The Industry vs Its 'Customers'

[martynbristow]

I've stayed rather quiet in this argument so far, but Greenback, Arctic Troll and starmill have pretty much said my own feelings over the course of this thread - I pretty much agree with what you say. I'll also again refer to London Underground, which is state owned however much anyone tries to dress it up as anything else, and functions extremely well as a public service (yes it may have some critics, but everything will and the majority of people believe it's a very good system). I believe that the railways as a whole are a public service, and that LUL should be a bit of an example to the rest of the railway network.



Actually, I'd argue that capitalism also feeds an "every man for himself" and "dog eat dog" culture, which is goes against the work-together-ethic that allowed civilisation to exist in the first place. I'd more say that it's pure communism that breeds the something for nothing culture (which, for the record, I see as being just as bad as capitalism), and the envy you mention is bred by both. Neither works as a purity - a balance is needed between the two.

Yes very true.
The problem is TfL is controlled by Borris and has a central management structure.
The setup makes it hard to *pass the buck*.
Who takes responsibility for the national network :/

 

[Metrailway]

No it doesn't.

And even if it did, that's not my point. My point is that the road network is not expected to "pay for itself" or "raise revenue", the government just writes the cheque out of general taxation. If fuel excise duty doesn't cover the whole cost (and it doesn't) then the cost will be funded from other sources, such as income tax.

Road users do not pay- with a few small exceptions, such as the Dartford Crossing- towards the infrastructure costs of the roads they use.

I'm sorry but your assertion is wrong.

The Government raises approximately £32 billion p.a. on taxes (excluding VAT) on motoring.

In y/e 2013, approximately £26 billion was raised in Hydrocarbon Oils Duty; £5 billion in Vehicle Excise duty paid by households and approx £1 billion by businesses. (Blue Book - ONS)

Total state expenditure (capital & current) on all transport (both public and private) is approx. £20.4 billion in 2013-14 with the money spent on all roads in the UK being approximately £8.5 billion. (Table TSGB 1303 - DfT)

Even if you take into account road accidents which the DfT calculates at £14.7 billion (Table RAS 6003 - DfT), motorists still provide the state with a net income.

Roads have generally been expected by the state to pay its way. In 1909 Liberal Chancellor David Lloyd George announced that the road network will be self financing and the revenue raised from duties on cars became hypothecated. This hypothecation ended in the 1930s due to the fact that the revenue raised from motorists was not solely spent on roads as the roads did not warrant such spending. This is still the case today.

Modern governments still have the same expectation as Lloyd George. Road pricing was proposed by Labour in 2005 and the Coalition introduced the HGV road charging scheme in 2014.

 

[Starmill]

Even if you take into account road accidents which the DfT calculates at £14.7 billion (Table RAS 6003 - DfT), motorists still provide the state with a net income.

And so they should! Rather more than at present, and the money should be ring-fenced for spending on public transport. Why? Because driving motor vehicles is essentially dirty, irresponsible gambling with our future that people are forced into because the alternatives are all so poor. The quality of public transport in parts of this country is still laughable.

 

[Class 170101]

Even when people started to use trains to get to and from their employment, the distances covered were far shorter than they are now. The result of societal and economic changes is that we now have a lot of housing which is not within walking distance of most current places of employment.

Technological changes have also played a part.

When the railways were constructed 20mph was considered an achievement. Now they can do upto 140mph.

Journey times have also steadily reduced between railway stations. Manchester to London is around 2hrs 10 minutes but hasn't always been so.

Conversely Technology could reduce the need for railways why travel to a meeting when it can be done via video conferencing?

 

[Medicy]

I would argue that everyone has a right to travel - we shouldn't be legally restricted to an area immediately surrounding our home town.

I would argue that, as part of the social contract where we contribute collectively to a state, that that state has a duty to ensure that we can achieve our right to travel in a modern way as to achieve a floor minimum on on social equality and therefore limit inequality, to the utmost where that is affordable and fair according to taxation and the effects of that upon the population.

I would argue that the UK government can afford a rail service as that is a small portion of its budget and that it values other transport systems in reflection of their economic value (in the same way that, for example, the road system doesn't 'make a profit' but exists as a social equality-promoter and an arm of national economic development. For reference, road taxes do not directly fund roads and instead go into the central funding pool, and there are limited tollroads and widespread opposition to 'black-box' satellite-tracking tax boxes).

I would argue that extending individuals' ability to extend their radius of job-seeking opportunities increases the number of jobs they can apply for and therefore the likelihood that their skill-set will be matched with an equivalently-skilled job, benefitting both the individual and the wider economy.

And that the rail system increases the ability of businesses to do business within the country, increasing intra-UK trade, as well as leisure travel (and educational travel, allowing students to achieve secondary/tertiary education in the most appropriate facility thereby maximising the benefits thereof).

I would argue that public transport, able to transport far more people for far less energy than private transport, is much more suitable for a world which is at risk of problematic climate change and at the limit of infrastructure capacity in places.

I would therefore argue that widespread, affordable public transport, with large incentives for regular use, is essential.

 

[Greenback]

Capitalism doesn't work under laissez-faire and it needs some regulation to enable it to gain the best, as it encorages a race to the bottom. However it also demands payment for work and for efficiency which other systems don't. We need careful economic regulation and social responsibility governed by principles.

Efficiency almost always seems to be define din monetary terms, and by other means, such as looking after the environment or happiness/contentment. While I obviously agree that capitalism isn't effective under laissez-faire, I still think that in the longer term, a better method will evolve than what we have now.

It will be long after my time on this earth and I've no idea what model it would be!

I understand your argument but I think the speed at which you can travel now has exasperated the whole issue that people believe they have a right to live a long distance away from their place of work. There was a study a while back which said people who walk or cycle to work tend to be much happier. The lure of the higher salaries in the big cities and the speed in which people can travel to and from those big cities has changed the way people view travel. Even though people have made a conscious decision to live a long distance from their place of work they still see it as a necessity to be able to commute even though they could live closer or work locally.

As many have said, though, not everyone has the ability to move around the country as Mr Tebbit once urged. Although it sounds good in theory, there are costs involved in relocation, disruption to education, and there's also the fat that with both partners usually in work, both would need to be certain of a job otherwise the increased salary would be written off by the loss of the second income, maybe temporarily but for a good length of time.

The social aspect needs to be considered. It's a big decision to move away from friends and family, having to find new clubs or societies, sports team to join and so on. There's no guarantee that someone relocating will find as much enjoyment in their new place of residence, though I accept that some will agree it's better, it just isn't guaranteed.

Llanelli is full of people who don't want to move away form the area for those reasons. I speak to them every week. Most are in the 40's and above, as the longer you've lived somewhere the harder it is to move. That's why commuter traffic to Cardiff, Swansea and even Neath, Port Talbot and Bridgend has increased. Local employment opportunities have diminished, with the closure not just of factories and works, but also things like the local tax office, all in the name of efficiency, of course.

The effect of this has been that not only do people choose to live in Llanelli and work elsewhere, but they also are forced to do so, by being given the option of taking redundancy or moving to a merged office.

I'm sure it's very similar in other industrial areas, where the concentration of local services into cities has meant the same thing. I don't see how it can really be argued that public transport is anything other than a very valuable part of the national infrastructure, too valuable to be left to the private sector to operate as it likes.

I agree that people who walk or cycle to work are happier. The daily commute can be very dispiriting whether it's by rail or road. Sadly, when your are moved to a new base 20 miles away, most people aren't able to walk or cycle.

Capitalism works as it rewards hard work and innovation. Socialism feeds envy and a something for nothing culture.

I never mentioned socialism. I can't see how capitalism is working when there is so much poverty and starvation across the world. If it was working, maybe we wouldn't need to have Comic Relief, Children in Need and all the other charities asking us for money all the time.

Technological changes have also played a part.

When the railways were constructed 20mph was considered an achievement. Now they can do upto 140mph.

Journey times have also steadily reduced between railway stations. Manchester to London is around 2hrs 10 minutes but hasn't always been so.

Conversely Technology could reduce the need for railways why travel to a meeting when it can be done via video conferencing?

You are correct about technological advances. There's no doubt that increased speeds have made long distance commuting more attractive to those who do have a genuine choice in such matters. It's also helped those that don't have so much of a choice, and are forced into it.

I don't think that video conferencing will ever replace face to face meetings. It has long been suggested that it will have a major impact, but I don't think it ever will. People enjoy face to face interaction. It's more effective in team building, it leads to a better understanding of the business for everyone participating, and all being in a meeting room provides a better environment than everyone being in their own office, prone to distractions from urgent matters arising and interruptions.

I would argue that everyone has a right to travel - we shouldn't be legally restricted to an area immediately surrounding our home town.

I would argue that, as part of the social contract where we contribute contributively to a state, that that state has a duty to ensure that we can achieve our right to travel in a modern way as to achieve a floor minimum on on social equality and therefore limit inequality, to the utmost where that is affordable and fair according to taxation and the effects of that upon the population.

I would argue that the UK government can afford a rail service as that is a small portion of its budget and that it values other transport systems in reflection of their economic value (in the same way that, for example, the road system doesn't 'make a profit' but exists as a social equality-promoter and an arm of national economic development. For reference, road taxes do not directly fund roads and instead go into the central funding pool, and there are limited tollroads and widespread opposition to 'black-box' satellite-tracking tax boxes).

I would argue that extending individuals' ability to extend their radius of job-seeking opportunities increases the number of jobs they can apply for and therefore the likelihood that their skill-set will be matched with an equivalently-skilled job, benefitting both the individual and the wider economy.

And that the rail system increases the ability of businesses to do businesses within the country, increasing intra-UK trade, as well as leisure travel (and educational travel, allowing students to achieve secondary/tertiary education in the most appropriate facility thereby maximising the benefits thereof).

I would argue that public transport, able to transport far more people for far less energy that private transport, is much more suitable for a world which is at risk of problematic climate change and at the limit of infrastructure capacity.

I would therefore argue that widespread, affordable public transport, with large incentives for regular use, is essential.

I agree with all that. Well said.

 

[Starmill]

I would argue that public transport, able to transport far more people for far less energy that private transport, is much more suitable for a world which is at risk of problematic climate change and at the limit of infrastructure capacity.

I would therefore argue that widespread, affordable public transport, with large incentives for regular use, is essential.

Well said! Very well said indeed. Its a real shame I haven't seen much evidence of our prospective new components of government even acknowledge this, let alone propose to do anything about it, apart from some mention by the Greens.

 

[al78]

I'm sorry but your assertion is wrong.

The Government raises approximately £32 billion p.a. on taxes (excluding VAT) on motoring.

In y/e 2013, approximately £26 billion was raised in Hydrocarbon Oils Duty; £5 billion in Vehicle Excise duty paid by households and approx £1 billion by businesses. (Blue Book - ONS)

Total state expenditure (capital & current) on all transport (both public and private) is approx. £20.4 billion in 2013-14 with the money spent on all roads in the UK being approximately £8.5 billion. (Table TSGB 1303 - DfT)

Even if you take into account road accidents which the DfT calculates at £14.7 billion (Table RAS 6003 - DfT), motorists still provide the state with a net income.

Roads have generally been expected by the state to pay its way. In 1909 Liberal Chancellor David Lloyd George announced that the road network will be self financing and the revenue raised from duties on cars became hypothecated. This hypothecation ended in the 1930s due to the fact that the revenue raised from motorists was not solely spent on roads as the roads did not warrant such spending. This is still the case today.

Modern governments still have the same expectation as Lloyd George. Road pricing was proposed by Labour in 2005 and the Coalition introduced the HGV road charging scheme in 2014.

You are ignoring other externalised costs, for example, air and noise pollution, congestion, NHS costs due to sedentary lifestyles (which driving encourages). On top of road casualties these social and environmental externalities are estimated up to £56bn in 2010. This doesn't include other social costs which are not trivial to calculate, such as community severance, disruption to tranquility and landscape, and waster and water pollution. Overall the full environmental and social costs of motoring are not being paid for by motorists.

http://www.ippr.org/assets/media/im...2012/08/war-on-motoring-myth_Aug2012_9542.pdf

http://www.greens-efa.eu/fileadmin/dam/Documents/Studies/Costs_of_cars/The_true_costs_of_cars_EN.pdf

 

[Dave1987]

Those people on here who believe the railway is a public service can you please explain if/why you feel air travel isn't a pubic service then? It falls under the same premise as rail travel being a public service.

 

[Greenback]

Those people on here who believe the railway is a public service can you please explain if/why you feel air travel isn't a pubic service then? It falls under the same premise as rail travel being a public service.

My reasons for drawing a clear distinction between the two are:

Aircraft don't transport a large number of people short distances between villages, towns and cities the way that rail does.

Air travel is far less environmentally friendly than rail.

Air does not transport as much freight as rail does, again, between many locations across the UK.

The simplest way I can think of it is that air travel is an economic necessity in terms of international transport, but far less so in terms of UK travel. Therefore, airports and airlines are not such an essential part of the UK economy as the rail system.

 

[martynbristow]

Those people on here who believe the railway is a public service can you please explain if/why you feel air travel isn't a pubic service then? It falls under the same premise as rail travel being a public service.

I think there needs to be some form of differentiation between essential and non-essential travel.
If arguments are based on getting a short distance to work (suburban rail) these should be considered differently to long distance services which should compete with air travel.

I'm happy to commute a short distance on a train daily to get into the city and I want flexibility, frequency and enough room to breathe.
However on a long journey for example to London I want a seat, refreshments, a power socket etc. This I am willing to pay marginally more for.
You are right to say you NEED to travel into the city.
The problem comes when you consider small regional lines that serve both groups to varying extents.

 

[Greenback]

Many long distance services are comprised of many short distance travellers with the occasional passenger making a long journey eg Milford Haven to Manchester, or Liverpool to Newcastle. Where do you draw the line?

What about Reading to London, where there are long distance services plus many short distance London commuters?

 

[dcsprior]

Those people on here who believe the railway is a public service can you please explain if/why you feel air travel isn't a pubic service then? It falls under the same premise as rail travel being a public service.

In some circumstances it is - for instance the air services to some small Scottish Islands see some subsidy as they're considered to be a vital service

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Those people on here who believe the railway is a public service can you please explain if/why you feel air travel isn't a pubic service then? It falls under the same premise as rail travel being a public service.

There is surely a very great difference between what is pubic and what is public...hock:

 

[martynbristow]

Many long distance services are comprised of many short distance travellers with the occasional passenger making a long journey eg Milford Haven to Manchester, or Liverpool to Newcastle. Where do you draw the line?

What about Reading to London, where there are long distance services plus many short distance London commuters?

Exactly my point.
But you need to consider some form of divide.
If your considering Milford Haven-Manchester it crosses the straddles the boundary and causes confusion.
Cardiffs metro service should be controlled by Cardiff City Council as its clearly commuting within the local area.
But Cardiff-London should be an intercity service which is private. There can be sufficient competition.

Liverpool-Newcastle & TPE - This is clearly an IC service, if you don't want to pay a premium then there is the subsidised all local service.

If it's about commutes is is this a choice commute or an essential one. Short distance travellers should be discouraged from using long distance services clogging them up.

 

[Greenback]

I'm not disagreeing with you on this, it's just a question of where you would differentiate between the two.

For example, people commute into Cardiff from well outside what could be considered the metro area. Conversely, not everyone in the metro area will be commuting into Cardiff.

People also commute between Swindon and Reading, or Bristol and Swindon. Why would these people not be allowed access to a public service rather than a private one.

I don't think it's at all clear why some should be considered essential, yet others not, just because some flows have historically been seen as inter city while others haven't.

I suppose one solution would be to put a subsidised public local service between these points, but what impact would that have on route capacity?

 

[ComUtoR]

Aircraft don't transport a large number of people short distances between villages, towns and cities the way that rail does.

What about internal flights ? How do you see them ?

Air travel is far less environmentally friendly than rail.

In terms of what ? CO2 ? (not all rail is electrified and the electric still needs to be generated somehow). What about the impact on the land with rail ? I'm not sure that those opposing the high speed rail link would agree and have a justified point about the environmental impact of rail. I'm also sure that those opposing additional runways and the proposed new airport plans. I would certainly like to see what evidence there is from both sides.

The simplest way I can think of it is that air travel is an economic necessity in terms of international transport, but far less so in terms of UK travel. Therefore, airports and airlines are not such an essential part of the UK economy as the rail system.

Very much have to disagree here. One of the many attractions of London is that it provides opportunity for international buisness. Following some of the debate about airports recently the main political rhetoric is that we need the additional runways because of the important links for buisness. It does however; go hand in hand with rail because once arrive in the country they need to get into London. HS2....

Rail and air travel has become inextricably linked and they have an increasingly symbiotic relationship. Economically we need both.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I find it very interesting that some members who have posted on this thread are suggesting that it should become much more expensive to use our road network. The problem is this would increase the price of the things that we buy that are delivered by road i.e. pretty much everything. This of course would then see inflation rise way above the 2.5% target that the Government has set the Bank Of England.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And so they should! Rather more than at present, and the money should be ring-fenced for spending on public transport. Why? Because driving motor vehicles is essentially dirty, irresponsible gambling with our future that people are forced into because the alternatives are all so poor. The quality of public transport in parts of this country is still laughable.

Not necessarily so. Many people in this country are loathed to use public transport because of the invasion of their own personal space. In all honesty if I had a sensible option to drive to work I would but my commute from here in Richmond to central London is simply not viable by anything other than the train or the Tube.

 

[Starmill]

I find it very interesting that some members who have posted on this thread are suggesting that it should become much more expensive to use our road network. The problem is this would increase the price of the things that we buy that are delivered by road i.e. pretty much everything. This of course would then see inflation rise way above the 2.5% target that the Government has set the Bank Of England.

Meh, the Government can pick and choose who to charge. Quadruple the VED on private vehicles and remove all the exceptions apart from for zero-emission vehicles, that will soon get people using trains and buses. The problem is, there has to be somewhere for all of these people to go first...

There's also no reason why we can't encourage the further development of rail freight.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Meh, the Government can pick and choose who to charge. Quadruple the VED on private vehicles and remove all the exceptions apart from for zero-emission vehicles, that will soon get people using trains and buses. The problem is, there has to be somewhere for all of these people to go first...

There's also no reason why we can't encourage the further development of rail freight.

Well sadly there is. I'm afraid all too often rail freight is not competitive against road haulage in terms of delivery times and in many instances cost.

 

[Starmill]

In terms of what ? CO2 ? (not all rail is electrified and the electric still needs to be generated somehow). What about the impact on the land with rail ? I'm not sure that those opposing the high speed rail link would agree and have a justified point about the environmental impact of rail.

What, the environmental impact of HS2 vs that of the M40? Yeah, I wonder which is greater...

And you are quite right, the only completely zero carbon emission journey is the one that isn't made.

But don't try to argue that rail is more CO2 intensive than driving your car - that's nonsense. Even for a diesel train.

http://knowledge.allianz.com/mobili...hich-transport-methods-produce-most-emissions

 

[RichmondCommu]

Meh, the Government can pick and choose who to charge. Quadruple the VED on private vehicles and remove all the exceptions apart from for zero-emission vehicles, that will soon get people using trains and buses. The problem is, there has to be somewhere for all of these people to go first...

However you are then placing a hefty fine on people who choose not to use public transport because they do not wish to see their own personal space invaded by others. There are many people outside of London who have no intention of using public transport full stop!

 

[Starmill]

Not necessarily so. Many people in this country are loathed to use public transport because of the invasion of their own personal space. In all honesty if I had a sensible option to drive to work I would but my commute from here in Richmond to central London is simply not viable by anything other than the train or the Tube.

I'm sure this is the case. And to these people I say that overcrowding isn't nice, and we should do everything we can to provide more seats and more space on our trains. But also: get over yourselves. There are many of us who have no choice. Your personal space for a short while is not more important than limiting environmental damage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However you are then placing a hefty fine on people who choose not to use public transport because they do not wish to see their own personal space invaded by others. There are many people outside of London who have no intention of using public transport full stop!

I strongly agree - these people are the problem, and it was to them that my 'irresponsible' comment was mostly directed.

 

[fowler9]

What, the environmental impact of HS2 vs that of the M40? Yeah, I wonder which is greater...

And you are quite right, the only completely zero carbon emission journey is the one that isn't made.

But don't try to argue that rail is more CO2 intensive than driving your car - that's nonsense. Even for a diesel train.

http://knowledge.allianz.com/mobili...hich-transport-methods-produce-most-emissions

I feel Transavia got picked on a bit there. Ha ha. Also I was lead to believe that modern airliners are more efficient per head per mile than cars are currently. I guess it all comes down to what is essential travel.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm sure this is the case. And to these people I say that overcrowding isn't nice, and we should do everything we can to provide more seats and more space on our trains. But also: get over yourselves. There are many of us who have no choice. Your personal space for a short while is not more important than limiting environmental damage.

To be honest from my own point of view standing for around 25 minutes give or take is not too much of an issue, although it does help that for my age (late 40's) I'm in decent physical shape.

However what I would like to be able to do is commute to work whilst listening to whatever takes my fancy at a reasonably loud volume (and perhaps sing along!!) without upsetting anyone. In other words enjoy my own personal space.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I feel Transavia got picked on a bit there. Ha ha. Also I was lead to believe that modern airliners are more efficient per head per mile than cars are currently. I guess it all comes down to what is essential travel.

The point is you and I have both traveled to far flung places and certainly in my case I'm a more rounded individual for having done so. However without flying it would have been impossible for my family and I to have visited the likes of Cambodia and many other places, thus missing out on wonderful experiences.

Not only that but if you are traveling from say the South Coast to Scotland, its much quicker to fly. Even with HS2 extended to Scotland that would still be the case.

 

[fowler9]

To be honest from my own point of view standing for around 25 minutes give or take is not too much of an issue, although it does help that for my age (late 40's) I'm in decent physical shape.

However what I would like to be able to do is commute to work whilst listening to whatever takes my fancy at a reasonably loud volume (and perhaps sing along!!) without upsetting anyone. In other words enjoy my own personal space.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The point is you and I have both traveled to far flung places and certainly in my case I'm a more rounded individual for having done so. However without flying it would have been impossible for my family and I to have visited the likes of Cambodia and many other places, thus missing out on wonderful experiences.

Not only that but if you are traveling from say the South Coast to Scotland, its much quicker to fly. Even with HS2 extended to Scotland that would still be the case.

Yes I completely agree as regards traveling. I only really mentioned none essential travel because I was thinking, well kind of covering myself, I didn't really need to make any of the plane journies I have made (Perhaps a mates wedding in Ireland but even then).

I was just surprised that those stats showed air travel to be less economical when I really was of the understanding that, like I said, modern airliners are more economical than cars per mile per person on board.

I mean look at how economical the ship appeared on the graph. Is it really necessary for all of that produce and luxury goods to be shipped right around the planet? Of course not.

Not arguing with you there by the way, just happened to be replying at the start.

 

[Bedpan]

Meh, the Government can pick and choose who to charge. Quadruple the VED on private vehicles and remove all the exceptions apart from for zero-emission vehicles, that will soon get people using trains and buses. The problem is, there has to be somewhere for all of these people to go first...

There's also no reason why we can't encourage the further development of rail freight.

Yes, if there are trains and buses to use! But I spent 15 years working in Hertford and it would have been impossible to get there by public transport, particularly as I often finished after 7pm when the last bus had gone. I would have been very miffed if my VED was quadrupled bearing in mind that I would have far preferred to have commuted by train but was prevented from doing so by Dr Beeching. (Unless I travelled via central London).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm sure this is the case. And to these people I say that overcrowding isn't nice, and we should do everything we can to provide more seats and more space on our trains.

One of the reasons that comes to my mind are the areas where railway stations that once served communities fell by the wayside during different parts of the 20th century from the 1930's onwards. In many of the villages in those rural areas, what was the replacement bus service did not last for a great many years leaving these settlements served by neither rail nor by bus.

Recent years have seen bus services in areas where there is no railway station for miles, pared to the bone in terms of service provision or completely dispensed with. jcollins is a forum member who most certainly has his finger on the pulse of public transport provision in my very own area of Cheshire East and I would ask you to view the Buses and Coaches forum of this website.

You will all be aware that my good lady wife and I, both now septuagenarians, live in a most rural area of Cheshire East and have two 4 x 4 with which we make our travel arrangements, both local and otherwise. We live over two miles away from Prestbury railway station and from the nearest bus stop on the number 19 bus service from Prestbury to Macclesfield. Why on earth should we be penalised for the use of our vehicles where there is no alternative. Is it that you consider that walking two miles there and two miles back is a healthy life style experience for septuagenarians. Do not forget, at the age of 67 in 2012, I suffered from a major stroke then a subsequent mini stroke in 2013. My good lady wife does not hold with the idea of using companies such as Ocado to deliver our weekly shopping requirements as she prefers to personally select the food items from Waitrose or from Marks and Spencer, both in the Wilmslow and Handforth Dean areas. Would you insist on elderly people such as us on "lugging around" the weekly shopping on a two mile walking journey homewards?

The days of Jean-Paul Marat and The National Convention are now long passed, but it appears that some of their cherished views are unfortunately still alive and well upon this particular thread.

 

[ComUtoR]

But don't try to argue that rail is more CO2 intensive than driving your car - that's nonsense. Even for a diesel train.

Way to misquote...


I haven't tried to argue that rail is more CO2 intensive than your car. So to reiterate the point in which you have misquoted (quite badly)

Greenback posted regarding Air travel being less environmentally friendly than Rail. So I asked for clarification. If he is thinking directly in terms of CO2 then he makes a point BUT it is only part of the story. Rail has ripped through the land like the Blight. You are free to google the environmental impact of HS2. The railway has a very direct impact which cannot be ignored.

Secondly you have to remember that the electric that a choo choo uses has to be generated from somewhere. I would argue that power stations are a necessity but electric is not "clean" by any margin.

The problem with all of the environmental debate is that both air and rail have a significant impact. If your taking a small part of that to make your point then your well off the mark. In pure terms of CO2 usage of a plane compared directly to a train then yeah I can agree but it truly is a very small part of the big picture.

As my eyes open to a wider perspective (I'm getting older) I try to look at everything on a holistic level rather than narrow rhetoric to prove a point.

Greenback is usually pretty good and hopefully has some solid facts I can peruse or can expand his point about the environmental impact.

A small digression...

On a personal note I'm not sure about HS2. There is a buisness case for it and highspeed rail will provide opportunity. As people have posted above I get the feeling that it is part of the problem of pushing people into commuting rather than generating local buisness. I certainly believe that HS2 is more of a political tool than any necessity or public right.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well sadly there is. I'm afraid all too often rail freight is not competitive against road haulage in terms of delivery times and in many instances cost.

The VED charged to HGVs doesn't cover the cost of the damage those vehicles does to the road- car users subsidise HGV hauliers.

The track access fees charged to the FOCs does.

Of course rail haulage won't be competitive on price.

Greenback posted regarding Air travel being less environmentally friendly than Rail. So I asked for clarification. If he is thinking directly in terms of CO2 then he makes a point BUT it is only part of the story. Rail has ripped through the land like the Blight. You are free to google the environmental impact of HS2. The railway has a very direct impact which cannot be ignored.

Any transport infrastructure has an environmental impact, that much is a given.

But when you say "rail has ripped through the land like the Bight", using HS2 as an example, it's probably worth comparing it to the alternatives. In terms of infrastructure importance, I'd say the direct comparator would be a six or eight lane motorway. And I'd much rather live next to railway than a motorway, that's for certain.

As for the environmental impact of air infrastructure, airports are probably one the most environmentally destructive things you can build. Heathrow Airport is named after the village it obliterated, and if they get the third runway that'll see the obliteration of Harmondsworth (including the 14th century barn) too.

As for the difference in how essential air and rail travel is, I don't think it is as simple as that. In certain remote communities, e.g. Isles of Scilly, Hebrides) air travel is an essential transport service. Long-distance rail travel probably isn't an essential service (HS2 certainly isn't). However the long-distance railway lines aren't easily separated from the commuter lines which are essential, so it is easier to take it as one big network.

I'm off to Glasgow this weekend and I'm flying because- even taking into account parking at Luton- it is cheaper than taking the train. That's completely the wrong way round- flying should not be cheaper than taking the train. Sadly, thanks to Virgin's price-gouging, it is. We have completely the wrong priorities.