[Shades]

I’m back in the office; hybrid working (60:40 home/office).  I usually cycle (17 miles each way) or do a drive/cycle combo (close enough to the office to avoid the traffic and cycle in normal clothes without getting sweaty) if the weather is a bit inclement (or winter).  Bike park at work (many 1000s work at my site) is pretty empty (OK, people are working flexibly) but the traffic queues are almost back to pre-pandemic levels in places.  Junior staff in the office, on the lower salaries, wailing about the petrol price increases, which must be around 20%, yet they keep on paying.  Some people haven’t got a choice, granted, but running the sums, cost of driving must be comparable to the bus or train; or dig a bike out and it cost sweet FA!

I wish Chris Boardman the best luck in the world, but when people are doggedly happy to empty their bank accounts to keep driving you have to wonder.

Topic

[lonpfrb]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

The alternative viewpoint is that cyclists are being given additional space on trains free of charge.

If that space could be used more profitably then cyclists are effectively being subsidised.

On many trains the space allowed to bicycles is actually there for wheelchair users who have priority. Of course both will have paid a fare so don’t ride for free. In many years commuting by train and bicycle I rarely met a wheelchair user. However I’m happy to subsidize that mobility network and I believe most people are too.

[lonpfrb]

hawkinspeter wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

We need to seize the means of transportation. It’s bizarre that public transport is run by profit obsessed companies.

In London TfL have delegated the bus service to profit making companies because their experience with a union workforce e.g. Underground has been so bad. Thus the outsourcing of tube maintenance and the new Elizabeth Line trains being a service provided by the train owner who employ the drivers, not TfL.
So the long and short of it is that TfL will not employ a single person more than they have to, so default to outsourcing for all services that they can. TfL design the service, routes and licence the operators so that a public service is delivered. More employees and their pensions they do not want, can’t afford.

[lonpfrb]

The best office that I ever
The best office that I ever worked at had secure basement parking for bikes, showers with lockers, and clean towels so that whatever the weather you could be sure to get to work fresh and find your bike at the end of the day. They had a bike shop and workshop so that you could get service with ease. So three years and 500,000 calories later I was sad to leave.

PS: with thousands in the building it was impossible for most to go by car so WFH was already essential pre-pandemic. People didn’t expect to travel by car. Business could do that, especially if government enabled or required it.

[CargoJoe]

My employer recently
My employer recently introduced a “Green Commuting Subsidy”, where they pay staff £2.50 per round trip for commuting in a sustainable way (cycling, walking, public transport or car sharing (car sharing subsidy is at half the rate)).

The subsidy is in the form of a voucher which we can spend on stuff the company makes and sells (outdoor gear and bikes) so the cost to the company is quite low, and the benefit to most staff is high.

They are big on sustainability and this is part of working towards their net zero target.

[Shades]

For me it’s some of the non

For me it’s some of the non-financial benefits of not using a vehicle.  Cycling takes longer but you’ve turned the entire commute time into exercise and you don’t need to stress about calories in exceeding calories out.  Cycling early morning with the sun rising; can’t beat it and nothing like a pleasant ride home to clear the head.  Public transport allows you to read, listen to music/podcasts, even work etc and you get the physical benefit of walking to the station or bus stop.  Stopping for a few drinks on the way home isn’t an issue.  If your commute involves a reasonable amount of walking or cycling then why have a gym membership; if you want resistance training as well then that’s easy to achieve at home with a mat and some weights.

[chrisonabike]

I think both sunk costs and

I think both sunk costs and social factors are important.  On the latter I’ve known several people who thought even trains – never mind buses – were essentially for the unwashed.  I found this rather odd as these people weren’t exactly aristocrats themselves. That might seem extreme but I wouldn’t underestimate the general dislike of “public” stuff.  Most people much prefer their own space and certainly dislike sharing it with others.  So cars are preferred.  Then there is a “door to door” factor.  Your car might not make it exactly to the door of your destination but it will often be closer than you’d end up using e.g. a train.

[TheBillder]

ktache wrote:

ktache wrote:

But on a train you don’t have to concentrate what you are doing, you can gaze at the passing countryside, read a book (join and use your local library). Eat or drink, when mask usage allows. And any delays, read a few more pages, nothing to get to worried about.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DqZ8e0PLFDeY&ved=2ahUKEwjz5-6S2tX2AhXknVwKHTLYCFsQwqsBegQIBBAE&usg=AOvVaw2Xv8U2KTu8b1yHRtinTwWA perhaps?

[TheBillder]

There’s also a big dose of
There’s also a big dose of “some people sometimes need a car and hence nobody should use public transport”. I’m very tired of people saying “but what if you’re disabled?” as an excuse to carry on with their driving tiny distances. The perfect cannot be the enemy* of the good.

*Auto correct offered me “enema” there and it took a major effort not to use it…

[Owd Big 'Ead]

Weirdly, there is a shift in

Weirdly, there is a shift in car sales towards higher margins at the expense of low margin cheaper cars already happening as the automotive industry becomes ever more reliant on EV’s. Already the cheapest cars on sale from the major volume manufacturers are being dropped. Where most manufacturers were selling cars from approx £14k upwards only a few years ago, there has been a relatively large shift to entry level cars now costing approx £18k and upwards. Therefore manufacturers are happy to sell fewer cars as long as they can keep their profits at similar levels and this will continue as Euro 7? and the uptake of EV’s continues.

[ktache]

But on a train you don’t have

But on a train you don’t have to concentrate what you are doing, you can gaze at the passing countryside, read a book (join and use your local library). Eat or drink, when mask usage allows. And any delays, read a few more pages, nothing to get to worried about.

 

[Anonymous]

Global private vehicle
Global private vehicle reached peak like what 10 years ago?
As an elder millenial I cant see enough positives to owning something that costs so much to be parked outside my workplace for 8 hours a day, or on my drive over night.
Even living in a fairly rural area its pretty easy to not use a car. Bus, uber, standard taxi are all options to get me the 4 mile to my nearest town if I cba with the ride. Even the tescos shop can be delivered. Other week I got back from a 60miler, my shop turned up as I was sorting my bike post ride, he’d done 60miles and made 20 drops, already more efficient then me making a trip by car.
I also think there will be a shift in generations time, as the youngers more openly embrace WFH, self-driving uber style options and the such, until then tax the dinosaurs into extinction imo.

[HoarseMann]

Owd Big ‘Ead wrote:

Owd Big ‘Ead wrote:

the majority of my motoring needs are covered by being a member of a local car share club.

Now this is going to sound weird, but maybe cycling organisations should get into the car club business?

There’s little incentive for car manufacturers, as ultimately it will lead to fewer sales.

You can provide all the cycling infrastructure you like, but if there’s a car on the drive and you’re already paying for it, for some it’s just too easy to use it.

[Owd Big 'Ead]

The answer is in the question

The answer is in the question.

Why would you leave your car at home when it is still costing money whether it is used or not.

If we really want to see a shift in behaviour it isn’t leaving the car at home that we should aspire to, but ending the desire for car ownership in the first place.

I haven’t owned a car for over 25 years, admittedly I do have access to a pool car at work, but realistically the majority of my motoring needs are covered by being a member of a local car share club. You adapt to not owning a car, just as motorists have adapted to believing that car ownership is the only way to travel in the 21st century.

Luckily, more and more young people are turning their noses up at the idea of car ownership. Perhaps we might turn a corner in a generation or two.

[hawkinspeter]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

My issue with that approach is that if you can’t afford new tyres or brake pads you can still drive. You’ll just be even more dangerous than normal. If you can’t afford fuel then you’re going nowhere. I do agree that we should find a way of including vehicle size and weight in the taxation system though.

Good points – I agree that tyres and brake pads aren’t a good choice for taxation. Maybe adding some kind of MOT surcharge for vehicle weight although we don’t want to dissuade people from keeping vehicles road-worthy.

[hawkinspeter]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

The alternative viewpoint is that cyclists are being given additional space on trains free of charge. If that space could be used more profitably then cyclists are effectively being subsidised.

Well, I certainly don’t have any issue with cyclists being subsidised. Meanwhile, push-chairs are also taking up extra room, despite most train companies specifying that push-chairs should be folded up for travel whilst on the train (and I don’t have an issue with that as long as they’re not hogging cycle specific space). This is the problem with for-profit transport – they are keen to optimise for the majority of passengers and are less inclined to allow for more flexibility e.g. tandems, hand-cycles etc.

In terms of mass transit, we should enable people to use public transport for part of the journey and cycle for some parts as that encourages active transport. However, that’s a societial benefit rather than increasing shareholder profits for a minority.

[Author]

Replies