4 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

@wyx087 and there you go again, manipulating what I say to make it fit your narrative and twist things around and take things out of context, what a shame.

Again, zero evidence to back up what you are writing. Do quote the bit that you claim is manipulated.

 

You need to stop playing the victim without any evidence to back it up and start taking responsibility of the words you output.

  

4 hours ago, PetrolDave said:

So why is the protest group called "Just Stop Oil"?, and why is new exploration treated as a pariah? - existing oil fields WILL become uneconomic so replacement will be needed even if we no longer burn oil or gas.

https://juststopoil.org/

Yes. Only new projects.  "demanding the UK Government stop licensing all new oil, gas and coal projects."

How long before existing fields become uneconomical?

 

Why must use of oil derived products be economical? Economical and readily available slows adoption of clean tech.

 

 

3 hours ago, skomaz said:

Aside from that isn't the one best way of reducing pollution and energy / oil use of production to produce fewer vehicles and actually get people to think longer term and actually stop those that have the means to from changing their vehicles every three years or so???  Mostly that has come about from the current vogue for not actually owning a car and the having PCP's and the like and from the desire these days of many to 'keep up with the Jones's' by having the latest and greatest model from so-and-so manufacturer on their driveway (even if they then have sod all in the fridge...)

The problem is, I've mentioned many times, "getting about" should not be equal to "driving a car". EV is never meant to be the end-game. It's only being pushed because it's the currently best drop-in replacement to cars as we know it.

 

People somehow accept poor public transport as part of reason for driving. But people will do nothing to change that, some even go as far as oppose ways to reduce car use (protest against bike lanes, C-charge, etc).

 

With regard to PCP/PCH, I personally don't see any problem with this model during the transition to EV. As we all know, the car isn't scrapped at end of 3 year lease, currently it would push the most polluting car at bottom of the ladder to be scrapped. The 3 years old car becomes a cheaper car more affordable to more people.

People complained about cost of EV's a year ago (in fact, there's still one a few posts up), now very good EV's are not only similar price to competing cars when new, there's many decent 2-4 years old for sale very competitive compared to similar condition ICE cars.

 

 

12 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

 

The problem is, I've mentioned many times, "getting about" should not be equal to "driving a car". EV is never meant to be the end-game. It's only being pushed because it's the currently best drop-in replacement to cars as we know it.

 

People somehow accept poor public transport as part of reason for driving. But people will do nothing to change that, some even go as far as oppose ways to reduce car use (protest against bike lanes, C-charge, etc).

 

 

I assume the above is your opinion. 

 

However, as the parent of a disabled daughter with significant medical, developmental and other issues I can assure you that the car is in effect the ONLY option.  That is something that many people and promoters of public transport, bike lanes and things like the congestion charge simply do not 'get' or understand as they often have zero personal experience of 'the other side'. 

2 hours ago, Stonekeeper said:

 

 

 

The company will/should probably have issued a fuel/charging card for whilst at work?

 

Businesses/Employers

Capital allowances: sole traders, partnerships and companies

• From April 2021 electric vehicles are eligible for 100% First-year capital allowances.
  • As they are allocated to the main pool and not separate pools (assuming no private use) there may not be a balancing charge on disposal.
• The 130% Super-deduction available for companies between April 2021 and March 2023 does not apply to electric cars but does apply to commercial vehicles which would be eligible for plant and machinery allowances such as vans, lorries, tractors and taxis.
• Electric vehicle charging points are eligible for 100% allowances. The private use element should not be overlooked here as this may lead to the asset having to be separately pooled for CA purposes.

See also Vehicles (4 wheels): Allowances and Vehicles (2 or 3 wheels): Allowances

Benefits In Kind

• Normal Benefit In Kind rules apply to electric cars and vans provided to employees and the rates of tax depend on the level of CO₂ emissions. For 2023-24 this is 2% of the list price.
• The list price must include the price of the battery.
• The rules are more complex when it comes to charging electric cars as it depends on whether the car is a company car or a private car, how the car is used and who provides the electricity supply. See Car charging benefits tab. 
• The usual rules apply regarding reimbursement of fuel costs, see Employees below and Car charging benefits tab.
• The current Rate per mile for a company-provided electric vehicle is 10p per mile (9p between 1 June 2023 and 1 September 2023).
• Where the employee uses their own car the mileage rate is the same as for a petrol or diesel car i.e. 45p per mile for the first 10,000 miles, then 25p.
• The electric vehicle employee owner-driver can also claim 5p per mile for each passenger they take on the same business journey.

 

 

The 9p you refer to is what the Company have to use as the BIK rate.

Oh, so the information I was given is incorrect then but as that would appear to be the BIK rate, which is only applicable when the employer provides the car to you and that assumes that you are using car for personal miles as well, which would not apply when as I outlined in my earlier post, where the company pass the provision of a suitable car that fits within their brief, to the employee.

 

I'll have to find out which system his company use.

 

I've just found some notes I took at the meeting where my old company explained their system to their external team, and I had it slightly wrong. They were only offering a fixed contribution towards the monthly lease of the car and a fixed 15p per mile for all business miles, that was in 2016. That 15p was for fuel, tyres, servicing, repairs and insurance (business) and as most of my miles would be in London, I deemed it would cost me personally for the privilege of working. I might just have managed if I opted for a small city car, but that would mean I'd have to have a 2nd car for family trips, therefore not viable.

 

For those people who had a more rural patch allowing them to maximise their MPG figures, they were in a far better position but around London that was not possible.

9 hours ago, skomaz said:

I assume the above is your opinion. 

 

However, as the parent of a disabled daughter with significant medical, developmental and other issues I can assure you that the car is in effect the ONLY option.  That is something that many people and promoters of public transport, bike lanes and things like the congestion charge simply do not 'get' or understand as they often have zero personal experience of 'the other side'. 

It is my opinion, backed up by mathematical model and proven examples. 

 

Are you tired of sitting in traffic? Because for every car journey that is actually necessary, there's probably 10 cars that could have been replaced by a different (more suitable) mode of transport. As someone who needs to drive, presumably you could get C-charge exemption, wouldn't it be better if roads are as clear as during COVID lockdown? 

 

Surely everyone understands this, just like EV adoption right now, it is not about removing options but pushing people towards options that are more sustainable long term. 

10 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Why must use of oil derived products be economical?

I'm sure you know the answer to that if you think about it, companies are in business to make profits and since only companies (not charities or governments) are oil explorers then profits are an integral part of their business model.

14 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Are you tired of sitting in traffic? Because for every car journey that is actually necessary, there's probably 10 cars that could have been replaced by a different (more suitable) mode of transport. As someone who needs to drive, presumably you could get C-charge exemption, wouldn't it be better if roads are as clear as during COVID lockdown? 

 

Surely everyone understands this, just like EV adoption right now, it is not about removing options but pushing people towards options that are more sustainable long term. 

Have you considered that there are many people, especially in rural areas, where powered personal transport (i.e. not pedal cycles) is the only option as either they have health issues (injury, old age, etc.) or public transport is either very limited or non-existent?

 

So it then comes down to affordability - not just the cost of running (which if using home charging can be beneficial) but the cost to change from ICE to EV being beyond their financial means especially in the current economic situation with rents and mortgages being much more expensive and for MOST people their incomes not increasing at the same rate.

 

Just because YOU have the financial means to make the changes to be more environmentally friendly does not mean that applies to everyone, if the changes are essential NOW then more  and targeted support needs to be offered.

Edited 16 May, 20242 yr by PetrolDave

52 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

It is my opinion, backed up by mathematical model and proven examples. 

 

Are you tired of sitting in traffic? Because for every car journey that is actually necessary, there's probably 10 cars that could have been replaced by a different (more suitable) mode of transport. As someone who needs to drive, presumably you could get C-charge exemption, wouldn't it be better if roads are as clear as during COVID lockdown? 

 

Surely everyone understands this, just like EV adoption right now, it is not about removing options but pushing people towards options that are more sustainable long term. 

 

You've completely missed the point I made...

 

And by the way Transport Planning and Highways is my day job and has been for over 34 years so no need to tell me about the maths...

 

PS...   No I don't get tired of sitting in traffic as I enjoy the act of driving.

PPS...   I haven't come across a single C-charge that has any exemptions for the disabled or those that need to drive...   As I said earlier it's a case of those pushing them having zero personal experience.

Edited 16 May, 20242 yr by skomaz

16 hours ago, Graham Butcher said:

I have just been informed that anyone getting a BEV as a company car and having to claim back business miles and not being able to charge at home or needing to make use of a fast charger during the day in order to complete their journey, the new is not good. HMRC only allow reimbursement @ 9p a mile and with fast chargers being upto / around 79P per kwH, they will be £s out of pocket so that there is road block tp the uptake of BEV cars as company cars when the employee is expected to supply the car as per my earlier post, diesel then becomes the defacto standard.

 

In my experience companies pay the HMRC Treasury rates ie 45p up to first 10k miles in the tax year, 25p a mile over 10k miles, unsurprisingly there is oft less miles done per month once the 10k mileage is hit until the new tax year starts then it goes back up again, funny that.

 

Some companies pay more the 45p a mile and some play less, either way it either attracts tax on allows it to be reclaimed big time as I do (I get no mileage paid to me so reclaim the whole difference between 45 ppm and zero).

 

Electric car, diesel, petrol makes no difference as to the mileage rate.  It is just EVs can be put through the salary sacrifice scheme turning a £1k a month exitic EV in to a £580 a month car, nice.

 

UK Treasury mileage rate are less than they were 33 years ago.  I was getting 63 p per mile then (Rover SD1 were my weapon of choice and not the sub 2 litre one.

 

Having it that doing company miles is not a loss situation colleagues of mine have been quite creative.  Claiming more business claimable miles that actual done, ie take a shorter but slightly slower route and claim the longer quicker route.  What do you put in on the claim ?  Your odometer mileage, some cars over read, a few even under record. Google, AN Other route planner App.  Journey over 2 hours ?  Add in the diversion to eat, get fuel ?  Lots of other scams in this area though companies can be pretty hoy on this, even HMRC ie detracting your home to base mileage from the claim, again shortest route using E class road to Base or quickest.

 

EVs are great as a vehicle to do business miles, hybrids too that do great gas mileage.  Many of those in my company ditched their old Euro 5 diesels for quick petrol hybrids, some have fuel cards, some not.  Still a nice Benefit to have but monthly car allowance is the norm and that gets taxed and with the fiscal drag of frozen tax allowance some are getting caught paying much more tax thru PAYE.   Fuel on a fuel card also gets directly taxed monthly and no longer is on the P11D to catch up year down the road.

 

Edited 16 May, 20242 yr by lol-lol

35 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

I'm sure you know the answer to that if you think about it, companies are in business to make profits and since only companies (not charities or governments) are oil explorers then profits are an integral part of their business model.

Hence why the need for groups like "Just Stop Oil" so that governments do not cave to capitalist exploitation and throw away the climate pledge. 

 

30 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

Have you considered that there are many people, especially in rural areas, where powered personal transport (i.e. not pedal cycles) is the only option as either they have health issues (injury, old age, etc.) or public transport is either very limited or non-existent?

 

So it then comes down to affordability - not just the cost of running (which if using home charging can be beneficial) but the cost to change from ICE to EV being beyond their financial means especially in the current economic situation with rents and mortgages being much more expensive and for MOST people their incomes not increasing at the same rate.

 

Just because YOU have the financial means to make the changes to be more environmentally friendly does not mean that applies to everyone, if the changes are essential NOW then more  and targeted support needs to be offered.

Powered personal transport does not start and end with cars. There's quite a few micro mobility solutions that are both cheap to buy and cheap to run. 

 

The cost to change from ICE to EV is coming down all the time. EV were expensive because there's no second hand options. As I previously mentioned regarding PCP/PCH, during current adoption of EV's, it creates cheap affordable second hand EV's. 

 

Support were in place years ago, £5000, then £3500 off, ULEZ scrappage scheme, etc. But just like today's Boiler Upgrade Scheme that supports installation of heat pump, people can get heat pump for as little as £500. But when the ban comes in, it will be pulled and people dragging their feet will then moan. 

 

 

38 minutes ago, skomaz said:

You've completely missed the point I made...

 

And by the way Transport Planning and Highways is my day job and has been for over 34 years so no need to tell me about the maths...

I read your earlier post as: what about people who must use cars? 

My reply is that people who don't need cars can be motivated to use more suitable transport. 

 

Regarding maths, I always wondered, what is the best way to allow more people to get where they want to go with minimum change to current road infrastructure? 

21 minutes ago, lol-lol said:

 

Having it that doing company miles is not a loss situation colleagues of mine have been quite creative.  Claiming more business claimable miles that actual done, ie take a shorter but slightly slower route and claim the longer quicker route.  What do you put in on the claim ?  Your odometer mileage, some cars over read, a few even under record. Google, AN Other route planner App.  Journey over 2 hours ?  Add in the diversion to eat, get fuel ?  Lots of other scams in this area though companies can be pretty hoy on this, even HMRC ie detracting your home to base mileage from the claim, again shortest route using E class road to Base or quickest.

 

 

So your colleagues are committing fraud...   Nice...   NOT.

26 minutes ago, skomaz said:

 

So your colleagues are committing fraud...   Nice...   NOT.

 

I think it becomes a product of mileage rates not keeping pace with motoring costs.  As a tax auditor you see it occur more and more is difficult financial signs, food places fiddling their VAT more etc.  Two examples that I do recall was fellow HMRC Officers actually claiming down to tenths of a mile, many would round up I suppose and Officers like myself withdrawing their cars in Feb or March as they hit the 10k miles, drove the senior Officers nuts as it was so much more inefficient. Start using the more expensive train rather than use the car.

I gather HMRC Officers, according to the one I was working with last month, now are forced to use Enterprise rental cars ratgher than their own, or public transport. The Enterprise car may be in a street some distance away, not great for someone like me who can hardly walk half a mile and Uk gov will not let me ride by lecky scooter shame on them.  

 

39 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

My reply is that people who don't need cars can be motivated to use more suitable transport. 

OK that works in towns where there is credible public transport, but in rural areas it's a mindset that strengthens the view of country folk that 'townies' don't understand the realities of rural life.

 

41 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

But when the ban comes in, it will be pulled and people dragging their feet will then moan. 

But people are not 'dragging their feet' because of inertia, it's because even the cost to change with PCP/PCH is unaffordable for people having to use food banks or having their rent or mortgage massively increased. 

 

I'm trying to get you to understand that many (most?) peoples finances are under such pressure that their desire to do the right thing for the climate is not something their finances allow - unless and until grants are introduced at a much greater level. Wouldn't that be the right thing for Government to do if they are serious about climate change? Don't just use the 'stick' approach of a ban, but the 'carrot' approach of grants?

11 hours ago, wyx087 said:

You need to stop playing the victim without any evidence to back it up and start taking responsibility of the words you output.

 

That would require him to recall what he has written, I do think there is somewhat of a memory problem (I speak as someone with practically zero short term memory following Malaria) and the more someone writes the less likely they are to recall everything.

18 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

OK that works in towns where there is credible public transport, but in rural areas it's a mindset that strengthens the view of country folk that 'townies' don't understand the realities of rural life.

Certainly true, I'm thinking suburban and inwards. Anywhere that is densely populated. 

Country folks can always use park and ride to get into the city if they are able (see below). This would massively cut down on unnecessary traffic and is a sustainable way to develop densely populated areas. 

 

22 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

But people are not 'dragging their feet' because of inertia, it's because even the cost to change with PCP/PCH is unaffordable for people having to use food banks or having their rent or mortgage massively increased. 

 

I'm trying to get you to understand that many (most?) peoples finances are under such pressure that their desire to do the right thing for the climate is not something their finances allow - unless and until grants are introduced at a much greater level. Wouldn't that be the right thing for Government to do if they are serious about climate change? Don't just use the 'stick' approach of a ban, but the 'carrot' approach of grants?

If people are already using food banks or not able to replace their 15 years old car. Just wait for suitable used EV. It's never "you must change right now". Brand new cars were never an option and government grants would not change that. 

 

If a subset of that group need to head into the densely populated area, then use park and ride / public transport / bike if already local. 

If a smaller subset of above group is not able to use public transport and must drive, then there's already government schemes to support them by waive ULEZ/C-charges and parking fees. 

 

As you can see, I feel there's already government schemes to support the less able, regardless of powertrain. The problem is those who are able don't want to change (how many ULEZ protesters are actually disabled?), the only way is to make driving into densely populated areas uneconomical. (see a pattern there?) 

 

To replace one car with another via grants is not a long term sustainable solution, the mindset need to change. This is was brought up due to someone mentioned that EV is not end game to solving climate change. It really isn't, but it's 10x better than ICE car (1-2 years become carbon emission neutral, average car lasts ~15 years, as seen in the 5 links I posted a page or so ago). 

@PetrolDaveThe problem is that some can only speak from their own viewpoint. In an ideal world we would all have access to things that others take forgranted. 

 

The best option to reduce traffic in congested cities is to make public transport more suitable, ie, more routes, regular frequent services, more affordable and comfortable. 1 doubledeck bus can take upto 80 cars off the cities roads on each trip. All too often the buses go with about 10 passengers on them. 

Edited 16 May, 20242 yr by Graham Butcher

We know the biggest city where the biggest spending per head is in the UK.

Where they are making a big deal over having restriction and costs imposed for using cars of certain ages.   

 

For small and big Cities the Transport Hubs with Park & Ride and good connections is important.

That needs to be transport hubs where their is transfer of goods as well as people for getting into Cities and Towns. 

 

PS

Maybe an idea those with Airport Transport Size Diesel Cars stop and give a lift into the city for people out in the rain etc as they go there with empty seats. 

Edited 16 May, 20242 yr by Ootohere

3 hours ago, lol-lol said:

 

I think it becomes a product of mileage rates not keeping pace with motoring costs.  As a tax auditor you see it occur more and more is difficult financial signs, food places fiddling their VAT more etc.  Two examples that I do recall was fellow HMRC Officers actually claiming down to tenths of a mile, many would round up I suppose and Officers like myself withdrawing their cars in Feb or March as they hit the 10k miles, drove the senior Officers nuts as it was so much more inefficient. Start using the more expensive train rather than use the car.

I gather HMRC Officers, according to the one I was working with last month, now are forced to use Enterprise rental cars ratgher than their own, or public transport. The Enterprise car may be in a street some distance away, not great for someone like me who can hardly walk half a mile and Uk gov will not let me ride by lecky scooter shame on them.  

 

 

All irrelevant - they are still committing Fraud!!

@wyx087Please accept that you live in one of the best connected cities in the world for public transport, have a nice house, a large expensive car plus a runabout that others can only dream about. For many people, owning a car means a banger costing a few hundred £ or less, have jobs with only 2 half days a week because it financially benefits bosses to employ people like that. You really need to have more empathy and understanding of the plight of others.

4 hours ago, wyx087 said:

 

My reply is that people who don't need cars can be motivated to use more suitable transport. 

 

Regarding maths, I always wondered, what is the best way to allow more people to get where they want to go with minimum change to current road infrastructure? 

 

Depends on how you define 'suitable' really - suitable to their personal needs, desires or financial situation, or suitable to contribute to lower emissions etc.

 

As to the best way to allow more people to get to where they want to go with minimum change to current road infrastructure that again depends on where the start and end points are.  Ideally some form of mass transit if it is within or between large population centres, but this tends to be expensive and limited in terms of start and end points - which puts people off as it's not true end-to-end transport.  Tram systems are 'in' at the moment but are very expensive in terms of infrastructure and are usually quite restrictive in terms of flexibility of routing and therefore not demand responsive.  Buses are better in terms of routings and demand but are painfully slow unless they are Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which then has the same issues as Trams as the routes tend to be restrictive and stops limited.

 

Outside of large population centres it needs to be flexible, quick and responsive - so could again be bus-based Demand Responsive Transport using small minibuses - but most schemes of that type have so far proven unviable in economic terms.  Cars therefore remain the default choice, sometimes with Park & Ride thrown in for the last section into larger population centres.

 

So - as I noted, very subjective.

 

Personally, for me and where I live there is a limited PT option that is painfully slow to use and has a service frequency that reduces significantly before I finish work.  As an example the last time I did use it, from getting on the bus to getting off it it took nearly an hour for a journey that I can make in the car at the same time of day in about 15 to 20 minutes.  That excludes the walk at each end to get to and from the stop.  If it were quicker and more reliable - it often doesn't turn up or sails past the stop as it's running late (not sure why as I'm pretty near the start of the route at both ends) - then I might use it but even then the financial cost isn't that far off the cost to drive.

 

Add in the other issues I mentioned earlier regarding my daughter and it becomes a no-brainer to use the car - to be frank you'd be mad not to!

 

London is a different kettle of fish altogether and PT is more the usual choice but still used to drive me mad with how long it took to get anywhere by PT when I was down there on a regular basis.

Edited 16 May, 20242 yr by skomaz

1 hour ago, Ootohere said:

For small and big Cities the Transport Hubs with Park & Ride and good connections is important.

That needs to be transport hubs where their is transfer of goods as well as people for getting into Cities and Towns. 

I remember when I was working with the National Bus Company, that buses were also used to transport parcels from other towns etc, the same for trains. I used to have to go and meet certain buses and or trains to pick up parcels with urgent spares in them. That was back in the day when buses had conductors on board. Then along came OMO (One man Operation) and that service was hit on the head as the driver could not keep getting out of his cab to take on board, or give out parcels. It seems like we knew how to do things back then.

We've recently been involved in a project where we have proposed a Mobility Hub that aims to combine Car / Bus / Bike / Walking and Micro-Mobility services, options and information in one central location.  It'll be interesting to monitor and see how it works in reality.

40 minutes ago, skomaz said:

 

All irrelevant - they are still committing Fraud!!

 

You must be in line for saint hood ?

Let him who has no sin through the first stone.

 

I would be amazed if there is nobody who has paid for things in cash, window cleaner, second hand part from a scrappers.  One said to me, I was wearing a pullover with HM Customs & Revenue knitted on the breast and he said " part is a tenner if you give me cash or twelve if it is a cheque as I have to put it through t books" .

 

Yes we should all pay our taxes, not to do so is the road to society failure and we are already quite a way down that road in the UK.

 

In HMC&E / HMRC we tended to concentrate on those who were really taking the pith rather and tiny corner cutting.  Do miss TEST EATING and TEST BETTING back in the day.   

 

A high ranking customs Office once said to me, I needed to by a map to do a knock on a particular business, and he said "just a add a few miles to your mileage claim rather than go through the hassle of putting a claim for a separate claim".  Shocked me, he probably saw it as "operational Need" is what I would regularly hear from Investigation Branch/CIU et Officers.   The Greater Good.

 

I look forward to your elevation to saint hood should I outlive you.

 

54 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

@wyx087Please accept that you live in one of the best connected cities in the world for public transport, have a nice house, a large expensive car plus a runabout that others can only dream about. For many people, owning a car means a banger costing a few hundred £ or less, have jobs with only 2 half days a week because it financially benefits bosses to employ people like that. You really need to have more empathy and understanding of the plight of others.

You are forgetting solar panels Oh, sorry, I'm twisting your words. 

 

Nice job avoiding forgetting your accusations a few pages back.

 

47 minutes ago, skomaz said:

 

Depends on how you define 'suitable' really - suitable to their personal needs, desires or financial situation, or suitable to contribute to lower emissions etc.

 

As to the best way to allow more people to get to where they want to go with minimum change to current road infrastructure that again depends on where the start and end points are.  Ideally some form of mass transit if it is within or between large population centres, but this tends to be expensive and limited in terms of start and end points - which puts people off as it's not true end-to-end transport.  Tram systems are 'in' at the moment but are very expensive in terms of infrastructure and are usually quite restrictive in terms of flexibility of routing and therefore not demand responsive.  Buses are better in terms of routings and demand but are painfully slow unless they are Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which then has the same issues as Trams as the routes tend to be restrictive and stops limited.

 

Outside of large population centres it needs to be flexible, quick and responsive - so could again be bus-based Demand Responsive Transport using small minibuses - but most schemes of that type have so far proven unviable in economic terms.  Cars therefore remain the default choice, sometimes with Park & Ride thrown in for the last section into larger population centres.

 

So - as I noted, very subjective.

 

Personally, for me and where I live there is a limited PT option that is painfully slow to use and has a service frequency that reduces significantly before I finish work.  As an example the last time I did use it, from getting on the bus to getting off it it took nearly an hour for a journey that I can make in the car at the same time of day in about 15 to 20 minutes.  That excludes the walk at each end to get to and from the stop.  If it were quicker and more reliable - it often doesn't turn up or sails past the stop as it's running late (not sure why as I'm pretty near the start of the route at both ends) - then I might use it but even then the financial cost isn't that far off the cost to drive.

 

Add in the other issues I mentioned earlier regarding my daughter and it becomes a no-brainer to use the car - to be frank you'd be mad not to!

 

London is a different kettle of fish altogether and PT is more the usual choice but still used to drive me mad with how long it took to get anywhere by PT when I was down there on a regular basis.

Great quick run through of different infrastructure options.

 

The problem with buses is other traffic on the road. Selfish drivers slows down the buses and makes the whole thing undesirable. That's the reason for their slowness, need take away the traffic congestion.

When I rode Oxford park & ride bus into Oxford, it was great EXCEPT for the 15min the bus was stuck in traffic due to other cars mostly with just a single person in each of the cars.

My daily experience nearby, cars parked on the road is primary source of slow-down for the local buses. Roads around here are already narrow, people park their cars on the road because their flat didn't have allocated parking. It then blocks the whole road until the bus can nudge past other traffic.

 

Indeed it's all very subjective. One person may see a drop of rain as excuse to drive while someone else may still cycle in the snow. But end of the day none of those 2 people need to drive if public transport is well built out like around here.

 

I do understand London is a different kettle of fish, including often unnecessary car ownership. But that shouldn't stop other population centres from adopting similar park&ride strategy to Oxford or Cambridge.

 

Remember I'm not arguing to take away the car completely for everyone, clearly there's cases where personal transport is required. I'm only arguing that WHEN  public transit is dense enough in population centres, make driving less attractive with provision for less able (eg. ULEZ and C-charge). Push people towards the sustainable solution, slowly change people's mindset.

 

Getting around in central London is no problem at all, not even with a baby buggy, which I had to do at one point. Today there's even more step-free access stations than before. I've driven around central London in Saturday/Sundays due to cheaper with a full EV, but even with reduced traffic, it would still be faster to take the tube in my experience.