Lib Dems plan huge Rail Expansion

[Mojo]

The roads have top priority in all cases, whoever comes to power. Whatever your feelings on new busways, they will help to revitalise areas of growth the same way that railways did.

No they don't. There is no evidence whatsoever that bus improvement schemes, even with fancy names, aid regeneration, all leading commentators agree that they merely serve it. In contrast, light rail schemes have been proven to increase land and property values, act as an integral part of regeneration, aid social mobility and provide good quality access to jobs, create modal shift and generate economic benefits, in many cases in the hundreds of millions of pounds in the first few years.

 

[PhilipW]

You must have missed it then. The Conservatives were the first to publish details of their rail policies over a year ago, which have been updated and clarified in the last few months. Initially Chris Grayling who was very knowledgable in the sector really put the frighteners on the Labour Government and now Theresa Villiers has had her say.

http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Downloadable Files/Railreview.ashx?dl=true

Thank you for pointing me to this. I don't disagree with much in it but it is very lacking specifics.
-- it mentions that disused routes should be safeguarded but does not have a single proposal for re-opening any routes.
-- it says that it is in favour of electrification but does not commit to electrifying a single mile

The lack of specifics leaves me unimpressed.

 

[Metroland]

Meanwhile:

As the Harmony Express pulls into the grimy railway station in China’s ancient capital of Xi’an, an army of blue-uniformed attendants busily begin polishing its gleaming, sleek exterior.

This is the face of modern rail in China and the latest addition to a burgeoning high-speed network that will be the biggest in the world within five years, according to the government’s blueprint.

The expansion plans are staggering: 30,000km of new track to be laid by the middle of the decade at a cost of as much as Rmb4,000bn ($586bn). The results are so impressive that the airline sector is looking on with trepidation.

China’s state-controlled carriers are emerging from years of losses and have refocused on the booming domestic travel market, but they are are faced with a potentially crippling threat from another arm of the state – the railway sector, led by the Ministry of Railways.

Liu Shaoyong, chairman of China Eastern Airlines, estimates that with high-speed lines under construction throughout China’s most populous and economically developed regions, as much as 60 per cent of the domestic commercial aviation market will be affected to some degree.

“[The high-speed rail network] will have a serious impact on the aviation market and will place direct and enduring pressure on the development of China’s airline companies,” Mr Liu says.

The effect has already been felt on the newly-opened route between Xi’an and Zhengzhou, 505km away in neighbouring Henan Province.

Joy Airlines, a subsidiary of China Eastern, and Kunpeng Airlines, a subsidiary of Air China, both previously offered regular flights but cancelled all services between the two cities within weeks of the maiden Harmony Express journey in February.

“The airlines have all cancelled their flights to and from Zhengzhou because there aren’t enough customers since the high-speed rail line opened,” says an official airline ticket vendor in Xi’an airport.

A trip on the Harmony Express (all of the country’s new 350km/h high-speed trains are part of the harmonious network) between Zhengzhou and Xi’an makes it clear why China’s airline bosses are so worried.

China’s railway stations are old and dirty and attract an array of thieves, pickpockets and scam artists but they are usually in the centre of town instead of far beyond the outskirts of a city where China’s cavernous airports are invariably built.

In the case of Xi’an and Zhengzhou and most other major cities in China, travellers who arrive at the airport must either wait for erratic bus services or stand in line for a taxi to drive more than one hour into town on a newly-built toll road.

Flights in China are almost always delayed and passengers must arrive early so that they can pass through rigorous security checks.

Once on the aircraft, the service is perfunctory, the toilets often filthy and the food barely edible.

In contrast, China’s shiny new high-speed trains are clean, fast, smooth and almost always on time. There are no excess baggage fees for heavy luggage, security checks are perfunctory and passengers can use their mobile phones.

Probably most concerning for airlines is that train tickets are significantly cheaper than airline tickets, especially when the additional costs of taxis and toll road fees are taken into account.

As the high-speed rail network grows, analysts expect airlines to pull off routes of 500km or less, while up to 40 per cent of air passengers travelling between 500km and 800km will switch to rail. This mirrors a similar trend in Europe over the past two decades as high-speed rail networks have expanded.

The potential impact on the Chinese airlines also raises questions about the viability of dozens of new airports under construction across the country.

As part of Beijing’s Rmb4,000bn economic stimulus package to battle the global economic crisis last year, China built and upgraded 22 airports. This year the government has budgeted at least Rmb90bn to expand and build a further 25 airports this year.

Plans to build another 60 airports over the next decade are partly a response to official predictions of passenger volume growth that starts to look wildly optimistic when the rise of high-speed rail is taken into account.

In 2009, about 230m people caught flights within China but the country’s civil aviation authority predicts that number will rise to 700m passengers by 2020 and double again to 1.4bn people by 2030.

But a significant proportion of those passengers could soon be catching the Harmony Express instead and wondering why they should ever put up with the inconvenience of flying in China again.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/353fecc8-40e1-11df-94c2-00144feabdc0.html

30,000km is 1.5 times the length of our entire network, all built by 2025. I suspect will be just about getting round to doubling the Golden Valley route by then and adding a new 3 mile long busway in Preston.

 

[Mojo]

Can we afford to be reopening small scale routes with benefits for people in limited areas with our public finances in the state they're in? I'd say no, hence why I believe the Conservative approach is a very sensible and prudent one; preserve the formations for future use because we don't have the ability to work on them right away.

 

[PhilipW]

I believe the Conservative approach is a very sensible and prudent one; preserve the formations for future use because we don't have the ability to work on them right away.

Sorry but that is the same as doing nothing.

Wales re-opens lines under the auspices of the Welsh Assembly and they are big successes.

Scotland re-opens lines under the auspices of the Scottish Government and they are big successes. Watch out for when Aidrie-Bathgate re-opens. I predict it will be a huge success with passenger numbers 2 or 3 times those forecasted

England re-opens nothing. This government talks a lot. You are now advocating that the next government just talks a lot too and does nothing. Oh dear. It seems as if the Conservatives don't even want my vote.

As I said earlier in this thread, if Skipton-Colne was re-opened and Faringdon Jcn-Skipton electrified with new trains running from Blackpool to Leeds along it, I suspect it too will be a huge success. But you have to have a bit of vision. I certainly don't see that in any Conservative transport policy.

 

[jon0844]

I can't see any reason to cut spending on roads at all. Build more, widen roads, improve roads to cut accidents (most accidents can be reduced by better road design, barriers, lighting etc).

I have a car and I drive a lot, but I also commute solely using public transport and use the trains regularly.

I don't need to have roads removed and my car being too expensive to own to get me to use the trains. I enjoy taking trains. I can't imagine many people out there that are still thinking they're slow, dirty and horrid. Obviously some are, but they'd think the same about anything where you mix with people.

Mess up the roads and you also screw over the lorries, buses and coaches. That's great. Just when you might get people into buses... buses that take me to/from the station each day!

We need more spending on public transport AND roads - and shouldn't sacrifice one for the other, but we also need to work to encourage less people to NEED to travel. I know the train and bus operators don't want that, but lot of the congestion problems go away when people aren't needlessly commuting miles each day that doesn't have to happen. Flexible working hours would help too. Get employers to encourage this; given them some sort of incentives to do so if necessary.

It's far too easy to say you'll shift all the money from one thing to another. I'm sure every LibDem supporter has a bike and no car, but let's be realistic; a lot of people NEED cars. I can get to/from work by train, but I need my car to get around the many rural areas, or to see my parents without a train journey into London and back out, and a taxi at the other end. By car, I can get there in 20 minutes. Train and buses, 1-2 hours.

It's rather like previous elections where the LibDems always claimed they'd be able to do everything by simply adding a penny to income tax. We'd all happily pay that, after all....

By all means let's invest double the money on the railway and kickstart some major projects that gets people into work - but not at the expense of motorists.

 

[wintonian]

I can't see any reason to cut spending on roads at all. Build more, widen roads, improve roads to cut accidents (most accidents can be reduced by better road design, barriers, lighting etc).

I have a car and I drive a lot, but I also commute solely using public transport and use the trains regularly.

...

By all means let's invest double the money on the railway and kickstart some major projects that gets people into work - but not at the expense of motorists.

I think you in a minority unless you are a London commuter.

The trouble is where is the money then going to come from I don't think we can have both.

Of course we could all pay higher taxes and higher than they probably will be soon at that.

 

[90019]

You'd never know there's an election coming up, would you?

 

[WatcherZero]

Meanwhile:



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/353fecc8-40e1-11df-94c2-00144feabdc0.html

30,000km is 1.5 times the length of our entire network, all built by 2025. I suspect will be just about getting round to doubling the Golden Valley route by then and adding a new 3 mile long busway in Preston.

There was a big attack on it by the head of JR Central yesterday, saying they were riding too close to safety margins and recklessly endangering lives. 'If 10,000 people die a year on Chinese Railways they wouldnt make a fuss, I don’t think they are paying the same attention to safety that we are. Pushing it that close to the limit is something we would absolutely never do'

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2ebd992-40dd-11df-94c2-00144feabdc0.html

 

[jon0844]

I do work in London, but live outside. A car is certainly more essential outside of a big city - and I consider myself lucky that we have buses here that run until 11pm and at 30 minute intervals throughout the day. I still need my car though. Of course I wouldn't die if I didn't have a car - but nor would I die if I lost my job and no longer needed to commute. These are arguments people have against those who drive or take the train, and they're valid to a degree - except you can't expect everyone to go back to the old days where you generally worked in your local community.

Increases in tax will always happen, but the money always seems to be wasted. I just paid £1.23 per litre for fuel tonight, and a load of that is tax and VAT, so the Government is raking it in.

If they'd controlled the economy and foreseen that stupid lending was a bad idea (as most people did for many, many years - right from the mid 1990s in fact), surely they could have had plenty for schools, police, hospitals, roads and railways. Instead, we spent it bailing out banks, wars and paying people who don't want to work (I have no problem with the other claimants).

It's sad we're now in a situation where taxes will increase but spending will be cut because of an eye watering deficit.

 

[wintonian]

I do work in London, but live outside. A car is certainly more essential outside of a big city - and I consider myself lucky that we have buses here that run until 11pm and at 30 minute intervals throughout the day. I still need my car though. Of course I wouldn't die if I didn't have a car - but nor would I die if I lost my job and no longer needed to commute. These are arguments people have against those who drive or take the train, and they're valid to a degree - except you can't expect everyone to go back to the old days where you generally worked in your local community.

I certainly wouldn't expect everyone to work round the corner to where they live, but you do raise another important issue, that of it not just being about rail as we can't connect everywhere but rural bus services to, I am also lucky that I live near a lot of local bus routes, some run every 10mins others twice a day. The problem for me is I like going out into rural England and a lot of places are inaccessible or near inaccessible without a car and as I don't drive I am excluded.

All public transport needs investment, but rail is the most expensive part and so the often not the preferred choice even if the most effective.

 

[90019]

Increases in tax will always happen, but the money always seems to be wasted. I just paid £1.23 per litre for fuel tonight, and a load of that is tax and VAT, so the Government is raking it in.

IIRC, over 70% of what you pay on fuel goes to the government.

 

[thegrich37423]

Metroland's article is interesting but hardly surprising coming from a country riding the wave of economic growth. It's relevance to this thread is also questionable since the Lib Dems are NOT China nor do they possess the same excellent business aptitude or indeed haveenough money to make such plans happen. I applaud China's initiative though.
You have to understand that the Lib Dems are no better than Labour or the Conservatives in these hollow promises of mass rail expansion. When the roads get top priority and there is ample evidence that their expansion is better for this country, rail expansion plans come across as little more than election gibber.

 

[bluebottle]

Meanwhile:



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/353fecc8-40e1-11df-94c2-00144feabdc0.html

30,000km is 1.5 times the length of our entire network, all built by 2025. I suspect will be just about getting round to doubling the Golden Valley route by then and adding a new 3 mile long busway in Preston.

A network serving a population 20 times that of Britain in an area 45 times greater Hardly a realistic comparison.

 

[Nick W]

Increases in tax will always happen, but the money always seems to be wasted. I just paid £1.23 per litre for fuel tonight, and a load of that is tax and VAT, so the Government is raking it in.

But the Government makes a huge loss on road transport. John Major's Government commissioned a report into the cost of providing road transport in Britain, to find that it was subsidising road transport to the tune of £85 billion each year. Hence, the Government introduced the fuel duty escalator.

Since the cost of driving has got cheaper in real-terms since then, it is fair to assume the annual subsidy is similar today. Moreover, an Edinburgh-based economist worked out how much it costed or saved the Government for an individual to travel by bike instead of driving. If I remember correctly, it was discovered that for every mile travelled by bike instead of car, the Government was saved 70p.

The issue we have is that of the limited supply of oil and metals. Considering that it has been calculated that to cause the least disruption we need to start cutting our usage of at least the former in the next few years, it is wise for a Government to cease any new projects that increase road capacity, and to begin making it cost more in real terms.

 

[jon0844]

I think it makes sense to encourage people to use their car less, so the existing infrastructure can be better used - but that doesn't mean cutting back completely. An incredible amount of money is needed just to bring existing roads up to standard - and design out the obvious danger areas/hotspots.

We also need to encourage car makers to build more fuel efficient cars, and that seems to be happening. In fact, in the last couple of years the high fuel cost HAS encouraged car makers to sell cars that can offer 70+ mpg. Then we have electric/hybrid cars that can work well in certain situations. It is quite possible to bring the cost of motoring right down, especially if you shop around.

I can't comment on the £85bn figure, but would say that does sound rather strange to me. I must be missing something very obvious here!

I had my bike stolen, but when I get another one, I still won't be using it to cycle to work and it's no good for my weekly or monthly shop at Tesco! I will never give up my car, but I'm already using other forms of transport - including my own feet - to try and do my bit.

Sadly, I think the Lib Dems are forgetting that most people probably have a car, or travel in cars (even if it's a taxi) and will not see this as a good thing. They should have said nothing about cars and concentrated on saying how they'd improve public transport instead. Surely not every Lib Dem supporter rides a bike and hates cars? And even if they do, how do they appeal to other voters?

 

[Zoe]

I can't see any reason to cut spending on roads at all. Build more, widen roads, improve roads to cut accidents (most accidents can be reduced by better road design, barriers, lighting etc).

I wouldn't say build new roads but around the country there are quite a few major trunk roads where you have 2 - 3 lane dual carraigeway that becomes a single carraigeway country lane for a few miles and then back to dual carriageway first. It's these gaps that need to be filled.

Last year on the radio there there was an interesting comment that it was predicted that computer controlled self-driving cars would be here in 10 years time so no-one would be driving. You would get quite a bit more capacity out of the roads this way.

 

[jon0844]

I can't see that happening within 10 years, and certainly not in town - unless you have cars that, when they sense ANYTHING, will simply come to a halt. That would be comfortable, not.

I did notice in the south west that we've started to copy a road design I saw in Sweden many years ago - turning an ordinary, albeit wider than normal, road into sections of dual carriageway that alternates between 1 lane up / 2 lanes down - and then back again.

As a result, you get many sections of road where you can overtake lorries or caravans (no wonder they're doing this in the south west!) and can actually build this on existing roads that were once single carriageway. The added benefit is that you have solid crash barriers, so you now have no chance of head-on accidents from crazy overtaking. At junctions, you also secure turning areas and reduce the chances of accidents.

To do more of this would cost a lot of money, but must be cheaper than widening roads to two lanes (or more) both way, and it's something we should be looking to do. No speed cameras to take photos of accidents, but rather preventative measures to stop accidents happening AND make driving better for everyone in the first place. Oh, and more traffic police and more powers for enforcement!

Use more of the latest generation of LED cat's eyes, reflective paint, better road surfacing, anti-skid surfaces, LED street lighting that can sense traffic (enabling more roads to be lit than would be affordable now) and a lot of other EXISTING technology and you've got more ways to reduce accidents on the roads.

Now, wouldn't even the Lib Dems think that some of that is a good idea? Rather than just cut spending and expect people do ditch their cars when the roads all fall to bits.

 

[Zoe]

Now, wouldn't even the Lib Dems think that some of that is a good idea? Rather than just cut spending and expect people do ditch their cars when the roads all fall to bits.

I think their plan is nationwide road pricing. Your car would be tracked and you would pay a charge for every mile you drive. This make driving more expensive than now and force people onto public transport.

 

[thefab444]

I did notice in the south west that we've started to copy a road design I saw in Sweden many years ago - turning an ordinary, albeit wider than normal, road into sections of dual carriageway that alternates between 1 lane up / 2 lanes down - and then back again.

Whereas here in the south we've repainted our previously 3 lane roads into 2 lanes, thus preventing overtaking. :roll:

 

[Metroland]

Sadly, I think the Lib Dems are forgetting that most people probably have a car, or travel in cars (even if it's a taxi) and will not see this as a good thing. They should have said nothing about cars and concentrated on saying how they'd improve public transport instead. Surely not every Lib Dem supporter rides a bike and hates cars? And even if they do, how do they appeal to other voters?

Depends how black and white you are I guess (not saying you are jon, because of the things you have said).

Most sensible people use all modes of transport (except where they don't have access to it). I see improving public transport as helping people have more choice, reducing congestion, it's certainly *never* about being anti car. I am not anti-car, nor anti other mode of transport. I am pro sensible use of all transport.

I'm not entirely sure that significantly reducing the roads budget is the way to go, transport gets the least of any government department. We're paying 3 times more in debt interest, than we do on all transport.

However, when roads make up 96% of the surface transport network, I do think more rail capacity is the way to go where sensible. Unlike the RAC I do not want to see a monopoly in any form of transport, because no form of transport can do everything.

In a densely populated island like this (with background issues of energy, climate change) we ought to be aiming for at least 20% of passenger transport Kms by metro/light rail/heavy rail, 20% of freight (the US has 42% of freight on rail) and more on buses too. That implies a tripling of passenger numbers, and freight, and even then it still leaves the lion's share on roads, which must be looked after too.

It's all in the planning, and correct sticks and carrots. If its done right everyone is a winner, its certainly been done in parts of Europe and Japan.

The Chinese and Indians are looking at the mistakes of Western countries for over reliance of the car (along with the health, social inclusion, access to jobs, sprawl issues) really because there would just never be the resources to have everyone on the planet driving, and are planning for it. Hence big expansions in both their networks, which already carry more by passenger kms than any other networks in the world.

 

[jon0844]

Yes, there's a lot of damage to be undone on our roads.

When speed cameras and safety camera partnerships were raking in the money (and despite what anyone says, the partnerships saw a lot of people getting rich by being employed on large salaries to administer this revenue), we saw roads being narrowed all over the place.

Kerbs brought out into the road, including bus stops (supposedly the idea being that you had to wait behind a bus, rather than overtake), narrowed roads with stupidly wide ghost islands and bits of tarmac painted green or red (with no consistency - some did bus lanes in green, others red, some did cycle lanes in red, others green). Oh and speed humps.

Then we got councils getting as many speed limits as possible reduced, just as the new speed cameras went live. A 70mph road was fine for years, but now with a 50mph limit, anyone going 70mph was an evil child-killer.

We've got a load of road capacity already, we just need someone to give it back!

Edit: Metroland, I think the exact same as you. I'm not anti anything when it comes to transport. Make public transport better and more desirable and people will use it without being forced to. Why wouldn't you? I love driving, but there are times when I simply don't want to drive to Scotland or Cornwall for a holiday when I could sit on a train (or plane, I guess) and enjoy the view, maybe have a beer, and relax. Other times, I might need the car as we're driving around and it makes more sense to drive than hire a car. A car can also be cheaper if there are 5 people in it, compared to the cost of rail (or flying).

At the moment, things are probably weighted too much in the favour of car transport.. but making us all pay £2 a litre won't stop people driving. They'll just cut back on other things instead, which probably won't be good for the economy in the long run.

 

[devon_metro]

As usual the Lib Dems appealing to everybody

 

[Zoe]

Kerbs brought out into the road, including bus stops (supposedly the idea being that you had to wait behind a bus, rather than overtake)

This was done to reduce delays for buses rejoining the traffic flow.

The most stupid speed limit though has to be the A13 in East London, 3 lanes each way, flyovers and underpasses at the junctions but a 40 mph speed limit.

 

[kennethw]

I think their plan is nationwide road pricing. Your car would be tracked and you would pay a charge for every mile you drive. This make driving more expensive than now and force people onto public transport.

And it has led to huge public outcry. It could lead to some very embarrassing situations as well as this country being turned into Big Brother. And how do you challenge a situation where you believe you have been wrongly charged. Remember the phantom bank withdrawals scandal.

For many years motoring organisations have suggested it is so easy to simply pay one tax on fuel
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
also how much revenue raised in tax on fuel or cars actually goes to maintain the roads?

 

[thegrich37423]

Quite a lot actually kennethw. The amount of revenue raised through taxes on fuel etc has been used much more efficiently than those in the rail. Instead of lining one person or people's pockets, the money used through raising fuel prices has ensured we have a better road system.
I do not believe that a lot of damage has been done to our road system as it pales into insignificance when you compare the damage that has been done through privatisation of the railways. Speed limits are not evidence of this so-called 'damage' to our roads. Speed limits are designed to ensure that we have a safer road system. In most places, this has proven to be far more effective than the rail system. What makes speed limits so damaging is the attitude of the drivers to them. This is not the fault of our road system but the fault of the transport police's sole duty to ensure that this doesn't happen thanks to failing to discipline the offenders. We have a lack of discipline that is rampant throughout our youth and this is evident in our drivers as well. We can't discipline an inanimate object such as a roadway. We have to start with the drivers.
We can ensure that speed cameras are deployed where known speed offenders exist, and ensure that a local database is created to store this information so that the police know exactly who is persistently offending. Anyone who drives 75 in a 30 has no right to say that the database has no right to retain their information.
Evidence exists that the Lib Dems do not appeal to everyone, because their policies are essentially the same as Labour and the Tories albeit dressed in yellow. But to say that our road system is fundamentally damaged is evidence that you have absolutely no idea of the state of the transport in this country. We have the best motorways, best A roads and the best deterrants in Europe to ensure we have a road system that lasts into the 21st century. The delusional posters in this thread who persistently say that there is a lot of damage to be undone need to step away from their monitors and wake up!!!

 

[boing_uk]

The delusional posters in this thread who persistently say that there is a lot of damage to be undone need to step away from their monitors and wake up!!!

As a traffic engineer I have seen ALOT of damage done to our road network, through irresponsible traffic engineering and so-called casualty reduction schemes.

The easiest solution many see is to cut speed limits, without actually treating the cause of the accidents, because cutting the speed limit is seen to be "doing something" rather than tackling a problem. Instead of being permissive, which is - as report after report done by TRL has shown - more conjusive to reducing accidents, the attitude has become to be more restrictive. And in doing so, those responsible have become detached from the way they drive to the way they think others drive.

I spend many many hours at the roadside, just watching the behaviour of traffic - its the way I was taught - however it is now not seen to be the "done thing" and all the engineering takes place in the office under misplaced assumptions, with statistics and plans and "do-goodie" ideas to placate the complaints. This is particularly prevailant in the private sector, where local authority functions have been hived off to a "partnership".. the private entity is so concerned about pleasing the client they lose sight of actually doing what is best for the network.

 

[90019]

also how much revenue raised in tax on fuel or cars actually goes to maintain the roads?

I had a look at this a couple of years ago, using the statistics at the time, and the amount being reinvested at the time was approx. 17%.


I could rant on for quite a while about speed bumps, but I'll just say this; Edinburgh council decided a couple of years back to put in speed bumps in my area. I've lived here for 13 years now, and in the previous 11 years, in the vicinity of my house there was 1 accident (caused by a skip that wasn't visible and a failed streetlight). Since they have been put in, there have been 3 major crashes, and who knows how much the damage done to cars adds up to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We have the best motorways, best A roads

I'm sorry, but you must be having a laugh.
If you genuinely think this is true, then it explains a lot about your posts.

 

[jon0844]

I'm surprised someone supposedly so pro-road would say we have the best roads! I'd be moaning that they're a joke!

Barnet removed speed humps from the whole borough and saw a reduction in accidents, and no doubt a huge reduction in claims for damage to vehicles.

Swindon removed all speed cameras and didn't have loads of extra deaths. They spent money on redesigning road layouts and putting police on the roads, who have some discretion and can also spot what a camera can't.

All common sense really. Speed humps just make people speed to catch up time perceived as lost. At least it does for the very people you're trying to slow down, while the others would have driven safely anyway.

 

[Lampshade]

Swindon removed all speed cameras and didn't have loads of extra deaths. They spent money on redesigning road layouts and putting police on the roads, who have some discretion and can also spot what a camera can't.

So did Sunderland (think it was Sunderland), replacing them with more traffic police and the number of accidents went sharply down.