• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The road fix

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

S

Spaceflower

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2007
Messages
1,506
Because we need them. Car ownership continues to rise, increasing congestion which costs money and decreases quality of life and at the moment road remains the most important transport medium. Road pays for itself.
 
W

Woody

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2006
Messages
277
william said:
Because we need them. Car ownership continues to rise, increasing congestion which costs money and decreases quality of life and at the moment road remains the most important transport medium. Road pays for itself.
Click to expand...

As both a car owner and rail user I dont doubt we need cars and therefore road improvements,but as the article very clearly shows not at the expense of rail unfairly having one financial hand tied behind its back especially where rail excels,moving high volumes of both freight and passengers through heavily congested areas.I am not a rail romantic and I believe that scarce financial resources should be concentrated on these high volume lines and not on lighty used lines where the road alternative is clearly more appropiate in the 21st century which seems to be the general financial direction the railways are now moving in.
 
S

Spaceflower

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2007
Messages
1,506
I dont doubt we need cars
Click to expand...

We have come to depend on the motor car over how many years? 20-30. Wow
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But look at it from another perspective......it was railways that originally created the need for this high volume commuting. Yes the railway was the the result of the need to move high volumes of regular freight to specific locations. Many of our inner cities were not designed to cope with high volumes of road traffic, hence the need for strategic roadbuilding
 
Mojo

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
21,196
Location
0035
Woody said:
As both a car owner and rail user I dont doubt we need cars and therefore road improvements,but as the article very clearly shows not at the expense of rail unfairly having one financial hand tied behind its back especially where rail excels,moving high volumes of both freight and passengers through heavily congested areas.I am not a rail romantic and I believe that scarce financial resources should be concentrated on these high volume lines and not on lighty used lines where the road alternative is clearly more appropiate in the 21st century which seems to be the general financial direction the railways are now moving in.
Click to expand...

A lot of lightly-used lines in urban areas however offer a valuable answer to traffic congestion and the reason they are so lightly-used is because of infrequency, unreliability and the nature of stations (can be unstaffed and/or out of the way, meaning people feel unsafe.)
 
S

Spaceflower

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2007
Messages
1,506
We dont need trains Liam.

We dont need alot of things.

Are you to young to drive?
 
S

Spaceflower

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2007
Messages
1,506
I didn't say we did
Click to expand...

No i did. You said we dont need cars, but the railway couldnt possibly be an alternative. It does have its limitations. Once you learn to drive (i'm presuming you will) you will appreciate this better. Our whole economy and services are to some extent dependant on road transport, just look at the emergence of out of town shopping, many of which are poorly served by public transport and have you tried getting your shopping on a train or bus, its a knightmare. You could ofcourse, make small, regular trips, but that would be inefficient, increasing the number of journeys or reduce the need to travel at all.

p.s. i always spell knightmare like that. its William English
 
M

mbonwick

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2006
Messages
6,311
Location
Kendal
Well IMHO, railways are good for a lot of things, but not everything. They cannot get you from door to door; a car can (well almost) also they are not practical is some situations, e.g going on holiday with your luggage. On the other hand for moving things in bulk the railways are the best.
 
M

mbonwick

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2006
Messages
6,311
Location
Kendal
I should have said within a country, yes between countries waterways are better
 
S

Spaceflower

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2007
Messages
1,506
There are alot of inland waterways in mainland Europe, even Yorkshire has a few.

Many European cities have waterborne commuter transport links..London?

Waterways are slow so are only suitable for non perishables
 
M

mbonwick

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2006
Messages
6,311
Location
Kendal
But you get what I am trying to say....you can't put 500+ tonnes of stuff on a boat in a normal inland waterway.
 
J

Jim

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2005
Messages
3,491
Location
Wick
mbonwick said:
But you get what I am trying to say....you can't put 500+ tonnes of stuff on a boat in a normal inland waterway.
Click to expand...

Well you can, if you want the goods and the boat at the bottom of the waterway!
 
Nick W

Nick W

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2005
Messages
1,435
Location
Cambridge
S

Spaceflower

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2007
Messages
1,506
It mentions it in the document (see link) that they can carry 600 tonnes. Ive seen some of the barges of a similar size as those in the pictures on the Aire and calder navigation. Could you possibly speculate what kind of tonnage these vessels are? I suppose the limiting factor for inland waterways is the relatively small network in this country.

Another example was
the movement of electricity generation
equipment in units of up to 350 tonnes
to Cottam by Ro-Ro barge (vessels that
can operate very effectively on some of
our larger commercial navigations) via
the River Trent.
Click to expand...
 
Nick W

Nick W

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2005
Messages
1,435
Location
Cambridge
Yeah you're right in that wider rivers can carry a lot of tonnes, and the River Thames will be used for building the olympics and city at stratford.

It's the canals that link the rivers which are generally limited to 30 ton narrow boats.
 
S

Spaceflower

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2007
Messages
1,506
Yeah, the smaller canals. But that emphasises the point i made about the limited extent of the network. Much of the Aire and Calder runs parallel to the Aire on its own route and is capable of large barges.
 
Y

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,594
Location
Yorkshire
Woody said:
Why do we keep building more roads?
Click to expand...
Because we are short-sighted, and selfish, basically. :(

The more roads we build, the more you just encourage people to use them!

There are not enough incentives to encourage people to live closer to their work, not enough incentives to buy locally produced products, not enough incentives to use public transport (except, perhaps, in London and selected other areas). Many people are under the illusion that everyone on this planet has the right to own their own car and drive it as much as they please. If that actually happened, there would not be enough oil and other materials to sustain it. Cars are only viable for a select few (aren't we lucky :roll: ) when you look at the total population of the Earth and you look at the bigger picture.

So, no, we don't need cars. But the lifestyle many people in this country leads does require cars some of the time.

If you eliminated cars now, we'd still survive, and over time people would adapt. However there is no will for that to happen so, as a nation, we'll drive until it is physically impossible for us to continue and worry about that later.

Meanwhile, the Tories made rail less viable than it was back in around 1994 when the put together the ridiculous 'Rail Settlement Plan', and Labour have only continued the madness (OK they deserve some credit for replacing Railtrack with NR). If we still had BR, and the money that is available now was spent sensibly (as was the case before privatisation) we'd have been able to afford Thameslink "2000", high speed lines and many other improvements.

Sadly it's not a level playing field and the odds are very much stacked against rail. Fortunately, despite all the odds being against us, rail is still very important and continues to grow - partly as a result of the ridiculous and unhealthy congestion caused by cars these days.

My city isn't great for public transport (though it is better - albeit more expensive - than it was, say, 10 years ago) but fortunately is quite good for cycling, so I am able to get around by bike. Sadly the narrow roads are just not suited to cars so the non-pedestrian areas do get congested and are unpleasant to be around.

As more people go by car these days (door to door, rather than a walk to the station to commence a journey, or walking to the shops etc), we are also becoming more overweight and less healthy overall.

We are locked into this vicious cycle as there are not enough people prepared to go against it :|
 
S

Spaceflower

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2007
Messages
1,506
There isnt much of a viable alternative for rural dwellers at the moment.

If you eliminated cars now, we'd still survive
Click to expand...

What would happen to our economy and our ability to compete in the global market?

Cars are here to stay. Why not make them greener?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top