3p rise per litre in fuel duty ? ?

[Scruffmonster]

Pump prices have dropped by more than 3p a litre in the last few weeks anyway.

The fuel escalator was introduced to discourage car usage, yet now it's starting to actually have an effect the politicians are getting scared.

Mainly because we don't have rail and bus networks that can cope at the moment. If even 10% of motorists gave up cars on their commute, it would be chaos.

I'm speaking with reference to London mainly.

 

[benb]

Mainly because we don't have rail and bus networks that can cope at the moment. If even 10% of motorists gave up cars on their commute, it would be chaos.

I'm speaking with reference to London mainly.

Not if they all cycled!

 

[sabian92]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20285940

I don't mind the rise, if it discourages people out of their cars.

I remember listening to a motorist that was talking on a London cycle hating radio station.

He said he could no longer afford to keep on filling up his expensive car all the time. So he said he was now forced to buy a second small car for the daily commute and can only use his expensive car for best. My heart bleeds.

First world problems, eh....

As for the increase, maybe it's good. Maybe it'll get more people in cars off their fat arses and doing the run to the shops or school on their legs, not on their arse.

 

[subaqua]

well fuel here seems to have gone down about 3p per litre. so its likely the rise is coming in , which it needs to.

 

[sabian92]

well fuel here seems to have gone down about 3p per litre. so its likely the rise is coming in , which it needs to.

Why does it need to? Do you not think you pay enough tax to those fat cats in Downing Street?

 

[400bhp]

What evidence do you have for that assertion?

I'd be interested in that too.

 

[400bhp]

Why does it need to? Do you not think you pay enough tax to those fat cats in Downing Street?

Are you implying that the amount of tax we pay is directly correlated to the salary roll of MPs?

 

[Alun]

Mainly because we don't have rail and bus networks that can cope at the moment. If even 10% of motorists gave up cars on their commute, it would be chaos.
I'm speaking with reference to London mainly.

What evidence do you have for that assertion?

I wonder what increase in passenger levels London's public transport system would be able to cope with during rush "hour"?
It seemed pretty stretched to me, on the few occasions I've been down there.

 

[Scruffmonster]

I wonder what increase in passenger levels London's public transport system would be able to cope with during rush "hour"?
It seemed pretty stretched to me, on the few occasions I've been down there.

The answer is close to zero. It's largely beyond capacity now. Most commuter trains into London have people standing for north of 30 minutes, large numbers have trains with no standing room left at all.

With regards to tubes, I can't imagine them running faster, or finding extra space for the kind of money that would be available for development.

Buses... remove lots of cars from the streets and maybe buses would get moving, but you'd have to get rid of a lot of cars.

 

[subaqua]

Why does it need to? Do you not think you pay enough tax to those fat cats in Downing Street?

because its a finite resource, private useage at current levels squanders it . too many people are getting in the car for a 2 minute trip that they could walk or use a bike.
Mrs Sub is one of these that gets in the car wqithout thinking about it. its not an easy task to break that mindset.
I take the kids swimming at a pool thats about a mile away. we walk it . rain snow fog etc. the eldest used to go with her mum and be driven- she now suggests that a lot of trips are walkable. so maybe if we can change the mindset of this generation fuel will last longer

I am no yogurt weaver either.

 

[Scruffmonster]

I'd be interested in that too.

My only evidence is first hand experience of the transport system now.

The train operators are only pushed to deliver a certain level of service, and on the flip side, are always looking to make profits on a massive scale.

Rush hour is a big problem. Technically, we have enough space to make it work. Make trains and train platforms 50% longer, have more of them. It's a simple solution but one that would cost billions at a time when nobody has any money.

The railways interest me. They seem to be designed on paper by people that have no grasp of the numbers. To my mind, commuter trains are too plush for their own good, costing too much, weighing too much, costing way too much to run.

The average London bound commuter train is built to hold approximately 480 People. (8 Carriages of 60 seats). It's a hefty assumption that they believed that those trains could run to a profit with one bum on every seat but I would imagine that's the point. Some horrible fag packet maths has that train valued at about £3840 in revenue. (Call it a very conservative £8 a seat. It costs that from my station and the train is always 90% full when it arrives, all of whom have paid more)

Considering the fact that most trains will have around 30-40 people standing per carriage, we can adjust that figure to a round £6k. Or £10k for a 12 carriage train. My station/route alone, for the 7-10am rush hour window will kick 12 trains into London Victoria for a value of £72k. Just over those 3 hours.

I know these numbers are very approximate, but they get big, quickly. If you stand on the platform at any major London station, you're seeing packed trains arrive every few minutes. I know there are costs involved, plus a daytime service to run, some of which probably run in the red, but the numbers involved are obscene.

Train companies are not forced to run humane services. They build plush trains that look pretty, built to hold 60 people comfortably per carriage. If it were me, I'd nationalise the whole lot, build trains with plastic seats, no internal glass, sure as hell no tables(?!?), straight hand rails, proper sliding windows, no air con, heaters with a thermostat and not just an on/off switch, no wifi, sectional luggage racks, at least one standing room only carriage (that would fill up last obviously), plus a bunch of other stuff I haven't thought of yet.

People need to face up to the fact that London and it's surrounding areas are massively overpopulated and while people may expect creature comforts, what they need is a functional rail service, capable of moving huge numbers of people, in an acceptable level of comfort, for two 3 hour blocks at the top and bottom of the day.

It's not that our railways couldn't cope with extra people, I'm sure it could cope with all cars being swapped for train tickets, but not with trains, and the operators set up in the manner that they are.

If you ever want to question the future of humanity, stand on a Platform at Clapham Junction at 8am, and watch a train leave every 30 seconds, full of sardine like humans eating armpits in a tin can with steamy windows.

So no, no evidence, but a bunch of thoughts and feelings.

 

[Alun]

My only evidence is first hand experience of the transport system now.

Don't enter a helmet debate on these hallowed pages armed only with your "first hand experiences".
It'll be instantly dismissed as "anecdotal", and hence not worth a carrot!

 

[srw]

Here's another anecdote. Most of those packed trains go into London zone 1, where most of those commuters work. The number of people driving private cars in London zone 1 is minuscule. More people out of cars in Outer London, where trains are much less busy, would be good for everyone.

 

[Scruffmonster]

Here's another anecdote. Most of those packed trains go into London zone 1, where most of those commuters work.

This is true. My rant turned into one against train companies more than cars off of roads in the end.

 

[Scruffmonster]

More people out of cars in Outer London, where trains are much less busy, would be good for everyone.

Trains are not much less busy in outer London though. They're full of folks shlepping into Zone 1.