Massive rail expansion petition...

[paulnorthyorks]

I have recently registered a petition calling for massive expansion of (underground) railways in the UK. You can find it here:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/massiverailplan/

What do you think of this petition?

If you agree with it, would you consider signing it?

Thank you!

 

[Mojo]

Hmm, not sure. I personally think Light rail is the answer on purely cost grounds - using its own right of way where possible.

 

[jopsuk]

Your petition seems nothing but a vague aspiration. It will achieve nothing- the whole online system seems to be little but a way for the government to allow people to think they're being listened to..

Anyway, questions:
Where?
Why?
How's it going to be paid for?

 

[paulnorthyorks]

In answer to your questions:

Where?
Primarily, towns and cities that do not currently have tube/underground systems. By "underground" I do not necessarily mean pure underground, much as the London Underground is not pure (a lot of the network is actually overground).

Why?
Part of the idea is to make the possibility of taking tube trains around town no longer exclusive to London and a few other selected cities like Glasgow and Newcastle. Also, to make the taking of the train a realistic possibility for a large number of journeys that are not currently practical by rail. There are environmental considerations too - we want to protect the environment by substantially boosting the railway system in order to reduce the number of cars on the road. There is also the issue of fossil fuels, which will not be in abundant supply indefinitely.

How's it going to be paid for?
Part of it can come from switching resources from road projects to rail projects (you wouldn't need quite so many lanes on motorways, for example, if the rail/underground system was more extensive, and you could get where you wanted to by rail).
There would undeniably need to be an element of taxation that would be needed to fund these projects. I think this is a much better use of public money, than what the current government likes to spend billions of pounds of tax-payers money on - bailing out incompetent banks like RBS and HBOS in order to maintain the bankers bonus arrangements.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

How's it going to be paid for?
Part of it can come from switching resources from road projects to rail projects (you wouldn't need quite so many lanes on motorways, for example, if the rail/underground system was more extensive, and you could get where you wanted to by rail).
There would undeniably need to be an element of taxation that would be needed to fund these projects. I think this is a much better use of public money, than what the current government likes to spend billions of pounds of tax-payers money on - bailing out incompetent banks like RBS and HBOS in order to maintain the bankers bonus arrangements.

You are struggling a little bit here to understand how the world works. Let me try to make it more clear. The general public will not stand for higher taxes and less road development. However we look at it, the car is a deity around the world and people will not give them up, no matter how fast one can get to the middle of town. Let's look at it another way. There are many cheaper alternatives to underground systems - light rail being the most obvious. The people of this country would certainly not pay higher taxes for a scheme when there is a cheaper alternative. I live in Leeds. I'm certain an underground system in Leeds would be an advantage, but not over light rail. I though, like most people in this great city, would not pay higher taxes for either of these schemes. Your plan also falls short on the motorway lanes issue. A motorway is designed to move traffic quickly between points over large distances. An underground network is designed to move large amounts of people around a small, densely populated area. So, if you are missing my point, an urban transport network would not reduce the need for people to use a motorway - hence, extra lanes would still be needed. If you have a rock solid plan with a water tight business case than can potentially be implemented without inconveniencing the public financially, please, by all means, take your case to the government. If your plan really is what you have pointed out here, you are just wasting your time.

 

[The_Rail_WAy]

I am not against your ideas however in all honesty tram and light rail systems seem more viable and likely options for city/town centre transport planners than brand new underground systems.

They are cheaper to construct (eg: can convert from heavy rail), cheaper to maintain, safer, cleaner and more accesible.

 

[paulnorthyorks]

You are struggling a little bit here to understand how the world works. Let me try to make it more clear. The general public will not stand for higher taxes and less road development. However we look at it, the car is a deity around the world and people will not give them up, no matter how fast one can get to the middle of town. Let's look at it another way. There are many cheaper alternatives to underground systems - light rail being the most obvious. The people of this country would certainly not pay higher taxes for a scheme when there is a cheaper alternative. I live in Leeds. I'm certain an underground system in Leeds would be an advantage, but not over light rail. I though, like most people in this great city, would not pay higher taxes for either of these schemes. Your plan also falls short on the motorway lanes issue. A motorway is designed to move traffic quickly between points over large distances. An underground network is designed to move large amounts of people around a small, densely populated area. So, if you are missing my point, an urban transport network would not reduce the need for people to use a motorway - hence, extra lanes would still be needed. If you have a rock solid plan with a water tight business case than can potentially be implemented without inconveniencing the public financially, please, by all means, take your case to the government. If your plan really is what you have pointed out here, you are just wasting your time.

Maybe I don't understand how the world works, but nevertheless I have a few comments here:

1. I wasn't suggesting that people give their cars up - not sure where you got that from!
2. I disagree that an underground network is JUST designed to move large amounts of people around a small, densely populated area. Take the London Underground. There are multiple connections points to National Rail (Paddington, Euston, Kings Cross, etc.), a connection to the Continent (Eurostar from Waterloo/St Pancras) and a connection to Heathrow airport.
3. From 2, it follows that as underground networks serve to connect people quickly (ie avoiding road traffic) to main National routes, that the absence of these networks can discourage people traveling on the main routes - they may be alright at the London end of the journey, but the network at the other end of the journey may well not be upto the same standard, making the car more attractive when the journey is considered end-to-end. So, I disagree that more underground networks wouldn't take any traffic off motorways.
4. Light rail is a possibility, granted. The initial cost of construction would be certainly be less than that of an underground system. Imagine, though, if the London Underground system didn't exist, and there was light rail instead. The light rail would be competing for road space with other traffic, e.g. cars, taxis, buses. So there would be even more congestion overall in London, and what does congestion cost? money! How much? lots! Perhaps the optimal solution would be a mixture of rail and light rail.
5. The world is a-changing! There are issues concerning global warming, and the fact that fossils fuels may become scarce in a couple of generations that we can't ignore - if we wait to act until we are forced to by circumstances, the solution will likely be less good (maybe back to the horse and cart!?) - you can't build an extensive railway system overnight.
6. As fossil fuels become increasingly scarce, fuel such as petrol will become a lot more expensive, making alternative systems such as rail/light rail relatively more attractive. As it is not hard to predict that fossil fuels will become more scarce, we can anticipate that eventuality by investing in extensive rail systems.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

....I wasn't suggesting that people give their cars up - not sure where you got that from!....

...we want to protect the environment by substantially boosting the railway system in order to reduce the number of cars on the road...

That's where.

....I disagree that an underground network is JUST designed to move large amounts of people around a small, densely populated area. Take the London Underground. There are multiple connections points to National Rail (Paddington, Euston, Kings Cross, etc.), a connection to the Continent (Eurostar from Waterloo/St Pancras) and a connection to Heathrow airport.....

......it follows that as underground networks serve to connect people quickly (ie avoiding road traffic) to main National routes, that the absence of these networks can discourage people traveling on the main routes - they may be alright at the London end of the journey, but the network at the other end of the journey may well not be upto the same standard, making the car more attractive when the journey is considered end-to-end. So, I disagree that more underground networks wouldn't take any traffic off motorways......

Have you any idea as to the proportion of people who use the London Underground who then make a longer journey compared to those who just commute. I would expect it to be quite a low figure. From many parts of London, connecting to the Motorway network is easier than connecting to a mainline station. London is not the only city with a mass transit system that connects to national rail. Manchester, Nottingham, Birmingham, Sheffield and very soon Edinburgh all have a tram/light rail system in place. Have these made car journeys less attractive? I would argue that, despite being successful in their own right, they have not enticed potential passengers to make a journey into town to catch the train instead of take the car.

....Light rail is a possibility, granted. The initial cost of construction would be certainly be less than that of an underground system. Imagine, though, if the London Underground system didn't exist, and there was light rail instead. The light rail would be competing for road space with other traffic, e.g. cars, taxis, buses. So there would be even more congestion overall in London, and what does congestion cost? money! How much? lots! Perhaps the optimal solution would be a mixture of rail and light rail.....

This argument is irrelevant since the London Underground DOES exist. You can't make a case for the building of more underground lines by asking what would happen if London didn't have one. The fact of the matter is that, whilst most large cities would benefit from rapid transit, it does not mean that light rail would be insufficient. The London Underground was built a long time ago in an already very busy place. Today, the expansion of rapid transit in London is concentrated on the DLR - a light rail system. This is because there is room for it to be built, just as there is room for light rail to be built in most places other than central London.

....The world is a-changing! There are issues concerning global warming, and the fact that fossils fuels may become scarce in a couple of generations that we can't ignore - if we wait to act until we are forced to by circumstances, the solution will likely be less good (maybe back to the horse and cart!?) - you can't build an extensive railway system overnight.
6. As fossil fuels become increasingly scarce, fuel such as petrol will become a lot more expensive, making alternative systems such as rail/light rail relatively more attractive. As it is not hard to predict that fossil fuels will become more scarce, we can anticipate that eventuality by investing in extensive rail systems......

I read a lot of this on this forum. People use green concerns as an excuse for more rail. The fact of the matter is that there are lots of people around the world coming up with all sorts of ideas as to new fuels. When fossil fuels are burned out, there will be something else to take over. I think the term used for what you are saying is 'scaremongering'. As for trains reducing emissions - I'm afraid not. An electric train takes its' power from the national grid which, in this country, is still 60% fossil fuel created. The Manchester Metrolink has just signed an agreement to harness power from hydroelectric plants, but all that means is something else has to be powered by coal etc.

As I said before, if you have an excellent plan that is of obvious benefit to everyone and can be realistically implemented within a strict budget, go for it, you will make a lot of money. Idly throwing a petition at someone with no real case for what you are suggesting smacks very much of a waste of effort.

 

[paulnorthyorks]

That's where.

I meant reducing the number of cars on the road at any one time, not that people would give up their cars - sorry about the confusion.

Have you any idea as to the proportion of people who use the London Underground who then make a longer journey compared to those who just commute. I would expect it to be quite a low figure. From many parts of London, connecting to the Motorway network is easier than connecting to a mainline station. London is not the only city with a mass transit system that connects to national rail. Manchester, Nottingham, Birmingham, Sheffield and very soon Edinburgh all have a tram/light rail system in place. Have these made car journeys less attractive? I would argue that, despite being successful in their own right, they have not enticed potential passengers to make a journey into town to catch the train instead of take the car.

Having rail networks in place is a pre-requisite part of the solution, but there are other factors that are important too, most noticeably price, and conditions on the trains (overcrowding being one problem). If rail fares came down relative to the cost of petrol, and the conditions on the trains weren't too bad, then I think some people could be enticed out of their cars.

This argument is irrelevant since the London Underground DOES exist. You can't make a case for the building of more underground lines by asking what would happen if London didn't have one. The fact of the matter is that, whilst most large cities would benefit from rapid transit, it does not mean that light rail would be insufficient. The London Underground was built a long time ago in an already very busy place. Today, the expansion of rapid transit in London is concentrated on the DLR - a light rail system. This is because there is room for it to be built, just as there is room for light rail to be built in most places other than central London.

The point about asking what would happen if the London Underground didn't exist is about cost - although the cost of building an underground system is more than the cost of building a light rail system, this cost is offset by not using the same space as road users, which light rail systems often do. The DLR is an interesting system, in that it goes above roads for some of its journey, and does go underground - e.g. the part that goes under the Thames to Woolwich. If this is what you mean by light rail, I've nothing against it!

I read a lot of this on this forum. People use green concerns as an excuse for more rail. The fact of the matter is that there are lots of people around the world coming up with all sorts of ideas as to new fuels. When fossil fuels are burned out, there will be something else to take over. I think the term used for what you are saying is 'scaremongering'.

I don't deny there will be something else to take over, but what takes over may well have a high cost. For example, biofuels, which require a large amount of land space to grow, tempting countries like Brazil into chopping down half their rain-forest. You can call discussing green issues 'scaremongering' if you wish, but I think in terms of looking at what could easily happen, not taking a major fuel breakthrough which may or may not happen for granted, and discussing plans for this eventuality.

As for trains reducing emissions - I'm afraid not. An electric train takes its' power from the national grid which, in this country, is still 60% fossil fuel created. The Manchester Metrolink has just signed an agreement to harness power from hydroelectric plants, but all that means is something else has to be powered by coal etc.

I'll take you at your word about the 60% figure, but I think this will reduce as renewable sources of energy such as wind-farms become more popular.

As I said before, if you have an excellent plan that is of obvious benefit to everyone and can be realistically implemented within a strict budget, go for it, you will make a lot of money. Idly throwing a petition at someone with no real case for what you are suggesting smacks very much of a waste of effort.

This could be done on a strict budget, over an extended period of time - as I stated in the petition. I only proposed going underground where necessary, this would keep the cost down too. The main benefit, which a lot of people could benefit from, is the possibility of going by rail to places that are not served by rail currently, ie through a more extensive rail system.

 

[Metroland]

I read a lot of this on this forum. People use green concerns as an excuse for more rail. The fact of the matter is that there are lots of people around the world coming up with all sorts of ideas as to new fuels. When fossil fuels are burned out, there will be something else to take over. I think the term used for what you are saying is 'scaremongering'. As for trains reducing emissions - I'm afraid not. An electric train takes its' power from the national grid which, in this country, is still 60% fossil fuel created. The Manchester Metrolink has just signed an agreement to harness power from hydroelectric plants, but all that means is something else has to be powered by coal etc.

There is significant evidence that a decent mass transit system will attract people out of cars and create new journey opportunities as well as produce much more efficient patterns of urban development. There is no other solution other than to flatten the place and make the cities at least 2-3 times as big (US cities generally are and are still congested!) or provide public transport alternatives.

Electric rail, although the power comes from the grid is still significantly less polluting per passenger kilometre than cars and even buses.

Going onto the point about underground railways, they are not necessarily the solution for every city. The require a high population density to support the flows necessary to justify the system. Light rail, buses, and improvements to the current system can be better alternatives.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

I don't deny there will be something else to take over, but what takes over may well have a high cost. For example, biofuels, which require a large amount of land space to grow, tempting countries like Brazil into chopping down half their rain-forest. You can call discussing green issues 'scaremongering' if you wish, but I think in terms of looking at what could easily happen, not taking a major fuel breakthrough which may or may not happen for granted, and discussing plans for this eventuality.


I'll take you at your word about the 60% figure, but I think this will reduce as renewable sources of energy such as wind-farms become more popular.

The actual figure could be slightly more. I used 60% as a safe figure. Just for the record, the UK generates (officially) 25% of its' electricity from 'green' resources compared to an EU average of 48%. In France, this figure rises to 98%. Wind Farms may be popular but produce a very small amount of electricity, nor can they be relied upon to produce continually. Solar is non-existant in our overcast nation, as well as being prone to our lattitude. Hydro electricty, though available, is not available in enough quantity in our small mountainous areas. The only real alternatives we are able to take advantage of in the UK are Nuclear and Tidal.

In reality, I use the term scaremongering as, proportionally, though (as Metroland correctly points out) pollution ppk is lower with a train, this is a very small fraction as part of the overall problem and also relies on the train being full. An EMU travelling between Leeds and Doncaster for example produces more emissions than a car making the same journey. For the train to be considered more 'efficient', it must have a certain number of passengers on board.

The point I am making here is that extra rail should not be provided as a 'solution' to the world's problems but rather for the reason it was originally created. The problems we face environmentally will not be solved, or even be slightly affected, by more trains and less cars.

 

[paulnorthyorks]

The actual figure could be slightly more. I used 60% as a safe figure. Just for the record, the UK generates (officially) 25% of its' electricity from 'green' resources compared to an EU average of 48%. In France, this figure rises to 98%. Wind Farms may be popular but produce a very small amount of electricity, nor can they be relied upon to produce continually. Solar is non-existant in our overcast nation, as well as being prone to our lattitude. Hydro electricty, though available, is not available in enough quantity in our small mountainous areas. The only real alternatives we are able to take advantage of in the UK are Nuclear and Tidal.

Agreed, although there may be other renewable technologies that will become more prominent, such as Geo-thermal and Bio-mass.

In reality, I use the term scaremongering as, proportionally, though (as Metroland correctly points out) pollution ppk is lower with a train, this is a very small fraction as part of the overall problem and also relies on the train being full. An EMU travelling between Leeds and Doncaster for example produces more emissions than a car making the same journey. For the train to be considered more 'efficient', it must have a certain number of passengers on board.

I take your point. By this analysis, it will be the overcrowded trains that are the most 'efficient' - the ones in India, where passengers even ride on the roofs of the carriages, must be super-efficient!

The point I am making here is that extra rail should not be provided as a 'solution' to the world's problems but rather for the reason it was originally created. The problems we face environmentally will not be solved, or even be slightly affected, by more trains and less cars.

Perhaps we should agree to differ on this one. It seems inherently wasteful to me to have large numbers of people driving around in a tonne of metal each, when trains have the potential to significantly reduce this wastage.

 

[bluenoxid]

It is also a waste to have several hundred tonnes driving around carting fresh air.

Trains are more efficient than buses or cars if every seat is taken. The solution to the energy crisis will be multimodal. Throwing tunnels under every nook and cranny will deliver few efficiencies once the sheer economics come about.

If a bus will deliver a better service more efficiently, then a bus should be provided.

 

[anthony263]

yes it would be great to have an undeground i other major cities like, cardiff, birmingham & bristol.

problem is the cost it could cost £ billion's to build a new underground where light rail could cost around £400 million depending on the size.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Perhaps we should agree to differ on this one. It seems inherently wasteful to me to have large numbers of people driving around in a tonne of metal each, when trains have the potential to significantly reduce this wastage.

I understand your thinking on this but it has led me to think about why this happens. A car is a personal space where you are cocooned away from the harsh realities of the traffic jam you are stuck in. You can turn on the radio and the air conditioning and sit there in a daze free from other people and agressors until the road clears and you are on your way again. Compare this to the London Underground. Within the tunnelled sections at a busy time of day, if a train stops, you are (usually) stood, barging against the unwashed person next to you in a hot, uncomfortable environment having to listen to the inane ramblings of whoever is on the carriage with you - or in complete silence as I find the tube to be at times - with nothing to look at and absolutely no chance of escape. Two minutes stuck on the tube feels like two hours.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to anyone who may have been stuck on the tube with my band mates and I as we got out guitars or had a stupid chat about absolutely nothing.

I think light rail would give people the illusion of escape in a stuck situation and would also provide a much quicker and safer escape in the need of evacuation to that of heavy rail. The personal space issue would still exist.

Just out of curiosity, how would you go about selling a system to people who are completely car reliant and show no sign of changing their ways? I ask as I suspect any new transit route or system would have to contend with such potential passengers.

 

[paulnorthyorks]

I understand your thinking on this but it has led me to think about why this happens. A car is a personal space where you are cocooned away from the harsh realities of the traffic jam you are stuck in. You can turn on the radio and the air conditioning and sit there in a daze free from other people and agressors until the road clears and you are on your way again. Compare this to the London Underground. Within the tunnelled sections at a busy time of day, if a train stops, you are (usually) stood, barging against the unwashed person next to you in a hot, uncomfortable environment having to listen to the inane ramblings of whoever is on the carriage with you - or in complete silence as I find the tube to be at times - with nothing to look at and absolutely no chance of escape. Two minutes stuck on the tube feels like two hours.

Agreed, the tube can at times be unpleasant method of transport. The car can sometimes be too, if you are caught up in a slow-as-treacle traffic snarl up with petrol and diesel fumes getting sucked into your car, cars competing aggressively to get into that space where a parked car has forced lanes to merge, and you've got an important meeting to get to!

I think light rail would give people the illusion of escape in a stuck situation and would also provide a much quicker and safer escape in the need of evacuation to that of heavy rail. The personal space issue would still exist.

Some good points here. I was only advocating going underground where necessary - e.g. to avoid built up areas. DLR has another solution, going above the roads, which might also be a little tricky from an evacuation point of view - assuming you're not going to issue passengers with a parachute! There are other light rail schemes that use the same road space as normal traffic, which helps with the evacuation, at the expense of existing road traffic which has less space.
There was a sort of solution to the personal space issue on older style main-line trains - the ones with compartments for a few passengers. Unfortunately, it's uneconomic as you can't fit as many people on the train.

Just out of curiosity, how would you go about selling a system to people who are completely car reliant and show no sign of changing their ways? I ask as I suspect any new transit route or system would have to contend with such potential passengers.

Some possibilities:
1. I would aim to make the system price competitive with a car carrying two adult passengers. If there are three or more passengers in the car, I don't think the car is a wasteful form of transport. I think lots of people are money motivated, and would respond to price.
2. The conditions of the train have to be good - clean, quiet etc. in order to make it a pleasant an experience as possible.
3. Clever/persuasive advertising can make a difference. An example of a clever advert I have seen is on the M1, where there are signs along the lines of 'It's faster by train', which I think could be persuasive if someone is stuck in a long queue of stationary traffic.
4. Issue promotional free tickets, so potential passengers can try out the service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

yes it would be great to have an undeground i other major cities like, cardiff, birmingham & bristol.

problem is the cost it could cost £ billion's to build a new underground where light rail could cost around £400 million depending on the size.

Yes, and the UK government's pet £billions spending project is bailing out the banks, poor old rail doesn't get a look in!

 

[Kneedown]

There would undeniably need to be an element of taxation that would be needed to fund these projects. I think this is a much better use of public money, than what the current government likes to spend billions of pounds of tax-payers money on - bailing out incompetent banks like RBS and HBOS in order to maintain the bankers bonus arrangements.

Here in Nottingham we are about to be taxed on our workplace parking to pay for the tram extension.
I use the tram whenever i can, but if i book on before 06.45 in the morning, or finish after 23.50, which is most of the time, then it is not an option and so it's into the Landy.
Why should i be taxed further when i make use of public transport whenever possible, but due to the nature of shifts often have no alternative but to use the car?

It's about time the government abolished all these useless quango's and public sector non-job's, along with the gold plated pensions and allowances that go with them. Also time to overhaul the benefits system thus forcing those who are capable of working to work. Rip up the human rights act, saving taxpayers money on all the litigation cases, and a host of other things. There'd be pots of money about then, rather than hammering the honest, hardworking Brit as is the case these days.

Rant over.

 

[DJ_K666]

Hello.

I reckon the government should think seriously about expanding the rail system as a whole, not just light rail, although that makes it easier and more practical to get into city centres, as it`s seen more like a tramway these days... Also they should start looking at reopenings, especially in England as many valuable lines were closed, like the Great Central, (which if not kept open, really ought to have been mothballed and protected) the Lewes - Uckfield line, which is undergoing a new business case assessment after the deliberate screw up that East Sussex council produced. It would seem that the government are paying lip service to the environmental issues between rail expansion and road construction, but doing very little to actually bring it about, in fact, bringing in rules that hinder rather than help... Whether the South Downs National park status helps the Wealden line`s case (it runs through the SDNP in many areas), or not remains to be seen...


Also, a railway will blend into it`s surrounding landscape, a road scheme will just wreck it.

First post! Woohoo!