Sadly when it comes to actually decarbonising transport, this sentence effectively kills the entire plan in one go. We cannot decarbonise transport (or anything much for that matter) by just continuing doing what we do, but slightly better.
Germany has a trial section
Sadly when it comes to actually decarbonising transport, this sentence effectively kills the entire plan in one go. We cannot decarbonise transport (or anything much for that matter) by just continuing doing what we do, but slightly better.
Whilst there may be wonderful new technologies in 20 years, a plan that amounts to "lets hope something comes along in 20 years which magically solves all our problems" isn't really a plan.
Maybe but twin pantographs is a recipe for dewirements let alone all the infrastructure required to support it. We need a policy that electrifys freight lines first and shifts long distance road haulage off the roads unless its fuelled by zero emissions propulsion. Yes it will cost more but thats the price to reduce our impact on the climate.
Why is it unreasonable to expect people to modify their behaviours, if those behaviours are immediately harmful? For example, despite various recent medical advances, we still expect people to wash their hands to reduce the spread of germs. We expect various manufacturing processes to be hygienic for a similar reason. Both of these cost money to do, but are well worth it.
Only insiders and time travellers have read it. It hasn't been published yet, despite the press release saying it has.
I think they say it is being published today rather than already has. It might be that, somewhat unusually, the government is actually waiting until the announcement in the House of Commons and making the document available to MPs before publishing online. However that doesn't seem to have stopped a few people making their minds up on it first or stating if it doesn't stop everything but fully electrified railways (and maybe busses / trams / bandwagons) it must be invalid.
In extreme cases, public behaviour can be mandated to change. Covid has demonstrated that. As I understand it, the government isn't planning on even recommending that people fly less, let alone mandating it, on the basis that someone else will sort it out in The Future™.
Expect a bit more detail when TDNS version 2 is published soon... (which has to come after TDP publication)
Nearly half that £27bn is for maintenance, and the rest of it is for bypasses or junction improvements. Many of which also improve things for cyclists and bus users (e.g. the A14 rebuild near Huntingdon)
I share the scepticism but like it or not, this is the government we have to work around. At least it re-states (i.e. doesn't go back on) the policies already stated. I agree that the next step is a real strategic plan with commitments to percentages of the network electrified by given milestones, with investment committed to get the rolling programme off the ground. Drip feeding small extensions just won't cut it and battery, hydrogen and third rail extension get a lot of page space and a lot of ministerial attention, but are fringe issues in terms of the overall target.
It is actually an advance, not merely a restatement, to have written assertions, in a government-produced document, that there will be an electrification programme as described in the quotes in #21.
