Blatent Plug (sorry)

  • Thread starter Nathaniel Porte
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nathaniel Porte

Guest
As I'm rather irritated with various governments attempts at ballsing up Britains transport
system, I though I'd have ago at coming up with a policy that would get Britain moving again - so
here it is:

http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~csucbj/Transport/

ATM its just a few ideas of mine jotted down - it's only just started, and the navigation is a bit
rusty, but I add to it when I have time and it should get clearer.

It's not meant to be pro or anti any form of transport, it's just meant to get people to use
appropriate modes of transport for their journeys.

Discuss!
 
J

James G

Guest
Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> As I'm rather irritated with various governments attempts at ballsing up Britains transport
> system, I though I'd have ago at coming up with a policy that would get Britain moving again - so
> here it is:
>
> http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~csucbj/Transport/
>
> ATM its just a few ideas of mine jotted down - it's only just started, and the navigation is a bit
> rusty, but I add to it when I have time and it should get clearer.
>
> It's not meant to be pro or anti any form of transport, it's just meant to get people to use
> appropriate modes of transport for their journeys.
>
> Discuss!

So that's lots more roads, and virtually no mention of public transport (trains? trams?)
 
N

Nick Finnigan

Guest
"james g" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]dram.net...
> Nathaniel Porter wrote:
>
> So that's lots more roads, and virtually no mention of public transport (trains? trams?)

I found lots of mentions of using mass transport instead of cars on all those new roads. Lots of
expressways missing though.
 
N

Nathaniel Porte

Guest
"james g" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> > As I'm rather irritated with various governments attempts at ballsing up Britains transport
> > system, I though I'd have ago at coming up with a policy that would get Britain moving again -
> > so here it is:
> >
> > http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~csucbj/Transport/
> >
> > ATM its just a few ideas of mine jotted down - it's only just started, and the navigation is a
> > bit rusty, but I add to it when I have time and it should get clearer.
> >
> > It's not meant to be pro or anti any form of transport, it's just meant to get people to use
> > appropriate modes of transport for their journeys.
> >
> > Discuss!
>
> So that's lots more roads, and virtually no mention of public transport (trains? trams?)
>
>

No mention of trains *yet*. I'm still wrestling with what trains should be for (outside of park and
ride), and how they should be used.

Plenty of mention of trams, and that's still not complete.

Mass transport is good at getting a mass of people from A to B. That includes commuting, the scool
run (the same thing really), getting people to major events, things like that. For inter urban
transport, alot of traffic is making entirely different journeys, and for that private transport (be
it by car, bike or foot) will always be more effective and practical.

Of course, the car is going to be the most practical for inter-urban journeys of significant
distance - hence the roads to cater for that. There is the safeguard of tolling to make people think
if they actually need to travel by car (or at all), or if there is an alternative. Additionally the
implementation of Park and Ride/Bike schemes (combined with road charging) will encourage people not
to takes cars into town (where the car causes the most problems), whilst allowing them to do any
long distances legs in their car. The result is that towns should become much less congested, and
rural roads should also be less congested as people drive less (because of tolls and decent PT for
commuting).
 
N

Nick Finnigan

Guest
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Of course, the car is going to be the most practical for inter-urban journeys of significant
> distance - hence the roads to cater for that. There is the safeguard of tolling to make people
> think if they actually need to travel by car (or at all), or if there is an alternative.
> Additionally the implementation of Park and Ride/Bike schemes (combined with road charging) will
> encourage people not to takes cars into town (where the car causes the most problems), whilst
> allowing them to do any long distances legs in their car. The result is that towns should become
> much less congested, and rural roads should also be less congested as people drive less (because
> of tolls and decent PT for commuting).

How would you define 'much less congested', and what
benefits would that have for town centre shoppers (say)?
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:59:19 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm still wrestling with what trains should be for (outside of park and ride)

Commuting into London is one good use for them.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
N

Nathaniel Porte

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:59:19 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <nathaniel.porter[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I'm still wrestling with what trains should be for (outside of park and ride)
>
> Commuting into London is one good use for them.
>

Yeah, obviously, as well as commutting into other cities. The trouble is what is the purpose of some
of the smaller lines - what are they good for? Should they be closed, or can they somehow be
salvaged for a purpose? *That's* what I'm not sure about.
 
N

Nathaniel Porte

Guest
"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> How would you define 'much less congested', and what
> benefits would that have for town centre shoppers (say)?
>

Basically the only traffic in towns would be from people living in that town going to somewhere out
of town (but not commuting). People wouldn't drive into town centres - they'd walk, cycle or take
the bus/tram instead (it'd be cheaper, and more obviously so than at present) regardless of where
they came from. Long distance traffic wouldn't go through towns, they'd go around them on bypasses.
As a guesstimate, I'd say you could half traffic in towns if you provided adequate cycle hire
facilities, cycle routes, mass transport and parking, and if the charges were set correctly.

The benefits for town centre shoppers depend alot on the layout of the town. Where the shopping area
is mostly pedestrianised and/or low traffic (i.e. Coventry), the positive effects would be limited
to simply getting to the shopping area quicker. In towns where significant shopping streets form
major routes (like Bedford), the reduction of traffic would mean people could go about their
shopping without having to dodge traffic. It would also make town centres more attractive, and would
this would help to halt the slide to "Ghost town Britain".
 
C

Cast_iron

Guest
Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:59:19 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm still wrestling with what trains should be for (outside of park and ride)
>>
>> Commuting into London is one good use for them.
>>
>
> Yeah, obviously, as well as commutting into other cities. The trouble is what is the purpose of
> some of the smaller lines - what are they good for? Should they be closed, or can they somehow be
> salvaged for a purpose? *That's* what I'm not sure about.

They are extremely useful to people who don't use a car.
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:45:46 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:

>what is the purpose of some of the smaller lines - what are they good for?

Getting people to the Big Station.

In an Ideal World (TM) there would be an integrated passenger transport infrastructure, and the
passenger transport authority would decide on which settlements are best served by a train (line
passing through, relatively compact populated area, freight transfer possibilities) and which by
buses or minibuses. These systems would then collect folks and deposit them in nice dry, warm
waiting rooms ready for the frequent, fast, reliable main line service.

Oink, flap, oink, flap.

Competition would be reserved for cities and other places where there is sufficient demand to
support multiple providers on one route. The whole idea of deregulated bus firms in the countryside
was laughable - most of the routes had problems supporting one service, two was never an option.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
N

Nathaniel Porte

Guest
"Cast_Iron" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:59:19 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm still wrestling with what trains should be for (outside of park and ride)
> >>
> >> Commuting into London is one good use for them.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, obviously, as well as commutting into other cities. The trouble is what is the purpose of
> > some of the smaller lines - what are they good for? Should they be closed, or can they somehow
> > be salvaged for a purpose? *That's* what I'm not sure about.
>
> They are extremely useful to people who don't use a car.
>

But wouldn't it be more cheaper and more effecient to run a bus/shuttle service instead for those
who don't drive?
 
N

Nick Finnigan

Guest
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > How would you define 'much less congested', and what
> > benefits would that have for town centre shoppers (say)?
> >
> Basically the only traffic in towns would be from people living in that town going to somewhere
> out of town (but not commuting). People wouldn't drive into town centres - they'd walk, cycle or
> take the bus/tram instead (it'd be cheaper, and more obviously so than at present) regardless of
> where they

That is still traffic into the town centre.

> came from. Long distance traffic wouldn't go through towns, they'd go around them on bypasses. As
> a guesstimate, I'd say you could half traffic in towns if you provided adequate cycle hire
> facilities, cycle routes, mass transport and parking, and if the charges were set correctly.

Using bikes instead of a car increases traffic.

> The benefits for town centre shoppers depend alot on the layout of the town. Where the shopping
> area is mostly pedestrianised and/or low traffic (i.e. Coventry), the positive effects would be
> limited to simply getting to the shopping area quicker.

So a 3 mile walk+bus journey into Coventry off peak would
take roughly how long door-to-door, compared with a car?

> In towns where significant shopping streets form major routes (like Bedford), the reduction of
> traffic would mean people could go about their shopping without having to dodge traffic.

So the half of traffic which remains is slower moving?

>It would also make town centres more attractive, and would this would help to halt the slide to
>"Ghost town Britain".

If off-peak journeys into a by-passed town centre are congested, doesn't that mean they are
attractive?
 
J

John B

Guest
Cast_Iron wrote:

> Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:59:19 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm still wrestling with what trains should be for (outside of park and ride)
> >>
> >> Commuting into London is one good use for them.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, obviously, as well as commutting into other cities. The trouble is what is the purpose of
> > some of the smaller lines - what are they good for? Should they be closed, or can they somehow
> > be salvaged for a purpose? *That's* what I'm not sure about.
>
> They are extremely useful to people who don't use a car.

But not as useful as the trains.

John B
 
S

Steve Firth

Guest
Cast_Iron <[email protected]> wrote:

> They are extremely useful to people who don't use a car.

Do we need to keep a rail network going to provided subsidised travel for 10 social misfits?

--
It was so cold that politicians were walking around with their hands in their own pockets.
 
A

Allan Nelson

Guest
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But wouldn't it be more cheaper and more effecient to run a bus/shuttle service instead for those
> who don't drive?

Hey! One of the routes up for closure on that list is mine! Carlise-Carnforth (via Whitehaven).

I realise the line around the Whitehaven area is prone to falling into the sea occasionally (ok
almost annually), and perhaps that would be expensive to fix permanently (they've botched it up for
the last 100 years). I can't speak for the amount of traffic from Carlisle to Barrow, but I find it
hard to believe the line from Barrow to Carnforth would be regarded as lightly used. And another
thing. If they close that line, how are they going to ship those indestructible nuclear flasks from
Sellafield? By road? I think not - it isn't wide enough! By sea? Got to get them to a port first.

Spare a thought for us rural dwellers. I'll put my cards on the table and say here straight away, I
don't drive, so bike or train are my options. Whenever I do use the train (from Ulverston) it's
usually well used, and since they introduced the Manchester Airport service a few years ago it seems
to have had a knock on effect which built up rail use in general (though it could have something to
do with the diabolical roads and infrequent bus service in our area). So, if they close it, I either
move, or change jobs. I won't be moving (like it too much where I am - though I would consider
another country ;-) and changing jobs is not something you can do in this area very easily (not
exactly a surfeit of opportunities). As I'm the wrong side of 50 now, I reckon my chances wouldn't
be too good anyway (only so many B&Q can employ ;-)

Oh well - looks like early retirement here I come.

For info, I have faxed my MP. Thanks for whoever posted the reminder on that.

Allan. ~~~ http://www.a-nelson.dircon.co.uk/ Italian cycling tours and the home of Cycling
before Lycra
 
J

James G

Guest
Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> As I'm rather irritated with various governments attempts at ballsing up Britains transport
> system, I though I'd have ago at coming up with a policy that would get Britain moving again - so
> here it is:
>
> http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~csucbj/Transport/
>
> ATM its just a few ideas of mine jotted down - it's only just started, and the navigation is a bit
> rusty, but I add to it when I have time and it should get clearer.
>
> It's not meant to be pro or anti any form of transport, it's just meant to get people to use
> appropriate modes of transport for their journeys.

Re you toll system, I don't think it is a very good one. People living on the border of a zone will
be unfairly penalised, as they will be charged extra for driving a short distance. It would also
charge people for making necessary journeys. A much better system IMHO would be to charge people
lots for journeys by motor vehicle that could be easily made by train/bus etc.. and not charge at
all for journeys to places not served by other means of transport. A similar mechanism of taxing
haulage companies could be applied to freight journeys. Obviously this would require satellite
tracking of each vehicle, but such a thing has already been suggested by the government and could
easily be foreseeable in ten years or so.

A lot of people would complain about being tracked (infringement of civil liberties etc) which I
would agree with, however only fossil fuel vehicles need be tracked and charged, the least
environmentally damaging vehicle types of the time would be free to move unmonitored
(LPG/electric/hydrogen etc.)
 
A

Albert Fish

Guest
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:59:19 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm still wrestling with what trains should be for (outside of park and ride)
> >
> > Commuting into London is one good use for them.
> >
>
> Yeah, obviously, as well as commutting into other cities. The trouble is what is the purpose of
> some of the smaller lines - what are they good for?

they are great for chucking a bike on and geting 30+ miles or so away into deep countryside in less
than one hour for a good splash about in the mud without covering the car in cak on the way back.

Hope in Derbyshire is one example.

there are well over 30 decent off road routes within 1 mile of my local line which, thankfully, is
doing very well indeed and has just had a new train bought for it with fancy livery.

sprinters are also very useful for doing city days out: hop on a train to manchester, liverpool etc,
spend a few hours riding round the sites, dump the bike in a bike shop for a long liquid lunch and
extended sightseeing excursions, then pick the bikes up for a couple of hours mooching about before
getting the train home.


Albert
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads