Is the 9bn Lower Thames Road crossing approval bad news for rail?

[quantinghome]

This is like arguing over how many angels can fit on a pin head!

The graph clearly shows that the vast majority of the car's impact has been to make new journeys rather than to substitute existing ones. I put it up to counter the narrative that if we reverted back to public/active transport we could get rid of cars or substantially reduce their usage, we couldn't, we'd need to get rid of journeys which would have to be done by some means of compulsion or rationing and would result in a whole load of economic or social activities not happening.

I was actually agreeing with you...

Cars did eat into public transport usage, but the vast majority of growth in car miles came from new journeys.

Ultimately it depends whether you're interested in cars or trains. If you're interested in cars, trains don't really matter too much. If you're interested in trains, cars do matter.

But coming back to your main point, no, I don't think driverless cars are anywhere near the level of readiness you claim. And even if they were, roads would be just as congested as they are now. In fact it would increase congestion as you'd have a proportion of cars travelling to their next pick up unoccupied. This may be offset by requiring less parking space, but it would require a significant change in infrastructure just to maintain to status quo.

 

[The Ham]

I was actually agreeing with you...

Cars did eat into public transport usage, but the vast majority of growth in car miles came from new journeys.

Ultimately it depends whether you're interested in cars or trains. If you're interested in cars, trains don't really matter too much. If you're interested in trains, cars do matter.

But coming back to your main point, no, I don't think driverless cars are anywhere near the level of readiness you claim. And even if they were, roads would be just as congested as they are now. In fact it would increase congestion as you'd have a proportion of cars travelling to their next pick up unoccupied. This may be offset by requiring less parking space, but it would require a significant change in infrastructure just to maintain to status quo.

The issue with the graph provided previously is that because car useage has grown so much you can't actually see what the other modes are doing, for example rail looks like a broadly flat line, it's not:




It's also worth noting that the graph doesn't appear to include trams and trolley buses, and whilst there's not easy to find government data on km's travelled they accounted for about 25% of the total numbers trips of local bus travel at the start of the graph and falls by a little over 90% by the end of the graph.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The precise same thing has happened in every rich and middle income country irrespective of culture and political system.

Presumably because just about everywhere was engaged in massive road building and 'The car is the future' transport policies during that period (about 1960 to 1980)?

If governments hadn't built roads they would have got voted out for failing to accommodate people's desires, the post war growth was also built on the backs of personal mobility and flexible road freight (which has the same basic trends).

People have agency, they bought cars because they wanted them not because they would have been happy with more and better public transport. Even in the most densely populated country with the most densely populated urban areas where there is excellent public transport (Japan) cars still do more than 50% of the passenger miles.

Well, yes and no. Certainly, people bought cars because they wanted them. But that was in turn in part driven that people weren't paying the external costs of driving: The motorist got the convenience, and everyone else got the noise, the congestion, the pollution while losing the walkable friendly neighbourhood streets (to be fair, in part that reflected that in those days there wasn't the awareness of environmental and quality of life concerns that exists today). Would that increase have happened if motorists were actually paying the true full costs of car use? Certainly not to the same extent.

But the real point is that cars don't exist in a vacuum. You can't look at a graph that shows increasing car use, attribute that entirely to people wanting cars and deduce that cars are an absolute good for travel, without thinking about the wider context and what has caused that increase. To some extent you are correct that cars would always have become at least somewhat more popular as people's incomes and amount of leisure time rose. But there's also a big element of, the mode of travel that grows will be the mode of travel that the Government supports. If you look at a period of history when the Government was very deliberately making it easier for people to drive and harder for people to use public transport, it's really no surprise to discover that motoring rose and public transport use declined during that period.

 

[slowroad]

Really? Every rich/middle income country invested/didn't invest in roads to the precise same amount? Every rich/middle income country invested/didn't invest in public transport to the precise same amount? This seems very hard to believe, especially when passenger rail modal share in rich countries ranges from 33% (Japan) to 0.3% (America). Government policy surely is part of the reason for that!

Actually, UK has one of the most under-invested inter-urban road networks amongst developed countries.

Variation across (and within) developed countries in public transport use is mostly attributable to differences in population density and urban form (especially flats v houses). So policy may have an impact - but it’s very indirect and long term.

 

[quantinghome]

Presumably because just about everywhere was engaged in massive road building and 'The car is the future' transport policies during that period (about 1960 to 1980)?

Well, yes and no. Certainly, people bought cars because they wanted them. But that was in turn in part driven that people weren't paying the external costs of driving: The motorist got the convenience, and everyone else got the noise, the congestion, the pollution while losing the walkable friendly neighbourhood streets (to be fair, in part that reflected that in those days there wasn't the awareness of environmental and quality of life concerns that exists today). Would that increase have happened if motorists were actually paying the true full costs of car use? Certainly not to the same extent.

But the real point is that cars don't exist in a vacuum. You can't look at a graph that shows increasing car use, attribute that entirely to people wanting cars and deduce that cars are an absolute good for travel, without thinking about the wider context and what has caused that increase. To some extent you are correct that cars would always have become at least somewhat more popular as people's incomes and amount of leisure time rose. But there's also a big element of, the mode of travel that grows will be the mode of travel that the Government supports. If you look at a period of history when the Government was very deliberately making it easier for people to drive and harder for people to use public transport, it's really no surprise to discover that motoring rose and public transport use declined during that period.

When did government support for motorists really kick in though? In the UK, while there were earlier plans, modern road infrastructure only really got built from the late 1950s, decades after other countries, by which point the growth in road transport was already well underway. A good proportion of the first motorways were bypasses targeting very congested towns and cities - Preston, Doncaster, Lancaster - which strongly suggest the government were responding to demand rather than creating it. Of course, once motorway building really got going that stimulated demand and the whole thing spiralled.

It's a similar story in reverse on the railways. The first line closures happened before WW2 as the privately owned railway responded to reductions in traffic (freight primarily). Yes, there were government restrictions on rail which resulted in the companies' "square deal" campaign in the late 1930s, but these restrictions had been put in place many years before motorised road transport was a thing, due to rail's previous monopoly position. The failure to lift them seems more to do with government inertia than a strategic decision to favour roads (even if that's what the effect was in practice). Closures continued after WW2 culminating in Beeching. But again, this was a (misguided) attempt to restore the railways to profitability amid falling revenues rather than a government decision to cull a healthy network.

Certainly there was by the 1960s a political consensus that roads were the future and rail was the past, and they were funded accordingly, but that was based on clear trends evident over the previous decade or longer. We of course have the benefit of hindsight and know that wasn't the end of the story, that road congestion would grow and that public transport would have a future in intercity and urban travel. But at the time I doubt many people in government really thought funding roads in preference to rail was much of a choice.

 

[stuu]

People have agency, they bought cars because they wanted them not because they would have been happy with more and better public transport. Even in the most densely populated country with the most densely populated urban areas where there is excellent public transport (Japan) cars still do more than 50% of the passenger miles.

I don't understand why passenger miles is considered the most useful method for discussing the modal split of transport. If I do one journey of 100 miles by car and 100 journeys of 1 mile on foot, half my passenger miles are by car. But that is entirely misleading. Total journeys are the important metric, it doesn't matter how long the journey is, getting to the destination is what matters

 

[quantinghome]

I don't understand why passenger miles is considered the most useful method for discussing the modal split of transport. If I do one journey of 100 miles by car and 100 journeys of 1 mile on foot, half my passenger miles are by car. But that is entirely misleading. Total journeys are the important metric, it doesn't matter how long the journey is, getting to the destination is what matters

It depends what you're discussing. Say you're looking at carbon emissions, passenger miles is what counts, as emissions are directly related to distance travelled. Likewise, if you're talking about infrastructure investment, passenger miles is the right metric. Because although long journeys are only a small proportion of total journeys, they make up a much larger proportion of the traffic actually on the road, or trains on the track, at any one time, and that's what infrastructure capacity needs to target. I guess there may be some situations where the number of journeys is the critical consideration, but I can't actually think of many off the top of my head.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't understand why passenger miles is considered the most useful method for discussing the modal split of transport. If I do one journey of 100 miles by car and 100 journeys of 1 mile on foot, half my passenger miles are by car. But that is entirely misleading. Total journeys are the important metric, it doesn't matter how long the journey is, getting to the destination is what matters

Because if you do 100 1-mile journeys by car, you're (to some approximation) causing a similar amount of pollution and congestion compared to one 100-mile journey? (To be fair, not exactly the same because the car may be more fuel-efficient over one long journey, plus the shorter journeys are more likely to be entirely within urban areas)

 

[eldomtom2]

Because although long journeys are only a small proportion of total journeys, they make up a much larger proportion of the traffic actually on the road, or trains on the track, at any one time, and that's what infrastructure capacity needs to target.

Surely it's the opposite, at least for trains? Because one train carrying 50 passengers over 500 miles has the same amount of passenger-miles as 100 trains carrying 50 passengers each over five miles.

 

[quantinghome]

Surely it's the opposite, at least for trains? Because one train carrying 50 passengers over 500 miles has the same amount of passenger-miles as 100 trains carrying 50 passengers each over five miles.

No, because it won't be 100 different trains carrying 50 passengers over five miles, it will be one train doing 5 miles, then 5 miles back, then repeating the same journey over and over.

 

[The Ham]

No, because it won't be 100 different trains carrying 50 passengers over five miles, it will be one train doing 5 miles, then 5 miles back, then repeating the same journey over and over.

More likely it's one train carrying 50 people at a time with each of the passengers doing 5 miles and the train doing 50 miles there and back a few times.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No, because it won't be 100 different trains carrying 50 passengers over five miles, it will be one train doing 5 miles, then 5 miles back, then repeating the same journey over and over.

To be pedantic, probably some difference: A train that takes people 100 miles is likely to have a much higher average speed than a train that typically takes people 5 miles, and you'll probably need more trains to do the same passenger-miles at a lower speed within a given timeframe. But that's probably not that relevant to the point being discussed.

 

[eldomtom2]

No, because it won't be 100 different trains carrying 50 passengers over five miles, it will be one train doing 5 miles, then 5 miles back, then repeating the same journey over and over.

Well I think that further showcases that passenger-miles aren't a good measure of traffic, because they rank one train with 100 passengers and 100 trains with one passenger the same.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think meaningful curtailment of car use is achievable over the vast majority of the population.

We now live in the world the car built and the general population seems extraordinarily unlikely to want to go back.

The challenge we face is building a railway that has a viable and useful niche in that world. In my view I think the railway needs to concentrate on what it does well.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don't think meaningful curtailment of car use is achievable over the vast majority of the population.

We now live in the world the car built and the general population seems extraordinarily unlikely to want to go back.

The challenge we face is building a railway that has a viable and useful niche in that world. In my view I think the railway needs to concentrate on what it does well.

I agree. It will take a huge step to un-invent the car and make people forget the benefits it bestowed upon them. All the downsides are less noticeable or ignored. People expect to be mobile nowadays and thrive on it. They also expect to buy far more goods from far more sources.

The railway has to make the best it can of that.

Looking backwards :-
pack horses were replaced by canals,
canals were replaced by rail,
rail has largely been replaced by road.

Wonder what roads will be replaced by....
Home working and video conferencing has not made that much of a dent.

There's a whole thread to be had on this.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't think meaningful curtailment of car use is achievable over the vast majority of the population.

We now live in the world the car built and the general population seems extraordinarily unlikely to want to go back.

On the contrary, it seems to be well reported that there is a generational shift in attitudes towards cars with younger people typically much more aware of the problems cars cause and less enthusiastic about cars. See for example this BBC report:

In the 1990s, 80% of people were driving by 30; now this marker is only reached by 45.
Men under 30 are travelling only half the miles their fathers did.
The Commission on Travel Demand says this should lead to a government re-think about travel priorities.
It points out that people in general are driving much less than expected:

• People are travelling 10% fewer miles than in 2002 and spending 22 hours less travelling each year than a decade ago.
• There has been a 20% reduction in commuter trips per week since the mid 1990s
• Growth in car traffic has slowed. In the 1980s, it grew by 50% whereas in the decade to 2016 it grew by 2

I suggest it's very possible that, if the Government took the lead over the next few decades, this could translate into significant reductions in miles driven - without any significant loss of freedom because better public transport would be more than capable of getting people where they want to go in most cases. And if we did that, quality of life would markedly improve, as well as much better use of public spaces and less damage to our natural resources.

 

[slowroad]

On the contrary, it seems to be well reported that there is a generational shift in attitudes towards cars with younger people typically much more aware of the problems cars cause and less enthusiastic about cars. See for example this BBC report:



I suggest it's very possible that, if the Government took the lead over the next few decades, this could translate into significant reductions in miles driven - without any significant loss of freedom because better public transport would be more than capable of getting people where they want to go in most cases. And if we did that, quality of life would markedly improve, as well as much better use of public spaces and less damage to our natural resources.

Much more likely is that continuing technological improvements in cars (covering pollution, safety and autonomy), along with remote activity, leads to the disappearance of public transport in most areas.

 

[The Ham]

I don't think meaningful curtailment of car use is achievable over the vast majority of the population.

We now live in the world the car built and the general population seems extraordinarily unlikely to want to go back.

The challenge we face is building a railway that has a viable and useful niche in that world. In my view I think the railway needs to concentrate on what it does well.

Devine meaningful curtailment.

As I've said before, you don't need much of a shift away from car use to see a significant drop in congestion.

If you've got a junction which has a capacity of 20 cars a minute and 21 a minute turn up, after 20 minutes you're now waiting a while minute before you can get through, after an hour it's 3 minutes. Repeat that through (say) 5 junctions and some people will be delayed by up to 15 minutes as they go to work.

However, if car use drops by 10% so you get 19 cars a minute there's never a queue at any of those junctions.

As others have said the DfT has data which suggests that by increasing rail capacity they tend to see a reduction in road use on parallel roads.

Yes rail should stick to what it does best, but then going into major towns and cities is where there's a lot of congestion.

Much more likely is that continuing technological improvements in cars (covering pollution, safety and autonomy), along with remote activity, leads to the disappearance of public transport in most areas.

Automation is likely to shift car use away from an owned car model of transport. Why would you own an automated car when (even without changes in working so there's even more working from home) a car is typically used for about an hour a day (yes some will use it more, but others less).

Also automated vehicles are likely (in the short term) to be geographically limited, as well as (in the longer term) likely to be costly to use for a long journey (unless there's a good chance of someone needing to make the return journey), both of which may actually mean that rail use could see a boost.

Of course, there's nothing stopping buses (or at least something similar to a bus) being automated vehicles and carrying several people at once along a route. Especially given the cost of automation doesn't really change if you're applying it to a car or to a bus, but you can split that cost between far more users on a bus.

That's likely to mean that an automated bus will be cheaper to use than a vehicle only carrying one or two people.

Also the automated buses might not need to follow a strict timetable and/or route as users could hail it when they need it and a suitably close vehicle going in a suitable direction could arrive fairly quickly - probably just as quickly as a vehicle which is only going to carry them. (Thinking about if there was an Uber type booking system and you could pick the most suitable option, just as well as being able to book a car you could book a bus - the point being that booking a bus would likely be cheaper as the costs are shared between more people).

I live off a road which along it's length there's at least 5 people who drive their kids to school at broadly the same time, there's a good chance that they would be willing to share a booked "bus" rather than book an individual car. However running a bus service asking the road would never be viable as there's not enough use over the whole day.

Likewise why would a couple own two cars when they only both need to get to work 3 days a week and then only one or two days a week which are the same? If they go into work less then the need to own a car reduces further.

Automation of vehicles will change behaviour. Will it be towards a more bus type vehicle future? Possibly. However it's also unlikely that there'll be lots of privately owned cars like there is currently and so the way people use cars will change.

 

[slowroad]

Devine meaningful curtailment.

As I've said before, you don't need much of a shift away from car use to see a significant drop in congestion.

If you've got a junction which has a capacity of 20 cars a minute and 21 a minute turn up, after 20 minutes you're now waiting a while minute before you can get through, after an hour it's 3 minutes. Repeat that through (say) 5 junctions and some people will be delayed by up to 15 minutes as they go to work.

However, if car use drops by 10% so you get 19 cars a minute there's never a queue at any of those junctions.

As others have said the DfT has data which suggests that by increasing rail capacity they tend to see a reduction in road use on parallel roads.

Yes rail should stick to what it does best, but then going into major towns and cities is where there's a lot of congestion.



Automation is likely to shift car use away from an owned car model of transport. Why would you own an automated car when (even without changes in working so there's even more working from home) a car is typically used for about an hour a day (yes some will use it more, but others less).

Also automated vehicles are likely (in the short term) to be geographically limited, as well as (in the longer term) likely to be costly to use for a long journey (unless there's a good chance of someone needing to make the return journey), both of which may actually mean that rail use could see a boost.

Of course, there's nothing stopping buses (or at least something similar to a bus) being automated vehicles and carrying several people at once along a route. Especially given the cost of automation doesn't really change if you're applying it to a car or to a bus, but you can split that cost between far more users on a bus.

That's likely to mean that an automated bus will be cheaper to use than a vehicle only carrying one or two people.

Also the automated buses might not need to follow a strict timetable and/or route as users could hail it when they need it and a suitably close vehicle going in a suitable direction could arrive fairly quickly - probably just as quickly as a vehicle which is only going to carry them. (Thinking about if there was an Uber type booking system and you could pick the most suitable option, just as well as being able to book a car you could book a bus - the point being that booking a bus would likely be cheaper as the costs are shared between more people).

I live off a road which along it's length there's at least 5 people who drive their kids to school at broadly the same time, there's a good chance that they would be willing to share a booked "bus" rather than book an individual car. However running a bus service asking the road would never be viable as there's not enough use over the whole day.

Likewise why would a couple own two cars when they only both need to get to work 3 days a week and then only one or two days a week which are the same? If they go into work less then the need to own a car reduces further.

Automation of vehicles will change behaviour. Will it be towards a more bus type vehicle future? Possibly. However it's also unlikely that there'll be lots of privately owned cars like there is currently and so the way people use cars will change.

If there is suppressed or induced demand, a small shift from cars, or indeed a small road capacity enhancement, will result in congestion reappearing. You need a large shift or capacity enhancement. Or road user charges, which are probably politically toxic.

 

[Meerkat]

On the contrary, it seems to be well reported that there is a generational shift in attitudes towards cars with younger people typically much more aware of the problems cars cause and less enthusiastic about cars.

That’s mainly about cost. Kids can’t afford to learn to drive and they can’t afford to insure their first car.

 

[The Ham]

If there is suppressed or induced demand, a small shift from cars, or indeed a small road capacity enhancement, will result in congestion reappearing. You need a large shift or capacity enhancement. Or road user charges, which are probably politically toxic.

Only if everything else is equal, as others have pointed out younger people are less inclined to drive than they were when looking at younger people in the post, as older people leave the workforce then they surpressed demand will reduce.

Also, that cuts bitg ways, if there's demand then rail/public transport has a larger market, which would likely start using public transport before the public transport hat a chance to reduce congestion.

As such, over time, whilst car use may revert back to the pre improvement level it may well be 5 years after the rail improvements. However two things, there'd be more travel than before, and (2) without the rail improvements there works have been some growth in car use so actually the road would still be less congested than it would have been at that point in time.

Finally, whilst charging for travel is always an issue, when there's good public transport alternatives is far less of an issue. Anyway the LTC will be charging to use it.


A good case study is the congestion charge in London, traffic levels have exceeded the pre charge levels, however without the charge congestion would have been higher rather than the same level. In addition, whilst there was a fair amount of complaining, because of the good public transport a lot people were able to change their habits.

 

[Peter Sarf]

On the contrary, it seems to be well reported that there is a generational shift in attitudes towards cars with younger people typically much more aware of the problems cars cause and less enthusiastic about cars. See for example this BBC report:

I suggest it's very possible that, if the Government took the lead over the next few decades, this could translate into significant reductions in miles driven - without any significant loss of freedom because better public transport would be more than capable of getting people where they want to go in most cases. And if we did that, quality of life would markedly improve, as well as much better use of public spaces and less damage to our natural resources.

In the case of Croydon. The busus mostly go via, but no longer right into, the town centre. All the shops are going. Everyone drives to the still expanding out of town shopping on the A23. Public transport does not have a hub there. Most people relying on public transport have to go via Croydon town centre. Car more convenient. So for the past decades towns have evolved to be less public transport relevant - need to undo all of that.

Much more likely is that continuing technological improvements in cars (covering pollution, safety and autonomy), along with remote activity, leads to the disappearance of public transport in most areas.

This is the risk. Less and less demand for public transport. After all cars came from nowhere after the railways were already established.

Devine meaningful curtailment.

As I've said before, you don't need much of a shift away from car use to see a significant drop in congestion.

If you've got a junction which has a capacity of 20 cars a minute and 21 a minute turn up, after 20 minutes you're now waiting a while minute before you can get through, after an hour it's 3 minutes. Repeat that through (say) 5 junctions and some people will be delayed by up to 15 minutes as they go to work.

However, if car use drops by 10% so you get 19 cars a minute there's never a queue at any of those junctions.

As others have said the DfT has data which suggests that by increasing rail capacity they tend to see a reduction in road use on parallel roads.

Yes rail should stick to what it does best, but then going into major towns and cities is where there's a lot of congestion.

I fear there is so much unsatisfied demand for road use that anything that reduces it just gets other potential car users to fill the "gaps".

Automation is likely to shift car use away from an owned car model of transport. Why would you own an automated car when (even without changes in working so there's even more working from home) a car is typically used for about an hour a day (yes some will use it more, but others less).

Also automated vehicles are likely (in the short term) to be geographically limited, as well as (in the longer term) likely to be costly to use for a long journey (unless there's a good chance of someone needing to make the return journey), both of which may actually mean that rail use could see a boost.

Of course, there's nothing stopping buses (or at least something similar to a bus) being automated vehicles and carrying several people at once along a route. Especially given the cost of automation doesn't really change if you're applying it to a car or to a bus, but you can split that cost between far more users on a bus.

That's likely to mean that an automated bus will be cheaper to use than a vehicle only carrying one or two people.

Also the automated buses might not need to follow a strict timetable and/or route as users could hail it when they need it and a suitably close vehicle going in a suitable direction could arrive fairly quickly - probably just as quickly as a vehicle which is only going to carry them. (Thinking about if there was an Uber type booking system and you could pick the most suitable option, just as well as being able to book a car you could book a bus - the point being that booking a bus would likely be cheaper as the costs are shared between more people).

Only problem I can see is the passengers from further out will all be moaning - damn another detour., you could have walked that.

..............................
Automation of vehicles will change behaviour. Will it be towards a more bus type vehicle future? Possibly. However it's also unlikely that there'll be lots of privately owned cars like there is currently and so the way people use cars will change.

Interesting thing to consider. Would it even increase road use ?.

Only if everything else is equal, as others have pointed out younger people are less inclined to drive than they were when looking at younger people in the post, as older people leave the workforce then they surpressed demand will reduce.

It seems young people are leaving home at a later stage in their life these days - because they cannot get a home. So they have access to a car or a lift. They ALSO have less use for a car as Mum and Dad are still gettting the provisions and running the house (diy, garden etc).

Also, that cuts bitg ways, if there's demand then rail/public transport has a larger market, which would likely start using public transport before the public transport hat a chance to reduce congestion.

As such, over time, whilst car use may revert back to the pre improvement level it may well be 5 years after the rail improvements. However two things, there'd be more travel than before, and (2) without the rail improvements there works have been some growth in car use so actually the road would still be less congested than it would have been at that point in time.

Finally, whilst charging for travel is always an issue, when there's good public transport alternatives is far less of an issue. Anyway the LTC will be charging to use it.

A good case study is the congestion charge in London, traffic levels have exceeded the pre charge levels, however without the charge congestion would have been higher rather than the same level. In addition, whilst there was a fair amount of complaining, because of the good public transport a lot people were able to change their habits.

I would say the congestion charge (and ULEZ) might have cleaned up the air but those paying for the charges and/or switching to a newer vehicle, do not appreciate that improvement. I think the lack of a reduction in traffic clearly indicates that the alternative modes are not there or attractive enough.

Most people do not drive into London because it is nigh on impossible to do so. They use the train because they have to. They will use their car if they can.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Much more likely is that continuing technological improvements in cars (covering pollution, safety and autonomy), along with remote activity, leads to the disappearance of public transport in most areas.

Technological improvements in cars will not solve the problem that, in almost any large town, there isn't (and due to geographical constraints, never will be) enough road space for everyone to drive. At best, if cars become automated and we move to a rent-for-your-journey model, the requirement for car parks in town centres might be largely removed, but that doesn't help with congestion on the roads.

 

[slowroad]

In terms of longer run trends, and the possible impact on traffic of younger cohorts being less likely to drive, worth noting that the latest DfT stats show road traffic is now above pre-pandemic levels, public transport use stuck well below. Of course, this could change.

 

[quantinghome]

On the contrary, it seems to be well reported that there is a generational shift in attitudes towards cars with younger people typically much more aware of the problems cars cause and less enthusiastic about cars

Based on personal experience, this is true of younger people. However, also based on personal experience, they're still more than happy to be driven places by their Dad!

Regarding rail versus road, it's instructive to look at countries that have the best rail networks and the highest modal share of rail and public transport - Japan, Switzerland and Netherlands come to mind. Even there, car usage is still up at 60, 70% modal share.

The reason is that cars transformed what journeys were possible, as did previous transport revolutions.

pack horses were replaced by canals,
canals were replaced by rail,
rail has largely been replaced by road.

Not only did they replace the previous modes, but they massively increased what was possible to transport, either in quantity, speed or both. Canals transformed the quantity of coal that could be transported, rail transformed things again in terms of speed, motorised road transport transformed accessibility through the ability to get from anywhere to anywhere with a single journey.

Increasing rail's modal share is worth pursuing though. This means major investment to separate intercity, regional and commuter flows so they can all run at high frequencies. But even with an ideal rail network, it won't empty the roads. However, taking the pressure off them is a decent goal in itself, as is providing a high quality public transport alternative to roads where viable.

 

[slowroad]

Netherlands

Based on personal experience, this is true of younger people. However, also based on personal experience, they're still more than happy to be driven places by their Dad!

Regarding rail versus road, it's instructive to look at countries that have the best rail networks and the highest modal share of rail and public transport - Japan, Switzerland and Netherlands come to mind. Even there, car usage is still up at 60, 70% modal share.

The reason is that cars transformed what journeys were possible, as did previous transport revolutions.

Not only did they replace the previous modes, but they massively increased what was possible to transport, either in quantity, speed or both. Canals transformed the quantity of coal that could be transported, rail transformed things again in terms of speed, motorised road transport transformed accessibility through the ability to get from anywhere to anywhere with a single journey.

Increasing rail's modal share is worth pursuing though. This means major investment to separate intercity, regional and commuter flows so they can all run at high frequencies. But even with an ideal rail network, it won't empty the roads. However, taking the pressure off them is a decent goal in itself, as is providing a high quality public transport alternative to roads where viable.

Netherlands is an interesting case. Has quite low bus use - cycling probably substitutes. Also low car occupancy - ditto. Chart shows data from National Travel Surveys.

 

[The Ham]

I fear there is so much unsatisfied demand for road use that anything that reduces it just gets other potential car users to fill the "gaps".

As I said it's going to take time for rail to free up road capacity, as such the larger the untapped demand the more people will use the new rail service.

Also, even if as soon as there's 1 less car 1 new car replaces it, that doesn't really matter as there would have been growth anyway (even if that's from extra traffic at 2 in the morning as it's so congested the rest of the time), so again even if road use stayed as it is then it actually would still be lower than it would have been.

Only problem I can see is the passengers from further out will all be moaning - damn another detour., you could have walked that.

Depends on the numbers on each bus, if the bus has capacity for 70 then yes you may see something like that, however such buses are likely to be limited to more fixed routes.

If however the bus can carry 15 people, then the number of detours is likely to be limited, especially for urban travel.

Interesting thing to consider. Would it even increase road use ?.

Possibly, however if you are being charged for each trip then people might not undertake certain trips by road. A classic example would be doing a large shop. If you're going to be charged £1 each way you may walk to the shop and then pay to get back or you may think I'll pay £3 for a delivery as that's not much more than going myself.

The thing with private car ownership is that the extra for each trip isn't that much (most people only consider it the cost of fuel, even though the more miles you do the more other costs you add - for example the sooner you need to replace tyres), so adding an extra 1,000 miles isn't that much more.

However, if you're going to be charged £1 a mile (for a car, which is cheaper than the current cost of taxis which are typically £1.5 a mile or more), you're going to think twice about it.

If you're getting charged 30p a mile (for a bus) you're more likely to still make that trip, but then you may consider the actual need.

It seems young people are leaving home at a later stage in their life these days - because they cannot get a home. So they have access to a car or a lift. They ALSO have less use for a car as Mum and Dad are still gettting the provisions and running the house (diy, garden etc).

They won't always have access to having a lift (for example of their parents are working, are on holiday, otherwise busy) and of course that only applies to those who are living at home.

I would say the congestion charge (and ULEZ) might have cleaned up the air but those paying for the charges and/or switching to a newer vehicle, do not appreciate that improvement. I think the lack of a reduction in traffic clearly indicates that the alternative modes are not there or attractive enough.

The congestion charge did reduce traffic, in fact car and taxis km's in London as a whole fell between 2002 (16.7bn km) and 2012 (15.3bn) before it rose a little until COVID (15.7bn) and it's still noticeable below pre COVID numbers (14.6bn).

HGV's are broadly flat (0.65bn +/- 0.05bn), as buses (0.3bn +/- 0.1bn).

Some of the fall could be explained by an increase in motorbikes and scooters (+0.3bn to 0.7bn), and peddle cycles (+0.3bn to 0.6bn).

The reason that road congestion in London is still an issue even though there's 2bn km fewer car/taxi km's is due to the increase in vans which has increased by 0.8bn since 2000.

Those numbers are for the whole of London. By Borough things are different, and too complex to provide a simple summary of, although with all statistics there'll be those who buck the trend (Havering had seen growing traffic km's whilst most others have been falling).

Data from

Road traffic statistics - London region

roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk

Croydon saw traffic km's increase to 2007 (882 million km) before reducing until 2012 (813 million) before rising to just before COVID (843 million) and still hasn't reached the peak 2023 was 830 million).

Most people do not drive into London because it is nigh on impossible to do so. They use the train because they have to. They will use their car if they can.

Indeed, so improving rail services in (or close to) London would help those people trying to get into London.

Based on personal experience, this is true of younger people. However, also based on personal experience, they're still more than happy to be driven places by their Dad!

Regarding rail versus road, it's instructive to look at countries that have the best rail networks and the highest modal share of rail and public transport - Japan, Switzerland and Netherlands come to mind. Even there, car usage is still up at 60, 70% modal share.

The reason is that cars transformed what journeys were possible, as did previous transport revolutions.

Not only did they replace the previous modes, but they massively increased what was possible to transport, either in quantity, speed or both. Canals transformed the quantity of coal that could be transported, rail transformed things again in terms of speed, motorised road transport transformed accessibility through the ability to get from anywhere to anywhere with a single journey.

Increasing rail's modal share is worth pursuing though. This means major investment to separate intercity, regional and commuter flows so they can all run at high frequencies. But even with an ideal rail network, it won't empty the roads. However, taking the pressure off them is a decent goal in itself, as is providing a high quality public transport alternative to roads where viable.

Again, I don't get where you think that I'm saying we should be seeing road transport as 0% of modal share, or even 49%. The point I'm making is that it could be a bit lower than it currently is.

Actually, for a lot of people if we could get the actual km's travelled by car down a little bit, then that would likely benefit them by there being less congestion - with the biggest winners being car users.

The point I'm making with regards to the LTC is that if we build a rail link you'd see some relief to the existing Thames Crossings from reduced vehicle demand, however you wouldn't apply more pressure to other roads (which the LTC would do by allowing more traffic through a bottleneck).

There's a big difference between arguing that we should be looking at rail/public transport (as compared to new roads) to allow for more travel and arguing that we should be closing roads and replacing them with rail.

In theory it would be possible to do the latter, however we'd need several new railways with the capacity of HS2 to even consider doing so and even then there's still going to be a lot of cat use.

Until then (read almost certainly never) the priority in or near to major urban areas should be not building new roads to cater for growing travel demands, but rather rail where that's likely to help (again not entirely ruling out new roads).

As to history of travel modes, yes each change did result in the majority moving to the new way, it's never totally removed travel by the old methods and sometimes over time you'll see a move back towards the previous methods where there's benefits of using it.

For example rail has seen significant growth in use between 1980 and 2025 (even if current user has fallen to circa 2005 levels due to COVID).

Even inland waterways still account for a noticeable amount of freight transport (yes most of it on the Thames, and yes as a percentage of the whole a tiny amount) but it's not gone away entirely.

 

[MatthewHutton]

That's why they need to be tied into dynamic road pricing models, which will drive people to share where it is possible and where it has a measurable impact on road capacity. Implementing road pricing is relatively easy to do with a app based model. It's also relatively easy to price out or ban rat running in such circumstances.

I did cover the point of "being alone with" in the design of a robotaxi, I would assume that most will have the option of being physically and visually separated from a passenger you don't know. I would also assume that most people will chose to get a shared taxis from around the corner to where they actually live.

They key point here is to avoid everythingism, all of this won't happen on day one and it doesn't need to. Self driving cars will start off as a niche product most likely geofenced but will rapidly result in more journey and traffic chaos to which dead heading will also add. That is where the public support for dynamic road pricing will appear; most likely it will start at some place where we already have congestion charging and lots of taxis, e.g. London.

The parent not needing to drive a teenager to something is also an example of economic growth as the parent now has more time to do something else.

Also note that given that shared self driving cars will have a much lower cost of ownership than current cars and much lower costs of operation than existing public transport the amounts of road pricing required to optimise road usage likely won't be that high and won't be more than the cost savings. In places like London I expect that the shared autonomous vehicle will likely have ~10 seats, but would still be much faster than a current bus as it wouldn't get caught in traffic and wouldn't stop nearly as often.

If shared self driving vehicles had any plausible chance of being cheaper to own then at least in some countries taxis would be cheaper than private car ownership. That doesn’t happen.

 

[The Ham]

If shared self driving vehicles had any plausible chance of being cheaper to own then at least in some countries taxis would be cheaper than private car ownership. That doesn’t happen.

Hence why I cited £1 per mile for a robot taxis (car) vs the cheapest driven taxis which are typically more than £1.50 per mile (and can be around the £2,60 mark)

 

[HSTEd]

If shared self driving vehicles had any plausible chance of being cheaper to own then at least in some countries taxis would be cheaper than private car ownership. That doesn’t happen.

People don't charge themselves the full price for their labour in driving the car.
But I don't think self driving cars will lead to taxis replacing car ownership.

Having a car instantly available is simply far too valuable in convenience terms.