Re-opening of rail routes

[Class172]

What frustrates me, is the A1 is now a superb road all the way from Huntingdon to Tyneside and beyond, yet the busiest section south of Huntingdon remains awful. Several roundabouts, plus the infamous two-lane section from Welwyn to Stevenage.

There is currently a Government study looking into upgrading the A1 from Baldock to Brampton Hut (the section between the current A1(M)) to a motorway. I think the stretch near Stevenage is earmarked for conversion to All Lane Running, which will add an extra lane.

 

[DarloRich]

I mean, sure, but the North East is pretty heavily under funded. It could certainly do with a cash injection that it then decides to spend by itself. And the NECA report (the "wouldn't it be nice" report, posted a while back) isn't suggesting anything different from what we're discussing.

Happy to agree on the under funded part - that wont change until the government release the brakes.

I'm always a little sceptical about over-extending the Metro. It's definitely the "in vogue" solution to any North East capacity problems, but suffers from the fact that the single core is limited in capacity and that realistically, some of the distances it travels are pretty big for a light-rail service. I wouldn't say no to a half hourly 156 to Washington. I don't really see the material gain from the Metro, other than a theoretically better frequency. It could possibly be cheaper to have a DMU service, because no electrification would be needed.

Noted - but we are talking about short distance extensions to existing services along fairly clear routes. Wouldn't light rail be cheaper maintenance/operation wise?

is the length of the metro any more than the Manchester tram system into the city centre?

I just think the metro has the better ( if slim) chance of winning the required funding

For 1tph + Freight?

is it 1 passenger train per hour?

 

[TBY-Paul]

No it isnt - why is it badly needed? We seem to have managed without passenger trains since 1941 on the southern section and 1963 on the northern section of the line.

Much as the line is very close to my heart for sentimental reasons the communities of Shincliffe, Penshaw, Fencehouses and Leamisde hardly justify a service. What is the justification in your mind for this investment?

For someone who is from the area, you seam to be still living in the past. The world is a different place, places like Ferryhill, Shincliffe, Penshaw, Fencehouses are no longer small isolated villages made up of people who never venture further than the end of the street or the local colliery. Places like Coxhoe & Bowburn have grown significantly in the past 20 years, and most incomers don't just live and work in the Coxhoe/Bowburn area.

There is no freight to speak of and any there is comes out of Tyne and runs via the coast to the 4 track ECML at Northallerton.

If there's so much spare capacity, how come Northern are not allowed to run local stopping services between places like York & Hartlepool or York & Newcastle (via Eaglescliffe)?

Darlo, Durham and Newcastle are well connected by VTEC, XC & TPE trains. Middlesborugh is well connected to Darlington and has a decent service along the coast.

Where are these communities that need better and further services?

York, Darlington, Durham and Newcastle are very well connected, one might even say over connected (I noticed you left out Chester-le Street...) but at what cost to local services that are not allowed to take up paths.

Opening up Leamside and upgrading Stillington would create, in effect, an extra pair of tracks between Northallerton & Newcastle creating new travel opportunities using local services provided by Northern as well as the opportunity to transfer some other services that currently only use the ECML . This would create better services for people who live in places like Yarm, Eaglescliffe, Stockton, Billingham, Chester-le Street, and new services for people who live in places like Coxhoe/Bowburn, Penshaw, Washington & Ferryhill.

If a new Station in the Penshaw area was combined with an extension to the Tyne & Wear metro from South Hylton to create an interchange point (Sunderland Parkway?), and the Leamside line having a station at the Belmont Park & ride site (Durham Parkway?), the benefits to the North East would be immense.

From reading your post's regarding the North East, you seam to have an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude because you can use Darlington Station for all your travel needs. There are area's away from Darlington that need better services and connectivity.

 

[glbotu]

If there's so much spare capacity, how come Northern are not allowed to run local stopping services between places like York & Hartlepool or York & Newcastle (via Eaglescliffe)?

Less "not allowed", more "no one would take that train". There's not a litany of untapped York - Teesside demand. What does exist is actually well served by TPE and Grand Central and to a lesser extent, the Tees Valley service, connecting at Darlington. Although there is clearly some demand, as VTEC are planning to run a Middlesbrough - London service. However no-one in their right mind would get on a Pacer or Sprinter for that journey, when a much faster one is available. York - Teesside is an inter-city sized journey.

York, Darlington, Durham and Newcastle are very well connected, one might even say over connected (I noticed you left out Chester-le Street...) but at what cost to local services that are not allowed to take up paths.

Again, what local services? Other than Chester-le-Street, which I agree deserves a better service (although the 21 bus is very frequent and is less than 20 mins to Gateshead Interchange). I guess a stop at Ferryhill wouldn't be too bad?

Opening up Leamside and upgrading Stillington would create, in effect, an extra pair of tracks between Northallerton & Newcastle creating new travel opportunities using local services provided by Northern as well as the opportunity to transfer some other services that currently only use the ECML . This would create better services for people who live in places like Yarm, Eaglescliffe, Stockton, Billingham, Chester-le Street, and new services for people who live in places like Coxhoe/Bowburn, Penshaw, Washington & Ferryhill.

How would the Leamside line directly impact Stockton, Billingham and Yarm? I also fail to see the "extra pair of tracks from Northallerton". From Ferryhill, yes, not Northallerton.

If a new Station in the Penshaw area was combined with an extension to the Tyne & Wear metro from South Hylton to create an interchange point (Sunderland Parkway?), and the Leamside line having a station at the Belmont Park & ride site (Durham Parkway?), the benefits to the North East would be immense.

I agree with the Northern end of the Leamside line, but I just can't seem to see why you'd extend it further south than, let's say Penshaw for Sunderland Park & Ride. Durham "Belmont" isn't brilliantly placed for anyone other than low density housing in Gilesgate.

So, if we look at Network Rail's rather simple demand modelling and apply it to some of the services you're proposing. As a whole, before considering a station opening or re-opening, it has to serve a population of 10,000+. Existing stations don't have to meet that criteria to stay open (because they're already being used), but that's the criteria used to justify building the stations, because that's the size of population of which a non trivial amount will make the modal shift, due to re-opening of the station. Coxhoe, Bowburn and Ferryhill don't make that cut (not even together).

I agree that the Durham Coast has a frankly pitiful service, but it needs to have capacity increases between Sunderland and Newcastle for that to work. As I say, the Northern Connect service will run from Middlesbrough and Sunderland to Newcastle via the ECML and Stillington line, which will improve connectivity between Teesside and Tyneside.

 

[Bald Rick]

What frustrates me, is the A1 is now a superb road all the way from Huntingdon to Tyneside and beyond, yet the busiest section south of Huntingdon remains awful. Several roundabouts, plus the infamous two-lane section from Welwyn to Stevenage.

Well, yes. It is noticeable (when I travel) that a majority of southbound traffic heads for the A14 / M11 at Alconbury.

I gather that the Welwyn - Stevenage section is going to be converted to a managed motorway, possibly with 3 lane all lane running.

 

[Class172]

There is currently a Government study looking into upgrading the A1 from Baldock to Brampton Hut (the section between the current A1(M)) to a motorway. I think the stretch near Stevenage is earmarked for conversion to All Lane Running, which will add an extra lane.

Well, yes. It is noticeable (when I travel) that a majority of southbound traffic heads for the A14 / M11 at Alconbury.

I gather that the Welwyn - Stevenage section is going to be converted to a managed motorway, possibly with 3 lane all lane running.

Yes, something which I alluded to earlier. I didn't have the ability to find the document earlier, but for anyone who is interested, here is the study: A1 East of England interim report.

 

[CockneySparrow]

I believe increased capacity on the Felixstowe branch is shovel ready.

An increase from 33 to 46 freight trains each way a day, all of which can be filled by waiting customers, must surely rank as worthwhile.

Wasn't they supposed to be closing that line for passengers

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding Ipswich - Felixstowe, have there ever been any plans/suggestions/proposals to withdraw the passenger trains and substitute with trams?

 

[furnessvale]

Wasn't they supposed to be closing that line for passengers

That's an inflammatory statement!

The port has offered a fleet of luxury coaches to replace passenger trains, so valuable are train paths, but the locals will have none of it.

Even so, given the single line and a passenger service, to get 66 freights over that line every 24 hours is a feat indeed.

 

[Bald Rick]

Regarding Ipswich - Felixstowe, have there ever been any plans/suggestions/proposals to withdraw the passenger trains and substitute with trams?

Trams no, buses / coaches yes. In the off peak, when not many people use them.

 

[Starmill]

Good to see someone who realises the current economic facts of life that Britain actually faces.

These 'facts' that are entirely of their own making. Why should I accept being poorer to regain a crumb of sovereignty that I was perfectly satisfied to trade-off? We are a very rich country. It's frustrating that so many of us struggle to see that and think there is this need for realism, and that they are better than everyone else because they are 'realists'.

Anyway, the data with modal shift from road to rail fails to take account of the fact that building more roads does not reduce road congestion. There needs to be parallel investment if one wants to reduce road congestion in order to add road capacity and prevent an increase in driving. The best way to do that is with buses and trains. Another influential factor is carless households - plus the wider economic benefits of rail are usually much greater than of roads because time on trains is not 'wasted' in the way that driving is and journey time reliability is much greater. Rail schemes good enough to have business cases worth considering will also be sufficiently well used that they are emitting vastly less CO2 per passenger kilometer than cars. Oh, and they are many times safer. So the question is one of national priorities, not just the transport sector. Rail is not always the answer, but it very clearly is in a significant number of cases, which is why Benefit:Cost come back at huge numbers. All it needs is more capital and better planning. We do not face an economic fact that we cannot afford new infrastructure or that there are not the new infrastructure projects that are worthwhile investing in. That's just ridiculous to say that.

One possible factor that can largely be ruled out is increased bus useage, as this continues to decline nearly everywhere outside London. I probably won't get any kudos for saying this on a rail forum, but the easiest measures to secure large-scale reduction in car usage would be to encourage the bus aggressively with priority measures, proper integration and regulation. The few cities such as Nottingham that have done most of this have seen static or falling car useage.

Buses are cheap, effective and have short lead times on improvements. They are also vital for connecting journeys up to places rail cannot reach without the need for people who live in urban areas to own cars. Better buses and more railway passengers are clearly compliments.

 

[muddythefish]

I will repeat that you are deluded if you think people will give up their cars.

You're making this up - no one sugested giving up cars

People only use the bus out of necessity - it is seen ( outside of London) as a plebs taxi for poor people and chavs.

Utter nonsense - and insulting

People want the freedom & flexibility a car brings. For many it is impossible to operate without a car and you will not reduce that demand by enforcing speed limits. :roll: We have tried forcing the price of fuel and tax high but that has had no impact on car numbers.

More nonsense. Where do you get this from?

Enforcing speed limits makes journey times longer and makes other modes of transport more attractive. FYI cars are restricted to 70mph.

There is clear evidence that higher fuel and higher taxes have restricted car usage.

We need better connections in this country & punishing people because they don't have your zeal for public transport is bonkers as is your idea of not spending on new roads. I don't want to see all the money spent on roads but we have to accept the car is here to stay and people want and need to use them in growing numbers. We have to provide for this increasing use and that means spending money on new roads.

No one is being "punished" by less spending on new roads. We do need better transport and that means spending more on rail than we have ain the past. It may have escaped your attention but rail passenger numbers have rocketed in the past 20 years and are forecast to continue./

 

[TBirdFrank]

Darlo is quite right with most of what he says - the fact he is getting up the rail fascista's noses says it all - BUT

Where is Blackwell Mill to Matlock?? (Manchester to Derby to STP again)
Where is cross Bradford, Shipley to Harrogate, Harrogate to Northallerton??(ECML diversionary again) upgrade the coast route to Newcastle, and then Carlisle to Tweedbank and Hawick to Jedburgh to Newcastle providing diversionary and resilience across the border?

Where is the withered arm - needed every year when Cowley Bridge is out

And above all

Stuff HS2 - what a waste of money when the foregoing need doing first by a country mile???

 

[Starmill]

Darlo is quite right with most of what he says - the fact he is getting up the rail fascista's noses says it all

Who are you calling a fascist? And how is it even relevant? Somehow it does not strike me that you have made much of a positive contribution here yourself if that's the best you can come up with.

I've got a very clear idea about what I want from transport policy in the UK. DarloRich is simply being ultra-conservative about the changes that are physically possible. He always argues from the point of view that the status quo will go on forever, but we know that this is just not true in the long term. In the short term none of these projects are likely to get off the ground but the smallest - that doesn't mean they won't and that attitudes can't change. He is correct though that changes to attitudes and structures must be fought for, will not come easily and will take a lot of hard work from lots of different people.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That's an inflammatory statement!

The port has offered a fleet of luxury coaches to replace passenger trains, so valuable are train paths, but the locals will have none of it.

Even so, given the single line and a passenger service, to get 66 freights over that line every 24 hours is a feat indeed.

66? Really? Wow! Out of interest, where (roughly) do they all go to? Once they get to Ipswich, there aren't that many different rail routes out of Ipswich they can take, which would seem to imply other lines from Ipswich must have an awful lot of freight on them?

 

[Bald Rick]

66? Really? Wow! Out of interest, where (roughly) do they all go to? Once they get to Ipswich, there aren't that many different rail routes out of Ipswich they can take, which would seem to imply other lines from Ipswich must have an awful lot of freight on them?

Well 33 of them go to Felixstowe*

Of the rest, about 2/3 head up the GE to Stratford, and the rest head down the GE and turn left towards Ely.

* reminds me of being on a train with a former colleague in north Birmingham. She saw a plane in the sky, and said 'ooo I wish I was going where that's going'. 'Arrivals at Birmingham airport' was the answer!

 

[paul1609]

Darlo is quite right with most of what he says - the fact he is getting up the rail fascista's noses says it all - BUT

Where is Blackwell Mill to Matlock?? (Manchester to Derby to STP again)
Where is cross Bradford, Shipley to Harrogate, Harrogate to Northallerton??(ECML diversionary again) upgrade the coast route to Newcastle, and then Carlisle to Tweedbank and Hawick to Jedburgh to Newcastle providing diversionary and resilience across the border?

Where is the withered arm - needed every year when Cowley Bridge is out

And above all

Stuff HS2 - what a waste of money when the foregoing need doing first by a country mile???

Surely Cowley Bridge Junction is where the Withered Arm left the GW Main Line and being the lowest line next to the river closed first?

 

[Bald Rick]

Surely Cowley Bridge Junction is where the Withered Arm left the GW Main Line and being the lowest line next to the river closed first?

It is indeed. And it is closed until tomorrow. Meanwhile trains are happily running west of Exeter.

 

[furnessvale]

Well 33 of them go to Felixstowe*

Of the rest, about 2/3 head up the GE to Stratford, and the rest head down the GE and turn left towards Ely.

* reminds me of being on a train with a former colleague in north Birmingham. She say a plane in the sky, and said 'ooo I was going where that's going'. 'Arrivals at Birmingham airport' was the answer!

33 go to Felixstowe loaded and 33 come back out again reloaded. total 66 over the single line.

 

[HowardGWR]

It is indeed. And it is closed until tomorrow. Meanwhile trains are happily running west of Exeter.

But not north of it. So Cowley Bridge is a problem for both possible routes. Also the LSWR from St Davids to Yeovil and then GWR on to Castle Cary is usable -but not being used I see from RTT.

Cowley Bridge was supposed to have been 'ameliorated'. I imagine it's back to the drawing board.

 

[Cowley]

But not north of it. So Cowley Bridge is a problem for both possible routes. Also the LSWR from St Davids to Yeovil and then GWR on to Castle Cary is usable -but not being used I see from RTT.

Cowley Bridge was supposed to have been 'ameliorated'. I imagine it's back to the drawing board.

I think you're right, although north of the actual bridge they don't seem to have done that much work, I know they've altered the bridge that drains the flooded fields next to the pub so more water can flow through it.
I've lived here quite a while and it didn't seem like that much rain really. We've certainly had more at times, I think the plan is to take some of the weirs out next in order to drop the river level, supposedly it'll drop it by 1.5 metres which should help the situation.

 

[HowardGWR]

Cowley, there's a video here - seems to have pointed the camera the wrong way too!

Flooding causes third day of disruption for rail passengers

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/flo...-passengers/story-29927145-detail/story.html?

 

[Cowley]

Cowley, there's a video here - seems to have pointed the camera the wrong way too!

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/flo...-passengers/story-29927145-detail/story.html?

They have pointed it the wrong way
The dumper truck on the slope has just pulled that white boxy thing out of the water after they left it in the firing line all weekend. The thing is, that side of the bridge is fine and the video shows just normal flood water spreading out over the plain like it always does.
Seems like the pub car park is the place to go to film disaster zone style floods these days, I hope Ken's selling them plenty of sandwiches...

 

[HowardGWR]

I thought that had become a Chinese restaurant. Perhaps Ken is from there? I hope that colleagues are not misled into thinking Cowley bridge problems are something against the Okehampton route reinstatement. The problem applies to both railways.

Finally, Exeter to Penzance trains are not running happily as a perusal of RTT and the GWR website would have told DarloRich. Anything but.

 

[Cowley]

I thought that had become a Chinese restaurant. Perhaps Ken is from there? I hope that colleagues are not misled into thinking Cowley bridge problems are something against the Okehampton route reinstatement. The problem applies to both railways.

It was a Chinese, but after being wrecked by floods the last time this happened they struggled with the business and eventually Ken and his wife took it on and does the usual pub grub thing now. It's nice in there though, they've done a good job.
As far as it goes, no matter what happens in the future re the Okehampton line this as you say will need sorting out whatever.

 

[JohnElliott]

Yes, they mentioned it on their lunchtime new headlines, again a would be great idea if it happens, I presume the existing Uckfield line would have to be improved somewhat to accommodate this too. (Not sure what it's impact would be on the little Lavender line.)

So far, it seems that dog hasn't barked.

Presumably, the report whose publication is being pressed for is the London and South Coast Rail Corridor Study. It's amusing to speculate on whether the delay in publishing it is because it comes to some hideously unacceptable conclusion. Might it have come up with such a good BCR for reinstating Uckfield-Lewes that it would be politically impossible not to go ahead? Or, conversely, does it suggest closing Hurst Green-Uckfield altogether? Compulsory purchase of the Bluebell? Converting the main London-Brighton line to a guided busway? Building a completely new High Speed route through the South Downs National Park? The possibilities are extensive.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well 33 of them go to Felixstowe*

lol! I guess I should have anticipated that answer!

 

[DarloRich]

You're making this up - no one sugested giving up cars

You suggest, by extension, that people should be "persuaded" to give up their cars by improving public transport at the expense of road spending. A laudable aim but one that is simply not realistic.

Utter nonsense - and insulting

True though.

Outside London (& pensioners apart) people use buses only when they have no choice and/or they cant afford a car. There is an image problem for buses. I will admit they aren't as bad as that image ( in some places) but the prevailing view of real, professional, people is that the bus is a poor mans transport system. Sadly, realism and enthusiasts don't mix very well.

More nonsense. Where do you get this from?

Enforcing speed limits makes journey times longer and makes other modes of transport more attractive. FYI cars are restricted to 70mph.

There is clear evidence that higher fuel and higher taxes have restricted car usage.

I take it your use of the M1 is limited. Try 70 on that motorway and you will very quickly crash into the car in front! For much of the journey from MK to Sheffield/Leeds you do 50.

Whilst higher duty may have slowed car use i will point out i am the only person i know who doesn't have a car. most have a car each. Even the people I know without work will keep their car as long as they can as it is a tool to help them get back into work. The sad fact, for you, is that no matter how high the duty people keep filling up and driving their cars.

it is also worth noting that train fares are held to be expensive and don't compare well on point to point costs with cars. I think that overlooks the true cost of driving but is a widely held perception. Cars are also seen as more reliable and offer a feeling of being control to the user.

That said the easiest way to get people out of their cars is to offer a cheap, fast, reliable and frequent service and really cut fares.

No one is being "punished" by less spending on new roads. We do need better transport and that means spending more on rail than we have ain the past. It may have escaped your attention but rail passenger numbers have rocketed in the past 20 years and are forecast to continue./

It may also have escaped your attention that the roads are very busy. Even if we magically, prevented any further car sales and simply held numbers the same the roads, without investment, would still be very busy and congested! We need more and better roads AND more and better railways.

Your view seems to be that new roads aren't needed and that people should, magically, accept the rightness of your argument and give up their car. Sadly that has no base in reality.

A car is identified with flexibility and freedom. As a non car owner I have to plan every trip carefully. Even a trip to the shop needs thought. As a car owner I can decide to drive to the match this weekend if i so wish. Without a car I am already planning my away trips for February.

It also seems to have escaped your attention that many people live a long way from their place of work, especially in the south. House prices mean that distance is always increasing. The train offers the quickest way of travelling between the two. Who, in their right mind, would drive into London everyday? How many of those people drive to the station and how many take the bus?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've got a very clear idea about what I want from transport policy in the UK. DarloRich is simply being ultra-conservative about the changes that are physically possible. He always argues from the point of view that the status quo will go on forever, but we know that this is just not true in the long term. In the short term none of these projects are likely to get off the ground but the smallest - that doesn't mean they won't and that attitudes can't change. He is correct though that changes to attitudes and structures must be fought for, will not come easily and will take a lot of hard work from lots of different people.

I would say I argue from a realistic, pragmatic and rational position.

Unlike many here i know how hard it is to get railway projects funded & what is needed to build a convincing business case in that sphere. I also understand the difficult funding position NR finds itself in and how that is only going to get worse. Few here seem to understand how the reclassification of NR has impacted their ability to fund and deliver projects.

I am also acutely aware that the money that is available comes from the government pot. It is your money and mine. It needs to be spent where it will deliver the most benefit to the most people. We also need to show why that money is better spent on railway lines and not the NHS or police or army or schools. If we spend it badly we wont get it again as credibility will be lost.

What annoys me is that given the chance the majority here would chuck away that limited funding on mere trifles or personal hobby horses. I know this is a site for enthusiasts but realism seems stranger to them!

Lines trundling though the countryside service little villages and towns with limited economic activity wont satisfy that test of benefit.

 

[muddythefish]

You suggest, by extension, that people should be "persuaded" to give up their cars by improving public transport at the expense of road spending. A laudable aim but one that is simply not realistic.

You're making it up again. I suggested that people have to use cars not because they want to but because there are no alternatives. I'd happily leave mine at home if there was a train available

True though.

Outside London (& pensioners apart) people use buses only when they have no choice and/or they cant afford a car. There is an image problem for buses. I will admit they aren't as bad as that image ( in some places) but the prevailing view of real, professional, people is that the bus is a poor mans transport system. Sadly, realism and enthusiasts don't mix very well.

The realism is total number of bus passengers far exceeds that of rail. Are they all enthusiasts?

. The sad fact, for you, is that no matter how high the duty people keep filling up and driving their cars.

Not borne out by the facts. Car use went down during the high oil price years. It's only started to recover since the oil price slump.

Your view seems to be that new roads aren't needed and that people should, magically, accept the rightness of your argument and give up their car. Sadly that has no base in reality.
y.

My view is we need to invest in alternatives to roads because continuing to spend money on new and better roads doesn't solve congestion, merely shifts the problem a few miles down the road and in fact makes congestion worse. And that's without the air quality / environment considerations.

 

[glbotu]

You're making it up again. I suggested that people have to use cars not because they want to but because there are no alternatives. I'd happily leave mine at home if there was a train available

Just to put it out there, would you take a bus?

The realism is total number of bus passengers far exceeds that of rail. Are they all enthusiasts?

Yes, but that number is decreasing all the time. The point is, at the moment (London excluded), when people can afford to drive instead of taking the bus, they drive. With small exceptions, like the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway (which is more tram-like anyway). This problem is exacerbated by the horrible nature of the deregulated bus market, with major conurbations over-served by competing companies, with no inter-operable tickets and everywhere else gets a terrible (and surprisingly expensive) service. The Bus Bill should help with that a lot.

Not borne out by the facts. Car use went down during the high oil price years. It's only started to recover since the oil price slump.

Car use has some fun generational and regional things that people have interestingly missed. I certainly find that of my generation (born late 80s - 90s), many fewer people see driving as some sort of rite of passage (I remember a conversation I had with someone in their 40s when I got my first car about how I'd drive everywhere and what a big step it was and wondering what the hell they were talking about). Now I get that I grew up in London, where driving is just silly, but even people I know from Manchester, Cambridgeshire, Newcastle etc don't see a car as a status symbol and more as an inconvenience you have to take care of to get around, because buses and trains are inconvenient in the areas they live/work. The generation above (born anywhere from 1945 to 1985), however, will take any opportunity to eschew the bus or train to take their beloved car. (Yes, I've generalised, these are just trends I've noticed). This trend also (unsurprisingly) exists between city folk and country folk, although oddly less pronounced.

My view is we need to invest in alternatives to roads because continuing to spend money on new and better roads doesn't solve congestion, merely shifts the problem a few miles down the road and in fact makes congestion worse. And that's without the air quality / environment considerations.

Yes. This is the "road builder's paradox". However, some road building schemes have merit, largely those which upgrade existing roads which are out of capacity. "Cut-offs" are the devil though. They do exactly the wrong thing.