Would Free Public Transport Be Feasible- And Effective In Reducing Car Usage?

[Resident 1,185]

The issue in the UK, based on the complaints I've heard about buses lately, isn't the cost. It's over-expectations of the services. 

 

"Oh they've changed the route and now I have to walk 100yrds"

 

"They've changed the times and now I have to leave 10 mins early or I'll be late for work" 

 

Vary the comments around the core point and ad infinitum. 

 

People expect public transport to be moulded round their individual needs. 

 

Unfortunately for me public transport isn't an option. It's either not available when I start or it's not available when I finish. 

Taxis would far exceed the costs of my car. 

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

Looks like mathematics is not my strong subject, no problem I'll have another go, but I will leave the working out of the figures to the mathematical experts we have on the forum.

 

Luxembourg paid in to the EU  coffers 0.307 billion Euro but have received 1,827 billion Euro back.

 

Uk paid in to the EU coffers just under half a TRILLION pounds, so compared with the above (like for like) we would have got back  - - - -- pounds.

 

So come on you mathematicians, it is a huge figure, do the sums for me.

 

I realize the figure is quite meaningless as we are net contributors, but it shows the stupidity of the amount of money we have paid in to what we have got back.

 

ps, I don't tell intentional lies either, just to let my accusers know.

 

Angel1

[Albert the Cat 0]

7 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Looks like mathematics is not my strong subject, no problem I'll have another go, but I will leave the working out of the figures to the mathematical experts we have on the forum.

 

Luxembourg paid in to the EU  coffers 0.307 billion Euro but have received 1,827 billion Euro back.

 

Uk paid in to the EU coffers just under half a TRILLION pounds, so compared with the above (like for like) we would have got back  - - - -- pounds.

 

So come on you mathematicians, it is a huge figure, do the sums for me.

 

I realize the figure is quite meaningless as we are net contributors, but it shows the stupidity of the amount of money we have paid in to what we have got back.

 

ps, I don't tell intentional lies either, just to let my accusers know.

 

Angel1

Step away from the maths. You are leaving out key variables and you have a very distorted and overly simplistic look at the problem. 
 

Spread the amount of money that is given as a measure of per capita and then come back. 

[L00b 441]

11 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

.Looks like mathematics is not my strong subject, no problem I'll have another go, but I will leave the working out of the figures to the mathematical experts we have on the forum.

 

Luxembourg paid in to the EU  coffers 0.307 billion Euro but have received 1,827 billion Euro back.

 

Uk paid in to the EU coffers just under half a TRILLION pounds, so compared with the above (like for like) we would have got back  - - - -- pounds.

 

So come on you mathematicians, it is a huge figure, do the sums for me.

 

I realize the figure is quite meaningless as we are net contributors, but it shows the stupidity of the amount of money we have paid in to what we have got back.

 

ps, I don't tell intentional lies either, just to let my accusers know.

 

Angel1

Looks like research and information aren't much better than maths with you: the very vast majority  of EU money which Luxembourg gets, goes to run the EU Commission, CJEU, EU auditors and assorted other EU services, which are all based there. Not exactly a secret.

 

No EU money, bar perhaps some mobility project-specific  matched R&D funding, goes on Luxembourgish public transport.

 

Wholly unsurprising, once you understand how EU funding works.

Edited September 22, 2019 by L00b

[TeaFan 10]

It's an interesting question, but I wonder whether the priority should be transitioning all forms of transport to renewable energy as soon as possible. The price per Kw of solar PV and wind is dropping fast, as is the price point for lithium ion battery life and storage, so I think I would prefer to see state intervention focused on helping to bring the cost of new electric vehicles below that of petrol and diesel, and then a scrappage scheme on fossil fuel vehicles.

[tinfoilhat 11]

3 hours ago, TeaFan said:

It's an interesting question, but I wonder whether the priority should be transitioning all forms of transport to renewable energy as soon as possible. The price per Kw of solar PV and wind is dropping fast, as is the price point for lithium ion battery life and storage, so I think I would prefer to see state intervention focused on helping to bring the cost of new electric vehicles below that of petrol and diesel, and then a scrappage scheme on fossil fuel vehicles.

But those roads will still be very very busy. 

[TeaFan 10]

Yes, but the immediate focus has to be on reducing CO2 emissions. We can come back to congestion later, the roads certainly will be quiet if most of us are dead!

 

[tinfoilhat 11]

2 minutes ago, TeaFan said:

Yes, but the immediate focus has to be on reducing CO2 emissions. We can come back to congestion later, the roads certainly will be quiet if most of us are dead!

 

But producing electricity causes CO2 - it wont be all renewables yet - I'm fairly sure churning out millions of lithium ion batteries will produce a bit as well. Forget about cars for a minute, wont banning meat do more for reducing CO2 emissions ?

 

It's a many layered problem. 

 

 

[L00b 441]

29 minutes ago, TeaFan said:

Yes, but the immediate focus has to be on reducing CO2 emissions. We can come back to congestion later, the roads certainly will be quiet if most of us are dead!

 

Making new cars, even full EVs, creates tons more CO2 than running existing cars, even old ones.

 

If reducing CO2 short-term is the mission, then the name of the game is to reduce the sources short-term, i.e. individual and distinct journeys. Take a section of jam of 100 cars each with a single occupant, that could be substituted for a couple of 50-seater hybrid-electric buses: the fundamental problem is the logistics involved in merging and satisfying the 100 distinct travel requirements.

 

The answer, I believe, lies in a highly-distributed big data+AI system, which aggregates those distinct travel requirements, all multimodal transport options available where and at any given time, and serves each individual in real-time with a bespoke/real-time -updated travel map indicating which transport to take where and when (and next).

 

Make that multimodal transport and the associated 'personal routing' app free and easy to use (maybe still charge a premium for first class or equivalent), and you would have a mass abandon of personal car usage overnight, at least for short distances.

 

That can be tweaked further, with some extra carrot/stick methods (increase levies on fuel, insurance, car tax etc / incentivise fossil fuel car recycling irrespective of whether another (hybrid or EV) car is bought etc)

 

Speak to some youths sometime: in Europe, particularly capitals/large cities, very many already do the above in a DIY fashion using a variety of apps (Google, Moovit etc), with no intention to ever buy/own a car (only ever renting one ad hoc, if and when required, eg with blablacar in France) 

Edited September 24, 2019 by L00b

[TeaFan 10]

Thanks for that, it's interesting. I do think that British people are too wedded to their cars to try anything else radical at this point. Perhaps we should pay the Iranians to bomb the rest of Saudi's refineries 😀

[Hadron 10]

I cant see free public transport working as it has to be sustainable first and foremost.

If the costs of time, value and convenience were able to be calculated then people could make the decision to reduce car usage.

There are loads of schemes evolving online from electric scooters to hiring cars for the hour using an app.

Car ownership is set to drop as the damn things get more complicated to service and people go for maintenance packages

People don't want to ride bikes on the road anymore as it is deemed too dangerous.

We could make it illegal to work more than 10 miles from where someone lives to make them think more about their commute.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Hadron

[tinfoilhat 11]

Electric scooters (not the kids ones, proper ones). Cheap, will do most commuters, zero emissions, batteries wouldn't need to be as big either. 

 

On my very very rare  journeys into town in rush hour (going in whilst everyone else is going out) I thought that the vast majority of cars had the driver and no passengers - I don't know if any studies prove or disprove that. We don't need cars.

 

Failing that, more robots. I was going through Milton Keynes the other day and spied what I thought was a small electric scooter. It was not.