And then the whole motorway stood up and applauded.
Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
And then the whole motorway stood up and applauded.
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
Travelling by train is stupidly expensive.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Which is part of the problem.
Cars need to be made the most expensive and most awkward choice. Only then might we see some change.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Unlike an imaginary Porsche.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
You should try flying.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Given all the faff there is at airports nowadays it’s often quicker by train for a lot of internal routes.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
For some, but not London-Edinburgh. Only a dunce would take the train on that route. The main train service that beats flying is London to Paris, Eurostar, but even that only works if you live closer to Kings Cross than you do to an airport.
Or Ebbesfleet International. And you don’t have to live nearer, you just have to live near enough.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Trouble is, the vast majority of the UK population don't. Eurostar is great for the fortunate minority. For most others, flying is cheaper and quicker.
Or if you give a shit about the environment
The vast majority of the UK population don’t what? Live close enough to a relevant train station, whilst simultaneously living close to an airport? And also their destination is close to a relevant airport but not close to the train station?
To be honest, I find it simply extraordinary that in a time where we are recognising the incredibly difficult task of sufficiently reducing our carbon emissions, we would even conceive of allowing flights on routes that have perfectly adequate train line alternatives. You can treat it all as a big joke if that’s what you find funny. It isn’t though.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
I’d still take the (first class, naturally
) train over the endless queues, security faff and waiting around (even in the business lounges) flying entails nowadays.
Athos
Well-Known Member
It's pretty hard to justify domestic flights. The saving in time and convenience is marginal in most cases, and comes at a great carbon cost. The trouble is that's not reflected in the relative pricing; trains are still ridiculously expensive. They need to take the railways back into public ownership and lower the prices, as well as taxing domestic flights at much higher rates.
The talk about banning cars is pie-in-the-sky as that'd be a massive negative impact on the vast majority of the population until there's a viable alternative, but it wouldn't take much to make train travel more attractive than flights, domestically.
The talk about banning cars is pie-in-the-sky as that'd be a massive negative impact on the vast majority of the population until there's a viable alternative, but it wouldn't take much to make train travel more attractive than flights, domestically.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Don't live closer to Kings X, or Ebbesfleet International, than do to Heathrow, Stanstead, Luton, Gatwick, Manchester, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Newcastle, or any other airports that serve Paris.
Last edited:
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
This is generally the case domestically but not with London-Edinburgh, especially from LCY, which is pretty much turn-up and go.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Except in the spring.
Athos
Well-Known Member
It could be if the the relative pricing reflected the true cost to the environment e.g. a train was £40 and a flight £400.
Even City airport’s an arse to get to. I used to travel between London & Edinburgh a lot and never even dreamt of flying. Train’s a lot more pleasant and takes you into the centre of both. The bus from Edinburgh airport was an arse. Once you factor everything in flying only really works for the well off who can get taxis or park their cars and the airport.
Maybe people that live in Birmingham might have to have a longer journey time, and make a decision about whether that is worth the travel, then. If it’s not worth it then so be it. Not everybody gets to do anything they want whenever they want to.
I think maybe you aren’t grasping what “unsustainable” means. It’s not just an abstract concept invented by hippies. It means that we are burning through the fat and that when the resources are exhausted, there will be a catastrophic inability to do any of the things we currently take for granted. Not an inability because of political will but an physical inability as a result of disaster. Unsustainable means that either you solve the problem now whilst it is in your hands or eventually the problem will be solved for you because of physical constraints.
At the moment, we are a trust fund kiddie that is living a rock star life style, but our trust fund is going to run out by the time we hit 40, and we have no plan at all about what we’re going to do next. If we had trimmed the excesses when we were still 18, we could have lived pretty well off the trust income. Now we’re 30, though, we‘re going to have to trim a bit more but then we should just about be able to survive off the capital. If we don’t do enough, though, we’re just going to end up penniless and destitute at 40. It’s not a choice. The only choice is do enough now or be forced into penury later.
In that context, picking off the low-hanging fruit is surely obviously a good idea. Surely we can live with some extra hours on journeys to completely different countries? And if those extra hours aren’t worth it, don’t make the journey because it obviously wasn’t that important.
I reiterate, this isn’t all a big joke. I find the back-and-forth trolling just pathetic, frankly. It’s not funny that we’re going to hit a pretty fucking huge crash barrier in our immediate future.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Of course not.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Fuck off then, you sanctimonious arse.
Do you actually find climate change funny, though?
