h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

People wont do anything that doesn't make life easier and faster. There is no point in making charges, people will pay to enter but the money will never be enough to fix the problem.
Educating people should be enough, but it wont be.
Glamour is what will convince people. Public transport has to be made incredible trendy. Superstars will need to take to public transport before the common man will.

In a past life (!!!!!!) I used to drive over a thousand miles per week in the persuit of money and things.
I had a serious accident and was left disabled with brain injuries that made me look at the world in a different light.
I was so close to not being in the world that I realised more the value of it. i also realised that it is slowly killing us by the way we live in it.
I now use pedal power for all my transport needs and cope pretty well with it.
The chairman of Sainsburys said on TV that most people live within a normal drive of one of his supermarkets and I found that more depressing than most things.
The culture of convenience is here and it is devaluing anything that we used to have to DO Something to get.
It may seem like a bit of a wandering whinge but i am new to the subject.

The first post isslightly dipressing that there are so many people in this world that will only think about taking public transport if their favourit celebrity gets ona bus. Are we so far removed from reality and society that we are not closed off from even the outside world.

I hope that this really isn't true, but I fear it is, and of course I'm in favour of those in the public eye getting on busses. I have a brilliant illustration.

My parents went to the World Summit in the summer which contained an awful lot about sustainable debelpment etc. Anyway thay got on a buss to goto the main veue and happened to sit next to the right hand man of the president of a southern african country (Can't remember exactly but I can find out) anyway he was sitting on this bus with everyone else while our John Prescot was taking X number of limmos to transport his over inflated ego to the same place.

When did wealth overtake common sense, or even sense?

Anyway I am a big fan of using a bike and think that everyone should. I reccon on being able to beat a car to most destinations within a town or city anyway and I get fit, save money, pretect the environment at the same time. There should be a government incentive for using bikes.

Fineing people won't help for two reasons:
>We can't be bothered to give up the 'convienience' so accpet the costs
>And we have too much money anyway so can easily afford most taxes etc

We need a positive incentive to stop using cars.


iab

We have already drawn the conclusion on an 'ask h2g2' thread that people won't give up their cars for public transport because public transport isn't reliable (i.e., doesn't turn up when it should), reasonably priced or frequent. In some places it's non-existant. There are other problems, though. Due to a variety of circumstances (e.g., house prices or just plain don't want to relocate) people don't live close to their jobs. For people who live a long way away, a car is the only option. Sometimes a car is the only option even when the person *does* live close to where they work. I once had a job that was about 4 miles away from home by car, and probably less as the crow flies. But I couldn't walk there and wouldn't cycle because the roads around Redditch are designed with cars in mind, not people and/or bicycles.

Some town councils *do* keep other forms of transport (e.g., bicycles) in mind when granting approval for new housing estates. But not all of them do, and it doesn't solve the problem with roads in existing areas, many of which are too narrow to allow cycle lanes to be added. So, before people will forsake their cars, a decent alternative and the supporting infrastructure have to be in place.

Hmmm...not sure that I consider John Prescott a "celebrity"!

So, celebrities get on buses. Do you think people are going to think to themselves "Oh look, there's David Beckham/Kylie Minogue/whoever - I think I'll respect their privacy and leave them alone and not bother them"? Or perhaps they'll come up with a plot to kidnap their children.

There is a potent equation for the use of the private car: it goes door-to-door, and allows you privacy and comfort (a guaranteed seat, ability to listen to music and sing along badly without annoying others, pick your nose, whatever). Public transport can not match this at the moment. The downside to using the car is the additional time taken, if travelling at peak time in a large city. However, this must be significantly in excess of that taken by public transport to overcome the benefit of driving. As has been pointed out, cost is rarely an issue here as people are prepared to pay more for ease of use - and this may even be subsidised by the employer.

An example: in a previous job, I initially travelled by train:
10 minute walk to station
15 minute train journey to connection station
10 minute wait at station (due to timetabling)
30 minute journey to destination station
15 minute walk to office
Total: 1 hour 20 minutes

I then started driving. This took about the same time. But I can tell you I felt so much better arriving at work after driving than I did on the train - with the uncertainty about whether they were running, delays/cancellations, walking in the wind/rain etc. compared to the occasional accident or roadworks delaying the car journey.

The solution, then, lies not so much in public transport as in making private vehicles cleaner and less polluting, and changing the way in which people work and communicate - with flexible working times and locations, teleworking etc. We have the technology; we have not yet caught up with the societal impacts.

We are getting there. 10 years ago the majority of vehicles ran on leaded petrol - now barely any do. In 10 year's time, the same will probably be true of petrol substitutes that are less polluting. Also, car engines are becoming more efficient for their size - small city cars now typically have 1, 1.1 or 1.2 litre engines.

In short, I think that technology will be the answer. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Reddy Freddy

It's not just technology that will provide the answer. We need a change in attitudes. There are some jobs that could be done at home as easily as they are in an office, even with the technology that is currently available. But very few companies allow teleworking because they have no way of being sure that their employees are actually working. Some companies did do test schemes and found that productivity actually improved - an employee with a cold, for instance, who didn't feel well enough to come in to work would manage to get *some* work done at home.

Companies need to trust their employees before teleworking will catch on. I think it's the way forward - I would rather work from home than commute. But I can't see it happening until companies have a major change of attitude towards their staff.

I agree teleworking has to form part of the future.

One company with which I was once associated did a pilot for their collections department - where staff were incentivised (with cash) on the amount that they collected from delinquent customers, whether they worked from home or the office. It was therefore in the teleworkers' interest not to skive off as they would only get paid based on the work done. Also, with wide area networks now available the physical location of staff is irrelevant to things like call statistics and productivity measures. And, yes, the home-workers did get better results!

However, some people find it difficult to work from home - they either need that separation of the two environments, or they need the group dynamic that comes from personal interaction. I personally would prefer to do a mixture between the two...and it is precisely this sort of flexibility that is needed, but is largely missing, from today's organisations.

Again, things are changing, but oh, so slowly. Part of the problem is that the rate of change of technology has now speeded up so much that the changes in societal attitudes are lagging far behind. An example of this is people contracted to work different hours in the same office - say person A turns up at 7am and leaves at 3pm, whereas the majority work from 9am to 5pm. All do the same hours, person A may even be more productive, but the perception in the office is still that "he always bunks off early", and this has a negative impact on his career.

I believe that attitudes will change but it is a slow process - it is only when those who originally did the 7am - 3pm are in senior positions and accept it as normal that the majority will also accept it. As with all things, it is down to the leaders of organisations to promote such changes and it is likely that those who have grown up in such a culture will be its greatest advocates.

Reddy Freddy

"But very few companies allow teleworking because they have no way of being sure that their employees are actually working"

This made me laugh...My employer has no way to be sure that I'm actually working when I'm in the office...and at the moment a lot of the time I'm not (I'm not a happy worker at the mo so cyberslacking seems a reasonable way to stay sane).

And as for group interaction...yes it *can* be a great thing but I consider my h2g2 friends as my work companions more than my office mates...some work environments/atmospheres are destructive not constructive

I don't think that improving car efficiency is going to solve a lot of problems...in fact I think it will create more than it solves, if fuel seems relatively cheaper there isn't the dis-incentive for using a car for short journeys...plus the cheaper and more efficient cars are the more people will use them and the heavier congestion will become.

Cars are great...I love driving (although I will admit to both singing badly and picking my nose on the bus too) but it isn't sustainable...if we want to solve congestion we need to be driving smaller cars, I'd drive a smart car if they did an estate version (we only need two seats but you cant get a wheelchair in the boot of a smart car and hubby needs the low boot lip to get the chair in and out if hes on his own) and if they drove at a reasonable speed on the motorway (I'm currently driving an underpowered car and it uses far more fuel over my 30 mile motorway commute than its predecessor which had a bigger engine but true).

I think in some ways you are right - lpg, homeworking and more flexible working hours will all help but penalising cars to the benefit of public transport would help too...I would love to get the train to work but it just isnt an option (especially since they announce the cancelling of the service this morning)...and moving isn't an option either

>>(I'm currently driving an underpowered car and it uses far more fuel over my 30 mile motorway commute than its predecessor which had a bigger engine but true).

I so read this as 'unpowered' and though you'd solved the problem in one simple swoop!

lpg, no future, what we want is fuel cell cars and in the near term hybrids.

I agree that things have to change (in both the types of cars we drive and in working patterns and practices), but penalising cars WITHOUT making substantial improvements in public transport is just going to p*ss people off for no benefit. And here in the UK, and particularly London, we're starting from a VERY low base. There has been so much interference and false starts in the past that people simply will not trust any "announcements" over improvements to public transport: the improvements have to be made NOW and the benefits will come over time.

The immediate improvements that are needed are:
1. Infrastructure (rails, signalling & stations)
2. Safety* (more staff & transport police on trains & stations)
3. Reliability (fewer cancellations, newer stock, improved operating systems)
4. Punctuality (largely dependant on 1-3)
5. Availability

* safety: I mean personal safety. Contrary to media scaremongering, public transport, particularly train/tube, is far safer than private car travel in terms of accidents.

Well, to get to this happy state of affairs, we're going to have to sacrifice a few "sacred cows".

1. Infrastructure needs massive spending NOW to recover from decades of underspending. As the government has seen fit to renationalise (in all but name, and with dubious legality) the rail network, it falls to them (us, really) to make this spending commitment.
2. This will need better incentives for people to undertake this work (more money usually works).
3. Getting rid of old stock will lead to fewer breakdowns. Having more stock in general will allow replacement stock to be available at short notice in the case of breakdown.
4. Improving operating systems: the most reliable tube line is the DLR. The DLR has driverless trains. Coincidence? Methinks not. A driverless tube system would be far more efficent than the current system. Driving staff to be redeployed in safety roles.
5. Automated train systems mean that they are available 24/7. The public still need to be convinced that they are safe at night, hence the need for increased and visible safety staff, including police officers, on trains and stations 24/7. The British Transport Police is woefully understaffed - this needs to be rectified.
6. A "zero tolerance" attitude to vandalism, graffiti, littering etc. would help a great deal. Put the bins back!

So, the basic answer is more spending on the public transport system, but to target that spending at areas which will improve the service and public perception of the service. If that means sacking the belligerent tube drivers and automating the entire system, so be it.

There's probably a lot more that can be done (I haven't even mentioned buses!) but this will make a start.

And until something like these changes are under way, and more importantly SEEN to be under way, people aren't going to get out of their cars.

Reddy Freddy