Forum Topic

Reducing our reliance on cars

I know this has come up before, but it's worth raising again because cutting fossil fuel use is absolutely essential if we're ever to tackle global warming. Since the government has feebly passed the buck to local authorities on dealing with the closely linked issue of air pollution, we have to turn to our own borough, but its record is not strong. It has pressed for hybrid buses to be introduced in Putney, and that has had a definite effect (and anyway credit for that should go to TfL), though Putney High Street is still well over the legal limit for NO2, but otherwise its record is lacklustre.Now Robert Molteno of Wandsworth Living Streets has produced an interesting analysis (on which I've drawn: thank you, Robert) of the latest planned increases in parking charges in the borough - for example, increasing an annual resident's parking charge from £146 to £161, an increase running at twice the rate of inflation; the charge for a second car is only £35 more than for a resident's first car. This would have been a great opportunity to further improve air quality (by, for example, introduce higher Parking Permit charges for dirty diesels, to discourage car ownership or to raIse funds to build pedestrian and cycle-friendly infrastructure. What a missed opportunity!The paper does have a goal for reducing the number of cars owned in the borough - but the aimed reduction is only 9,218 by 2041. This is a decrease of only 11% over 27 years – or an average of 341 fewer cars (less than half a per cent of the total number) in our borough each year.So unless we can press the borough to attempt something stronger, it's down to all of us to act. One way is to walk and cycle more, thus reducing our car use. No doubt the usual suspects will complain about cycling on the pavement or people wearing lycra, but I hope this will be received more positively.One weak reason people use to argue against cycling (apart from the obvious one of the real danger from heedless - or worse - drivers, is the complaint that you can't take your shopping home on a bike. That is a particularly weak argument: for example, I've just brought home 10 kilos (22 lbs) of shopping in two panniers, and before someone says it's all right for me, I'm a youngster, I can assure you that I am very far from that.With effects of dirty air and global warming becoming ever more serious, it's past time we pressed our borough (and the government) to act, and also to act ourselves. We cannot go on as things are.

Richard Carter ● 2831d38 Comments

I agree with the push to reduce pollution and I believe we are lucky enough to have a very good public transport system in London.However, we cannot get rid of cars completely.  I use mine once or twice a week to buy a large grocery shop. But I know that there are taxis, online shopping, or in my case I have finally given into buying a wheelie shopping trolly (although try lifting that onto a bus).I also rely on my car to travel to family in Wiltshire and Somerset.  If I got the train, I would have to hump a case up the stairs at Putney Bridge Station to get to Paddington, which frankly I can not longer do.  Or get a taxi to Paddington (not such a hardship) and then rely on my family to collect me from stations that are quite a few miles from were they live.  Instead of just driving along the M4 door to door.Have a thought for those who need/want to travel outside London.  But I do agree that locally there is very little need.

Bunny Payne ● 2831d

Incidentally, I learned very recently that the Freedom Pass is funded by parking permit charges!!

Bunny Payne ● 2831d

While I may agree with some bits of your post, what I find quite extraordinary is that the expansion of Heathrow appears to be going ahead which will entail some 25,000 more airplanes a year flying above us....Also, what happens with cars coming from outside the borough?Another point I think is important to make regarding climate change is that we should not only be planting more trees everywhere but fighting against the enormous swathes of deforestation taking place around the world.  The Amazon was supposedly the lungs of world (or some said).

Ivonne Holliday ● 2831d

Bunny, I'm certainly not arguing that all car use should be stopped (and we drive to Wiltshire, too, sometimes!) but that usage needs to be reduced. TfL find that over a third of all the car trips made by London residents are shorter than 2km; 1.6 million car trips per day could potentially be walked, and 2.7 million per day could be cycled. That gives an idea of the extent to which change could be made.

Richard Carter ● 2831d

I agree with all of the above. I think one very practical measure that could be taken is for all schools to help facilitate more car sharing. Most pupils live close to someone else going to the same school. We have entered into one this school year. It works very well from a practical perspective, but also means one less car on the roads for each school run, lower petrol costs per family, and we've made new friends in the process too. Win win!

Clare Noeken ● 2831d

And now even the motorist's friend,  the Daily Express, has raised the alarm about the effects of pollution:

Richard Carter ● 2830d

Ivonne, I also notice there is a bit more on the news recently about the adverse effects on health of pollution. especially on children.  I for one know that when I stay out of London for a while, I cough less.I was told by a doctor very many years ago, that if you dissect the lungs of a person who has always lived in London and not smoked, their lungs will look just the same as somebody who has smoked for many years.  Not sure how long ago that was... but.  Pollution is the unspoken killer, no matter how many people bring it up, as all Governments know it's true and can't/don't want to tackle it properly for financial reasons.  Same as plastic pollution, the measures taken so far are pathetic.Here endeth my Monday lesson ;)

Bunny Payne ● 2830d

Hello Bunny,I am not contesting that pollution levels are unacceptable.The first thing that people say is ban cars - but there are many people, me included (perhaps you too?), that rely on cars in order to be able to have an independent life.    Including travelling out to the countryside.But there are many other things that should also be considered - for one is a no-no to Heathrow's expansion.  By definition, planes pollute - and immensely.Another thing that has been argued in many programmes is not only to increase tree planting but also to plant hedges in front of houses on main roads.  Perhaps we should discourage drop down curves and individual drive ways if it means destroying a garden?One thing does not disqualify another nor one solution overrides all others - it must be a whole package of different measures.I would also propose that high raised buildings are not built along the river side.  For one, they block air circulation and increase pollution in surrounding areas.Why not consider having electric trams instead of buses?Putney has an enormous problem with pollution, particularly on PHS.  How would you solve that?  Banning all comes that come through the A3?  Where would they go?  You cannot shift a problem of this nature to other areas, at least I do not think that this is a solution but creating a problem elsewhere.Thank you

Ivonne Holliday ● 2830d

David Irwin shared the startling statistic that the average car is only on the move for 4% of the time. RAC report from 2012, but things probably haven’t changed that much https://www.racfoundation.org/research/mobility/spaced-out-perspectives-on-parking.  Incredibly expensive and poor use of precious urban space. Lots of other solutions already available  -  car clubs/car rental for longer journeys, cycling and walking for shorter journeys around Putney, and the unglamourous but fantastically useful shopping trolley.

Ruth Pates ● 2828d

Only thing in your post, Ivonne, that I would challenge is the statement that "The first thing that people say is ban cars." Actually, I don't think anyone has said that (certainly not here on the forum), what we're arguing for - it's even on the heading - is that we need to reduce our reliance on the car. As Ruth says, the way the car is dominating our lives is horrendous; a small example: have a look at a photo of a typical town street from, say, the 1950s and compare it with one taken today (I've seen such comparisons but I can't put a finger on one just now): the way cars have taken over the road space is devastating. The car has brought great benefits - but at a terrible price in reduced health and life generally.Actually, another point about PHS: you say, rightly, that to stop cars going through PHS  would merely displace them elsewhere, so that our benefit would be gained at the expense of people where the traffic was displaced to. The answer, though, is to reduce flows through PHS *and other areas too* in a parallel exercise in traffic reduction. It's commonly argued that if you reduce traffic in some ares it will merely crop up somewhere else, but that makes the basic error of assuming the the volume of traffic is fixed. It isn't: levels are dynamic, and if it's more difficult to drive then some will be put off, depending on the level  of difficulty. That's why the traditional solution of making it flow more quickly is so wrong, because if you improve the flow it only encourages those presently deterred from joining the road and thus reproducing pollution as before, but with more cars. That's why an overall solution is needed (road pricing is one way of reducing the number of vehicles on the roads) but the big if is whether governments have the guts to confront the car lobby, and so far none have, not here anyway.

Richard Carter ● 2828d

"As Ruth says, the way the car is dominating our lives is horrendous; a small example: have a look at a photo of a typical town street from, say, the 1950s and compare it with one taken today (I've seen such comparisons but I can't put a finger on one just now): the way cars have taken over the road space is devastating."Some here:-https://www.francisfrith.com/putney/photos?search_for=high

David Ainsworth ● 2827d

Thanks for that, David.Meanwhile, here's a really brilliant idea: primary school pupils in Greater Manchester have started patrolling the streets outside their schools as uniformed “junior” police officers (authorised/supported by their head teacher) , issuing fake parking tickets to parents parked on the pavement or sitting with their engines running.The junior PCSOs (police community safety officers) were the brainchild of Steve Marsland, the headteacher of Russell Scott primary in Denton in Tameside, after he noticed a huge increase in the number of children with asthma. Eighteen months ago, he started to use an inhaler after having trouble breathing dangerously polluted air.I'd like to suggest that Wandsworth take this up, though the initiative, given that Wandsworth are, sadly, followers rather than leaders, may have to come from local head teachers.The full story is in the Guardian (and I hope this doesn't cause the Guardianophobes here too many problems, after all they don't have to read it!) here: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/feb/13/primary-school-pupils-issue-fake-parking-tickets-to-tackle-pollution

Richard Carter ● 2827d

I too thought this a great idea but without wishing to be negative I doubt it would work here, Londoners are in just too much hurry & given to aggresion. I also think the reasoning that the Head noted more asthma is aetiologically unsound, there are just so many factors - being kept indoors more, overly hygenic environments, overuse of calpol etc.Be good to see though!

Peter Miles ● 2827d

Hello Richard,I was under the (strong) impression that there was a suggestion of banning cars from PHS, or to pedestrianize PHS, on this forum a few months ago.  At the same time, there were queries as to why Putney cannot be more like Richmond and/or Barnes.  The answer I gave at the time is that Putney Hill and Putney High Street are two of three exit points of the A3 - and Richmond or Barnes do not have main roads exiting there.....Another point to be made is that for many people who live outside London, it is cheaper for them to use a car than pay annual rail season tickets.... A former boss of mine lived in Southampton and drove every day into London for years…The way cars are dominating our lives is in many ways horrendous but a lifeline to some; it is the reflection of relative increase in wealth, an increased independence for a few.  There is increased pollution for sure and reduction of health and life generally.  But this must also be seen in total context – computers, mobile phones and technological advance in general and lack of physical activity also have had, and continue to have, a very detrimental effect on health and life span.Comparing London today to the 1950s is very romantic and lovely I agree.  But the 1950s had rationing still so it was not all roses then.  The wealth of the UK did not start improving noticeably till the 80s, with Maggie Thatcher’s government.  Not only was there an increase in wealth, there was a massive change with regard to food, diversity of it, coffee started improving only then. I believe very strongly that there must be affordable alternatives to the car.  Rail fares and annual tickets are, in many cases, more expensive that driving.  Something to consider?

Ivonne Holliday ● 2827d

Totally agree alot of people use cars needlessly. I do feel part of the increase of car usage is down to people having to move further and further out due to the increase in both house and business rental pricesWhile photos of the lack of cars in the 1950s may prove a point i think pollution in the 1950s and 60s was worse wasnt it? And life expectancy shorter?The work / life balance and social behaviour and such things have all changed since then (not always for the better) which is the main cause. Alot of people finish work at 7/8/9pm when there is less public transport, and so would like to get home quicker. Thats just one example. Reducing the cost of public transport dramatically would helpAnother thing which would be great is schools promoting drive free days, say once a week. My mum used to walk me to school, now everyone seems to drive their children and sometimes its the only exercise they getI'll shush now as i've no idea how you change pattern of behaviour..... :/

Emarisa Battoia ● 2827d

Not sure what the answer is to this - it requires a major cultural change. To be honest, as someone who has driven in London since 1970 and drove a lot in the 1980s I now detest driving in London - traffic jams, difficulties in parking, changing one way systems, traffic calming, etc - I now prefer to use public transport - I can read, work and study (in fact I started using trains a lot about 15 or so years ago when I was doing OU courses); travelling is no longer "dead time". Ok, at my age I get cheap or free travel, also no longer owning a car saves me money, and I can  the occasional taxi/minicab (and drink) if necessary - or  use Zipcar in I do need a vehicle. I believe the motor industry's long term view is autonomous, electric vehicles using an Uber like model for booking trips: moving away from car ownership and a self drive model. My own experience is if car ownership is expensive and inconvenient but public/shared transport is cheap and easy attitudes will change. But public transport must also be accessible - all stations must have lifts and ramps - and sufficient private hire cars, including Uber, must have wheelchair capabilities. (I'm basing that on my experience of dealing with elderly relatives who have mobility problems.)  Possibly not a popular approach ... and just a suggestion ...

Michael Ixer ● 2827d

Michael, you are so but SO right! We do prefer public transport.I do not know what you mean about "the motor industry's long term view is autonomous".  I am perplexed because I think so-called "need" (new need, additional need) is being pushed by companies - be it cars, fridges, etc.  We no longer repair, we replace! How do you solve the problem named cars? I wonder if the solution is not staring at us in the face?About two weeks after the Kings Cross fire, I was on the Victoria Line from Oxford Circus to Victoria.  The train took 20 minutes from Oxford Circus to reach Green Park.  The announcement on the tannoy was that there was a fire in the tunnel ahead.  I took off in Green Park, ran like mad to the Piccadilly Line to Earls Court, reached East Putney when my then fiancée was waiting for me.  I said most categorically that I was buying a car and never travelling in an underground.  I have not done this since. Overground fine, underground never!Perhaps that is why I am so keen in alternative means of transport!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2827d

Boyfriend to become husband!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2827d

Sorry: "autonomous vehicles" - US jargon for "self drive cars".

Michael Ixer ● 2827d

Thank you!!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2827d

This confused self-regarding nonsense is more about trying to prove how amazing the world would be if everyone was like him rather than genuinely tackling the problem of emissions.The fact that he has little grasp of this complex issue is made clear in his first paragraph where he shows he doesn't understand balance that needs to be struck between combatting global warming and improving air quality. Reduction of fossil fuels is a major issue but NO2 is not a fossil fuel it is a by-product of the process by which a diesel engine functions. So a choice needs to be made - is our primary focus global warming or air quality?Diesel fuel was originally promoted in this country because it results in lower CO2 emission and lower fossil fuel use. It continues to do so. However, it does issue more NO2 leading to Mr Carter's use of the term 'dirty diesels'. In fact a Euro 5 or Euro 6 standard diesel emits virtually no particulates due to the filters that they have fitted.The problem that raises is there is no reliable research that convincingly demonstrates that NO2, even in the most elevated levels seen in urban areas, does any damage to health. Totally effective filters are not viable on larger vehicles so high NO2 levels always coincide with high particulate emissions. There is no dispute that particulates are very bad for people's health but the Government's own advisory panel has recently downgraded the health risk presented by NO2 in acknowledgement of the lack of evidence that it causes any extra harm.Therefore by switching policy emphasis away from combatting fossil fuels and CO2 by discouraging diesels all that is going to be achieved is a slight reduction in levels of an emission that may well be harmless.It is worse that that however. While various claims have been made about the reduction of life expectancy due to poor air quality have been made, the evidence is a bit sketchy. What there is overwhelming data on is how life expectancy more than anything is linked to income. Therefore if you genuinely don't want more people to die, the last thing that you should do is propose the kind of highly regressive tax that Mr Carter is so enthusiastic for. He has zero conception of what a significant negative such taxes can be for people on relatively low income and they couldn't be more carefully targeted to hit the working poor. Lots of people who need a car to take their tools to work don't make enough to get a new car every few years. I think it is a safe bet that Mr Carter never was employed in a job that required him to work with a tool.There is already a warning from France where the Gilets Jaunes movement has sprung up primarily due to a reaction to sharp rises in fuel costs. It is perfectly understandable that people will react if their already low income is being squeezed. It will be of little comfort to them that notionally the policy aims to reduce air pollution.The problem with Mr Carter's idea that all would be fine if we used a double pannier to collect our shopping is that it is a complete fantasy. Even a non-car owner generates a significant amount of vehicle movements every day by the requirement to deliver them food and services. It is easy for somebody whose lifestyle does not require the use of a car to smugly assume that all traffic on the road serves no good purpose but the reality is the proportion of vehicle journeys that are unnecessary is tiny. Therefore you are not going to solve the problem by punitive regressive taxes which won't do anything to improve air quality. Ultimately the only way to reduce road traffic is to make the alternatives better and the only way to improve air quality is through technology.

David Parker ● 2826d

@David Parker 09.16I can't say why but to see the words Mr Carter and tool in the same sentence made me smile...😌

Sue Hammond ● 2826d

Unfortunately, "confused self-regarding nonsense" accurately described your own contribution. To take a few of your points:Striking a balance between global warming and improving air quality? Both need to be tackled: we need to reduce both CO2 emissions (to attack global warming) and harmful other by-products like NO2 - the statement that "NO2 is not a fossil fuel" is a nonsense in itself - volatile organic compounds and small particulates (to attack the issue of pollution.Euro 5 and 6 diesels may emit fewer particulates but only if the filters are maintained. And it's a mistake to imagine that the engines alone are significant producers of particulates, since tyre dust and brake linings also produce large amounts which, incidentally, is why electric vehicles are not the cure-all answer."there is no reliable research that convincingly demonstrates that NO2, even in the most elevated levels seen in urban areas, does any damage to health". Comprehensively wrong: there is a vast amount of research demonstrating the health effects: to take only two examples,try the meta-analysis in the European Respiratory Journal (https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2014/02/20/09031936.00114713) and the evidence posted by the American Lung Association (https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/outdoor/air-pollution/nitrogen-dioxide.html).The "idea that all would be fine if we used a double pannier to collect our shopping is that it is a complete fantasy" Of course it is, and I never suggested any such thing. There's a well-known technique of trying to destroy someone's argument by completely distorting. That's what you've done here, and it is as transparent as it is dishonest."the only way to reduce road traffic is to make the alternatives better and the only way to improve air quality is through technology"  Wrong again: a dual approach is needed to reduce traffic: by making it more difficult by taxation or restrictions (the stick) and by improving alternatives (the carrot). And improving air quality cannot wait for as yet unknown technical improvements but by more drastic measures: people's health cannot wait.

Richard Carter ● 2826d

'the statement that "NO2 is not a fossil fuel" is a nonsense in itself - volatile organic compounds and small particulates (to attack the issue of pollution.'You don't understand what fossil fuels and related emissions are and why they are harmful. As they ultimately derive from animals and plants they will contain carbon. There never have been any nitrogen based life forms on this planet.'Euro 5 and 6 diesels may emit fewer particulates but only if the filters are maintained'Which they have to be because the filter is checked as part of the MOT test."Comprehensively wrong: there is a vast amount of research demonstrating the health effects"There is no such research that convincingly makes the link simply because there is no instance of NO2 existing independently of particulates so it is impossible to test. One of the links you gave lumps NO2 in with other pollutants and the other concludes it is harmful not based on original research but by looking at a number of other studies most of which had not concluded that it wasn't. 'Wrong again: a dual approach is needed to reduce traffic: by making it more difficult by taxation or restrictions (the stick) and by improving alternatives (the carrot).'The stick method that you are so fond of doesn't seem to be working. Motor vehicle journeys did fall quite sharply  up until around 2010 as taxation and other factors increased cost but since then there has been little decline despite further increases in cost brought about by policy. This would be indicating to any sensible person that demand has become inelastic to any changes in cost. This means that if you further increase taxes on motoring the extra cost will be absorbed by the motorist or passed onto the consumer.That your proposed policies wouldn't be effective is the least of the reasons for objecting. The far larger problem is that they will act as a highly regressive tax. Branding vehicles as 'dirty diesels' gives Transport for London and local authorities a great excuse for raising charges on these type of vehicle but most of them that are regularly driven around London will be for people in relatively low paid occupations. Nearly all of London's mini-cabs are run on diesel because of their greater fuel efficiency. Wealthy individuals can easily dodge these extra charges by upgrade to an exempt car which they probably would have done earlier but someone struggling to make a living may not be able to do that. Basically bad science is being used to justify revenue raising measures that will provide no benefit to the fight against climate change or to our air quality but will hit some of the less well off but hardest working sections of our society.

David Parker ● 2826d

Just thinking about yourself Richard some people are unable to carry shopping that's why Doctors Surgery's arrange for patients to have taxi cards or use mini cabs. I used to ride a bike but carrying heavy shopping I can't only a small amount. So the large shopping is done when I get help at the weekend. Richard you make out your thinking about other people we do not all want to shop on line I like to look at my meat.

Barbara Stevens ● 2826d

MATRON!!!!  ...sorry, couldnt resist

Craig Fordham ● 2826d

Oh and my 2 Veg. ha ha.

Barbara Stevens ● 2826d

I don’t really understand the hostility to the suggestion that we reduce our reliance on cars (not a car ban, just reducing car use). Everyone benefits.  Essential motorists benefit from less congestion, as would those of us on foot and bicycles.  I agree with others on this forum that it is a complex issue, but to me this is not an excuse for inaction. Most of us can make small changes to how we get around, even if we start with using the car less for, say, just one  day per week and take it from there.

Ruth Pates ● 2826d

I think the hostility is towards yet more layers of taxation on car ownership which will be ineffective in reducing car use or pollution rather than plain resistance from people to using their cars.As you say the issue is complex. We have seen a massive behavioural shift, particularly in London which has reduced the number of car journeys being made but that process stalled at the beginning of this decade suggesting the easy advances through the reduction of non-essential journeys has already been made. The problem now is that net gains are more difficult. Let's take for instance shopping. You may think that not driving and ordering online is good for the environment but the fastest growing type of journey at the moment in London by far is delivery vans as Ocado and Amazon Prime etc grow and grow. The chances are your car emits next to no harmful gases but vans and other commercial vehicles tend to be much more harmful to air quality.What we need to be careful of is politicians who will exploit the universal belief of Londoners that we should have fewer cars on our streets and clearer air to introduce measures that have no other purpose than to raise revenue.

David Parker ● 2825d

There is quite a lot more that could be done to enable Londoners to use their cars less, and agree that a multi-pronged approach is required for such a complex area. I think that we could be much more ambitious  about this  - higher shifts to active travel have been achieved elsewhere in a London so we know it is possible. And, iwe are well behind the best in  Europe in this area (about half a century behind the Netherlands for example). A good start would be to focus on changes to the street environment rather than just hectoring individuals  - government’s own evid nice show this to be a relatively low cost and high value intervention. Such improvements would not have a significant impact on essential car users.

Ruth Pates ● 2824d

Interestingly, the Daily Mirror is reporting that many schools are banning the school run because of fears about pollution: "Hundreds of heads are piloting bans on school runs in a bid to protect kids from car pollution."Thousands more are due to follow and campaigners want it introduced nationwide.Fumes have been linked to soaring asthma cases."One expert said: “Pollution levels around schools are worrying.”"And in a bid to tackle the dangerous levels of toxic air linked to a rise in young asthma cases, hundreds of heads across the country are piloting bans on vehicles parking near the gates."Thousands more are expected to trial the schemes, backed by a number of measures including £50 fines and fixed penalties leading to points on licences."Excellent news!Full report here: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/parents-banned-school-runs-drastic-14034133

Richard Carter ● 2820d

Great news, but isn't it already an offence to park by schools at certain times? And leaving engine running whilst parked is defintely an offence - https://www.confused.com/on-the-road/driving-law/fines-for-idlingBTW did you see how many third party cookies Daily Mirror tries to install??!!

Peter Miles ● 2819d

There are restrictions on parking outside schools, but they are quite narrowly defined (and are anyway widely ignored), so it's easy for parents to park near schools with only a few yards to walk there.And no, I didn't notice that about the Mirror site: thank you for the warning!

Richard Carter ● 2819d

Sounds good but will the problem just be moved a road or two away ?

Andy Pike ● 2819d

Yes, I think it’s a marvellous idea, because I live close to 2 primary schools.  Presumably those parents who can’t park in my neighbourhood will have to use roads further away.I don’t understand why some parents think it is perfectly acceptable to just leave their cars on the corner of a road, stopping access for anyone in a wheelchair.  Why is it also acceptable to leave a notice on your car saying “Picking Up from School”?  I would like to see more enforcement.

Martine Guy ● 2819d

Interesting initiative from Zipcar (must admit I've not looked at the details):https://www.zipcar.co.uk/ULEZ

Michael Ixer ● 2819d

I would like to see Wandsworth pilot exclusion zones around schools at drop off and pick up times. It seems to have worked well in acamden.  About a year or so ago when gasworks in Charlwood Road, was not possible to drive and park immediately outside the school, and parents and children seemed to cope with walking a short distance, presumably parking nearby or maybe even walking the whole way. Worth a short trial maybe.

Ruth Pates ● 2819d

Yet another reason for reducing our reliance on cars: transport is now the single-largest sector within the UK’s CO2 emissions total. This is because transport emissions have barely changed since 1990, while most other sectors have declined.

Richard Carter ● 2809d