What Can Be Done About UK Traffic Congestion?

[Solly]

Tolls?

Congestion Charges?

More expensive petrol?

Tax benefits for working at home?

Tax benefits for living close to work?

Massive investment in the rail network at considerable cost to the taxpayer?

Subsidising the cost of cars and making up for this subsidy in higher petrol taxes?

Oh sod it, let's just build more roads and cut essential train services.

[*End Is Forever*]

None of the services cut this week are "essential". The only "cuts" on key routes involve removing short, unreliable trains and replacing them with half as many, hope more reliable, trains of twice the length; no loss of capacity and considerable improvement in reliability.

[Solly]

I consider the cutting off of the whole of mid-Wales throughout the day as a cut in an essential service. I need to look more closely at other rail networks.

I'd like to see more park-and-ride ventures. Successful park-and-ride ventures.

[*End Is Forever*]

Hmm... hadn't read about mid-Wales. I've only seen comments about Virgin XC and the south. You've probably got a point there, but it's an infinitely sensible move for the most part.

Anyway, for anyone who's interested this is what I've written about it already...

It might sound bad but it's an infinitely sensible move.

Passenger growth has been phenomenal since privatisation (in that regard, it was a huge success) and the number of trains were increased... however, the train numbers were increased without any corresponding improvement in the infrastructure. Therefore, "bottlenecks" - particularly around Birmingham, where there are only two tracks south of New Street on one of the busiest (if not the busiest) lines in the country - were inevitable.

For anyone who has been stuck on the trains in Birmingham in busy periods, the truth is that the bottlenecks mean that inevitably the first train on the route is delayed until it's barely running before the second train, and then of course the passengers for both trains end up piling on the first, resulting in massive overcrowding. I've travelled twice on that Birmingham - Derby route and it has happened both times.

The obvious solution is to run one longer train rather than two short ones. Virgin are particularly at fault here; the idea that three-car Voyagers (excellent though they are) could run Cross-Country services in peak time was absurd (and now quite rightly abandoned). Sure, it's a little inconvenient for those who preferred the times that were abolished, but then train travel has rarely been a "turn up and go" pursuit, particularly now there are such big discounts for advance-booking.

So, in short, yes it sounds bad, but until the infrastructure is brought up to scratch, it's best for the passengers and it's best for the train companies. Which is better; a short, late, overcrowded train every half-hour, or a long, on-time, comfortable train every hour?

Virgin Cross-Country's "big idea" when it got hold of all those new Voyager trains was to - despite the overcrowded tracks - run a greater number of smaller trains, as the article Steve posted pointed out. Quite why no-one told them of the lunacy of this at the time, I'm not entirely sure; it seems the SRA aren't very strategic after all. A good chunk of the "cuts" are simply the reversal of a decision that should never have been made in the first place!

For example, on purchase of the Voyager trains, Virgin would have changed a route that previously had 6 6-carriage trains a day into one which had 12 3-car Voyagers. Now they've decided the lug the Voyagers together into 5- and 6-car units they'll return to 6 6-car trains. It's a reduction in the number of trains but not in the number of seats.

Elsewhere, the cuts are being made where there is excess supply. Much will be made of Virgin "abandoning Blackpool", but they only run two trains there a day anyway, on a route (Preston - Blackpool) where there are already four trains an hour minimum for the majority of the day.

People should look at the reality rather than the headline. This is an eminently sensible move. Sadly for rail-users, the only long-term solution is high investment, and I don't see that coming.

There might be some repetition there, for which I apologise.

[Solly]

OK, interesting, but I don't think trains can have much impact on traffic congestion without massive investment. Which obviously isn't going to happen under this government or the next.

[*End Is Forever*]

It wasn't your key point but seeing as you had a little rant about it at the end, I thought it was worth discussing...

[Paul Hanson]

I don't know about tax benefits as such, but getting as many people to work from home as possible seems to be to be a good idea. Of course, you're never going to be able to get 100% of people to do this, but improving the country's communications infrastructure would help quite a bit.

I'd love to be able to go into more detail on this, but my knowledge of this is akin to skin-deep, so this is about it.

[Solly]

I like the obscure idea of narrower cars.

1 seat the front, 1 at the back. Makes roads twice their current capacity as we all know 90% of car journeys are made with just one driver and 90% of the rest with driver and passenger.

Any engineers or mechanics around to explain if this would be feasible?

[Tolls]

"Tolls?"

What do you expect ME to do??

[*End Is Forever*]

I don't know, you always seemed quite an intelligent chap...

[Ozz]

Have a national Demolition Derby Day.

[Starchild]

Two things really stand out when I compare driving in England to driving in North America:

Lack of toll booths.

In America, you pay tolls when driving between states or into major metropolitian areas. In Ontario, when you use a highspeed freeway (the 401South comes to mind...or was it the 404? The Expressway? argh, forgetting former life......) you're automatically charged for its use. A camera either takes a picture of your plates and mails the bill to you or you install a transponder in your car which registers when you enter and leave the freeway and debits your bank account.

I'm going to be watching the congestion charge scheme set up in london very carefully to see how it works out.

[Solly]

No matter how it works out, the country will think it works badly because the nation's journalists who work in London will be thoroughly against it.

It's similar to how the nation is given the perception that the NHS and to a lesser extent public transport is crumbling; solely down to the problems faced in London by London journalists who write for the nation papers. Opinion polls outside of London show that people are generally happy with state-provided services.

[Tolls]

"...you pay tolls when driving between states..."

WOOHOO!
I'll be RICH!


...OK...that's enough "Tolls" jokes...I'll shut up now...

[Starchild]

Yes, the fixation with London is another very odd thing. It definately seems the capital is the be all and end all, despite the other cities in England, not to mention Scotland and Welshland. ( )

After living in Canada where the capital of the country isn't that big, important, or generally noticable; this London fixation is strange. Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal are the big three cities that compete on equal footing.

Though Toronto is by far the best, brightest, and most important city in all of Canada and quite a few American states. (Note to Americans from Buffulo, New York: Admit you come to Toronto, not because of the low dollar, but because you're too proud to go to NYC).