Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.
Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
 Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




Politics: Free public transport.

Bottom of Page

1 to 30 of 53

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2008
     
    I have always felt that all public transport should be free. This would be the cheapest and most efficient way to get arround overall as a nation.

    It would also be the least unsustainable and the greenest. It could be funded if the will was there by government.

    We would all pay and all benefit. It could even work by charging those who use their own cars. then they pay for us!
  2.  
    I am in total agreement with you Tony. I have slowly started to realise over the years that private cars seem to be the cause of many of life's problems. Roads in villages and towns that were built for pedestrians/horses, ever increasing road building, out of town shopping centres, decrease in local services, food miles, break down of community cohesion, arguments over parking spaces etc. etc.
    When you start to look at other European countries you start to wonder just what is it about our country that is so backward? is it the mentality of the nation or its leaders? why is common sense and environmental consideration quashed by the desire for a quick buck or selfish attitudes.

    Percentage of journeys by bicycle:
    Netherlands 27%
    Denmark 18%
    Finland 11%
    Germany 10%
    Sweden 10%

    even France has 3%

    UK 1%

    :sad:
  3.  
    So that's a massive subsidy for commuters (i.e. people in work) then, isn't it? It doesn't have to be free, just comparatively cheaper than driving so we're back to TEQs again, the catch all solution.
  4.  
    Yep I agree with TEQ's as well.
    Felt a bit mean the other day when I pointed out to my mother that I would have to take the train if I went to visit my brother in Croatia, just after she had finished telling me about her second foreign holiday this year (on a plane).
    would people not working benefit from free public transport as well, if they had no income to pay for it?
    • CommentAuthorSimonH
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2008
     
    Time or money?

    Even if it was free I'd probably still want to drive. I have to drop my son off at nursery and then take a 7 mile commute. If public transport could get me around faster I'd use it, but I have little time to do the things I want to do anyway. By bus it would take an hour vs 45 mintes by bike or 15 minutes by car (each way). I'm not averse to using a bike - I used to do 30 miles twice a week.

    Likewise - I've been to London a few times which probably is a good indicator of how public transport should work given critical mass - but then there's the problem - going everywhere by tube and bus is miserable. Armpits stuck in your face, too hot / too cold, feeling like sheep being hurded on and off, missing trains and having to wait 30 minutes for the next one etc. Plus the odd looney/drunk and the constant "te ka cha te ka cha" from ipods that are on too loud. Even worse - if the new phenomena of mp3 phones which can play the music out loud for groups of teenagers to listen to. Rendering the one reason I may use public transport unfeasible - namely to get extra sleep or work done.

    Me, I'd love to work from home and not travel at all, (other than a 5 minute cycle ride to the nursery). But that needs a screw used on employers to make it more feasible. The employers are the key, not the transport method. Make them pay a tax of £1,000 per year on a seat for office workers, which can be be a £1,000 credit used to fund homeworking instead and you'd see a change. A guy I know can't even get his company to fund his train season tickets in lieu of his mileage expenses on his company car.
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2008
     
    Tend to agree with simonh. I wrote a response, giving my reasons why I still wouldn't use public transport even if it was free, and then internet failed. But it had to do with changing many things about society, not just the sole idea about making public transport free.
    • CommentAuthorSimonH
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2008
     
    I should point out that I would still appreciate free public transport - just not for my commute. I'm disgusted at the fact that it costs over £60 for a return to London if you don't book in time, and yet I could take 5 people, pay congestion charges, parking & running costs (insurance, tax, depreciation) for around £10 each. Even the cheapest train fares cost £25. Obviously no economies of scale in mass transit then?

    On the other hand - if you make it free, it provides no disincentive to travel.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2008
     
    The solution's easy - have a 60th birthday!
    • CommentAuthorgreenman
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2008
     
    I have to agree with pretty much all of the above (although there's no such thing as a free meal - we'd end up paying for public transport through taxes in the end anyway). If you live out of town then it's not just a question of the cost or the speed of travelling by public transport, it's also the frequency of the service provided. If you travel by car, you choose when you travel - any time - if you use public transport outside of one of our major towns or cities then you can miss a bus by a minute and have to wait ages for the next one (in my experience).

    Despite being a car owner and commuter, I'd love to be able to travel by public transport instead (at least for most journeys). The last time I travelled by train, I thought must be buying the train, not just a ticket! Who can afford that?
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2008
     
    greenman. I concur.:smile:
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2008
     
    The bitter pill is that we will not be able to continue with the luxury of private car ownership for ever without dramatic changes to the way we get fuel for them.

    In the medium term things will need to change and for me a massive move towards public transport is completely essential.
    • CommentAuthorgreenman
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2008
     
    You may be right Tony, and let's face it, if the price of car ownership and use continues to rise at the current rate then there will come a point where even the current rail prices seem cheap. However, this doesn't address the fact that public transport is really only viable in towns and cities at the moment. The government sits there stating that the taxes on fuel and cars are 'green' ones, that they are an incentive for us to change our way of life, and yet there must be thousands of people out there who, like me would happily use public transport instead of commuting by car if there were actually a viable alternative - but there isn't!

    I'm not making a political point, but at best the ideology is flawed, at worst, this is just another way of making money.

    One last thing - let's be honest - if everyone suddenly stopped using their cars tomorrow, there would be a huge hold in the government's finances through loss of taxes. What would they tax instead - use of public transport perhaps?
  13.  
    I'm looking forward to my Freedom Pass - it's the one thing worth getting old for. I'm in an anxiety state that when I get to 60 they'll have raised the qualifying age (and like my pension) I'll have to wait for it until I'm 65 or is it 70 I'm expected to work to now?

    Bring back Routemasters and abolish bendy buses. If I didn't expect to be squished by a bendy bus I'd be on my venerable Pashley Princess, no worries.

    In France, employers have to pay half your public transport costs. It meant I had colleagues travelling into Paris by fast TGV from Le Mans.
    • CommentAuthorjoe.e
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2008 edited
     
    I'm not sure how much of the road and fuel tax income goes out in road maintainance and construction, policing and judicial costs of road use, medical costs of accident victims, urban design, and so on (not to mention the invisible cost of ill-health and obesity through lack of walking and cycling) but mass car use is not free to the public purse by any means.
    I think that part of the problem is that we've got used to living in a world in which fifty or a hundred miles seems like a viable distance to live from where you work, and that twenty miles away seems like a pleasant trip to go to the shops. But they're not reasonable, those are crazy journeys to be making on a day to day basis. More home working, more local shops.
    There's also a sense of being in your own bubble, when you're in a car. It's an extension of your home, and it cocoons you against the outside world in a way which is addictive. But it's corrosive of community and of mutual tolerance. Still, not long to go now. Any bets on when petrol will cease to be available to the general public? 2028, I reckon.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeJun 11th 2008 edited
     
    It's not the cost that's the issue but availability. The village I live in is one of a series along the A14. Its has one bus a week with the return bus the following week! Making it free would make little difference. We previously lived in Belgium and in a similar size village located a similar distance from town. The council ran a free bus to town every 30 mins and so did the local supermarket.

    Crazy thing is here there is a school bus that visits twice a day. It comes 10 miles to pick up kids, take them a few miles to school and then returns 10 miles to it's depot empty. Seems daft they don't go via the town and combine the service...but adults aren't allowed on the bus with the kids unless they have had had a criminal record check (the adults that is).
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJun 12th 2008
     
    If they can do it in Belgium then surely we can do it here!

    Once more people start using the buses then it becomes less uneconomic to run them.
    • CommentAuthorPete1951
    • CommentTimeJun 12th 2008
     
    Mrswhitecat, I lived in west London as a child and I remember Routemasters being brought in to replace the Trolley Buses that we used. This was before the family had a car. It would be a good idea to bring back Trolley Buses!!
  18.  
    If you don't charge people it's never economic to run them.

    I don't like the idea of the Government trying to force people to act in certain ways, e.g. like take a bus rather than drive. With my rose tinted glasses on, I still cling to the idea that I live in a free country and that I should not be coerced into paying for transporting other people around (or paying for their swimming for that matter) through my taxes, which are already too high and don't even pay for current Government spending never mind adding to the total.

    This is why I like TEQs. I get a carbon budget, on a handy swipe card, and if I want to blow it on trip to New York and spend the winter shivering in a cold house then a I can. It's my choice. If I'm a good boy and save energy then can sell some of my quota and treat myself. No-one needs to come up with any other schemes or plans or grants or regulations or initiatives, just set the budget and let the market do its work. The simple things work. Don't try and make life more complicated than it is.
    • CommentAuthorPete1951
    • CommentTimeJun 12th 2008
     
    The government does force people to act in a certain way through legislation in a "civilised" society. If we didn't have laws to make people act in certain ways we would be living in anarchy, which may be simpler, but not so pleasant. The selfish in society will always take from others, in any way possible, and only legislation will stop them.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeJun 12th 2008
     
    > If you don't charge people it's never economic to run them.

    Perhaps that depends on if you look at it from the point of view of the bus operator or the overall community. Is it cheaper overall to tax us and run free busses or for us all to use our cars? I don't know if the evidence exists.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJun 12th 2008
     
    Overall it would be cheaper and use less energy and resources to have free public transport.

    Re: TEQs what is the difference between them and money? The rich can buy as many as they want and others struggle on with what they have.??
    • CommentAuthorjoe.e
    • CommentTimeJun 12th 2008
     
    Posted By: tony
    Re: TEQs what is the difference between them and money? The rich can buy as many as they want and others struggle on with what they have.??

    The theory is that the market is not a level playing field, in that some carbon-emitting goods (car travel, say) are much more highly taxed per unit of carbon emitted than others (eg. air travel). So the cost of air travel does not in itself give enough of a disincentive to use it.
    Of course, you could then argue that the tax regime should be reformed so that carbon emissions were the primary item to be taxed, rather than income, and I'd agree with that myself. But it's a bit big and scary and serious for politicians to think about - they get scared easily - so a quota system might be easier to make happen.
    • CommentAuthorSimonH
    • CommentTimeJun 12th 2008 edited
     
    Chris In relation to carbon trading / travel have you seen this voluntary pliot yet?

    [edit - wrong link 1st time]http://www.rsacarbonlimited.org/article.aspa?pageid=912

    It came through to my inbox from an associate yesterday. I haven't quite got my head around what your signing up for and whether you get your hands on any real money, but it's certainly interesting. However it means you need to buy all your fuel from BP, but it's cheaper for me to go to Tesco as I need Superunleaded (don't ask!).

    Atos Origin are a large IT supplier - actually a competitor to the company I work for. They seem to have taken a leap of faith and are trying to protoype a viable carbon trading system. I suppose that means the public would be acting as beta testers!?

    Simon.
  24.  
    I hadn't seen that Simon. Like you I don't get my petrol, at BP so not much point me signing up. I fill in a spreadsheet each week recording my energy use as part of the Zero Carbon Britain thing at CAT. Quite interesting to see where you're actually creating emissions rather than just your perception. So far, heating oil and petrol far outweigh electric for example.

    The reason I like TEQs is, as Joe says, it levels the playing field so you don't have to feel guilty about flying or driving if you can do it withing your carbon budget and you don't have to be working out what is the "right" thing to do all the time.

    It is better than a carbon tax because everyone gets an allowance by right of breathing. That means that everyone has access to an amount of carbon fuel, at an untaxed market price, which they can use for their particular needs, heating, driving etc. If a person is frugal, they can manage on that ration and don't suffer regressive taxes. They might even be able to sell on a surplus and pocket some cash rewarding them for their virtue. The gas guzzler soon uses his allowance up and has to pay a market price for his excess usage which will obviously rise quite steeply over time as the budget declines.

    TEQs is a great way to change incentives and get the market mechanism working towards low carbon solutions and efficiencies without punishing the poor. If the fools in Westminster could get to grips with this concept we might have a policy that would work and could be rolled out worldwide and might just rescue the situation with AGW.
  25.  
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: Pete1951</cite>The government does force people to act in a certain way through legislation in a "civilised" society. If we didn't have laws to make people act in certain ways we would be living in anarchy, which may be simpler, but not so pleasant. The selfish in society will always take from others, in any way possible, and only legislation will stop them.</blockquote>

    Pete, just to clarify my comments in case you've got the impression I wish to retire to hills with a shotgun, wearing a deer stalker and eat squirrels (although I don't dismiss the possibility that events might make this necessary).

    I'm not averse to well targeted legislation. Top of my list would be TEQs for reasons I've already explained. I don't like the meddling, nannying, controlling legislation which tries to micro-manage peoples' lives. These measures build up one ont op of the other and require vast bureucracies in government and the private sector to administer them. Eventually, you can't fart without someone measuring it and offering dietary advice on how to reduce methane output and when that happens life is no longer worth living and people just give up.

    Better results can be achieved by looking at the cause of the problem rather than treating the symptoms. We have a problem with AGW because people are allowed to use the atmosphere as an open sewer for CO2 at NO COST to themselves. We could try to address this problem by telling them not to drive or fly or to change their boiler etc. However, it is much more elegant and simple to just make them start paying to use the atmosphere as a sewer, i.e. a carbon tax or even better (for the poor) TEQs. Cure the disease don't just treat the symptoms. The market finds its own price for carbon is then stimulated to find the solutions. Harness the innovation of the market and we solve the problem. Wait for government dictats to direct our activities and we drown in sea of red tape or have to suffer a dose of fascism as it is the only way to get things done fast by that route.
    • CommentAuthorPete1951
    • CommentTimeJun 12th 2008
     
    Chris, I don't find the idea of carbon trading appealing and I think stopping people from using the atmosphere as a sewer preferable to allowing the wealthy to continue to use it that way. When poor individuals or poor countries sell their quotas to the wealthy, the outcome can only be a short term benefit to the wealthy and the problem doesn't go away. The planet is still being degraded. Unfortunately the USA will not stop polluting the atmosphere because no one can make them. They will continue until they realise that the damage they are doing to themselves costs more than reducing the pollution would cost. This is market forces, but by then it might be too late!
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeJun 12th 2008
     
    As you all likely know by now I dont hold with the notion of AGW but I do agree with the ideas of being sustainable, reducing consumption etc.

    As I see it private fossil fueled powered transport is a temporary luxury and the sooner public transport becomes an option the better.

    Free public transport has a lot to offer and this is an interesting debate toughing on time/money, the dreaded AGW ( now banned on this thread! ), TEQs, lifestyles, freedom of choice etc.
    • CommentAuthorSimonH
    • CommentTimeJun 13th 2008
     
    Back to the free public transport theme - how about all employers have to charge you (or at least pay for ) for car parking spaces at work, and the money collected can be used to pay for public transport or home office facilities? I believe some councils like Birmingham may already do this. Likewise free spaces at supermarkets / out of town shopping should not be free and drivers must pay a parking charge (not the shop owners via increased rents). In both cases the money could pay for increase transport to bring people in to the area.
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJun 13th 2008
     
    I like my free supermarket car parking space. It means I can walk from there into town and use all the smaller shops.
  30.  
    Pete, have you read this on TEQs?

    http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#TEQs

    I found it very convincing.

    Regarding "free" public transport. For starters it isn't free. It will have to be paid for by increasing taxes, cutting other spending programmes (which I'm all for) or increasing the national debt, i.e. borrowing more money from foreigners (because we haven't any savings in the UK) and deferring the costs to future generations. No government will invest the sums required and the service will therefore deteriorate to the point where no-one uses it even if it is free. You will also suffer from idiots with nothing better to do than ride around on buses all day annoying the other passengers :angry:

1 to 30 of 53

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press