Bluntly put, you're wrong. In the EU (of which we were a member when these figures were drawn up), 30% of emissions were due to transport. Of which 70% were due to road transport. 60% of that was due to passenger cars, and only 38% due to lorries.
I think I posted figures earlier - passenger cars cover something like a factor of 20 (from memory) more distance than lorries in the UK.
In terms of fuel economy, a full car compares favourably to a bus at typical occupancy rates; an car with a single occupant doesn't.
If you use the bus to get to work, you're less likely to drive somewhere for lunch, because a car won't be available to you. The fact that your car isn't available to you means that you'll make fewer journeys. Similarly, if you reduce the number of cars that your household owns, because there's a useful bus service, then you'll optimize your use of your remaining car, with the net result that you make fewer journeys. Do you want to score that as a cost or a benefit? It's clearly an environmental benefit, because fewer journeys happen. But what about the effect on you? You've re-organized your life to match your lack of car - what is a fair way of assessing the cost of that? It could be anywhere between nothing and quite a bit.
Bluntly put, you're wrong. In the EU (of which we were a member when these figures were drawn up), 30% of emissions were due to transport. Of which 70% were due to road transport. 60% of that was due to passenger cars, and only 38% due to lorries.
I think I posted figures earlier - passenger cars cover something like a factor of 20 (from memory) more distance than lorries in the UK.
In terms of fuel economy, a full car compares favourably to a bus at typical occupancy rates; an car with a single occupant doesn't.
That wasn't the argument. The argument was that private car use produced negligible emissions compared to freight - not true, it's closer to twice as much - and land-use change due to agriculture was more significant - not true, it's less, and it's ongoing agricultural practice that produces the greater emissions.
If you use the bus to get to work, you're less likely to drive somewhere for lunch, because a car won't be available to you. The fact that your car isn't available to you means that you'll make fewer journeys. Similarly, if you reduce the number of cars that your household owns, because there's a useful bus service, then you'll optimize your use of your remaining car, with the net result that you make fewer journeys. Do you want to score that as a cost or a benefit? It's clearly an environmental benefit, because fewer journeys happen. But what about the effect on you? You've re-organized your life to match your lack of car - what is a fair way of assessing the cost of that? It could be anywhere between nothing and quite a bit.
What about its affect on me? What about its affect on those living on low-lying land? Seriously, not everything can, nor ought to be, reduced to monetary value. Sometimes, things are just doing what's decent.
But that takes us back to the way the world is now arranged around the car. Cities like Oxford, Cambridge and London date back to long before the car, when people walked or rode, occasionally using a cart and horse. In the UK, most of our cities and towns don't work now because they were never designed for the car. (I included Cambridge as it's another city with a park and ride scheme and dedicated bus ways with cycle and walking paths alongside.) Even places designed with cars in mind, like Harlow, didn't provide enough parking for the many cars per household now owned.
Some designs nowadays are trying to discourage car use, for example, the local secondary school only built a decade ago.
What about its affect on me? What about its affect on those living on low-lying land? Seriously, not everything can, nor ought to be, reduced to monetary value. Sometimes, things are just doing what's decent.
If I see someone walking home in the rain, I'm going to offer them a lift. I'm not going to offer to buy them a car. Because I can't afford the cost of the car.
What about its affect on me? What about its affect on those living on low-lying land? Seriously, not everything can, nor ought to be, reduced to monetary value. Sometimes, things are just doing what's decent.
If I see someone walking home in the rain, I'm going to offer them a lift. I'm not going to offer to buy them a car. Because I can't afford the cost of the car.
Well, as non sequiturs go, that's genuinely impressive.
The real reason is because they keep stopping to pick up and set down passengers. That won't change if there are fewer cars - quite the reverse in fact, because if they have more passengers to pick up and set down then the stops will take longer.
Not necessarily. If the number of passengers using a route doubles then it's relatively easy to justify doubling the number of buses - that then means that the number of people getting on and off each bus at each stop is, on average, the same. Increase the number of passengers and you can introduce express versions of the route, which stop at the more popular points but not the intervening stops, for those not needing the intermediate stops these will be faster still.
The real reason is because they keep stopping to pick up and set down passengers. That won't change if there are fewer cars - quite the reverse in fact, because if they have more passengers to pick up and set down then the stops will take longer.
Not necessarily. If the number of passengers using a route doubles then it's relatively easy to justify doubling the number of buses - that then means that the number of people getting on and off each bus at each stop is, on average, the same. Increase the number of passengers and you can introduce express versions of the route, which stop at the more popular points but not the intervening stops, for those not needing the intermediate stops these will be faster still.
True if the buses were full-ish but not if they were under half full.
That wasn't the argument. The argument was that private car use produced negligible emissions compared to freight - not true, it's closer to twice as much - and land-use change due to agriculture was more significant - not true, it's less, and it's ongoing agricultural practice that produces the greater emissions.
Congratulations, you’ve disproved something I said as an aside. Care to deal with the main post?
That wasn't the argument. The argument was that private car use produced negligible emissions compared to freight - not true, it's closer to twice as much - and land-use change due to agriculture was more significant - not true, it's less, and it's ongoing agricultural practice that produces the greater emissions.
Congratulations, you’ve disproved something I said as an aside. Care to deal with the main post?
Certainly. Because your underlying assumptions are demonstrably wrong, your conclusions are equally flawed. You don't see private car use as the problem, and you want to retain it at almost all costs. Underground carparks will simply encourage their use. Technological fixes will reduce tailpipe emissions, but do nothing for congestion, safety for other road users, land use and design in cities, and still leave those without access to private cars at a gross disadvantage.
I drive. I realise that there are quid pro quos here. While I share your urge to improve public transport, I'm willing to actually do something about it now, even if it inconveniences me.
In the UK, most of our cities and towns don't work now because they were never designed for the car.
Conversely, many cities in North America and here in Australia pretty much were designed for the car, which makes it more awkward to shift preferences away from car use.
It can be done, though. Portland, Oregon is one city where car usage hasn't increased as the population has increased, because of a number of strategies. One of the key ones being not allowing the city to keep sprawling outwards.
You don't see private car use as the problem, and you want to retain it at almost all costs.
I certainly don’t see it as the problem. I don’t even see it as a problem in and of itself - its a key part of an integrated transport system that offers everyone the maximum freedom to do as they wish.
Underground carparks will simply encourage their use. Technological fixes will reduce tailpipe emissions, but do nothing for congestion, safety for other road users, land use and design in cities, and still leave those without access to private cars at a gross disadvantage.
Congestion will be improved by bringing in better public transport services. I’m still not convinced about the safety argument. Land use and design can be done however the relevant authority chooses to do it.
I drive. I realise that there are quid pro quos here. While I share your urge to improve public transport, I'm willing to actually do something about it now, even if it inconveniences me.
Making car use less appealing doesn’t improve public transport.
by making them park their cars on the outskirts and then catch a fast bus into the centre, they're removing car journeys - the danger they present, the pollution they cause, and the parking they need.
And substituting bus journeys - the danger they present, the pollution they cause...
In one town I lived in, the shopping street with all the bus stops, where the bus routes to the town centre terminated, was known as "diesel alley". Not a place anyone wanted to spend time.
Park and ride may very well be a suitable transport system for Oxford. What I'm highlighting is the underlying prejudice that paints private car travel as an evil to be minimised and public transport as a good to be promoted. You might as well bleat "four wheels bad".
A further benefit is that the public transport system improves for everyone, not just because of increased investment and more reliable travel-times, but because previous car drivers will complain if the service they're now using is inferior to the one they used to have.
Running a bus from A to B doesn't improve public transport for everyone - only people who want to go from A to B. If it serves places in between it's no longer a "fast bus".
Making car use less appealing doesn’t improve public transport.
In the current market driven environment where public transport is provided by private business for profit, if you make car use less appealing and hence increase demand for public transport then those private operators will increase their services to meet the extra demand (and, hence increase their profits). Admittedly in many instances that will be to get more people onto the existing services (so, trains and buses that are even more crowded) because that gives them more income without increasing expenditure - but at some point the only way to meet increased demand will mean increased service provision (more frequent buses/trains, extra carriages on trains etc).
What I'm highlighting is the underlying prejudice that paints private car travel as an evil to be minimised and public transport as a good to be promoted. You might as well bleat "four wheels bad".
Prejudice?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
What I'm highlighting is the underlying prejudice that paints private car travel as an evil to be minimised and public transport as a good to be promoted. You might as well bleat "four wheels bad".
Prejudice?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
What I'm highlighting is the underlying prejudice that paints private car travel as an evil to be minimised and public transport as a good to be promoted.
Well, given that car and taxi traffic in the UK was 278 billion vehicle miles in 2019, and bus and coach traffic was 2.4 billion vehicle miles (ie 1% that of cars), I think any reasonable person would conclude - given all the other evidence of the amount of pollution they produce (x2 that of road freight), and that they constitute nearly 80% of the traffic - it's not so much a prejudice as a reasonable starting point for discussion.
Because if something is most of the problem we're trying to fix, then doing something about that will bring some easy, early gains.
You don't see private car use as the problem, and you want to retain it at almost all costs.
I certainly don’t see it as the problem.
It is literally 80% of all the traffic. It's not that you "don't see it as the problem": if you were being honest, you don't care that it's a problem. You just want to carry on as you have done, and pretending here that there's some kind of justification for your wants is merely performative.
You don't see private car use as the problem, and you want to retain it at almost all costs.
I certainly don’t see it as the problem.
It is literally 80% of all the traffic. It's not that you "don't see it as the problem": if you were being honest, you don't care that it's a problem. You just want to carry on as you have done, and pretending here that there's some kind of justification for your wants is merely performative.
It depends on what you see “the problem” as actually being. If it’s congestion then making public transport better so that people will freely choose it over driving is a valid solution. If it’s pollution then technological improvement is a valid solution. If it’s space being wasted on car parks then underground car parks is a valid solution. If it’s city centre land use in general then more pedestrianisation and better space design when redeveloping areas is a valid solution. These are all things I’ve said I support.
What I don’t support is a blanket “cars are bad” attitude that thinks simply getting rid of them would make everything better.
The problem you're not seeing is the knock-on effect of cars on other modes of transport. For example the slowing down of busses by sheer volume of numbers. The making of roads too hostile for most people to consider cycling on them. The time wasted for pedestrians trying to cross city road systems waiting for a short lived green man. The two way side-streets made one way by lines of parked cars. The pavements encroached on by parked cars.
Then there's the amenity loss. Verges turned to mud by being used as parking spaces. Cars on pavements -again. Children unable to go out unsupervised or go for bike rides like we used to when we were kids for fear of being laminated to the nearest rat-run.
The only solution to these problems is fewer cars. You can see that as being "cars are bad" if you like.
You don't see private car use as the problem, and you want to retain it at almost all costs.
I certainly don’t see it as the problem.
It is literally 80% of all the traffic. It's not that you "don't see it as the problem": if you were being honest, you don't care that it's a problem. You just want to carry on as you have done, and pretending here that there's some kind of justification for your wants is merely performative.
It depends on what you see “the problem” as actually being. If it’s congestion then making public transport better so that people will freely choose it over driving is a valid solution. If it’s pollution then technological improvement is a valid solution. If it’s space being wasted on car parks then underground car parks is a valid solution. If it’s city centre land use in general then more pedestrianisation and better space design when redeveloping areas is a valid solution. These are all things I’ve said I support.
What I don’t support is a blanket “cars are bad” attitude that thinks simply getting rid of them would make everything better.
Your solutions are ones that make driving more expensive. New technology will be more expensive (electric cars are much cheaper to run, but the cars are much more expensive to make and the charging infrastructure is a considerable cost). Building multi-story/underground car parks will be more expensive, and that cost will need to be recovered (probably through higher parking charges). Increasing space dedicated to pedestrians and other non-car use with squeeze the cars into a smaller space - that increases the time to drive across them and the fuel costs etc. They're all good ideas, but there needs to be parallel investment in alternatives for those being priced out of car use.
It depends on what you see “the problem” as actually being.
I refer you to previous post where I state that you don't see there's a problem at all - over and above people wanting to curb your liberty to drive, pollute, congest, and park wherever you want, when you want. To you, we're the problem, not the car.
It depends on what you see “the problem” as actually being.
I refer you to previous post where I state that you don't see there's a problem at all - over and above people wanting to curb your liberty to drive, pollute, congest, and park wherever you want, when you want. To you, we're the problem, not the car.
It depends on what you see “the problem” as actually being.
I refer you to previous post where I state that you don't see there's a problem at all - over and above people wanting to curb your liberty to drive, pollute, congest, and park wherever you want, when you want. To you, we're the problem, not the car.
Are you even reading what I’m saying?
Yes. That's how I've reached my conclusion. You're happy with more public transport, and I know you're happy with segregated bike lanes and pedestrianisation. But all of these come with the understanding that that's for other people to use. You're just going to drive your car.
What I'm highlighting is the underlying prejudice that paints private car travel as an evil to be minimised and public transport as a good to be promoted. You might as well bleat "four wheels bad".
Prejudice?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
It depends on what you see “the problem” as actually being.
I refer you to previous post where I state that you don't see there's a problem at all - over and above people wanting to curb your liberty to drive, pollute, congest, and park wherever you want, when you want. To you, we're the problem, not the car.
Are you even reading what I’m saying?
Yes. That's how I've reached my conclusion. You're happy with more public transport, and I know you're happy with segregated bike lanes and pedestrianisation. But all of these come with the understanding that that's for other people to use. You're just going to drive your car.
That’s a tad harsh, I actually quite like using public transport when it’s the best option for the journey I want to make.
But that notwithstanding, what’s the problem exactly? You’ve said yourself that you want to reduce car use, not completely eradicate it, so why does it matter so much to you who still drives? If I’m agreeing with your overall policy aims then why does it anger you so much that I have different ideas about how to achieve them?
I’m getting the impression that even if cars were completely clean and safe and public spaces were all designed for pedestrians and public transport was so good that few people chose to drive anyway so congestion wasn’t a thing, you’d still want to get rid of the remaining cars.
I think the OP was pitting socialism against 'being able to live my life how I want'.
What's more important for me is that someone else's rights do not trump my rights just because they have more wealth or political power. And this links into the cars v buses conversation above.
During the first lockdown it was so much more pleasant to be walking or cycling outdoors -but I didn't realise completely why until lockdown eased and traffic went back to normal. I noticed diesel fumes that previously I didn't -because your olfactory system acclimatises. Also when walking with Mrs Vole passing cars almost drown out conversation, not to mention birdsong in trees.
No-one can choose the air they breathe so high air quality should be a right. If enforcing this means certain types of traffic are restricted then human ingenuity will come up with alternative transport solutions.
And noise is pollution too and there should be rights to prevent unpleasant noise.
It seems to me that the noise of a passing car at eg 20-30mph is more the tyres than the engine. I guess that tyre compounds are compromise between grip and rolling resistance and longevity. I suspect heavier cars make more tyre noise. A high spec Tesla Model 3 weighs 1847Kg and electric vehicles have to have special tyres to cope with the higher weight and motor torque. A 1.0L Ford Focus weighs 1280Kg by comparison.
I’m getting the impression that even if cars were completely clean and safe and public spaces were all designed for pedestrians and public transport was so good that few people chose to drive anyway so congestion wasn’t a thing, you’d still want to get rid of the remaining cars.
And if everyone was given a magical non-pooping unicorn fed only on pixie dust and ambrosia, we could ride to the fairy castle every day.
I'm supposed to be the one with the unrealistic expectations on human behaviour, not you.
What about its affect on me? What about its affect on those living on low-lying land? Seriously, not everything can, nor ought to be, reduced to monetary value. Sometimes, things are just doing what's decent.
If I see someone walking home in the rain, I'm going to offer them a lift. I'm not going to offer to buy them a car. Because I can't afford the cost of the car.
Well, as non sequiturs go, that's genuinely impressive.
It was a gentle attempt to point out that monetary value is almost never irrelevant, even in decisions that we think of as "just doing what's decent."
If "the decent thing" was difficult or expensive, it wouldn't get done nearly so much.
It depends on what you see “the problem” as actually being.
I refer you to previous post where I state that you don't see there's a problem at all - over and above people wanting to curb your liberty to drive, pollute, congest, and park wherever you want, when you want. To you, we're the problem, not the car.
Are you even reading what I’m saying?
Yes. That's how I've reached my conclusion.
I've read the same material and reached a different conclusion. Shrug.
However rational a discussion we have, there's going to be a point where we weigh the countervailing interests of different groups of people, and that's ultimately going to be a political choice. But I think that kind of choice belongs at the end of the process rather than as dogma at the start.
On another thread we had the distinction between "political" as a neutral descriptor of any process for making collective choices, and "politicised" as describing an undesirable situation where groups with conflicting interests seek to use the power of the state to impose the solutions that prioritise their interests (i.e. to do unto others what they don't wish others to do to them).
In the case of park-and-ride schemes, you can look at it as two groups. Those living in the rural hinterland of the city who want to be able to get to the city centre quickly and cheaply and conveniently. And those living in the city who want better air quality and less congestion for their own journeys (not necessarily to and from the centre).
Seems to me that if the costs of running a park-and-ride scheme can be met by a combination of user charges and city subsidies, such that the users feel better off (because what they lose in convenience is outweighed by time savings and cost savings) and the city-dwellers feel better off (because what they lose in higher taxes to pay the subsidy is outweighed by the value they place on cleaner air and less congestion in the city) then the scheme is a Good Thing.
If one group cannot compensate/subsidise the other enough to make both groups feel better off, isn't that evidence that the scheme reduces overall welfare ?
If one group cannot compensate/subsidise the other enough to make both groups feel better off, isn't that evidence that the scheme reduces overall welfare ?
No, I don't think so. Consider a ruling oligarch class, and a large proletariat. It's quite easy to imagine that removing the oligarchs and their corruptocracy from power would increase overall welfare by a lot, but it's quite hard to imagine how you could make the oligarchs happy about it.
However rational a discussion we have, there's going to be a point where we weigh the countervailing interests of different groups of people, and that's ultimately going to be a political choice. But I think that kind of choice belongs at the end of the process rather than as dogma at the start.
On another thread we had the distinction between "political" as a neutral descriptor of any process for making collective choices, and "politicised" as describing an undesirable situation where groups with conflicting interests seek to use the power of the state to impose the solutions that prioritise their interests (i.e. to do unto others what they don't wish others to do to them).
In the case of park-and-ride schemes, you can look at it as two groups. Those living in the rural hinterland of the city who want to be able to get to the city centre quickly and cheaply and conveniently. And those living in the city who want better air quality and less congestion for their own journeys (not necessarily to and from the centre).
Seems to me that if the costs of running a park-and-ride scheme can be met by a combination of user charges and city subsidies, such that the users feel better off (because what they lose in convenience is outweighed by time savings and cost savings) and the city-dwellers feel better off (because what they lose in higher taxes to pay the subsidy is outweighed by the value they place on cleaner air and less congestion in the city) then the scheme is a Good Thing.
If one group cannot compensate/subsidise the other enough to make both groups feel better off, isn't that evidence that the scheme reduces overall welfare ?
Not really. If 75,000 people feel better off and 10,000 don't, then it's a win overall.
I'd also argue that not all benefits are equal. People die from pollution and RTCs. People don't die from taking five minutes longer to get to Marks and Sparks.
I'd also argue that not all benefits are equal. People die from pollution and RTCs. People don't die from taking five minutes longer to get to Marks and Sparks.
Exactly.
It's also the case that @Russ's "nobody feels worse off in the end" metric assumes that the status quo treats the two groups fairly. If half the population travels for free, and half the population pays two coconuts per journey, because of some baked-in bias, then the right thing to do is to correct the problem, and charge everyone one coconut. And it doesn't really matter how the ex-free-riders feel about it.
It's also the case that @Russ's "nobody feels worse off in the end" metric assumes that the status quo treats the two groups fairly. If half the population travels for free, and half the population pays two coconuts per journey, because of some baked-in bias, then the right thing to do is to correct the problem, and charge everyone one coconut. And it doesn't really matter how the ex-free-riders feel about it.
This may as well be from the Department of Terrible Analogies. If the people travelling free are travelling free because of their poverty, and are being subsidised by the rest of us so that they can take part in civic life, how can charging them an unaffordable one coconut 'correct the problem'? Unless you see them as a problem to be corrected, that is.
This may as well be from the Department of Terrible Analogies. If the people travelling free are travelling free because of their poverty, and are being subsidised by the rest of us so that they can take part in civic life, how can charging them an unaffordable one coconut 'correct the problem'? Unless you see them as a problem to be corrected, that is.
I did say "because of baked-in bias", but I'll take your point that it was a terrible analogy.
(I think there's actually an interesting discussion that could be had about making urban public transport free at the point of use, for everyone. I'm not completely wedded to the idea (for example, 'cause free buses would tend to discourage walking and cycling, and there are public health benefits to encouraging walking and cycling), but I think it's interesting enough to consider the consequences.)
This may as well be from the Department of Terrible Analogies. If the people travelling free are travelling free because of their poverty, and are being subsidised by the rest of us so that they can take part in civic life, how can charging them an unaffordable one coconut 'correct the problem'? Unless you see them as a problem to be corrected, that is.
I did say "because of baked-in bias", but I'll take your point that it was a terrible analogy.
(I think there's actually an interesting discussion that could be had about making urban public transport free at the point of use, for everyone. I'm not completely wedded to the idea (for example, 'cause free buses would tend to discourage walking and cycling, and there are public health benefits to encouraging walking and cycling), but I think it's interesting enough to consider the consequences.)
I lived in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire when bus fares were 2p or 5p. This was in 1980s, mind, I'm not that old. Coming from the sticks in the Home Counties (where there were no buses anyway), I assumed there'd been some mistake and I'd been charged a child fare. I was 18, and no, there'd been no mistake.
The buses were essentially free. They were full, and frequent, and the road traffic noticeably less. (Then the council was rate capped, and the fares started to increase rapidly.)
(eta)
Sheffield is not a very cycling friendly city, because of elevation. It's built, like Rome, on seven hills. Electric bikes might well help with that.
The buses were essentially free. They were full, and frequent, and the road traffic noticeably less. (Then the council was rate capped, and the fares started to increase rapidly.)
Do you understand the motivation for making them "essentially free" rather than "actually free"? 'cause "actually free" lets you eliminate all the money / ticket infrastructure, and means that riders don't have to worry about having change etc.
There seem to me to be significant benefits of "actually free" over "almost free", and it doesn't sound like "almost free" was raising any revenue worth speaking of.
The buses were essentially free. They were full, and frequent, and the road traffic noticeably less. (Then the council was rate capped, and the fares started to increase rapidly.)
Do you understand the motivation for making them "essentially free" rather than "actually free"? 'cause "actually free" lets you eliminate all the money / ticket infrastructure, and means that riders don't have to worry about having change etc.
There seem to me to be significant benefits of "actually free" over "almost free", and it doesn't sound like "almost free" was raising any revenue worth speaking of.
Possibly it was felt there were benefits to having conductors on the buses - makes them more accessible for women travelling alone late at night for example so they might as well collect a fair. Perhaps it aided with tracking usage and demand. Or perhaps there's a legal problem with free buses.
The buses were essentially free. They were full, and frequent, and the road traffic noticeably less. (Then the council was rate capped, and the fares started to increase rapidly.)
Do you understand the motivation for making them "essentially free" rather than "actually free"? 'cause "actually free" lets you eliminate all the money / ticket infrastructure, and means that riders don't have to worry about having change etc.
There seem to me to be significant benefits of "actually free" over "almost free", and it doesn't sound like "almost free" was raising any revenue worth speaking of.
It was a long time ago now, and I was a callow 18yo, more interested in hitting rocks with my hammer and drinking ale (in that specific order) than I was as to how the buses were run.
IIRC, the ethos was certainly to encourage public transport as an egalitarian solution to travel through the city. The fares were collected by dumping the money in a hopper, which then printed an impression of the actual coins on the paper ticket (no change given). This, I assume, constituted a contract of some kind. And it was essentially chump-change even then. If someone was struggling to make the fare, another passenger would often just pay for them, if only to speed the bus on its way.
How much money this raised, compared with the direct costs, and direct and indirect benefits, I have no idea. Sorry.
IIRC, the ethos was certainly to encourage public transport as an egalitarian solution to travel through the city.
I consider that to be the worst argument for public transport, much as I consider it a poor argument in general for that matter. I don’t see everybody having the same journey options as an end in and of itself, because you could just as easily achieve it by removing all options.
Basically, I’m all for making things more equal by making the worst things better, but not by making the best things worse. Improving public transport as I’ve been saying is the former, banning cars or making them significantly harder or more expensive to use is the latter.
I feel the same way about much of Socialism in general. Too often it seeks to merely drag the top down rather than lift the bottom up, because when equality is the goal in and of itself it’s much quicker and easier to just make everybody equally poor.
Basically, I’m all for making things more equal by making the worst things better, but not by making the best things worse. Improving public transport as I’ve been saying is the former, banning cars or making them significantly harder or more expensive to use is the latter.
Making buses free to use would seem to me to qualify as "improving public transport". The footpaths I walk on, the roads I cycle on, and the large majority of the roads I drive on are free at the point of use. Making local transport free at the point of use doesn't seem to make anything worse, and provides a number of advantages in regard to access for the poorest people.
Making long-distance transport free is a different kettle of fish, 'cause in that case there's more of an argument that you'd like to divert long-distance travel into "not travelling", but having people work from home / video conference rather than travel to meetings etc., and having free long-distance trains, for example, would tend to defeat that aim.
IIRC, the ethos was certainly to encourage public transport as an egalitarian solution to travel through the city.
I consider that to be the worst argument for public transport, much as I consider it a poor argument in general for that matter. I don’t see everybody having the same journey options as an end in and of itself, because you could just as easily achieve it by removing all options.
Basically, I’m all for making things more equal by making the worst things better, but not by making the best things worse. Improving public transport as I’ve been saying is the former, banning cars or making them significantly harder or more expensive to use is the latter.
I feel the same way about much of Socialism in general. Too often it seeks to merely drag the top down rather than lift the bottom up, because when equality is the goal in and of itself it’s much quicker and easier to just make everybody equally poor.
The problem with your rant is that the example given DOES lift the bottom up, by giving everyone the same minimum access to reliable transportation. It doesn't ban private cars, doesn't restrict their use, but does make the buses something of use and value to almost everyone.
IIRC, the ethos was certainly to encourage public transport as an egalitarian solution to travel through the city.
I consider that to be the worst argument for public transport, much as I consider it a poor argument in general for that matter. I don’t see everybody having the same journey options as an end in and of itself, because you could just as easily achieve it by removing all options.
No, no you couldn't.
Well, obviously, you could, but no one else would, ever, because of how patently ridiculous such an argument would be. When you say 'the same journey options', you seem to be discounting all the other journey options people still had. What was offered was a quick, cheap alternative to driving into, and around, the city that was accessible by all, regardless of wealth. It was, unsurprisingly, popular. People still had cars. They used them a lot less.
Your problem appears to be providing poor people with good services. Why is that?
I feel the same way about much of Socialism in general. Too often it seeks to merely drag the top down rather than lift the bottom up, because when equality is the goal in and of itself it’s much quicker and easier to just make everybody equally poor.
Of course, making everyone EQUALLY poor is a damn hard challenge. There are a small proportion of people who earn millions, billions even. Getting them to have only mere thousands is really difficult.
I'd be curious to know at what point we're allowed to say "you know what, you don't actually need that much money, spread it around a bit".
Even the right is in favour of spreading it around a bit. They call it 'trickle down economics' rather than 'socialism', and it doesn't actually work, but they do pay lip service to the notion that the situation is supposed help out those poorer people.
I'm inclined towards the view (was it Michael Foot or Tony Benn?) that governments don't need to worry about the rich; they will be, and always have been, absolutely fine whatever you do.
The situation we tend to find ourselves in is the one described as a wealthy city trader, an an unemployed guy, a zero hours minimum wage carer and a Tory MP having tea and biscuits. The city trader grabs most of them, the carer looks at what's left and the Tory MP whispers to him "That workshy layabout's after your biscuit!"
It's also the case that @Russ's "nobody feels worse off in the end" metric assumes that the status quo treats the two groups fairly. If half the population travels for free, and half the population pays two coconuts per journey, because of some baked-in bias, then the right thing to do is to correct the problem, and charge everyone one coconut. And it doesn't really matter how the ex-free-riders feel about it.
That's not an argument from overall welfare, it's an argument from rights.
I'd tend to agree with you that there is a moral right to equal treatment under the law, and that a system that charges left-handers two coconuts and right-handers nothing is unjust.
But it's not obvious that a park-and-ride system is a moral right... If you're planning a transport improvement, then a utilitarian metric - does this make things better on balance for everybody - seems appropriate. And the status quo is the do-nothing baseline against which the pros and cons of any proposal should be measured. What other would you use ?
If you think that the status quo infringes somebody's moral rights, then you can make that case. But confounding that with discussion of the merits of a transport scheme seems to be to invite unnecessary confusion.
Also, full kudos to you, LC, for talking about buses that are "free at point of use" rather than "free". We all know that everything has to be paid for somehow. And I'd suggest that one of the characteristics of socialism is a tendency to sweep under the carpet the issue of who pays for all the goodies. Or pretend that the super-rich can easily spare enough to fund them. The super-rich are tiny numbers of people, and tend to have the option of living elsewhere if any one jurisdiction becomes too hostile.
Comments
I think I posted figures earlier - passenger cars cover something like a factor of 20 (from memory) more distance than lorries in the UK.
In terms of fuel economy, a full car compares favourably to a bus at typical occupancy rates; an car with a single occupant doesn't.
If you use the bus to get to work, you're less likely to drive somewhere for lunch, because a car won't be available to you. The fact that your car isn't available to you means that you'll make fewer journeys. Similarly, if you reduce the number of cars that your household owns, because there's a useful bus service, then you'll optimize your use of your remaining car, with the net result that you make fewer journeys. Do you want to score that as a cost or a benefit? It's clearly an environmental benefit, because fewer journeys happen. But what about the effect on you? You've re-organized your life to match your lack of car - what is a fair way of assessing the cost of that? It could be anywhere between nothing and quite a bit.
That wasn't the argument. The argument was that private car use produced negligible emissions compared to freight - not true, it's closer to twice as much - and land-use change due to agriculture was more significant - not true, it's less, and it's ongoing agricultural practice that produces the greater emissions.
What about its affect on me? What about its affect on those living on low-lying land? Seriously, not everything can, nor ought to be, reduced to monetary value. Sometimes, things are just doing what's decent.
Some designs nowadays are trying to discourage car use, for example, the local secondary school only built a decade ago.
If I see someone walking home in the rain, I'm going to offer them a lift. I'm not going to offer to buy them a car. Because I can't afford the cost of the car.
Well, as non sequiturs go, that's genuinely impressive.
True if the buses were full-ish but not if they were under half full.
Congratulations, you’ve disproved something I said as an aside. Care to deal with the main post?
Certainly. Because your underlying assumptions are demonstrably wrong, your conclusions are equally flawed. You don't see private car use as the problem, and you want to retain it at almost all costs. Underground carparks will simply encourage their use. Technological fixes will reduce tailpipe emissions, but do nothing for congestion, safety for other road users, land use and design in cities, and still leave those without access to private cars at a gross disadvantage.
I drive. I realise that there are quid pro quos here. While I share your urge to improve public transport, I'm willing to actually do something about it now, even if it inconveniences me.
Conversely, many cities in North America and here in Australia pretty much were designed for the car, which makes it more awkward to shift preferences away from car use.
It can be done, though. Portland, Oregon is one city where car usage hasn't increased as the population has increased, because of a number of strategies. One of the key ones being not allowing the city to keep sprawling outwards.
I certainly don’t see it as the problem. I don’t even see it as a problem in and of itself - its a key part of an integrated transport system that offers everyone the maximum freedom to do as they wish.
Congestion will be improved by bringing in better public transport services. I’m still not convinced about the safety argument. Land use and design can be done however the relevant authority chooses to do it.
Making car use less appealing doesn’t improve public transport.
In one town I lived in, the shopping street with all the bus stops, where the bus routes to the town centre terminated, was known as "diesel alley". Not a place anyone wanted to spend time.
Park and ride may very well be a suitable transport system for Oxford. What I'm highlighting is the underlying prejudice that paints private car travel as an evil to be minimised and public transport as a good to be promoted. You might as well bleat "four wheels bad".
Running a bus from A to B doesn't improve public transport for everyone - only people who want to go from A to B. If it serves places in between it's no longer a "fast bus".
Prejudice?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
More judice than prejudice?
Well, given that car and taxi traffic in the UK was 278 billion vehicle miles in 2019, and bus and coach traffic was 2.4 billion vehicle miles (ie 1% that of cars), I think any reasonable person would conclude - given all the other evidence of the amount of pollution they produce (x2 that of road freight), and that they constitute nearly 80% of the traffic - it's not so much a prejudice as a reasonable starting point for discussion.
Because if something is most of the problem we're trying to fix, then doing something about that will bring some easy, early gains.
It is literally 80% of all the traffic. It's not that you "don't see it as the problem": if you were being honest, you don't care that it's a problem. You just want to carry on as you have done, and pretending here that there's some kind of justification for your wants is merely performative.
It depends on what you see “the problem” as actually being. If it’s congestion then making public transport better so that people will freely choose it over driving is a valid solution. If it’s pollution then technological improvement is a valid solution. If it’s space being wasted on car parks then underground car parks is a valid solution. If it’s city centre land use in general then more pedestrianisation and better space design when redeveloping areas is a valid solution. These are all things I’ve said I support.
What I don’t support is a blanket “cars are bad” attitude that thinks simply getting rid of them would make everything better.
Then there's the amenity loss. Verges turned to mud by being used as parking spaces. Cars on pavements -again. Children unable to go out unsupervised or go for bike rides like we used to when we were kids for fear of being laminated to the nearest rat-run.
The only solution to these problems is fewer cars. You can see that as being "cars are bad" if you like.
I refer you to previous post where I state that you don't see there's a problem at all - over and above people wanting to curb your liberty to drive, pollute, congest, and park wherever you want, when you want. To you, we're the problem, not the car.
I completely agree.
Are you even reading what I’m saying?
Yes. That's how I've reached my conclusion. You're happy with more public transport, and I know you're happy with segregated bike lanes and pedestrianisation. But all of these come with the understanding that that's for other people to use. You're just going to drive your car.
You understand me perfectly.
That’s a tad harsh, I actually quite like using public transport when it’s the best option for the journey I want to make.
But that notwithstanding, what’s the problem exactly? You’ve said yourself that you want to reduce car use, not completely eradicate it, so why does it matter so much to you who still drives? If I’m agreeing with your overall policy aims then why does it anger you so much that I have different ideas about how to achieve them?
I’m getting the impression that even if cars were completely clean and safe and public spaces were all designed for pedestrians and public transport was so good that few people chose to drive anyway so congestion wasn’t a thing, you’d still want to get rid of the remaining cars.
What's more important for me is that someone else's rights do not trump my rights just because they have more wealth or political power. And this links into the cars v buses conversation above.
During the first lockdown it was so much more pleasant to be walking or cycling outdoors -but I didn't realise completely why until lockdown eased and traffic went back to normal. I noticed diesel fumes that previously I didn't -because your olfactory system acclimatises. Also when walking with Mrs Vole passing cars almost drown out conversation, not to mention birdsong in trees.
No-one can choose the air they breathe so high air quality should be a right. If enforcing this means certain types of traffic are restricted then human ingenuity will come up with alternative transport solutions.
And noise is pollution too and there should be rights to prevent unpleasant noise.
It seems to me that the noise of a passing car at eg 20-30mph is more the tyres than the engine. I guess that tyre compounds are compromise between grip and rolling resistance and longevity. I suspect heavier cars make more tyre noise. A high spec Tesla Model 3 weighs 1847Kg and electric vehicles have to have special tyres to cope with the higher weight and motor torque. A 1.0L Ford Focus weighs 1280Kg by comparison.
And if everyone was given a magical non-pooping unicorn fed only on pixie dust and ambrosia, we could ride to the fairy castle every day.
I'm supposed to be the one with the unrealistic expectations on human behaviour, not you.
It was a gentle attempt to point out that monetary value is almost never irrelevant, even in decisions that we think of as "just doing what's decent."
If "the decent thing" was difficult or expensive, it wouldn't get done nearly so much.
I've read the same material and reached a different conclusion. Shrug.
On another thread we had the distinction between "political" as a neutral descriptor of any process for making collective choices, and "politicised" as describing an undesirable situation where groups with conflicting interests seek to use the power of the state to impose the solutions that prioritise their interests (i.e. to do unto others what they don't wish others to do to them).
In the case of park-and-ride schemes, you can look at it as two groups. Those living in the rural hinterland of the city who want to be able to get to the city centre quickly and cheaply and conveniently. And those living in the city who want better air quality and less congestion for their own journeys (not necessarily to and from the centre).
Seems to me that if the costs of running a park-and-ride scheme can be met by a combination of user charges and city subsidies, such that the users feel better off (because what they lose in convenience is outweighed by time savings and cost savings) and the city-dwellers feel better off (because what they lose in higher taxes to pay the subsidy is outweighed by the value they place on cleaner air and less congestion in the city) then the scheme is a Good Thing.
If one group cannot compensate/subsidise the other enough to make both groups feel better off, isn't that evidence that the scheme reduces overall welfare ?
No, I don't think so. Consider a ruling oligarch class, and a large proletariat. It's quite easy to imagine that removing the oligarchs and their corruptocracy from power would increase overall welfare by a lot, but it's quite hard to imagine how you could make the oligarchs happy about it.
Not really. If 75,000 people feel better off and 10,000 don't, then it's a win overall.
I'd also argue that not all benefits are equal. People die from pollution and RTCs. People don't die from taking five minutes longer to get to Marks and Sparks.
Exactly.
It's also the case that @Russ's "nobody feels worse off in the end" metric assumes that the status quo treats the two groups fairly. If half the population travels for free, and half the population pays two coconuts per journey, because of some baked-in bias, then the right thing to do is to correct the problem, and charge everyone one coconut. And it doesn't really matter how the ex-free-riders feel about it.
This may as well be from the Department of Terrible Analogies. If the people travelling free are travelling free because of their poverty, and are being subsidised by the rest of us so that they can take part in civic life, how can charging them an unaffordable one coconut 'correct the problem'? Unless you see them as a problem to be corrected, that is.
I did say "because of baked-in bias", but I'll take your point that it was a terrible analogy.
(I think there's actually an interesting discussion that could be had about making urban public transport free at the point of use, for everyone. I'm not completely wedded to the idea (for example, 'cause free buses would tend to discourage walking and cycling, and there are public health benefits to encouraging walking and cycling), but I think it's interesting enough to consider the consequences.)
I lived in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire when bus fares were 2p or 5p. This was in 1980s, mind, I'm not that old. Coming from the sticks in the Home Counties (where there were no buses anyway), I assumed there'd been some mistake and I'd been charged a child fare. I was 18, and no, there'd been no mistake.
The buses were essentially free. They were full, and frequent, and the road traffic noticeably less. (Then the council was rate capped, and the fares started to increase rapidly.)
(eta)
Sheffield is not a very cycling friendly city, because of elevation. It's built, like Rome, on seven hills. Electric bikes might well help with that.
Do you understand the motivation for making them "essentially free" rather than "actually free"? 'cause "actually free" lets you eliminate all the money / ticket infrastructure, and means that riders don't have to worry about having change etc.
There seem to me to be significant benefits of "actually free" over "almost free", and it doesn't sound like "almost free" was raising any revenue worth speaking of.
Possibly it was felt there were benefits to having conductors on the buses - makes them more accessible for women travelling alone late at night for example so they might as well collect a fair. Perhaps it aided with tracking usage and demand. Or perhaps there's a legal problem with free buses.
It was a long time ago now, and I was a callow 18yo, more interested in hitting rocks with my hammer and drinking ale (in that specific order) than I was as to how the buses were run.
IIRC, the ethos was certainly to encourage public transport as an egalitarian solution to travel through the city. The fares were collected by dumping the money in a hopper, which then printed an impression of the actual coins on the paper ticket (no change given). This, I assume, constituted a contract of some kind. And it was essentially chump-change even then. If someone was struggling to make the fare, another passenger would often just pay for them, if only to speed the bus on its way.
How much money this raised, compared with the direct costs, and direct and indirect benefits, I have no idea. Sorry.
I consider that to be the worst argument for public transport, much as I consider it a poor argument in general for that matter. I don’t see everybody having the same journey options as an end in and of itself, because you could just as easily achieve it by removing all options.
Basically, I’m all for making things more equal by making the worst things better, but not by making the best things worse. Improving public transport as I’ve been saying is the former, banning cars or making them significantly harder or more expensive to use is the latter.
I feel the same way about much of Socialism in general. Too often it seeks to merely drag the top down rather than lift the bottom up, because when equality is the goal in and of itself it’s much quicker and easier to just make everybody equally poor.
Making buses free to use would seem to me to qualify as "improving public transport". The footpaths I walk on, the roads I cycle on, and the large majority of the roads I drive on are free at the point of use. Making local transport free at the point of use doesn't seem to make anything worse, and provides a number of advantages in regard to access for the poorest people.
Making long-distance transport free is a different kettle of fish, 'cause in that case there's more of an argument that you'd like to divert long-distance travel into "not travelling", but having people work from home / video conference rather than travel to meetings etc., and having free long-distance trains, for example, would tend to defeat that aim.
The problem with your rant is that the example given DOES lift the bottom up, by giving everyone the same minimum access to reliable transportation. It doesn't ban private cars, doesn't restrict their use, but does make the buses something of use and value to almost everyone.
No, no you couldn't.
Well, obviously, you could, but no one else would, ever, because of how patently ridiculous such an argument would be. When you say 'the same journey options', you seem to be discounting all the other journey options people still had. What was offered was a quick, cheap alternative to driving into, and around, the city that was accessible by all, regardless of wealth. It was, unsurprisingly, popular. People still had cars. They used them a lot less.
Your problem appears to be providing poor people with good services. Why is that?
<citation needed>
I'd be curious to know at what point we're allowed to say "you know what, you don't actually need that much money, spread it around a bit".
Even the right is in favour of spreading it around a bit. They call it 'trickle down economics' rather than 'socialism', and it doesn't actually work, but they do pay lip service to the notion that the situation is supposed help out those poorer people.
The situation we tend to find ourselves in is the one described as a wealthy city trader, an an unemployed guy, a zero hours minimum wage carer and a Tory MP having tea and biscuits. The city trader grabs most of them, the carer looks at what's left and the Tory MP whispers to him "That workshy layabout's after your biscuit!"
That's not an argument from overall welfare, it's an argument from rights.
I'd tend to agree with you that there is a moral right to equal treatment under the law, and that a system that charges left-handers two coconuts and right-handers nothing is unjust.
But it's not obvious that a park-and-ride system is a moral right... If you're planning a transport improvement, then a utilitarian metric - does this make things better on balance for everybody - seems appropriate. And the status quo is the do-nothing baseline against which the pros and cons of any proposal should be measured. What other would you use ?
If you think that the status quo infringes somebody's moral rights, then you can make that case. But confounding that with discussion of the merits of a transport scheme seems to be to invite unnecessary confusion.
Also, full kudos to you, LC, for talking about buses that are "free at point of use" rather than "free". We all know that everything has to be paid for somehow. And I'd suggest that one of the characteristics of socialism is a tendency to sweep under the carpet the issue of who pays for all the goodies. Or pretend that the super-rich can easily spare enough to fund them. The super-rich are tiny numbers of people, and tend to have the option of living elsewhere if any one jurisdiction becomes too hostile.