Blatent Plug (sorry)

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Nathaniel Porte, Jun 8, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 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!
     
    Tags:


  2. James G

    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?)
     
  3. "james g" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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.
     
  4. "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).
     
  5. "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)?
     
  6. Just Zis Guy

    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.
     
  7. "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.
     
  8. "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".
     
  9. Cast_iron

    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.
     
  10. Just Zis Guy

    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.
     
  11. "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?
     
  12. "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?
     
  13. John B

    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
     
  14. Sandy Morton

    Sandy Morton Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[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.

    Largs and Millport are the centre of the universe - not london.

    --
    A T (Sandy) Morton on the Bicycle Island In the Global Village http://www.sandymillport.fsnet.co.uk
     
  15. Steve Firth

    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.
     
  16. Allan Nelson

    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
     
  17. James G

    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.)
     
  18. Albert Fish

    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
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Blatent (sorry)
  1. MintID
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,047
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...