Mike Storey Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I suspect that if I wanted to 'prove' that the Moon is made of green cheese, I could fund a study that comes to exactly that conclusion. No need. Surely Louis Armstrong proved that when he landed on it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
runs as required Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Any heavy transport infrastructural investment ought to delayed until the present revolutionary technical/mode/power/political control changes are more resolved. New urban transit projects and HS2 might be obsolete before they are halfway built. The most worrying development is how city regions are seemingly about to lose control over transport policy decisions and fall in hoc to private corporations like Google and Uber who aim to control all information relating to trip patterns. I read the other day about the Germans drawing up protocols to regulate Automated Driving Systems on their Autobahns. Zero headways for high speed (electric) vehicles on major arteries is potentially a denser mode of transit than the Japanese metro. The major drawback, from our rail lobby perspective, is the lack of efficiency compared to a steel wheel rolling along a steel rail. Over 20 years ago I was party to a feasibility project for a high rise East Asian city where ‘cars’ could travel inward clustering and sorting, then zoom upward with linear induction to the top of 50 storey multi use structures that were ‘guyed’ by the curving lift shafts. Those working on this project were all respected major British consultants. I end with the new ’Cloud City’ projected for Shenzen. What will the governance of such a nightmare be? Boris on a bike? Luckily I shall be dead by the time its finshed dh Edited February 10, 2015 by runs as required Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Any heavy transport infrastructural investment ought to delayed until the present revolutionary technical/mode/power/political control changes are more resolved. New urban transit projects and HS2 might be obsolete before they are halfway built. The most worrying development is how city regions are seemingly about to lose control over transport policy decisions and fall in hoc to private corporations like Google and Uber who aim to control all information relating to trip patterns. I read the other day about the Germans drawing up protocols to regulate Automated Driving Systems on their Autobahns. Zero headways for high speed (electric) vehicles on major arteries is potentially a denser mode of transit than the Japanese metro. The major drawback, from our rail lobby perspective, is the lack of efficiency compared to a steel wheel rolling along a steel rail. Over 20 years ago I was party to a feasibility project for a high rise East Asian city where ‘cars’ could travel inward clustering and sorting, then zoom upward with linear induction to the top of 50 storey multi use structures that were ‘guyed’ by the curving lift shafts. Those working on this project were all respected major British consultants. I end with the new ’Cloud City’ projected for Shenzen. Luckily I shall be dead by the time its finshed dh cloud city shenzen.jpg Hmm. I remember something a lot like this being reported on "Tomorrow's World", about 45 years ago. As was Prof Eric Laithwaite's hover train, which was going to make classic trains obsolete. Good job we didn't wait for them to happen! Maybe these things will happen one day (notwithstanding the trials in California), if indeed they turn out to be desirable instead of just possible, but it would take many decades and billions of pounds to ever happen in the UK. I think HS2 will have a useful life before then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 The busways may well be guided, however the people that propose and support them are misguided! 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classsix T Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Doncha love RMWeb? We can't all agree on the best method of affixing a nameplate to a model, but are absolutely united in our derision over this absurd fantasy! C6T. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Trevellan Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 When I first worked in the field of transport policy I quickly learned that messages need to be repeated at regular intervals to suit a new audience. Just because we know that rail conversion is largely misguided nonsense doesn't mean that people new to the idea won't treat it seriously. Policy think-tanks have their place and I've participated in a few, but only those taking a balanced view of a topic rather than peddling outdated ideas. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 Don't know about the Blackpool Tramway but I know that it was BAM Nuttall who built the guided busway (incidentally enjoying higher ridership than expected) Oh, that's the opposite to what someone else has said - have they released official stats? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Welly Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 12, 2015 Oh, that's the opposite to what someone else has said - have they released official stats? http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridgeshire-guided-busway-hits-passenger/story-23091800-detail/story.html Reading this suggested that the ridership exceeded the target in the first two years of use and met the target in the 3rd year of use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
runs as required Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Policy think-tanks have their place and I've participated in a few, but only those taking a balanced view of a topic rather than peddling outdated ideas. 'Think tanks' are there to shape public opinion through the media and to influence decision making. BUT They should be required to publish who are their paymasters. Unless we have this transparency how can we know they are taking "a balanced view"? 2 Looking at Welly's link to the Cambridge busway it is extraordinary how much elaborate concrete infrastucture is required to guide that bus. There is more than Brunel specked for his "baulk road" dh Edited February 12, 2015 by runs as required 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 The latest loony toons discussion on the radio in the last couple of days was taking freight off the roads of London by putting lorries in tube tunnels under the city!! It's taken long enough to plan and build Crossrail, let alone lorry tunnels. By the time they're built we'll have run out of oil. As I may have said earlier, the country is already short of bus drivers due to a lot of older part-timers not wanting to be bothered with the Driver CPC, 35 hours training every 5 years, and bus driver wages are generally far lower than that of train drivers. The same can be said of lorry drivers. Who wants to work awful shifts and drive everywhere at a maximum of 56mph? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandra Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 The report actually comes out against guided busways as they do not like the idea of such routes being exclusively for one kind of vehicle. Whilst the emphasis is placed on "express coach routes" it does seem that the authors of the report want the routes to be used by other vehicles at certain times by payment of a toll. I would recommend that every one read the report for it is so full of contentious and debatable figures and it seems to overlook the fact that rail routes carry both long distance and freight movements as well as commuter trains. It is not clear whether they envisage the complete destruction of the rail network but I think they probably do. The fact is the people who wrote this report have an absolute belief in the market and I suspect that they don't like railways because they are seen as "socialist" in that railways do require a large degree of state involvement both in their regulation and in their finance. The writers of the report make clear that they do not just want to destroy the commuter railway they want a complete reform of the transport system. They particularly want to introduce road pricing and they wish to eliminate government control from all aspects of transport policy. There are a couple of examples from the report which I think may illustrate the general attitude. Some people on this forum may particularly like these gems "the wages of bus/coach drivers are generally much lower than those of train drivers" they go on to say "drivers of peak-hour commuter coaches could perhaps engage in some other job during the day further lowering labour costs". Also in trying to illustrate how expensive trains are in relation to coaches they say "A typical train in 1960 required 49 people to run it". They do acknowledge that productivity may have improved since then, but frankly trying to justify the destruction of the railway system upon the basis of a figure dating back to 1960 is beyond parody. I think people who value the railway system should worry about reports like this. These people do, unfortunately, often have the ear of government and whilst at the moment they seem to be disregarded they are always there attempting to undermine the provision of a decent railway system in favour of road transport. Sandra Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted February 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2015 http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridgeshire-guided-busway-hits-passenger/story-23091800-detail/story.html Reading this suggested that the ridership exceeded the target in the first two years of use and met the target in the 3rd year of use. I realise I had it confused with the Luton one! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classsix T Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 The report actually comes out against guided busways as they do not like the idea of such routes being exclusively for one kind of vehicle. Whilst the emphasis is placed on "express coach routes" it does seem that the authors of the report want the routes to be used by other vehicles at certain times by payment of a toll. I would recommend that every one read the report for it is so full of contentious and debatable figures and it seems to overlook the fact that rail routes carry both long distance and freight movements as well as commuter trains. It is not clear whether they envisage the complete destruction of the rail network but I think they probably do. The fact is the people who wrote this report have an absolute belief in the market and I suspect that they don't like railways because they are seen as "socialist" in that railways do require a large degree of state involvement both in their regulation and in their finance. The writers of the report make clear that they do not just want to destroy the commuter railway they want a complete reform of the transport system. They particularly want to introduce road pricing and they wish to eliminate government control from all aspects of transport policy. There are a couple of examples from the report which I think may illustrate the general attitude. Some people on this forum may particularly like these gems "the wages of bus/coach drivers are generally much lower than those of train drivers" they go on to say "drivers of peak-hour commuter coaches could perhaps engage in some other job during the day further lowering labour costs". Also in trying to illustrate how expensive trains are in relation to coaches they say "A typical train in 1960 required 49 people to run it". They do acknowledge that productivity may have improved since then, but frankly trying to justify the destruction of the railway system upon the basis of a figure dating back to 1960 is beyond parody. I think people who value the railway system should worry about reports like this. These people do, unfortunately, often have the ear of government and whilst at the moment they seem to be disregarded they are always there attempting to undermine the provision of a decent railway system in favour of road transport. Sandra Points well made Sandra, whilst many of us will disregard such things as nonsense, this thread proves the lunatics are still attempting to get their fantastically fanatic destruction of a proven mass transit system into gear. One would hope they are given the same disregard by anyone with an ounce of sense though? Besides, if it's such a great idea, why don't they just stump up the cash to build their own roads, laughing at the rusting dilapidated railway alongside as the coach whisks them along? C6T. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DY444 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Even if this was the greatest idea in the history of the world then what I don't understand is what happens to the traffic whilst they are building the thing? Is it assumed that all the passengers into Waterloo or wherever won't go to work for 3 years? The whole thing is complete rubbish dreamt up by people who self evidently have no understanding of the real world. A classic example of the Westminster bubble set at its worst. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Welly Posted February 13, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 13, 2015 There is a precedence for the destruction of public transport in a major urban area in favour of motor vehicles - Los Angeles. In the 1920s the car manufacturing companies persuaded the city council in LA to do away with the extensive system of trams and build "freeways" all over the city. Only in the last 20 years have LA been working to rebuild a useful public transport system in that area to ease the infamous jammed up "freeways" 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted February 13, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 13, 2015 Slightly on, slightly off topic - Workers have started digging up the old Ashton Meadows sidings outside my front door today to start building Bristol's Metrobus guided busway! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lurker Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Even if this was the greatest idea in the history of the world then what I don't understand is what happens to the traffic whilst they are building the thing? Is it assumed that all the passengers into Waterloo or wherever won't go to work for 3 years? a bit like Thameslink then? Road pricing is possibly a good idea in itself - but it will inevitably lead to people using public transport like the railways - or for short journeys, getting out their car and walking. Also presumably road pricing also requires government control - unless the report (which I haven't read) envisages a return to turnpikes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 IEA = Institution for Eccentric Academics (Baader-Meinhof faction) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Road pricing is possibly a good idea in itself - but it will inevitably lead to people using public transport like the railways - or for short journeys, getting out their car and walking. Also presumably road pricing also requires government control - unless the report (which I haven't read) envisages a return to turnpikes It's odd they see road pricing as a good thing but rail inherently as bad - if road pricing is the answer, then the same could be done on rail - improve modal parity by doing "road pricing" and "rail pricing" - we have centrally provided infrastructure and we charge to use it. (I agree, I don't see how you can do national road pricing with no government involvement, there must be big chunks of the country where road usage charges would not fund a commercially sustainable network) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Saunders Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Rail pricing already exists it is called Peak and off Peak fares plus advance purchase tickets! Mark Saunders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 No it doesn't - not in the same way as road pricing does, no - fares are not connected in any meaningful way to the costs of the infrastructure (or even running the train they are on!) - and reflect generations of compromise, subsidy etc... Rail pricing done the same way as road pricing would need to start with true open access, as the rail pricing would be to charge operators for using the network. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
runs as required Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 There is a precedence for the destruction of public transport in a major urban area in favour of motor vehicles - Los Angeles. In the 1920s the car manufacturing companies persuaded the city council in LA to do away with the extensive system of trams and build "freeways" all over the city. Only in the last 20 years have LA been working to rebuild a useful public transport system in that area to ease the infamous jammed up "freeways" This will probably be under the umbrella of "New Urbanism" that has been plugged in N America over the past decade or two.. It regrets the passing of the 'Inter Urbans' and is now advocating the building of boulevards (often quite literally recreating the look of the 1900 Viennese boulevard) as fingers radiating from cities with trams running down the centre reservation. US land Use/transportation planners argue this is simply a reworking of the classic US highway strip repeating every quarter mile or so between stops. The notion can also be traced back to Lionel March in Cambridge Dept of Land Economy in the 1960s arguing that Britain should 'build in lines' along transportation routes rather than plonk New Town (nowadays Garden City) blobs down around major cities. One implication of this linear thinking is that we ought to preserve "wayleaves" - such as the old GC London extension or the LNWR Oxford - Cambridge line, but free marketeers always dismiss this, preferring to sell for short term profits. dh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Well, actually, it is called Track Access Charging, and it has existed since 1996, agreed by the Office of Rail Regulation and charged by NR to train operators. Fares to passengers or charges to freight customers are derived only partly from these. France already charges a form of road pricing, through privately-operated tolls on almost all motorways, where the contracted operator maintains the routes to a pre-ordained standard, but the infrastructure is ultimately owned by the state. It has allowed the absence of road tax, and the legality of vehicles is ensured by the display of a current insurance, miniaturised certificate in the windscreen. You have the choice of using the very free-flowing (usually) autoroutes or clogging up the local villages and towns on the free Routes Nationales (many of which however are quite good). The UK used to have a similar system, called Turnpikes, as someone has already said. Just why the state adopted the road system in the 19C, but not the rail system, remains a mystery to me, at least for trunk roads. There are many explanations, as opposed to factual descriptions, but none definitive. Broadly, the British hated private monopolies, but this didn't extend to a state monopoly, so the rationale is confusing, especially after WW1, which was reversed for a time after WW2. The French state strictly directed the evolution of their rail system (as did the Prussians) from the start, and the state built the railways the private sector would not, from the late 19C, before adopting them all in the 1930's (and then proceeding to close many of them down....). Two completely different approaches separated by 30 miles of water, as with many other things. Road pricing seeks to enforce the true cost of journeys on to users, which is effectively done already by fuel taxation, so it is a form of "let the market decide", but it is equally a form of regressive taxation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Well, actually, it is called Track Access Charging, and it has existed since 1996, agreed by the Office of Rail Regulation and charged by NR to train operators. Fares to passengers or charges to freight customers are derived only partly from these. But that's not the same either - as only a portion of NR's costs are paid by the TOCs, much is now paid by direct grant from the government - and again, how accurately it reflects the real cost of providing a given level of infrastructure is very questionable. All railway finance in the UK is extremely arcane, which does IMHO lend arrows to the likes of the writer of this - i'm pretty convinced for example that the main lines into London which they advocate changing are actually extremely efficient (financially) ways of moving the vast numbers of people involved, that'll be why so many countries (including those in Asia and South America) are building shiny new railways! Many parts of the UK network though won't be so efficient (financially) - but then the pressure to convert those lines to a handy road won't be as great either as the demand for a new road will also be less. Be clear - i'm not ADVOCATING road and rail pricing here, i'm interested that they see one as being a great thing, and the other one not. I would however LOVE to see the UK's railways have a nice clear set of accounts where we get to know: Cost of providing existing infrastructure Cost of improving/expanding infrastructure Cost of train operations Income from passenger receipts Income from freight operators Government contribution Other income That ^ would be basic info in any industry, but the UK rail industry has been (deliberately?) set up to be opaque. I'm convinced that does rail no favours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted February 13, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 13, 2015 Also presumably road pricing also requires government control - unless the report (which I haven't read) envisages a return to turnpikes We had road pricing of sorts on the Dartford tunnel/QE2 bridge on the understanding that once the construction was paid for (this was back in the 60's/70's the crossing would be free. And then along came privatisation, the running of the crossing was handed over to a private company and it still isn't paid for despite that private company making massive profits. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now