9 ms·

I disagree, and wish it had happened, but regardless, the biggest problem is they failed to invest in a plan B. For example, the options for folks outside of Lo

I disagree, and wish it had happened, but regardless, the biggest problem is they failed to invest in a plan B. For example, the options for folks outside of London wanting to get in are dire and could have been solved with several large car parks next to fast mass transit - the two Westfields are perhaps the best options there right now, and those are shopping centres not intended for such use and, ironically, located right next to the expressway projects that did happen (the Westway and the A12 respectively). Maybe CrossRail will help? Park and ride from Abbey Wood, perhaps? I have a trip to London planned later this year and it's still a toss up between parking at Westfield Stratford or just driving into the city centre and paying the congestion charge.. whereas really it should be an easy choice by now.

bananapub 5y ago
> I disagree, and wish it had happened, but regardless, the biggest problem is they failed to invest in a plan B. For example, the options for folks outside of London wanting to get in are dire and could have been solved with several large car parks next to fast mass transit encouraging more cars into the center is explicitly an anti-goal, so not sure why you wish these projects had been built? yes there should be more park and ride on the outskirts, but Stratford isn't really outskirts anymore, and wasting lots of land for parking in Stratford or White City instead of homes also seems a silly waste of their good connectedness. > I have a trip to London planned later this year and it's still a toss up between parking at Westfield Stratford or just driving into the city centre and paying the congestion charge.. whereas really it should be an easy choice by now. I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be higher.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be higher. The trouble with public transport advocacy is that it so often relies on the stick rather than the carrot as the main incentive. The better solution is almost always to provide attractive public transport options. If you can do that then people will use them anyway. If you don't do that then people will do what you don't want instead unless you totally prohibit it. And if you prohibit it then maybe they won't come at all. The catch is that providing good public transport is a challenge even in densely populated areas and for long distance travel. Our biggest cities also tend to be very old and that means layouts that are far from ideal for running an efficient public transport network. The other catch is that good public transport is never going to be cost-effective in smaller towns and rural areas. So doing it would require a massive commitment from both local and wider government and in the UK we don't have that. Politicians tend to be very good at talking about grand ideas but no-one is willing to say "We need to put your taxes up 5% to subsidise loss-making transport infrastructure so there's a sensible alternative to cars for everyone who doesn't live in one of the biggest cities." This is why I'm not sure emphasizing public transport is the right long term policy here. Better infrastructure to support small-scale private transport seems a more promising direction to look -- bikes, e-scooters, future electric vehicles designed for one or two passengers and light baggage, etc.
  - dharma1 5y ago
    Public transport into/in London is pretty good. Crowded but not unbearable, especially if you can avoid rush hours. I have a car in London but almost never drive into central London (just in my area and out of London) - getting in and around Central London is much better with public transport.
  - bananapub 5y ago
    > The trouble with public transport advocacy is that it so often relies on the stick rather than the carrot as the main incentive I...don't understand what your comment is about? London has excellent public transport that runs all the way into the non-London bits around it. it's mostly made of carrots. there are also a small number of sticks.
    - Silhouette 5y ago
      London has good public transport internally. For people coming in from outside the picture is far more variable.
      - adwww 5y ago
        I can travel to central London from my home 100 miles to the West in 70 minutes by public transport. In any case, that's a fault of poor public transport in the shires, not London.
        TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
        I used to know people who would commute by train to London from Bath and Bristol. Every day. And others who would drive from central Wiltshire to London and back. Every day. Work from home should have highlighted the insanity of those kinds of work patterns. Trains are greener than cars, but no commuting at all is greener still. Unfortunately it's looking more like we'll be heading back to pre-Covid normal, with very limited mixed-mode working offered as a bonus to those who qualify for it.
- gadders 5y ago
  The thing with raising congestion charges, higher taxes on airfares etc is that you then limit these options to the financially well off, which doesn't seem very progressive.
  - 7952 5y ago
    And people who can afford it just feel a sense of entitlement because they have purchased something. And it is a resource we all own and have already paid for. We should have a basic right to access that resource. The problem is when people take more than their fair share. In the centre of London that could be driving 1 mile a day. We should give a free tier and then ramp up prices exponentially after that. The more you use the resource the more it costs per mile.
  - rexpress 5y ago
    It certainly seems progressive to me. Charging private vehicles to access the roads reduces demand, which allows other modes such as buses, trams and bikes to move more people more quickly. I don't see what's progressive about letting private cars clog the roads up and slowing down London's vast and comprehensive bus network.
    - cjrp 5y ago
      I guess the point is that it's not related to the person's income. For someone on minimum wage, the £15 congestion charge prevents them using the car. For a high-earned, it's just a fee to pay as you continue to drive in London.
      - rexpress 5y ago
        But food at the supermarket, clothes, even water from the tap are all priced without regard to individual income. Why would road usage be any different? The wealthy are always able to buy the nicest things, and addressing income inequality is a very valid goal. But what realistic alternative is there to the price mechanism that still allows for a level of individual choice, and permits vehicle journeys that are economically necessary (e.g. tradespeople) while discouraging car journeys that could me made by other means. As for the minimum wage earner, they are the least likely to be able to afford to keep a car. The current roads free-for-all means their bus journeys are far slower due to the traffic, and more expensive due to the larger number of buses required to maintain frequency on congested roads. A possible solution to reduce inequality from road charging while still maintaining the benefits of the price mechanism would be to return the proceeds (after maintenance costs) to the residents of the city in the form of transport credits. These credits would be able to be spent on road access, public transport, or cycling as the individual preferred.
- petercooper 5y ago
  I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be higher. Economically, I agree, but in practice, I think it misses a point. I go to London once every year or three. So I can justify spending a lot more for a single day's convenience than, say, someone who goes a few times a month. As a rare visitor, I contribute less to London's congestion and problems, but on the other, I contribute less to its economy too, so is raising the congestion charge fair? All that said, this conversation has encouraged me to at least try some other options and broaden my approach, so I might park at Ebbsfleet and get HS1 in (19 minutes). It costs £19.10 each way though and about £25 for the parking, but I'm up £30 in congestion charges and painful traffic.. encouraging more cars into the center is explicitly an anti-goal, so not sure why you wish these projects had been built? I'm too young to have been around when they worked on the project, but my personal preferences are oriented around different goals than they had. I would be quite happy with a Angelesation of London, but I'm one of those weirdos who likes Milton Keynes as well..
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    You might be able to do better than £19.10 each way, depending on what time you're travelling. An unlimited all-day travelcard from Ebbsfleet to London[0], including tube/bus/train in zones 1-6 is only £24.40 off-peak (no arrival before 10am Mon-Fri). It's £45.00 peak, though. [0]: https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=EBD&dest=1072 https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=EBD&dest=1072
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Not quite sure what you mean by "Angelesation", but if it is a reference to Los Angeles, that was never going to happen. The reasons the projects described in TFA didn't happen was reflective of a city that has been in that location for centuries. Nobody was ever going to convert London into anything remotely like LA.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    London’s economy is doing better than the rest of the UK even with the charge that it’s worth taking the hit rather than paying for all the health and pollution externalities of one additional marginal car, which is more than just the fuel burned.
cameronh90 5y ago
If LA is anything to go by, building these large elevated highways wouldn't have fixed anything. Tokyo does have a lot of elevated highways, admittedly, and that has a certain aesthetic appeal there, but it's a very different place. If the elevated highways in London had ended up anything like the Westway, it would have been awful. I do agree that we could do with more Park and Rides though. In the past, I've parked at the O2 because there's always space in the day, then took the Jubilee line in.
- pm215 5y ago
  Some of Tokyo's elevated highways are an aesthetic disaster; the one that goes very low over the Nihonbashi bridge is the classic example. On the bright side they are finally planning to move that particular expressway underground... https://theolympians.co/2017/07/25/nihonbashi-uncovered-the-eyesore-of-1964-to-disappear-after-2020/ https://theolympians.co/2017/07/25/nihonbashi-uncovered-the-...
Majings 5y ago
Out of interest, why do you wish that it had happened? As far as I'm concerned, the idea of making London more car-friendly is directly at odds with anything that would actually improve the city itself. > solved with several large car parks next to fast mass transit I don't disagree with this concept, but your suggestions are still surprisingly far in to London. Why do they need to be inside the M25 at all?
- whywhywhywhy 5y ago
  Wouldn't there need to be more large car parks in the middle of the city if it were more car friendly. Think car ideology pollutes peoples minds sometimes that they can't see how utterly stupid it is to build cities around cars [1] [1]: usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2013/03/Picture-112.png
- kmlx 5y ago
  > car-friendly is directly at odds with anything that would actually improve the city this is because our solutions to car-friendly cities usually mean tearing down neighbourhoods, more pollution etc. there are solutions that please both sides of the table, but they usually involve huge costs. and in the current climate of litigating everything combined with political polarisation and the very nature of democracy, they're usually a non-starter.
  - Majings 5y ago
    > There are solutions that please both sides of the table I'd love to hear about some of these. As someone who sits firmly on one side of the table (live in central London, don't own a car etc.) my default position is to reject anything which encourages the use of private motor vehicles in the city, so I definitely think I should try to hear the other side!
- petercooper 5y ago
  Out of interest, why do you wish that it had happened? I like roads. I like motorways. I've always enjoyed being in LA. Just a personal preference. I am under no illusions that it would have actually worked in London, but I have a Ballardian sense of "what if" to major infrastructure projects. I never expect anyone to agree with me. your suggestions are still surprisingly far in to London. Why do they need to be inside the M25 at all? They don't. Ebbsfleet, being on HS1, is a reasonable example of a park and ride option outside the M25, although it's amazingly expensive to park there for what used to all be fields when I was a kid.. The problem is lack of infrastructure. We can't just slap 4 or 5 Ebbsfleets outside the M25 because there are few reasonable ways to offer a 20-30 minute journey into central London from them at this point. But this is my point. If they'd conceded we'd need this sort of thing when they ditched the ringways project 40+ years ago, we could have had something in place well before now. Where can you park and ride from, say, the top third of the M25? Stevenage is probably your only reasonable bet.. especially as even Cockfosters is a cramped 40 minute tube ride to St. Pancras.
twelvechairs 5y ago
You have the easy choice which is catch the train in.
- petercooper 5y ago
  Then we have a repeat performance of everything I said before but merely in a different town. Even in towns as far flung as Peterborough, Reading or Oxford there are numerous issues with accessing and parking at the stations.
MattPalmer1086 5y ago
Honestly, driving in London is slow and annoying, and it's hard to find parking, particularly in the center. You're much better off using public transport within London, or just walking (I've seen people take tube rides one or two stops that are quicker to just walk in the center). I don't even own a car in London anymore, I just hire them when I need to get away somewhere that needs one.
- MattPalmer1086 5y ago
  Addendum: the CityMapper app is excellent for getting around London.
- kmlx 5y ago
  > and it's hard to find parking, particularly in the center not sure about this. i always find parking in the center of London.
- barrkel 5y ago
  Scooters are IMO the best way to get around London if your common destinations are not well connected to the Tube. Cycling isn't too bad but it can be a tad intimidating.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    Buses are also a good option. It used to be a nightmare to work out which bus(es) to catch, but with modern mapping apps it's easy.
- petercooper 5y ago
  You're absolutely right once you're there. I'm talking about actually getting there as someone who lives 100+ miles away. The UK needs better options for switching from the required car to some high speed option for the final 30 minutes of the journey. Even LA offers this with its Metro stops..
  - 7952 5y ago
    There are options like Bristol/Didcot/Oxford parkway that do exactly that. Some of the lines are very slow though and need a lot of modernisation to give quick access. I wonder if some of this could be solved one day using small electric regional airlines that could land within the M25 and fly from small town airfields with parking.
throwaway22032 5y ago
The actual move is just to park on the street for free near a random outer tube station.
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
Just get a train why do you need the car?
- kmlx 5y ago
  the weather and personal comfort are probably the top two reasons. and recently the threat of getting covid is probably another serious reason.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    The weather? What's that got to do with trains?
    - 867-5309 5y ago
      not living in the station?
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        Unless you live somewhere with a garage that you can get to without going outside, then I don't really see the difference with a car that you also have to walk to first. But even if not, are you made of sugar or something? Why can't you handle any weather? (Short of disabled people, but that's not what this discussion is about.)
        867-5309 5y ago
        the distance can be hundreds of times the journey! a criterion for property selection is nearest public transport even if you aren't made of sugar, you're not going to have much fun being drenched on public transport
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > the distance can be hundreds of times the journey! You’d walk 100km to take a 1km train journey? How far is it even possible to live in London from a train station or bus stop?
tomcart 5y ago
Crossrail will eventually (hopefully this year now) make it trivial for you to catch a fast, direct train from shenfield/romford to Bond Street - even today this is a straightforward journey with a change at stratford tbh.
emsixteen 5y ago
Highly recommend Not Just Bikes and Practical Engineering channels on YouTube. You'd be hard pressed not to realise that wishing they'd happened was a mistake.
haspok 5y ago
I'm not sure why you are downvoted, as everyone is entitled to their opinion. I kind of agree with both sides, but the people suggesting train rides forget that the train doesn't stop in front of your house, and doesn't leave when you want it to. And taking an extra luggage with you is a pain. Owning a car gives you so much more freedom in your life that few people who can afford it willingly don't own one. For a few years I did try the rental model, but it was so much hassle that I couldn't bear it any longer. I'm usually on the go every other weekend. I used to live in Greenwich, and while I had a bike for commuting, on the weekends the car was the only way to get OUT of the city within a reasonable amount of time and get back again. It was still a pain, as pretty much any journey started by getting to the M25 first, then driving on it to some extent, making the smallest journey a 30-40 minute minimum. It didn't help that South London is pretty much an impassable barrier by car (takes so much time that it's not worth it). And Greenwich even has the A2 and the (constantly clogged up) Blackwall Tunnel, so it is one of the better areas of London regarding car ownership. On the other hand, I never understood why anyone would want to drive into the City, that really makes no sense, and I fully support the congestion charge.
- petercooper 5y ago
  On the other hand, I never understood why anyone would want to drive into the City, that really makes no sense, and I fully support the congestion charge. I also support the CG, but I am also quite far on the "I'm staying in my car" end of the spectrum, so maybe I can answer the question! I don't relish the idea of driving into the City, but it's a rare enough experience that I mildly enjoy it - the traffic isn't as bad in the CGZ as it used to be, and I hugely prefer the solitude of driving to, well, the alternatives. Could I do such a journey on a weekly/monthly basis? Absolutely not.
madeofpalk 5y ago
I'm not sure I see what the problem is? If you _need_ to take your car into the city centre, you can. Just pay the congestion charge?
chrisseaton 5y ago
> the options for folks outside of London wanting to get in are dire I literally can't think of a city I've been to that has been easier to get into? There's endless options of overground, underground, river, bus. What more do you want?
- petercooper 5y ago
  I literally can't think of a city I've been to that has been easier to get into? Admittedly I didn't define "easier"! London is near the top in terms of number of options, regularity, 24 hour availability, etc. For me, "easier" refers to time and comfort as someone who tends to be coming from random points 50+ miles away with young children, luggage, and a car at my disposal. And if you were to dumped at a random point 50 miles away with a car at your disposal, the centres of many UK cities are, even relative to their size, more comfortably reached than London's. Leeds, Cardiff, Newcastle, and Glasgow, for example (Leeds is notably good for access). If the car isn't allowed to go into the town centre, I think York or Oxford do a good job too.

bananapub 5y ago

> I disagree, and wish it had happened, but regardless, the biggest problem is they failed to invest in a plan B. For example, the options for folks outside of London wanting to get in are dire and could have been solved with several large car parks next to fast mass transit encouraging more cars into the center is explicitly an anti-goal, so not sure why you wish these projects had been built? yes there should be more park and ride on the outskirts, but Stratford isn't really outskirts anymore, and wasting lots of land for parking in Stratford or White City instead of homes also seems a silly waste of their good connectedness. > I have a trip to London planned later this year and it's still a toss up between parking at Westfield Stratford or just driving into the city centre and paying the congestion charge.. whereas really it should be an easy choice by now. I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be higher.

Silhouette 5y ago
I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be higher. The trouble with public transport advocacy is that it so often relies on the stick rather than the carrot as the main incentive. The better solution is almost always to provide attractive public transport options. If you can do that then people will use them anyway. If you don't do that then people will do what you don't want instead unless you totally prohibit it. And if you prohibit it then maybe they won't come at all. The catch is that providing good public transport is a challenge even in densely populated areas and for long distance travel. Our biggest cities also tend to be very old and that means layouts that are far from ideal for running an efficient public transport network. The other catch is that good public transport is never going to be cost-effective in smaller towns and rural areas. So doing it would require a massive commitment from both local and wider government and in the UK we don't have that. Politicians tend to be very good at talking about grand ideas but no-one is willing to say "We need to put your taxes up 5% to subsidise loss-making transport infrastructure so there's a sensible alternative to cars for everyone who doesn't live in one of the biggest cities." This is why I'm not sure emphasizing public transport is the right long term policy here. Better infrastructure to support small-scale private transport seems a more promising direction to look -- bikes, e-scooters, future electric vehicles designed for one or two passengers and light baggage, etc.
- dharma1 5y ago
  Public transport into/in London is pretty good. Crowded but not unbearable, especially if you can avoid rush hours. I have a car in London but almost never drive into central London (just in my area and out of London) - getting in and around Central London is much better with public transport.
- bananapub 5y ago
  > The trouble with public transport advocacy is that it so often relies on the stick rather than the carrot as the main incentive I...don't understand what your comment is about? London has excellent public transport that runs all the way into the non-London bits around it. it's mostly made of carrots. there are also a small number of sticks.
  - Silhouette 5y ago
    London has good public transport internally. For people coming in from outside the picture is far more variable.
    - adwww 5y ago
      I can travel to central London from my home 100 miles to the West in 70 minutes by public transport. In any case, that's a fault of poor public transport in the shires, not London.
      - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
        I used to know people who would commute by train to London from Bath and Bristol. Every day. And others who would drive from central Wiltshire to London and back. Every day. Work from home should have highlighted the insanity of those kinds of work patterns. Trains are greener than cars, but no commuting at all is greener still. Unfortunately it's looking more like we'll be heading back to pre-Covid normal, with very limited mixed-mode working offered as a bonus to those who qualify for it.
gadders 5y ago
The thing with raising congestion charges, higher taxes on airfares etc is that you then limit these options to the financially well off, which doesn't seem very progressive.
- 7952 5y ago
  And people who can afford it just feel a sense of entitlement because they have purchased something. And it is a resource we all own and have already paid for. We should have a basic right to access that resource. The problem is when people take more than their fair share. In the centre of London that could be driving 1 mile a day. We should give a free tier and then ramp up prices exponentially after that. The more you use the resource the more it costs per mile.
- rexpress 5y ago
  It certainly seems progressive to me. Charging private vehicles to access the roads reduces demand, which allows other modes such as buses, trams and bikes to move more people more quickly. I don't see what's progressive about letting private cars clog the roads up and slowing down London's vast and comprehensive bus network.
  - cjrp 5y ago
    I guess the point is that it's not related to the person's income. For someone on minimum wage, the £15 congestion charge prevents them using the car. For a high-earned, it's just a fee to pay as you continue to drive in London.
    - rexpress 5y ago
      But food at the supermarket, clothes, even water from the tap are all priced without regard to individual income. Why would road usage be any different? The wealthy are always able to buy the nicest things, and addressing income inequality is a very valid goal. But what realistic alternative is there to the price mechanism that still allows for a level of individual choice, and permits vehicle journeys that are economically necessary (e.g. tradespeople) while discouraging car journeys that could me made by other means. As for the minimum wage earner, they are the least likely to be able to afford to keep a car. The current roads free-for-all means their bus journeys are far slower due to the traffic, and more expensive due to the larger number of buses required to maintain frequency on congested roads. A possible solution to reduce inequality from road charging while still maintaining the benefits of the price mechanism would be to return the proceeds (after maintenance costs) to the residents of the city in the form of transport credits. These credits would be able to be spent on road access, public transport, or cycling as the individual preferred.
petercooper 5y ago
I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be higher. Economically, I agree, but in practice, I think it misses a point. I go to London once every year or three. So I can justify spending a lot more for a single day's convenience than, say, someone who goes a few times a month. As a rare visitor, I contribute less to London's congestion and problems, but on the other, I contribute less to its economy too, so is raising the congestion charge fair? All that said, this conversation has encouraged me to at least try some other options and broaden my approach, so I might park at Ebbsfleet and get HS1 in (19 minutes). It costs £19.10 each way though and about £25 for the parking, but I'm up £30 in congestion charges and painful traffic.. encouraging more cars into the center is explicitly an anti-goal, so not sure why you wish these projects had been built? I'm too young to have been around when they worked on the project, but my personal preferences are oriented around different goals than they had. I would be quite happy with a Angelesation of London, but I'm one of those weirdos who likes Milton Keynes as well..
- pmyteh 5y ago
  You might be able to do better than £19.10 each way, depending on what time you're travelling. An unlimited all-day travelcard from Ebbsfleet to London[0], including tube/bus/train in zones 1-6 is only £24.40 off-peak (no arrival before 10am Mon-Fri). It's £45.00 peak, though. [0]: https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=EBD&dest=1072 https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=EBD&dest=1072
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Not quite sure what you mean by "Angelesation", but if it is a reference to Los Angeles, that was never going to happen. The reasons the projects described in TFA didn't happen was reflective of a city that has been in that location for centuries. Nobody was ever going to convert London into anything remotely like LA.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  London’s economy is doing better than the rest of the UK even with the charge that it’s worth taking the hit rather than paying for all the health and pollution externalities of one additional marginal car, which is more than just the fuel burned.

cameronh90 5y ago

If LA is anything to go by, building these large elevated highways wouldn't have fixed anything. Tokyo does have a lot of elevated highways, admittedly, and that has a certain aesthetic appeal there, but it's a very different place. If the elevated highways in London had ended up anything like the Westway, it would have been awful. I do agree that we could do with more Park and Rides though. In the past, I've parked at the O2 because there's always space in the day, then took the Jubilee line in.

pm215 5y ago
Some of Tokyo's elevated highways are an aesthetic disaster; the one that goes very low over the Nihonbashi bridge is the classic example. On the bright side they are finally planning to move that particular expressway underground... https://theolympians.co/2017/07/25/nihonbashi-uncovered-the-eyesore-of-1964-to-disappear-after-2020/ https://theolympians.co/2017/07/25/nihonbashi-uncovered-the-...

Majings 5y ago

Out of interest, why do you wish that it had happened? As far as I'm concerned, the idea of making London more car-friendly is directly at odds with anything that would actually improve the city itself. > solved with several large car parks next to fast mass transit I don't disagree with this concept, but your suggestions are still surprisingly far in to London. Why do they need to be inside the M25 at all?

whywhywhywhy 5y ago
Wouldn't there need to be more large car parks in the middle of the city if it were more car friendly. Think car ideology pollutes peoples minds sometimes that they can't see how utterly stupid it is to build cities around cars [1] [1]: usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2013/03/Picture-112.png
kmlx 5y ago
> car-friendly is directly at odds with anything that would actually improve the city this is because our solutions to car-friendly cities usually mean tearing down neighbourhoods, more pollution etc. there are solutions that please both sides of the table, but they usually involve huge costs. and in the current climate of litigating everything combined with political polarisation and the very nature of democracy, they're usually a non-starter.
- Majings 5y ago
  > There are solutions that please both sides of the table I'd love to hear about some of these. As someone who sits firmly on one side of the table (live in central London, don't own a car etc.) my default position is to reject anything which encourages the use of private motor vehicles in the city, so I definitely think I should try to hear the other side!
petercooper 5y ago
Out of interest, why do you wish that it had happened? I like roads. I like motorways. I've always enjoyed being in LA. Just a personal preference. I am under no illusions that it would have actually worked in London, but I have a Ballardian sense of "what if" to major infrastructure projects. I never expect anyone to agree with me. your suggestions are still surprisingly far in to London. Why do they need to be inside the M25 at all? They don't. Ebbsfleet, being on HS1, is a reasonable example of a park and ride option outside the M25, although it's amazingly expensive to park there for what used to all be fields when I was a kid.. The problem is lack of infrastructure. We can't just slap 4 or 5 Ebbsfleets outside the M25 because there are few reasonable ways to offer a 20-30 minute journey into central London from them at this point. But this is my point. If they'd conceded we'd need this sort of thing when they ditched the ringways project 40+ years ago, we could have had something in place well before now. Where can you park and ride from, say, the top third of the M25? Stevenage is probably your only reasonable bet.. especially as even Cockfosters is a cramped 40 minute tube ride to St. Pancras.

twelvechairs 5y ago

You have the easy choice which is catch the train in.

petercooper 5y ago
Then we have a repeat performance of everything I said before but merely in a different town. Even in towns as far flung as Peterborough, Reading or Oxford there are numerous issues with accessing and parking at the stations.

MattPalmer1086 5y ago

Honestly, driving in London is slow and annoying, and it's hard to find parking, particularly in the center. You're much better off using public transport within London, or just walking (I've seen people take tube rides one or two stops that are quicker to just walk in the center). I don't even own a car in London anymore, I just hire them when I need to get away somewhere that needs one.

MattPalmer1086 5y ago
Addendum: the CityMapper app is excellent for getting around London.
kmlx 5y ago
> and it's hard to find parking, particularly in the center not sure about this. i always find parking in the center of London.
barrkel 5y ago
Scooters are IMO the best way to get around London if your common destinations are not well connected to the Tube. Cycling isn't too bad but it can be a tad intimidating.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Buses are also a good option. It used to be a nightmare to work out which bus(es) to catch, but with modern mapping apps it's easy.
petercooper 5y ago
You're absolutely right once you're there. I'm talking about actually getting there as someone who lives 100+ miles away. The UK needs better options for switching from the required car to some high speed option for the final 30 minutes of the journey. Even LA offers this with its Metro stops..
- 7952 5y ago
  There are options like Bristol/Didcot/Oxford parkway that do exactly that. Some of the lines are very slow though and need a lot of modernisation to give quick access. I wonder if some of this could be solved one day using small electric regional airlines that could land within the M25 and fly from small town airfields with parking.

throwaway22032 5y ago

The actual move is just to park on the street for free near a random outer tube station.

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

Just get a train why do you need the car?

kmlx 5y ago
the weather and personal comfort are probably the top two reasons. and recently the threat of getting covid is probably another serious reason.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  The weather? What's that got to do with trains?
  - 867-5309 5y ago
    not living in the station?
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Unless you live somewhere with a garage that you can get to without going outside, then I don't really see the difference with a car that you also have to walk to first. But even if not, are you made of sugar or something? Why can't you handle any weather? (Short of disabled people, but that's not what this discussion is about.)
      - 867-5309 5y ago
        the distance can be hundreds of times the journey! a criterion for property selection is nearest public transport even if you aren't made of sugar, you're not going to have much fun being drenched on public transport
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > the distance can be hundreds of times the journey! You’d walk 100km to take a 1km train journey? How far is it even possible to live in London from a train station or bus stop?

tomcart 5y ago

Crossrail will eventually (hopefully this year now) make it trivial for you to catch a fast, direct train from shenfield/romford to Bond Street - even today this is a straightforward journey with a change at stratford tbh.

emsixteen 5y ago

Highly recommend Not Just Bikes and Practical Engineering channels on YouTube. You'd be hard pressed not to realise that wishing they'd happened was a mistake.

haspok 5y ago

I'm not sure why you are downvoted, as everyone is entitled to their opinion. I kind of agree with both sides, but the people suggesting train rides forget that the train doesn't stop in front of your house, and doesn't leave when you want it to. And taking an extra luggage with you is a pain. Owning a car gives you so much more freedom in your life that few people who can afford it willingly don't own one. For a few years I did try the rental model, but it was so much hassle that I couldn't bear it any longer. I'm usually on the go every other weekend. I used to live in Greenwich, and while I had a bike for commuting, on the weekends the car was the only way to get OUT of the city within a reasonable amount of time and get back again. It was still a pain, as pretty much any journey started by getting to the M25 first, then driving on it to some extent, making the smallest journey a 30-40 minute minimum. It didn't help that South London is pretty much an impassable barrier by car (takes so much time that it's not worth it). And Greenwich even has the A2 and the (constantly clogged up) Blackwall Tunnel, so it is one of the better areas of London regarding car ownership. On the other hand, I never understood why anyone would want to drive into the City, that really makes no sense, and I fully support the congestion charge.

petercooper 5y ago
On the other hand, I never understood why anyone would want to drive into the City, that really makes no sense, and I fully support the congestion charge. I also support the CG, but I am also quite far on the "I'm staying in my car" end of the spectrum, so maybe I can answer the question! I don't relish the idea of driving into the City, but it's a rare enough experience that I mildly enjoy it - the traffic isn't as bad in the CGZ as it used to be, and I hugely prefer the solitude of driving to, well, the alternatives. Could I do such a journey on a weekly/monthly basis? Absolutely not.

madeofpalk 5y ago

I'm not sure I see what the problem is? If you _need_ to take your car into the city centre, you can. Just pay the congestion charge?

chrisseaton 5y ago

> the options for folks outside of London wanting to get in are dire I literally can't think of a city I've been to that has been easier to get into? There's endless options of overground, underground, river, bus. What more do you want?

petercooper 5y ago
I literally can't think of a city I've been to that has been easier to get into? Admittedly I didn't define "easier"! London is near the top in terms of number of options, regularity, 24 hour availability, etc. For me, "easier" refers to time and comfort as someone who tends to be coming from random points 50+ miles away with young children, luggage, and a car at my disposal. And if you were to dumped at a random point 50 miles away with a car at your disposal, the centres of many UK cities are, even relative to their size, more comfortably reached than London's. Leeds, Cardiff, Newcastle, and Glasgow, for example (Leeds is notably good for access). If the car isn't allowed to go into the town centre, I think York or Oxford do a good job too.