7 ms·

Poor people in Inner London (the future expanded area of the scheme being discussed) use public transport. Only 35-40% of households there own a car, and those

Poor people in Inner London (the future expanded area of the scheme being discussed) use public transport. Only 35-40% of households there own a car, and those are concentrated in wealthy households. It is expensive to have a parking space yourself and expensive to park at your destination.

jessriedel 8y ago
I think he means people who live outside inner London and commute in? I agree that many of those folks will still be taking public transit, but it's mostly the wealthy will actually live there, no? (I have no local knowledge.)
- esotericn 8y ago
  "Many" is an understatement. People do not drive cars in to their jobs in Central London. It's just not done. Not even CEOs. The vast, vast, vast majority of people take public transport in because it's completely impractical to drive and not for cost reasons. I would be completely unsurprised if there were less than 1 parking spot per _building_ inside the inner ring road. Wander about, find a big, multimillion suburban house in Zone 3. You may well see a fancy car. That fancy car barely ever sees the inside of London. It's for the country jaunt, the holiday, the supermarket run.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    That's demonstrably false if you look at the sheer volume of cars driving through Central London. This[1] suggests that about 25% of commuters arrive by car. [1] https://londontransportdata.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/weekday-morning-peak-travel-into-central-london-road-traffic-only.png https://londontransportdata.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/week...
    - Brakenshire 8y ago
      No, that is non rail. Rail is 80% (it is the chart above this one where you cut it out of the article) so car is 25% of 20%, i.e. 5%.
    - esotericn 8y ago
      Er, that shows that 25% of road users are cars. I haven't seen trains on roads much. Perhaps in Croydon.
- Brakenshire 8y ago
  Inner London is a large area, it’s not just the city core, it has a population of 3.5m. It’s mixed, there are poor areas of Inner London and rich areas of Outer London. Traditionally Outer London was where professional families lived, along the suburban rail lines. Most employment is in the core of the city (Central London), which is where the charge currently applies. People commuting there overwhelmingly use public transport, across all classes. Parking costs £30 a day. Also, by the time the charge applies to Inner London (2021), the minimum standard for petrol cars will be Euro 4, which at that point will be 16 years old. Households at in income level to be operating a 17 year old car would be priced out of car ownership in London by other factors, and would be using the bus, the trains or the tube.
paganel 8y ago
I’ve coomented elsewhere about poorer people being left out of car ownership because of the current tax system, which is also pretty regressive. Afaik the cost for a public transport pass can easily reach 200 pounds per month (anyway, I’m pretty sure it’s more than 100 pounds per month) at which point it would be a lot better from a financial point of view for a poor person to purchase a 15-year old 1,000 pound Vauxhall Corsa and use that instead. But that financial alternative is made non-viable by the current tax system because of the high taxes on gasoline, because of higher taxes on older, more polluting cars and one can also add the higher insurance premiums affecting the younger (and so poorer) people more.
- esotericn 8y ago
  What's your point here? Do you want to make it cheaper and easier to own a car? What's the endgame? London turns in to a complete gridlock, we all breathe in more crap and get ill, and of course, climate change accelerates a bit more. It's fairer, but everyone is worse off. Why? (As an aside, no, it's not cheaper to drive a car in to London for work, and it wouldn't be without taxes, because you'd spend more _per day_ on parking than you would on transport for the _week_).
- jogjayr 8y ago
  > it would be a lot better from a financial point of view for a poor person to purchase a 15-year old 1,000 pound Vauxhall Corsa Are you sure about that? Are you taking into account petrol, maintenance (a 15-year old car will need a lot of it), parking, insurance, registration fees? Those would cost at least another GBP 100/month + unproductive time spent in traffic. Not to mention the poor person would first need to save up GBP 1000 to be able to afford the car (or pay interest and more insurance). GBP 200/month for a transport pass sounds insane though, so maybe they should focus on funding that better.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    >GBP 200/month for a transport pass Seems pretty normal depending upon the type of transport covered. If I bought monthly passes to commute into Boston from my house, I'd be something like $600/month between commuter rail, commuter rail parking, and subway/bus. Driving to subway parking (which fills up by 7 something) would still cost something $100/month plus about $10/day for parking. Commuting into most big cities in the West isn't cheap even if you use public transportation.

jessriedel 8y ago

I think he means people who live outside inner London and commute in? I agree that many of those folks will still be taking public transit, but it's mostly the wealthy will actually live there, no? (I have no local knowledge.)

esotericn 8y ago
"Many" is an understatement. People do not drive cars in to their jobs in Central London. It's just not done. Not even CEOs. The vast, vast, vast majority of people take public transport in because it's completely impractical to drive and not for cost reasons. I would be completely unsurprised if there were less than 1 parking spot per _building_ inside the inner ring road. Wander about, find a big, multimillion suburban house in Zone 3. You may well see a fancy car. That fancy car barely ever sees the inside of London. It's for the country jaunt, the holiday, the supermarket run.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  That's demonstrably false if you look at the sheer volume of cars driving through Central London. This[1] suggests that about 25% of commuters arrive by car. [1] https://londontransportdata.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/weekday-morning-peak-travel-into-central-london-road-traffic-only.png https://londontransportdata.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/week...
  - Brakenshire 8y ago
    No, that is non rail. Rail is 80% (it is the chart above this one where you cut it out of the article) so car is 25% of 20%, i.e. 5%.
  - esotericn 8y ago
    Er, that shows that 25% of road users are cars. I haven't seen trains on roads much. Perhaps in Croydon.
Brakenshire 8y ago
Inner London is a large area, it’s not just the city core, it has a population of 3.5m. It’s mixed, there are poor areas of Inner London and rich areas of Outer London. Traditionally Outer London was where professional families lived, along the suburban rail lines. Most employment is in the core of the city (Central London), which is where the charge currently applies. People commuting there overwhelmingly use public transport, across all classes. Parking costs £30 a day. Also, by the time the charge applies to Inner London (2021), the minimum standard for petrol cars will be Euro 4, which at that point will be 16 years old. Households at in income level to be operating a 17 year old car would be priced out of car ownership in London by other factors, and would be using the bus, the trains or the tube.

paganel 8y ago

I’ve coomented elsewhere about poorer people being left out of car ownership because of the current tax system, which is also pretty regressive. Afaik the cost for a public transport pass can easily reach 200 pounds per month (anyway, I’m pretty sure it’s more than 100 pounds per month) at which point it would be a lot better from a financial point of view for a poor person to purchase a 15-year old 1,000 pound Vauxhall Corsa and use that instead. But that financial alternative is made non-viable by the current tax system because of the high taxes on gasoline, because of higher taxes on older, more polluting cars and one can also add the higher insurance premiums affecting the younger (and so poorer) people more.

esotericn 8y ago
What's your point here? Do you want to make it cheaper and easier to own a car? What's the endgame? London turns in to a complete gridlock, we all breathe in more crap and get ill, and of course, climate change accelerates a bit more. It's fairer, but everyone is worse off. Why? (As an aside, no, it's not cheaper to drive a car in to London for work, and it wouldn't be without taxes, because you'd spend more _per day_ on parking than you would on transport for the _week_).
jogjayr 8y ago
> it would be a lot better from a financial point of view for a poor person to purchase a 15-year old 1,000 pound Vauxhall Corsa Are you sure about that? Are you taking into account petrol, maintenance (a 15-year old car will need a lot of it), parking, insurance, registration fees? Those would cost at least another GBP 100/month + unproductive time spent in traffic. Not to mention the poor person would first need to save up GBP 1000 to be able to afford the car (or pay interest and more insurance). GBP 200/month for a transport pass sounds insane though, so maybe they should focus on funding that better.
- ghaff 8y ago
  >GBP 200/month for a transport pass Seems pretty normal depending upon the type of transport covered. If I bought monthly passes to commute into Boston from my house, I'd be something like $600/month between commuter rail, commuter rail parking, and subway/bus. Driving to subway parking (which fills up by 7 something) would still cost something $100/month plus about $10/day for parking. Commuting into most big cities in the West isn't cheap even if you use public transportation.