Roland Perry wrote:
Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point, and
has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity.

Well yes, but as it is supporting 90% of the load, it has clearly scaled
thus far... Which is why more rail should be built before other
transportation modes, but anyway...

The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the
private motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere
near it, a good way to get around London. A feel your statistic proves
my point.


Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must have
a *very* good reason.

I think you have more faith than I. I walk my dog from Tooting Common
back to home each night and I often count the number of cars with two or
less passengers (yes I know, sad, but it's something that annoys me).
I'd estimate a figure of around 80% have two or less people in the car,
around 50% having one. These are in cars of all shapes and sizes, and do
not count commercial vehicles. With the quantities we are talking about,
I cannot for a second believe _all_ these people have a "very good
reason", but then I guess the discussion boils down to what a good
reason is, because ultimately that's subjective.

As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for
a good stats site for a while.

From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no immediate
reference.

Wasn't there also a LUL one which stated some crazy stat about journeys
under one mile being performed by a car?

M4, Westway, then Marble Arch via Paddington aren't particularly
congested most of the day.

I don't think the congestion on a single given route at a specific time
of day is pertinent, we're discussing scalability of transportation.

Dan

Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I picked the one which is most common, the 89-98 model.

OK, so let's use the contemporary Mondeo and E-class for comparison.
Mondeo 14'11" x 5'8"

My Parkers says "2000-" model, 15'5" x 5'11"

I'm giving the previous model dimensions here.

E-class 15'9" x 5'10"

ditto "2002-" model 15'9" x 6'5"

Likewise - previous model.

Have both of these been superseded since last August (the date of my
Parkers).

The E-class and Mondeo, no. The Disco, yes.

If you're comparing discontinued models, then compare them evenly.
If you're comparing current models, then compare them evenly.

However, this is largely a minor point, as we are agreed that road
surface area is irrelevant, as a few inches here-or-there makes no real
difference in use.

I'm glad you agree it's a silly claim.

It certainly clouds the whole debate - and, as a result, it's a very
poor point to use.

Not sure what's lacking in the academic honesty.

"Cheating" by frigging your figures to prove your point. Comparing older
smaller 4x4 models with newer larger "car" ones to make your comparison
look better. Disco 3s are proliferating rapidly, and - given the poor
reputation that the old model had for many things - they will very soon
"feel" more numerous, especially in the centre of London.

One proposition was space. Weight is a claim that is less easily
disproved, and leads directly to vastly increased emissions - which I
noticed you snipped. I repeat - the current Disco's CO2 g/km emissions
are only slightly short of those of a Mondeo PLUS an Astra combined.

You've extended the criteria to include weight and emissions (is a
diesel Disco really as bad as you describe, please give the numbers).

Yes. They are. There is no question about this.

Disco TD - 275g/km (249g/km manual, but the vast majority will be auto)

Mondeo TDCi - 151g/km (196g/km auto, but the vast majority will be
manual)
Astra CDTI - 118g/km (not available with autobox)

118+151 = 269 - so in typical configuration, I actually underestimated.
My apologies.

Merc E220CDi auto - 168-188g/km (manual 162-174, but the vast majority
will be auto) depending on tyre size

Still - could be worse. Disco v8 auto (no manual available) - 354g/km.
Oh, and in the interests of fairness - E55 AMG - 310g/km and Mondeo
ST220 - 249g/km.

Just to show that it's not down to different engine technologys - the
same v6 diesel used in the Disco TD when placed into the Jag S-type
(again, auto) manages 208g/km, and an automatic 545i (same engine as the
petrol Disco, X5 4.4 and Range-Rover) is 257g/km vs 317 in the X5 and
389g/km in the Rangie. The diesel X5 and Rangie share the 3.0 TD with
the 5-series, giving 250 (X5 3.0d) 299 (Rangie D6), 208 (530d) - all
paired to autoboxes, as they would be in the majority of vehicles
ordered.

One interesting point worth noting - The disparity in the Mondeo's
diesel/auto vs the diesel/manual figures suggest that that autobox
pairing is a very poor one - many of the larger cars get better CO2
figures with an autobox than as a manual. This is directly opposite
"folk-wisdom" which suggests that manuals are more efficient than autos.

(from www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk - part of the Dept of Transport)

In message , at
12:01:20 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point,
and has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity.

Well yes, but as it is supporting 90% of the load, it has clearly
scaled thus far... Which is why more rail should be built before other
transportation modes, but anyway...

The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the
private motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere
near it, a good way to get around London. A feel your statistic
proves my point.
Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must
have a *very* good reason.

I think you have more faith than I.

The number of people in the car is irrelevant. Although one could easily
make a case that the people who have had bad experiences of public
transport are much more likely to be single travellers who therefore end
up one-per-car.

I walk my dog from Tooting Common back to home each night and I often
count the number of cars with two or less passengers (yes I know, sad,
but it's something that annoys me). I'd estimate a figure of around 80%
have two or less people in the car, around 50% having one. These are in
cars of all shapes and sizes, and do not count commercial vehicles.
With the quantities we are talking about, I cannot for a second believe
_all_ these people have a "very good reason", but then I guess the
discussion boils down to what a good reason is, because ultimately
that's subjective.

Being stranded, missing meetings, failure of public transport to deliver
on its timetable...

As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking
for a good stats site for a while.
From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no
immediate reference.

Wasn't there also a LUL one which stated some crazy stat about journeys
under one mile being performed by a car?

Yes, there are a lot of people in the suburbs who drive to the shops and
back. I'm sure they weren't counted in the survey, which was about long
distance commuting to jobs in Central London.

M4, Westway, then Marble Arch via Paddington aren't particularly
congested most of the day.

I don't think the congestion on a single given route at a specific time
of day is pertinent, we're discussing scalability of transportation.

It's pertinent in as much as it's a car journey that patently "works".
Such things encourage people to attempt ones that don't.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
12:19:53 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Adrian remarked:
Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I picked the one which is most common, the 89-98 model.

OK, so let's use the contemporary Mondeo and E-class for comparison.
Mondeo 14'11" x 5'8"

My Parkers says "2000-" model, 15'5" x 5'11"

I'm giving the previous model dimensions here.

Ah, "contemporary" with the old Disco, not with today.

E-class 15'9" x 5'10"

ditto "2002-" model 15'9" x 6'5"

Likewise - previous model.

Have both of these been superseded since last August (the date of my
Parkers).

The E-class and Mondeo, no. The Disco, yes.

Yes, I already said the Disco was the old model, as Parkers has the new
model's width including wing mirrors (?why?) which makes comparisons
invalid.

If you're comparing discontinued models, then compare them evenly.
If you're comparing current models, then compare them evenly.

Yes, I'm trying to do that, although the smoke is making this more and
more difficult.

However, this is largely a minor point, as we are agreed that road
surface area is irrelevant, as a few inches here-or-there makes no real
difference in use.

Good. That settles the debate once and for all.

I'm glad you agree it's a silly claim.

It certainly clouds the whole debate - and, as a result, it's a very
poor point to use.

Good, we agree.

Not sure what's lacking in the academic honesty.

"Cheating" by frigging your figures to prove your point. Comparing older
smaller 4x4 models with newer larger "car" ones to make your comparison
look better. Disco 3s are proliferating rapidly, and - given the poor
reputation that the old model had for many things - they will very soon
"feel" more numerous, especially in the centre of London.

I'd happily use their current size if it was in Parkers. All a bit moot
as the claim was they were "far larger".

One proposition was space. Weight is a claim that is less easily
disproved, and leads directly to vastly increased emissions - which I
noticed you snipped. I repeat - the current Disco's CO2 g/km emissions
are only slightly short of those of a Mondeo PLUS an Astra combined.

You've extended the criteria to include weight and emissions (is a
diesel Disco really as bad as you describe, please give the numbers).

Yes. They are. There is no question about this.

Disco TD - 275g/km (249g/km manual, but the vast majority will be auto)

Mondeo TDCi - 151g/km (196g/km auto, but the vast majority will be
manual)
Astra CDTI - 118g/km (not available with autobox)

118+151 = 269 - so in typical configuration, I actually underestimated.
My apologies.

Merc E220CDi auto - 168-188g/km (manual 162-174, but the vast majority
will be auto) depending on tyre size

However, the diesel Disco is much more common than the diesel versions
of the other vehicles mentioned. (I'm not sure why, the E300D drives
just like a petrol car, but does over 40mpg).

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
The number of people in the car is irrelevant. Although one could easily
make a case that the people who have had bad experiences of public
transport are much more likely to be single travellers who therefore end
up one-per-car.

It's indicative of the unsuitability of private motor vehicles for urban
environments, or specifically London. The amount of space occupied by a
small number of travellers is discussed in another branch of this thread.

Being stranded, missing meetings, failure of public transport to deliver
on its timetable...

Given that the worst, most unreliable and slowest form of public
transport in London, the bus, is bound by exactly the same
infrastructure as the car (in fact, slightly better given bus lanes)
quite how so many people would come to the conclusion that their car is
better despite the roads being full to bursting already is beyond me.
Perhaps they don't care for logic. Perhaps they all have complex
journeys that would take four bus rides. Perhaps they don't give a toss
about other people using buses who do have a brain cell. I dunno. But
what I do know is that I still don't understand how people come to the
solution of the car, given that it's clearly no better anyway.

Yes, there are a lot of people in the suburbs who drive to the shops and
back. I'm sure they weren't counted in the survey, which was about long
distance commuting to jobs in Central London.

The thing is that a lot of what I perceive isn't in central London. The
congestion charge thankfully go rid of a lot of that. What I see is car
usage in the suburbs, zones 2-3 etc, where the congestion charge should
be extended to.

People actually drive long distances into central London?

Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Yes, I'm trying to do that, although the smoke is making this more and
more difficult.

So stop waving it about.

However, the diesel Disco is much more common than the diesel versions
of the other vehicles mentioned.

4x4s of the Disco's size do tend to be diseasel, yes - because the petrol
versions are so damn thirsty (18mpg official for the Disco vs 27 for the TD
and 36 for the diesel S-class Jag)

However, I think you'll find that a good proportion of most "normal" cars
are diseasels now, too. 32.5% of all cars sold in the UK during 2004, and
40% of Mondeos.

Neil Williams wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:28:38 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:


eg: LR Disco 14'10" x 5'11"
Ford Mondeo 15' 5" x 5'11"
Merc E series 15' 9" x 6' 5" A foot longer and 6" wider!!!

The latter being very much the "City executive's car of choice")


Quite, and things like Suzuki Jimnys and, indeed, that tiny Fiat (I
think) 4x4 car are not anything like as big, nor for that matter is my
88" Land Rover, which is about the length of your typical small hatch
(hardly a Chelsea tractor, mind, more a normal tractor!)

One also has to bear in mind *road space* rather than the space
physically occupied by the car. As a typical 4x4 is quite a bit taller
than a "normal" car, it reduces visibility for the car behind it, so the
car behind must keep more distance in order to retain visibility.

And, no, I don't drive it, or indeed anything else, in London, or not
with any frequency. The public transport is such that it is
unnecessary unless you need to carry a number of large or heavy items.
I have driven into central London precisely once (for the latter
reason) and I have no desire to repeat the experience.

I would say that in central London, in non-equipment cases, a Travelcard
is superior to a car for flexibility, price and convenience.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In message , at
13:41:05 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
The number of people in the car is irrelevant. Although one could
easily make a case that the people who have had bad experiences of
public transport are much more likely to be single travellers who
therefore end up one-per-car.

It's indicative of the unsuitability of private motor vehicles for
urban environments, or specifically London.

Quite the reverse. The people whose lifestyle appears to dictate that
they are unwilling to be held ransom by the vagaries of public
transport, are much more likely to make singleton journeys. They don't
ant to be held ransom to car-sharing either.

The amount of space occupied by a small number of travellers is
discussed in another branch of this thread.

Being stranded, missing meetings, failure of public transport to
deliver on its timetable...

Given that the worst, most unreliable and slowest form of public
transport in London, the bus, is bound by exactly the same
infrastructure as the car (in fact, slightly better given bus lanes)
quite how so many people would come to the conclusion that their car is
better despite the roads being full to bursting already is beyond me.

Because many of them have travelled from far enough away that a train is
the alternative. And having been stranded, and missed an important
meeting, once too often, revert to the car.

Perhaps they don't care for logic. Perhaps they all have complex
journeys that would take four bus rides. Perhaps they don't give a toss
about other people using buses who do have a brain cell. I dunno. But
what I do know is that I still don't understand how people come to the
solution of the car, given that it's clearly no better anyway.

Because it's door to door, and runs when they want it to - not on some
mythical once-every-15-minutes that tuns out to involve half an hour
waits in the rain once too often.

Yes, there are a lot of people in the suburbs who drive to the shops
and back. I'm sure they weren't counted in the survey, which was
about long distance commuting to jobs in Central London.

The thing is that a lot of what I perceive isn't in central London. The
congestion charge thankfully go rid of a lot of that. What I see is car
usage in the suburbs, zones 2-3 etc, where the congestion charge should
be extended to.

Is that on the trunk routes that most of the commuters are using?

People actually drive long distances into central London?

What's "long"? There are very large numbers who drive more than 50
miles.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
13:42:23 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Adrian remarked:
Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Yes, I'm trying to do that, although the smoke is making this more and
more difficult.

So stop waving it about.

I'm trying to disperse it.

However, the diesel Disco is much more common than the diesel versions
of the other vehicles mentioned.

4x4s of the Disco's size do tend to be diseasel, yes - because the petrol
versions are so damn thirsty (18mpg official for the Disco vs 27 for the TD
and 36 for the diesel S-class Jag)

So Parkers is wrong when it says the diesel disco is 25-34 (the previous
model being 30-40). This is the smoke of which we spake.

[Although from what I'm hearing, the new Disco seems to have somewhat
crossed the line from "family man's Land Rover" to "poor man's Range
Rover", to its detriment.]

However, I think you'll find that a good proportion of most "normal" cars
are diseasels now, too. 32.5% of all cars sold in the UK during 2004, and
40% of Mondeos.

That's good news then (apart from asthma suffers, apparently).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:44:21 on Tue, 15 Feb
2005, Dave Arquati remarked:
Neil Williams wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:28:38 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

eg: LR Disco 14'10" x 5'11"
Ford Mondeo 15' 5" x 5'11"
Merc E series 15' 9" x 6' 5" A foot longer and 6" wider!!!

The latter being very much the "City executive's car of choice")
Quite, and things like Suzuki Jimnys and, indeed, that tiny Fiat (I
think) 4x4 car are not anything like as big, nor for that matter is my
88" Land Rover, which is about the length of your typical small hatch
(hardly a Chelsea tractor, mind, more a normal tractor!)

One also has to bear in mind *road space* rather than the space
physically occupied by the car. As a typical 4x4 is quite a bit taller
than a "normal" car, it reduces visibility for the car behind it, so
the car behind must keep more distance in order to retain visibility.

And you've seen this happening in practice?

And, no, I don't drive it, or indeed anything else, in London, or not
with any frequency. The public transport is such that it is
unnecessary unless you need to carry a number of large or heavy items.
I have driven into central London precisely once (for the latter
reason) and I have no desire to repeat the experience.

I would say that in central London, in non-equipment cases, a
Travelcard is superior to a car for flexibility, price and convenience.

I agree, for my lifestyle. But we were talking about the tiny minority
who find the reverse to be true.
--
Roland Perry