

Lancashire Lad wrote:

I would suggest that you should refrain from sermonising as to what people should or shouldn't be able to do regarding their driving necessities, until such time as you have taken your own advice and have got rid of your car.

I have not sermonized. I have not advised anyone to get rid of their cars. I have supported higher taxes on cars, and I have paid them.

I have said that it would be good for us to drive less, which I try to - but I have not gone into detail about how, partly because it's very dull, and partly because I don't want to seem to claim moral superiority. But can I not even express the opinion that it would be good if we drove less, until I have attained total perfection myself? That's absurd. Am I not to say I think we should try to be kind to each other, just because I sometimes fail?

There are intelligent arguments for and against congestion charges, but that I do or do not own a car is not one.

[BloomingMarvellous]

It's Blooming Marvellous not having to worry about Car Insurance Car Tax, MOT, Breakdown Recovery, Ware and Tare, Petrol Prices, Parking spaces, Agitated faces... I'd rather Blooming Walk... Can we have some Pavements please.

[Lancashire Lad]

Mercadente wrote: -

Originally Posted by Mercadante

...There are intelligent arguments for and against congestion charges, but that I do or do not own a car is not one.

Mercadente also wrote: -

Originally Posted by Mercadante

...Certainly there are fairer ways of moving away from the car than taxation - like progressively banning it. I'd be very happy with that too, but I don't think any government would dare.

From someone who speaks of what an intelligent argument is, I cannot see much intelligence in wanting a progressive ban on cars, whilst at the same time owning a car and obviously wanting to keep it.

This smacks of "I'm all right Jack - let's have cars taxed to the hilt, but I'm ok I can afford it so I'll still be able to keep mine".

I presume I must be correct, as you seem quite happy to have to pay more taxes for your driving privilege, and you obviously don't want to be rid of your car for environmental purposes, or inconvenience.

Or if I am wrong, you are quite happy to see yourself priced out of car ownership due to higher taxes. Hmm, and the fairies dance merrily at the bottom of my garden too.

Regards
Mike.

[Mercadante]

Yes, I am happy to see myself priced out of car ownership, for all the reasons I've given, and which you have not challenged.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Mercadante

Yes, I am happy to see myself priced out of car ownership, for all the reasons I've given, and which you have not challenged.

So, despite all your arguments regarding the pollution, dangers to children etc. etc. You will keep your car until you are priced out of ownership.

I rest my case.

Regards
Mike.

[Mercadante]

No, that's half my case you're resting - that people (I am one) can be priced out of driving. My argument is that if we aren't prepared to reduce it in any other way, we should do it that way, because it would be good if less driving were done. Including less driving by me.

You've said nothing against any of that, you've just attacked me, on the (quite unjustified) assumptions that I both own a car and think no one should. You're welcome to think I am a fleet-of-SUVs-owning baby-eater, but it's not an argument against congestion charges. That I am a sinner, and that higher car taxes would help make me behave better, is an argument for them.

[nightshade]

The sensible range of a pushbike for someone working 12 hour shifts twenty miles from nowhere is too limited. Getting up at 4 AM etc. makes a nonsense
of public transport, we need cars

[Jez]

Originally Posted by nightshade

The sensible range of a pushbike for someone working 12 hour shifts twenty miles from nowhere is too limited. Getting up at 4 AM etc. makes a nonsense
of public transport, we need cars

I have done for the last 8 years on 9 hour shifts, 16 miles on a round route. Usually took an hour there and back + I was back before my work college who travelled by car hehe. Still I should have got a trailer!

[Lancashire Lad]

Mercadante,

I am not attacking you, but challenging part of your argument.

People have posted valid and reasoned accounts of why public transport would be an impossible proposition for their circumstances.

Your response: -

Originally Posted by Mercadante

...I'm sorry, but I can't accept all this stuff about us having no choice and not being able to change the way we live even if we want to....

Is a simplistic sweeping statement which shows no apparent understanding of what impact the loss of personal transport would have in such circumstances.

People seldom drive for sheer pleasure these days, (certainly not among my friends and acquaintances), they drive out of necessity, because public transport is currently not a viable option – when the alternative would be loss of employment, and the potential for yet another burden on the state.

You say that I have not addressed your argument for the higher taxing of car usage. I would accept higher taxing readily, if public transport was just as readily available as a viable alternative – but it is categorically not.

As to your reference that I have not made any argument against congestion charge – well, my stance on congestion charge is this: -

It is nothing more than a tax. It is a money grabbing tax on the working man who has no alternative but to commute via personal transport in order to try to earn an honest days pay, and in doing so keep the wheels of industry and commerce turning.

If government were to offer the incentive to people to use public transport be reducing its cost, then I’m sure those people who have the option would be more likely to use it, but like everything else, they use penalty instead, which captures everyone, including those who have no such option.

I repeat, I am making no personal attack on yourself, but only on the simplistic notion that higher taxations & congestion charges etc. are the panacea that will kick start the solution to what is agreed is a major problem.

Regards
Mike.

[Mercadante]

First, my statement was about what we can do collectively. If we agree that it would be good if less driving were done (do we?), then I believe that we as a society can and should change our ways to aim for that goal, and not just assume that nothing can be done.

I would strongly support nationalized railway and fast coach services. But why don't those exist? Why is the quality of our public transport not a major electoral issue, while governments are rocked by petrol price protests? Why did we let the railway service we once had go so far downhill? Why are our buses so horrible and slow? I think it's because so many of us got cars, and didn't need public transport. So I am afraid we need penalties, that will force us out of our cars, before we'll get a decent alternative.

But I've nowhere suggested that higher taxes are a panacea, or all we should do.

[Lancashire Lad]

Mercadante,
You ask if we are agreed that less driving would be better – We are.

In the last five months, I have driven 1330 miles.
In the last eleven months, I have cycled 4618 miles. (cycle odometer reading).
When I go into town, I walk - two miles each way.
When I go to the supermarket, I walk and carry the shopping bags home.

I reckon I’m doing my bit, by driving conscientiously, when I feel there is no other suitable option.

I also reckon, for the amount of use it gets, that I’m already paying an extortionate amount of money to legally keep my car on the road.

You ask why various transport systems are the way they are.

In my opinion, they are so because successive governments have failed to grasp what was becoming an obvious situation.

They denationalised the railways to make a quick buck, so we now have systems where shareholder profit is more important than the needs of the public.

They reduced funding to local councils to the extent that local public transport systems could no longer be afforded as council operations – so yet again they are sold off to private companies who are more interested in profit than public need. We now have situations where several operators run the same routes, only wanting to run routes which attract the most passengers, leaving the rural community out in the cold.

Government pretends to be concerned regarding the traffic situation, but it is they who have been the biggest contributing factor towards it. If they had spent as much on tangible remedies over the years, as they do on committees, fact finding missions, and interminable waffle, I might have more sympathy for them. – They are quite capable of finding billions to fight unnecessary wars half way across the world, and even more billions to bail out the banking sectors woes, (again created by the private greed of shareholders), but that is another subject.

I’m sorry Mercadante, but I really don’t see why the average man in the street should be penalised yet again as a result of failed transport systems brought about by continued government negligence & mismanagement.

Regards
Mike.

[Mercadante]

Lancashire Lad wrote:

I really don’t see why the average man in the street should be penalised yet again as a result of failed transport systems brought about by continued government negligence & mismanagement.

Well, my answer to that is simply that it's those average people in the street who elected those governments.

But I'd be very happy to see the government pursue other ways of getting people out of their cars, rewarding cyclists, and targeting driving penalties on those who can most afford them and least need to drive. Perhaps we only disagree about how likely those things are to happen unless lots of us are hurting.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Mercadante

Lancashire Lad wrote:

Well, my answer to that is simply that it's those average people in the street who elected those governments.

But I'd be very happy to see the government pursue other ways of getting people out of their cars, rewarding cyclists, and targeting driving penalties on those who can most afford them and least need to drive. Perhaps we only disagree about how likely those things are to happen unless lots of us are hurting.

Perhaps you're not the "fleet-of-SUVs-owning baby-eater", (Your own words), I took you to be after all.

Regards
Mike.

[Mercadante]

[nightshade]

Originally Posted by Jez

I have done for the last 8 years on 9 hour shifts, 16 miles on a round route. Usually took an hour there and back + I was back before my work college who travelled by car hehe. Still I should have got a trailer!

The round trip for me would be 40 miles on 2 twelve hour days followed by two twelve hour nights

[Jez]

Originally Posted by nightshade

The round trip for me would be 40 miles on 2 twelve hour days followed by two twelve hour nights

point taken!!

I use a car for all our work now, but maybe 1 of these could be a greener way to garden?!?

Pedicab For Sale Pedicab Bike For Sale Pedicabs For Sale Pedicab Bikes For Sale