Road spending vs Rail spending.

[Yew]

From 2017 - so a little old now, but pre-Covid, so a useful baseline

Infographic: Europe's Disparity In Railway Investment

This chart shows the level of investment in rail infrastructure per citizen in European countries in 2017.

www.statista.com

Puts the UK in a fairly favourable position.

Such raw analysis does not consider things such as the state of the industry, and purchasing power parity. A rail network that has had investment for the last 40 years can run efficient and fast services on much less money, than one that has had a tight budget and a lot of "make do and mend". Similarly, a pound in the UK doesn't go very far once the TOC's ROSCOS and Permanent way contractors have and their pound of flesh, but goes much further for a state-owned operator in Eastern Europe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2023 ==

It's mostly not dark (when we're awake) and it's mostly not raining.

How about when we're awake, not at work, and in winter?

 

[Meerkat]

Exactly, every British city is similar enough to London that what works there would work in others, scaled up and down according to the number of residents and funded at parity.

Every British city has an Underground that in normal times churns out enough profit to heavily subsidise a bus network?
Every British city is as big as London such that driving into the centre is a long urban journey?

 

[Arkeeos]

And it's debateable whether the rail network can carry more people than the motorways - because whilst you can run a train which seats 500 people, you have to space it so the next train is 'x' minutes behind, whereas the spacing required on the roads is much less.

It isn't debatable, the widest motorway in the world the Katy Freeway manages a daily throughput of 220,000 cars for 12 lanes in each direction, the Elizabeth line handles 600,000 people daily.

There's no point debating who gets more funding rail or road, because the fact is that both are underfunded, the UKs motorway network lacks many significant connections (also I believe there are only 3 stack interchanges across the entire country) and is a whole mess of lack of standardisation. And the rail network is much the same. While rail might finally be getting overall some decent investment now, that doesn't make up from everything else post 1945 where it was in managed decline and it doesn't mean there arent still significant funding blind spots in the rail network.

 

[Meerkat]

It isn't debatable, the widest motorway in the world the Katy Freeway manages a daily throughput of 220,000 cars for 12 lanes in each direction, the Elizabeth line handles 600,000 people daily.

When did the Lizzie become an Intercity line?

 

[Arkeeos]

When did the Lizzie become an Intercity line?

Whether its intercity or not is irrelevant given it was just about spacing of trains vs cars.

 

[cactustwirly]

I take the best method of transport for the task. Which is true for most people.

I walk to the gym and shops because they are short distances, bus into town and train into London.

Car is used for going to work or seeing mates.

The problem with public transport is it is biased towards serving a particular location. For example the buses in Reading within town travelling into the centre are good. They are useless for going anywhere else.

The bus to work is a joke, it takes forever and is always freezing cold. It isn't attractive at all unless you have to take it.

The trains are only useful if you want to travel to Oxford, Bristol or London

It's the same story in Germany, I've recently come back from a trip in Hamburg. The urban transport, S and U Bahn trains are good.
The regional trains are ok, but use very tatty looking carriages.
The intercity train timetable in Germany is a work of fiction.

 

[PTR 444]

The problem with public transport is it is biased towards serving a particular location. For example the buses in Reading within town travelling into the centre are good. They are useless for going anywhere else.

That’s because public transport needs to serve the areas of highest demand, hence those “particular locations” will usually be town/city centres or transportation hubs where most people want to go.

The trains are only useful if you want to travel to Oxford, Bristol or London

From Reading, there is also a decent service to Cardiff, Swindon, Didcot, Newbury, Basingstoke, Wokingham, Bracknell and Slough, all of which are served by two direct trains per hour.

The intercity train timetable in Germany is a work of fiction.

Is it? From what I’ve seen, it uses a very handy Taktfahrplan timetable and most of the major cities are linked by a direct train.

 

[cactustwirly]

That’s because public transport needs to serve the areas of highest demand, hence those “particular locations” will usually be town/city centres or transportation hubs where most people want to go.

From Reading, there is also a decent service to Cardiff, Swindon, Didcot, Newbury, Basingstoke, Wokingham, Bracknell and Slough, all of which are served by two direct trains per hour.

Is it? From what I’ve seen, it uses a very handy Taktfahrplan timetable and most of the major cities are linked by a direct train.

It's only useful for central Swindon, Bracknell etc.

Going from where I am in the suburbs to my work in Bracknell is a 2 hour journey by train, if you include walking to the station and waiting times. Or it's a 15 minute drive

That Taktfahrplan is good on paper, but DB don't actually adhere to it.
The trains are often extremely late, between half an hour to an hour late on a regular basis

 

[Bikeman78]

I'd certainly not say the railway detracts from it, whereas a 6-lane motorway does.

Having lived close to a railway and a busy urban road, the latter is far worse. The class 37s used to make my letter box rattle for a few seconds an hour, in one direction. They were coasting in the other direction. The road had eight buses per hour in each direction. They produced more noise even before the hundreds of other vehicles are taken into account.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 May 2023 ==

Indeed. Bad weather or hills are silly straw men arguments deployed only by people who are either totally intransigent about any and all change, or who are desperate to keep hold of their car for ideological reasons and not for practical ones.

My bike ride to work involves a hill. Not a deal breaker. I nearly always ride in all weathers. I have decent waterproofs. Actually it doesn't rain that often. I will admit that I'm getting a bit lazy in my middle age and will sometimes drive if it's lashing down but my bike still does more miles per year than my car.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2023 ==

Hideous suburban sprawl, chronic traffic congestion, next to no public transportation, no sense of community and no sidewalks on hardly any of the roads. Parts of the UK are in danger of going the same way if we keeping on pandering to the private car and building on green field sites.

It's already started. Parking on the pavement is becoming the norm. I don't mean two wheels. I mean the whole vehicle on the pavement completely blocking it. Heaven forbid that they could block the road. I suppose I'm expected to walk in the road?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2023 ==

Cycling is cheap anywhere if you want it to be. You need a bicycle, and you can often get one for free. And if you have a cheap, basic, scruffy bike, the chance of it being nicked is low, too. This is how most urban Dutch people cycle, with an ageing Omafiets.

100%. Young people don't care about riding battered old bikes. You'll sometimes see partners hitching a lift on the pannier rack on the back.

 

[AdamWW]

It's already started. Parking on the pavement is becoming the norm. I don't mean two wheels. I mean the whole vehicle on the pavement completely blocking it. Heaven forbid that they could block the road. I suppose I'm expected to walk in the road?

Apparently you should see the bigger picture, which is that parking on the pavement on a busy road inconveniences a few pedestrians but as most people are in cars then overall it does more good than harm.

I thought the bigger picture was that if there's nowhere to park safely and legally there's nowhere to park...

 

[Bikeman78]

Apparently you should see the bigger picture, which is that parking on the pavement on a busy road inconveniences a few pedestrians but as most people are in cars then overall it does more good than harm.

I thought the bigger picture was that if there's nowhere to park safely and legally there's nowhere to park...

Ha ha, I have seen people on Facebook expressing that very opinion. Maybe I should start walking over the top of vehicles on the pavement? Perhaps jump on them a few times to set off the alarm. Sounds like fun!

 

[AdamWW]

Ha ha, I have seen people on Facebook expressing that very opinion.

Yes that's where I came across it. (Well, not Facebook, but something similar).

Then there's the "but if I parked legally I might have blocked an ambulance" argument and everyone agrees that yes, they just had no choice about blocking the pavement.

Because Not Parking Where You Want To is never one of the options...