Whilst the plans will take into consideration vunerable groups and essential service vehicles, etc, is this a solution to Manchester’s congestion problem?

Greater Manchester is amoung 10 areas in the UK which have government money to develop possible congestion-beating plans in the hope of getting finance under the Transport Innovation Fund (ITF).

So what’s the alternative to motoring into the cities?

Well in Manchester, the congestion charge is part of a bigger set of plans which include the expansion of the Metrolink tram system and train services, as well as many other plans to improve public transport into the city in general.

Whilst many beleive this to be a positive step for the environment and Britain in general, others are vehomentaly opposed to the idea.  One group of people in particular have set up a petition and a website:

Click here to see the “ABD - Manchester Congestion Charge” website.

Whilst they are against the plans, they don’t seem to offer up an alternative solution to the congestion problems within Manchester and other areas of the UK.

How else can the government reduce congestion on Britain’s roads other than to increase the cost to the general public?

Click here to go to our forum and have your say.

Whilst many leading scientists claim this to be thermodynamically impossible, there is a growing amount of interest in this technology.

There is in the region of 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons (326 million trillion gallons) of water on the planet (don’t quote me on that!), so it’s not like we’d run out in a hurry. Can H2o be broken down into its two component parts and be used? In theory, it’s Hydrogen, a far more efficient fuel than conventional solutions, and Oxygen which can be used to enhance the combustion of Hydrogen.

Simple? Well, you’d think so. After decades of research and media sensationalism, including the conspiratorial Stanley Meyer incident, the world is still no wiser to knowing the truth.

Is the technology available now and being suppressed by the all powerful oil companies and western civilizations to maintain control over the rest of the world, or is it that water as a fuel is simply not viable?

What are your thoughts, have a look at the discussion in our forum:

click here to view the forum

There’s still a few tweaks to be done, but it’s fully functional right now.

Click here to take a look around

Now you can voice your opinions and join the public transport debate.

Let’s face it public transport does little or nothing for the UK economy as it is not exportable, other than flying or ferries. And is little more that job creation for public transport employees, and another TAX on the rest of us!

All Public transport should be closed down, especially rail and people should be encouraged (even paid) to car share. Buses or not part of the solution there are the problem: Take a inner city bus route that is one mile long, where the bus does not have to stop or is delayed by ANY OTHER ISSUE, traffic lights other stopped buses etc etc. Now on this perfect conditions route there is a stop ever 100 yards, hence there 17 stops. At each stop a number of passenger get on and some get off, this process takes 10 seconds. 10 * 17 =70 seconds (stop time) keep this in mind. Now each time the bus stops is has to accelerate up to 30 mph again, let us say that it does this at a modest fuel efficient 0.1 G, this will take about 25 seconds. So 15 * 17 =55 seconds. Now add the acceleration time (255 seconds) to the stop drop off /pick up time (170 seconds) and work out the average speed of the bus!.. Yes 425 seconds to do a mile is about 8.5 miles per hours. So that is how fast buses go and that is HOW MUCH BLOODY BUSES HOLD UP THE TRAFFICE. Proof. I lived in London for 25 years and for some of that time I lived in south London and commuted to work in West London. This journey took 30 to 35 minuets, however when there was a buses strike with more cars and NO BLOODY BUSES on the road this journey to 20 to 25 minutes.

Thus I rest my case buses are not part of the solution they are the problem. People always go on about how much pollution cars cause, Mmmm typical.. It is not the car they are complaining about it is the propulsion system (internal combustion engine) thus when car get more electrified this argument is null and void. Also see the following link, follow it through to the US Patten Office, follow it through to how the man died. Then ask yourself why we have a carbon emissions problem. http://befreetech.com/energysuppression.htm Page down to/search for “See Stanley Meyer’s Water Powered Car” Then press broadband..

Amazing information, thanks Ian. Some more indication of the true power of oil companies.

Technorati Tags: cheaperbycar, suppressed techonology, water powered car, alternative energy, carbon emissions, stanley meyer, public transport

There should be more carrots than sticks.

I have often wondered why commuting has always been considered a personal cost. What about ‘contract carriage’ of employees on public transport, where employers could enter into a contract with public transport operators, community transport schemes and taxis or minicabs to ferry their staff to work.

What about running minibuses? 15 people in a company minibus is 15 less single occupancy cars and 15 less parking spaces when they get to work. Why can’t employers give out train or bus passes to their employees? Anything an employer does to encourage their employees to use public transport should be tax deductable.

The corporate tax system has so much unutilsed potential. Unfortunately, most people will not be interested in using alternative methods of transport until the effects of a declining oil supply results in a huge increase in the price of petrol, otherwise known as Peak Oil. The world’s supply of oil will probably reach it’s maximum sometime later this year or the next, and the effects of the irreversable decline in the supply of oil will bite in 2010, when anything made from oil will increase in price, and that price will fluctuate, but will always increase in the end.

Market forces dictate that when something becomes rarer it’s price goes up. 95% of all our current transportation is based on oil, an incredibly rich source of energy, and even if we turned over every inch of agricultural land over to growing crops for making biodesiel, we still couldn’t supply enough to keep half the cars we already have on the road.

Do you feed people or cars? Everything is going to have to change, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing if we develop local communities, and have shopping, working and leisure facilities close to home. The only thing that worries me is that no-one in power seems to be planning for this eventuality.

Why don’t you have your say? Contact us by clicking here and let us know what you think, we will then publish your points on our site for comment.

Technorati Tags: oil, biodeisel, cheaperbycar, contract carraige, cheaperbycar

techrrd quotes:

“…jet aircraft contribute 1% of total greenhouse effects…”

This may not sound very much, but if you compare this to all of the earths industry and the other contributers, it’s one of the greatest contributers. On top of this, jet aircraft contribute towards global dimming which emacipates the issues further.

It’s yet another example where the transport solution with the least ecological damage is by far the most expensive. It’s cheaper to drive or fly to Paris than it is to get the Public Transport solution, the train.

Looks like it’s now cheaper to fly than get the train.  The most ecologically sound method of transport, the train, remains more uncomfortable, busier than ever and above all, far more expensive.

According to the front page of the independent:

Planes, trains, and the road to ruin

Soaring rail fares are boosting the growth in domestic flights and undermining the fight against global warming

Environmentalists and passenger groups have attacked the Government for driving rail passengers on to low-cost flights by presiding over a fourth consecutive year of inflation-busting train fares.

Sixty per cent of tickets sold have unregulated fares, which are set by private rail companies. These prices have gone up by as much as 8.4 per cent - more than three times the Government’s target rate of inflation - so that a standard open return ticket between Manchester and London now costs £219, or £337 for first class.

Isn’t it time something was done about this? When taxpayer’s money is frittered away in areas that are supposedly saving the environment, wouldn’t it be better spent on an improved, usable public transport system, rather than a dirty, overpriced nightmare.

What will it take for the government and the people to react and attempt to rectify this hypocritical waste of resource? What is the world coming to? Its end?

The proposed works are estimated to cost over £3 billion. Road programmes frequently exceed their estimates by a factor of three.

What puzzles us here at Cheaper By Car is that if you were to spend £3-£9 billion pounds on the public transport system, would this not by far negate the need for this entire project? Without delving into too much detail, surely it would be far cheaper to improve our public transport links and encourage the population to use those more ecologically friendly solutions instead of making driving our 10% efficient vehicles up and down the country easier than ever before?

NoWideningM1.org.uk quoted:

Better Public Transport

We need cheap and efficient public transport - so people have a genuine choice about how to travel.

This is something that our population need to understand, a well formed, well organised, carefully constructed state driven public transport system would prevent irrevocable damage to the Earth’s worsening pollution situation. Is widening roads to encourage more vehicle use a solution of any kind?

Technorati Tags: m1 expansion, road widening, public transport, cheaper by car, M1 congestion

Climate change could shrink the global economy by a fifth at a cost of up to £3.68 trillion unless drastic action is taken; a government-sponsored review is to warn.

Reference: Climate change ‘brings huge cost’Â

All over the press today, there is a great deal of talk about pollution levels and how if we continue along our current path we are destined for worldwide disaster. A government commissioned report claims that up to 200 million people could be left homeless refugees from floods and abnormal weather.

Personally, this comes as no shocker. I’m pretty sure much of the civilised world is just as aware, but we all seem to skirt the issue or ignore it.

The government must be aware of the risks we are facing and even though China and the U.S.A. are the biggest pollution offenders, aren’t ALL of us responsible? Every last action we take plays a part, TV’s on standby, cookers left on for years using mains electricity, driving kids a mile down the road in a Chelsea tractor.

Begs the question which is the reason for this website, why aren’t the government improving public transport to help reduce pollution?

Technorati Tags: climate change, pollution, chelsea tractor, cheaper by car, government report

There is obviously a problem. Congestion on the roads, crowded trains. The transport infrastructure of the whole South East of England is completely over whelmed. I’ve never heard a traffic report in the morning that didn’t contain news of queues and accidents on the M1 Southbound; on the other side of the coin, I’ve never managed to get a seat in the morning on the way into London, in fact, on occasions I’ve become distressingly familiar with complete strangers when we’ve all been packed in like sardines.

Is the solution improved railway networks? More trains? The rail companies aren’t likely to put more services on if no one is going to use them, it’s a vicious circle. Until the services improve, no one will use them, if no one uses them, then the services don’t have the money to improve them.

So discourage road use, why doesn’t the government charge for the use of the road and pass that money back into the public transport infrastructure?

According to “Detica“:

Two thirds say improved public transport will solve road congestion, but almost half want cheaper fares to encourage switch from car to train

Also, why do have “peak times”? This is as likely to discourage people from using the trains as anything, paying more than normal to travel into work. Wouldn’t the solution to train overcrowding be to provide more trains? Or improve stations to take longer trains?

“In some circumstances there is undoubtedly scope for additional rail infrastructure - either in more track or longer stations to accommodate longer trains. Where this is not an option, there is scope for more advanced network optimisation and control systems to be deployed that can efficiently increase the throughput of trains on existing track.”

Surely as soon as the investments are made to improve the system, more people will use them, more revenue can be created resulting in lower prices.

References: Detica - Public want road pricing to pay for reduction in rail fares and improved services

Technorati Tags: Cheaper by car, road pricing, congestion, train overcrowding