Talking about carrots for motorists is just privilege bias. We are where we are because of many policy decisions, many of which came with a particular world view, including the idea that motorists should have more infrastructure investment to support them. If you come at it from the perspective of active transport, removing cars _is_ the goal. Further to that, fewer cars means public transport becomes much better. We have to get into the virtuous circle where fewer cars begets more active transport and public transport which begets fewer cars.
All non-toll roads are loss making, let's not pretend that cars are free. That's even before we get into a discussion about the negative externalities of driving.
The Cambridge GCP (essentially a talking shop with a remit to deliver new infrastructure, but prefers to deliver reports instead) commissioned proposals on a "metro". One of those proposals had loads of small self guided pods. Superficially they seemed like a great idea until you looked at the flow rate required to have them deliver the people required, and suddenly you have the the road congested with pods (or, if you will, cars).
Talking about carrots for motorists is just privilege bias.
I have no idea what that means. However if we ever want to achieve more than talking in this area then we need to be realistic. And the reality is that lots of people rely on private cars every day in this country, and they collectively have enough money and political influence that you aren't going to change that behaviour at scale with a hostile strategy. You certainly aren't going to do it with arguments based on some kind of righteous indignation and words like "privilege".
We have to get into the virtuous circle where fewer cars begets more active transport and public transport which begets fewer cars.
That would be great. And if there is one thing we have learned about transport planning in the last fifty years it is that the cycle is not going to be started on the "fewer cars" side. You can criticise as much as you like, that is obviously your prerogative, but I prefer to explore policies that have a greater than zero chance of actually working.
All non-toll roads are loss making, let's not pretend that cars are free.
The UK government has consistently received 3-4x as much revenue from direct motoring taxes as government of all levels spends on direct motoring services for many years. This is why they are so worried about the loss of much of that revenue with the rise of electric vehicles. And if you want to include externalities in the costs of cars then you also have to include indirect benefits and again you might not like the answer if environmental concerns are your priority.
It is interesting that you picked Cambridge as your example because it is an excellent example of what I am talking about here. For years the local authorities have been increasingly car-hostile and despite the unusually high prevalence of bikes in the city the council have always been heavily in favour of relying on buses to solve the congestion and pollution problems. They have been trying that for a very long time and it has never worked. But still every few months someone puts up the parking fees again or adds more restrictions on where you can drive or park or proposes this year's variation of congestion charging. Meanwhile cycling provision is still substandard and the city centre is still dying.
Privilege bias is a bias that means you find it difficult to understand the position of those that are not in the privileged class. In this case, you think that as a driver the world should not be made more difficult for you, but you don't realise that making it more difficult for you makes it better for everyone that is not a driver.
Cambridge has had very little impactful effort towards reducing car usage, hoping they can sidestep the difficult reality of having to reduce cars through a stick approach. Until that's done, there's no chance the buses will do much since as you don't quite point out, they're just stuck in the same traffic. They're still hoping to avoid reality by building special roads for buses and a few parking spaces outside the city.
For sure cycling provision is substandard. You have no arguments from me there!
Privilege bias is a bias that means you find it difficult to understand the position of those that are not in the privileged class.
I've been a cyclist for a lot longer than I've been a driver and I've lived in or around Cambridge for a long time and been personally affected by everything we've been talking about from all perspectives.
I am not "privileged" or unable to understand your position. I just don't agree with your conclusions for the reasons I've described in the comments above.
Cambridge has had very little impactful effort towards reducing car usage, hoping they can sidestep the difficult reality of having to reduce cars through a stick approach. Until that's done, there's no chance the buses will do much since as you don't quite point out, they're just stuck in the same traffic. They're still hoping to avoid reality by building special roads for buses and a few parking spaces outside the city.
It is unclear that a congestion charge would be effective in causing sustained modal shift in Cambridge, not least because it is unclear whether any council that voted for one would survive the following election. Prominent local councillors have been advocating more aggressive anti-car measures for years but so far despite the supportive rhetoric no council has passed them. Ask yourself why.
It is clear that buses can't be the main solution to traffic problems in Cambridge. The council has spent a lot of money over the years on research that explained to them exactly why, which has mysteriously been largely ignored, perhaps because it didn't give the "right" answer. But if you know anything about the mathematics of traffic modelling you can quickly convince yourself. Just try to find any viable location near the city centre for a central bus hub that could accommodate a significant multiple of the current bus traffic levels without causing gridlock in the surrounding streets.
Ironically the Park and Ride schemes that you casually dismissed have been one of the few clear successes in Cambridge transport in recent years, taking thousands of cars off the roads in the city centre.
For sure cycling provision is substandard. You have no arguments from me there!
I'm glad that we can agree on this. If the local authorities had spent a fraction of the money they've spent on pro-bus measures on pro-cycling measures instead, we might have been in a much better situation in this area today.
I can't respond to your deepest comment, but the privilege is you can drive, which is distinctly not universal. In any case, having biases is totally normal.
Smarter Cambridge transport has addressed many of the issues you raise in far more detail than I can in an off-topic comments thread: https://www.smartertransport.uk
I can't respond to your deepest comment, but the privilege is you can drive, which is distinctly not universal.
It is normal for the large proportion of the population who don't live in densely populated urban centres served by adequate public transport, because for most people there simply isn't any viable alternative.
And before anyone invokes the privilege argument again, consider that being able to afford a home in those densely populated areas with good public transport is also a privilege. In fact compared to owning a car it's a privilege that involves a couple of extra zeroes in a place like Cambridge or London.
Smarter Cambridge transport
is a defunct private advocacy group whose members have included prominent members of the local cycling campaign well known in the community for their borderline extreme views on transportation policy. That said, we should address the substance of the arguments and not who was making them.
Take the piece about P&R. It's mostly consistent what I've already said above.
It isn't cost-effective to run a comprehensive public transport system outside of densely populated urban areas and high traffic long distance routes. Public transport works because of economies of scale but there just aren't that many people in a place as small as Cambridge who want to make similar journeys at off-peak times. This is the fundamental qualitative difference between a few of our biggest cities and everywhere else in the country.
Even so those P&R sites have capacity for thousands of cars every day that aren't then driving into the city centre. It takes a peculiar kind of mental gymnastics not to see that as a win.
I can't find any other source for anything they're talking about with the costs, including the "Cambridge South East Transport Park & Ride proposal", which doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the official description of that programme[1]. And note that the Cambourne route proposals they mention have been highly controversial for many reasons and haven't actually happened yet.
The other piece suggesting alternative bus routes is a more reasonable proposal than most of the local bus advocacy and deserves credit for that. Unfortunately the traffic model mentioned isn't public but we do know from past public comments by those in the know that the model is inadequate and in particular it grossly underestimates some effects that cause dramatic increases in journey times for large numbers of road users. Without seeing real figures for how you put that many buses around the ring road without causing the usual mathematical problems with queueing in heavy traffic and making the whole system fall apart it's hard to know whether it's a useful proposal or not. Likewise it doesn't say how pedestrians and cycles would take advantage of the now-free road space inside the ring road if there's an effective barrier caused by a steady stream of buses on the ring road itself nor what would happen to all the cycle traffic that currently uses the ring road itself since it would obviously be far too dangerous to continue doing so with that many buses around.
Pods were trialled between the West Cambridge site and the P&R and were proposed to offer 24 hour service, but the main Cambridge Autonomous Metro proposal was for units that could seat over 100 people. But the new mayor likes buses.
All non-toll roads are loss making, let's not pretend that cars are free. That's even before we get into a discussion about the negative externalities of driving.
The Cambridge GCP (essentially a talking shop with a remit to deliver new infrastructure, but prefers to deliver reports instead) commissioned proposals on a "metro". One of those proposals had loads of small self guided pods. Superficially they seemed like a great idea until you looked at the flow rate required to have them deliver the people required, and suddenly you have the the road congested with pods (or, if you will, cars).
Ultimately, you need a policy that is consistent with geometry: https://thewaroncars.org/transcript-episode-79-the-end-of-ub...