Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


UK drivers miss bus as car numbers increase 30% in a decade

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 20 April 2009
THE number of cars in the UK has risen by almost a third in the last decade as Britons continue to shun public transport.
A new survey out today shows the number of cars has gone up by 30 per cent, from 22.7 million to 29.6 million in the last ten years, while the population only increased by 4 per cent.

But despite the increasing number of cars, research from the R
AC Foundation showed young people might be getting the message to make greater use of public transport, even while car usage in those aged over 70 was growing rapidly.

While 80 per cent of car owners would find it difficult to adjust to lifestyles without the car, the report points to the Climate Change Act requiring an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

Authors of the study, "The Car in British Society", concluded that broad policy arrangements would be needed, including road tolls and congestion charging, as well as personalised carbon allowances and carbon trading schemes.

The RAC Foundation said government support of high-speed rail ignored the reality that cars are clearly here to stay.

Foundation director Stephen Glaister said: "The British are not addicted to driving, but they are car-reliant. More than four out of five people say they would find it difficult to use their cars less.

"It is a myth to claim public transport is the magic answer. The Government's emphasis on high-speed rail ignores the reality of most people's lives.

"The car is here to stay. It is the bedrock of our society and our economy. It has democratised this country. There is no question of getting rid of cars. Instead we must change the type of cars we use – smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient models with fewer cradle-to-grave CO2 emissions."

The survey found that 85 per cent of households in rural areas have adults with a car licence, compared to 65 per cent in urban areas larger than 250,000 people.

In all, 46 per cent of cars clocked up less than 5,000 miles a year, with 8 per cent of all trips under half a mile in length using a car. Cars were used for 78 per cent of all trips of 2-3 miles and 80 per cent of journeys longer than five miles.

Almost half of people said they are willing and able to reduce their car use, but generally people prefer using the car to public transport.

Bruce Young, co-ordinator of the Lothian and Borders branch of the Association of British Drivers, said he expected the number of cars had now peaked as the population ages, gradually reducing the numbers able to drive.

He said: "Public transport is good when there are a large number of people moving from one area to another. But the introduction of the car has allowed people to live in areas where they never lived before, and buses can never meet that spread."

David Begg, former government transport adviser, said the argument with the public needed to be rephrased. Rather than claiming road taxes would improve public transport, it should be a question of road taxes or increased income tax.

He said: "We are sending out the wrong message – we would need to lower the cost of public transport. What government needs to do is try to change travel behaviour. We are a small island with the most congested roads in Europe and the highest car ownership. What the RAC have recognised is that without some kind of road pricing, journeys are going to get longer and unbearable."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 April 2009 9:39 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Motoring issues
 
1

Dileas,

20/04/2009 00:24:55
David who?

Didn't he used to teach economics at Napier?
So what does he know about transport, other than how to wreck a city's road network by sticking bus priority routes all over it?
2

Hmm ...,

20/04/2009 00:29:14
... "generally people prefer using the car to public transport."

Yes I had to go through to Glasgow to meet my wife from work in the evening for a while. I could either leave home at ten to two to catch the bus or at five to four to drive. Both modes got me to her work for 5.00 so guess which I preferred?
3

drunken proffet,

Tassy 20/04/2009 08:02:15
Get realistic, in another hundred years,individual transport will be restricted to government officials and trade union officials. Not a lot wrong with that if you can borrow it occassionally to take the kids down to the seaside. Mind you by then the seaside could be a lot closer. You see, life is never as black as you reckon.
4

Padraig,

20/04/2009 08:31:14
In another hundred years, Drunk?

In another couple of years, Crash Gordon reckons. His predecessor managed to convert from the accompanying detective to a motorcade of security outriders and back-up cars, even cabinet ministers get outriders as a perk, with their grace-and-favour houses and self-certified expenses!

Fortunately, this approach toward the "workers' paradise" that all Trots aim for is unlikely to happen - Crash is tipped to , um, crash next year when he eventually has no choice but to do his first audition for his present job - just as a lot of workers have been doing in the last ten years. And he already knows the outcome, hence his delaying tactics.

No, an effective government, trying to run the country instead of promoting a dogma-driven class war agenda, will enable individual transport to continue, recognising the benefits to the economy of enabling the people who actually contribute toward it to get about and do their jobs as quickly and efectively as possible.

But first it will have to get the economy out of the mire that Crash has created and is hell-bent on continuing until he is dragged, kicking and screaming, from Downing Street.
5

Padraig,

20/04/2009 08:37:07
And as for the seaside being a lot closer in a hundred years, I read recently that 97% of the earth's water is in the oceans, 2% is in ice and snow and the other 1% accounts for everything else - rivers, lochs, etc.

So even if the Arctic and Antarctic completly melted (which no one is saying will happen)just how much scope does that have for sea levels, which already cover more than two thirds of the earth's surface, to rise?

Zilch, that's how much!
6

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/04/2009 08:41:05
If a personal transporter that could move people at 10,000mph at reasonable cost were invented, then many folk would be commuting from Scotland to California for their day's work. After a few decades we would have become so used to this, that the suggestion that we should have to rely on airlines to move around the world would be greeted with derision.

We are prepared to put up with a certain amount of inconvenient or unpleasant things in our lives but try to avoid that proportion becoming too great. Cars generally reduce the time taken to travel a certain distance, so we compensate by arranging our lives so that we travel further. The distances we can travel increase enormously, but what varies far less is the amount of time and inconvenience spent travelling.

In Hmm...'s example in #2, if he didn't have a car, then likely his wife would have tried to find work closer to home. The time she spent travelling each day would be approximately the same, but the distance would be reduced.
7

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/04/2009 08:54:43
#5 Padraig, "if the Arctic and Antarctic completely melted just how much scope does that have for sea levels to rise?"

Answer:
Mountain glaciers = 0.5m
Greenland = 5-6m
West Antarctica = 5m
East Antarctica = 65m

Current predictions are for sea levels to rise over 1m this century.
8

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 20/04/2009 09:06:43
Isn't it lucky that you won't see that kind of sea rise then, eh Slioch?

Makes me think though, why should you care?
9

Duncan in Edinburgh,

20/04/2009 09:11:51
#2 What about by train? That's usually quicker for me, gets me right into the city, and avoids parking trouble and the dreaded Glasgow one-way system.
10

sceptic,

livingston 20/04/2009 09:37:00
Don't these "experts" David Begg et al just love telling everyone else how to live their lives! Of course what we really need on the roads are lanes reserved for politicians,members of the global warming secular cult and other important people. Rather on the lines of the old Soviet Union. After all what is the point of David Begg having a nice Jaguar and various reserved parking spaces if he is being held up by the hoi polloi while carrying out his important business.
11

sceptic,

livingston 20/04/2009 09:58:22
7Slioch
"Current predictions are for sea levels to rise over 1m this century"

Rather like that prediction from the Met Office that 2007 would be the warmest year, warmer even than 1998.Eleven years and counting and no indications of record temperatures coming soon. Indeed every indication that the rate of change of falling temperature is accelerating temperature.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
Let's not forget the claims of the self proclaimed "world class experts" of the National Oceonography Research Centre Southampton who six years ago told us that the imminent demise of the Gulf Stream could make Scotland an "icy wasteland" possibly within seven years.
Yes, the sea will rise 1000mm within 91 years, in your dreams. The best estimate of sea level rise at present 1.3mm to 1.8 mm per year.Of course, we are about to reach a "tipping point" with "accelerated global warming" or any other scam scare that the global warming cultists can dream up to scare us.
12

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/04/2009 10:18:37
#3:

"Get realistic, in another hundred years,individual transport will be restricted to government officials..."

Now haven't I heard that one somewhere before? Let's think... Oh yes! I remember! The USSR under communism.

GREEN IS THE NEW RED, PEOPLE!!!

Slioch:

"If a personal transporter that could move people at 10,000mph at reasonable cost were invented..."

LOL!!

You can really dream them up can't you? If such a thing existed, then accellerating at about 2g (which is about the maximum safe rate for most people), it would take about 3mins 40 secs to reach 10,000mph, during which time you would cover over 300 miles. Hardly a practical proposition is it?

In any case, we had a mode of transport that enabled reasonably quick transit of long distances a few years ago, and people like you campaigned to get rid of it---it was called Concorde.

In any case, regardless of how quick you might be able to travel once aboard this fantastic mode of transportation, you would still have to get to the airport---which is where the car comes in...

13

Vlad Tepes,

Snagov 20/04/2009 10:40:38
I think this is a truer representation of what the Met Office say:
"Climate change goes on. Average global temperatures are now some 0.75 °C warmer than they were 100 years ago and since the mid-1970s average global temperatures have increased at a rate of more than 0.15 °C per decade. Yet over the last 10 years temperatures have risen more slowly, causing some to claim that global warming has stopped...observed changes are entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continuing long-term warming. The evidence is very clear that global temperatures are rising and that humans are largely responsible."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/
No?
14

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/04/2009 10:43:11
#11 Sceptic

"that prediction from the Met Office that 2007 would be the warmest year"

The MET office made no such definite prediction. The MET office at the beginning of 2007 stated "there is a 60 per cent probability 2007 will be at least as warm as 1998". That means that they considered that there was a 40% chance that 2007 would cooler than 2008, which is what happened.

Your statement about the National Oceonography Research Centre Southampton is similarly inaccurate.

There are a number of factors that make predicting the temperature of individual years uncertain. One is major volcanic eruptions, which cause cooling, and are very unpredictable. Another is the state of El Nino/La Nina - ie surface water temperature in the Pacific, which currently cannot be predicted accurately.

A La Nina episode developed in late 2007 and lasted throughout 2008. It is just coming to an end. That was the main cause of the recent dip in temperatures, which, contrary to your assertion, are now recovering.

As for sea-level rises, the main uncertainty lies in understanding the behaviour of ice caps under warming conditions. The IPCC 2007 decided to leave out of its predictions any contributions from the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice caps more than that already experienced. More recent predictions include estimates for this and have produced the predictions of a more than 1m rise in sea-levels by the end of the century. They are currently about 3mm per year.

What would your solution be to a situation where accurate predictions are not possible, but where the best estimates indicate a dire future that needs to be addressed and countered?

15

Vlad Tepes,

Targoviste 20/04/2009 10:43:53
TOP TIPS
PROBLEMS associated with climate change make you feel uncomfortable? Simply deny that it is happening at all.
When people spot the obvious flaws in this, ramble on that there's nothing we can do about it anyway because it's all cosmic rays or "normal" cycles or inter-galactic f@rts or something.
If people still tumble that you're havering call them eco-fascist-greenie-nazis and continue drinking until it all goes away.
Terry Fayed, Wittering.
16

sceptic,

livingston 20/04/2009 11:54:02
#14Slioch
"The MET office made no such definite prediction."

Well one of us is lying and it ain't me!

News release
4 January 2007
2007 - forecast to be the warmest year yet

"2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office."
17

drew 33,

duddingston 20/04/2009 11:58:18
#14
And the MET Office went on to say:-
"Each January the Met Office, in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, issues a forecast of the global surface temperature for the coming year. The forecast takes into account known contributing factors, such as solar effects, El Niño, greenhouse gases concentrations and other multi-decadal influences. Over the previous seven years, the Met Office forecast of annual global temperature has proved remarkably accurate, with a mean forecast error size of just 0.06 °C."
18

drew 33,

duddingston 20/04/2009 12:03:39
I should further point out that 2007 scraped in as a "top ten year" at, you guessed it,#TEN.
19

sceptic,

livingston 20/04/2009 12:31:43
15Vlad Tepes,Targoviste
Rather than resort to insults and placing words in other people's mouths, go to, http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

Global temperatures peaked 11 years ago, even the the Met Office, who have, in their latest eight predictions of temperature, over estimated every one, are now showing an accelerated cooling. I should remind you that the above graph from the Met Office has been generated utilising a 21 point binomial filter even "approved" by Slioch, I am sure that he has assessed that it does not depart too far the true Gaussian.
20

Hmm ...,

20/04/2009 13:00:14
... Duncan in Edinburgh #9 said "What about by train? That's usually quicker for me, gets me right into the city, and avoids parking trouble and the dreaded Glasgow one-way system."

Bully for you, Duncan! As always you oversimplify.

First, I have to get into the station for a train (about an hour bus ride plus 15 minutes walk to the station) then I have a walk of twenty minutes at the other end (Queen Street train station to work is about the same as Buchanan Street bus station to work) - I could have driven the whole journey in less time. And the express bus, every quarter hour, didn't take that much longer than the train to get there.

Don't kid yourself Duncan - people who have a living to earn don't have the time to waste on public transport. OK for public servants - they take a day for a visit to GLasgow from Edinburgh, possibly go into the office in the morning, possibly not, then amble down to the station, take the train to their meeting scheduled to fit in with the timetable, leave in time to catch an early train home and forget about work for the rest of the day.

If we all worked to that schedule, nothing would get done, companies would make no profit and there would be no taxes to support the public sector's lifestyle!
21

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/04/2009 13:03:53
#16 sceptic

Neither of us are lying, it is just that you are incompletely reporting and also misunderstanding the MET Office forecast issued on 4th January 2007.

When the MET Office stated, as you report, "2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally", that is an imprecise form of words generally considered to mean "with a probability of greater than 50%".

This was then qualified with the more precise forecast

"* There is a 60% probability that 2007 will be as warm or warmer than the current warmest year (1998 was +0.52 °C above the long-term 1961-1990 average)."

see:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html

There is no inconsistency between those two statements, nor is there any inconsistency between those statements and the subsequent finding that 2007 was not as warm as 1998. If you cannot understand that, then that is just too bad, but it does go some way to explaining your many other misunderstandings over global warming.

If you wish, do the following: take ten identical objects (eg. beans or marbles) mark six of them in some way. Put them in an opaque bag. Offer the bag to someone else, ask them to remove one object and say, "There is a 60% probability that you will pull out a marked object".

If the person pulls out an unmarked object and then complains that your prediction was wrong, feel free to tell him that he is a blithering idiot.



22

sceptic,

livingston 20/04/2009 13:04:06
17drew 33
"the Met Office forecast of annual global temperature has proved remarkably accurate, with a mean forecast error size of just 0.06 °C."

There seems to be no end to their exaggerated sense of their ability!
Implied likely error of 0.06 °C actual error in this case 0.2°C.
Just wrong by 330% and the same people who are trying to tell us what the temperature will be in 90 years time!

23

sceptic,

livingston 20/04/2009 13:07:39
#21
"it is just that you are incompletely reporting and also misunderstanding the MET Office forecast issued on 4th January 2007".
Absolute rubbish, I reported the Met Office press release verbatim are you accusing them of exaggeration?
24

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 20/04/2009 13:30:41
#20 - You could have added that the train tickets (return for you, single for your wife) would have cost you £30 compared with maybe £10 or so for fuel.

Until the cost of rail travel is reduced it cannot compete in many cases with the car, particularly where more than one person is concerned.
25

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/04/2009 13:53:49
#23 sceptic "I reported the Met Office press release verbatim"

Stop being so absurd. The MET Office press release is here, as I stated previously:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html

You reported a few words of it, made no mention of the 60% probability qualification and still show no sign that you have understood any of it.

Think a bit about the marbles in a bag thought experiment I put to you in #21 to see how idiotic are your protestations.
26

Padraig,

20/04/2009 14:27:52
Slioch said "#5 Padraig, "if the Arctic and Antarctic completely melted just how much scope does that have for sea levels to rise?"

Answer:
Mountain glaciers = 0.5m
Greenland = 5-6m
West Antarctica = 5m
East Antarctica = 65m

Current predictions are for sea levels to rise over 1m this century."

Someone is playing with your gullability, Slioch! Think about it for a while.
27

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/04/2009 16:14:31
#27 Padraig

If you have any evidence that any of the information that I gave is incorrect, then provide it. If you have any reasoned comments to make about it, then make them.

Simply throwing unreasoned and unsupported insults around, simply because you are told something that you don't want to believe, is the sign of someone floundering.
28

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/04/2009 17:01:00
Look you lot...

What the hell has the number of cars on the road got to do with the weather?

Sceptic, Slioch, Vlad Tepes and Padraig... Stop winding each other up and get back on topic for christs sake!
29

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 20/04/2009 20:02:33
Peak oil will soon alter people's perceptions about whether private motoring can be sustained for much longer.

There are too many lardy obese people in Scotland, so a bit of walking will do them some good when oil prices rise and rise and they have to get out of their cars.
30

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 20/04/2009 20:16:31
30% more cars in the Yuke over 10 years seems a non issue. There could have been a 30% improvement in public transport so that road miles and emissions have gone done. If cars only produced CO2 and H2O, the entire british fleet could all still puffing but stationary at Barnton roundabout without raising the high tide at Cramond. It happens every day, and we're not putting a congestion charge on it and subbing it to London. Is that not what Jim Murphy is for?
31

Pilrig,

Livingston 20/04/2009 22:50:38
David Begg - the man more than any other person responsible for turning Embra into a giant traffic jam.
He's an 'expert' of course !
32

Pilrig,

Livingston 20/04/2009 22:53:32
9 - trains tend to be expensive
33

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 20/04/2009 23:13:44
Roads are expensive too. What's the M74 extension costing per metre as it creeps forward? Rail could offer comfortable long and medium distance travel, suburban journeys and take congestion off the roads. If we saw railways as useful infrastructure like every other europoean country. It could take more bulk freight too if there were modern depots to handle it.

But the UK has a powerful roads lobby which tells the government what to do. It's not about getting from A to B, by car or other means in a cheerful and efficient manner; it's about money for big contractors.
34

danbob,

20/04/2009 23:16:55
The Ghost of Sir William Arrol 30# I think you talk a lot of sense. I worry that people will refuse to accept the inevitable regarding oil cost and production, Civil stife is a real possibility, increase in crime to keep the lifestyle illusion going inevitable. I am quietly pleased I won't live long enough to witness what's coming.
35

Chris W,

21/04/2009 07:06:10
Roads are only congested because government's have failed to improve them to meet demand. They are able to realise that to reduce flooding you build bigger drains, but are seemingly incapable of applying this simple concept to roads. The completion of the missing link south of Gretna has removed the congestion that used to occur. But where is the motorway link from Edinburgh to the M74? Where is Glasgow's orbital motorway?
36

Andrew Service,

22/04/2009 18:35:47
About 80% of our roads are not congested. In reality all it would take to greatly improve congestion (or Ken-gestion) would be to target the 20% of congested roads. Given that the Government collects nearly £40 Billion in motoring taxes but decides to spend most of that on other things maybe they could get their priorities right and use some (no all) of that money to have a root and branch reform of our creaking and crumbling roads system.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.