What would you do if you were minister for transport?

[Dave]

For starters, Nationalise..and undo everything Beeching did.

That is going to be one big job, and unfortunatly some of it will be impossible to do, and beeching did close down some frankly silly lines.

I doubt they were silly for the people who used them.

Neither are the lottery grants the public seem to moan about. The £37,500 used to rehabilitate drug users wasn't very well spent in everyone else's eyes, but for the people it helped - it meant everything.

What a rubbish attitude.

s*** happens.

[Ameecher]

Just reading this thread again and I noticed there wasn't a single mention of HS Lines. Then I realised Parkey hadn't posted yet

[lws1984]

Decrease spending a bit from roads, but make one lane of each major motorway a bus-only lane, and keep that one immacuately maintained, with a relatively high speed limit.

And how do you plan to actually make that happen in practice? Besides, sticking a bus lane on a motorway simply increases congestion, as every other vehicle is crammed into two lanes, whereas the bus lane is mostly empty! (Take a look at the M4 bus lane, for instance.)

Where possible, I would advocate the moving of freight from road to railways. Obviously, this cannot be done everywhere, but if we can remove the bulk of long-distance freight from the roads, it would help the situation there immensely, and be environmentally friendly and all that, too.

More busses.

[m3henry]

Rail: go back to
a) british rail, self contained company, run by government or completely independant
b) big four principal, self contained companies, completely independant

Buses:
a) British buses, run by government
b) each county has its own LRT principal bus section and no outsiders

Trams:
put them in where buses arent enough/bus congestion too high

Trolley buses:
cities only

Canals: in the steam era they were faster than railways because of the marshalling yard sytem
encourage their use for <30 ton loads
encourage businesses to restore wharves

[Kevo00]

M3Henry has the right idea IMO. I'd suggest:

1. Consolidate rail industry into either one or less than six large firms with Plc status. Regulate fares with RPI-x (used in electricity industry with great success) and consider limited government funding of electrification and new lines where a solid business case can be established. Any privately owned and funded initiative to build new lines (UK Ultraspeed, Central Railway, Wensleydale etc.) to be given compulsory purchase powers and planning permission. Introduce an OffRail regulator to oversee industry, protect saver and value fares, ensure frieght rates remain competitive and ensure that the government subsidy is properly spent.
2. Give Local Authorities powers to regulate busses, and give PTEs more power to do so. Introduce Oyster for regional travel throughout the UK. Consider limited government funding for tram schemes.
3. Reduce internal flights considerably by taxing them more, with the exception of flights to Northern Ireland and north of Glasgow/Edinburgh.
4. Fund road building where proven nessescary - but perhaps on a toll basis.
5. Give tax breaks for users of non-fossil fuel powered vehicles.
6. Reintroduce the old rail and inland waterway frieght grant which the Blair govt scrapped.

[Dave]

You'd be surprised how many English towns and cities based near a river have mothballed "ports" or docks. I know for a fact that Preston is (albeit rather more in-use than "mothballed") one of these.

[andel]

You'd be surprised how many English towns and cities based near a river have mothballed "ports" or docks. I know for a fact that Preston is (albeit rather more in-use than "mothballed") one of these.

Colchester is another one of these...

[Parkey]

Just reading this thread again and I noticed there wasn't a single mention of HS Lines. Then I realised Parkey hadn't posted yet

You called?

As minister for transport I would make sure that two things happened.

First I would work to make sure that government appreciated that transport is the engine of the economy, not a problem child that is always demanding money for maintenance. Without transport absolutely nothing in our civilisation would function. A growing economy needs a growing transport system, and growing the transport system means large amounts of regeneration and inward investment - thus a growing economy. For efficiency and environmental merits rail is king, so naturally that means investment in rail is key to that growth.

Second I would ensure that the financial analysis of transport projects was properly represented. We always hear how much has been spent on certain projects (sadly we hear the word "invested" used much less) but we never hear the social and economic benefits quantified. For example, Crossrail may be projected to cost £11bn, but the returns are more than just the ticket sales in the first 10 years! How much taxable wealth will be generated? How many jobs created? How much urban regeneration will it kick off? Hard to quantify exactly I know, but I bet even the approximation of the returns is several times the capital cost.

Currently we have a government that beyond their minimalist token gestures really don't give a hoot about our nation's infrastructure. We really need one that recognises the need to modernise, improve and expand in the face of escalating demand.

Oh, and high speed lines! Miles and miles of new high speed lines!

[Parkey]

I would also kill off many many threads with my incessent political ranting.

[andel]

I would also kill off many many threads with my incessent political ranting.

Well done, old chap.

[Dave]

I would also kill off many many threads with my incessent political ranting.

*sigh* That was brilliant.

[Parkey]

*sigh* That was brilliant.

What is? The rant itself, that I've killed off the thread or that I've stopped ranting?

[Dave]

What you said. It amused me on so many levels.

[Ploes]

You'd be surprised how many English towns and cities based near a river have mothballed "ports" or docks. I know for a fact that Preston is (albeit rather more in-use than "mothballed") one of these.

Ah yeahs

the brilliance of the Ipswich dock and the A14.

Lets build a bridge really high up so it doesn't interfere with the port workings..... then close the port!

[Ameecher]

Ah yeahs

the brilliance of the Ipswich dock and the A14.

Lets build a bridge really high up so it doesn't interfere with the port workings..... then close the port!

The port of Ipswich isn't actually closed. A lot of large ships do go right up the Orwell to the port (although the ships aren't as large as those at Felixstowe). Infact, the recently reopened the rail link to the ports from the mainline and I believe there are a couple of trains a week.

[teccuk]

I agree with most people here, when I say public control, whether or not they are publicly owned. I like lws1984 suggestion to retain the regional liveries too.

Railways are damn expensive, i mean they are seriously damn expensive... not all of them are that great either, there's no point in keeping romantic lines open for the sake of it if land use patterns have changed since they were built.

I'm with orudge on the motorway bus lanes, sounds great in theory but their use couldn't possibly justify it. Although the M4 one, was the result of technical work that suggested traffic flow would actually be improved by shutting one lane, the bus lane was an after thought as an alternative to just leaving a bit bit of empty concrete.

Buses, these are the way to go. Decent, cheap buses, they are so cost effective. Trams are rarely cost effective except in large dense metropolitan areas i'm afraid.

Better use of the railways for cargo would be near the top of my list, many lines loading gauges are limited by even a single bridge or two.

I could rant all day but:

- Public control of bus and train services
- High speed network, with some selective closures (yes i know that's what beeching did, i'd do it better though )
- Very few Trams
- Freight on Rail
- Improvements to roads, but crappy local bypasses are expensive and encourage sprawl.

Fundermentally, the planning system needs to stop sprawl and integrate transport within its every action.

[Parkey]

The trouble with buses - even the cleanest, most modern of buses - is that they don't encourage modal shift in the way that modern trams and trains do. By modal shift I mean people choosing to make their journey by public transport instead of their car. Cars provide a fast door-to-door service and are the benchmark against which public transport in the 21st century has to compete. Because they use segregated and more direct paths trams and trains can offer equal or better journey times. Buses and coaches use the same roads as the car, so why not just drive instead?

There must be no more rail line closures and lots of line openings. The solution to unprofitable branch lines is to invest in new lightweight hybrid vehicles, maybe with street-running capabilities. This is why I think that Parry People Movers are definately onto something. Actually increasing service frequencies is also vital. Nobody wants to get the train if, for example, there are only three a day and the last one back is at 5pm. Using railways instead of roads also means that the lines can be used for railfreight.

Road netwoprk expansion has to stop. We've known for years that improving roads only attracts more road traffic. Transport strategy must hinge upon looking for traffic hotspots, identifying the cause - single occupancy cars usually - and delivering a public transport solution, not a road solution.

It's interesting that people think of trams as being too expensive because it shows how the common perception is that the only financial returns are just ticket sales. In reality there is a heck of a lot more to it than that. For example, several parts of Nottingham are just about to recieve huge amounts of private investment. There will be a huge new shopping center in the city centre that will be larger than the Bullring in Birmingham and the town centers in Beeston and West Bridgeford are also being rebuilt. I'm not saying this is just because of the tram, but I'm sure that without the tram it wouldn't have happened. All of these site incorporate the tram into their design.

[teccuk]

Hmm yeah thanks Parkey, perhaps you've reinvigorated my passions a little... you make some very good points. Its just that trams and railways are just so shockingly expensive, the average tram line to construct per km back in 1998 was 22million! Imagine what 22 million per km could do to major bus routes? You could create very heavily enforced bus lanes with state of the art stops, with LCD readouts of arrivals, flat fare systems, remove street side parking and replace it with small local car parks to keep traders happy, marketing, rolling stock, over passes, underpasses, guide ways all sorts of things.

A decent well funded bus network would work in most towns and cities, but your right about trams, they can be a vehicle for regeneration too... the hopeful amongst us hope for trunk tram lines with decent buses and heavy rail where possible, the enthusiasts argue for trolleys and street cars and the pessimists argue for buses. In my some what limited experience.

For example do you know Bristol at all? It has no public transport to speak of, the Severn Beach Line is very eloquently described here: http://www.freewebs.com/patheticrailway ... ngland.htm (funny site actually). The radial routes are perhaps too narrow for trams (?), limited heavy rail network etc. What would you do if you were in charge of Bristol Parkey?

[Ameecher]

http://www.freewebs.com/patheticrailway ... ngland.htm (funny site actually).

That guy may say some moderately funny things but he also doesn't know much about railways it would seem.
Take this one for example

First off the method of signalling is the same one used by Trevithik’s ‘Catch Me, Who Can’ of the 1800’s or whatever… yes it uses the ‘token system’. Whereby the driver stops at a little hut at the side of the track, gets out and gets a token key. With this key he can assume the way is safe. If there is no key… I guess he has to ring national rail enquiries or something. The token system doesn’t seem very safe to me, but I guess its been tried and tested for 300 years…

Excuse me, but, what isn't safe about the token system?

Then there is his way of cutting costs...

Given population densities in this part of the world, its never going to massively popular, why not keep costs down with some simple improvements like radio signalling or something even simpler like they just pass at a certain point and no other and do something about the level crossings?

Ah yes, of course, re-signalling a whole line is a fantasticly cheap thing to do that they should do it everywhere! Oh yes and replacing level crossings with bridges is also only a couple quid...

Edit: An unnecessary rant?

[Parkey]

An unnecessary rant?

I would argue there is no such thing.

He clearly knows more about running a railway than Ruth Kelly though.

The trouble with underused branch lines is that they are a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nobody uses them because the service isn't frequent enough and, most likely, provided by a pacer. Of course, that means that expansion isn't on the cards because nobody uses them.