London's Ringways Plan

[BRX]

No, of course congestion won't magically disappear; the point is that many (but not all) of the disbenefits of cars are removed when the car is electric.

I think I would settle for "some" rather than "many" and certaily not "most".

 

[A0wen]

The point is that lots of other European cities are doing significantly better than London, in terms of discouraging private car use. It demonstrates that London ought to be able to move a lot more journeys out of private cars. Increasing road capacity is not the way to do that.

Erm, the only 2 cities doing significantly better than London on public transport use from your table were Moscow and Budapest, and I'm not sure their history is one we should follow?

On the car use, most of it will be driven by distance - London is *much* larger than the likes of Brussels, Copenhagen or Amsterdam so walking or cycling are much more viable when the distances travelled are short.

Try comparing London with *similar sized cities* in both area and number of people and the difference disappears.

 

[ABB125]

I think I would settle for "some" rather than "many" and certaily not "most".

Fair enough, I suppose the extent to which people agree with the statement depends on their views on cars in general!

 

[A0wen]

Exactly. So you ought to be providing more meaningful statistics to support your argument. Most people would look at your table and think London is 15 times as big as Paris. For the purposes of transport comparison you ought to be using comparable areas, so if you include the whole of Greater London than you need to include the suburbs of Paris, not just Paris "proper".

The definitions are different - if you use the Paris definitions you'd have to go beyond Greater London and take parts of the Home Counties into the equation as well - the Paris definition takes "commuter" areas for example, well in London's case that would easily include places like St Albans, Watford, Slough etc.

 

[johncrossley]

The definitions are different - if you use the Paris definitions you'd have to go beyond Greater London and take parts of the Home Counties into the equation as well - the Paris definition takes "commuter" areas for example, well in London's case that would easily include places like St Albans, Watford, Slough etc.

Ideally you need to look at urban area size, measured by how close buildings are to each other and ignoring artificial lines drawn on maps by politicians. Paris "proper" is really meaningless to use in this context as it only really includes what in London would be like zones 1 and 2. There are Wikipedia articles listing the largest urban areas in various regions. You also still need to include the wider region, outside the urban area. Amsterdam looks small, even on an urban area basis, but it is part of the Randstad, one of the most densely populated regions in the world. There are lots of smaller urban areas in close proximity to each other, but there is sufficient separation to accommodate wide roads. So there are lots of people driving in and around Amsterdam from neighbouring towns.

Besides, city size is still not the be and all and end all. Generally the bigger the city the less emphasis you have on private motorised transport because the bigger the city the less practical it becomes and the bigger the city the easier it is to provide attractive public transport. Also you can't say walking and cycling is unimportant in London or other big cities. Regardless of city size, many trips are short and big cities like London have many suburban centres which are readily accessible from nearby areas on foot or bike, assuming walking and cycling conditions are acceptable. Also, people can walk or cycle for a relatively short distance to a station as part of a longer trip.

 

[Wolfie]

Evidence that other countries offer such incentives and that they've been effective ? And more to the point how do you pay for such schemes ?

The reality is if you look at similar countries to the UK, so France, Germany or Italy that really isn't the case and their public transport use isn't significantly different to the UK's.

Smaller countries with higher population densities have a different set of problems.



Come on, you'll have to do better than that.

Where's the evidence that private transport is "cheaper in real terms than it has been for years" ? Over what time frame ? Many elements of private transport are more costly than they were 10 years ago, starting with the actual outlay of buying a car. Back in 2001 I took delivery of a nearly top spec Mondeo as a company car, list price about £ 17k - that's apparently £ 28k today yet the equivalents in the range today have a price tag of over £ 30k.

A litre of diesel in 2000 was 78p (source RAC), allowing for inflation that's £ 1.29 today, it's about £ 1.28 today (source AA), so hardly a subsidy and more than accounted for by the drop in demand caused by Covid.

Your last para carefully ignores the price of crude oil (on average just under USD30/barrel in 2000, around USD60/barrel today). Taxes on fuel are lower now than they were then. That spells an effective subsidy.

CO2 emissions are a different issue from air pollution.

And air pollution is improved with electric vehicles but it does not disappear because a significant amount of particulate matter comes from brakes, tyres and the general stirring up of dust caused by constant traffic.

Electric vehicles also don't solve any of the problems of congestion, danger to pedestrians and other road users, or equality of access to transport.

There's a real danger that people think electric vehicles remove all the objections to excessive dependance on private motor transports. They don't at all. The danger is that "we'll have electric cars soon" is used to wave away attempts to sort out transport issues properly. I see it already.

Spot on.

 

[A0wen]

Your last para carefully ignores the price of crude oil (on average just under USD30/barrel in 2000, around USD60/barrel today). Taxes on fuel are lower now than they were then. That spells an effective subsidy.

Because oil prices aren't driven by inflation - there are other factors.

Taxes on fuel are still over 50% of the pump price - perhaps the public transport network could try to become a neutral cost to the Exchequer rather than the net drain it presently is.

I live in hope the govt will force TFL into insolvency and remove that from the mayor's reach - because at the moment the UK taxpayer is subsidising the Mayor of London.

 

[BRX]

Erm, the only 2 cities doing significantly better than London on public transport use from your table were Moscow and Budapest, and I'm not sure their history is one we should follow?

On the car use, most of it will be driven by distance - London is *much* larger than the likes of Brussels, Copenhagen or Amsterdam so walking or cycling are much more viable when the distances travelled are short.

Try comparing London with *similar sized cities* in both area and number of people and the difference disappears.

I'm interested in minimising car use, rather than maximising public transport use, because if you can get people walking and cycling that's even better.

If you want some cities that are even larger than London (not that I accept your size objections as really valid, once you're talking about cities big enough that most people wouldn't walk from their home to their work, or even walk from one side of the centre to the other) then take a look at eg. Tokyo.

Modal share - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Wolfie]

Because oil prices aren't driven by inflation - there are other factors.

Taxes on fuel are still over 50% of the pump price - perhaps the public transport network could try to become a neutral cost to the Exchequer rather than the net drain it presently is.

I live in hope the govt will force TFL into insolvency and remove that from the mayor's reach - because at the moment the UK taxpayer is subsidising the Mayor of London.

Really? Well London pays a disproportionate amount of UK taxes. I begrudge subsiding Northern. Perhaps l should vote for a party that would close that down. Or perhaps you are a party political hack?

 

[BRX]

Costs of motoring relative to RPI (only up to 2011 though)

https://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2012/08/war-on-motoring-myth_Aug2012_9542.pdf

 

[A0wen]

View attachment 94067

Costs of motoring relative to RPI (only up to 2011 though)

https://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2012/08/war-on-motoring-myth_Aug2012_9542.pdf

The IPPR are a left leaning think tank - they would say that.

 

[Mikey C]

I'm interested in minimising car use, rather than maximising public transport use, because if you can get people walking and cycling that's even better.

If you want some cities that are even larger than London (not that I accept your size objections as really valid, once you're talking about cities big enough that most people wouldn't walk from their home to their work, or even walk from one side of the centre to the other) then take a look at eg. Tokyo.

View attachment 94066

Modal share - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Modal share numbers don't tell the whole story, as there's a massive difference between central London, suburbia and the outskirts of London

Central London has a high population density, and thus private car usage is very low. Outer London has a far lower population density AND people are more likely to be working elsewhere in outer London or outside London, journeys far harder to sensibly make by public transport

Wayback Machine

This report shows the population AND urban area which makes a massive amount of difference. A squashed in population all living in high rises, and near their place of work will need to drive less than the same population, spread out in low rise housing, and with large areas of Green Belt.

Tokyo 8.8m people, area 272 km2
Paris 6.5m, 762 km2
London 7.8m, 1,579 km2

 

[biko]

The only rational way to improve the South Circular is to discourage people from using it as a smaller radius cut-through of south London, while at the same time improving the ratio of electric to petrol / diesel vehicles in order to benefit the lives of those living close by. Exactly how you discourage it I don't really know.. maybe road pricing making more than x miles of A205 prohibitively expensive, and doing as much to reduce alternative rat-runs as possible. This stuff is complex - there will always be people who are willing to use their cars at any price.

Exactly, this is a great summary of the whole problem. There are so many conflicting interests, it really is needed to strike a good balance. Road pricing seems indeed one of the best solutions to this problem as it becomes possible to tweak the pricing such that the greatest societal benefits occur.

Taxes on fuel are still over 50% of the pump price - perhaps the public transport network could try to become a neutral cost to the Exchequer rather than the net drain it presently is.

This is a ridiculous comparison. This is like comparing the price of fast food without VAT to the price of fruit and vegetables including the cost of treatment of people who choke on the seeds of the fruit.

Transport pricing is really complex, even before looking at externalities. Cars use road space but how do you pay for that? Currently through fuel duty and other taxes. Public transport pricing is even more complex, as it also provides a basic service to the people. From a car user's point of view, it reduces the congestion and thus has 'value' to car users and it becomes logical to pay for it through taxes.

To go back to the topic, I believe it is very good for London that the Ringways plan wasn't implemented, it would have caused very unattractive places to live and still a lot of congestion. Imagine the cost and consequences of widening the urban motorways after they again are completely congested. But doing nothing is also not the best option, but the balance between solving some big problems and attracting new traffic is very difficult.

 

[BRX]

Modal share numbers don't tell the whole story, as there's a massive difference between central London, suburbia and the outskirts of London

Central London has a high population density, and thus private car usage is very low. Outer London has a far lower population density AND people are more likely to be working elsewhere in outer London or outside London, journeys far harder to sensibly make by public transport

Wayback Machine

This report shows the population AND urban area which makes a massive amount of difference. A squashed in population all living in high rises, and near their place of work will need to drive less than the same population, spread out in low rise housing, and with large areas of Green Belt.

Tokyo 8.8m people, area 272 km2
Paris 6.5m, 762 km2
London 7.8m, 1,579 km2

Sure... of course it's more complex than a blunt comparison of numbers can really show.

The general point was though - does somewhere like London (relatively central london if we're talking about the S circular) need road capacity to be increased or should we instead be persuading people away from private cars, and making better use of the existing capacity? I'd say the latter. I said other cities manage to do better than London and then I was challenged on that.

This report:

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-11.pdf

gives private transport mode share of 46-50% in outer London and 21-27% in inner London.

So, let's take 21% for inner London and ask, is it feasible to reduce that further? I can point to Paris at 16% and Tokyo at 12% and say yes.

The fact that private transport mode share is pretty strongly correlated with density is, in itself, an indeication that if you want to make best use of limited space, you need to reduce the number of trips made by private transport. Places like Tokyo still function perfectly well with that very low percentage of journeys being made by private car. Stuff still gets delivered to the jobs and people still get to work. Having stayed there for a bit, I can confirm that it makes the residential areas much, much more pleasant (as far as street congestion is concerned) than the norm in British cities, including London.

 

[edwin_m]

Taxes on fuel are still over 50% of the pump price - perhaps the public transport network could try to become a neutral cost to the Exchequer rather than the net drain it presently is.

That could only be done by making car use so difficult and costly that people have no alternative but to use public transport. I take it you are advocating this policy...

 

[A0wen]

Sure... of course it's more complex than a blunt comparison of numbers can really show.

The general point was though - does somewhere like London (relatively central london if we're talking about the S circular) need road capacity to be increased or should we instead be persuading people away from private cars, and making better use of the existing capacity? I'd say the latter. I said other cities manage to do better than London and then I was challenged on that.

This report:

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-11.pdf

gives private transport mode share of 46-50% in outer London and 21-27% in inner London.

So, let's take 21% for inner London and ask, is it feasible to reduce that further? I can point to Paris at 16% and Tokyo at 12% and say yes.

The fact that private transport mode share is pretty strongly correlated with density is, in itself, an indeication that if you want to make best use of limited space, you need to reduce the number of trips made by private transport. Places like Tokyo still function perfectly well with that very low percentage of journeys being made by private car. Stuff still gets delivered to the jobs and people still get to work. Having stayed there for a bit, I can confirm that it makes the residential areas much, much more pleasant (as far as street congestion is concerned) than the norm in British cities, including London.

BIB - really? South Circ in 'central London' ?

It starts at Kew and runs through Mortlake and Putney (not Central London), touches Wandsworth (OK, I'll buy that), then heads south through Brixton, Dulwich and Catford before heading NE through Eltham and finishing at Woolwich.

If you take Trafalgar Sq as the centre of London (often cited as that), Catford's about 8 miles away, Tottenham's pretty much the same distance heading NE and yet the North Circ runs through there and Tottenham most certainly *isn't* considered "Central London".

That could only be done by making car use so difficult and costly that people have no alternative but to use public transport. I take it you are advocating this policy...

No, increase fares so user pays (which is what's expected of private motorists), reduce costs (on trains increase OMO or automation), remove unremunerative services, increase demand led services.

There's no reason to be running empty buses or trains around. The complaint against cars is many "only have one person in them" - well, OK in an "average" i.e. 4 seat car, that means they are using 25% capacity. No reason that any form of public transport should be running services where vehicle is running with less than 25% capacity in use.

 

[BRX]

"Relatively central" I said. The S circular sits comfortably within the inner London boroughs. The modal share numbers I was quoting were for inner and outer London and the S circular is in inner London.

But you didn't say what your proposal for the S circular is. Do you want to widen it?

 

[paul1609]

Yes you can.
And if you stop those people who actually have alternative ways of travelling from using them, the capacity can be used by those vehicles that actually need them.



You can see that this is not what actually happens, by looking at the London air quality map. Here are some screenshots of a section of the south circular, and a section of the north circular, both at the same scale.

London Air Quality Network » Annual Pollution Maps

London Air Quality Network :: the comprehensive source of information about air pollution in London

www.londonair.org.uk

View attachment 94033View attachment 94034

The maps only show Nox and are dated 2016. 5 years ago coincidentally? the same year that Euro 6 and equivalent diesel engines were mandated. By now 2021 a large percentage of the vehicles meet those standards, indeed a large number of the about to be introduced provincial ulezs are going to have costs far exceeding the revenue.

 

[BRX]

The maps only show Nox and are dated 2016. 5 years ago coincidentally? the same year that Euro 6 and equivalent diesel engines were mandated. By now 2021 a large percentage of the vehicles meet those standards, indeed a large number of the about to be introduced provincial ulezs are going to have costs far exceeding the revenue.

The point of the maps is to show the relative amounts of air pollution caused by the multi-lane N circular vs the smaller S circular.

 

[paul1609]

The point of the maps is to show the relative amounts of air pollution caused by the multi-lane N circular vs the smaller S circular.

Understood but road generation of Nox will have reduced by 25% since then ignoring any effect from covid or ULEZ charges. Nox from the combustion of natural gas for heating will be unchanged and will start to swamp any localised road patterns as can be seen in central london.

 

[Hey 3]

"Relatively central" I said. The S circular sits comfortably within the inner London boroughs. The modal share numbers I was quoting were for inner and outer London and the S circular is in inner London.

But you didn't say what your proposal for the S circular is. Do you want to widen it?

That is pretty much impossible because of the amount homes that would need to be demolished in South London and elsewhere .............

 

[edwin_m]

No, increase fares so user pays (which is what's expected of private motorists), reduce costs (on trains increase OMO or automation), remove unremunerative services, increase demand led services.

There's no reason to be running empty buses or trains around. The complaint against cars is many "only have one person in them" - well, OK in an "average" i.e. 4 seat car, that means they are using 25% capacity. No reason that any form of public transport should be running services where vehicle is running with less than 25% capacity in use.

So public transport would largely disappear, anyone unable to drive will have to fork out for a taxi or cadge a lift.

Congestion would increase so people wouldn't be able to get around, unless taxpayer money was spent on more roads.

Particulate and noise pollution and accidents would increase, even with electric cars, leading to extra health spending. That's one of the externalities not counted when people claim drivers pay their way.

And I repeat my point that if there were no cars, public transport would be self-financing as it was in the Fifties. So drivers should be subsidising a decent public transport network.

 

[A0wen]

So public transport would largely disappear, anyone unable to drive will have to fork out for a taxi or cadge a lift.

Congestion would increase so people wouldn't be able to get around, unless taxpayer money was spent on more roads.

Particulate and noise pollution and accidents would increase, even with electric cars, leading to extra health spending. That's one of the externalities not counted when people claim drivers pay their way.

And I repeat my point that if there were no cars, public transport would be self-financing as it was in the Fifties. So drivers should be subsidising a decent public transport network.

BIB - it wasn't. BR ran a deficit throughout the 1950s. And it's not clear that other parts of the public transport system were covering their costs either.

 

[Hey 3]

So public transport would largely disappear, anyone unable to drive will have to fork out for a taxi or cadge a lift.

Congestion would increase so people wouldn't be able to get around, unless taxpayer money was spent on more roads.

Particulate and noise pollution and accidents would increase, even with electric cars, leading to extra health spending. That's one of the externalities not counted when people claim drivers pay their way.

And I repeat my point that if there were no cars, public transport would be self-financing as it was in the Fifties. So drivers should be subsidising a decent public transport network.

Note about pollution:

Air pollution a cause in girl's death, coroner rules in landmark case

Coroner says failure to reduce pollution levels to legal limits was factor in death of Ella Kissi-Debrah, who had severe asthma

www.theguardian.com

A girl lived within 30 metres of the South Circular and walked to school. A coroner rules that she died because of air pollution. In another BBC article(which I can't find), it said that she couldn't even climb the stairs because of the bad pollution.

 

[Wolfie]

BIB - it wasn't. BR ran a deficit throughout the 1950s. And it's not clear that other parts of the public transport system were covering their costs either.

BR wasn't only public transport though. Unless you are now trying to argue that the farepayer should subsidise freight operations.