The Industry vs Its 'Customers'

[WelshBluebird]

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?.

Of course the answer to that is to improve rural public transport so you are no longer 2 miles way from the nearest bus stop.

 

[martynbristow]

Rail Freight is at a huge disadvantage because its lorry orientated. They don't build infrastructure to handle goods near rail lines just next to roads.
Look at Warrington, loads of developments next to the M62 and no rail head conveniently placed. The IKEA deliveries as an example come in by road. Now we have ASDA and a few others in the area.

With respect to VED it should be based upon the vehicle and area you drive in, do driving in rural Cheshire is cheaper than driving through Manchester. So effectively switching to congestion charging with lower fuel duty to offset it.

Arctic Troll you mention it costing more to fly, that to my searching is because advance tickets are sold out! You can't blame virgin for that, they have a finite number of seats on services, they've already gone to 11car trains squeezing more out is going to be difficult.

 

[ComUtoR]

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.

I would agree. I'm of an age where I remember the road to hell being built and the huge amount of naysayers it had. Today I don't think I could live without it.

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.

How many towns and villages were destroyed when the railways were built and how many now stand in the way of HS2 ? Both are very destructive :/

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.

Yes. In fact I would extend the argument to all modes of transport. Again in my latter years I have noticed more and more the requirement for local bus links. Recently I was watching some media regarding the importance of those local routes for the elderly and enabling them to get out the house.

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.

I know someone who is out in Ireland and they also went by air. I've never flown internally but many people do. Business and Leisure reasons. Both generating money for the economy.

 

[martynbristow]

With regards to HS2 I think the phrase is: "Not in my back yard".
People always object to something being contracted affected them but would gladly support it if it benefits them and wasn't invading there ground.
Also people will use any excuse to aftghue against it.
I read an article in the local paper years ago about electrification between Ormskirk and Preston. The argument was: "I don't want a noise railway line in my back yard keeping me awake at all hours". Yet this person neglected that electric railways are cheaper and this would take traffic away from the road on the otherside of his house.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Of course the answer to that is to improve rural public transport so you are no longer 2 miles way from the nearest bus stop.

Obviously, to make such a comment, you have never had any dealings with Cheshire East council. If you send a PM to jcollins, he will give you chapter and verse on how matters are here.

Where we live, in the rural narrow lanes, there are (so it seems) as many tractors as residents, so no bus operator in his right mind would even remotely consider such a proposition. We have two farms and no other houses in our immediate vicinity.

 

[martynbristow]

Obviously, to make such a comment, you have never had any dealings with Cheshire East council. If you send a PM to jcollins, he will give you chapter and verse on how matters are here.

Where we live, in the rural narrow lanes, there are (so it seems) as many tractors as residents, so no bus operator in his right mind would even remotely consider such a proposition. We have two farms and no other houses in our immediate vicinity.

But if you live in a low populated area should the council be responsible for providing transport. You effectively choose to live there so I don't see how its the local tax payer who should be forking out.

I understand you have some personal circumstances but they should be managed through Dial-A-Ride or taxis schemes as this would be most cost effective than running an empty bus.

I think there was a scheme like this were the bus diverted to pick people up from rural areas and not serving them normally.

 

[CC 72100]

But if you live in a low populated area should the council be responsible for providing transport. You effectively choose to live there so I don't see how its the local tax payer who should be forking out.

As someone who lives in a relatively rural area, I certainly have some sympathy with Paul Sidorczuk - round here, having a car or access to one is pretty much the only option.

I struggle with your argument - should equally the local taxpayer be forking out for longer trains / wider roads / more buses because lots of people effectively all chose to live in the same place?

 

[martynbristow]

As someone who lives in a relatively rural area, I certainly have some sympathy with Paul Sidorczuk - round here, having a car or access to one is pretty much the only option.

I struggle with your argument - should equally the local taxpayer be forking out for longer trains / wider roads / more buses because lots of people effectively all chose to live in the same place?

I don't think the tax payer should fork out for anything transport related with a large cost per population. Modest subsidies which clearly benefit the tax payers are ok but spending for the sake of it needs to be controlled. In local areas you need a strategy for public transport not a blank cheque.

How would it cost the tax payer for longer trains in urban areas. I struggle to see the problem as its simple scales of economy. You have the same operating cost you buy an extra train or two and you make larger returns.
In the rural area I grew up in we had a hourly bus which would either be early late or never with no idea of when it would be and it rattled around empty. Simply getting people to use a taxi/dial a ride would give you an infinite better service and remove the huge amount of waste. OH and it would also take you the extra half a mile to your door, which is why all my neighbours either drove, took taxis or had lifts.
I suppose the question is what is the responsibility of the state is it to ensure a basic standard of living and society or a more specific micro-mangement of everything :/

 

[CC 72100]

How would it cost the tax payer for longer trains in urban areas. I struggle to see the problem as its simple scales of economy. You have the same operating cost you buy an extra train or two and you make larger returns.
In the rural area I grew up in we had a hourly bus which would either be early late or never with no idea of when it would be and it rattled around empty. Simply getting people to use a taxi/dial a ride would give you an infinite better service and remove the huge amount of waste. OH and it would also take you the extra half a mile to your door, which is why all my neighbours either drove, took taxis or had lifts.
I suppose the question is what is the responsibility of the state is it to ensure a basic standard of living and society or a more specific micro-mangement of everything :/

So effectively, the government shouldn't bother when it reaches a certain stage and people should fend for themselves? Sorry, no public transport for you, I know you pay your taxes and all but we don't feel your worth it.

Some people on this thread (not you, I'm going more general now) seem to want to improve public transport (admirable) at the cost of private car ownership, penalising the latter. Yet, as some have admitted, public transport is not viable in certain areas and car ownership necessary.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But if you live in a low populated area should the council be responsible for providing transport. You effectively choose to live there so I don't see how its the local tax payer who should be forking out.

I understand you have some personal circumstances but they should be managed through Dial-A-Ride or taxis schemes as this would be most cost effective than running an empty bus. I think there was a scheme like this were the bus diverted to pick people up from rural areas and not serving them normally.

But why on earth should we feel that we should impose ourselves upon the local tax payers, when we already have two 4 x 4 and not once have I ever claimed that we have any need for any bus or a dial-a-ride service. The only comment that I made is that we live two miles away from the nearest bus stop, but that was stated purely as a matter of fact and not at all as a wish for any type of bus service to fight its way through the narrow country lanes within our environs with just us and the occupants of the local two farms living here. The farmers have tractors and 4 x 4 vehicles to cater for their own transport needs.

I do thank you for appreciating my post-stroke position but we are quite capable of looking after our own transport needs, even though we are both septuagenarians.

 

[martynbristow]

So effectively, the government shouldn't bother when it reaches a certain stage and people should fend for themselves? Sorry, no public transport for you, I know you pay your taxes and all but we don't feel your worth it.

Some people on this thread (not you, I'm going more general now) seem to want to improve public transport (admirable) at the cost of private car ownership, penalising the latter. Yet, as some have admitted, public transport is not viable in certain areas and car ownership necessary.

Unfortunately your argument falls down on the assumption of tax payers. People who live in rural councils pay less albeit not by much. My council tax is £1,006.27 (Wirral), where as Cheshire East is £962.01 for band A. Merseyside council tax pays to Merseytravel but neighbouring areas have there own deal. Its about the subsidy per head. In a densely populated area you benefit more people with each £1 of subsidy.
My feeling is business rates should pick up for transport into urban areas as they benefit from them, this would then be irrespective of the location of the customer.
My point is above is money should be spent wisely and not for the sake of it, public transport only works IF its well used otherwise its just a huge car! The bus running past my house I don't use because its always full so i walk and take the train which is also nearly full. In these cases public transport is worthwhile, the CO2 figures quoted are per passenger, and the guardian quotes 50g per passenger of CO2 on a Pendo, but if it was empty that hardly competes with a small car which they quote as 70g.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Unfortunately your argument falls down on the assumption of tax payers. People who live in rural councils pay less albeit not by much. My council tax is £1,006.27 (Wirral), where as Cheshire East is £962.01 for band A.

I don't think that you will find many "Band A" properties in our local rural Cheshire East area. "Band H" is nearer the mark locally.

 

[martynbristow]

But why on earth should we feel that we should impose ourselves upon the local tax payers, when we already have two 4 x 4 and not once have I ever claimed that we have any need for any bus or a dial-a-ride service. The only comment that I made is that we live two miles away from the nearest bus stop, but that was stated purely as a matter of fact and not at all as a wish for any type of bus service to fight its way through the narrow country lanes within our environs with just us and the occupants of the local two farms living here. The farmers have tractors and 4 x 4 vehicles to cater for their own transport needs.

I do thank you for appreciating my post-stroke position but we are quite capable of looking after our own transport needs, even though we are both septuagenarians.

I was just relating it to the more general discussion of transport, you are entitled to your tax payers money back you know :P I grew up in such an area and I had to walk 30 minutes to the nearest train and yes it kept me healthy but it was a pain. My neighbours years ago had grown up in the house and didn't want to move and they couldn't drive.
Anyway here is such a scheme: https://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/publictransport/a2bdialabus/fraserburgh.asp and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect2Wiltshire

This would be much more suitable to the area and efficient.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think that you will find many "Band A" properties in our local rural Cheshire East area. "Band H" is nearer the mark locally.

You won't find too many band H properties near me (well maybe in Oxton)

 

[yorkie]

Rail has ripped through the land like the Blight.

But the impact is small compared to roads.

You are free to google the environmental impact of HS2..

Can I just remind everyone that we have a section for discussing HS2, with numerous threads: Future High Speed Rail

This has been done to death, and existing posts like this are well worth reading.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Rail Freight is at a huge disadvantage because its lorry orientated. They don't build infrastructure to handle goods near rail lines just next to roads.
Look at Warrington, loads of developments next to the M62 and no rail head conveniently placed. The IKEA deliveries as an example come in by road. Now we have ASDA and a few others in the area.

There is a rail freight terminal near Widnes which is served by trains several times a week. If IKEA and Asda thought it would be in their interests to use that terminal they would. Back in the 1980's / early 1990's there were perhaps half a dozen rail freight terminals in the Merseyside area but almost all of them have them closed because wagon load rail freight struggles to make money.

As far as I know there are now only a couple (maybe three) wagon load services left in the UK. And two of them are operated by DBS and for a short while one FOC had two aggregate four wheel base wagons attached to one of its Intermodal services. When EWS first arrived in this country it tried to make a real go of wagon load freight but gave up because it wasn't economically viable.

I would love to see freight transferred from our motorways to the rail network but I'm afraid in to many instances road transport is both quicker and cheaper.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

I concur with what you've said here but if HGV hauliers were charged more this would inevitably have an impact on the price you and I pay for goods. Which in turn would fuel inflation.

Rail freight is competitive on price but only above a certain distance.

 

[Pigeon]

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 had heard that too, but from Jeremy Clarkson, so probably not all that reliable

It's often hard to know what to make of these studies because - quite apart from everything recent being hijacked by the giant red herring of CO2 instead of talking about energy consumption, so you have to correct for different forms of transport generating different amounts of CO2 per joule consumed to get meaningful figures, and hope that you are making the same assumptions as to the mix of energy sources for each mode as the authors of the report did - a minor change in the assumed conditions makes an enormous difference to the result. This study emphasises that point. Fig. 4 on page 5 is worth a glance - energy consumption for different modes at different loadings. In approximate terms, cars and conventional trains are much the same as each other; high speed rail and planes are also much the same as each other.

Another point made by that study which is not widely acknowledged is that the balance between cars and trains is shifting in favour of the car, as cars become more efficient while the energy consumption of trains increases due to large increases in the installed power combined with scheduling that calls for the use of it.

My own personal fag-packet calculation comes out that the fuel consumption per head for a Class 47 with n passengers and that for n people each in their own car is roughly equal when n is 150 odd

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.

Most of it doesn't need to be produced at all, if only we would design things to last a lifetime and be repairable instead of breaking unrepairably after a few years, and shoot the idiot economists who don't understand the concept of finite resources...

 

[ComUtoR]

But the impact is small compared to roads.

Once again, I never mentioned a comparison to roads. The impact is still there nonetheless. Why are we willing to make sacrifices for rail and not for other modes of transport ?

Can I just remind everyone that we have a section for discussing HS2, with numerous threads: Future High Speed Rail

This thread went went off on a tangent a few pages back.

This has been done to death, and existing posts like this are well worth reading.

Which is why I posted about not making this about a debate about HS2.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Rail Freight is at a huge disadvantage because its lorry orientated. They don't build infrastructure to handle goods near rail lines just next to roads.

With a look back over the last three hundred years, firstly there was the introduction of the conjoined system of canals that greatly aided with the transportation of goods, then the advent of the railway system with its superior speed took the vast amount of this type of traffic away from the canals system.

The subsequent advent of road haulage when it came, following the development of the industry producing such modes of goods carriage, seems to be a logical transport progression, whilst noting that heavy bulk haulage where speed is not exactly the essence, can still be accommodated by both canal and rail.

 

[Greenback]

What about internal flights ? How do you see them ?

I would have replied earlier, but I had internet problems yesterday.

Anyway, I see most of domestic air travel as far less necessary than the rail system. The exceptions are the services to the remote Scottish islands mentioned earlier in the thread that could be considered as an essential public service for those communities.

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 difference, as I see it, between air and rail environmentally wise is not just about CO2. While there is disruption when a new railway lien is constructed, which is a very rare undertaking, HS1 has shown that afterwards things can be restored so that there is very little damage to the areas that the rails pass through. In most cases, stations are either already in existence or will be built on brown field sites near or within existing urbanised areas/

In contrast, build or extend an airport and what was green space is lost, to all intents and purposes. Then, as more and more people use the expanded facilities, you have to add more and more infrastructure on top.

On top of this, there's the noise pollution. Trains are pretty quiet compared to an aircraft, even if the line isn't electrified.

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....

I did say that international air travel is beneficial to the economy, but as it's international, I don't think that it is the same as domestic rail travel which provides a huge direct benefit to the people of the UK.

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

I couldn't agree more. However, I thought we were discussing whether rail is an essential public service or not? I could be wrong about international air travel not being an essential public service, but I don't think that has any impact on whether rail is or not! I can't see how anyone cans ay that the rail system isn't an essential part of the national infrastructure.

In short, this isn't really about rail v air or rail v road. We need a mixture of all transportation modes, including ships, for a healthy economy, certainly in terms of international passenger travel and trade.

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 am not morally agnostic like some in the previous Labour government . I don't have a problem in principle with encouraging people to switch to public transport. In practical terms I do have a problem though, because many people don't have a choice in the matter, and it's very hard to differentiate between those that do, and those that don't.

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)

I think that is a side issue in any case, in a debate that's already moved away from its original subject.

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.

I hope I've provided a little clarification above, and I agree there's more to it than simple CO2 emissions.

I don't think it's fair to say that rail has ripped through the land like blight, though. Yes, HS2 has an impact, as any construction project of such a scale is bound to, but as I said above, much of the land affected can be returned to its previous state afterwards.

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.

I agree. I have concerns about our capacity to generate electricity in the future as it is, and things like electrification and electric cars are bound to increase demand even further.

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

Thanks! What sort of facts would you like?

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.

I do agree with you on this. I think that bringing cities closer to London will just encourage more long distance commuting, and my personal view is that it won't do anything to invigorate the areas it will be connecting London to.

However, this isn't the place for such a discussion. Though it's getting to the point now that I can't remember how the thread started out!

 

[yorkie]

Once again, I never mentioned a comparison to roads. The impact is still there nonetheless. Why are we willing to make sacrifices for rail and not for other modes of transport ?

Are we? I think it's mostly the opposite is the case in this country.

The amount of space taken up by a 2-track high capacity, high speed railway line is small compared to the amount of space taken up by a motorway!

 

[Greenback]

Are we? I think it's mostly the opposite is the case in this country.

The amount of space taken up by a 2-track high capacity, high speed railway line is small compared to the amount of space taken up by a motorway!

Quite. It's less than some of the A roads around these parts as well.

 

[al78]

Most of it doesn't need to be produced at all, if only we would design things to last a lifetime and be repairable instead of breaking unrepairably after a few years, and shoot the idiot economists who don't understand the concept of finite resources...

That is how it is intended to be, the idea being that the lifetime of consumer goods is as short as possible but not so short that the customer loses faith in the product. Constantly having to replace goods forces people to spend money and boost the economy. In reality, stuff can't break fast enough to sustain economic growth so the additional tactic is to use the human social status instinct to persuade people to throw away their perfectly useable goods after a period of time and replace them with "upgraded models" to enhance their social status.

http://storyofstuff.org/movies/story-of-stuff/

 

[ComUtoR]

The difference, as I see it, between air and rail environmentally wise is not just about CO2. While there is disruption when a new railway lien is constructed, which is a very rare undertaking, HS1 has shown that afterwards things can be restored so that there is very little damage to the areas that the rails pass through. In most cases, stations are either already in existence or will be built on brown field sites near or within existing urbanised areas/

In contrast, build or extend an airport and what was green space is lost, to all intents and purposes. Then, as more and more people use the expanded facilities, you have to add more and more infrastructure on top.

I must admit that I mostly see the scar left behind. Maybe I'm not seeing as much as the restoration than others. As to it being a "rare" undertaking, new airports and extensions are the same. HS1/Crossrail/HS2 are the major projects that I have seen that have had a large impact. London Bridge I am willing to accept as an example of existing infrastructure being used.

I did say that international air travel is beneficial to the economy, but as it's international, I don't think that it is the same as domestic rail travel which provides a huge direct benefit to the people of the UK.

As I'm slowly learning, International travel is very important for buisness.

I couldn't agree more. However, I thought we were discussing whether rail is an essential public service or not?

You mentioned the environment and I picked up on it. Personally I'm on the edge as to it being essential or not. I need much more information to make a more informed decision.

I could be wrong about international air travel not being an essential public service, but I don't think that has any impact on whether rail is or not! I can't see how anyone cans ay that the rail system isn't an essential part of the national infrastructure.

It does. As I mentioned the relationship is very symbiotic. As both grow it becomes more and more essential. As air travel increases, it becomes essential to link those passengers to the rail network. As the rail network improves we need road links to get folks to the station.

In short, this isn't really about rail v air or rail v road. We need a mixture of all transportation modes, including ships, for a healthy economy, certainly in terms of international passenger travel and trade.

I agree. Like my thoughts about the road to hell. Now its here we NEED it. making it "essential" :/

Thanks! What sort of facts would you like?

I have tried in vain to find some form of facts regarding transport of all forms and their various impacts. The problem I find is that I just don't know where to start. What I tend to find is political rhetoric or tree hugging hippies...

I have a fast track bus near me and it was very much used as a political tool. Yeah its great for those who use it but the traffic chaos it causes is a nightmare. Traffic generates pollution Its not to hard to guess where the arguments are now.

However, this isn't the place for such a discussion. Though it's getting to the point now that I can't remember how the thread started out!

Typically I find on a forum it will go off on a tangent after page 1. However I'm enjoying the points this thread has raised.

Cheers for the replies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The amount of space taken up by a 2-track high capacity, high speed railway line is small compared to the amount of space taken up by a motorway!

I agree.

BOTH have a sacrifice. As I already posted. I remember the building of the M25 Now I couldn't live without it. IF and when HS2 gets built I know I would feel the same in a few years. Crossrail I am looking forward to

There is also an argument that building a motorway allows anyone to rock up with their car and use it. Building a railway puts many pennies into private companies and benefit TOC fat cats at a large cost to the taxpayer. Again, that's a whole different thread :/

 

[Greenback]

While I agree that rail and air do have a symbiotic relationship, to my mind the number of rail passengers connecting with an airport is quite small compared with the overall numbers of people using the railway every day. Of course, although the numbers might be small they could still be significant, especially in terms of some local flows eg Gatwick Airport, but that doesn't really diminish the fact that millions more people use the trains for travel that isn't airport or air travel related.

Like you, I find it difficult to obtain data that isn't produced with an agenda in mind. I suppose it's another example of the old saying that statistics can prove anything you like.

 

[Flamingo]

How would the profit margin of a TOC (usually around 3%, I believe) compare with the profit margin on the PFI structure used to fund a lot of recent motorway/road building and Maintainence?

 

[Pigeon]

That is how it is intended to be, the idea being that the lifetime of consumer goods is as short as possible but not so short that the customer loses faith in the product. Constantly having to replace goods forces people to spend money and boost the economy. In reality, stuff can't break fast enough to sustain economic growth so the additional tactic is to use the human social status instinct to persuade people to throw away their perfectly useable goods after a period of time and replace them with "upgraded models" to enhance their social status.

That is how it is intended to be by idiot economists who don't understand the concept of finite resources. What should happen is that stuff should be made to last "indefinitely" - ie. if you buy a kettle, say, then you will never need to buy another one unless an elephant stands on it or something, and once everyone has got a kettle the only manufacture of new kettles is the trickle needed to compensate for ill-behaved pachyderms - coupled with a reversal in how the social status instinct is stimulated, such that someone who throws away perfectly usable stuff and replaces it is seen as an idiot who wastes money and therefore of lower status than someone who has the sense not to. This wouldn't eliminate the problem of resource exhaustion, but it would push it much, much further into the future, allow recycling to play a greater part in supplying resources, and greatly reduce the pollution created by extracting and using resources. It would also eliminate a lot of unnecessary work and allow people overall to spend less time working, thereby reducing the waste of that most precious personal resource whose supply is most definitely limited - time.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

While I agree that rail and air do have a symbiotic relationship, to my mind the number of rail passengers connecting with an airport is quite small compared with the overall numbers of people using the railway every day. Of course, although the numbers might be small they could still be significant, especially in terms of some local flows eg Gatwick Airport, but that doesn't really diminish the fact that millions more people use the trains for travel that isn't airport or air travel related.

This point that you make above was one that I made on another thread in response to Manchester Airport and of the different modes of travel used by airline passengers in order to arrive or to depart from there. Someone had made a rather silly comment on that thread about air travel being less an importance that rail access and I did then ask the question of what percentage of such airline passengers actually used rail as their chosen mode of travel to arrive at Manchester Airport. Needless to say, no such posting was made in response to that specific question raised.