Blatent Plug (sorry)

[Steve Firth]

The Juggernaut Jockey <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Do we need to keep a rail network going to provided subsidised travel
> > for 10 social misfits?
>
>
>
> I never knew you had nine brothers, Steve

You're up for another larting are you then?

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

 

[Gram]

"david stevenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1fw9hd9.1trjwyd1g3hxiaN%[email protected]...
> Where are terms like D3MA (for the road standard) defined?
------------
A partial explanation can be found here;

http://groups.msn.com/TheSABRERoadsWebsite/roadsnews.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=116-
66&LastModified=4675410476459004032&all_topics=1

Graham.

 

[Nathaniel Porte]

"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.
>
> 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.
>

You're right that GPS or similar systems would be fairer and more effective, but I don't believe
such a system would be feasible yet. If it ever did become feasible, I'd support it.

> A lot of people would complain about being tracked (infringement of civil liberties etc) which I
> would agree with,

I don't have much time for that to be honest. You're in public, people can see you. Hell, I wonder
how many people are perfectly happy to carry similar tracking devices (i.e. mobile phones, GPS speed
camera alerters etc.)

> 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.)
>

I think its important we keep the environmental and congestion taxes seperate. Road user charging
pays for the congestion and wear and tear caused - it should be paid by all motor vehicles. Fuel tax
would be the environmental tax. To encourage people to switch to clean fuels is simple - ban petrol
and diesel for private motor cars. We already have adequate alternatives, and the rate at which they
get better will increase once there's a market for them.

 

[Nathaniel Porte]

"Gram" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "david stevenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1fw9hd9.1trjwyd1g3hxiaN%[email protected]...
> > Where are terms like D3MA (for the road standard) defined?
> ------------
> A partial explanation can be found here;
>
>
http://groups.msn.com/TheSABRERoadsWebsite/roadsnews.msnw?action=get_message
&mview=0&ID_Message=11666&LastModified=4675410476459004032&all_topics=1
>
> Graham.
>

Apologies for that ommision! Graham is correct about the explanation, and that will be placed on the
website shortly.

 

[Nathaniel Porte]

"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "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.
>

Yes, but traffic which is easier to accomodate in Britains towns.

> > 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.
>

Not in terms of space require it doesn't

> > 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?
>

From where? I do 4 miles from the University of Warwick to central Coventry by foot alone in 45
minutes (40 if I don't get held up a Canley level crossing).

> > 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?
>

All it means is that people are driving through the town. It doesn't mean they're stopping and
spending money. Many do - many do not, and those who don't make shopping less attractive for
those who do.

 

[Nathaniel Porte]

"albert fish" <albert-fish@[thisbit]ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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.
>

If people are using it, it clearly has a use. If enough people are using a line, then it should be
kept - I assume from your description that this is the case in your example.

The problem is where underused and/or unnecessary lines are subsidised for the sake of having a rail
route there. That's just a waste of money IMHO.

 

[Nathaniel Porte]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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 alot of cases it would be cheaper to have a bus service or trams instead of heavy rail. Driving
to the main station may be a better solution.

Obviously, if a local line is being used to get to the big station, then it should be kept; but
there's no point in running an expensive service if hardly anyone uses it.

> 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.
>

Which would in turn be integrate with private transport, i.e. walking, cycling and driving.

> Oink, flap, oink, flap.
>

<g>

> 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.
>

Agreed.

 

[Nathaniel Porte]

"Allan Nelson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "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).
>

What lines would be closed is independant of yesterdays government announcement. From your
description, the line sounds well used, and that's reason enough to keep it.

Obviously Sellafield certainly requires it.

My take on the railways is that they're not a cure all (nothing is). The main trouble with rail ATM
is that the government, Transport 2000 et al build up the railways to be a cure all, and insist on
subsidising needless routes.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > "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)?

> > That is still traffic into the town centre.
>
> Yes, but traffic which is easier to accomodate in Britains towns.
>
> > Using bikes instead of a car increases traffic.
>
> Not in terms of space require it doesn't

So 'much less congested' means 'half as many cars' ?

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

If it matters, Westwood Heath.

> > If off-peak journeys into a by-passed town centre are congested, doesn't that mean they are
> > attractive?
>
> All it means is that people are driving through the town.

Why are people driving through a by-passed town cenre if not commuting to and from work?

>It doesn't mean they're stopping and spending money. Many do - many do not, and those who don't
>make shopping less attractive for those who do.

So we should only go into a town centre to spend money?

 

[Dave Larrington]

Steve Firth wrote:

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

We might perchance need to keep a rail network going to provide travel for people who, for numerous
reasons, are unable to drive a car. The blind, for example. Or do you believe that the disabled
should stay in the concentration camps where they belong?

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Steve Firth]

Dave Larrington <[email protected]> wrote:

> We might perchance need to keep a rail network going to provide travel for people who, for
> numerous reasons, are unable to drive a car. The blind, for example.

Ah yes, it's a good idea to run an entire rail network just in case one of a small minority wants
to travel.

> Or do you believe that the disabled should stay in the concentration camps where they belong?

I believe that

a) You are talking out of your ****.
b) There are other solutions besides rail.

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

 

[Andymorris]

Steve Firth wrote:
>
> Ah yes, it's a good idea to run an entire rail network just in case one of a small minority wants
> to travel.
>
Most people in this country do not own, or have exclusive use of, a car.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[Petere]

AndyMorris wrote:
> Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>> Ah yes, it's a good idea to run an entire rail network just in case one of a small minority wants
>> to travel.
>>
> Most people in this country do not own, or have exclusive use of, a car.

Most people of legal driving age do, though.

85% of total passenger-mileage is by car (and much of the rest is only done by other modes as a
distress purchase)

70% of travel to work in the UK is by car (somewhat more excluding London).

And you were saying?

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

 

[Steve Firth]

AndyMorris <[email protected]> wrote:

> Most people in this country do not own, or have exclusive use of, a car.

Most people in this country have no need for a train.

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

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"PeterE" <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> > Most people in this country do not own, or have exclusive use of, a car.

> Most people of legal driving age do, though.

ITYM "have access to" - AFAIK Andy is correct in saying that the majority (including the majority of
legal driving age) do not *own or have exclusive use of* a car.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[John B]

Steve Firth wrote:

> AndyMorris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Most people in this country do not own, or have exclusive use of, a car.
>
> Most people in this country have no need for a train.

Even less have need for the tosh you spout.

John B

 

[Stephen Cragg]

> > Most people in this country do not own, or have exclusive use of, a car.
>
> Most people of legal driving age do, though.
>
> 85% of total passenger-mileage is by car (and much of the rest is only
done
> by other modes as a distress purchase)
>
> 70% of travel to work in the UK is by car (somewhat more excluding
London).
>

I don't know if this adds any added value to the debate as this is only for scotland.

Lifted from www.scrol.gov.uk

All people aged 16-74 in employment or studying = 2510494

Percentage of people aged 16-74 in employment or studying who travel to place of work or study by:

6.07 Work or study mainly at or from home .43 Underground, metro, light rail, tram
7.45 Train
8.95 Bus, minibus or coach .46 Motorcycle, scooter or moped
9.03 Driving a car or van
10.29 Passenger in a car or van .77 Taxi or minicab
11.44 Bicycle
12.07 On foot
13.04 Other

Of those using Public transport (includes underground, metro, light rail, tram, train, bus, minibus
or coach),

14.18% have a car or van (doesn't say whether exclusive use or own); and
15.82% don't have a car or van.

Full link to all this info is:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2FB254E4

If we assume (and feel free to shoot me down in flames for this, it is merely an assumption) that
those driving a car or van either own or have exclusive access and add to that the proportion of PT
users that have a car or van (assuming they own or have exclusive access), then if you accept the
assumptions

16.03% + (17.83%*63.18%) = 61.3% of people own or have exclusive use of a car or van. Of course, the
other categories may also include people with exclusive use of a car or van and conversely I did
make some sweeping assumptions.

There are also significant variations within Scotland dependant upon urban / rural locality.

For example, in Edinburgh and Glasgow, using the simple assumption above, then 51% of people own or
have exclusive use of a car or van.

Stephen Cragg Scotland

 

[James Hodson]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 00:50:16 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

>AndyMorris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Most people in this country do not own, or have exclusive use of, a car.
>
>Most people in this country have no need for a train.

Hi Steve

I do agree with your comment that most people have no or little need to travel by train. Those who
commute into London could well disagree with us both.

Whatever. I am not premitted to drive because of a medical condition. I use a bicycle, which you
seem to despise, for my local journeys but have to use a train for longer trips.

Do you have any children approaching car-owning age? If so, what would you say if he/she/they were
disallowed from driving for a medical reason and if their only way to travel longish distances was
by train? Would you refer to your own offspring as social misfits?

Just curious, Steve Regards James

PS Of course, all this means that I'll have to start reading uk.transport :-/

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg

 

[Steve Firth]

James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Do you have any children approaching car-owning age? If so, what would you say if he/she/they were
> disallowed from driving for a medical reason and if their only way to travel longish distances was
> by train? Would you refer to your own offspring as social misfits?

FWIW my grandson will be unable to drive because he has a visual handicap and yes he's a social
misfit. He knows that his disability handicaps him in many social situations, and that his
disability is the main thing that people focus on, making his social life "odd" by comparison with
able-bodied individuals.

OTOH losing the use of the train would make little or no difference to his life because as for many
others a train is device that goes from where he is not to somewhere he does not want to be at a
price that is well in excess of what he would have to pay if he used almost any other form of
transport.

You will find if you examine the alternatives that trains are not the only form of public transport.

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

 

[Adrian]

James Hodson ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> Whatever. I am not premitted to drive because of a medical condition. I use a bicycle

May I ask what medical condition makes you unable to use one form of road transport, yet leaves you
in a condition to safely operate another, more strenuous, form of road transport?