Transport spending 'skewed towards London'

[Cobbydaler]

Arguments on both sides, but surely rural public transport needs more investment?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16235349

[Damien]

Not sure how much of that is because of the Tube and Buses. London has special requirements for public transport...Additionally how to do they work out the 'per head' measurement? As considerably more people will be travelling from outside London into the City compared with the North East.

[heero_yuy]

With transport being a major contributor to CO2 emissions we should be looking to reduce the demand for transport across the nation. It's sheer lunacy for millions, particulaly here in the SE, to spend hours a day on crowded public transport, or in cars to get to a desk where they sit in front of a computer all day and then go home the same way.

And do it all agin the next day. Employers must be encouraged to allow a much greater amount of home working or working from local hubs where at all possible. The benefits of home working to both businesses and the workers themselves have been shown by much research.

Home workers more productive

Virtually anything that used to be an office job and uses computers and telecoms can be done remotely for at least part of the week," says Borrett's colleague, Peter Thomson. "Take nurses in a hospital," he says. "They have to be physically present when they're caring for patients, but they also do a lot of paperwork. That could be done anywhere."

Source

Doing so would release transport funding for areas where it's really needed and there are few alternatives.

[Damien]

Also the rather central nature of a City compared the wide area covered by 'the North-East' for example means that investment in a City is likely to be felt by far more people.

[Alan Fry]

If london get a lot of the transport money, then that proves that the UK needs to spend much more on Transport, because the London Transport system is nowere near for purpose!

[Hugh]

In English, please?

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Hugh

In English, please?

Like I said, we need to spend more on Transport, beacuse even Londons transport system is not good at all (and they gey by far the most money)!

[chris9991]

I wonder whether London thrives because of the transport spending or in spite of it

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

If london get a lot of the transport money, then that proves that the UK needs to spend much more on Transport, because the London Transport system is nowere near for purpose!

I presume you live in London, or at least work there, sir?

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I presume you live in London, or at least work there, sir?

I work there but I live further out

[Damien]

London's transport system is pretty decent to be fair. It can be horribly congested but it's well served by the bus and tube network, the Oyster card was a really good idea to help both speed things up and make travelling simple, and there are more ideas to improve it (bikes, DLR).

London is one of the oldest large cities in the World, it's also one of the most populated. It's a pretty impressive achievement that it's quite easy to get around.

Back to the topic. I think those statistics are rubbish. There are places where public transport simply makes sense and others where it doesn't make sense. Rural England it makes less sense because places are further apart and the demand to get to those places in lower. It's hard to see how you could develop a effective transport system there, buses pretty much and trains between the towns and major hubs and we have that. London on the other hand will be grossly inflated because of the tube network and the sheer numbers of people travelling to each area of the city at any one time. It's not surprising then that London dominates those figures.

What the government should be investing in is high speed rail and encouraging investment in areas outside of London, such as Manchester. High Speed Rail from London to Manchester, extend the Manchester Metro system and encourage new businesses there. That would both create a lot of jobs up there and relieve some pressure on London...

[Ignitionnet]

High Speed Rail's current plans are extremely debatable. Do you not think it more likely they'd merely enlarge the commuting area to London, and are going to be expensive anyway?

---------- Post added at 22:47 ---------- Previous post was at 22:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

I work there but I live further out

Then you'll know the transport in London is pretty good relative to many cities in the world. Certainly the Canadians and Americans I know marvel at how accessible London is via public transport.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

High Speed Rail's current plans are extremely debatable. Do you not think it more likely they'd merely enlarge the commuting area to London, and are going to be expensive anyway?

---------- Post added at 22:47 ---------- Previous post was at 22:47 ----------



Then you'll know the transport in London is pretty good relative to many cities in the world. Certainly the Canadians and Americans I know marvel at how accessible London is via public transport.

Obviously the more you use London public transport, the more you notice the hiccups and faults.... still no mean feat to keep a city of THAT size going.

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

High Speed Rail's current plans are extremely debatable. Do you not think it more likely they'd merely enlarge the commuting area to London, and are going to be expensive anyway?

Not if you have the City far enough away, which is why I think Manchester makes more sense than Birmingham. I certainly see the latter become a even further extension of London if there is a high speed rail between the two, it's already close enough and making it faster will make it very commutable.

Manchester on the other hand is far enough away to make it mostly impractical and expensive for a daily commute. However the speed at which London can be accessed would be a benefit to businesses. Let Manchester grow and take pressure of London.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Damien

London's transport system is pretty decent to be fair. It can be horribly congested but it's well served by the bus and tube network, the Oyster card was a really good idea to help both speed things up and make travelling simple, and there are more ideas to improve it (bikes, DLR).

London is one of the oldest large cities in the World, it's also one of the most populated. It's a pretty impressive achievement that it's quite easy to get around.

Back to the topic. I think those statistics are rubbish. There are places where public transport simply makes sense and others where it doesn't make sense. Rural England it makes less sense because places are further apart and the demand to get to those places in lower. It's hard to see how you could develop a effective transport system there, buses pretty much and trains between the towns and major hubs and we have that. London on the other hand will be grossly inflated because of the tube network and the sheer numbers of people travelling to each area of the city at any one time. It's not surprising then that London dominates those figures.

What the government should be investing in is high speed rail and encouraging investment in areas outside of London, such as Manchester. High Speed Rail from London to Manchester, extend the Manchester Metro system and encourage new businesses there. That would both create a lot of jobs up there and relieve some pressure on London...

More and more people are moving into london, we need more invest a lot more into transport in london and the uk