Private car ownership unsustainable, warns House of Commons committee

Rick_Rude wrote:

Cars are needed since the loss of local employment for most people.

So why are such a large percentage of journeys under 3 miles? Why do so many people drive past the Park & Ride facility and try to to park as near to the shops as possible, preferably without paying?

And for all the whining about work being far away, many people choose jobs that are far from where they live (or choose to live far from where they work) because government policy has encouraged that. Car adverts have sold us a fantasy which we want to believe is a good thing. It isn't.

I quit travelling 50 miles each way to work 15 years ago. It was a relief. After a few months in my new job frustration that my shitty 5 mile cross-town drive took 20-25 minutes so I got my bike out. It was barely any slower to cycle, I lost 1/2 stone in 6 weeks and loved it.

Yes public transport is overpriced, has suffered decades of ever shrinking support and has been gutted by privatisation, but road transport is hugel subsidised so car drivers don't pay anything like the true cost of their journey.

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

"If we compare the costs of infrastructure & externalities (environment, crashes, etc.) with state revenues (charges and taxes), we easily conclude that motorists do not pay the costs they impose on society & for which they should be responsible."

https://twitter.com/IFPedestrians/status/1159787518612639744

We need a complete reversal of the last 50+ years of policy - those huge roadbuilding projects, big cash incentives for car manufacturers etc etc - and investment in decent infrastructure. It won't be a magic wand and we will have to adapt. Holland was a similarly car-centric nation in the 1970s but they turned that around.

People can wail and gnash their teeth all they like about the downsides of the changes we are going to have to put in place but regarding the climate the fact is that our backs are well and truly up against the fucking wall.

carlosdsanchez wrote:

Problem is that cars have been so cheap to own and run for so long - the past 50 years or so - that entire generations of people have completely organised their lives around car ownership. That is not something that is easy to unpick.

Yes, it's self-perpetuating.  Not properly costing private car travel means more people adopt it, which means a larger lobby to continue subsidising it.  It's like a zombie apocalypse - the more people are infected, the harder it becomes for the survivors to avoid being bitten.

carlosdsanchez wrote:

Problem is that cars have been so cheap to own and run for so long - the past 50 years or so - that entire generations of people have completely organised their lives around car ownership. That is not something that is easy to unpick.

Quite so. The car is convenient and people are lazy. My wife drives to our town centre. It's a 10 minute walk away. Bonkers. And, unlike many people, she is very aware of the issues. If she can't be persuaded (to put herself out) what hope is there for the rest?

What's needed is a government brave enough to do things differently, to lead, but governments are short-lived beasties, party-driven, and afraid of losing votes. Telling people they can't have their own car, parked outside their house, and drive it whenever and wherever they please, is a vote killer. So what to do? My gut feeling is that only a 'shock event' will spur the politicians into real action. Something like the flooding of central London due to increasing sea levels.  

srchar wrote:

Rich_cb, it's definitely doable, but once you have a kid or three in tow, it's a completely different equation.

Personally, I think the type of driving that many people do is the issue. If you need to move 5 people plus a fortnight's gear 300 miles, a car is an efficient option. Doing the same commute every day with only one person in the car, not so much.

I wonder how much our ridiculous housing costs have to do with the amount that people drive. If you want to live anywhere near work or good public transport links, the cost increases massively.

I think you're right about the housing. Cardiff is currently in the middle of a huge expansion and from the submitted plans the provision for active travel is pretty dismal.

Looks like we'll be getting plenty more cars to go with all the new houses...

vonhelmet wrote:

Forget incentives, we need a stick, not a carrot. If the cost of driving a car properly reflected all the externalities - pollution, injury and death, roadwear, etc - you'd force people to seek an alternative. The other side of that is actually providing credible alternatives, which just aren't there as yet, as public transport outside London is hilariously unreliable and expensive.

Am I being too cynical if I suggest that if private motor transport was made much more expensive so as to price people out of it (the stick) then the companies running the buses and trains would just see an opportunity to ramp their own fares up, since since nobody would have any alternative.

brooksby wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Forget incentives, we need a stick, not a carrot. If the cost of driving a car properly reflected all the externalities - pollution, injury and death, roadwear, etc - you'd force people to seek an alternative. The other side of that is actually providing credible alternatives, which just aren't there as yet, as public transport outside London is hilariously unreliable and expensive.

Am I being too cynical if I suggest that if private motor transport was made much more expensive so as to price people out of it (the stick) then the companies running the buses and trains would just see an opportunity to ramp their own fares up, since since nobody would have any alternative.

Maybe, maybe not. But public transport also needs to become more expensive if it's to truly reflect those same externalities. It benefits from similar hidden subsidies as private cars, as well as some obvious direct ones, just to a lesser extent. 

Bmblbzzz wrote:

brooksby wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Forget incentives, we need a stick, not a carrot. If the cost of driving a car properly reflected all the externalities - pollution, injury and death, roadwear, etc - you'd force people to seek an alternative. The other side of that is actually providing credible alternatives, which just aren't there as yet, as public transport outside London is hilariously unreliable and expensive.

Am I being too cynical if I suggest that if private motor transport was made much more expensive so as to price people out of it (the stick) then the companies running the buses and trains would just see an opportunity to ramp their own fares up, since since nobody would have any alternative.

Maybe, maybe not. But public transport also needs to become more expensive if it's to truly reflect those same externalities. It benefits from similar hidden subsidies as private cars, as well as some obvious direct ones, just to a lesser extent. 

This goes against the policy of European countries with far more advanced cycling infrastructure - Holland, Denmark, Germany.

hmas1974 wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

brooksby wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Forget incentives, we need a stick, not a carrot. If the cost of driving a car properly reflected all the externalities - pollution, injury and death, roadwear, etc - you'd force people to seek an alternative. The other side of that is actually providing credible alternatives, which just aren't there as yet, as public transport outside London is hilariously unreliable and expensive.

Am I being too cynical if I suggest that if private motor transport was made much more expensive so as to price people out of it (the stick) then the companies running the buses and trains would just see an opportunity to ramp their own fares up, since since nobody would have any alternative.

Maybe, maybe not. But public transport also needs to become more expensive if it's to truly reflect those same externalities. It benefits from similar hidden subsidies as private cars, as well as some obvious direct ones, just to a lesser extent. 

This goes against the policy of European countries with far more advanced cycling infrastructure - Holland, Denmark, Germany.

I don't think event the sainted Dutch go nearly far enough for my taste.  And I don't think the hidden subsidies for most public transport are really that large, not given the level of fares.  The total accounting is very opaque, though, that's true.  There are both hidden subsidies and hidden benefits for public transport.  And it all gets mixed up with other issues, like where the housing and jobs are.

vonhelmet wrote:

public transport outside London is hilariously unreliable and expensive

It's pretty shocking inside London. It's definitely unreliable, it's not that much cheaper inside the zones, and outside the zones it's not uncommon to pay £5k a year for a 20 mile each-way season ticket.

srchar wrote:

... When technology and legislation has advanced sufficiently that we have shared fleets of self-driving cars to call upon, then the end of private car ownership will be viable. I hope that has happened by 2050, but I'm not holding my breath.

Before I get flamed out of existence, ...

Not trying to flame you. But, assuming we reach the state where shared self-driving cars are as convenient as current private car ownership, the measure of that will be that we drive just as many miles. The difference will be that the shared car will also put on further miles driving itself between customers, instead of being parked up on a driveway.
Unless something exceeds the convenience:cost ratio of cars then they will retain their position in the pecking order.

Sriracha wrote:

Not trying to flame you. But, assuming we reach the state where shared self-driving cars are as convenient as current private car ownership, the measure of that will be that we drive just as many miles. The difference will be that the shared car will also put on further miles driving itself between customers, instead of being parked up on a driveway.
Unless something exceeds the convenience:cost ratio of cars then they will retain their position in the pecking order.

I think that's a common misconception about driverless cars, they won't do much driving around empty as they'll be routed to the nearest available job.

In some cases ( eg shift change at a hospital/factory) that may not require them to move at all.

Pick up trips will also be eliminated (driving somewhere solely to pick some one/thing up) so the number of journeys to airports/train stations etc will be massively reduced.

What driverless cars won't need to do is park outside an owner's house for 95% of their existence.

The amount of road space and land freed up by this alone will allow a huge increase in active travel infrastructure without impacting current road capacity at all.

As we will only require enough cars to meet peak demand (+contingency for maintenance etc) we will see a huge reduction in the number of cars produced which will have as big an environmental impact as reduced usage.

srchar wrote:

I cycle everywhere I can, but the end of private car ownership is, frankly, a pipe dream, as evidenced by current politicians' timetabling of 2050. I've tried car clubs, long-term hire, peer-to-peer rental, taxis the lot - only sometimes does it work out cheaper and it's always less convenient.  When technology and legislation has advanced sufficiently that we have shared fleets of self-driving cars to call upon, then the end of private car ownership will be viable. I hope that has happened by 2050, but I'm not holding my breath.

Before I get flamed out of existence, I'm all for investment in non-road transport infrastructure and for decreasing the priority given to cars on our roads.  But your average non-cycling, non-public-transport using driver needs incentives that just aren't there and aren't ever likely to be.

My own experience is quite different.

I live in Cardiff so not exactly a metropolis but a reasonably sized city. I gave up my car for 3 years and relied on public transport/taxis for anything that wasn't possible by bike.

Taxis were available with an average of 5 mins notice so that was never an issue.

Travelling long distances by train was a massive pain in the arse as most of my family live quite rurally so hire cars filled in when needed.

These were also available with minimal notice.

Overall I saved a lot of money as well as doing my bit for the planet and my neighbours' lungs.

If you live in a city I think car free living is easily achievable, with better infrastructure for active travel I think it would be an option for many more people.

Housecathst wrote:

But how will 98% of the population travel any distance greater than the couch to the fridge with out a car? 

Personally I believe it all started with the TV remote rather than attempting to reach the fridge. Though on saying that I have a mate who has a beer cooler beside his couch.