-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Motorway traffic falls
- Thread starter Metroland
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Oracle
Established Member
Well they must have gravitated to the M27, M3 and M271! And A31!
Well, good! We can't have the entire population of this planet driving cars, as it is unsustainable, you complete and utter fool.that smug prat at 01:38 in the video said:
But it should not "affect" peoples lifestyle in a bad way, it should be a positive thing! It may "affect" their lifestyle by making them less likely to be fat and lazy, which can only be a good thing.
We must ensure it is, from now on, not a disadvantage to not own a car.
It's time to ensure an end to all out-of-town developments and also an end to all new road building. Instead, money should be put into public transport. Also, the existing roads should be maintained before we build any more. The number of potholes is disgraceful.
And your point is?:-?
thefab444
Established Member
Not sure about the latter two, but the M27/M3 of late has been completely unusuable. The number of times we've approached the Chilworth Triangle from the north and had to come off at Eastleigh North because of the tailback caused by those bloody roadworks. Best route to get north of Winchester that we've found from J2 of the M27 is to go up the A3090 to Romsey and Hursley and then either join the M3 at J11 (IIRC) or cut through Winchester's backroads and join the A34 at the first junction north of Winchester. Going to Eastleigh you may as well forget it, what with the M27 roadworks, Eastleigh town centre is also closed - for apparently no improvement other than resurfacing. :roll:
The M271 is just rubbish anyway!
My point is buses need new roads to go new places.
Think the roads just about go everywhere for buses. The main reason for building roads is reducing congestion – although usually they induce more traffic. You can of course build more railways, which will do exactly the same thing. But for some reason groups like the ABD object, because they don’t see any benefit to them.
Trucks and buses cause the vast majority of damage to roads [ source http://www.pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=ESAL ] indeed, trucks are involved in 31% of road accidents [ source http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...-accidents-caused-by-lorries-115875-20723077/ ]. Trucks also cause a large percentage of congestion. In other words, the vast majority of costs are paid for by car drivers – and there is a lot of benefit in stopping building roads and moving some of this problem traffic to rail and giving people the option not to have to travel by car. I believe the EUs target for rail freight share is now 40%, which is similar to the share in the US.
All anyone has argued for is a sensible transport policy, which actually makes life better rather than worse: More options, less congestion, pollution, less commuting, better planning. Unfortunately it is skewed by these special interest groups who make claims like rising costs affect poor people. What has traditionally affected poor people is HAVING to buy a car and HAVING to commute long distances. The average cost of owning a car is around £6,000 – and if you are on less than £20,000 per year, clearly this is a huge part of your budget. It seems, however, that drivers are most sensitive to fuel price, even though it only makes up around 1/6th of the cost of running a vehicle. Indeed, for most young drivers, which the gentleman quotes, insurance costs actually surpass fuel costs.
Trucks and buses cause the vast majority of damage to roads [ source http://www.pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=ESAL ] indeed, trucks are involved in 31% of road accidents [ source http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...-accidents-caused-by-lorries-115875-20723077/ ]. Trucks also cause a large percentage of congestion. In other words, the vast majority of costs are paid for by car drivers – and there is a lot of benefit in stopping building roads and moving some of this problem traffic to rail and giving people the option not to have to travel by car. I believe the EUs target for rail freight share is now 40%, which is similar to the share in the US.
All anyone has argued for is a sensible transport policy, which actually makes life better rather than worse: More options, less congestion, pollution, less commuting, better planning. Unfortunately it is skewed by these special interest groups who make claims like rising costs affect poor people. What has traditionally affected poor people is HAVING to buy a car and HAVING to commute long distances. The average cost of owning a car is around £6,000 – and if you are on less than £20,000 per year, clearly this is a huge part of your budget. It seems, however, that drivers are most sensitive to fuel price, even though it only makes up around 1/6th of the cost of running a vehicle. Indeed, for most young drivers, which the gentleman quotes, insurance costs actually surpass fuel costs.
Oracle
Established Member
In the morning, if the M27 EB is stuffed, so many drivers divert through Romsey that it logjams the town. Then you run into everybody and his dog doing the same in Winchester. If time is not of the essence it is possible to go through the back roads north of Winchester, heading for the A303, or A33 at Micheldever, then get on at Dummer.
Can you give examples?
Nearly all new roads these days are by-passes, that by-pass places and are no use to buses.
Sadly i heard today of one major preserved railway that has suffered a similar reduction in passenger numbers to the North east section of the M25! this year. Realistically the rise in oil prices will affect the whole economy its only a matter of time before it reaches nation rail.
Well you might be right about that, we shall have to see. Obviously preserved railways are highly discretionary and will be affected by any downturn. But clearly the answer is to become less oil dependent and provide choice, something I have been arguing for a long time. Sadly government and others promote more becoming ever more dependent on a finite resource mostly managed by a foreigners who don't have our best interests at heart. All the problems are entirely predictable and are down to simplistic myopic market economics, bad advice and bad planning. Its a shame a lot of intelligent people don't 'get it' and choose to ridicule others based on tabloid headlines, vested interests and a continued basic lack of vision. The lack of a consistent plan B is marked, and will only lead to more trouble. Don't say I didn't warn you, but forgive me if I turn my attention to other matters.
Last edited:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7624070.stm
this isnt the railway I was referring to!
this isnt the railway I was referring to!
Its every disadvantage of not owning a car. Just because you own one doesn't make you 'fat and lazy'. Having a car just makes a lot of situations easier than walking/cycling and even PT. So yes, IMO it does affect peoples lifestyle in a bad way.
Oh thanks for telling me my lifestyle is so "bad".:roll:
At least I can have the comfort of knowing that the vast majority of people on this planet are similarly "disadvantaged":roll:
Out of interest, would you like to see everyone on Earth driving cars, and how would this be sustainable? Not just in terms of fuel, but raw materials. Also, if that happened, what do you think the true cost would then be of buying, owning, and running a car, if everyone did? I expect you to avoid answering this question of course...
I'm just saying what its like in my experience. Fact is driving is more practical than cycling and walking in most circumstances. Its also fact that its seen to be disadvantaged not to have a car.
Yep, shame, it seems we should be promoting more holidays at home if we want to maintain our economy.
- Status