[Closed] Can someone please tell me why public transport isn't cheaper than driving?

It is utterly stupid.

Until rail fares are capped this will carry on. It cost my missus £50 to get to London and back last week. Would have cost around £25 in the car including the CC and parking.

It all depends - for one person public transport is almost always significantly cheaper than the true cost of driving ( which is more than petrol alone) for two its usually less clearcut.

Trains are often significantly quicker and a lot less stressful - sit there read a paper, use your laptop, drink a beer etc

The main reason is the massive subsidies to motoring compared to the massive waste of money in the current railways system

if public transport was run ONLY for the benefit of the public, it would be a lot cheaper, however it isnt, its run to make profit for shareholders, hence; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8605011/Stagecoach-profits-jump-as-more-travel-by-bus-train.html

Mad ticketing sytems for trains do not help either

I can get from Edinburgh to london in 4 1/2 hrs for £100 ish return by train thats 400 miles each way - in a car that would take 7 hrs each way and cost more than that in petrol alone probably.

It all depends - for one person public transport is almost always significantly cheaper than the true cost of driving ( which is more than petrol alone) for two its usually less clearcut.

never that easy to say, what is the "true cost of motoring", there is no simple answer. and for most people the fixed costs of running a car exist whether they use the car or take the train. My SO is going to york in a couple of weeks, so have done a bit of digging on this, no cheap fairs so it is going to cost just shy of £80, i have done the check routes and buy multiple tickets and can get it to £70.

If i use my car it would be 6 Gallons of diesel. which is c£40.

IF i use the train the car is still there, which means i have insurance to pay, i have VED of c£230 a year to pay, yes servicing would cost a bit more as the car is getting more use, but that is still £200 a year, with the odd repair on top. These costs are not seen at the point of use and so are almost irrelevant to most people when looking at the cost of a journey.

If you want people to use public transport it has to be cheaper at the point of use than the alternatives. Make the train £40 then it is a far nicer way to travel, but at £80 it is a piss take.

subsidies to motoring

is that not covered by the tax on petrol? just saying.

The journey I'm planning is 170miles 3hours in the car, for a cost of about £55.00 for a tank of fuel or 3hrs there & 4.5 hrs back in the train...

Why no cheap fares to york? where from at what time? Just interested like

its run to make profit for shareholders

We are not going to fix this unless there is some serious increase in capacity - which will probably have to be publicly funded.

HS2 anyone?

uwe-r - Member

"subsidies to motoring"

is that not covered by the tax on petrol? just saying.

Its a whole 'nother debate we have done to death - but no - the total cost to the taxpayer of motoring is far more than the taxes raised from motoring.

All the deaths and injuries that need to be treated, all the cost of enforcement of motoring law, all the damage to buildings, the ill health from pollution etc etc etc.

Its not an easy thing to workout and every side of the debate has its own prefered sums but the costs are much greater than just the cost of the roads

Trains are often significantly quicker and a lot less stressful

i believe that there may be a parallel universe where this is actually true.

is that not covered by the tax on petrol? just saying.

depends,

M74 extension has cost c£692million, a lot of fuel.

Then there are the costs of accidents and policing, they don't pay for themselves.

Then you move to the less tangible costs, transporting goods, how do you price a delay caused by congestion, who picks up the tab? How do you price Health related problems caused by pollution?

Depends on the numbers you use as to whether fuel does cover the costs, but as councils pay for the local road network you could argue that non drivers are subsidising the network, but no roads means no food deliveries so if you don't drive you still need the roads to be there.

As i said it depends.

trailmonkey - Member

Trains are often significantly quicker and a lot less stressful

i believe that there may be a parallel universe where this is actually true.

Edinburgh / london in under 4.5 hrs? Free wifi, comfy seats, read a book, browse stw, drink beer

TJ if you can find one let me know, Cheltenham to York, week sunday to week wednesday, outward must be late afternoon return early morning, work reasons. and there needs to be flexibility just in case. So specific train times isn't an option.

TJ is on to it. The 'tax on petrol' is not about putting a value on the externalities (external damage) incurred by the use of cars/lorries etc. Much as we don't value water properly (it's hugely undervalued), we also don't look at the wider costs and benefits of the various forms of transport.

trailmonkey - Member

Trains are often significantly quicker and a lot less stressful

i believe that there may be a parallel universe where this is actually true.

Come on, even the biggest train hater has to admit it's often true. Drive from Edinburgh to London vs train? 7 hours vs 4 hours 20, motorway bashing vs sit and have a read or a sleep or emorage on the internet via the free wireless on the train... Driving's a horrible option by comparison.

Or, keep it shorter, Edinburgh to Glasgow. About an hour and 10 in the car vs 50 minutes on the train, city centre to city centre.

And no trying to find a parking space...

Sure, for a lot of journeys public transport is terrible, and for a lot more it's just not as good as a car, but there's plenty where it's the best option.

So specific train times isn't an option.

That's your problem.

Not specific trains then you will struggle. I can't find anything better bar specified trains singles at 29.50

Its mad pricing structure does not help. I am heading down to manchester from edinburgh in a couple of weeks and while I can get just abit cheaper for the two of us by train I cannot thru book the bikes I want to take as the cheap train is a roundabout route. So I risk not getting my bike on one of the connections.

I shall look into it further cos its cheaper than a car and quicker even for two of us - but marginal enough that hire car is a reasonable option

That's your problem.

geoffj i know, and it is the big problem with public transport as it is currently configured it is not flexible and cheap at the point of use, compare with a car.

Trains are often significantly quicker and a lot less stressful

i believe that there may be a parallel universe where this is actually true.

I think this very much depends on where you live relative to the station. Virtually every train journey I would ever want to make involves taking a train to Nottingham first, it's only a 15 minute journey but nine times out of ten you'll have to wait at least 20 minutes for a connection. Going to somewhere like Birmingham I can be in Birmingham in the time it takes to get into Nottingham and wait for the next train.

there's also the convenience factor. I work 24 miles from home, by the shortest road route. Best time is about 45 minutes as there are one or two cities in the way.

Train takes at least 2 hours, including 20 minute wait at one change and another 25 minute wait at another change; then there's the walk to my 'home' station and the walk from the 'work' station, both about 10-15 minutes. It MIGHT be cheaper but it takes twice as long. And today there was a major problem at Leeds station due to power failure that lasted well over an hour.

<edit> correction, 1hr 39m plus the walks at each end. but it is only a fiver each way! </edit>

I'll be travelling to London for the princely sum of £15 tomorrow, and if I can get the right return it'll be £15 too 🙂

Not bad for a ~400 mile round trip

http://www.grandcentralrail.com/summersale

Viable public transport - does it exist outside main centres of population?

What would it take to increase frequency of service which had declined over the 10 years we have been in our village, although population had significantly increased due to new house building. Couple of buses a day - generally at times which are not conducive to work hours.

Aberdeen City council are obviously pushing the park and ride - as most streets in town now have exhorbitant parking charges (believe Council execs still get their parking spaces...funny that!). Are the parking charges to protect the environment or simply to generate income 'though?

Challenge is that to use any viable public transport would simply involve a car journey to park then be conveyed a few miles further by bus - which does not actually pass work so is relatively inconvenient. Additionally I guess the rural location tends to have folk develop a 'fend for myself' attitude too.

So, as long as my employer still provides car parking then I'll continue to take my car to work.

Train can be great 'though....few times I've used them for longer distances with a cut price first class ticket then they have been enjoyable.

Demand management.

It might cost £987 to get to London on Monday at 9am, but the train's chock full so why charge less?*

* devil's advocate.

the total cost to the taxpayer of motoring is far more than the taxes raised from motoring

Still don't agree with that, I think it's too complicated to put a simple price on. What's the benefit to the economy of mobility of goods and labour? Priceless. But I'm not going to argue about it since no-one can ever be sure.

There are many problems with trains. The rail network is at full capacity so we can't lay on any more; building new lines is massively expensive and the govt can't afford it (when you take into account priorities mandated by the electorate); all public transport depends on population density for viability NOT population numbers. So the majority of the people could be without usable options because they don't live in a dense enough area, and so on.

geoffj i know, and it is the big problem with public transport as it is currently configured it is not flexible and cheap at the point of use, compare with a car.

But there's also a mindset issue. We have become conditioned to appreciating the flexibility of the car - going when we want. To get the best out of the public transport system as it's currently administered, you need to accept that you may need to just pick a train and stick to it.

I travel 1000s of miles on the train for business most months (up and down from Perthshire to London) and there are very few occasions where I need a flexible ticket. I can usually wangle decent priced 1st class tickets too with a bit of creativity.

We pay more in subsidies now than when it was British Rail and prices have doubled.

; all public transport depends on population density for viability NOT population numbers. So the majority of the people could be without usable options because they don't live in a dense enough area, and so on.

Two pints.

1. Unfortunately the low density problems has been largely caused by poor town planning producing sprawling suburban towns and cities with out of town business parks for work, shopping centres and leisure parks for play, all designed around people driving and not using public transport. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

2. People living in low density areas may still use public transport for part of their journey if it goes into a high density area, this is just not a common case in this country unfortunately.

As part of thatchers wish and demonic desstruction of British rail, she sold off the trains, the locos, and coaches to 3 companies,the freight side was split into 4 parts, and the track and signalling was also split off into another company, owned by the state, which went bust, called railtrack.
At privatisation, perfectly viable trains where scrapped, lines ripped up and destroyed, lines single tracked(think of closing one side of a motorway, and making all traffic use the existing lanes but in one direction only, then after a few hours reverse the flow) and see if it works, with the railways it had to.

Take out the sidings where slower freight trains could nestle,Then create fixed formation trains like the voyagers and pendolinos, basicly buses on wheels engine below each, but with no ability to add more coaches, unless theyre in a factory, unlike the old coaches which could run as 20 coach trains.

So many things where done in the rush for easy money ,called privatisation, where the only ones who made a killing where the lawyers, and the coach and train painters, producing ludicrous paint schemes, and lots of papers.

Cos they all need to make profit to keep shareholders happy now. It is nonsense. It is cheaper for two people to share taxis for a regular local trip than it is to get a bus around our way.

Most people who say "I can't easily get public transport to work" either work or live in the wrong place for the public transport network. Yes, if you live in the middle of nowhere and work in the middle of nowhere the train is not an option. Don't blame the train, blame the fact that you live in the middle of nowhere. And if it's an inevitable fact of the work or lifestyle or location you've chosen, accept it as a result of that choice.

I can't ride out my front gate straight into the Lake District, I don't blame the hills.

I would call a taxi a form of public transport.

Mrmo has it right. The cost of driving is 50p per mile for most of us. If you get 4 in a car it might be cheaper. Otherwise it usually isn't. The real issues are convenience, privacy and autonomy.

Some weird times it is dead cheap.

Like Belper to family in London (3.5hr drive at least) , cost me 15 quid the other day for me plus daughter. Cheaper because daughter means I have a family railcard. Plus no paying for parking at other end.

Oh and my trip to work - by bus 4.90, for a 40 mile round trip. 12p a mile isn't bad. Takes ages though, 1hr15 vs 60 mins on bike vs probably 50 mins in car.

Catch 22 - it's not "cheap" enough so I don't use it, it's expensive cos no one uses it. Except network South East who some years ago reportedly put prices up cos too many people were using it.

Private vs public ownership?

Most people who say "I can't easily get public transport to work" either work or live in the wrong place for the public transport network. Yes, if you live in the middle of nowhere and work in the middle of nowhere the train is not an option. Don't blame the train, blame the fact that you live in the middle of nowhere. And if it's an inevitable fact of the work or lifestyle or location you've chosen, accept it as a result of that choice.
I can't ride out my front gate straight into the Lake District, I don't blame the hills.

I hardly live in the middle of nowhere yet the buses are not a viable option. Yes I can walk/drive/ride/run ( which I often do) but what about the people who rely on buses / trains? Like my mum for example - she used to look after our kids once a week but she had to rely on taxis/ lifts because it was pretty much impossible to use public transport in anything like a reliable fashion.

But when the railways where built in the 1860,s they where built to link centres of population, towns and cities, not over spill housing estates on green field sites.
Buses will only run if there is a need or demand, and then there is congestion caused by single occupancy car drivers in town and city centres that stop them getting round, and keeping to time.

Pay more council tax? Or give your mum the taxi fare to look after your kids?

I used to (and still do) get pigged off with people who "can't get to work cos it's snowing". And I mean people who live in walkable distances, even if you'd get in late. Ever thought of showing willing?

The cost of driving is 50p per mile for most of us.

Of course only ~15p of that is variable cost (I'll include a couple of pence for tyres and mileage related servicing costs).

[i]Exactly[/i] the same thing- the problem isn't that public transport is bad, the problem is that you've chosen to do a journey every day that isn't well catered by public transport. You can't blame the buses for that.

There's nothing [i]wrong[/i] with your choice of course. I'm sure you have good reasons for making it- but it's still your choice to have bad public transport.

50 p a mile is the total cost roughly as worked out by the RAC - buying from new and doing 10 000 miles a year. small cars cheaper, bigger more expensive. 13 p a mile for petrol- is that a very economical car?
Tyres? repairs? Mots?

Most people have higher depreciation and higher insurance than that. Or much higher servicing costs in older cars. People kid themselves about how much they pay over a year. A few people practice "bangernomics" and do really well. Most don't.

If the average depreciation is only 1k a year and average insurance £400 and average servicing (2 new tyres a year on average. Plus mot. Plus bigger costs as a car gets older) probably closer to £600 plus rfl of £200ish. And many people still on petrol and spending 20p a mile.... For a newish car the numbers given over the first 3 years are mostly over 50p a mile in most ownership cost analyses. If you are getting below 30p you are doing very well I suspect on an average mileage of 10k

I like trains when you don't have to make changes or travel at peak times. You can sit and listen in to conversations, people watch and click on the internet.

At peak times they are foul stinking hell holes. For one person, on my typical journeys, they just about cost the same as the car. Add in even a child ticket and there is no way that train is cheaper.

Still, we often go by rail as my little boys love it. The joy in their faces more than makes it worth while.

I have been on a bus three of four times since you could smoke on the top deck. Last time was a trip in to Town with Grandma, who has a free pass, and the kids. Would have been about half the price to take a taxi. Sadly the kids thought it fantastic. It was the first time they had ever been on a bus.

To my mind the fare system is so complex that unless you fit their definitions / ticket types exactly, you get screwed over.

The last time I priced up a journey was for my anniversary last year. We wanted to drive to Reading to drop the kids and car at the grandparents, then take a train Rdg-London. Stay all day / evening in London, have a meal/drink and then get a train back to Guildford for the night. Then the reverse the next day; GF-London, half a day in London, train out to Rdg and pick the kids and car back up.

Trouble is that a day return is about £17, but you can't get a 2 day return, and a flexible one costs a fortune. So 2 returns x2 adults should have been about £65-70, but because we would have had to have got singles for each leg at about £16 each leg = £130.

For a 25 minute journey each way!!

Train charging can be hilarious. Frinstance- the service I use most often runs from Glasgow to London, via Edinburgh- I join and leave at Edinburgh. But often, the cost to travel from Edinburgh to London, is higher than the cost of travelling from Glasgow to London via Edinburgh!

And of course, if you buy a London to Glasgow ticket you're not allowed to board or get off in Edinburgh.

Can they actually force you to stay on the train!

theotherjonv - Member

Can they actually force you to stay on the train!

No but they are known to slap you with a penalty fare at the exit barrier!

50 p a mile is the total cost roughly as worked out by the RAC - buying from new and doing 10 000 miles a year. small cars cheaper, bigger more expensive. 13 p a mile for petrol- is that a very economical car?
Tyres? repairs? Mots?

Most people have higher depreciation and higher insurance than that. Or much higher servicing costs in older cars.

many people still on petrol and spending 20p a mile

...and of course the marginal cost is still <20p a mile even for those with newer cars who's total cost is 50p+ a mile.

[i]30mpg? Are you serious? I used to get better than that in an old banger 20 years ago - I find it hard to believe that many people are spending 20p a mile on fuel when so many people either have small petrol cars or large diesels, either of which will get close to my figures.[/i]

I run a petrol Mondeo and 30-35mpg is about average, worse if in urban traffic. Mind you I usually do better than Ford reckon, they say 25.2mpg for town driving.

So I would say the claim that lots of people are spending 20 pence per mile on fuel, and 50 pence per mile overall, is justified.

At the risk of alienating myself, part - stress part - of the issue with rail is the management.

I worked at network rail and it is appallingly managed. No cost control, poor processes, total lack of commerciality. Half the people I had worked with were there from br days, had a nice pension, in a union, had free rail travel. Just a massive gravy train with a lack of understanding of the customer. My wife worked in engineering there and it was just the same.

There are lots of good people but the waste of money is shocking - the recent review of the rail system says pretty much the same thing (30 percent inefficiency etc).

I use the train every day (we only have one car which my wife needs) and gladly vote for a 10-30 percent reduction in cost for no drop in service 😉

Anyway. Rant over. My train has arrived at reading.

I reckon my average motoring costs work out as

Car Fuel 60-63mpg 10p per mile. 15k per year
Van Fuel 35-38mpg 17p per mile. 10k per year
Insurance £600 a year,
Road tax, servicing, mot, tyres, repairs etc £500 a year*
That works out as a total of 17p per mile overall or 15p if I ignore the servicing costs etc.

*Normally actually 0 in my case due to the way I run vehicles. Buy cheap ones, run them for 6 months and sell on at a price to cover purchase, servicing, tax etc.

The only time public transport might work for me (and it's unlikely to be cheaper) is on very long journeys but living in Sheffield I'm fairly central to the uk. The station is 10 minutes from my house on the bike if I try plus 10 minutes to sort out there and 30mins for those bits on the way back home, means any train time needs 50mins adding at this end and some more the other end.

I agree it should be cheaper but even if it was for me it would very rarely be a senseible option.

60-63mpg

Loads of cars get that kind of economy TJ.

1.9 tdi seat ibiza fr, that's calculated mpg per tank as well not from the trip computer. I can get over 70mpg on a journey fairly often.

TandemJeremy - Member
60-63mpg
what car?

Many modern cars driven at non 'hair-curling' speeds will give 50mpg+ on open roads.......

Pay more council tax? Or give your mum the taxi fare to look after your kids?

But why would paying more council tax mean a better bus service? Funding comes from a national level - the only difference is that the local council decide what percentage is passed on.

Come to think of it, shouldn't car usage be encouraged ?

I suspect the use of cars supports more jobs than the use of public transport, and allows businesses to locate in areas which are more suited to development.
I mean would you want a 24 hour supermarket in your local strret, all those late night/early morning deliveries, the congested streets, nowhere to park, danger to other road users from extra traffic.

There's several retail parks in my area and they have reliable non peak hour bus services for those who choose to not use cars and it's free for old folks and kids.......

depends on your circumstances really

For my journey to work on the train its £42.90 a week, sometimes I travel, so say in work for 45 weeks a year = £1930.5. Sounds alot.

That is 210 miles a week, for the 45 weeks = 9450 miles a year.

So I need to be able to run a car for 1930.5/9450 = 20p a mile to break even.

We have 1 car which Mrs LLama uses all week for work, so we would need a 2nd car just for this purpose, so all the depretiation, servicing, etc would come direct out of that 20p per mile. Not to mention actuually getting the car in the first place.

Anyone reckon I'm loosing money then?

[url= http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23973890-higher-fares-plan-to-cut-commuter-overcrowding.do ]Higher fares plan to cut commuter overcrowding[/url]

A bit of bluesky/lateral/outside the box thinking from Network Rail. If demand is too high for your (public) service, reduce it by making it more expensive.

At the risk of alienating myself, part - stress part - of the issue with rail is the management.

I worked at network rail and it is appallingly managed. No cost control, poor processes, total lack of commerciality. Half the people I had worked with were there from br days, had a nice pension, in a union, had free rail travel. Just a massive gravy train with a lack of understanding of the customer. My wife worked in engineering there and it was just the same.

There are lots of good people but the waste of money is shocking - the recent review of the rail system says pretty much the same thing (30 percent inefficiency etc).

+1

I work on the other side of Network Rail in respect of 3rd party investment in the railway network (acting for the Olympic Delivery Authority, Scottish Government, DfT, most PTEs, plus a load of private entities).

The network is congested and outdated, managed by a monopoly which is unable to demonstrate value for money (McNulty now proves) which is regulated by an entity weaker than wet tissue paper (since Winsor left anyway).

Doing business on or around the railway in the UK is extremely expensive. I know you all think that the train operating companies are making a killing, but think how many franchisees have disappeared over the last few years, and I know a few that are close to being binned.

If you want to see how a proper railway system is run, have a look at the Merseytravel/Merseyrail concession in Liverpool area. One of the highest customer satisfaction and performance stats in the country. Why? Properly negotiated/managed relationship between the PTE and concessionaire and as little NR interface as possible.

Vertical integration would be the best thing possible for the UK rail system. Take it back from NR and you'd instantly make it more competitive (and therefore cheaper).

i live in the suburbs - but the buses only run to 2 of the 3 major cities (all within 8 miles away) to get a bus to work i have 2 options.

- walk 1.2 miles then get the bus.
- get a bus 1.2 miles then change buses.

first bus arrives 1 minute before the bus to town, but often misses it so that means half hour wait, so it is easier to walk.

the bus fare is almost £6 which ever way you want to play it. running my small economic car (clio 60+mpg) was far cheaper. took me from door to door in my own comfort.

if the bus was cheaper i'd be inclined to put up with all the inconviniences; sharing space, arriving on someone elses schedule etc.

Many modern cars driven at non 'hair-curling' speeds will give 50mpg+ on open roads.......

With me at the wheel get in the 60s easily, my Mrs driving it get high 50s. I drive much quicker than her but a lot smoother less braking and an better constant speed. 60-63MPG in a car is easily achievable these days TJ.

If you want to see how a proper railway system is run, have a look at the Merseytravel/Merseyrail concession in Liverpool area. One of the highest customer satisfaction and performance stats in the country. Why? Properly negotiated/managed relationship between the PTE and concessionaire and as little NR interface as possible.

I live in the area covered, and as abpobve mersey rail do a good job, with second hand trains from down south, but they only have a few lines and a few dont have freight trains or other passenger trains on them, so less maintance, but the fares are cheaper due to the huge amounts of cash we give them each year, and also the huge amounts of cash the local councillors get for being on the mersey travel board.

OH AND BIKES GO FREE ON MOST TRAINS, NO NEED TO BOOK, GREAT.

My real cost per mile for my last car was 29p. That's 3 years worth of stuff, including depreciation, repairs, petrol, insurance, tyres etc.

The pricing is madness. For example Mrs CD needed to get from Bristol to Kings Lynn, changing train in London. Booked ahead it was only £26!!! much less that driving. The the second train left Kings Cross at 6pm so she was on the train with loads of commuters who had paid several times more for only a fraction of her journey!

I much prefer the train to driving but in reality it's just not practical unless you're near the beginning and end stations as the additional time and cost involved in buses and taxis but even cheap train journeys above using the car.

Rail prices are an absolute disgrace, but my local (Tory) MP doesn't seem interested. It's a vote deciding issue for me.

I'm certainly keen to cut my car use (although TJ I really would like to see some data to support your claim that motoring is subsidized), and/or to switch to something with very low emissions. In an age where oil is getting harder to extract and as a consequence much more expensive, I don't see it as unreasonable that more fuel duty revenue is diverted to support a subsidized rail network.

I can get from Edinburgh to london in 4 1/2 hrs for £100 ish return by train thats 400 miles each way - in a car that would take 7 hrs each way and cost more than that in petrol alone probably

This kind of time quote for public transport....is that door to door?
For longer journies, I guess the faff at either end becomes less significant, but for example if I wanted to get to Wembley Stadium from an outlying area of Edinburgh, I could easily add an hour onto the start of the journey and an hour onto the end, making the 4.5 hrs more like 6.5hrs.

I haven't read all of this thread, but noticed the comments about cost of running a car up above.
I did all this before on a thread ages ago and it worked out about 17p/mile total cost of running my car. And it's a 1.9TDi Ibiza.

If demand is too high for your (public) service, reduce it by making it more expensive

Do they have any other choice though?

PJM1974 this is the argument - as said above loads of folk adding up the numbers in loads of different ways

http://www.monbiot.com/2000/08/03/drivers-are-undertaxed/

http://www.monbiot.com/1990/01/01/overthrowing-the-car/

Uh oh! Warning! Warning! Monbiot alert!

Also
http://www.igreens.org.uk/great_road_transport_subsidy.htm

Perhaps a more interesting issue is the cost of internal flights compared to rail. It's usually more of a ball ache at both ends, but its often cheaper for me to fly to London than take the train - which is just madness.

whether its direct 'subsidy' or not for motoring, I suspect the politics of it is that both the current and previous governments (or sadly any future) would not dream of antagonising yer average motorist or impacting on his perceived 'rights and freedom'- votes loss shocker!

just look at most planning applications- by far the biggest majority of comments/objections concerns 'where will we park?' 'will this stop ME from doing what I want in MY car'....etc etc...

And what must be the shockingly weak contracts set up with the rail companies, or the will to enforce them properly 😐

Its simple- people who have cars will most likely use it (why wouldnt you for the above reasons) and most people who travel on trains do so because they HAVE to. So they can charge what the hell they like, and those people have to find the cash.

on the other hand.. why should all those people walking to low paid jobs and paying tax subsidise all those people travelling by choice to well paid jobs outside of the range they can be bothered to walk.. i even understand that there is a new mode of travel called a bike..

The one drawback to my car is I can't expose myself to other people in my car. I can on public transport.

The one drawback to my car is I can't expose myself to other people in my car. I can on public transport.

Er when you say 'expose' yourself, you dont mean.........

******FLASHING WARNING********

.....do you?

Sorry TJ, I need something more solid than Monbiot. He doesn't seem to make any space for the value of road transported goods to the economy either.

The Bradbury and Nalty piece is more what I'm looking for.

As for the cost of flights compared to rail travel, the moronic politicians answer is to hike taxes on flights while allowing private companies to raise fare prices for rail transport too. All they're doing is increasing the cost of mobility. A far better solution would be to ring fence fuel duty and divert a more significant portion of it to rail and bus transport.

It will only happen when enough people make it an election issue and the party in power stands to get savaged at the polls unless they change their policy.

I think some people are under-estimating how VASTLY difficult and expensive it would be to organise a major shift away from car usage. We could probably cut by 20-30% or so pretty easily, but beyond that - very hard I reckon. Sadly.

I tend to run down the length of the bus shouting weeee with my little chap swinging like a knot in a rope