Borrowed from another forum (I'll put it back later):

Newsnight - Dr David Newbery

Advocated road building for inter-city transport.

Said on a proper cost/benefit analysis basis, roads are 19 times more efficient than rail, and with scare resources that would be the wisest use of money.

Responded to Green criticism about "subsidised roads" (Mrs Green ignoring fuel tax, only including RFT), that after building in all true costs including environmental costs, for road use, the amount paid in tax was about twice the true cost.

But what would he know:

http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/dae/people/newbery/index.htm

 

And there's more:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/tvseq/newsnight/newsnight.ram

...rural lines so little used every passenger costs the taxpayer £4....

....no obvious reason not to build more roads .... investment levels are the same....roads carry 19 times as many people....

.....Environmental costs from public transport as bad as for cars....if serious about climate change would tax energy use in houses....much more significant than transport....no alternative to transport fuel....is choice of insulation for houses....

......Dr Caroline Lucas (green MEP) how much of Britain do you want to concrete over....

DN ....what % of the country would be concreted over if we continued building roads at a rate greater than the curent rate....

CL ....no idea....

DN ....one sixth of one percent ....in 100 years

 

Of course one must consider also the noise and other pollution from both modes. The footprint of the M1 is pretty wide, try going for a nice quiet country walk around Trowell - lovely countryside but with a constant droning noise.

Thanks for that, Bog. After seeing the interview the other night, I decided to find out about the good Professor. Pity I couldn't remember his name and ended up down a web backwater. And it was getting late. And I had had a few drams.....

On the subject of noise, we live on a B-road, with a fairly constant stream of passing cars. The noise does not intrude, as it mainly the gentle swish of light traffic.
Last year we went to stay in an 'idyllic' cottage in Norfolk, with only a quiet, single-track road passing close by. The silence was very nice...until the hourly bus (a diesel, which laid down a thick black trail) clattered and roared its way past. Much worse than the swish of private cars.

You're in bullsh!t mode again.

Try going for a walk along the track where the trains do 186mph.

The only "advantage" the rail-roads have is that they have only one nineteenth the capacity of ordinary roads.

If the government used some of the £billions robbed from motorists to build a proper road infrastructure to match those our competitiors have (who all have vastly more mileage of motorway and national standard road per head, per acre, per you name it, then we do), instead of wasting it on "new" and "improved" rail-roads:

Your "footprint" would be a fraction the size.

And the roads would still be a better buy than a railroad.

And, and I know you have difficulty with that reading thing, but if you care to actually read the posts, they say:

Environmental costs from public transport as bad as for cars

And:

after building in all true costs including environmental costs, for road use,

Do TRY to keep up!

 

And why is it you always sidestep the points at issue?

 

The only "advantage" the rail-roads have is that they have only one nineteenth the capacity of ordinary roads.

Now let's analyse that attement:

The Union Railways link to the channel tunnel is a modern railway. It can take 18 coach trains with 3 minute headways @ 300Kph. 100 per coach that equates to 10 people per second along a single track. A single carriageway road at 70mph needs 3 seconds headway, let's assume 4 per car capacity = 1.25 per second or one-eighth the capacity of the road.

Let's fill the road with coaches @ 60mph, remember the coach is longer than a car so the headway is the same, 3 secs. 60 per coach or 20 per second. However this increased capacity is paid for by reducing the speed from that of the train by a factor of 3. Once moving block signalling is established then the line capacity of the railway @ 60mph (very pedestrian for a train) would soon exceed 20 per second.

Similar calculations for freight show a MODERN PROPERLY SIGNALLED railway can easily out-perform a MODERN PROPERLY ENGINEERED road.

Of course if we compare rural lines which have seen virtually no investment for 100 years to a motorway we may as well compare the channel tunnel to a cart track.

The last Tory Government completely fragmented the railways and created such a mess that private contractors are able to treat the whole thing as a massive gravy train. Contracts worth £25m have been costing £150m. The health and safety people have been making ludicrous demands i.e. total closures for minor works when seldom is a motorway shut for maintenance and I'm yet to hear of anyone getting compensated for being stuck in a road traffic jam.

Yes, let's analyse that attement, whatever that is:

How do the cars get to the terminal?

How does the train get to the cars?

How far down the line does the train hit 300kph?

How far from the other end does it start braking?

How does that affect the headway and the calculations?

Why 60 per road coach?

Why 3 seconds and not 2 between coaches?

Why not the actual headway you see on motorways, which is less still?

Why not the 70 they are actually allowed to do on motorways?

In fact, why not the speed they should realistically be allowed to do on the best modern properly engineered road (or, better still, on a dedicated rail to road conversion with even better gradients and curves)?!

And as for all that crap about new signalling:

That wouldn't be the "new" systems that thay are having to abandon all over the place, and go back to blokes pulling levers in a signal box?

Can I suggest you actually go out and see what happens in the real world.

And not use the figures that give you the answers you would like to get.

 

Oh, and why doesn't the chunnel run at anything like that headway?

 

How do the cars get to the terminal?

The passengers can arrive by train, tram, underground or bus. Remember one tramline has a similar capacity.

How does the train get to the cars?

What cars????


How far down the line does the train hit 300kph?

After about 3 minutes - so for the first few miles a wider trackbed is needed or multiple lines converge.

How far from the other end does it start braking?

Same as above but in reverse

How does that affect the headway and the calculations?

Slightly more formation needed at the ends

Why 60 per road coach?

Actually it should be 50 as this is the legal maximum on a single carriageway. Sorry the road model is not as good as I predicted.

Why 3 seconds and not 2 between coaches?

Highway code rule 105 "The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances diagram below)" Equates to 3 seconds


Why not the actual headway you see on motorways, which is less still?

Because any less is not safe. See the highway code rule 105

Why not the 70 they are actually allowed to do on motorways?

Because we're talking about the land-take in both cases of a single line in each direction. If you want to talk about the land take of a motorway, 3 lanes plus a hard shoulder i.e. 4 tracks in each direction then the railway capacity would exceed all necessary capacity.

In fact, why not the speed they should realistically be allowed to do on the best modern properly engineered road (or, better still, on a dedicated rail to road conversion with even better gradients and curves)?!

Which is? (incidently I'm still waiting for your answer as to what you consider the safe speeds on a motorway, a dual carriageway and an urban dual carriageway like the Nottingham Ring Road to be. You seem to have side-stepped that one)

And as for all that crap about new signalling:

That wouldn't be the "new" systems that thay are having to abandon all over the place, and go back to blokes pulling levers in a signal box?

No it's the next generation still on the drawing board but it really will revolutionise rail capacity. Unfortunately the system which has had teething problems is a system that should never have left the drawing board! Moving block will upset the road hauliers!

Can I suggest you actually go out and see what happens in the real world.

I do every day

And not use the figures that give you the answers you would like to get.

No I use the figures researched over the last 20 years and one day (soon) will be real.

Oh, and why doesn't the chunnel run at anything like that headway?

It's designed to, but as I said earlier H & S have the knives out. It's mainly because of fears emanating from road and shipping interests.

Anon is using a common technique as you have noticed, Bog.
Example: "A typical car carries only the driver, or at most two people, but the bus can carry 60!".

My response: Yes indeed. But a typical car can carry five people, whereas all the buses I see outside peak hours have only two old ladies on board.

Another: "With the latest signalling equipment and tilting trains, railways can easily outperform the gridlocked roads"

Me: The only reason our roads are gridlocked is because they've had bugger-all spent on them for years - except 'improvements' like narrowing, lower limits and closures. And as for the latest signalling etc, here is the news:

From The Stockport Express:

A MULTI-million pound scheme to upgrade signalling on Stockport’s train tracks went off the rails this week when workmen were told to down tools.

Rail staff working on tracks between Stockport and Heaton Chapel were ordered to abandon the state-of-the-art signalling system and instead put back the old signals.

Red-faced Network Rail bosses have blamed the “complexities of track and signalling layout at Stockport” for the u-turn.

Preparation work has been going on for the past two years to replace the 1950s signalling in a £200 million project to also upgrade Victorian tracks through Stockport and install overhead cabling.

A railway worker, who did not wish to be named, said: “Staff were flabbergasted to be told they have to rip out the new points; it has been more than two years’ work for nothing - a complete waste of money. Now it is more a case of patch up and make do.”

A spokesman at Network Rail denied the scheme had been abandoned but was forced to concede the cutting edge technology had not lived up to expectations.

He explained: “The new kit installed for the computer-based technology in the Stockport area focuses on ten sets of switches and crossings which will be taken out and used in future schemes.”

He admitted that the cost of replacement would run into “thousands of pounds” but added “it’s quite old technology but it’s reliable”.

Network Rail’s spokesman added: “It was Railtrack that decided to implement this system in Stockport and nobody appreciated how complex it would be, and we are saddled with this problem.”

However, the setback could have much wider implications for the technology, made by Italian firm Ansaldo, which was to be installed throughout the country. One worker said the Stockport system was going to be the “benchmark” for the rest of the country.

The Network Rail spokesman explained: “We installed the computerised system between Cheadle Hulme and Stockport and it is very reliable on that stretch but there are four lines running through Stockport and that makes it more difficult.

“A decision has now been taken to defer the installation of the computer-based signalling system. This will allow more time to carry out development/testing before a final decision is taken as to what long-term signalling system will be installed at Stockport.”

Until the decision is made “within the next few months” signal boxes at Stockport, Edgeley and Heaton Norris would be retained.

In the meantime, other works including a massive multi-million pound replacement of 140-year-old track will go ahead in July and August next year with the closure of Stockport railway station for seven weeks.

Stockport MP Ann Coffey said she was disturbed to hear about delays in implementing the new signalling system.

“What appears to have happened is they built this signal box at Edgeley and opened it but there was no indication when it would be operational. I would be better pleased if we had a signal box which was connected to the track to improve passenger safety.

“It’s very disappointing and it makes you wonder why they can’t get things right in the beginning.”

As a result of the abandonment of the signalling upgrade, Network Rail is planning to hand back all four lines to the train companies. If it had gone ahead only two lines would have been given back with the remaining two becoming available in 2005/2006.


Author
Peter Devine

**Rip the lot out and replace it with coach-only roads. Railways are yesterdays technology - inefficient, inflexible and unwanted**

>**Rip the lot out and replace it with coach-only roads. Railways are yesterdays technology - inefficient, inflexible and unwanted**

Agree.
The same applies to TRAMS

Example: "A typical car carries only the driver, or at most two people, but the bus can carry 60!".

Unfortunately for you I assumed in my model that the car had 4 people within.

You could also accuse him of lying.

I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, and just assume he can't read.

For example I went into great detail to answer his questions about speed limits.

But he obviously was incapable of reading it.

Blind?

Or blind drunk?

 

And as for 3 minutes to stop.

Three minutes!

Ban them now!

 

I think all your other points have been answered already, often by yourself:

It will be possible "one day".

 

You stick to living in the 60's when the motor car was going to be the saviour and the future. I'll live in the 21st century and look forward to a clean, quiet, and exciting future.

As does David Newberry. He's an affiliate of LECG, a company specialising in providing an "expert" for whatever purpose you have in mind, arguing on Newsnight, making a lobbying proposal, actual lobbying etc. etc. etc. here's a part of their mission statement:

"Our clients include Fortune Global 500 corporations, major law firms, and government agencies around the world."

Just the kind of people who are increasingly obviously the last who should be included in formulating public policy.

As a scientist he is untrustworthy as his studies don't factor in human, societal and aesthetic factors in making recommendations.

Just another one of Tony's Oligarchists.

That would be unlike T2000, funded by private, for profit, "public" transport companies, then?

Or that "Encyclopaedia" that the pro tram scammers keep quoting.

Written by a panel of experts of one.

Who is so unbiased that he reckons that as several times as many journeys are made on foot as by car (from the door to the car, from the car to the door, and non car related journeys):

Several times as much of taxpayers money should be spent on pavements as on roads!

 

Next!

 

You stick to living in the 60's when the motor car was going to be the saviour and the future. I'll live in the 21st century and look forward to a clean, quiet, and exciting future.

 

Like this, you mean:

The Facts About Light Rail