Doh!
Depressing conclusions though - that we might as well support that in policy by helping out those poor motorists and that nothing is going to change soon. Lacking in foresight?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Commuting
Cars 'still dominate commute to work'
(21 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Cycling sits below that, with 762,334 people biking to the office.
100% cyclists work in an office? Even me? Wow, that is a pretty amazing statistic.Posted 10 years ago # -
From "related link" on that page -
"
One in five cyclists in London say they have stopped cycling to work following the recent deaths on the capital's roads, a poll for BBC London has found.
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
Doesn't really matter to me how many people are driving to work, let them. So long as they are not trying to kill me they can get to work however they like.
Posted 10 years ago # -
So the message from all this then?
Despite all the talk of HS2 high-speed trains and bikes and working from home, most people drive to work. And that's not going to change any time soon.
What a thoroughly depressing way to end an article. I'm not entirely sure what the writer was trying achieve with it? A rallying (no pun intended) call-to-arms to the much-put-upon motorist commuter?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"So long as they are not trying to kill me they can get to work however they like. "
I'd prefer it if the numbers were reduced. Reasons:
- global pollution
- local pollution & related health problems
- costs of dealing with inactive populations
- motoring is a major cause of injuries and deaths
- use of limited resources, including fossil fuelsPosted 10 years ago # -
@ Amir
+ 1
(Longer lists are available! But that's a pretty good summary.)
Posted 10 years ago # -
@amir
+2
The local pollution is the biggy for me. Basically fewer cars = nicer city, in terms of nicer air, less noise, easier to walk about. Simple as.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@amir +3
The minute I saw the words "report by the RAC Foundation" I knew what was coming...
Posted 10 years ago # -
We need to think of pollution beyond the normal "fumes/air quality" angle. Motor vehicles pollute the urban environment in many ways: noise, visual, space...
Posted 10 years ago # -
Not to mention damaging MY cycle tracks (roads).
I'm not sure of the relative damage from cars vs. buses and trucks, the heavier vehicles are probably more to blame.Posted 10 years ago # -
twq - if I remember rightly, an HGV is roughly 50,000 times more damaging to a road surface than the average car.
The most interesting point of the report for me is that the average car commute is 10 miles each way. A fairly long cycle commute, but many people would be able to manage this - along with those who commute much shorter distances by car.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@amir +n.
"- use of limited resources, including fossil fuels"
The physical space available on the street could also be considered a limited resource. Fewer cars being squeezed through the same narrow channels at the same time would hopefully result in less pandering to them at road-planning time, hopefully resulting in less insistence on multi-lane traffic-flow-worshipping systems.
Posted 10 years ago # -
The Scottish Household Survey: Travel Diary 2012 was published last week.
Commuting is given as about one-quarter of travel with three-quarters being for other purposes. For all trips by car the median was less than 3km, with a mean distance of about 6.5km. Local data is also available.Posted 10 years ago # -
Irritating that they haven't published journey purpose by mode. That would have shown if there was any change from the 70% of journeys to or from work where the respondent was the driver or a passenger in a car. I'll see if I can track it down.
Also, treat the SHS 'distance' measures with a bit of caution. They are crow-flies, straight-line measures between two grid references rather than road distances. Makes a big difference to journeys from say, Dalgety Bay to Edinburgh. SHS has people flying over the Forth rather than trekking round and over the bridge.
Posted 10 years ago # -
No change.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Cities designed around the car tend to be pretty awful places, example: LA.
LA is simply a collection of generic strip malls spread over the size of Wales. You can only tell that you've left one suburb and entered the next when the burger chains, gas stations and 7 elevens start repeating themselves... Awful place
Posted 10 years ago # -
The irony is that Los Angeles was not designed around the motor vehicle originally. It used to boast one of the best tram (streetcar) systems in the world. While people disagree on whether any single reason led to the demise of this network, the economic interests of motor vehicle manufacturers were certainly a factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Posted 10 years ago # -
"8.2 For short journeys most people chose to walk or take the car. For journeys under 1km, 97% use these modes (68% walk and 29% use the car) note that some of these short journeys, particulary those made by car will be as part of another journey eg dropping a child of at school on the way to work. For journeys of 1 to 2kms, 31% walk and 57% use the car. 8% use the bus. "
There's a
damning indictment of people's lazinessdemonstration of the convenience and safety of the motoring lifestyle.Here's the modal share breakdown by distance travelled in more detail:
Posted 10 years ago # -
That should be comnon knowledge for anyone who's ever watched Roger Rabbit.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Very good history of LA's public transit system here which argues the willingness of property developers to contribute to infrastructure was the predominant factor, something that resonates today.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
