UK government's Transport decarbonisation plan

[whole diary]

[Lee]

As I cheerfully admitted at two of the meetings I attended yesterday, I haven't got round to reading the plan just yet, so I will refrain from commenting on the actual detail for now. It did give me a killer opening line to a presentation though, in terms of Shapps timing its release for the start time of that particular meeting.

On the subjects of presentations, Decarbonisation and Zero Emission related issues are becoming ever more a feature of each transport presentation I give and meeting I attend. It is striking how much it depends on your audience though - I can give a presentation to one audience and have it well received by an eager, open minded gathering, and the exactly the same presentation barely a couple of hours later can bomb in front of a cynical, jaded crowd.

In general terms in the battle against Climate Change, I see us as the tenpin bowler who habitually scores spares rather than strikes - the will and on many occasions the effort is there, but not quite focused or clinical enough to score enough points to win the game.

[Reading General]

I am going to suggest that most UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Jo(e) Publics wants to keep moving around in the way that (s)he has done for the last fifty years, largely with private vehicles, but perhaps with fossil fuels replaced by electricity that comes from the magic "sustainable" tree that provides an endless supply at no cost to the environment.  The utter convenience of having a private powered vehicle at your home, which you can use to ...
* go just about anywhere
* at a speed significantly in excess of anything self powered
* at any time you wish
* at an affordable price
* taking significant goods and chattels with you
* without having to mix with people not in your circle
... is attractive and hard to argue against.

   

Of course, but what’s missing is the choice for any other way of moving, particularly in urban areas, and that requires a change in planning too. We’ve built, and are still building, areas which are car dominated. So no wonder people have built their lives around the most convenient option, and option which also requires a certain level of affluence to keep turning over. We never want to take the risk as a nation of saying no to this way of living, particularly in the provinces. We suggest that a build it and they will come approach is the wrong way of doing things. So the loop will never be broken under the banner of it making the individuals life harder, less convenient and cost more money. A cost/benefit analysis approach to our future will end up with the same levels of congestion, and possibly similar levels of pollution just in different ways. All because it’s believed the public will refuse to use any new public or sustainable travel infrastructure and choose the perceived most convenient option of the car, the option that takes up the most room.

[Bmblbzzz]

Are we likely to see something akin to the Sinclair C5 as a town run-around?

No.

https://www.drycycle.co.uk

https://youtu.be/bFO5d2hw7Yg

An electric-assist four-wheel pedal cycle with a roof and windscreen, heated cabin, luggage space, seatbelt and crash protection, able to use cycle lanes and roads with no requirement for a driving licence, registration, insurance, etc. This is extremely practical urban transport for the vast majority of people – certainly far more so than a car.

But the answer is still no.

[TonyK]

I am going to suggest that most UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Jo(e) Publics wants to keep moving around in the way that (s)he has done for the last fifty years, largely with private vehicles, but perhaps with fossil fuels replaced by electricity that comes from the magic "sustainable" tree that provides an endless supply at no cost to the environment. 

There is no "sustainable tree". There used to be, but Drax burnt it as biomass, to generate subsidies electricity.

[johnneyw]

Are we likely to see something akin to the Sinclair C5 as a town run-around?

No.

Bristol and some other cities may already have it's evolved successor in the E-scooter.

[ellendune]

I am going to suggest that most UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Jo(e) Publics wants to keep moving around in the way that (s)he has done for the last fifty years, largely with private vehicles, but perhaps with fossil fuels replaced by electricity that comes from the magic "sustainable" tree that provides an endless supply at no cost to the environment. 

There is no "sustainable tree". There used to be, but Drax burnt it as biomass, to generate subsidies electricity.

In theory there could be if a plot of land is reserved for cultivating biomass and is only used at a sustainable rate while ensuring that soil is managed in a sustainable way and the carbon used in harvesting comes from renewable sources.  However in reality I suspect TonyK is right.

[Red Squirrel]

I am going to suggest that most UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Jo(e) Publics wants to keep moving around in the way that (s)he has done for the last fifty years...   

But 50 years ago there were few motorways and far fewer cars. It was a different world. You could drive into the city centre and, on a good day, park outside your favourite department store for 5p.

The growth in traffic since then has been sustained by massive spending on building roads, while other forms of transport have been defunded or squeezed to the margins. People have changed the way they get about. Far more people use cars for far more trips than they did 50 years ago because everything - the planning system, transport funding, the road and motor lobbies - has conspired to make it so. I'm not sure the Publics really care much about how they get around, as long as they can.

[grahame]

Of course, but what’s missing is the choice for any other way of moving ...  So no wonder people have built their lives around the most convenient option, and option which also requires a certain level of affluence to keep turning over.

Interesting analysis of what can be done - my personal story here, and the conclusion is "it can mostly by done by public transport, and if you set your mind to it, it can be done in such a way that it does not degrade the quality of life".


YES - there is a need to provide a practical alternative to the private car for a signifiant proportion of total journeys in order that people can switch. That means going roughly where you want, and when you want. It doesn't necessarily need to be exact.

I gave IT training courses for 25 years - courses every week, some at a base training centre and the rest on customer sites spread (for the most part) across the British Isles.  In 1993, I was driving 30,000 miles a year. By 2018, when I started to reduce the number of courses I was presenting, I had dropped to under 3,000 miles a year.  I wasn't travelling less - but I was using public transport much more.  There's a separate story to tell in how I achieved that, and made it to my quality of life advantage too.

Let me take a current example. A couple of months back, I joined the Melksham Amateur Photography Group on Facebook.  An opportunity to get out, see places locally with a photography eye and be shown things I had not noticed. In high summer, they meet from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Thurdays.  So - what have the opportunities been?

1. Brown's Folly, above Bathford.  16:20 bus on route 271 from outside my home to the Stone Wharf, at the top of Bathford, arriving there at 16:47. That's the last bus of the day - 2 hours early, so took a picnic and laptop and sat up there online - a change from working at home.  Left the event at quarter to 9 and walked down through Bathford to Batheaston Corner for the 273 service at 21:18 back to Melksham Market Place, from which it's a few minutes walk home. Happy to walk down Bathford but not up - hence the early arrival.  And, yes, I got soaked in the rain at 17:00.

2. Box. Walk to Melksham Market Place (a few minutes) and bus on route 273 at 17:56, arriving at The Ley in Box by 18:20. 40 minutes to look around on my own and find the car park (it's usually a car park!) where we were to meet. Bus back at 21:24, route 273, few minutes walk from Melksham Town Centre to home.

3. Bradford-on-Avon. Walk to Market place, Bus at 18:05 to Bradford-on-Avon, arriving at 18:19 near the meeting car park.  But the only way back after the meeting (or even leaving it early) is the train or bus to Bath and the bus from there - arriving Melksham Market Place as a minute after midnight, home (on foot) a few minutes later.  I gave this one a miss / could have driven if it was a necessary meeting; could have done it with a l-o-n-g wait in Bath or Braford afterwards too.  Thought about cycling, but didn't fancy the road from B-o-A to Melksham which is not cycle friendly in the ebbing light, nor did I fancy the longer route along the tow path in the evening gloom, and after walking round for 2 hours.

4. Chippenham. Buses from Melksham Market Place at 17:47 or 18:24 to Chippenham, arriving Chippenham (bridge) 18:09, or 18:46.  But the last bus back is 17:32! Leave the event at quarter to 9 for the last train at 21:02, 21:11 into Melksham then walk home - arrival at about 21:35. Sadly, personal stuff meant I could make that evening.

5. Semington. Last bus from Melksham at 18:04, 18:10 into Semington. But last bus back is 18:16. All other bus service at Semington cease by 19:00 too. This one is tonight and I WILL be going.  I will be cycling both ways - it's just a short distance over wider and quiet roads.


"You can't expect to have all the buses in the evening / who would use it" type responses will be given (have already) when I have explained much of the above.  But, yet, look at Bus Back Better and how the elements that we are openly speculating on in there would adjust services to answer most of the issues in the five examples above.   Let me give you a taster

* The failure to provide an alternative to the evening service from Chippenham to Trowbridge when First Bus pulled out of the route 234, moving the last but of the day from Chippenham from 22:16 to 17:30 really needs to be reversed.   That would sort out the Chippenham trip, the Semington trip, and also provide an option back from Bradford-on-Avon via a change in Trowbridge - much more direct than via Bath.

* An extra round trip train, Westbury - Chippenham (or perhaps Swindon) - Westbury, long mooted and with good reason, would also give better return options from Bradford-on-Avon and from Chippenham in my examples, as well as a plethora more for a market which research suggests was there and is likely to return

No need for a direct evening bus from Bradford-on-Avon to Melksham to match the 18:05 I could have caught outbound.  Let's go for services that will be used.  Now - let's also see if we can get ticketing such that a return fare works out on one route or mode and back on another

[broadgage]

In my view, one of the factors encouraging driving is the actual and perceived unreliability of trains.
In many jobs, the employer expects punctual and reliable attendance at the workplace. Anyone intending to use the train would  be at risk of delays due to only slightly adverse weather, industrial disputes, and breakdowns.

Many would consider a car to be needed for "bad train/no train days"
Having purchased the car and incurred the fixed costs of owning and running a vehicle, then the marginal cost of petrol for daily use can be attractive if compared to train fares.

I suspect that LARGE SCALE breakdowns have increased in recent years. I refer here not to individual train failures, but to large scale signaling or power supply failures that result in the closure of major London termini and advice to "not travel"

We also seem to suffer from railway problems in only moderately adverse weather during which roads and airlines operate as normal.

[Reading General]

It will probably always come back to the same thing, that public transport is run as a retail choice rather than a public service. Both railways and road based public transport are expected to turn profit and where savings can be made in the short term to be perceived as profit. Reliability suffers when you make profit by cutting away staff or sensible maintenance. It must be clear now that there is no money in it. Publicly run transport fills those gaps that in buses as explained above and has staff to maintain railways to a reasonable standard, although I sense that under a government similar to the current they would be under continuous scrutiny, yet would we notice the priceless benefits to the environment and society, and see that as something worth paying taxes for?

[broadgage]

Public transport really needs to be regarded as a common good, a bit like paved streets, public lighting, and the like, neither of which make a profit.

[broadgage]

I am going to suggest that most UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Jo(e) Publics wants to keep moving around in the way that (s)he has done for the last fifty years, largely with private vehicles, but perhaps with fossil fuels replaced by electricity that comes from the magic "sustainable" tree that provides an endless supply at no cost to the environment. 

There is no "sustainable tree". There used to be, but Drax burnt it as biomass, to generate subsidies electricity.

In theory there could be if a plot of land is reserved for cultivating biomass and is only used at a sustainable rate while ensuring that soil is managed in a sustainable way and the carbon used in harvesting comes from renewable sources.  However in reality I suspect TonyK is right.

I know of someone who does exactly that. They own a small woodland and every year they cut about 3% of the area, for fence posts, rough building timber and fire wood. Free range pigs are kept and about one pig a month is killed for eating.

[Bmblbzzz]

I am going to suggest that most UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Jo(e) Publics wants to keep moving around in the way that (s)he has done for the last fifty years...   

But 50 years ago there were few motorways and far fewer cars. It was a different world. You could drive into the city centre and, on a good day, park outside your favourite department store for 5p.

The growth in traffic since then has been sustained by massive spending on building roads, while other forms of transport have been defunded or squeezed to the margins. People have changed the way they get about. Far more people use cars for far more trips than they did 50 years ago because everything - the planning system, transport funding, the road and motor lobbies - has conspired to make it so. I'm not sure the Publics really care much about how they get around, as long as they can.

We also make far more trips by whatever form than we did 50 or 20 years ago. That sheer number has to be cut if we're to decarbonise meaningfully.

[REVUpminster]

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) are looking to convert an 802 to battery by taking the diesel generators and fuel tanks out replaced by batteries.

Page 78 has a map https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1002285/decarbonising-transport-a-better-greener-britain.pdf

Full overhead wiring looks like it will only get as far as Exeter, then on battery power to say Newton Abbot -Plymouth to get over the banks and charge the batteries for the trip into Cornwall. The other saving is no overhead in stations low bridges, or level crossings.

Local services will require a new type of train. 150s and 158s should be gone down here by next year and another 10 years the 166s will be on the way out.

As an aside, my road has about 50 houses and bungalows; 2 have electric cars and chargers fitted on the wall. 1% so it'is coming.

[CyclingSid]

a common good, a bit like paved streets

although Reading doesn't appear to have fully signed up to that. Some of the National Cycle Network is better.