Campaign for Better Transport : Reopenings Fund

[yorksrob]

Apart from the horrendous costs to most new (modest) re-openings , and inherent delays for all sorts of reasons from newts or other things.

Kenilworth (see thread on here) , being a magnificent example.

Well, the newts and bats etc will be there whatever project you build. Yet Ilkeston is with us and Kenilworth is soon to be. The sooner you start, the sooner you get there and the cheaper its likely to be.

 

[8H]

Read what was said "Urban" transit - you cant expand the road footprint within the urban boundary's of the UK because of other development. In these urban areas most of us live and work and road usage has progressed beyond the point of optimum efficiency for nearly all city's and large towns in the UK. You can expand the road footprint between the edges of urban centers - yes but that traffic then has to go somewhere when it reaches the edge of the next urban centre, traffic doesn't magically stop when the dual carriageway ends all it can do is become part of the problem of over congested urban traffic. This renders improvements between urban centers counter productive due to the negative effect the extra traffic then has on traffic in the urban areas.



Do you mean the "cliche" of an official Government report from 1994 ?- THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT TRUNK ROADS AND THE GENERATION OF TRAFFIC The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment.

As a "Induced Traffic Denier" you no doubt have an answer to all the other international study's that have noted the effect and can tell us all about the country's in the world that have solved road traffic congestion by building more roads?

We love to pretend in this country that we can have our cake and eat it. We can all have cars and drive around unconstrained was the snake oil salesman pitch of the road lobby in the 50's and 60's people like yourself desperately want to believe it can still happen. Politicians have failed to heed the evidence base on traffic and roads because they dont want to tell people something they dont want to hear. No amount of £ can change this so crying foul about proposed rail re openings pinching money that could be spent on roads is missing the point entirely. Throwing money at road expansion is self defeating even if "not that many" people use the reopened railway at least their doing something positive for the country's transport and economy not the negativity of more traffic causing more congestion.

It’s all true regarding roads Gareth, I think I read somewhere that they first proved “improvements” just generate induced traffic back in the 1930’s

 

[philthetube]

Whilst there might be a case for reopening one or two "disused" lines, I think that most of any available money would be better spent on improving the existing network. This would include a steady pursuit of electrification of all but the most minor secondary lines. But first, we need to get abolition of some of the over-zealous regulations about clearances, etc., and a competent and thorough examination of why some projects involving NR seem to be so hideously expensive. Also we need a steady pursuit of extending platforms, so that passenger capacity can be increased, replacing toy-sized trains by something much longer.

By far the cheapest way of increasing the capacity of the network, along with improved signalling.

It is wasteful to spend millions on new projects when hundreds of thousands could have massive benefits. once small jobs are sorted then the big ones should be tackled.

 

[The Planner]

I assume the hundreds of thousands of pounds doesn't include your improved signalling as that is one of the most, if not the most, expensive assets to change/improve. That is why it only happens every 40 odd years.

 

[Gareth Marston]

It’s all true regarding roads Gareth, I think I read somewhere that they first proved “improvements” just generate induced traffic back in the 1930’s

Road capacity expansion spend is ultimately self defeating in a "mature" mass vehicle ownership economy. However politicians want to play to the gallery and appease what they see as voters wishes as well as being ignorant about the true nature of the problem. A lot more of good would be done by scrapping all the backwood Tory bypass and link roads schemes and using the £ to fix the potholes.

Theirs no reason we cant have a station reopening scheme and a line reopening fund.

 

[yorksrob]

By far the cheapest way of increasing the capacity of the network, along with improved signalling.

It is wasteful to spend millions on new projects when hundreds of thousands could have massive benefits. once small jobs are sorted then the big ones should be tackled.

Which is the perfect way of ensuring that the 'big jobs' never happen. There will always be enough things around the existing network that need doing which will provide an excuse to put off opening new routes. That doesn't mean they should be a priority every time.

 

[yorksrob]

I assume the hundreds of thousands of pounds doesn't include your improved signalling as that is one of the most, if not the most, expensive assets to change/improve. That is why it only happens every 40 odd years.

I assume the hundreds of thousands of pounds doesn't include your improved signalling as that is one of the most, if not the most, expensive assets to change/improve. That is why it only happens every 40 odd years.

Many of these new branch sections are short enough to operate under 'one train in steam' principles, at least until the next planned resignalling scheme.

Alternatively, why not bring forward other planned improvements in the area to make best use of the down time.

 

[CdBrux]

Road capacity expansion spend is ultimately self defeating in a "mature" mass vehicle ownership economy. However politicians want to play to the gallery and appease what they see as voters wishes as well as being ignorant about the true nature of the problem. A lot more of good would be done by scrapping all the backwood Tory bypass and link roads schemes and using the £ to fix the potholes.

Theirs no reason we cant have a station reopening scheme and a line reopening fund.

I think we should start by closing the entire M4 to the west of the M5, including both Severn bridges. I wonder what that would do to the economic activity in South Wales?

 

[InOban]

I'm not sure if this is appropriate here, but I read that services to Kirkstall Forge are to be doubled after it reached its predicted annual passenger numbers in just five months. I know that most reopenings exceed expectations, but is this a record?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I'm not sure if this is appropriate here, but I read that services to Kirkstall Forge are to be doubled after it reached its predicted annual passenger numbers in just five months. I know that most reopenings exceed expectations, but is this a record?

Both the Ebbw Vale and Vale of Glamorgan lines did similarly - the latter due to a clever bit of marketing in making the fare Bridgend - Llantwitt Major one zone which stimulated serious growth - and due to the general affluence of the area. Middle class + areas tend to do well , even with higher car ownership.

I wanted to explore the reasons why for both lines with some heavy research ...but the moment passed...

 

[The Planner]

Many of these new branch sections are short enough to operate under 'one train in steam' principles, at least until the next planned resignalling scheme.

Alternatively, why not bring forward other planned improvements in the area to make best use of the down time.

That is fine, but which scheme that is planned to be done because its life expired do you hold together with Blutac to bring one forward that may not need doing for a good 10 years? Until there is a way of dealing with funds outside of the 5 year control periods you just can't shuffle money about and we integrate work as much as possible anyway.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I think we should start by closing the entire M4 to the west of the M5, including both Severn bridges. I wonder what that would do to the economic activity in South Wales?

Recognizing that road capacity expansion is a dead end both economically and in terms of solving road congestion is not an argument for road closures, what a strange suggestion! Though being in Mid Wales the economy of South Wales impacts very little on us here.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Read what was said "Urban" transit - you cant expand the road footprint within the urban boundary's of the UK because of other development. In these urban areas most of us live and work and road usage has progressed beyond the point of optimum efficiency for nearly all city's and large towns in the UK. You can expand the road footprint between the edges of urban centers - yes but that traffic then has to go somewhere when it reaches the edge of the next urban centre, traffic doesn't magically stop when the dual carriageway ends all it can do is become part of the problem of over congested urban traffic. This renders improvements between urban centers counter productive due to the negative effect the extra traffic then has on traffic in the urban areas.



Do you mean the "cliche" of an official Government report from 1994 ?- THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT TRUNK ROADS AND THE GENERATION OF TRAFFIC The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment.

As a "Induced Traffic Denier" you no doubt have an answer to all the other international study's that have noted the effect and can tell us all about the country's in the world that have solved road traffic congestion by building more roads?

We love to pretend in this country that we can have our cake and eat it. We can all have cars and drive around unconstrained was the snake oil salesman pitch of the road lobby in the 50's and 60's people like yourself desperately want to believe it can still happen. Politicians have failed to heed the evidence base on traffic and roads because they dont want to tell people something they dont want to hear. No amount of £ can change this so crying foul about proposed rail re openings pinching money that could be spent on roads is missing the point entirely. Throwing money at road expansion is self defeating even if "not that many" people use the reopened railway at least their doing something positive for the country's transport and economy not the negativity of more traffic causing more congestion.

I recognise that debating with you is futile as your mind is rigidly closed and you love to indulge in obfuscation and suggest that people have expressed opinions they have not expressed. Nevertheless:

You indicated that improvements to our road system automatically and inevitably required demolishing schools, hospitals and factories. This thread has cited the A66 which runs through sparsely populated open countryside and is not flanked throughout by buildings. Widening the road to make it a dual carriageway did not require the demolition of schools, hospitals and factories and so your generalisation is nonsense.

Your cliché about new or better roads creating more traffic ignores the fact that traffic has also increased in those areas where roads have not been greatly improved. Let's take the example of Hastings. The railway has been electrified but neither the A21 nor the A259 have been improved in the Hastings area, and yet road traffic has increased enormously in the past 60 years. In other words road traffic increases anyway, whether or not new roads have been built and it is fraudulent to suggest that the increase is caused mainly by improving roads. The evidence is quite clear that when people are prosperous, many will buy cars even if their local roads have not been improved. When, as in recent years, there is a marked decline in prosperity, people cannot afford cars and the use of public transport increases instead.

 

[Gareth Marston]

You indicated that improvements to our road system automatically and inevitably required demolishing schools, hospitals and factories. This thread has cited the A66 which runs through sparsely populated open countryside and is not flanked throughout by buildings. Widening the road to make it a dual carriageway did not require the demolition of schools, hospitals and factories and so your generalisation is nonsense..

I see so you think the A66 runs through built up urban areas which is what i was referring to or have you deliberately misread /misrepresented my posts about constrained urban areas because you don't have an answer to how you can expand urban road space without demolition? One suspects its the latter -this is clearly a very inconvenient truth for you.

I also note you choose not to identify the country's in the world that have solved road congestion by building more road capacity. Can you tell us? - No because no one has.

Your cliché about new or better roads creating more traffic ignores the fact that traffic has also increased in those areas where roads have not been greatly improved. Let's take the example of Hastings. The railway has been electrified but neither the A21 nor the A259 have been improved in the Hastings area, and yet road traffic has increased enormously in the past 60 years. In other words road traffic increases anyway, whether or not new roads have been built and it is fraudulent to suggest that the increase is caused mainly by improving roads. The evidence is quite clear that when people are prosperous, many will buy cars even if their local roads have not been improved. When, as in recent years, there is a marked decline in prosperity, people cannot afford cars and the use of public transport increases instead.

Well I called you out as an Induced Traffic Denier and I was correct. I'll stick to the evidence rather than wishful thinking thank you.

"47% increase on background levels of new schemes", just because other road traffic is increasing doesn't mean the new roads wont increase it by even more....

http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/tr...-road-challenging-the-road-building-consensus

evidence from the 13
cases analysed in detail for traffic impact
concluded that road schemes generate
more traffic. On average, traffic grew 47%
more than background levels, with one
scheme more than doubling traffic within
20 years. None of the four schemes
assessed in the longer-term showed the
promised reduction in congestion; all put
pressure on adjoining roads.
As for economic impact, of 25 road
schemes justified on the basis that they
would benefit the local economy, only
five had any direct evidence of economic
effects at all. Even then there was no
evidence the road was responsible for
them, or hadn’t simply moved economic
activity from elsewhere

 

[InOban]

I recognise that debating with you is futile as your mind is rigidly closed and you love to indulge in obfuscation and suggest that people have expressed opinions they have not expressed. Nevertheless:

You indicated that improvements to our road system automatically and inevitably required demolishing schools, hospitals and factories. This thread has cited the A66 which runs through sparsely populated open countryside and is not flanked throughout by buildings. Widening the road to make it a dual carriageway did not require the demolition of schools, hospitals and factories and so your generalisation is nonsense.

Your cliché about new or better roads creating more traffic ignores the fact that traffic has also increased in those areas where roads have not been greatly improved. Let's take the example of Hastings. The railway has been electrified but neither the A21 nor the A259 have been improved in the Hastings area, and yet road traffic has increased enormously in the past 60 years. In other words road traffic increases anyway, whether or not new roads have been built and it is fraudulent to suggest that the increase is caused mainly by improving roads. The evidence is quite clear that when people are prosperous, many will buy cars even if their local roads have not been improved. When, as in recent years, there is a marked decline in prosperity, people cannot afford cars and the use of public transport increases instead.

Except that our trains are so expensive that they are mainly used by the more prosperous.

 

[yorksrob]

That is fine, but which scheme that is planned to be done because its life expired do you hold together with Blutac to bring one forward that may not need doing for a good 10 years? Until there is a way of dealing with funds outside of the 5 year control periods you just can't shuffle money about and we integrate work as much as possible anyway.

If you integrate work as much as possible already, this will just be another factor to consider amongst many others. In the meantime, a simpler solution such as 'one train in steam' will probably suffice.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Except that our trains are so expensive that they are mainly used by the more prosperous.

Well, that's a separate issue, and I referred to public transport in general. Certainly it's true that many people on low incomes choose buses rather than trains. However train patronage has risen in recent years and I imagine many of those commuting to work by train do not feel particularly prosperous! In addition, of course, some train operators offer cheap fares if booked long in advance, which I take advantage of every now and then.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I see so you think the A66 runs through built up urban areas which is what i was referring to or have you deliberately misread /misrepresented my posts about constrained urban areas because you don't have an answer to how you can expand urban road space without demolition? One suspects its the latter -this is clearly a very inconvenient truth for you.

I also note you choose not to identify the country's in the world that have solved road congestion by building more road capacity. Can you tell us? - No because no one has.




Well I called you out as an Induced Traffic Denier and I was correct. I'll stick to the evidence rather than wishful thinking thank you.

"47% increase on background levels of new schemes", just because other road traffic is increasing doesn't mean the new roads wont increase it by even more....

http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/tr...-road-challenging-the-road-building-consensus

Ah, yet more obfuscation!

I didn't mention urban projects because it's completely irrelevant to this thread and was only introduced by you as a straw man argument because you could not rebut my point that most non-motorists are not fanatical bigots.

This thread has been discussing the different levels of tax-payer funding for road and rail improvements. When I stated that most people are not opposed to sensible investment in roads, your response was a rant about knocking down houses and hospitals in favour of urban roads, which by no stretch of anyone's imagination would constitute sensible investment. Classical straw man tactics!

I pointed out a major flaw in your "logic" and again you were unable to refute my argument. So you introduced straw man no 2: a report from 1994 and a second irrelevant rant about roads.

I challenged the main thrust of your feverish nonsense by citing the case of Hastings and, yet again, you could not put forward a valid counter-argument. So we had yet another irrelevant rant.

You claim to have "outed" me. The only person you have "outed" in this thread is yourself: your personality, your debating tactics and your inability to argue rationally.

As it is pointless to try to engage with someone intellectually dishonest, I'm putting you on my ignore list.

 

[squizzler]

A good reason for continuing to favour rail investment for the time being is that the future of motoring is currently being disrupted by technology and that is yet to be recognised in highway planning.

For instance the so called Coba method of assessing the value of highway improvements notoriously counts the fuel duty generated as a benefit of the scheme. Fat lot of good that'll be when motorists all have battery powered cars.

There is also the matter of information technology and its enabling of various types of sharing and gig economy (car sharing, ride sharing) as well as of course the much ballyhooed cars with no driver. The roads of the future will need to be reconfigured in ways yet to be determined, especially as driverless cars will have very different attributes to those driven by us.

All of the above are only just starting to occur yet none of which are reflected in the modelling of demand. A road scheme built today could be a white elephant in a decade. Remember it was generally the later rail schemes that were the first to be axed in the motoring age.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Ah, yet more obfuscation!

I didn't mention urban projects because it's completely irrelevant to this thread and was only introduced by you as a straw man argument because you could not rebut my point that most non-motorists are not fanatical bigots.

This thread has been discussing the different levels of tax-payer funding for road and rail improvements. When I stated that most people are not opposed to sensible investment in roads, your response was a rant about knocking down houses and hospitals in favour of urban roads, which by no stretch of anyone's imagination would constitute sensible investment. Classical straw man tactics!

I pointed out a major flaw in your "logic" and again you were unable to refute my argument. So you introduced straw man no 2: a report from 1994 and a second irrelevant rant about roads.

I challenged the main thrust of your feverish nonsense by citing the case of Hastings and, yet again, you could not put forward a valid counter-argument. So we had yet another irrelevant rant.

You claim to have "outed" me. The only person you have "outed" in this thread is yourself: your personality, your debating tactics and your inability to argue rationally.

As it is pointless to try to engage with someone intellectually dishonest, I'm putting you on my ignore list.

Another evidence lite post RailwaySceptic!

Go on you can do it name the country in the world that has solved road congestion by building more road capacity! Please enlighten us to how UK transport policy has failed for years because we just didn't build enough roads...

Give me the positivity of reopening railway lines any time over the failed predict and provide sulking of the road lobby.

 

[muddythefish]

I recognise that debating with you is futile as your mind is rigidly closed and you love to indulge in obfuscation and suggest that people have expressed opinions they have not expressed. Nevertheless:

Highways Agency worker alert

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well, the newts and bats etc will be there whatever project you build. Yet Ilkeston is with us and Kenilworth is soon to be. The sooner you start, the sooner you get there and the cheaper its likely to be.

The matter of Kenilworth above must surely hold the record for the stated number of aborted "false opening" dates in a three month period of time.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A good reason for continuing to favour rail investment for the time being is that the future of motoring is currently being disrupted by technology and that is yet to be recognised in highway planning.

Whereas rail has the RMT to provide the disruptions on that mode of transport.

 

[yorksrob]

The matter of Kenilworth above must surely hold the record for the stated number of aborted "false opening" dates in a three month period of time.

To be honest, frustrating though that may be, I don't see that as too much of a problem because we all know that the station is largely there and will open. What angers me are the endless studies every ten years for some lines that never go anywhere, because they are just a fig-leaf to cover the fact that the powers that be in England are not interested in connecting medium sized towns to the railway network.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Highways Agency worker alert

The lack of any coherent response to valid points suggests hes more Taxpayers Alliance

 

[Gareth Marston]

To be honest, frustrating though that may be, I don't see that as too much of a problem because we all know that the station is largely there and will open. What angers me are the endless studies every ten years for some lines that never go anywhere, because they are just a fig-leaf to cover the fact that the powers that be in England are not interested in connecting medium sized towns to the railway network.

To have a nationwide fund for re-openings you essentially have to admit that transport policy has been on the wrong track for 50 or more years and Government is institutionally incapable of admitting mistakes, there is cultural resistance and also most politicians would refer to play to the gallery and appease there car driving constituents by promising that they can have their cake and eat it even though the evidence that new roads boost the economy or solve traffic congestion is absent.

 

[yorksrob]

To have a nationwide fund for re-openings you essentially have to admit that transport policy has been on the wrong track for 50 or more years and Government is institutionally incapable of admitting mistakes, there is cultural resistance and also most politicians would refer to play to the gallery and appease there car driving constituents by promising that they can have their cake and eat it even though the evidence that new roads boost the economy or solve traffic congestion is absent.

True, although Governments at least have the option of blaming 'the other lot' for past failures, given that both parties have been lacking in this area.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Certainly it's true that many people on low incomes choose buses rather than trains. However train patronage has risen in recent years and I imagine many of those commuting to work by train do not feel particularly prosperous! In addition, of course, some train operators offer cheap fares if booked long in advance, which I take advantage of every now and then.

All well and good if the railway station is near to the homes of those future prospective rail passengers you make reference to above and rail services can take them to places they actually want to go, but buses do have routes to places not served by the rail network and there is no way that a station building programme of the size required to fill the missing gaps will ever take place in my lifetime.

 

[underbank]

Go on you can do it name the country in the world that has solved road congestion by building more road capacity! Please enlighten us to how UK transport policy has failed for years because we just didn't build enough roads...

Not a country, but take Lancaster. It's had awful congested roads for several decades. There were plans for by-passes and more bridges over the river as long ago as the 60s/70s. The woeful failure of local authority transport policy meant that the area North of Lancaster stagnated simply due to businesses not moving in nor expanding due to traffic that could take an hour to travel 3 or 4 miles. Traffic had to go into the congested city centre whether it wanted to or not because that was the only way to get to/from the motorway. There were NO alternative public transport initiatives over this time other than superficial changes to the local buses. If there was ever a strong case for a by-pass, it was Lancaster. Thankfully, it finally arrived a couple of years ago and it's transformed the area north of Lancaster with new businesses arriving and existing businesses expanding. It's a classic example of why Labour's ban on new roads was complete folly. There are places where new roads are needed just to ease the pain of the poor sods living and working in the area already if the local authorities don't have the gumption to come up with plans for better public transport.

 

[yorksrob]

Not a country, but take Lancaster. It's had awful congested roads for several decades. There were plans for by-passes and more bridges over the river as long ago as the 60s/70s. The woeful failure of local authority transport policy meant that the area North of Lancaster stagnated simply due to businesses not moving in nor expanding due to traffic that could take an hour to travel 3 or 4 miles. Traffic had to go into the congested city centre whether it wanted to or not because that was the only way to get to/from the motorway. There were NO alternative public transport initiatives over this time other than superficial changes to the local buses. If there was ever a strong case for a by-pass, it was Lancaster. Thankfully, it finally arrived a couple of years ago and it's transformed the area north of Lancaster with new businesses arriving and existing businesses expanding. It's a classic example of why Labour's ban on new roads was complete folly. There are places where new roads are needed just to ease the pain of the poor sods living and working in the area already if the local authorities don't have the gumption to come up with plans for better public transport.

I've watched the by-pass being built over the last few years, from rough ground to bridge.

I hope the poor sods of Tavistock and wisbech get help soon.