4 ms·

> The bottom rung of society is going to lose their transport. And in many cases, they're also going to lose their jobs. Politicians are incapable of thinking

> The bottom rung of society is going to lose their transport. And in many cases, they're also going to lose their jobs. Politicians are incapable of thinking beyond the M25, so are probably expecting everyone to just hop on the Tube or frequent London bus services instead. People can't move closer to workplaces (or better public transport links), as the #1 goal of every UK government seems to be pumping up property prices to ever more ridiculous levels. (You can't allow the supply of housing to increase when rich people are getting richer from the rising prices!) We're incapable of building transport infrastructure in the UK. Look at the state of HS2. Something like £500 million per mile of railway (largely down to those property prices), and it might not even reach London at the current rate, let alone be extended north of Birmingham. Even for those that can afford an EV, huge numbers of people are unable to charge them at home (living in flats, relying on on-street parking, etc). There's hardly any visible growth of public charging infrastructure, and you just know that public chargers will be a huge bait+switch, eventually charging extortionate amounts compared to home charging (if only to minimize the queues...)

verisimi 3y ago
All that. And also, the environmental cost of producing batteries is terrible. That cost is hidden (in the mining and making of batteries, and probs the disposal) as opposed to during the lifetime in the fuel that is burnt. This is to say, it's that the environment justification doesn't hold either. So why are governments committing to these non-sensical goals?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
panick21_ 3y ago
Crossrail has just been an incredibly success in terms of public infrastructure. But outside of London its true. There are cities that are huge from a European perspective without even a basic S-Bahn tunnel. The UK is the perfect place for High Speed rail, and part of the problem with it is the idiotic bending over backwords for NIMBYs and the generally terrible rail planning practices. Not having built this in like the 80s is insanely dumb. If we are talking about poor people then bus reduction in bus service is actually by far the biggest deal.
faeriechangling 3y ago
Transport becoming more expensive and housing becoming more expensive is linked at the hip. Where is the most expensive property in the world? For the most part, next to ports, next to railways, next to subways, next to anything that makes makes it cheap to move people and things. Demand for housing and transport is rising beyond the means of the infrastructure to actually sustain this. Most of the whinging I see against governments surrounds their unwillingness to restrict investment and immigration, which they won’t do because their books are balanced around the notion that they will “grow out of debt”. Likely we will arrive at a point where we have a bunch of infrastructure we built that’s infeasible to maintain that will turn into ruins when the population gets around to contracting.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  IF you have lots of railways and subways then almost everywhere is gone be next to those things. And it also leads to a situation where your combined transport and housing cost are actually small. That is the right way to improve society. In Switzerland there are tons of really cheap places with fantastic rail connections. The idea that rail infrastructure isn't sustainable is kind of nonsense, even with smaller population. Road infrastructure maintenance is far more expensive and in a bad economic situation you can run 30 year old trains. Its simply a matter of what your society puts priority on. Main part of Britain specifically is so densely populated that even with massive collapse in population most of the rail network would still be vital.
  - faeriechangling 3y ago
    I agree, so it will be the infrastructure connected by no better means than roads which will turn to ruins first. Yet we are still building up such infrastructure, even if emphasis is gradually shifting to more sustainable infrastructure. I still am sceptical that much of what is being built now can survive a century. It seems most plausible that transport costs are going to climb up every year over the next few decades and I don't see how that doesn't break the back of many many communities.

verisimi 3y ago

All that. And also, the environmental cost of producing batteries is terrible. That cost is hidden (in the mining and making of batteries, and probs the disposal) as opposed to during the lifetime in the fuel that is burnt. This is to say, it's that the environment justification doesn't hold either. So why are governments committing to these non-sensical goals?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

panick21_ 3y ago

Crossrail has just been an incredibly success in terms of public infrastructure. But outside of London its true. There are cities that are huge from a European perspective without even a basic S-Bahn tunnel. The UK is the perfect place for High Speed rail, and part of the problem with it is the idiotic bending over backwords for NIMBYs and the generally terrible rail planning practices. Not having built this in like the 80s is insanely dumb. If we are talking about poor people then bus reduction in bus service is actually by far the biggest deal.

faeriechangling 3y ago

Transport becoming more expensive and housing becoming more expensive is linked at the hip. Where is the most expensive property in the world? For the most part, next to ports, next to railways, next to subways, next to anything that makes makes it cheap to move people and things. Demand for housing and transport is rising beyond the means of the infrastructure to actually sustain this. Most of the whinging I see against governments surrounds their unwillingness to restrict investment and immigration, which they won’t do because their books are balanced around the notion that they will “grow out of debt”. Likely we will arrive at a point where we have a bunch of infrastructure we built that’s infeasible to maintain that will turn into ruins when the population gets around to contracting.

panick21_ 3y ago
IF you have lots of railways and subways then almost everywhere is gone be next to those things. And it also leads to a situation where your combined transport and housing cost are actually small. That is the right way to improve society. In Switzerland there are tons of really cheap places with fantastic rail connections. The idea that rail infrastructure isn't sustainable is kind of nonsense, even with smaller population. Road infrastructure maintenance is far more expensive and in a bad economic situation you can run 30 year old trains. Its simply a matter of what your society puts priority on. Main part of Britain specifically is so densely populated that even with massive collapse in population most of the rail network would still be vital.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  I agree, so it will be the infrastructure connected by no better means than roads which will turn to ruins first. Yet we are still building up such infrastructure, even if emphasis is gradually shifting to more sustainable infrastructure. I still am sceptical that much of what is being built now can survive a century. It seems most plausible that transport costs are going to climb up every year over the next few decades and I don't see how that doesn't break the back of many many communities.