Why does anyone commute into town centres in cars?

John Smith wrote:

Because motorbikes can be wet, cold and dangerous. They are also impractical if you have to drop children off on the way, wear a suit or have stuff to carry. Cycling has its own issues making it impractical for many (distance primarily). As a cyclist and motorcyclist I can see why both are impractical for many people.

 

The biggest thing keeping people in cars is the terrible state of public transport and the insistence on retaining the green belt, meaning most people have to drive part of the way and using a park and ride or other public transport for the rest of the journey is hugely impractical or costly. A personal example of this, my local train station is a little local line, with a train every 2 hours. If you time it right it’s ok. The car park is a crappy bit of tarmac that holds about 30 cars that has not been touched in 10 years. The train company now wants to charge £2 a day for parking. What will happen? People will start to drive in to Oxford.

but no-one is suggesting cycling/motorcycling is the solution to everyones transport needs, even if it was only 20%, thats still 20% less cars, they are spending 1.5billion pounds on "upgrading" the A14 and that wont deliver 20% increase in car capacity.

as for the cost of parking, £2 a day is that all, you cant even buy a cup of tea in most places (and certainly not on the train) for £2, my parents local station charges £10 a day and its still more than an hours train journey to London.

John Smith wrote:

The biggest thing keeping people in cars is the terrible state of public transport and the insistence on retaining the green belt, meaning most people have to drive part of the way and using a park and ride or other public transport for the rest of the journey is hugely impractical or costly.

That may be true for you but doesn't apply to everyone.

In Shrewsbury there are 3 large Park & Ride car parks on the outer perimeter of the town but the vast majority of drivers want to burn fuel to drive straight past them and 3 miles - into a town restricted by a river with 2 main crossing points so always busy - and pay to park their car somewhere nearby instead of the greater convenience of the bus (£1.60, kids free) that will drop them off and pick them up in any of several handy spots right outside the biggest shops every 20 minutes all day long. It beggars belief.

What about the school run and the selfish behaviour of so many parents? My colleagues always comment on how the traffic levels are noticeably lower during school holidays. We live 3 miles away from the secondary school and among the furthest away but my kids ride every day. I'm sure most others could do the same. When they were in primary we knew parents who drove even though they lived nearby, some less than half a mile away. Inconsiderate parking was a real issue for a number of residents. That's not about green belt or public transport.

John Smith wrote:

If we want to encourage people to stop driving councils need to stop treating car parking as an income stream

Why should car parking not be an income stream? Those cars spend all day on valuable land which could be better used for houses, parks etc. And that's when they're not causing congestion on the streets, scaring or even injuring pedestrians and cyclists, damaging infrastructure and polluting the air with toxic chemicals. Perhaps you're not aware of the external cost of motoring, in which case you should read this:

https://rdrf.org.uk/2012/12/31/the-true-costs-of-automobility-external-c...

If they take away parking charges not only would there be even more congestion from all the freeloaders in cars but the councils would still need other income streams so will charge (or charge more) for other facilities.

Yes public transport is dire in many places but that's government policy. And policy has been all about promoting ever greater use of cars.  Advertising and the media (all run by rich people who only want to flog you expensive stuff you don't need) have talked it up so much and for so long that many people are convinced that there is no alternative. But if we tell ourselves there's no alternative then everyone has to put up with it. Yet in many cities a large proportion of people don't even own a car.

Awavey<p>as for the cost of parking, £2 a day is that all, you cant even buy a cup of tea in most places (and certainly not on the train) for £2, my parents local station charges £10 a day and its still more than an hours train journey to London.</p>[/quote]

It may not be much in the grand scheme of things, but its another £2 a day which you have no control over and are getting nothing for. It is another disincentive to get out of the car.

[quote=BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

How many cities have more than 3 miles radius to the city centre, everybody within 3-4 miles should not have any excuse re distance, it's simply nonsense, even 80 year olds can cycle that in 25 minutes. My 5 year old grandson cycled from school Friday before last to mine, it's 2miles, despite the motor traffic holding us up it took about 20minutes.

The average commute outside London is 12.4 miles. That is over an hour for most people.

Simon E wrote:

John Smith wrote:

If we want to encourage people to stop driving councils need to stop treating car parking as an income stream

Why should car parking not be an income stream? Those cars spend all day on valuable land which could be better used for houses, parks etc.

Because it is illegal. Money from parking and related activities is supposed to be ring-fenced for roads and transport, so what councils do is creatively re-label things as parking and take income intended for other bits of transport maintenance, and then shunt that money to something else, so that they can make a surplus from parking and launder the money in to other pots, when they are not supposed to, but this means that they can reduce council tax, to gain votes, and increase charges on people that are not in their constituency.

John Smith wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

How many cities have more than 3 miles radius to the city centre, everybody within 3-4 miles should not have any excuse re distance, it's simply nonsense, even 80 year olds can cycle that in 25 minutes. My 5 year old grandson cycled from school Friday before last to mine, it's 2miles, despite the motor traffic holding us up it took about 20minutes.

The average commute outside London is 12.4 miles. That is over an hour for most people.

 

 "Over an hour" is not an unreasonable length of commute.  Particularly as cycle commuting can (traffic permitting) being quite enjoyable (plus, it's not really 'over an hour' - I used to travel to a friend's 16 miles away across London, and got it down to under an hour once I got the ideal route worked out...then he moved...admitttedly the first time it took nearly 3 hours because I got lost)

Besides, 'outside London' averages out major cities and remote rural areas (and you don't say if that is a mean or a median - nobody suggests cycling 100 mile train ultra-commutes) so conceals how short many people's commutes are.  Hence the point remains valid.

Simon E wrote:

John Smith wrote:

If we want to encourage people to stop driving councils need to stop treating car parking as an income stream

Why should car parking not be an income stream? Those cars spend all day on valuable land which could be better used for houses, parks etc.

John Smith wrote:

Because it is illegal. Money from parking and related activities is supposed to be ring-fenced for roads and transport, so what councils do is creatively re-label things as parking and take income intended for other bits of transport maintenance, and then shunt that money to something else, so that they can make a surplus from parking and launder the money in to other pots, when they are not supposed to, but this means that they can reduce council tax, to gain votes, and increase charges on people that are not in their constituency.

That doesn't answer the question.  The question remains valid.  That it's "illegal" is not some unalterable fact of nature, that law would then be the very thing that is being questioned!  Besides 'spending on transport' would presumably include cycle infrastructure and public transport and anti-car measures.

John Smith wrote:

The average commute outside London is 12.4 miles. That is over an hour for most people.

Where did you get that figure?

I've got that the average English commute is 9.1 miles. That's a slightly different thing, admittedly - but I don't think London commutes are so short that they drag the average down by 3.3 miles. 

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729536...

And London commutes are the longest in terms of duration - no-one else's average is over half an hour (unless they go by public transport - which might help explain why they tend not to!)

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/662749...

John Smith wrote:

The average commute outside London is 12.4 miles. That is over an hour for most people.

I'm not sure I agree with either the distance, or the time, though I do not have numbers to hand so can't really form an opinion one way or the other.

For 12mi to take over an hour would require an average speed of below 10mph Derp, 12mph, which is...alright, actually pretty average, I can't really argue that one.
Pop that person on an ebike, though, and it goes down to about 45 minutes, which is still potentially longer than in a car - but that doesn't account for traffic, parking, convenience...
Mix in separated lanes, and you're laughing.

Anecdotally;
My 23mi commute initially took me about an hour and a half each way, which I got down to a PB of about 53 minutes but averaged 1hr 10.

I say this with the full knowledge that attempting to commute by cycle around, say, Whitby, is both very hilly, and probably quite terrifying due to the types of roads you'll likely have to deal with - particularly coming in to, say, Whitby from, say, Sleights - you have no real choices that I'm aware of except a large, fast road, or a small, twisty, very hilly, very blind road.

I'd be happy to cycle the small one - I'm a confident, aggressive cyclist who's happy to control my lane if I need to do so for safety. I'd probably not be so happy to ride the big one, though I've never seen it at rush hour so I can't properly judge.
I'd not be so sure that my partner would be - she's had damn near panic attacks from being close passed and left-hooked, and although she's more confident now, it's only because I've a) forced her to cycle with me and b) kept her off-road as much as possible.

In short, yeah, some places currently aren't suitable on any real level for many cyclists.

Currently.

(and editing moves a post to the bottom of the thread? So much for going back and making the correction, now the thread is all out of order.)

Crippledbiker wrote:

For 12mi to take over an hour would require an average speed of below 10mph

Do you even maths bro? For 12 miles to take over an hour would require an average speed of below... wait for it... 12 miles per hour.

vonhelmet wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

For 12mi to take over an hour would require an average speed of below 10mph

Do you even maths bro? For 12 miles to take over an hour would require an average speed of below... wait for it... 12 miles per hour.

This comment is wonderful!

But... Crippledbiker is technically correct, the best kind of correct.  An average speed of below 10mph would indeed lead to 12 miles taking over an hour.

I am a human wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

For 12mi to take over an hour would require an average speed of below 10mph

Do you even maths bro? For 12 miles to take over an hour would require an average speed of below... wait for it... 12 miles per hour.

This comment is wonderful!

But... Crippledbiker is technically correct, the best kind of correct.  An average speed of below 10mph would indeed lead to 12 miles taking over an hour.

@vonhelmet gives the only correct answer with 'below 12mph'.

@crippledbiker's answer isn't even techically correct. He / she has ignored the infinite possibilities of velocity that exist between 10mph and 12mph.

vonhelmet wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

For 12mi to take over an hour would require an average speed of below 10mph

Do you even maths bro? For 12 miles to take over an hour would require an average speed of below... wait for it... 12 miles per hour.

...You're right, my apologies. Not sure how I managed that one, the only thing I can think of is that I left the 10 minutes on the calculator from checking my average speed over the anecdata.

No need for the arsey attitude, though. Oh, and by the by; I do happen to struggle with maths, so the belittling is greatly appreciated, thanks.

Crippledbiker wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

For 12mi to take over an hour would require an average speed of below 10mph

Do you even maths bro? For 12 miles to take over an hour would require an average speed of below... wait for it... 12 miles per hour.

...You're right, my apologies. Not sure how I managed that one, the only thing I can think of is that I left the 10 minutes on the calculator from checking my average speed over the anecdata. No need for the arsey attitude, though. Oh, and by the by; I do happen to struggle with maths, so the belittling is greatly appreciated, thanks.

Apologies, I was just reading back and thinking it might come off as a bit harsh.

vonhelmet wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

For 12mi to take over an hour would require an average speed of below 10mph

Do you even maths bro? For 12 miles to take over an hour would require an average speed of below... wait for it... 12 miles per hour.

...You're right, my apologies. Not sure how I managed that one, the only thing I can think of is that I left the 10 minutes on the calculator from checking my average speed over the anecdata. No need for the arsey attitude, though. Oh, and by the by; I do happen to struggle with maths, so the belittling is greatly appreciated, thanks.

Apologies, I was just reading back and thinking it might come off as a bit harsh.

Apology accepted; I was a bit overly defensive there, you may have touched a nerve...

Right, let's forget about that and move on.

John Smith wrote:

The average commute outside London is 12.4 miles. That is over an hour for most people.

That average is meaningless. There are lots of cities and urban areas outside London where many commutes are a lot shorter than that. Even in Shrewsbury (pop. 60,000) plenty are driving half that or less, the town is not even 6 miles across between the furthest points.

And we shouldn't only talk about the daily work/school commute as it's only a part of the picture. Many people living in urban areas make additional journeys which could be done by bike.

John Smith wrote:

Simon E wrote:

John Smith wrote:

If we want to encourage people to stop driving councils need to stop treating car parking as an income stream

Why should car parking not be an income stream? Those cars spend all day on valuable land which could be better used for houses, parks etc.

Because it is illegal. Money from parking and related activities is supposed to be ring-fenced for roads and transport, so what councils do is creatively re-label things as parking and take income intended for other bits of transport maintenance, and then shunt that money to something else, so that they can make a surplus from parking and launder the money in to other pots, when they are not supposed to, but this means that they can reduce council tax, to gain votes, and increase charges on people that are not in their constituency.

Councils "launder" the money?!? Oh dear!

If councils want to charge people that are not resident in the constituency for coming into it, polluting the air etc and using the parking facilities - just like those who live there - then I'm all for it. A theatre will charge the same price for someone living across the road as they do for a visitor from another county / country / continent.

You're coming across as an entitled, blinkered car-centric type with a chip on his shoulder.

LastBoyScout wrote:

Mostly what John Smith said above - because it just isn't practical for many people me.

Fixed that for you.

Simon E wrote:

LastBoyScout wrote:

Mostly what John Smith said above - because it just isn't practical for many people me.

Fixed that for you.

Leave it alone, it was perfectly fine as it was - I was generalising for "many people".

If I'd meant "me", I would have said "me".

huntswheelers wrote:

if she was to walk, would take her 10 mins and it's 250 metres walk from her home

Is she fitted with leg-irons?