With the onset of congestion charging, I drive (private milage) around 8500 miles per year. If the congestion charge was 0.80 per mile, I would face a bill of £6800 per year, or £131 per week.

Now I challenge anyone to come up with a reason why cycle paths can't be introduced. I'm sorry to keep repeating this one, but the environmentalists are strangely silent when this solution is brought to the table.


The benefits are as follows

1) A guarenteed carbon free form of transport.

2) The costs of running and administering Road Pricing will be frighteningly high, the people working in this industry will need paying, and will also need pay increases each year (I understand that).

3) which will put the increased cost back onto the motorist.


CYCLE LANES

1) There running costs (maintaining them) must be cheaper.

2) 750000 people live in sheffield/rotherham. If 400000 were car owners, and 15% of these used the cycle lanes....... THAT WOULD BE 30,000 people making journeys by bike.

3) This would reduce congestion......and reduce carbon emissions dramatically

4) And we would meet our targets. The people who have no choice but to use their car, would not be faced with a large increase in tax.... EVERYONES HAPPY.


Now is that a better idea...... ENVIRONMENTALIST, please explain why Cycle Lanes are not offered as a solution

Tax rise free methods -

Ban big 4x4s

Cut town centre car parking spaces

Good quality, segragated cycle/running paths (as mentioned below), showers in workplaces

Allow people to work from home 1 day/week

Stop building retailing out of town

Stop building hideous new housing estates in locations that can only be accessed easily by car

Stop building motorway junction business parks

4x4's are no more inefficient than many other vehicles, if it's efficiency you want to target, then ban inefficient engines.

Stop building retailing out of town AND cut city centre parking. As well as not raising taxes we need solutions that won't destroy retailing and damage the economy.

Good ideas Mr Goose - would totally agree.

On another thread last night I also suggested improved public transport.

The problem is attitude, though. People don't necessarily WANT to change their lifestyles to be environmentally more friendly. Whilst we still want to consume large amounts of luxury goods (e.g. swapping cars every 3 years, replacing our PCs as regularly as we do, etc.) and carry on with the same unsustainable lifestyle that we've conducted for the last 50 years, the environment is still going to cop for it.

It may be that whacking taxes on non-environmentally friendly goods, services and activities is the only way to get people's attention if all methods of getting voluntary restraint have failed.

Didn't we build a barrowload of cycle lanes? I see them all over the place, and I see millions of people not using them.

Yes, a kind of shotgun approach to cycle lanes, a bit here a bit there, but never the twain shall meet.

To encourage people to use bikes the cycle lanes have to be well thought out, not scattered randomly in order to meet targets regarding miles of cycle lanes deployed.

Yes I agree there is no argument against more bycicle lanes. But a alternative to raising taxes is motorists volunteering to reduce their road usage. Or dare I say it actually get the Bus!!! yes despite all the complaining and I winge too about the buses but the busses are not all bad!!!

Higher car taxes etc matched with proper investment in public transport so that people have good reason to leave their vehicles at home.

It is very trendy these days to be green, at least to some token degree. The politicians have to appear to be green but this is again always a token effort. The trouble is that none of them ever tackle the root cause of the problem and the voters are too stupid to realize that the token efforts they make are counter-productive.

Cycle lanes in Sheffield would be a perfect example of a token gesture which ignores the real problem. The reason they are a waste of time is that I would never have a use for one given my current lifestyle, nor would anyone else I know. This is because I live out of the city and use my car to travel distances (or to places) where a bike wouldn't be practical. Those people who do live near enough to work to be able to cycle, live in areas where cycle lanes mostly won't fit or where it will simply benefit a social group who would use the buses anyway.

The real root problem of our transport problem can be summed up as "where are all these people going?". We know that there are more flights, we see busier roads, and now I hear that our over-priced trains can't cope with demand. What are all these journeys for? What really needs to happen is that we prevent the journeys in the first place, not penalise people once they make them. The solution is to make people pay the real cost, but much earlier in the problem. For example, it seems cheaper to centralise schools and hospitals and yet a local school/cottage hospital means we don't have to drive. Food is cheaper a a supermarket that we all have to drive to and more expensive at a local shop, and this needs to be reversed.

The same applies to recycling, which is currently also a complete waste of time. I can buy tiny bottles of water from a spring in the alps and then I can throw away the plastic bottle without it costing me anything. I can make mysel feel good by driving to a recycling centre but the root of the problem is that I am buying a small plastic bottle of water from 600 miles away.

I'm no expert on such matters but the Govt could (if they wanted to) put a set date for the banning of petrol and diesel engined cars/ busses/ trucks etc and phase in bio fuel vehicles instead. I guess the oil co's would get a bit uppity about it though.

For example. Ban all fossil fuel vehicles being sold from 2010, ban all petrol and diesel sales from 2020

Public transport. It has got to be dirt cheap and almost as convenient as car travel.

For example, I am not willing to swop my ten minute car journey to work, for a £3, one hour, two bus journey as I have to do at present. If I could get on the bus at the end of my road and go streight to work or even know that I would only have to wait a couple of minutes for a connection I would do it.

As a family we are not willing to swop our 1 and a half ish hour journey to whitby for a five hour, 3 train, ££££££'s journey.

The government can tax car use all they like until a reasonable alternative is provided people will not give up their cars.

Almost free puplic transport.
Cheap trains and busses and more of them, I don't especially like busses but would use them more often. Currently it costs £1.50 to get from half way up Burngreave Road into town. That is just nuts.

Wasn't this thread asking the Environmentalists the following question.


Do you have any solutions that do not involve raising taxes ?


I'm yet to hear what their solution is......... Mini Cooper has put forward a good argusment in favour of cycle lanes, but the environmentalists seem to be strangly silent when this solution is raised/put forward.

Instead of taxing us to the hilt for using our cars, the government should invest in British technology into designing a car that runs on water or at least an alternative to petrol/diesel.

The only reason that they are banging on about pollution/global warming/end of the world is because they want to tax us more and more.. Thats the bottom line, tax!
They must think we enjoy sitting in jams all day! We do it because we have to do it, not because we want to! Maybe we should all resign from our jobs and stay at home living on benefits? That would cut pollution down too... Buses and trains are of a ridiculous price to travel on now. £1.80 for 3 stops to town from my house??

Another thing, countries like China/America should start acting more too.

Wasn't this thread asking the Environmentalists the following question.


Do you have any solutions that do not involve raising taxes ?


I'm yet to hear what their solution is......... Mini Cooper has put forward a good argusment in favour of cycle lanes, but the environmentalists seem to be strangly silent when this solution is raised/put forward.

I'm not an environmentalist but having spent time last night debating this and saying 'Cycle lanes are good' I'm not sure what else I can say - except that cycle lanes are not the be all and end all.

Apart from us all voluntarily using cars less and having a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, there's nothing that can be done that DOESN'T involve public money being spent - which will mean either a redirection of existing funds or raising new ones.

I feel that what the OP means to say is 'What can be done that doesn't involve raising taxes that apply to me...' ;)

Any party that is willing to address the waste of money by national and local government will find that they have plenty of money to implement the policies of their choice.

Instead of taxing us to the hilt for using our cars, the government should invest in British technology into designing a car that runs on water.



Where've you got this idea that cars or indeed anything could run with water as a power source.
It's frankly a stupid idea, water isn't and can't be a source of energy.

Any party that is willing to address the waste of money by national and local government will find that they have plenty of money to implement the policies of their choice.

That's a very good point!

Cyclone - I assume that by using water the poster meant eletrolysing it to get the Hydrogen for fuel cells, etc.

But that then beggars the question of where we get the electricity from for that... :)

but the environmentalists seem to be strangly silent when this solution is raised/put forward.

Silent in that they don't object and just expect that such an obvious idea be implemented?

I've never heard an environmentalist speak out against cycle lanes.

That's a very good point!

Cyclone - I assume that by using water the poster meant eletrolysing it to get the Hydrogen for fuel cells, etc.

But that then beggars the question of where we get the electricity from for that... :)

He posted in another thread saying that the oil companies had bought the patents to cars that run on water (as a fuel source) and then just sat on them.
A bit of a conspiracy theory.

Instead of taxing us to the hilt for using our cars, the government should invest in British technology into designing a car that runs on water or at least an alternative to petrol/diesel.



As I've said - move things on to a usage charge with an 'essential usage' rebate in place to deal with people in rural areas, folks who NEED their car to do their jobs, etc.

Then you only get taxed for the amount of car travel that you do. Seems fair to me.

Wasn't this thread asking the Environmentalists the following question.

Do you have any solutions that do not involve raising taxes ?

I'm yet to hear what their solution is......... Mini Cooper has put forward a good argusment in favour of cycle lanes, but the environmentalists seem to be strangly silent when this solution is raised/put forward.

Did you read my post ?-scroll down

How about rationing fuel to the private user. When we had the fuel protests, the roads were nice and empty. People saved their fuel to use on those journeys that were very difficult by any other method. The fact is that cars are here to stay, we need to find ways of doing less total miles per year. If you were only allowed to buy a small amount of fuel each month, we'd all buy more economical cars.

Maybe we should consider whether personal travel pollution is a big part of the picture or whether we're really focussing on the wrong thing.
Doesn't car travel contribute something like 5% of the total CO2 production of the uk. In which case draconian restrictions that will have a huge impact on our way of life and potentially our economy would seem to be silly. Why choose the sectors which produce the other 95% and see what can be done there instead?

Silent in that they don't object and just expect that such an obvious idea be implemented?

I've never heard an environmentalist speak out against cycle lanes.



Accepted, no environmentalist has ever spoke out against cycle lanes.

But they certainly do not persue this solution, with the same vigour as they do Congestion Charging/Airport Taxes. They appear strangly silent.

How hard would it be to slightly widen the footpaths, have half the path allocataed for pedestrians/half for cyclists.

Problem solved, no technology needed, a good cheap solution

Didn't we build a barrowload of cycle lanes? I see them all over the place, and I see millions of people not using them.


There are many cycle lanes, yes.

But most are only about 20 meters long. For example the new cycle lane near the Supertram Stop at Shalesmoor so are useless.

Maybe we should consider whether personal travel pollution is a big part of the picture or whether we're really focussing on the wrong thing.
Doesn't car travel contribute something like 5% of the total CO2 production of the uk. In which case draconian restrictions that will have a huge impact on our way of life and potentially our economy would seem to be silly. Why choose the sectors which produce the other 95% and see what can be done there instead?

Good point. A HUGE way of conserving energy (which is what it boils down to) would be for people to turn their blasted PC's off when they go out for lunch, or the monitors, at least. Turn lights off. Don't leave things on standby. Car sharing.

None of the above would involve raising taxes; they would merely mean using less, moreover, using what we need.

Though I do believe that motor usage should be encouraged to be decreased, it's not the only source of emissions.

Cutting the usage cuts the emissions, which cuts the damage.

One of the big ones for me would be to encourage more parents to either walk or let their children walk to school. I can';t prove this with current data, but I'd estimate that as many as 25% of trips in the morning peak involve parents taking their children less than a mile to school... I hear the outcry, that our roads aren't safe, it's raining, why should I walk when I've got three kids to drop at different schools... However, I'm 35years old, it's not "that" long ago, since I was at Secondary School and if you got a lift in a car to school, you were labled a freak ! when did it all change ?

There are some initiatives to make the move back to more sustainable school travel, but it comes back to us all doing our bit ! Kids are getting fatter and lazier, yet we drive them everywhere, doesn't take a rocket scientist... The net result of us making our kids walk to school would be less short trips, therefore less cold engine running, thus less CO2 and particulates... the side effect would be less cars on the road in the peak hours, making it firstly less hassle to walk to school, easier for those who "need" to travel by car to get where they are going and probably most importanty, help prevent our kids becoming obese due to lack of exercise !

Govenment doesn't need to raise taxes, but if people don't want to change their ways, then it will have no choice but to introduce further taxation to limit what we do.... It's like the taxes on ciggerette, it's not just a revenue earner for HMIR, but also a means of encouraging people to stop smoking and also to fund the NHS to treat the results of smoking... the same can be applied to driving... if we don't drive as much, the health problems will reduce, the environmental issues will reduce, the need for costly road widening schemes will disappear and the need to limit routes as much as they are now (bus lanes, one ways, closures) will be removed.

Accepted, no environmentalist has ever spoke out against cycle lanes.

But they certainly do not persue this solution, with the same vigour as they do Congestion Charging/Airport Taxes. They appear strangly silent.

How hard would it be to slightly widen the footpaths, have half the path allocataed for pedestrians/half for cyclists.

Problem solved, no technology needed, a good cheap solution

Cycle lanes are a good idea, and in certain areas, they are used a lot (have you ever been to Stevenage?), but for somewhere like Sheffield, it's not so practical. For most people who work in the city centre, getting TO work would be lots of fun; cycling the 3-4 miles back home, uphill all the way, isn't so appealing .......

Accepted, no environmentalist has ever spoke out against cycle lanes.

But they certainly do not persue this solution, with the same vigour as they do Congestion Charging/Airport Taxes. They appear strangly silent.

I think the mistake you have made hear is assuming that the people pursuing congestion charging care one whit for the environment. They don't, these people aren't environmentalists, they are taxists, they just see another opportunity to line their coffers at the motorists expense and they try to spin it as being environmental concerns.

How hard would it be to slightly widen the footpaths, have half the path allocataed for pedestrians/half for cyclists.
In some instances very hard. Unless you think people want to give up their front yards or front rooms to assist in the widening scheme.

Problem solved, no technology needed, a good cheap solution[/QUOTE]

How about rationing fuel to the private user. When we had the fuel protests, the roads were nice and empty. People saved their fuel to use on those journeys that were very difficult by any other method. The fact is that cars are here to stay, we need to find ways of doing less total miles per year. If you were only allowed to buy a small amount of fuel each month, we'd all buy more economical cars.

I'm in two minds about this. I like the idea of a personal fuel, or carbon allowance (which would bring in domestic usage), but I can't help feeling that it would just mean the richer would still use excessively, and the poorer barely able to use anything.

Maybe we should consider whether personal travel pollution is a big part of the picture or whether we're really focussing on the wrong thing.
Doesn't car travel contribute something like 5% of the total CO2 production of the uk. In which case draconian restrictions that will have a huge impact on our way of life and potentially our economy would seem to be silly. Why choose the sectors which produce the other 95% and see what can be done there instead?

Agree - which means saving energy, bering more conservative in our need for 'new toys', etc.

The problem is that most people answer the question 'How much change am I willing to make to my lifestyle to reduce carbon emissions?' with 'Sod all'. :)

As well as Carbon emissions, though, there's also the other greenhouse gas emissions and the total cost of ownership of cars (and any other consum,er goods). In environmental terms (for cars) this would be their construction, their recycling, the emissions from the processes that make the components, etc.

The problem is that most people answer the question 'How much change am I willing to make to my lifestyle to reduce carbon emissions?' with 'Sod all'. :)

.


People would make changes if there was a viable alternative

I think the mistake you have made hear is assuming that the people pursuing congestion charging care one whit for the environment. They don't, these people aren't environmentalists, they are taxists, they just see another opportunity to line their coffers at the motorists expense and they try to spin it as being environmental concerns.

In some instances very hard. Unless you think people want to give up their front yards or front rooms to assist in the widening scheme.

Problem solved, no technology needed, a good cheap solution[/QUOTE]



Sadly Cyclone, I believe you have hit the nail on the head.

re:- they just see another opportunity to line their coffers at the motorists expense and they try to spin it as being environmental concerns.



As for widening the paths, it is possible, there are chicanes all over the place, road narrowing schemes etc... so why not alter the footpaths to accomodate cyclists?

People would make changes if there was a viable alternative

And using less energy isn't a viable change?

People would make changes if there was a viable alternative

It's pretty easy to switch electricity supplier / tariff...

(e.g., www.ecotricity.co.uk, http://www.npower.com/greenelectricity/)


As for cycle lanes, I cycle to work once or twice a week (ok, more than that in summer, less in winter) and find the 50 metres of cycle lane on my 2km journey to be very little use, especially as cars park in it.

As for widening the paths, it is possible, there are chicanes all over the place, road narrowing schemes etc... so why not alter the footpaths to accomodate cyclists?

As I said before, they're simply not practical in all areas. I'd imagine that in Lincs and Norfolk they're dead handy, but personally, I don't want to cycle in the howling rain or beating sun, uphill all the way, from town to get home.

Sorry.

As Cyclone said earlier, there is a much wider problem about emissions which appears to be being ignored. I'd rather use less energy at home and/or in the office, and use public transport, than spend more cash on pavement widening schemes.

People would make changes if there was a viable alternative


Since when has turning off the light when you leave a room not been a viable alternative?

Since when has turning off the light when you leave a room not been a viable alternative?


Totally agree with you, I do these little things already, and only boil up a small amount of water when making a coffee, turn the TV off when not watching it.

What about restricting company car,van,and lorry use. Everybody seems to have a company vehicle parked on their front.

ARE these environmentalists the same ones who oppose incineration of waste. By burning un-recycleable waste it could be used to generate electricity and warm houses as in the Park Hill flats.
Charging for the use of cars would only make it easier for the richer people to get around.
There is more pollution from from landfill than cars.
Remember the old tramcars. Always one there and untill more estates were built they seemed to be on the doorstep.

Agree - which means saving energy, bering more conservative in our need for 'new toys', etc.

The problem is that most people answer the question 'How much change am I willing to make to my lifestyle to reduce carbon emissions?' with 'Sod all'. :)

As well as Carbon emissions, though, there's also the other greenhouse gas emissions and the total cost of ownership of cars (and any other consum,er goods). In environmental terms (for cars) this would be their construction, their recycling, the emissions from the processes that make the components, etc.

Buying a new car though doesn't mean that your old one is immediately scrapped, most cars are run until it's uneconomical to repair them.
So part of the solution might be forcing an increase in quality of items so that they last that much longer.

That's looking at the wrong part of the problem again.
If motor vehicle use only contributes 5% of CO2 emmisions then attacking company vehicles might reduce it by 0.25% overall. Pretty pointless.

There've been a lot of changes in recent years, energy saving bulbs, more efficient domestic appliances, better insulated homes, but there's still more to do.

Tax rise free methods -

Ban big 4x4s

Cut town centre car parking spaces

Good quality, segragated cycle/running paths (as mentioned below), showers in workplaces

Allow people to work from home 1 day/week

Stop building retailing out of town

Stop building hideous new housing estates in locations that can only be accessed easily by car

Stop building motorway junction business parks


don't start on about 4x4's 'cos that's a no win argument. what about the pretentious prats in mercs and jags and other INEFFICIENT cars. my 4x4's more efficient than most MPV's.

fabulous idea - i'll cycle to manchester then to stoke and back every day.

employers will never fund showers or changing areas - why should they?

the only reason i dont shop in the town centre now is due to the massive price rises and car restrictions in sheffield over the last 20 years.

if they put retailing back into town centres - well see above comment.

motorway business parks are designed to keep traffic flow from cities by keeping it on motorways, instead of trailing through tiny little villages.

they're running out of places to build affordable housing that is commutable by any other means than cars.

i would in favour of some environmental changes if they were universal.
only certain people turn their pc monitor off.have small flush loo's. don't overfill the kettle,keep their fridges and freezers well stocked to maximise efficiency.
or even buy energy efficient appliances.
there are more things that could be done without penalising the same "visible" elements every time. i.e cars.

employers will never fund showers or changing areas - why should they?



Mine does.

i would in favour of some environmental changes if they were universal.
only certain people turn their pc monitor off.have small flush loo's. don't overfill the kettle,keep their fridges and freezers well stocked to maximise efficiency.
or even buy energy efficient appliances.
there are more things that could be done without penalising the same "visible" elements every time. i.e cars.

And that's the point. The bits I highlighted in your post don't cost a thing, moreover, they actually save each and every one of us cash if we did it, and reduce energy consumption. Seeing as the OP appears to be more bothered about how much s/he'd have to pay to preserve the planet for future generations, it's worth banging on about. Especially taking in to account that the OP has said s/he does these things now, why not encourage others to follow your example, MC?

Raising awareness of this is so important (in my eyes), especially if it is presented as "If you do this, you'll save £x per year.". The environmental gains are clear, but these people who don't do simple thing like you, I, and others have pointed out, couldn't give a flying wotsit about that.

which means even though i drive 2 4x4's and a sports cari'm probably more environmentally friendly than some of the tree huggers on here.
high efficiency appliances,low energy wash etc, central heating is on minimum,with unused rooms turned off.
low energy lights or higher efficiency bulbs.
i'm even changing all the plug sockets in my house to switched sockets so i can completely turn everything off every night
i could go on but i'de bore myself stupid.

He posted in another thread saying that the oil companies had bought the patents to cars that run on water (as a fuel source) and then just sat on them.
A bit of a conspiracy theory.

Actually, GM have designed a car in the USA that works perfectly well with the only thing coming out of the exhaust is water! Its hydrogen powered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

However, I'm 35years old, it's not "that" long ago, since I was at Secondary School and if you got a lift in a car to school, you were labled a freak ! when did it all change ?

And if your parents actually walked! you to school you were labelled a freak who couldn't let go of his mummies apron strings.

To answer the question: Yeah, stop flying 100 miles up the road. Or 400 for that matter.

I think Mini-Coopers' idea of splitting the pavement between pedestrians and cyclists is a great idea. Of course it couldn't be done in all instances, but there are many great swathes of pavement, ie 2-3 metres wide with barely anyone walking on them that could easily be split. Take a look at continental towns and cities where loads of bikes and pedestrians all seem to just naturally share the pavements and it appears to work ok.

I think Mini-Coopers' idea of splitting the pavement between pedestrians and cyclists is a great idea. Of course it couldn't be done in all instances, but there are many great swathes of pavement, ie 2-3 metres wide with barely anyone walking on them that could easily be split. Take a look at continental towns and cities where loads of bikes and pedestrians all seem to just naturally share the pavements and it appears to work ok.


At last, someone agrees with me.

Can't see it happening, where would the environmentalists get their pay packets from?

Also, lets pretend everyone stopped using their cars/air travel/gas/electric then no one will be paying any of these new taxes, and then the environmentalists would be out of a job.

Actually, GM have designed a car in the USA that works perfectly well with the only thing coming out of the exhaust is water! Its hydrogen powered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

Indeed - so you might say that it runs on hydrogen and NOT water.
And thinking about the environment, where do you think the hydrogen comes from?

At last, someone agrees with me.

Can't see it happening, where would the environmentalists get their pay packets from?

Also, lets pretend everyone stopped using their cars/air travel/gas/electric then no one will be paying any of these new taxes, and then the environmentalists would be out of a job.

sorry to spoil your cynicism but this has already been done on certain pavements around the university. Not sure if it's a trial or just the start of the programme (or more half assed random measures).

I think Mini-Coopers' idea of splitting the pavement between pedestrians and cyclists is a great idea. Of course it couldn't be done in all instances, but there are many great swathes of pavement, ie 2-3 metres wide with barely anyone walking on them that could easily be split. Take a look at continental towns and cities where loads of bikes and pedestrians all seem to just naturally share the pavements and it appears to work ok.

If you are going to turn the pavements over to cycles then cyclists should have to take out insurance the same as car drivers. Cyclists seem to have less regard for pedestrians than car drivers.

If you are going to turn the pavements over to cycles then cyclists should have to take out insurance the same as car drivers. Cyclists seem to have less regard for pedestrians than car drivers.


Can't Pedestrians just simply get out of the way?

Why insurance?

If a pedestrian gets taken from behind by a cyclist, then just put it down to an accident

Tax rise free methods -

Ban big 4x4s

Cut town centre car parking spaces

Good quality, segragated cycle/running paths (as mentioned below), showers in workplaces

Allow people to work from home 1 day/week

Stop building retailing out of town

Stop building hideous new housing estates in locations that can only be accessed easily by car

Stop building motorway junction business parks
They may all be "tax rise free" but they would all result in reduced tax take. I can't see them being very popular with any government.

Are there any tax neutral ideas out there?