In message , at
11:07:15 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so
the remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good
reason. Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had
very bad experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they
need the extra flexibility that a car provides.

That statistic does not really mean a great deal though; the fact that
the public transport system can support that figure is because it is
more scalable.

Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point, and
has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity.

The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the private
motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere near it, a
good way to get around London. A feel your statistic proves my point.

Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must have
a *very* good reason.

As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for
a good stats site for a while.

From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no immediate
reference.

I used to travel to London from Cambridge 3 or 4 days a week, for a
couple of years, and in that time I used the train except for perhaps
half a dozen times when I went by car because I had lots of
luggage/items-to-deliver to cope with. And most of those trips I did
on a Sunday. And one time I knew I was going to be very late and it
wasn't practical to get a train.

That's wonderful for you, I wish everyone were so considerate.

Self preservation, more like.

Of course, it depends what you call London. Years ago, I would
regularly drive down the M4 and park at Marble Arch (under Hyde
Park), or perhaps at one of the car parks in the squares north of
Oxford Street. There was never very much of a problem, traffic-wise,
and as the nearest sensible railway station to my home in rural
Oxfordshire was more than halfway into London (at the edge of the
Metropolitan), a lot of the time it just felt "right" to carry on,
having got that far.

I am referring to anywhere that is densely populated, not just central
London. I cannot recall the development density index where car use
becomes difficult, but I would think zones 1-6 are past it.

M4, Westway, then Marble Arch via Paddington aren't particularly
congested most of the day.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point, and
has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity.

Well yes, but as it is supporting 90% of the load, it has clearly scaled
thus far... Which is why more rail should be built before other
transportation modes, but anyway...

The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the
private motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere
near it, a good way to get around London. A feel your statistic proves
my point.


Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must have
a *very* good reason.

I think you have more faith than I. I walk my dog from Tooting Common
back to home each night and I often count the number of cars with two or
less passengers (yes I know, sad, but it's something that annoys me).
I'd estimate a figure of around 80% have two or less people in the car,
around 50% having one. These are in cars of all shapes and sizes, and do
not count commercial vehicles. With the quantities we are talking about,
I cannot for a second believe _all_ these people have a "very good
reason", but then I guess the discussion boils down to what a good
reason is, because ultimately that's subjective.

As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for
a good stats site for a while.

From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no immediate
reference.

Wasn't there also a LUL one which stated some crazy stat about journeys
under one mile being performed by a car?

M4, Westway, then Marble Arch via Paddington aren't particularly
congested most of the day.

I don't think the congestion on a single given route at a specific time
of day is pertinent, we're discussing scalability of transportation.

Dan

In message , at
12:01:20 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point,
and has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity.

Well yes, but as it is supporting 90% of the load, it has clearly
scaled thus far... Which is why more rail should be built before other
transportation modes, but anyway...

The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the
private motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere
near it, a good way to get around London. A feel your statistic
proves my point.
Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must
have a *very* good reason.

I think you have more faith than I.

The number of people in the car is irrelevant. Although one could easily
make a case that the people who have had bad experiences of public
transport are much more likely to be single travellers who therefore end
up one-per-car.

I walk my dog from Tooting Common back to home each night and I often
count the number of cars with two or less passengers (yes I know, sad,
but it's something that annoys me). I'd estimate a figure of around 80%
have two or less people in the car, around 50% having one. These are in
cars of all shapes and sizes, and do not count commercial vehicles.
With the quantities we are talking about, I cannot for a second believe
_all_ these people have a "very good reason", but then I guess the
discussion boils down to what a good reason is, because ultimately
that's subjective.

Being stranded, missing meetings, failure of public transport to deliver
on its timetable...

As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking
for a good stats site for a while.
From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no
immediate reference.

Wasn't there also a LUL one which stated some crazy stat about journeys
under one mile being performed by a car?

Yes, there are a lot of people in the suburbs who drive to the shops and
back. I'm sure they weren't counted in the survey, which was about long
distance commuting to jobs in Central London.

M4, Westway, then Marble Arch via Paddington aren't particularly
congested most of the day.

I don't think the congestion on a single given route at a specific time
of day is pertinent, we're discussing scalability of transportation.

It's pertinent in as much as it's a car journey that patently "works".
Such things encourage people to attempt ones that don't.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
The number of people in the car is irrelevant. Although one could easily
make a case that the people who have had bad experiences of public
transport are much more likely to be single travellers who therefore end
up one-per-car.

It's indicative of the unsuitability of private motor vehicles for urban
environments, or specifically London. The amount of space occupied by a
small number of travellers is discussed in another branch of this thread.

Being stranded, missing meetings, failure of public transport to deliver
on its timetable...

Given that the worst, most unreliable and slowest form of public
transport in London, the bus, is bound by exactly the same
infrastructure as the car (in fact, slightly better given bus lanes)
quite how so many people would come to the conclusion that their car is
better despite the roads being full to bursting already is beyond me.
Perhaps they don't care for logic. Perhaps they all have complex
journeys that would take four bus rides. Perhaps they don't give a toss
about other people using buses who do have a brain cell. I dunno. But
what I do know is that I still don't understand how people come to the
solution of the car, given that it's clearly no better anyway.

Yes, there are a lot of people in the suburbs who drive to the shops and
back. I'm sure they weren't counted in the survey, which was about long
distance commuting to jobs in Central London.

The thing is that a lot of what I perceive isn't in central London. The
congestion charge thankfully go rid of a lot of that. What I see is car
usage in the suburbs, zones 2-3 etc, where the congestion charge should
be extended to.

People actually drive long distances into central London?

In message , at
13:41:05 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
The number of people in the car is irrelevant. Although one could
easily make a case that the people who have had bad experiences of
public transport are much more likely to be single travellers who
therefore end up one-per-car.

It's indicative of the unsuitability of private motor vehicles for
urban environments, or specifically London.

Quite the reverse. The people whose lifestyle appears to dictate that
they are unwilling to be held ransom by the vagaries of public
transport, are much more likely to make singleton journeys. They don't
ant to be held ransom to car-sharing either.

The amount of space occupied by a small number of travellers is
discussed in another branch of this thread.

Being stranded, missing meetings, failure of public transport to
deliver on its timetable...

Given that the worst, most unreliable and slowest form of public
transport in London, the bus, is bound by exactly the same
infrastructure as the car (in fact, slightly better given bus lanes)
quite how so many people would come to the conclusion that their car is
better despite the roads being full to bursting already is beyond me.

Because many of them have travelled from far enough away that a train is
the alternative. And having been stranded, and missed an important
meeting, once too often, revert to the car.

Perhaps they don't care for logic. Perhaps they all have complex
journeys that would take four bus rides. Perhaps they don't give a toss
about other people using buses who do have a brain cell. I dunno. But
what I do know is that I still don't understand how people come to the
solution of the car, given that it's clearly no better anyway.

Because it's door to door, and runs when they want it to - not on some
mythical once-every-15-minutes that tuns out to involve half an hour
waits in the rain once too often.

Yes, there are a lot of people in the suburbs who drive to the shops
and back. I'm sure they weren't counted in the survey, which was
about long distance commuting to jobs in Central London.

The thing is that a lot of what I perceive isn't in central London. The
congestion charge thankfully go rid of a lot of that. What I see is car
usage in the suburbs, zones 2-3 etc, where the congestion charge should
be extended to.

Is that on the trunk routes that most of the commuters are using?

People actually drive long distances into central London?

What's "long"? There are very large numbers who drive more than 50
miles.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
Quite the reverse. The people whose lifestyle appears to dictate that
they are unwilling to be held ransom by the vagaries of public
transport, are much more likely to make singleton journeys. They don't
ant to be held ransom to car-sharing either.

Well, victims of the system or just misguided idiots, I guess that's a
matter of opinion.

What I do know is that they render the London environment worse by their
selfishness through making PT (the bus network specifically) less
reliable and performant, worsening air pollution, and general anti
social aspects of car use etc etc

Because many of them have travelled from far enough away that a train is
the alternative. And having been stranded, and missed an important
meeting, once too often, revert to the car.

Sorry Roland, but I really cannot believe how an individual would
possibly think driving into central London would be quicker than getting
a train in. I guess a few are novices and might not have tried the
train. But if that were the case there must be a hell of a lot of
novices around (given your figures).

Because it's door to door, and runs when they want it to - not on some
mythical once-every-15-minutes that tuns out to involve half an hour
waits in the rain once too often.

Door to door? There's parking space outside every door in London now?
Central London?

Are we even talking about London? The picture you paint is not one I
recognise. Although I do agree about the ridiculous labelling of 15-min
frequency trains as such things as "metro" services. Need to double at
least before they're that.

Is that on the trunk routes that most of the commuters are using?

Anywhere that's congested.

What's "long"? There are very large numbers who drive more than 50 miles.

I think you answered above - I'd consider long to be a journey where
rail becomes the best bet.

In message , at
14:24:45 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Quite the reverse. The people whose lifestyle appears to dictate that
they are unwilling to be held ransom by the vagaries of public
transport, are much more likely to make singleton journeys. They don't
ant to be held ransom to car-sharing either.

Well, victims of the system or just misguided idiots, I guess that's a
matter of opinion.

No, just busy businessmen who have found from painful experience that
their means of transport is the best on offer.

Sorry Roland, but I really cannot believe how an individual would
possibly think driving into central London would be quicker than
getting a train in. I guess a few are novices and might not have tried
the train. But if that were the case there must be a hell of a lot of
novices around (given your figures).

It's true. When you look at reliable door-to-door times, the car wins.

Not everyone's lifestyle is the same. As an extreme example, what would
you think if the PM was half an hour late for his questions in the House
of Commons because of problems on the Northern Line? And is paying him
about £100 an hour to sit on a tube train better than having him in a
car and reading his briefing papers in peace?

Somewhere between the PM and "do you want fries with that" is a
crossover line. It seems to be 90:10. I suggest you'd have a very
difficult time making it 95:5, and would be better employed making sure
it didn't degrade to 85:15.

Because it's door to door, and runs when they want it to - not on
some mythical once-every-15-minutes that tuns out to involve half an
hour waits in the rain once too often.

Door to door? There's parking space outside every door in London now?
Central London?

Close enough for most of the purposes we are discussing. And an awful
lot of the cars in *central* London have drivers.

Are we even talking about London? The picture you paint is not one I
recognise.

The people in the cars will typically live in the stockbroker belts.

What's "long"? There are very large numbers who drive more than 50 miles.

I think you answered above - I'd consider long to be a journey where
rail becomes the best bet.

So highly dependent on how close to a viable station the person lives.
Just the difficulty of parking near many of them rules them out as "P&R
for London".
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Dan Gravell wrote:
Sorry Roland, but I really cannot believe how an individual would
possibly think driving into central London would be quicker than getting
a train in.

I've driven from Leytonstone to Paddington on a number of occasions.
Certainly more convienent when meeting She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named
and her luggage. It was probably quicker than the Tube (the PT
alterantive), but it's hard to be sure. Certainly not much slower.

I guess a few are novices and might not have tried the
train. But if that were the case there must be a hell of a lot of
novices around (given your figures).

We did that too; frankly the biggest turn-off is carting the bags
rather than the time.

Are we even talking about London? The picture you paint is not one I
recognise. Although I do agree about the ridiculous labelling of 15-min
frequency trains as such things as "metro" services. Need to double at
least before they're that.

Lets say that for something to be a metro service, it needs to be
frequent enough that a timetable is pointless. Comparing the number
of people arriving at the station per minute over the course of the
day would be an interesting way to find out if the passengers bother
with learning the timetable.

My guess is that there will be little variation at Camden Road -
about as many passengers will arrive at the platform looking to
catch a train the minute before the train is due as the minute after
- indicating that 15 mintute wait between trains is "metro", while
at Upper Holloway, there will be a vast difference - indicating
that 30 minute waits are not "metro".

But I'm guessing; hard figures would be interesting.

What's "long"? There are very large numbers who drive more than 50 miles.

I think you answered above - I'd consider long to be a journey where
rail becomes the best bet.

That can be remarkably short, sometimes.

--
Mike Bristow - really a very good driver

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...
In message , at
11:07:15 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so the
remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good reason.
Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had very bad
experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they need the
extra flexibility that a car provides.

That statistic does not really mean a great deal though; the fact that the
public transport system can support that figure is because it is more
scalable.

Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point, and
has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity.

The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the private
motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere near it, a
good way to get around London. A feel your statistic proves my point.

Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must have a
*very* good reason.

Some do, I'm sure, but have you considered some are selfish? I know a
few... That's another, very realistic reason, surely. If they had a bad
episode when they couldn't get a seat between Leicester Square and Covent
Garden, then that's hardly a good excuse to put another vehicle on the
crowded streets of London. I've had some pretty awful experiences on public
transport, but they're very rare, and I've had more in private transport.

As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for a
good stats site for a while.

From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no immediate
reference.

So it's bang up to date! Fantastic! Oh, I think you mis-spelled "my ass".
joking

I used to travel to London from Cambridge 3 or 4 days a week, for a
couple of years, and in that time I used the train except for perhaps
half a dozen times when I went by car because I had lots of
luggage/items-to-deliver to cope with. And most of those trips I did on
a Sunday. And one time I knew I was going to be very late and it wasn't
practical to get a train.

That's wonderful for you, I wish everyone were so considerate.

Self preservation, more like.

Of course, it depends what you call London. Years ago, I would regularly
drive down the M4 and park at Marble Arch (under Hyde Park), or perhaps
at one of the car parks in the squares north of Oxford Street. There was
never very much of a problem, traffic-wise, and as the nearest sensible
railway station to my home in rural Oxfordshire was more than halfway
into London (at the edge of the Metropolitan), a lot of the time it just
felt "right" to carry on, having got that far.

I am referring to anywhere that is densely populated, not just central
London. I cannot recall the development density index where car use
becomes difficult, but I would think zones 1-6 are past it.

M4, Westway, then Marble Arch via Paddington aren't particularly congested
most of the day.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 00:15:03
on Wed, 16 Feb 2005, d remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:
Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so the
remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good reason.
Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had very bad
experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they need the
extra flexibility that a car provides.

That statistic does not really mean a great deal though; the fact that the
public transport system can support that figure is because it is more
scalable.

Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point, and
has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity.

The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the private
motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere near it, a
good way to get around London. A feel your statistic proves my point.

Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must have a
*very* good reason.

Some do, I'm sure, but have you considered some are selfish?

Some people would say you were selfish to buy your vegetables at the
supermarket, rather than spending several hours a week digging an
allotment. People's standards vary.

I know a
few... That's another, very realistic reason, surely. If they had a bad
episode when they couldn't get a seat between Leicester Square and Covent
Garden, then that's hardly a good excuse to put another vehicle on the
crowded streets of London. I've had some pretty awful experiences on public
transport, but they're very rare, and I've had more in private transport.

I had more in mind the people who travel 50 miles in from their home
town, and had a bad experience (or two) with the railways. I went back
to driving to work (outside the London area) after Hatfield, for
example, when one day (not the first day after) it took me three hours
to get to work (instead of one).

As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for a
good stats site for a while.

From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no immediate
reference.

So it's bang up to date! Fantastic! Oh, I think you mis-spelled "my ass".
joking

I don't think that kind of figure varies much from year to year. We'd
have noticed if cars in Central London had doubled (80% by PT, 20% by
car) or halved (95% by PT, 5% by car) from the underlying 90% by PT, 10%
by car.
--
Roland Perry