The figures are (from the DfT website) for passenger-kilometres.
It's true that 6% does make a difference when the roads are almost full, but that's where spending the money specifically to alleviate those choke-points (either by widening roads, or by providing alternative modes of transport, of course) would make sense.
The funny thing about freight, though, is that rail has a very similar market-share as for passengers (in tonne-kilometres, in 1999). Overall, road takes 64%, water 23%, pipelines 5%, and rail 7%. The main contribution is for coal and coke, (rail 4.8 billion tonne-km, road 2.2 b t-km, water 0.5 b t-km). As a comparison, road haulage of petroleum products is about 4.9 b t-km.
However, coal carriage by rail tends to be on very specific routes - so let's keep them too, together with the commuter lines... :-)
|
As SteveH42 mentioned, the costs of rail projects have shot up since privatisation - because of the number of companies involved (each of which wants a slice), because they have been too ambitious with what could be achieved on a saturated, ailing infrastructure (new lines are much cheaper and easier to build), and because rail is expected to operate in 100% safety which will never be achieved.
Maybe we should go for a freight-led railway, removing the need for 125mph running and with less political resistance to forcing freight onto the rails (sorry truckers, including my brother). A passenger service could be fitted around the freight, there wouldn't be as many but it would provide an acceptable service to those people without cars.
I often wonder why we are so obsessed with outright speed on our railways - after all, if passengers perceive that the service is unreliable the speed is academic.
If we want high speeds for trunk routes, a network of very high-speed routes could be built cheaply if we follow French practice (rather than reinventing the wheel) - but the Nimbys wouldn't want that.
I speak as someone who loves rail and also loves driving.
|
It's not just due to the number of companies involved, a lot of it is down to sheer incompetence. For starters, Railtrack ordered and began installing an Italian signalling system which, once it was almost complete, they discovered wasn't approved for use in this country and had to be modified to suit. The current 'turn-on' date for that is now about 2005 when it should have been up and running by now.
Another drain is the HSE with a lot of very costly safety measures being enforced. If the sort of safety regimes that are imposed on the railway were imposed on the roads then nothing would move. That's not to say that it can be ignored completely, but you have to consider the lax attitude taken to road safety and the consequences of accidents compared to that on the railway which many think is OTT.
A major downfall of the railways is lack of integration. Actual centre to centre journey times can often be far, far faster than anything possible by road, but as very few journeys are centre to centre the fact you get dumped at the station and that's it is what can hurt the competetiveness of the rail network.
The concept of dedicated routes would be the way to go it the political will was there. After all, in the main motorways were built as new roads with the existing roads left for local traffic. Very few railway lines are under 100 years old, many are 150+, so they no longer best serve the country.
Railways DO have a part to play in transport in this country (which is why I hope the moderators will be kind to this thread) as there is no escaping the fact that little though the contribution may be, it is keeping a significant amount of traffic off the roads and if possible it needs increasing to ease the pressure on the road network and allow those who can't or won't change an easier driving life.
|
20 years ago I used to travel on rail often, not having a driving licence. Trains were convenient and not too expensive. When privatisation came, the trains became very dirty and unreliable. It was not uncommon to board a train whose floor was literally covered in empty food cartons and other refuse, and the tables covered in food remains. Sometimes trains were so full that there was no room for passengers to board. There were quite a few occasions when I waited 30 minutes for a train, to find the train full, and I had to wait one hour for the next one. The cleanliness has improved, but reliability is still poor, and I don't want to risk a journey with a connection, as I know that often I won't make it. I also find the staff rude: tell them the truth at the ticket office and they call you a liar.
At the end of the day, for a family day out, a car is significantly cheaper, more convenient, cleaner and generally better. These eco-freaks who push public transport just don't live on our planet.
|
|
Anyway, as regards the thread subject, I think the way to go is to improve the efficiency of current road usage. Encouraging people to use cars that do more mpg is a good start and one adopted by this government. Cars are significantly cleaner and more efficient than they were 20 years ago. Giving tax concessions for eco-friendly fuels is another good move. Maybe the government could go further to encourage the development of fuel efficient cars, including giving funds to research institutes.
|
Better fuel efficiency is a starting point certainly. Heavy subsidy of alternative systems such as electric 'towncars' is also a must, even as far as possibly making dedicated 'urban electric' routes that allow small, light and simple 2 and 4 wheel vehicles be used safely away from larger infernal combustion cars. A good 85% of my journeys I'd say are under 3 miles and 95% under 10 miles, so an electric car with even a fairly limited range that I could *safely* use for these would be very attractive, and it needn't be big enough to carry more than 2 people or go faster than about 40. Not many people would feel safe sharing a road with SUVs and HGVs in a little dinky car though, so something would have to be done to allow these to be used safely.
As far as motorway driving goes, driver education would help. Techniques to minimise congestion-causing habits should be taught - even simple things like keeping pace with other traffic so it isn't having to funnel past you and actually overtaking rather than passing without increasing speed to the limit would help a lot.
|
|
|
|
When privatisation came, the trains became very dirty and unreliable.
I wonder how much of the dirtyness is down to changing attitudes. In the past people generally took more care of other's property and generally behaved a lot more civilised. As for unreliable, I think it depends where you are. Many branch lines are more reliable these days, but busier lines are compromised by the system Railtrack use where if a train loses it's path then though, it's going to be fitted in wherever rather than any attempt made to give it sensible help to regain time. (Things like not putting an express behind a stopper etc)
At the end of the day, for a family day out, a car is significantly cheaper, more convenient, cleaner and generally better. These eco-freaks who push public transport just don't live on our planet.
A car when fully occupied isn't too bad. However, think how many cars run around with 1 or 2 people in and how much congestion and pollution that causes. I'm not against cars - far from it, I find my car very handy, but I also recognise we simply can't go on using them the way we do these days without having to face the consequences sooner or later. Public transport is also *needed* for those who can't for one reason or another use the car. To be honest, I'd say that a good 10% or more of those driving probably don't have sufficient competence or ability to really be let out on the roads, but our driving test is so lax that it's actually quite hard not to pass if you have basic skills. Improved driver awareness and skill would help to reduce traffic jams and accidents in the first place, but whether or not that happens, people still need the alternatives.
|
"I'd say that a good 10% or more of those driving probably don't have sufficient competence"
I think you're being kind. If tests included a proper written paper (not multiple-choice) and some real-world experiences, including heavy traffic and motorways, not to mention a proper medical, then congestion would disappear! Of course, it wouldn't be terribly popular with the electorate, so we have the current mess. If it really is costing 10bn to sort out one stretch of railway, I don't imagine it would cost a lot more to let everyone use it for free! Without the figures to hand, I get the impression that the railways have cost the Exchequer just as much since privatisation as when they were publicly owned. I'd use them more if they were cheaper, but it annoys me that I'm still paying for them anyway.
|
|
|
"Our driving test is so lax that that it's hard not to pass if you have the basic skills"
May have been the case a couple of decades ago, but not any more. Why don't you apply to take one yourself, and agree to hand your licence back if you fail?
|
|
Has it changed a lot in the last 10 years? (It's about 10 years and 9 days since I passed acutally!) All I've heard of is the written paper which doesn't seem all that taxing. For me, the test doesn't teach you enough 'real world' situation, concentrating mainly on ability to control a vehicle. It's a good starting point, but I'd like to see stages beyond that for things such as motorway driving.
|
I'd have to agree with SteveH42 about extra stages to the driving test.
I passed three years ago (first attempt :-)) and consider myself a fast learner, however i have a number of friends who, although i would now consider them perfectly competent drivers, took a long time to pass their test, ie a large number of costly lessons, and more than one test. If the initial test was made any harder, people like this may well give up learning due to cost and annoyance involved (maybe good for congestion, but everyone wants to be able to drive). However they then dont dare go near a motorway for months and months, and when they do they make themselves a hazard for other drivers.
I think a compulsory additional motorway course should be put in place, where the new driver goes onto a motorway for the first time with an instructor, and aslong as they dont make utter fools of themselves are then fully qualified. Up to then i think new drivers should be banned from motorway driving, as many dont realise the speeds involved or things such as proper lane etiquette.
|
|
|
|
"Our driving test is so lax that that it's hard not to pass if you have the basic skills" May have been the case a couple of decades ago, but not any more. Why don't you apply to take one yourself, and agree to hand your licence back if you fail?
Maybe the issue is that while bad new drivers are filtered out, there is nothing to stop people who would fail a current test but who passed years ago continuing to drive.
Back on topic, the government always forgets that not all of Britain is in London (not just related to cars). Working in the middle of London, there isn't a serious alternative to me taking the dirty overcrowded train. I use my car for most things other than commuting as it's then a quicker, more pleasant experience.
There seems to be cash for longer distance routes I'll never use but with Thameslink 2000 put on the back burner, improvements to (my) essential routes won't happen.
What's more, the train companies are keen to up the fares to put us back into cars. While I'm pro-car, in London that doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its only about this "That's not to say that it can be ignored completely, but you have to consider the lax attitude taken to road safety and the consequences of accidents compared to that on the railway which many think is OTT." that I differ with in your post. Its not really possible for HSE (in reality the HSC which is the body that directs HSE on behalf of the Govt.) to downgrade rail safety for two reasons: 1 Its not for HSC to decide on such a radical step, but Govt. so no change likely unless radical instructions are given to these public servants. 2 Aversion to risk, or to put it another way, public expectations. Whilst we as a society accept death/injury on a small scale, its a very different matter if 30 are wiped out at one go. Now if we have a brave politician/party who sees logic in reducing rail safety to move towards some quality with the shambles on the roads, fair enough, but I somehow doubt it. Nor would you pursue such a course, if you were to take the can from the injured, relatives of the dead, and the courts.
|
Where is the word "time" in the congestion debate? Roads are only congested at certain points of the day and as a frequent user of the M6 M62 etc I know full well that those points of the day get longer and longer. But, where is the strategic effort to spread the load of congestion over the whole 24 hours?
Yes better rail, yes better integration, but these are huge policy even societal shifts requiring investment and effort way beyond the time horizon of any Government.
Why not offer really generous tax incentives to the freight industry for deliveries made outside daylight hours? Some of it passed on to drivers in terms of attractive pay for anti-social hours. The only trucks you see at night are the mail, newspaper and overnight express operators. They can do it, why not the whole industry?
|
|
|
Nothing can be done on the railway these days without HSE approval, or whatever body has the relevant powers. (I've always seen HSE mentioned, so I'm assuming it's them, but I don't know for sure) It has got to the point where things are just stupid and millions are being spent with very little gain. Things such as TPWS are now mandatory even though they have very few safety benefits and slow services down as station times can be increased. And still, TPWS is just a stop-gap until ERTMS is implemented on the main lines - in many people's opinion it would have been much better to miss it out altogether and go straight to this system.
Also, the insistence on replacing slam-door stock when it is not full life-expired is adding extra cost even though the 'risks' in using such stock are so low as to be barely noticable. Also, vast sums of money are spent on certifying new rolling stock before it is even allowed in traffic. This paperwork is adding millions to the costs yet has no real benefit.
It's at the point now where a minor incident can result in a railway line being closed for days while a road accident is dragged out of the way as quickly as possible. A railway driver can pass a red signal by a foot and even if it was unavoidable he will still be suspended and a full investigation put in place. How many drivers do we see jumping red lights every day?
It should also be pointed out that all the delays and extra costs this is putting on the railway is encouraging more people to use their cars in the misbelief they will be safer, yet the death and injury tolls on our roads are over 100 times that on the railway. We are never likely to achieve 100% safety, but you are far, far less likely to die or be injured on a train than on the road yet the massive publicity given to even tiny incidents makes the railway *seem* far less safe, and is increasing the overall risk by putting people off trains and in to cars!
I'm not saying railways should be run slap-dash, just pointing out that massive sums are being spent for tiny gains, yet the carnage continues unabated on the roads. I'd imagine that if even 10% of road accidents could be avoided then things would run a lot smoother, not to mention the grief saved and recovery and medical expenses that wouldn't be needed.
|
|
SteveH42: maybe you have inside information that I don't re "tiny gains" but i seem to recall a number of deaths through use of old designs of door. I'd just point out that before enforcement, HSE have to justify cost-wise. Agree there is little done re the anarchy on the roads, but judging by the reaction to limited (and possibly arbitrary) enforcement of the roads law, there'd be riots if motorists were constrained further. Despite the growing tendency to hit and run - 50% has been mooted. Which is the correct approach? we'll have to agree to differ.
|
There were some deaths with slam-doors, mainly due to idiocy. This is easily stopped by fitting central locking which is far cheaper than building new stock. The other concern for this stock was the crashworthyness, although as has been pointed out on the relevant forums, they survive accidents *far* better than the Pacer that was nearly demolished at Winsford.
The whole point of the 'tiny gains' is that as I said before, rail deaths are *miniscule* compared to road deaths. Even the worst years recently have been <50 (not including trespassers) and many years it has been in single figures. Even a disaster such as Ladbroke Grove only killed a comparable number of people to that killed *every day* on the roads, and incidents such as that are very, very rare.
You say things can't be improved on the roads, but I think part of the reason this is perceived is that road users have been allowed to get away with far, far too much. Speeding is considered an every-day thing and most of the time people feel got-at for being caught - a train driver can be sacked for speeding and this sort of thing is now monitored! Careless driving, jumping lights and the like isn't taken seriously and if anyone threatens to do anything about it everyone shouts about their rights and civil liberties. What is needed is a big crackdown to make it clear to people that road use is a privilege and by no means a right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
