quit building on our green areas

[Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt]

The purpose of the comparisons are to demonstrate that there are places where the proportion of trips made by car is much lower than Stafford. This can be achieved by different policy instruments and better land use planning. Stafford is a compact town where the proportion of car trips could quite easily be reduced with the political backing to put in place the necessary measures. For a lot of trips, the car is not "relied" upon, but is used out of choice. The comparison makes no sense to you, because you have failed to look at the factors affecting choice of transport mode.

The privatised system costs the public purse at least five times as much as BR. BR was not expensive. In terms of fares, BR was cheaper in real terms since fares have been pushed up well above inflation year on year. "Unregulated" fares have shot up even more.

BR did very well on the money it had. The railway today operates services you would deem "unprofitable", but you can't measure the value of the network on fares vs operating cost. There are economic and social benefits on top of that.

Same goes for the road network.

The privatised structure is flawed. Railtrack was appalling. They got rid of all their engineers and employed "managers" who knew the grand total of nothing about running a railway. Network Rail isn't a great deal better.

That's a duff statement - road transport related taxation / duties are not hypothecated. Everything goes into the same pot along with all other forms of taxation. You imply a £27 bn profit on the road network which is completely false. You need to cost up: road maintenance, road construction, emergency services, cost of congestion to the economy, cost of accidents to the economy, cost of pollution to the environment, health, and the economy. You'll find that lot adds up to more than car users pay. Also, using your logic as applied to the railway, most of the road network should not be maintained - it is completely unprofitable to maintain lots of country lanes and minor roads used by just a few vehicles per day.

Of course there are places where trips by car are less than Stafford but my point remains that Nottingham is no more like Stafford than Oxford, Cambridge, York or any other of the places that you have mentioned. Your comparisons are therefore neither consistent or relevant. It is like saying that bananas are like melons because they are both fruits.

OK if we are costing up then lets look at the costed up aspects of the rail system - as well as track and rolling stock maintenance there is the stations and parking facilities to maintain, Transport Police to employ, costs of pollution and landscape blight to the environment (look at HS2). Pretty much every one of those costed up aspects that you apply to roads could also be applied to the rail system in equal measure. Oh and the rail system has never netted the exchequer £27 bn per year, never anything like.

 

[henryscat]

Sigh. The road network does not net the chancellor 27bn. Actually, no, most of the external costs from the road network don't apply to the rail network. Straws are being clutched at. Congestion costs, accident costs and air pollution costs are a feature of road transport. In terms of landscape, a double track railway is a lot less intrusive than a motorway. However, HS2 in my opinion does not need to happen.

 

[Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt]

Sigh. The road network does not net the chancellor 27bn. Actually, no, most of the external costs from the road network don't apply to the rail network. Straws are being clutched at. Congestion costs, accident costs and air pollution costs are a feature of road transport. In terms of landscape, a double track railway is a lot less intrusive than a motorway. However, HS2 in my opinion does not need to happen.

Ahhhhh, so along with comparing Stafford with totally un-comparable towns we now have a situation where you advocate more use of the railways, presumably by moving more freight and commuters onto the tracks but you don't advocate expanding the capacity through options like HS2. You can't have it both ways

Whether it is £27bn or not matters not, the rail system has never netted the tax payer a penny and it is not an environmentally friendly option. In my opinion personal transport that is de-coupled from carbon, maybe through more electric generated via low carbon options will be with us to stay. This option will also sit better with a population used to personal transport that they don't have to stand and wait for amongst the elements that then doesn't turn up.
Better to embrace it and plan properly for it rather than live in a dream world that a heavily subsidised, over crowded, Victorian relic is the answer.

 

[andy w]

The UK should have started building a high speed network in the 70's and 80's like France, Japan etc and because we haven't the planning freedom (righty or wrongly) that allows China to build major projects within 5 years, the UK is 40 years behind the curve. The question must be is how far will GPS controlled cars have had advanced. The technology is pretty much there but is there the political will to be brave enough to take such a great leap forward on how we travel.
Is the vision of electric computer controlled cars pure science fiction or will it come to pass and pretty much make public transport' however fast, obsolete?

 

[henryscat]

Ahhhhh, so along with comparing Stafford with totally un-comparable towns we now have a situation where you advocate more use of the railways, presumably by moving more freight and commuters onto the tracks but you don't advocate expanding the capacity through options like HS2. You can't have it both ways

You're jumping about a bit here.

The parallels I am drawing are about ways in which other towns have sought to reduce the proportion of car use, Stafford does not have to be the same as those towns in every respect for them to work. Those policy instruments are transferable. You haven't yet come up with a reasonably founded explanation as to why they might not be.

HS2 is an expensive and unnecessary way of increasing rail capacity. Only part of the original West Coast upgrade was actually carried out. If it had been done in full there would have been in-cab signalling and a line speed increase to 140mph, which would make a significant difference to capacity. This still remains an alternative to HS2.

Whether it is £27bn or not matters not, the rail system has never netted the tax payer a penny

It has, the economic benefits are enormous. What would happen if no public money whatsoever went into the rail network in London for instance? Our largest cities cannot function without rail based public transport.

and it is not an environmentally friendly option.

Rubbish. Per passenger mile or freight tonne mile rail is more efficient than road. HS2 is a different matter however.

In my opinion personal transport that is de-coupled from carbon, maybe through more electric generated via low carbon options will be with us to stay. This option will also sit better with a population used to personal transport that they don't have to stand and wait for amongst the elements that then doesn't turn up.

The bicycle is personal transport decoupled from carbon and could do a lot to reduce car use... Even electric vehicles are not pollution free. They also cause just as much congestion.

Better to embrace it and plan properly for it rather than live in a dream world that a heavily subsidised, over crowded, Victorian relic is the answer.

I'll repeat again, the road network is not profit making in the way that you allege. Public transport has got to be improved and developed for both economic and environmental reasons.

 

[henryscat]

The UK should have started building a high speed network in the 70's and 80's like France, Japan etc and because we haven't the planning freedom (righty or wrongly) that allows China to build major projects within 5 years, the UK is 40 years behind the curve. The question must be is how far will GPS controlled cars have had advanced. The technology is pretty much there but is there the political will to be brave enough to take such a great leap forward on how we travel.
Is the vision of electric computer controlled cars pure science fiction or will it come to pass and pretty much make public transport' however fast, obsolete?

As far as high speed rail goes, France and the UK are completely different. France has the same population as the UK in a country many times the size. The UK is relatively speaking small and densely populated. High speed rail in France makes a lot of sense for the distances involved and to reduce travel on domestic flights. In terms of construction, the TGV lines could be built by more or less drawing straight lines between places on the map and not have to worry about the lines passing that near to anyone for the most part. The high speed approach in the UK is of very dubious benefit.

Take Birmingham to London - the fastest train is already not much over an hour, way faster than any equivalent plane journey and at least three times quicker than road. If HS2 is built that drops to about 50 minutes, but from a different terminus in Birmingham. First of all, what is the justification for needing to get to London that much quicker than the existing, already pretty quick, service? Secondly, the interchange penalty is such that the journey time benefit is seriously eroded. If you commute from say, leafy Wylde Green, then you get your Cross City train to New St, cross the platforms and jump on a three times an hour Pendolino. With HS2 you have to go to New Street, then factor in the time for walking across town to Curzon Street to then get the London train. The economic benefits are vastly over stated, and any journey time benefits are over-valued since for the most part people with a high value of time tend to work whilst travelling on the train.

High speed rail just does not bring the same sort of benefits to the UK as it does in Europe where distances are longer.

 

[tek-monkey]

Public transport is not economic, if it was private firms would be fighting for the contracts. It costs £2 to go halfway down the stone road, from the post office to sainsbury, and still nobody wants to take on the current network. Buses suck balls, you only use them if you're absolutely desperate and can't get a taxi. Why are taxis so cheap in comparison, when fuel tax runs at over 80%? Can't the government stop taxing fuel for public transport to make it viable?

Of course not, because the sheeple regularly vote in a bunch of ***** that are self serving parasites. We get what we vote for, and we have to live by that. We aren't like Egypt, yet.

 

[Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt]

You're jumping about a bit here.

The parallels I am drawing are about ways in which other towns have sought to reduce the proportion of car use, Stafford does not have to be the same as those towns in every respect for them to work. Those policy instruments are transferable. You haven't yet come up with a reasonably founded explanation as to why they might not be.
HS2 is an expensive and unnecessary way of increasing rail capacity. Only part of the original West Coast upgrade was actually carried out. If it had been done in full there would have been in-cab signalling and a line speed increase to 140mph, which would make a significant difference to capacity. This still remains an alternative to HS2.
It has, the economic benefits are enormous. What would happen if no public money whatsoever went into the rail network in London for instance? Our largest cities cannot function without rail based public transport.
Rubbish. Per passenger mile or freight tonne mile rail is more efficient than road. HS2 is a different matter however.
The bicycle is personal transport decoupled from carbon and could do a lot to reduce car use... Even electric vehicles are not pollution free. They also cause just as much congestion.
I'll repeat again, the road network is not profit making in the way that you allege. Public transport has got to be improved and developed for both economic and environmental reasons.

There are lots of reasons why the policy instruments are not transferrable - you just choose not to recognise them. I have given umpteen reasons why public transport works in some places as opposed to Stafford, the main reason being that it works best where there are economies of scale, for example where you have large populations that make provision of public transport economically viable. In your left-ish, bubble headed World there may be copious public transport options but in the real World it has to stack up financially or it doesn't happen. It works in Cities like Nottingham, York, Cambridge and Oxford for these reasons, they have either the population or some sort of tourist / economic pull to mean there are lots of bums on bus and train seats. You mention yourself that "our Cities cannot function without rail based transport" - yes, this agrees with my argument, it works in those areas - I repeat again, Stafford is nothing like these places.

Increasing capacity on the West Coast and other lines buys a few years but the reality is that if you want to shift more people and goods via rail then at some point you'll have to have new capacity.

It'll be a struggle to get people out of a car and onto a bike. You try telling a local sales man than rather than his nice comfy car he has to go to work in the snow on a bike and arrive at his appointment soaking wet - you are living in a dream world.
Yes cars cause congestion, just like trains do - which is why we should look more at how we can make it better and less polluting. If you really wanted to make a town like Stafford more sustainable then you'd be better off making it a showcase for low carbon vehicles, lots of electrical charging points etc. I would wager this would go down far easier than expecting Mr average to saddle up on a penny farthing.

 

[henryscat]

Why are taxis so cheap in comparison, when fuel tax runs at over 80%? Can't the government stop taxing fuel for public transport to make it viable?

The current government cut by 20% the amount of fuel duty re-imbursed to bus operators... They also don't put enough money into free concessionary travel which means some bus operators struggle.

As for taxis, how many taxi drivers are completely 100% above board and declare all their earnings? They are not very regulated. At least you know your bus driver is restricted on how much driving they can do and when they have to have breaks. A taxi driver can in theory drive for as many hours a day as they like with no requirement to take a break. I only use taxis as a last resort.

 

[tek-monkey]

Rather a door to door taxi that is allegedly working too many hours than a 200m from the door to 200m from the door that costs more and still has no promise of quality, let alone turn up on time.

 

[loveatfirstbite]

Sterilise the poor. Not only will it slow down the largest demographic who procreate, it'll also help the economy, reduce unemployment long term and hopefully lead to lower taxes as they won't have to be 'educated', detected, arrested, tried, incarcerated etc.

but who will wash my car?

 

[John Marwood]

People should stay in more but move about a bit and avoid snacking

Good for the environment, policing, transportation, hospitals, and grow your own mustard cress in a bag of your own poo

Vote Marwood

 

[Withnail]

but who will wash my car?

Or sanitize our telephones?

 

[shoes]

but who will wash my car?

Any number of the £3 car washes about the town, mostly run by hard working immigrants who's work ethic seems to trump that our mass of young unemployed by a worrying degree.

Saying that, the ones on the stone road did the company dag dag recently and I had to wash it again when I got home as they had missed loads of small patches.

 

[loveatfirstbite]

So long as I don't have to wash my own car!

 

[shoes]

A lot depends on how much you car about your car too - I get the company dag dag washed by the £3 places, however, I wouldn't entrust my own car to anyone else, ever. And especially not the automatic ones you get at petrol station, may as well wash your car with a brick.

 

[monkey bidness]

A lot depends on how much you car about your car too - I get the company dag dag washed by the £3 places, however, I wouldn't entrust my own car to anyone else, ever. And especially not the automatic ones you get at petrol station, may as well wash your car with a brick.

Serious question. What's a dag dag? Is it anything like a Tuk-Tuk?

 

[Gramaisc]

Serious question. What's a dag dag? Is it anything like a Tuk-Tuk?

I believe that it may refer to something that may once have been made in Dagenham - but is no longer.

 

[proactive]

The Dagenham Wheelie Bin just doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

[shoes]

Serious question. What's a dag dag? Is it anything like a Tuk-Tuk?

Ah no, a dag dag is a slang onomatopoeia for a diesel. The diesel being my company car.

G makes a good point, the car is one from the range of offerings from the Ford motor company, and could be called the Dagenham Dag Dag.