Market Weighton Message Boards
The Forum for local residents, both past and present. The place to air your views on a wide range of topics, and perhaps take part in our very successful quiz.
Guests are welcome to read the message boards, but must register in order to contribute.
|
Home | User list | Rules | Register | Login
You are not logged in.
|
| Announcement |
|
This message board is now some six years old and cannot be upgraded to include the many updates that are now available for the latest version.
A new Message Board now exists and it will be necessary for all members to re-register with the new board.
For the time being we will retain this board in a read-only format, and all new posts will have to be placed on the new board.
The new message board can be found via a link on the website home page . Or, you can use the following link New Forum 12 January 2010
|
phoenix
Senior Member
Registered: 2004-12-13
Posts: 312
|
|
|
| 2004-12-23 15:04:14 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
|
| 2004-12-23 20:22:02 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
In one of our regional newspapers you may have read these four specific questions raised by a Reader about the Carl Bro report:
1 What will be the capital cost and how will this capital be sourced?
2 Will the service require a public subsidy and if so how much?
3 What effect would a restored rail service have on the viability of the local bus services?
4 What will be the benefit in terms of any reduction in traffic congestion on the A1079?
Any one familiar with this forum will know that Carl Bro were briefed to consider all these issues and many more.
The subsidy issue falls under the head "sources of funding". Remember that Carl Bro were instructed to prepare a 30 year computer model.
For a very brief Reader's overview of the value given by most rail subsidies and comparative driving costs click on this link to the Yorkshire Post http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArt ... eID=910690 . Its the third letter down.
The economic benefits and choice provided by a good transport network are often thought to justify public subsidy. For example Crossrail has got the "go ahead" even though the projected revenues are less than half what would be needed to service the debt leaving a funding gap of £6.4 billion to be funded by public subsidy over 60 years.
No one outside the partner authorities has read the Carl Bro report. So it is not known what weight was attached to each factor (or overall) when they advised that the re-opening of this rail service would be viable.
"Viable" is the key word - click on this link: http://www.thisishull.co.uk/displayNode ... tersearch.
Minracfan
Last edited by Minracfan (2004-12-28 17:12:27)
|
|
| 2004-12-28 11:15:21 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
To see what is already underway in Scotland to restore rail services between Edinburgh and Galashiels click on http://www.waverleyrailwayproject.co.uk/
You will see that they have planned the stations on a rail line which was taken up at roughly the same time as the Minsters' Rail Link.
The latest report on re-opening the Waverley Line illustrates the collateral benefits that can be expected from re-opening certain rail links.
"The reopening of the Borders rail line between Edinburgh and the central Scottish Borders is predicted to inject £258 million into the economy of the area served by the new line. A new report by Edinburgh-based economics and business consultants, Tribal HCH, has demonstrated that both Midlothian and the Scottish Borders would be the main benefactors of the economic gain. The Borders could expect a positive financial impact of up to £112 million with Midlothian gaining by as much as £136 million. The report also identified a sustained increase in the employment base of the Scottish Borders, Midlothian and Edinburgh. Up to 548 jobs will be created across the three local authorities, with 213 in the Borders and 308 in Midlothian. The jobs figure will also be boosted with the inclusion of the construction jobs associated with building the railway and new housing. The additional jobs are expected to add as much as £4.9 million to the total annual income figure for the Scottish Borders and £5.7 million for Midlothian. Again these figures exclude the additional income from related construction jobs.
The Waverley Railway Partnership welcomed the report, saying that the study shows that the railway will deliver sustained economic and social development opportunities in the years ahead. The findings of the report are particularly gratifying for Borders railway campaigners who have long been making their case around the sort of conclusions to which the report comes. "
Source: Campaign for Borders Rail Newsletter Nov 2004
Elsewhere they are already relaying the 4.7 km rail line between Hamilton and Larkhall and an associated 1.6 km spur line and they are about to start reinstating the Kincardine - Alloa - Stirling rail link.
Other projects with Scottish Executive support include re-opening the Airdrie to Bathgate Railway.
Minracfan
Last edited by Minracfan (2005-01-01 12:26:29)
|
|
| 2005-01-01 12:19:26 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
Its official: building more roads merely encourages more traffic.
The M6 toll route north of Birmingham has considerably increased vehicles on the very motorway it was intended to relieve, confirming that building more roads creates more traffic. Since the toll road opened in December 2003, junctions to the south have seen weekday traffic rise by almost 10,000 extra cars and lorries. Junctions to the north have 5,000 more vehicles a day.
Viewed together, parliamentary figures show the free M6 and the new toll alternative are used by 38,000 extra vehicles each day. This is a rise of more than a quarter on pre-toll days.
For full Observer Article see http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Sto ... 29,00.html
|
|
| 2005-01-23 11:30:55 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
This piece is from the Ormskirk Advertiser and shows that the rail movement is gathering momentum in England as well. See:
http://icseftonandwestlancs.icnetwork.c ... _page.html
"At a meeting last week, railways minister Tony McNulty confirmed it is examining how many railway lines across the country - including the Burscough Curves - have the potential to be restored.....
Southport MP John Pugh said: "These comments of the Minister show very clearly that a real rethink is underway. If locally we put up a good case, the door will not be shut in our face.".....
"Where local people have got involved elsewhere in England the results have been most positive."
Elsewhere the Times
See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... _1,00.html
reports that the outgoing chairman of Shell wants to take up a post with a climate-change charity when he quits the oil giant later this year. Lord Oxburgh is so concerned at the potential destruction from global warming that he wants to devote more of his time to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and the use of fossil fuels.
His views have prompted him to abandon the executive transport and car park offered by Shell and adopt a folding bicycle, which he keeps in a cupboard in the lobby of the Shell building on the South Bank in London. At home, Oxburgh has persuaded his wife and son to use bicycles and abandon the car “except for trips to the supermarket”. The family has also abandoned air travel for holidays. His Cambridge home, insulated and double-glazed, is now also fully equipped with energy-saving light bulbs.
|
|
| 2005-01-30 22:16:59 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
Road transport now accounts for half of most pollutant emissions and a fifth of all carbon dioxide emissions in the EU. The Kyoto agreement is unlikely to have a significant impact. Although the treaty aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5%, experts believe cuts of more than 50% are needed to stop global warming.
An article in today's Independent shows a clear synergy between environmentally sustainable transport schemes like the Hull - Beverley - York Rail Corridor Scheme and the interests of farmers.
See:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/enviro ... ory=608228
A special global warming summit of ministers and farmers' leaders will be told tomorrow that drought threatens farmland in the east of England.
The summit will hear that summer rainfall may drop by more than half, causing severe water shortages and seriously damaging farms.
The summit will also hear that farmland may have to be abandoned to increased winter farming. It will be attended by environment ministers Elliot Morley and Lord Whitty and top officials from the National Farmers Union, the Tenants Farmers Association and the Country Land and Business Association.
According to the Sunday Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... xhome.html
fleets of "super lorries", which are twice the size and weight of existing juggernauts, would be permitted on British roads under proposals being studied by the Government.
David Jamieson, the transport minister, is "actively considering" applications from hauliers who want to use lorries that are up to 110ft long and weigh as much as 84 tons - almost double the current permitted maximum weight of 44 tons.
Imagine encountering these heading west from Hull Docks!
|
|
| 2005-02-06 18:04:54 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
A recent report has reiterated that diesel traffic fumes are a danger to health. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) looked at levels of a pollutant known as PM10 assessed up at monitoring points around the country. Their specialist report warned that diesel engines pose a serious public health threat, pumping out high levels of tiny particles that cause breathing problems. The tiny particles of soot, dust, smoke, and fumes enter the air sacs in the lungs where they can cause coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath. Respiratory physio - therapists warned that the effects on those with lung diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema could be even worse.
World Health Organisation experts think there is no safe amount of PM10 to be exposed to. The CSP said its analysis revealed there were high levels across Britain, the average amount being 23.3 micrograms per cubic metre of air (micrograms/m3). The CSP said it wanted Britain to follow the example of Tokyo which is considering banning vehicles with certain types of engines in built-up areas.
In fact a startling unpublished European Commission report has revealed that Air pollution is shortening the lives of Britons by more than six months.
The draft report, presented to EU experts last month, shows that more than 32,000 people die from breathing contaminated air in Britain each year, far more than had been thought.
3,508 people died on UK roads in 2003 (two per cent more than in 2002) so the toll from the pollution, in large part from cars, is more than nine times more than the number of deaths from road accidents.
Tim Yeo, the shadow environment minister said "I think we have all been guilty of some complacency about air pollution, and these conclusions come as a jolt." He called on the Government to consider the report "very urgently indeed". The report, which has been sent to governments, industries and pressure groups, is the first attempt to work out the implications of the pollution throughout Europe.
It concludes that roughly 310,000 Europeans die from air pollution each year. In excess of 90 per cent of the casualties are caused by tiny particulates that cause heart failure. They are emitted by traffic (particularly diesel engines), industry and domestic heating. The other deaths are due to respiratory diseases caused by ozone, produced when sunlight reacts with pollutants produced by vehicle exhausts.
The report concludes that in Britain life expectancy is reduced by 6.7 months on average as a result of breathing in pollution.
|
|
| 2005-03-06 22:00:40 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
The 35 mile Borders rail link is expected to get the go ahead next week:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid ... 1110332004
Research by Ryden, a property firm, has suggested it would an increase in the Borders population of between 5,000 and 14,000.
"This would in itself produce a further improvement in the age structure of the population while sustaining local retail and service sectors, enhancing the viability of local communities", Hugh Tasker, the chairman of Scottish Enterprise Borders, said.
It would diversify the local economy and provide access to well-paid and value-added jobs.
Mr Tasker said: "These jobs would be located both within this region and neighbouring areas such as Edinburgh. A modern public transport network, including the railway, will be crucial in enabling access by individuals to career choices, and by growing businesses to a suitable employment base."
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid ... d=70762005
Taking into consideration the wages and salaries of employees travelling to Edinburgh and other employment centres outside the region by rail average regional earnings would rise by £66 a week.
David Parker, the leader of Scottish Borders Council, believes that the statistics on pay galvanise the case for the proposed rail link from Galashiels to Edinburgh, so that more local people can pursue employment opportunities in the city.
Mr Parker said: "We have always said the railway is a key element in our efforts to improve the economic position of this region.
"There are already a number of Borderers travelling to work in Edinburgh, and while some local companies are doing well we must accept that in future the choice for many of our residents will be to work outwith the region."
http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=225722005
THE re-introduction of passenger trains between Edinburgh and the Borders will cut the number of car journeys by more than 750,000 a year, say promoters of the Waverley rail project. Traffic counts indicated 770,000 fewer car journeys per year.
A committee of MSPs was also told that the railway would generate a much bigger demand for housing than originally forecast, with 10,000 new homes and an increase in population increase of more than 20,000 in the rail corridor through Midlothian and the Borders.
A target of 2008 for the line’s opening can be met.
Asked about the environmental impact of the project, Dr Mark Brown, of the consultants Halcrow, said that it would "bring about a change in the culture of transport."
|
|
| 2005-03-12 14:13:39 |
|
AndyS
Full Member
Registered: 2005-03-03
Posts: 110
|
|
I have read all the previous posts with great interest. It's great to see a lively and vibrant debate on the forum. As an outsider the MW area and one who will be moving to the area in a few months it's interesting to compare what is being discussed and proposed for the area to where I currently live.
I live in Bicester in Oxfordshire and have done for the last 11 years. It sits on a main rail link from Birmingham to London Marylebone. I have done the commute into London on many occasion and once was unfortunate enough to have to endure this for 6 months. I have also commuted to numerous places in the south east daily on business, regularly travelling 75 miles each way (including on the 'Road to Hell' - the M25). I have also had to do commutes on country A roads, so I think I have had quite a lot of experience of commuting by both methods.
The rail link we have is a good one, trains running in both directions every 20 minutes. It is so busy, that they have installed a second line (replacing the one torn up in the 60's). Whilst I admit there are considerably more commuters going into London each day than say York or Hull, meaning greater passenger numbers equalling more profits etc. There is a problem however, it's been a bit of a victim of it's own success. The station car park, which is by no means small, becomes full very quickly (even at the £3.00 per day charge). The fares before 9am for this 1hr journey are £38.20 return and prior to 8:30am you're lucky to get a seat. The same can be said for the return trains after 5pm. I've done it, it's horrible. It's only because it's a greater nightmare getting into central London that I ever use the service. By the time I got to work, I was aching, sweating and the thought of having to do it all again at the end of the day was truly miserable.
The roads aren't any better, but I certainly wouldn't say they were worse. Congestion is getting worse, I'm sure no one would argue otherwise. However, I don't feel that public transport is the answer. You have to have car parking at the stations and where the service becomes popular, you just create congestion is lots of smaller towns as peaople queue to get into the station each morning and evening. You're just spreading the problem into areas that didn't previously experience it, believe me I know from personal experience!
In addition, whichever way you look at it, you're still generating enormous amounts of pollution, which whether you believe the global warming theories or not, is definitely a bad thing.
As for whether a rail link would be profitable or not, please people, you shouldn't be that naive! It's government policy to increase public transport and if there is an inkling of profit, you can bet your bottom dollar that some company will build it.
No, i'm afraid that everyone has completely missed the point with congestion and it's solutions. They are simple, cost effective and have many more benefits than a new rails or road link, allowing existing public transport to serve the community better. I'll put my views forward on this in my next post...
_______________________________________
Andy
An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory.
|
|
| 2005-03-12 20:02:17 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
If your roads and your rail link are congested imagine what life would be like without a rail link. Ask your friends just over there in Brackley. Their Great Central Railway was designed with continental sized bridges as part of a link between Manchester and Paris - it was ripped up in 1966 and its 21 Arch viaduct demolished in 1978. I was told it became hard core for roads in Milton Keynes.
Central Railway want to put it back and the Labour Party have revived their idea for a new North - South Main Line. Back in 1990 they had a similar scheme and it was planned for the Brackley route.
On second thoughts if you are moving to the MW area you will find out soon enough. The rail campaign is to a large extent about choice.
As I recall Bicester Station is fairly central. Development on the York - Beverley route means that some stations will be relocated to Park and Rides on the edges of town. Congestion will not be so much of a problem there - people will be able to nip into the station car park instead of queuing for 10 minutes to get on to the A1079.
Whichever way you look at it traffic will have to use Park and Ride facilities because York, Beverley and Hull can take no more. You will find that MW has a Park and Ride on Farmers' Market Days.
The rail campaign says that the people should have the facilities at their towns as an alternative to having to go on the A1079 or the A166.
Metal wheels on smooth rails will always be a more efficient medium for mass transport than a lot of rubber tyre sets each carrying an average of 1.1 passengers over tarmac and rail will consolidate its environmental position when the railway industry invests more in electrification and modern diesel technology. This will inevitably occur because shortages and competition from growing markets in e.g. India and China mean that the days of cheap oil are gone for ever. Electrified rail routes lend themselves to carbon sequestration at power stations in a way that cars cannot. Even if we wait 20 years and they are feasible, hydrogen vehicles will have scarcely made any impression on oil powered cars. Also hydrogen vehicles will not solve the congestion problem. If we are to get near Blair's targets on global warming we need to start taking radical action now using a proven technology i.e. rail.
If your solutions involve road based public transport from the Department of Transport's School of "quick wins" think again. That only works in conjunction with road charging (a complete "no no" in rural areas) and is a recipe for "buses carting around fresh air". Rail schemes get up to six times more people out of their cars and could, for example, get people from Pocklington to York City Centre in as little as 18 minutes.
According to The Guardian buses, nationally, have an image problem "which they can't seem to shake off.....Time-pressed, white-collar workers remain reluctant to trust buses to get them to work on time." Jonathan Bray, director of the Passenger Transport Executives' Group is quoted as saying that "the prejudice against buses among middle-class professionals is just as strong as ever. Outside London, if you get on a bus in a suit, you're often the only one."
Also you mention the cost of rail travel. According to national statistics bus fares have, in percentage terms, risen faster than rail fares. As to parking charges, I know of no rail Park and Ride facility in the North of England, outwith the largest towns and cities, that charges for parking.
Last edited by Minracfan (2005-03-13 00:07:13)
|
|
| 2005-03-12 23:41:01 |
|
AndyS
Full Member
Registered: 2005-03-03
Posts: 110
|
|
My solutions involve neither road or rail travel. Looking to build new rail or road links is a solution to a symptom and not a solution to a cause. We have to look at the cause of the problem. Congestion on the roads (and in some cases the rail) is a symptom of people commuting to work. Thousands of people travelling inward on a morning and outward on an evening. I agree that stopping all these cars travelling twice per day with invariably 1 occupant is absolutely necessary. However I disagree that the answer is to build more rail links. I see this as a complete waste of time, money and effort. What we need to be looking at is preventing the requirement for the journeys in the first place.
As you pointed out yourself in a previous post, there were 3,508 road deaths in the UK in 2003. However 33,707 were seriously injured and 253,392 were slightly injured and about 15 times that number of non-injury accidents.
According to RoSPA, the cost of road accidents in 2000 was estimated to be an incredible £16,920 million (£32,000 per minute); this included hospital costs, damage to property and vehicles, police and insurance costs, lost output, and a notional sum for pain, grief and suffering. The most dangerous hours on the roads on weekdays are the rush hours from 3.00 to 6.00pm, and then 7.00 to 9.00am.
These figures are absolutely staggering but there are other costs associated with all this road travel which aren’t associated with accidents. The amount of stress caused by congested journeys on individuals. This undoubtedly has an effect upon their productivity when they eventually get to work. It also probably has at least some effect upon their personal lives when they eventually get home in the evening not to mention the effect upon their health. The reduction of time available to be spent with family, which directly affects the lives of children, through tired parents, missed parents evenings etc. The cost of wear and tear on vehicles, servicing costs etc. The cost of wear and tear to the roads themselves. There are many other costs once you start thinking about it.
The clear answer then is to prevent these journeys. Why is it necessary for all these people to be travelling from home to work. Some of them, yes I agree absolutely need to be in the workplace, nurses, police, factory workers and so on. However a very large proportion of these people travel in each morning, sit at a desk in front of a computer all day and then travel back home on an evening. Does no one else see the pure insanity of this? We have the technology to allow all these individuals to work from home. Meetings can be scheduled during the day and organisations could use specialised conference and meeting facilities at out of town/city locations. The benefits are endless, not only to the accident figures and the costs mentioned above, but it also has other benefits. Reduced costs to organisations not needing large city based office buildings. All the land currently used by offices, could be utilised for the large amount of housing provision that will be needed over the coming years.
We need to stop looking at the symptoms and start treating the cause. New road schemes are stupid, but new rail links will also fail to provide for the ever growing number of commuters. How many years before we need to start adding new lines along side existing ones to cater for more trains? Does this sound familiar?
_______________________________________
Andy
An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory.
|
|
| 2005-03-13 13:38:36 |
|
littlepud
Member
Registered: 2005-03-13
Posts: 15
|
|
Hi, i'm new to the site so be gentle,
I think working from home is a good thing but not the only answer to this problem as I would like the rail link. This is because I like to shop in York and rather than have the hassle of going by car and paying for parking I would rather have a short train journey.
I also feel that businesses should encourage flexytime as this will reduce traffic in rush hour on rail or road. 
|
|
| 2005-03-13 13:57:14 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
According to figures released by the Lib Dems on 6 April 2004 road accidents cost the UK over £30 billion per year. The annual cost to the Health Service was said to be over £1 billion.
I agree with working from home and staggered journeys where possible. My job is based nearly 40 miles away and I occasionally practice both. However in common with most others my job usually requires me to be on hand in normal working hours and to do other things that can only be done at my place of work. Many employers are not keen on home working or flexitime.
I am afraid that these "solutions" will scarcely dent the insatiable demand for travel. I can tell you that Leeds is bracing itself to take on another 24,000 commuters over the next 10 years.
One of the "drivers" for re-opening the Harrogate to Ripon railway is to enable more people to commute to Leeds to help meet this requirement. Similar considerations would apply to the Minsters' rail link as we are in the catchment areas of Leeds, York, Beverley and Hull.
Far from home working the trend is towards long distance commuting. The last census revealed that in 23 local authorities more than 5% of the workforce commute 37 miles or more. More than 600,000 people do this nationally.
We need to recognise the East Riding's requirement for improved public transport links and argue our case in a unified way. If we don't you can rest assured that others are arguing their public transport needs and will thereby get in ahead of us.
Last edited by Minracfan (2005-03-13 19:45:47)
|
|
| 2005-03-13 19:26:03 |
|
AndyS
Full Member
Registered: 2005-03-03
Posts: 110
|
|
Minracfan wrote:
Many employers are not keen on home working or flexitime. |
Well that settles it then, we've got to spend millions on a rail link, road improvements and waste countless more billions each year through RTA's from commuters, because employers won't accept their responsibility in all this and do the sensible thing! Great argument 
Who really cares what employers are keen on. At the end of the day they are only interested in one thing - Profit. Ifr it can be made profitable for them to have their workers from home, then they'd do it in a flash. It's got nothing to do with being keen or not, it's all down to money. The sooner large corporations are penalised for having large offices in citry centres the better.
Last edited by AndyS (2005-03-14 19:41:22)
_______________________________________
Andy
An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory.
|
|
| 2005-03-14 15:28:42 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
In a recent Daily Telegraph article English Countryside was described as "a bogus version of itself: thin city, tied together by cars. Get up in the morning ..... and you hear the pulse of rural England: not the wonderful, variegated birdsong ......... but traffic - the seamless, unvariegated, flat and flattening noise of engines and tyres on Tarmac. ..............Behind and over it all, the traffic roars and the traffic is the new reality. It is the great eroder, the dominant signal that although, in some aesthetic way, little might have changed, in reality everything has."
See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do1903.xml
On 10 February figures issued by the Department of Transport indicated that in 2004 traffic levels on Britain’s roads increased for the fifth year in a row. The number of journeys made was up by 1.7 per cent - in line with annual increases since 1999. UK motorists clocked up 310 billion miles in total.
Recent research by Cambridge University for the Independent Transport Commission think-tank shows that by 2021 each person in the UK will travel an extra 1,000 miles a year by road or rail leading to all-day 'rush hours'. The University explained the increased tendency to commute: 'There is a tremendous rationale behind people's behaviour. You get a bigger house and a bigger garden for less money.' Their analysis shows that, each year, people will cover more and more miles, mostly by car, which already accounts for 80 per cent of distance travelled. The University warned that, within 20 years, the morning rush hour could last from 5am until lunchtime. 'The congestion will extend, so there will be no period without congestion.' Public spending - which includes local authority funding - will be expected to lever in billions of pounds more private investment on transport infrastructure.
According to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council the A1079 is already 97% of capacity and that takes into account both carriageways.
Meanwhile according to the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research in the journal Science global warming 'is now inevitable' over the next century. See
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 76,00.html
Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases emissions stopped now existing concentrations are so high that their warming effects would persist. If we could stabilise greenhouse gases at 2000 levels (clearly impossible) temperatures would still rise by 0.5C (0.9F) and sea levels by 11cm (4in) by 2100.
Policies to control warming will take decades to have an impact. Even if the Kyoto Protocol and other measures succeed temperatures will rise.
Effective emissions controls would substantially reduce the expected warming if implemented.
Last edited by Minracfan (2005-03-20 15:07:34)
|
|
| 2005-03-20 15:00:25 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
Escalating infrastructure costs have been cited against rail re-openings. There are now clear signs that Network Rail has these under firm control.
Only two years ago the Chilterns Line rail line between London and Birmingham (reduced to single track in the mid sixties), was restored to double track between Bicester and Aynho Junction (just south of Banbury) (8 miles) at a price of £50 million, due to high demand.
In contrast the West of England Main Line, reduced to single track for 7.8 miles in the late 1980's between Probus and Burngullow in Cornwall, has just been restored to double track and underlying mine workings strengthened at the dramatically lower price of £14.3 million. £3 million was funded by the EU and the rest by the Strategic Rail Authority.
Had the Minsters' Rail Link been retained as a single track, with passing loops at Pocklington and Market Weighton, (as planned by pre - Beeching British Rail in the early 1960's) you may think that the Minsters' Rail Link would also, by now, have got its double track back.
As signatories to the Kyoto Treaty and Champions of the view that Global Warming is the "greatest threat to Mankind" it beggars belief that the Government apparently treats loss of road tax, fuel duty and VAT as a "cost" militating against and blocking public transport schemes and even ante congestion road improvements. See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 09,00.html
So anything that reduces the real costs of public transport schemes is welcome.
A spokesman for Transport 2000, the lobby group, said: “If the same absurd rule was applied to smoking, then the Government would do nothing to persuade people to kick the habit because they would make less duty on cigarette sales.”
According to the Catalyst think-tank report quoted in the Times on March 24, 2005, renationalising the railways would save the taxpayer more than £500 million a year. Most franchises could be renationalised without penalty by 2013.
£800 million a year is drawn out of the rail industry in profits.
If private sector debts were transferred to the public sector, which can borrow money at a cheaper rate, more than £300 million could be saved.
Another £200 million would be saved by reductions in regulatory bureaucracy and in subsidies paid to private train companies.
The study also proposed a one-off windfall tax of £100 million to £200 million on the excess profits made by train leasing companies.
A Catalyst spokesman said: “Ministers have suggested that we cannot afford to take the railways back into public ownership. The reality is that we cannot afford not to."
According to the Guardian (27 Sep 04) the pollsters ICM, have found that two-thirds of all voters, and 72% of Labour voters, back public ownership of railways. The Guardian's own independent research has revealed that only one in 10 of the public thinks that passenger services should be run by the private sector as they are now. From stockbroker-belt commuters in middle England to Labour's traditional heartlands which were built around the railway, the policy of renationalising the railways is a policy that resonates with the electorate. The Government, of whatever complexion, needs to demonstrate that it isn't afraid to take radical decisions on public services.
Last edited by Minracfan (2005-04-03 19:40:05)
|
|
| 2005-04-03 19:09:24 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
The Campaign to reopen the Beverley to York line is reported by the leading public sector support group Serco in their journal. See
http://www.serco.com/media/industrynews ... ID=7565256
"Campaigners fighting to reopen the former Beverley to York railway line have welcomed a new study [Carl Bro] which recommends that the project should go forward into the next stage of its development.......... A recent report by the Countryside Agency concluded that the rail link is of strategic regional importance and has potential for reopening."
The number of cars on British roads has broken through the 30 million mark and is rising so fast that finding a place to park is becoming a daily ordeal for most people, a study has found. See
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 47,00.html
More cars will soon be fighting for fewer spaces. See
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 12,00.html
The figures now reveal the problem will only get worse. Although the number of cars on British roads has just broken the 30million barrier, government projections reveal that during the next two decades an extra 10million cars are expected to clog the network. In contrast ten years ago car ownership stood at just 24.3million. In metropolitan areas traffic volumes are forecast to rise a third, according to the Department of Transport's predictions.
The problem is illustrated in Beverley. See
http://www.thisishull.co.uk/displayNode ... ebarsearch
and
http://www.beverleytoday.co.uk/ViewArti ... ID=1005708
During the Parliamentary Committee Meetings on the re-opening of the Waverley Line (now backed by the Scottish Executive) some research from Germany on a railway re-opening was cited to show that 40% of those questioned were prepared to transfer to public transport if it was a railway compared to only 4% if it was a bus.
Oil production could peak next year. Swiss financiers are so concerned at the economic implications of this that they have consulted Colin Campbell, a retired exploration expert, who helped to found the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre. Campbell spent most of his career exploring for oil on three continents. He was chief geologist for Amoco, a vice-president of Fina, and has worked for BP, Texaco, Shell, ChevronTexaco and Exxon in a dozen different countries. He says "About 944bn barrels of oil has so far been extracted, some 764bn remains extractable in known fields, or reserves, and a further 142bn of reserves are classed as 'yet-to-find', meaning what oil is expected to be discovered. If this is so, then the overall oil peak arrives next year."
If so global oil production can be expected to decline steadily at about 2-3% a year, the cost of everything from travel, heating, agriculture, trade, and anything made of plastic rises. And the scramble to control oil resources will increase. See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/ ... 50,00.html
Recent oil price increases were tracked the other day in the Times. See
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/pictur ... 766,00.jpg
The price of crude oil in February was 43 per higher than a year ago. Fuel represents about one-third of road haulier's operational costs. But hauliers are finding it harder and harder to recover the cost of fuel from their customers. See
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 74,00.html
Meanwhile Antarctic glaciers are getting smaller faster. They are in dramatic retreat as a result of climate change, the first comprehensive survey of the region has revealed. Scientists have discovered that 87 per cent of the 244 marine glaciers in the Antarctic Peninsula have shrunk over the past 50 years, and the speed at which they are melting is increasing.
Last edited by Minracfan (2005-04-24 20:48:04)
|
|
| 2005-04-24 19:59:11 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
According to the Times
see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 79,00.html
Climate change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream — the mighty ocean current that keeps Britain and Europe from freezing.
They have found that one of the “engines” driving the Gulf Stream — the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea — has weakened to less than a quarter of its previous strength.
The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could precede major changes in the current over the next few years or decades. It could lead to Britain and northwestern and Europe undergoing a big fall in temperatures.
This could have a severe impact on Britain, which is on the same latitude as Siberia and should be much colder. The Gulf Stream transports 27,000 times more heat to Britain than all the nation’s power supplies could provide, warming Britain by 5-8C.
The researchers believe that just such changes have started.
The winters of 2004 and 2005 demonstrated that snow chaos on the A1079 and its feeder roads is already a problem. More severe winters can be expected in the Wolds and the Vale of York as global warming causes the Gulf Stream to divert from the vicinity of the UK.
On 29 January 2004 the East Riding Mail reported that "arctic conditions" caused chaos "after blizzards again hit the region".
"Freezing snow storms" created problems on many of the "main routes" across the East Riding and Hull.
Drivers again were seriously delayed as they "crawled along on treacherous roads."
Temperatures fell to -4C (25F), as 50 MPH winds traversed the region.
Several inches of snow fell in the night, adding to the heavy falls already covering much of the area.
Roughly 1,000 tons of rock salt were laid on roads in the previous two days.
A Humberside Police representative said: "It's still pretty horrendous out there at the moment and people are going to have to be extremely careful."
Experience of Rail Links tells us that they are far less susceptible to Winter paralysis and (where available) provide important and safe alternatives to snow and ice bound road transport.
Last edited by Minracfan (2005-05-08 22:54:18)
|
|
| 2005-05-08 22:52:25 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
Have you ever wondered how much fuel is wasted sitting in traffic jams? According to the Financial Times worsening traffic jams in the US resulted in more than 2bn gallons of wasted fuel as engines idled on congested roads in 2003. See
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/15629336-c0f0- ... 511c8.html
Annual delay per traveller during rush hour increased from 16 hours in 1982 to 47 hours in 2003. Total time spent sitting in traffic reached 3.7bn hours in 2003 and consumed 2.3bn gallons of fuel, equating to $63bn in costs.
Taking into account today's higher fuel prices, total costs jump another $1.7bn.
|
|
| 2005-05-12 20:48:26 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
According to the Guardian see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange ... 1,00.html. Europe is failing to take on climate change. The latest figures for Europe's greenhouse gas emissions due out next week, show that the 15 countries who were EU members in 2003 increased their emissions by 1.1% in the year up to 2004.
Under the Kyoto agreement EU countries must reduce emissions by 8% by 2012. Most countries are now falling well behind. Britain increased its total emissions more than all other EU countries except Italy and Finland in 2003/4. The 1.3% increase, equivalent to 7.4m tonnes of carbon, was mainly because people drove more.
But the figures are embarrassing for Britain and may weaken Britain's negotiating position with the US by suggesting that policies to limit the use of fossil fuels are not working.
Next week the government's Sustainable Development Commission will amongst other things propose radical new vehicle taxes.
The UK's emissions are increasing mainly because rising traffic levels are counteracting the small gains being made in fuel efficiency.
Road transport causes about a quarter of all British emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas.
|
|
| 2005-06-18 12:28:37 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
Clearly in the developing global climate exascerbated by the insatiable demand to transport people and goods ever increasing distances and to find space for their vehicles we will want to develop popular and environmentally sustainable methods of mass transport - not least in key areas of the East Riding where these are currently lacking.
There was an interesting piece in today's Sunday Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... _2,00.html
In summary high oil prices are here to stay. Production in Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest producer, is at or close to a peak. It cites the fact that 90% of its oil comes from seven giant fields, all of which are mature and increasingly in need of water injection to keep pressure high underground. "There is only a small probability that Saudi Arabia will ever deliver the quantities of petroleum that are assigned to it in all the major forecasts of world oil production and consumption."
Last year we had the biggest absolute rise in world energy demand on record, and the biggest increase in greenhouse-gas emissions. High energy prices will in themselves change the future balance of economic power. The breakneck expansion of China and India, and of emerging economies, could be held back by their appetite for energy in an era of high prices.
Advanced economies that have reduced the ratio of energy usage to growth because of energy efficiency and the decline in heavy industries, are in a better position to cope.
Fast and sustainable transport is part of that drive to efficiency and the regions and the sub - regions that do not have it will be uncompetitive.
|
|
| 2005-06-19 23:17:56 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
|
| 2005-06-23 21:29:33 |
|
Minracfan
Member
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 30
|
|
Thanks to John Warden for starting this message board.
I may disagree with them but I respected the forceful and coherent way he put his arguments and his absolute right to make them.
From today there will be no further contributions from me. I wish the rail scheme and your readers all the best.
|
|
| 2005-06-27 22:28:09 |
|
JohnW
Moderator
Registered: 2004-04-12
Posts: 963
|
|
Minracfan,
Thanks for your endorsement.
I still strongly disagree with you, especially over the costs and practicality of this scheme, but I will confine myself to just a few final points.
The Carl Bro estimate of £190 million (or £240 million including contingency) at today's prices is likely to escalate considerably. Given recent examples of overspend and overrun on capital projects, a more likely figure is closer to £500 million, which needs to be inflated to real values if ever this goes ahead.
The problem of a rail link is that it is city centre to city centre. How many people who presently drive to work on the A1079 work within walking distance of a railway station? Not many, so how are they to get from the station to work? Given the distance between the rail and bus stations in York and Beverley, even transfering to bus will be time consuming. More to the point, how do they get to the station from home? Driving and parking at the station, so how much congestion will there be at the station car parks?
The other problem applies to goods transport by rail.
Example, load up lorry at factory, drive to station. Unload goods from lorry and load onto trailer, take trailer to goods platform. Unload goods from trailer and load onto train. Train travels to destination. Unload goods from train and load onto trailer, take trailer to loading bay. Unload goods from trailer and load onto lorry. Lorry drives to destination and unloads. A total of ten handling operations.
Or, load goods onto lorry at factory, drive to destination and unload.
Rail freight is only useful for bulk goods over fixed routes with their own loading/unloading facilities.
Then there is human nature. We have become used to the flexibility and independence of cars as opposed to public transport. Leaving home five minutes late by car only results in being five minutes late at one's destination. Missing a train by just 30 seconds will mean arriving an hour late.
Finally, what happens in the event of an incident on the rail line? Before moving back here to civilisation I spent several years commuting into London by train. On average there were delays once a week, often lasting several hours. Trains are just as susceptible to bad weather as cars, sometimes more so. Trains can't easily be re-routed on diversions to avoid hold-ups.
All your arguments have been about reducing congestion due to the layout of one junction, the A1079/ A166/A64 intersection. Remodelling that junction would reduce congestion and render the whole project irrelevant. Build a two-lane link between the A166 and A1079 a couple of miles east; make the A1079 one way westbound and the A166 one way eastbound between there and the roundabout. Rephase the lights and with two lanes of traffic and you could double the traffic flow across the roundabout.
Sorry, but all your propoganda efforts have been in vain.
This subject is now closed.
|
|
| 2005-07-01 15:29:22 |
|