Chris Boardman says it’s “ridiculous” for government to continue building roads

userfriendly wrote:

Matt eaton wrote:

I think, however, we'd need to consider the idea of collecting classic cars or owning race cars for the track in more detail. Most owners of classic cars do like to drive them occasionaly and for race cars the problem is even more pronounced - they need to be taken or driven to the track in order to be used. If owners of such vehicles want to use them what would they do? I suppose they could hire a profesional driver to take them and their vehicle to somewhere that they could enjoy it but the costs would be huge if they did this regularly.

Well, there is no free lunch as they say. Though one could argue that currently motorists are getting a deal that is pretty damn close to it, what with everyone subsidising them while they destroy the roads and directly and indirectly harm people, and all of society pay the massive external costs. If you have an expensive hobby, expect it to be expensive for you.

There is also the option of keeping such a car in a garage rented at the location. Think of hobby pilots, do they take their planes home and park them in front of the house? Of course they don't.

Matt eaton wrote:

This brings me on to another line of thinking - amatuer atheletes like many posters on this very forum. Without a car I would be unable to race BMX or CX (OK, I might be able to ride to some local CX races). For those who are more serious about these things and might have multiple bikes, wheelsets with different tyres, tools and spares, a turbo-trainer or rollers etc. with them at races it would be imposible to use public transport. Would a hobby that requires the use of a car qualify for a valid reason to hold a licence (surfing would probably be a more prime example than cycling)? Would you envisage a scenario where sporting equipment was available to hire and you would get the bus or train to a race or event and hire a bike when you got there?

Easy one. Take the bike to the train station, take the train to a place near the event, cycle from train station to event. The bicycle is a form of transport in itself, so that would not constitute a valid reason to grant a licence. The surf board on the other hand can't well be used on the road (even in very strong winds it just wouldn't be much fun), so either rent a board at the location or, similar to the suggestion above, keep your own board in a locker provided there.

Of course there is also always the possibility of paying someone for the service of transporting you and whatever you have to transport somewhere.

I do agree with your sentiments on this. I just feel that to make it practical so many things would have to change. here goes..

Expensive hobbies are expensive and that needs to be accepted - I'll grant you that.

Keeping a race car at the track - OK if you only ever want to drive at that track. Would you be happy to only ever ride your bike in one location?

Hobby pilots enjoy the freedom of the skys, I don't think that the runway itself is a big part of the appeal. It's a bit like parking the car in the garage and having the freedom of the roads. There is actually a plane on a driveway just round the corner from me but I agree that this isn't the norm. More common are small boats which do need to be towed to the water.

Taking the bike to the train station and riding to the race is not a solution, at least with the railways as they stand. If you are lucky enough that there is a train that will get you there and back (bearing in mind that most races are on a Sunday) you will need to hope that the operating company will carry your bike as most have limitations. If you want to be highly competitive (not me BTW) there is also a lot of extra gear to take along which you simply couldn't do on a train. Riding double-bike at BMX races would be impossible as would having a spare bike at CX races.

Renting a surfboard would limit you to surfing at only the more tourist friendly beaches and in some locations only during peak season. Keeping a board in a locker would limit you to surfing at only one beach. Fine if you just want to have a dip now and then but for serious and competitive surfers it just wouldn't work.

Paying someone to transport you and your gear - OK, this would work but we're basically talking about using taxi's to get everywhere. The cost would be prohibitive for most people and it's no improvement on driving yourself if you do it all the time. If you had the funds you could hire a full-time profesional driver, at which point you may as well be allowed to drive yourself.

All this is against the backdrop that anyone who has a job that requires them to drive would have the ability to use the car for all of these things there is an inequality that I can't reconcile. The fact that you would have a better chance of sporting sucess (or even the oportunity to be involved in a sport in the first place) as the son of a builder than the son of a factory worker doesn't seem right to me. It's rather a mute point anyway really as those who hold the power would not tolerate measures such as this and any government that introduced such restrictions would guarantee that they woud not be re-elected for a very long time.

Matt eaton wrote:

I do agree with your sentiments on this. I just feel that to make it practical so many things would have to change.

...

It's rather a mute point anyway really as those who hold the power would not tolerate measures such as this and any government that introduced such restrictions would guarantee that they woud not be re-elected for a very long time.

No doubt about that - I never said it would be easy. But it is a much more pragmatic and realistic approach than fantasising about banning private car use for journeys of an arbitrary distance (difficulty of enforcement was mentioned) or banning private car ownership altogether.

Of course it's still unrealistic at this point, as it would require either a much more authoritarian government (which actually gives a toss about the well-being of its populace) or an informed public that can be trusted with making reasonable decisions about its future. Neither of which I can picture in the Greatest of all Britains (or really anywhere else, for that matter). But it is the most elegant solution I can come up with, and I'm still quite fond of the idea.

Matt eaton wrote:

Expensive hobbies are expensive and that needs to be accepted - I'll grant you that.

Keeping a race car at the track - OK if you only ever want to drive at that track. Would you be happy to only ever ride your bike in one location?

Hobby pilots enjoy the freedom of the skys, I don't think that the runway itself is a big part of the appeal. It's a bit like parking the car in the garage and having the freedom of the roads. There is actually a plane on a driveway just round the corner from me but I agree that this isn't the norm. More common are small boats which do need to be towed to the water.

People I know who go to a race track do seem to always go to that race track, possibly simply for the reason that it's the only one within a reasonable distance. They seem quite happy doing it.

Freedom of the roads? With few exceptions such a thing exists only in the imagination of people who make car adverts. In most people's reality freedom of the roads translates to freedom to be stuck in traffic.

Matt eaton wrote:

Taking the bike to the train station and riding to the race is not a solution, at least with the railways as they stand. If you are lucky enough that there is a train that will get you there and back (bearing in mind that most races are on a Sunday) you will need to hope that the operating company will carry your bike as most have limitations. If you want to be highly competitive (not me BTW) there is also a lot of extra gear to take along which you simply couldn't do on a train. Riding double-bike at BMX races would be impossible as would having a spare bike at CX races.

Renting a surfboard would limit you to surfing at only the more tourist friendly beaches and in some locations only during peak season. Keeping a board in a locker would limit you to surfing at only one beach. Fine if you just want to have a dip now and then but for serious and competitive surfers it just wouldn't work.

Again, if you're pursuing your hobby at that kind of level, you will have to accept that there is a cost involved, and it's unfair to expect society to cover it for you. Hire a van with driver and you're sorted. You could also consider pooling with other athletes, splitting the costs. And if you're doing it professionally your team will have the facilities in place and you're not going to have to worry about it to begin with.

For the rest of us, public transport will have to be made more convenient, completely agree. But that is a good thing for everyone, and like with everything else, with rising demand there is no reason why the supply couldn't be increased.

Matt eaton wrote:

Paying someone to transport you and your gear - OK, this would work but we're basically talking about using taxi's to get everywhere.

Yes. But not everywhere. Everywhere you can not reasonably get to by other means. The question is how we define 'reasonably'. I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of people aren't being reasonable about their car use. At all. Your opinion may of course differ, and that's fair enough (that is, until the day I'm elected dictator - at which point the only opinion that matters will be mine)

Matt eaton wrote:

The cost would be prohibitive for most people and it's no improvement on driving yourself if you do it all the time. If you had the funds you could hire a full-time profesional driver, at which point you may as well be allowed to drive yourself.

No.

The point is that you don't need to be driving every day (unless you're doing it professionally, already covered above). The professional driver does. Which is why he would get a licence and you would not.

Regarding prohibitive cost, the cost is already there. And it's currently handled in two ways: 1. by splitting it across all of society, most members of which have no stake in your hobby, and 2. by simply not paying the rest, which is how we end up with a decade long backlog of roads in dire need of fixing that - at best - will be patched up for a few months until winter weather and road over-use will destroy them all over again, or - in most cases - simply won't be fixed at all. Instead the money goes into contracts to build new roads, as the article mentions, meaning profit for a few and shite roads for those that don't stand to gain anything from those projects.

Matt eaton wrote:

All this is against the backdrop that anyone who has a job that requires them to drive would have the ability to use the car for all of these things there is an inequality that I can't reconcile. The fact that you would have a better chance of sporting sucess (or even the oportunity to be involved in a sport in the first place) as the son of a builder than the son of a factory worker doesn't seem right to me.

That is a very good and valid concern. I suppose I would answer this with enforcement - being granted a licence on vocational grounds would entitle the motorist in question only to use of the licence in context of their job. Caught doing a private shopping run? Joy ride? Kiss your licence and job goodbye.

And given a vastly reduced number of vehicles on the roads, this isn't at all unrealistic even without throwing more money at the police. Enforcement of all kinds of (new and existing) regulations would suddenly become commonplace, as opposed to being a scary bed time story driving instructors tell novices nowadays before having a good laugh about it afterwards.

This all sounds more draconian and inflexible than it would be in reality. Take the case of the current law of a valid licence plate required for driving a car on public roads - there is an exception to that for cars to be moved between garages / car sellers etc. There are more examples like this. Again, if a reasonable case can be made for driving without a valid licence (wife in labour, parrot dying on your chest), fines and penalties can be mitigated or even lifted. I'm a socialist authoritarian, not a monster.

userfriendly wrote:

Again, if you're pursuing your hobby at that kind of level, you will have to accept that there is a cost involved, and it's unfair to expect society to cover it for you. Hire a van with driver and you're sorted. You could also consider pooling with other athletes, splitting the costs. And if you're doing it professionally your team will have the facilities in place and you're not going to have to worry about it to begin with.

What I was sort of getting at, and didn't make clear, was that this would introduce a massive gulf between pros and high-ranking amateurs. You'd also need to define what constitued a pro; someone who rides for a living? or would having some sort of commercial sponsorship be sufficient? Being part of a team you are given new jerseys once a year by a local shop?

If we had the public transport infrastructure in place such an idea could work but, on the other hand, if our public transport links were that good would we need to worry about private car ownership and use at all? I often think about using public transport rather than taking the car but I never actually use it as it is either impossible, unviable or just more expensive than using the car. A day return to London from where I live on the train is £180. Cost of fuel is about £25/£30. Even going right into the centre and paying £10 congestion charge and, say, £20 for parking I'm quids in. Want to take my bike to get arround town? On the train forget it (OK, folders are a solution); in the car no problem.

I think the solution is much simpler: make the car the less attractive option in most scenarios. If I could take the train to London with a good chance of being able to get a seat for £40 return and take my bike without any hassle I'd never even think about using the car. Why would I?

Matt eaton wrote:

What I was sort of getting at, and didn't make clear, was that this would introduce a massive gulf between pros and high-ranking amateurs.

Sorry, I'm not sure I fully comprehend the gravity of that situation. Especially when compared to the benefits a massive decrease in car use would have for a) the population's health, b) the country's finances, c) the state of the roads, d) the environment, ... are you sure that it's that much of an issue?

Matt eaton wrote:

If we had the public transport infrastructure in place such an idea could work but, on the other hand, if our public transport links were that good would we need to worry about private car ownership and use at all?

If everyone keeps using their cars for every single journey, from driving to work (alone) to nipping to the shop down the road, there won't be any uptake of other modes of transport. If there is no interest in other modes of transport, no investment in a better public transport infrastructure will be made. At some point you have to say "okay, we may have to force people a bit here ..."

Matt eaton wrote:

I often think about using public transport rather than taking the car but I never actually use it as it is either impossible, unviable or just more expensive than using the car. A day return to London from where I live on the train is £180. Cost of fuel is about £25/£30. Even going right into the centre and paying £10 congestion charge and, say, £20 for parking I'm quids in. Want to take my bike to get arround town? On the train forget it (OK, folders are a solution); in the car no problem.

Yes, I know. But that's the consequence of prioritising private motorised traffic, not an argument for keeping it that way. Largely do away with private motorised traffic - whether by the methods suggested above by yourself and other people less authoritarian-minded than me or by introducing my rather splendid idea of making driving licences temporary and limited - and the situation will change immediately: there will be a vast amount of money to be poured into public transport infrastructure and a demand for it too, prices will come down, the health system will stop bursting at its seams, road traffic accidents vastly reduced. People will be happier and healthier, more comfortable with their bodies and their brains will get more oxygen. Society can progress. Songbirds everywhere. Rabbits copulating in the streets. Reality shows are taken off the air. The Sisters Of Mercy release a new album. We terraform and colonise Mars. Mars!

Well. That's my plan anyway.

userfriendly wrote:

If everyone keeps using their cars for every single journey, from driving to work (alone) to nipping to the ship down the road, there won't be any uptake of other modes of transport. If there is no interest in other modes of transport, no investment in a better public transport infrastructure will be made. At some point you have to say "okay, we may have to force people a bit here ..."

Umm, by the same thinking why build quality cycle infrastructure when so few cycle? It's a bit of a case that you have to build it in order that people can come. If private car ownership use disapeared overnight my £180 train fare would suddenly become a £1800 train fare. The train companies would, in time, provide more services and major stations would grow to cope with demand but the train operators would be able to charge higher fares still given the lack of competition from the car, using their recent capital investment as justification. Conversely, improve rail services and lower prices to the extent that it becomes the more attractive option and many people will forget about the car. Make short journeys accross town quicker and easier by bike and people will move away from the car here too. When they realise that they barely use the car and it's costing them rather a lot to keep it taxed, MOT'd and insured they'll get rid of it without being forced. The carrot really needs to be in place first and the stick reserved for those too stubbon to take the easy option.

One more point: I know it doesn't apply to a huge portion of the population but in some remote areas personal motorised transport really is the only viable means of travel and I can't see good, regular public transport being extended to such places.

Matt eaton wrote:

Make short journeys accross town quicker and easier by bike and people will move away from the car here too. When they realise that they barely use the car and it's costing them rather a lot to keep it taxed, MOT'd and insured they'll get rid of it without being forced. The carrot really needs to be in place first and the stick reserved for those too stubbon to take the easy option.

The carrot and stick are a bit more closely aligned than that. Most places don't have masses of unused roadspace, because of induced demand.

So often you cannot put in high quality cycle facilities without taking away from something that already has use of that space. It's usually cars.

HKCambridge wrote:

Matt eaton wrote:

Make short journeys accross town quicker and easier by bike and people will move away from the car here too. When they realise that they barely use the car and it's costing them rather a lot to keep it taxed, MOT'd and insured they'll get rid of it without being forced. The carrot really needs to be in place first and the stick reserved for those too stubbon to take the easy option.

The carrot and stick are a bit more closely aligned than that. Most places don't have masses of unused roadspace, because of induced demand.

So often you cannot put in high quality cycle facilities without taking away from something that already has use of that space. It's usually cars.

Excellent point, and you would have to take space away from cars. Part of making it comparitively easier to get around by bike is making it more difficult to make unnecesary car journeys. Things like closing town centres to motorised traffic, removing through traffic on residential roads and setting up one-way systems with cycle contraflows are examples of this. To my mind these measures all come under the 'carrot' banner; tempting drivers out of their cars by offering a faster, cheaper and more efficient option that they feel safe using. There's a bit of 'stick' in there too.

Matt eaton wrote:

Umm, by the same thinking why build quality cycle infrastructure when so few cycle? It's a bit of a case that you have to build it in order that people can come.

I'll happily grant you that, but - from the perspective of those who decide how to spend our money - it is still a valid question. To massively increase spending on cycling infrastructure in a car-fixated society like ours would be a highly unpopular political action to take - and if you have a government willing to do that (ha, as if!) you might as well go the whole hog and do something more unpopular but so much more effective.

Why 'more effective' you ask, wouldn't any increase in cycling no matter how small be a victory already? No, it wouldn't - I very much doubt that even if we did 'build it so they come' that they would actually 'come' to the degree that you and I would deem desirable.

Yes, it would certainly increase the percentage of people that are willing to get on a bike every now and then. It has done that in other countries. But, and here I'm obviously speculating / guessing / talking out of my arse, I would suggest that the British are so much more fixated on their cars that this increase would have little to no effect. Instead of 1% of people cycling we may get 3 to 5%.

Would that be a good thing? Of course it would be! Would it be anywhere near enough? No. It would have very little impact on the problems that could be tackled and desperately need tackling. We as a society need to perform a swift and radical change, and you cannot - feel free to point me to examples to the contrary - rely on a population to suddenly see sense and a) come to this conclusion on their own and b) actually be prepared to get off their arses and do what's necessary to implement that change.

This is why I'm only half kidding about us needing an authoritarian approach. I would love to live in an ideal world where adults are actually behaving like adults and citizens are informed citizens capable of collectively making responsible decisions. We're not living in that kind of world, at least not yet. And while there is a point to be made that the status quo is not to be radically attacked because capitalist democracy is the best of all possible systems and all that humankind needs is just a little bit more time (how many millennia are we talking about then?), there is a very real possibility that we might screw up this planet and ourselves well before.

Yes, yes, I know. This is a road cycling forum. I'm stark raving mad, obviously. Must have banged my head on someone's bonnet.

Matt eaton wrote:

If private car ownership use disapeared overnight my £180 train fare would suddenly become a £1800 train fare. The train companies would, in time, provide more services and major stations would grow to cope with demand but the train operators would be able to charge higher fares still given the lack of competition from the car, using their recent capital investment as justification.

No, no ... regulation! Statist here, remember? If I take everyone's licence away and only give some of them back, grudgingly, why would I forget to heavily subsidise public transport and tell the companies not to be greedy dicks? I would obviously dictate their prices, and they would go down not up. If they come back and tell me that this makes them unable to operate profitably, I'll be swinging the renationalisation hammer. Screw their profits. We need sustainable transport.

Matt eaton wrote:

Conversely, improve rail services and lower prices to the extent that it becomes the more attractive option and many people will forget about the car. Make short journeys accross town quicker and easier by bike and people will move away from the car here too. When they realise that they barely use the car and it's costing them rather a lot to keep it taxed, MOT'd and insured they'll get rid of it without being forced. The carrot really needs to be in place first and the stick reserved for those too stubbon to take the easy option.

See above. I think you have way too high an opinion of the population's capability of making reasonable decisions that go against their ingrained desire to keep being lazy. Undoubtedly some will, yes. Equally undoubtedly, most won't. They will just moan about those anti-car fascists and demand to keep their perceived right to put on weight, waste resources, pollute the environment, kill other road users, and destroy the public road network. Like sheep to the slaughter.

Matt eaton wrote:

One more point: I know it doesn't apply to a huge portion of the population but in some remote areas personal motorised transport really is the only viable means of travel and I can't see good, regular public transport being extended to such places.

Absolutely. I did say in my initial post about this that every applicant is free to provide valid reasons, and if they are indeed deemed valid the applicant will be given their licence back. It's not a black/white all or nothing approach. Private car use should be allowed within reason. I just don't trust this populace (any populace really) to democratically decide what 'within reason' means because, frankly, most people are selfish lazy cunts with the attention span of a retarded fruit fly - how do you think we constantly end up with governments like this one?

userfriendly wrote:

honesty wrote:

The solution would be to ban private car use for journeys less than 3 miles... but you work out a way to enforce that!

What constitutes a valid reason can be set as strict as "lives more than 20 miles away from place of work". The process is to be repeated every so often for any given licence.

But this is self-reinforcing. The reason people live 20 miles away from their place of work is that they know they can drive there.

I hear people say things like 'oh, well you're lucky you only live 3 miles from work, of course you can cycle', as if where I live and where I work were decisions taken entirely independently of each other!

HKCambridge wrote:

But this is self-reinforcing. The reason people live 20 miles away from their place of work is that they know they can drive there.

I hear people say things like 'oh, well you're lucky you only live 3 miles from work, of course you can cycle', as if where I live and where I work were decisions taken entirely independently of each other!

Well, you're answering this yourself. Over time this will "self-reinforce" itself back in the opposite direction. And fairly quickly too, I would imagine.

Quote:

If we must build more roads in the UK then let them be built over the bloody railways. They really are the most useless, anachronistic form of transport available to humanity.

unless you want to move large quantities of freight about the country. have a think how many 44tonne lorries you need to replicate a coal train, or one of the steel trains that run from south to north wales.

the only real solution is to ban the private car....

mrmo wrote:

the only real solution is to ban the private car....

Errrr - I agree about rail use but to what is this a solution ? If there were viable alternatives, it might have some merit, but they're most likely a long way off unfortunately.

fukawitribe wrote:

mrmo wrote:

the only real solution is to ban the private car....

Errrr - I agree about rail use but to what is this a solution ? If there were viable alternatives, it might have some merit, but they're most likely a long way off unfortunately.

Banning might seem draconian, but I did say PRIVATE for a reason, if you need a car hire one, or get a taxi etc. For most people the question of whether they need a car is more, is a car more convenient than the alternatives, and almost always there is an alternative it is just less convenient so gets immediately discounted.

fukawitribe wrote:

mrmo wrote:

the only real solution is to ban the private car....

Errrr - I agree about rail use but to what is this a solution ? If there were viable alternatives, it might have some merit, but they're most likely a long way off unfortunately.

Well, it would be solution to the 'lack of viable alternatives'. Or do you really think all the resultant demand wouldn't result in improved services?

oldstrath wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

mrmo wrote:

the only real solution is to ban the private car....

Errrr - I agree about rail use but to what is this a solution ? If there were viable alternatives, it might have some merit, but they're most likely a long way off unfortunately.

Well, it would be solution to the 'lack of viable alternatives'. Or do you really think all the resultant demand wouldn't result in improved services?

Even as a hardcore as I maybe, banning private cars is not an option and will only harden peoples determination to use them.

The reason that people do not cycle or walk more is because its not the most convenient mode of transport. It takes more effort then to just drive.

Reverse that and people will quickly get pissed off with the huge inconvenience of driving and parking. Remove the subsidy that motorised traffic receives and ban all free parking (there is no such thing really).

Make walking, cycling and public transport the most convenient forms of transport and you will see private car usage (and consequently ownership once all subsidies are removed) fall through the floor.

[quote=zanfEven as a hardcore as I maybe, banning private cars is not an option and will only harden peoples determination to use them.

The reason that people do not cycle or walk more is because its not the most convenient mode of transport. It takes more effort then to just drive.

Reverse that and people will quickly get pissed off with the huge inconvenience of driving and parking. Remove the subsidy that motorised traffic receives and ban all free parking (there is no such thing really).

Make walking, cycling and public transport the most convenient forms of transport and you will see private car usage (and consequently ownership once all subsidies are removed) fall through the floor.[/quote]

Spot on. Look at the places where cycling is prevelant as a mode of transport. Sure, you can drive a couple of miles accross town to work but it will take you longer than cycling and you'll still have to park some way away from your actual workplace. Suddenly the bike looks like an attractive option.

I don't see car ownership as the big issue here, it's the use of the car for every journey, every day of the week that the problem. The car is best suited to occasional journeys, like weekends away or family days out. Regular and scheduled journeys like the commute to work are a better fit for walking, cycling and public transport.

Matt eaton wrote:

I don't see car ownership as the big issue here, it's the use of the car for every journey, every day of the week that the problem. The car is best suited to occasional journeys, like weekends away or family days out. Regular and scheduled journeys like the commute to work are a better fit for walking, cycling and public transport.

Car ownership is a problem too, albeit I think the lesser one.

As my name suggest, I live in Cambridge, and the majority of people here cycle, and 30% commute by bike.

People often own cars too, though. And a lot of the housing here is Victorian two-up, two-down terraces, and the roads are about two cars wide. A car is longer than the house is wide, there are no garages, and there is no room for parking on both sides of the street. Even with reduced car ownership, there isn't room to store cars for all residents who have one.

When it snows you can see how infrequently some of these cars move. They'll still be snow-covered 5 days since the last precipitation.

In the meantime, this private property is creating pinch points, blocking pavements (in one area these are actually marked bays on the pavement!), and reducing visibility along the roads.

We have ever-growing residents' parking schemes, so that people can reserve their own little bit of public space for an object they use occasionally. Consequently there is a shortage of parking for non-residents as well, some of whom might actually need a car.

Ownership certainly can be a problem on its own.

HKCambridge wrote:

Matt eaton wrote:

I don't see car ownership as the big issue here, it's the use of the car for every journey, every day of the week that the problem. The car is best suited to occasional journeys, like weekends away or family days out. Regular and scheduled journeys like the commute to work are a better fit for walking, cycling and public transport.

Car ownership is a problem too, albeit I think the lesser one.

As my name suggest, I live in Cambridge, and the majority of people here cycle, and 30% commute by bike.

People often own cars too, though. And a lot of the housing here is Victorian two-up, two-down terraces, and the roads are about two cars wide. A car is longer than the house is wide, there are no garages, and there is no room for parking on both sides of the street. Even with reduced car ownership, there isn't room to store cars for all residents who have one.

When it snows you can see how infrequently some of these cars move. They'll still be snow-covered 5 days since the last precipitation.

In the meantime, this private property is creating pinch points, blocking pavements (in one area these are actually marked bays on the pavement!), and reducing visibility along the roads.

We have ever-growing residents' parking schemes, so that people can reserve their own little bit of public space for an object they use occasionally. Consequently there is a shortage of parking for non-residents as well, some of whom might actually need a car.

Ownership certainly can be a problem on its own.

No argument from me on this, car ownership can be a problem. I do feel that there should be some limits to car ownership based on the type of property and off-road parking availibility. I've mentioned this before somewhere but perhaps an n+1 approach where n is the number of off-road spaces a property has. If the property has no garage or driveway then the total number of cars that could be registered at the address would be 1. I'd aknowledge that there are a couple of loopholes but it might prevent families who live in the type of houses you describe having 3 or 4 cars parked outside on the road.

oldstrath wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

mrmo wrote:

the only real solution is to ban the private car....

Errrr - I agree about rail use but to what is this a solution ? If there were viable alternatives, it might have some merit, but they're most likely a long way off unfortunately.

Well, it would be solution to the 'lack of viable alternatives'.

How do figure that ?

oldstrath wrote:

Or do you really think all the resultant demand wouldn't result in improved services?

Of course it would, eventually they might even get to a usable level (functionally and financially). My point was that it seems to be a bit drastic to stop all private vehicles before anything is there to replace it. As mrmo said though, he was only calling for a ban on private vehicles - which i'd not picked up on the meaning of - so car hire and taxis would help in some cases.

Don't get me wrong, i'm very much in favour of reducing private vehicle use and massive increases in public/mass transit and infrastructure, as well as other easy things like changes in road (speed limits, reducing through roads, pedestrianisation etc etc). I just happen to think that to pre-empt that by an instant mass ban on cars is not the way - unless you want an instant, and quite reasonable, back-lash that could set things back a long way.

mrmo wrote:

Quote:

If we must build more roads in the UK then let them be built over the bloody railways. They really are the most useless, anachronistic form of transport available to humanity.

unless you want to move large quantities of freight about the country. have a think how many 44tonne lorries you need to replicate a coal train, or one of the steel trains that run from south to north wales.

the only real solution is to ban the private car....

well I guesstimate that is aroundabout 9090 lorries of 44tonne capacity each day just to move all of the freight that the railways shift each day...hmm thinks... I work for a company that makes parts for two major truck manufacturers, so imagine all the overtime we could have if I shut up and let michophull have his way - mind you imagine trying to move all that freight on butchers bikes... great fun yes, but not economical.

"...think how many 44tonne lorries you need to replicate a coal train"

Why oh why did you have to employ a notional "coal train" to make your point. Sort of cuts us off at the knees in terms of our 'green blob' environmentalist 'image' doesn't it?

Personally I thought the aim was to regulate coal-fired power stations out of existence for the benefit of us all...not to use them as an excuse for investing in rail infrastructure.

michophull wrote:

If we must build more roads in the UK then let them be built over the bloody railways. They really are the most useless, anachronistic form of transport available to humanity.