Captain Bigwig
Member
- Joined
- 16 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 54
No, it isn't, and perhaps it should have done. I took the number from here:Is that including London Underground stations?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_London_railway_stations
No, it isn't, and perhaps it should have done. I took the number from here:Is that including London Underground stations?
You're comparing apples with bananas. For a small town, it's highly likely all the housing will be within a 3 mile radius of a station - for somewhere bigger i.e. over 50,000 that's far less likely.
but you both miss the point that 4 or 5 miles is easily bikeable for a lot of the population - if they dared and if they could be bothered.That rather reinforces my point that if you have very big town, you're going to need to have station somewhere near to the middle of it if it is going to be accessible on foot for a large proportion of it's population, not four miles away.
but you both miss the point that 4 or 5 miles is easily bikeable for a lot of the population - if they dared and if they could be bothered.
Alternatively, if public transport was planned and coordinated then walk and/or bus then train would be a healthier and lower carbon way of commuting too.
It is, but it doesn't help when the town gets much bigger than 1 mile radius from the station... 15mins walk is OK, but beyond that 5 or 10 (even 15 or 20?) minutes on a bike gets a lot more attractive than walking! That way 1 station can serve a commuter town - and "hinterland" - of 4 miles diameter, or about 12 square miles.Well it could be. But its still not as convenient as being within walking distance of the train. That is easiest achieved with a station in the centre of the urban area.
It is, but it doesn't help when the town gets much bigger than 1 mile radius from the station... 15mins walk is OK, but beyond that 5 or 10 (even 15 or 20?) minutes on a bike gets a lot more attractive than walking! That way 1 station can serve a commuter town - and "hinterland" - of 4 miles diameter, or about 12 square miles.
Cambridge to Haverhill would be nice but looking at what it would cost lot more than they say (crossing A11!). Going to Granta park and the rest of the science parks around it would make sense if it was light rail. There are already dedicated bus links to Granta Park from Cambridge and Whittlesford railway station.
What is needed is proper integration between rail/tram/bus.However I think there is far too much “heavy rail is the solution, let’s crowbar it into a problem”
Buses are the answer to most of these problems. People are giving reasons why not but I believe it would be cheaper and easier to solve those problems rather than build and run heavy rail. Work at giving buses the properties that people see as the advantage of trains.
that may be a good idea...I don’t think these campaigns help themselves by having lists. It is far too easy for cynics to pick a ridiculous scheme off the list and use its presence to ridicule and discredit the whole concept.
Pick the best one, or at most best five, and really concentrate on those. Gain credibility and get shovels in the ground then use the success to boost the next best ones.
...but that is not! We learnt that with and after Beeching. It's why I object to most "turn a railway into a tramline" schemes, and why I think the Stourbridge shuttle is a success: the rail network needs to stay as an integrated whole with coordinated timetabling and through ticketing, etc.However I think there is far too much “heavy rail is the solution, let’s crowbar it into a problem”
Buses are the answer to most of these problems. People are giving reasons why not but I believe it would be cheaper and easier to solve those problems rather than build and run heavy rail. Work at giving buses the properties that people see as the advantage of trains.
that may be a good idea......but that is not! We learnt that with and after Beeching. It's why I object to most "turn a railway into a tramline" schemes, and why I think the Stourbridge shuttle is a success: the rail network needs to stay as an integrated whole with coordinated timetabling and through ticketing, etc.
While joining up our transport modes would be well-worth doing, I think we actually have a better chance of a few rail reopenings. Most co-ordination would be done at council level and they are about to lose even more of their funding, so "nice-to-have" things will probably never happen.You didn’t read the whole paragraph then?
Work on getting integrated timetabling, through ticketing, toilet availability, better bus stops etc.
Campaign to change the status quo rather than waste energy on heavy rail dreams that will never see shovels.
Devolve local transport and let them franchise (as concessions probably) railways with connecting railway buses included
So why would “nice to have” rail openings, with far lower and far more concentrated benefits happen?Most co-ordination would be done at council level and they are about to lose even more of their funding, so "nice-to-have" things will probably never happen
You didn’t read the whole paragraph then?
Work on getting integrated timetabling, through ticketing, toilet availability, better bus stops etc.
Campaign to change the status quo rather than waste energy on heavy rail dreams that will never see shovels.
Devolve local transport and let them franchise (as concessions probably) railways with connecting railway buses included
That is why you make them part of the concession.All good ideas and I support them ...... but unfortunately since deregulation/privatisation of buses nobody trusts that a bus will be permanent to the extent that they will plan their lives around it.
Yes - good scheme and logically it might work .....but I doubt it. Buses are perceived as temporary and even if you paint them in matching colours and run them out of the platforms in the station it's not the same as rails in (or on) the ground. Also you would have to allocate franchises for 30 years to give even the impression of permanence. I agree with the idea - but truthfully doubt if it will overcome the psychological disadvantage. I would like to see it tried and be proved wrong. (!!)That is why you make them part of the concession.
because there is rumoured to be a general election in the offing? ... and because a lot of MPs are looking at not getting back in again? Or because a small rail reopening is quite self-contained, funded by central government and (financially) relatively small beer in the wider scale of things?So why would “nice to have” rail openings, with far lower and far more concentrated benefits happen?
A possibly non permanent bus service is better than 30 years of consultations and desktop studies.....
I don't think it's enough to use the inadequacy of our system for funding and commissioning railway re-openings as an excuse not to try and progress any. Rather it should be a catalyst to change that system.
Change the system? Like nationalisation? Or something else? Try and find any political consensus for any worthwhile change! I'm with @DarloRich, better to work with current constraints as far as possible rather than wait years/decades for the political winds to change direction.
That is why you make them part of the concession.
The new stations fund bucked the trend in that respect. It would have seemed quite unlikely in the distant past, but it came about.
The new stations fund bucked the trend in that respect. It would have seemed quite unlikely in the distant past, but it came about.
Exactly. Given that for many of the proposed new lines, you could have a much more frequent bus service at a fraction of the operating cost of a rail link, and minimal capital cost (in comparison), it is clearly better for society to have a bus service. What is needed is commitment to the bus service, in terms of frequency, quality and price that is at least as firm a the commitment to a rail service.
The new stations fund was always there, just in another fund that was rather broader. The fund for new stations was specifically split out to make it more obvious.
I don't think it's enough to use the inadequacy of our system for funding and commissioning railway re-openings as an excuse not to try and progress any. Rather it should be a catalyst to change that system
We can all dream about an end to bus deregulation, but shouldn't we be working within the system we have, rather than dreaming of changes without political consensus etc...
I don't think it's enough to use the inadequacy of our system for funding and commissioning railway re-openings as an excuse not to try and progress any. Rather it should be a catalyst to change that system.
We can all dream about an end to bus deregulation, but shouldn't we be working within the system we have, rather than dreaming of changes without political consensus etc...
I’m confused....