Safe Speed Forums

Rail revolution to clear Britain's road gridlock 'in next 30

Double-decker trains are just one part of an official plan to tackle our transport crisis and persuade people to abandon their cars

Gaby Hinsliff, Nick Mathiason, Juliette Jowit and Martha Alexander
Sunday November 26, 2006
The Observer

A railway revolution to ease the pressure on packed commuter routes and shorten journeys between major cities is being drawn up within government following a major Treasury review.
The report, by former chief executive of British Airways Sir Rod Eddington, to be published next month, will warn that Britain's creaking transport system is near saturation point. It will call for a major expansion of rail capacity over the next 30 years to help take the strain off congested roads.

Ministers want to boost the number of trains that can run on the existing network by improved signalling and specialised trains designed to travel more closely together. Double-deck trains could also be introduced on busy routes, with tracks beneath tunnels lowered to fit them, while longer trains are planned on commuter routes.
Britons make just over a billion rail journeys a year, a figure predicted to rise to 1.3 billion by 2025: traffic on English roads is expected to rise by at least 29 per cent by 2015.

The review comes as an analysis by London Mayor Ken Livingstone predicts an extra four million passenger journeys a day through the capital by 2025 as jobs are created and the population swells, threatening permanent gridlock between Heathrow and the City unless more people can be persuaded to use public transport.

The Eddington review, expected to be published on the eve of Gordon Brown's pre-budget report, will back a limited number of new road improvements to tackle serious localised bottlenecks. But it will reject a major roadbuilding programme, arguing that new roads would simply become quickly clogged with cars too. Eddington backs road pricing, under which drivers pay a toll per mile for using the busiest routes at certain times, to reduce congestion instead.

'We are not in the market of huge engineering projects that cost billions,' said one source familiar with the report. 'It is about the things that make a difference to people like you and me daily.'

However, Chris Grayling, the Tories' transport spokesman, predicted that the report would be a 'complete failure' to meet its original brief because it was not ambitious enough: 'Longer platforms are the kind of solution that would be needed within the next ten years to deal with the huge problems of over-crowding. After that, it should be about the kind of transformational projects that may be needed in the future.'

Eddington will argue that economic growth is generating more traffic as people become richer and want to travel more, but future economic growth will be restricted if businesses cannot move people and goods around. He is said to have abandoned early support for the introduction of Maglev (magnetic levitation) trains, which can travel at up to 300mph, after Treasury objections about the cost. However in a sign that there have been tensions behind the scenes over the report's conclusions, ministers will take several months to consider their response rather than immediately accepting his conclusions.

They will publish detailed specifications next summer for a new generation of inter-city trains to replace the familiar but ageing 125s, which could be designed for greater capacity and be powered by greener energy sources.

But John Redwood, who chairs a commission on economic competitiveness set up by David Cameron, said it was wrong to argue that building new roads was pointless because they would become congested: 'The government doesn't say "Put in a few more hospital beds and people will only use them, so they will all get blocked again". They just offer more beds. The same must be true of rail and road capacity.'

Forcing drivers on to rail would not work unless capacity increased, he said, with mainline networks now able to cope with only about 20 trains an hour at peak times. Running them more closely together has previously been impossible because of the danger of fast trains crashing into each other, but Redwood's commission is studying the Paris Metro, where trains are fitted with special wheels enabling them to brake and accelerate quickly and thus travel more closely together.

Redwood's commission is expected to recommend spending tens of billions of pounds more in investment for transport, but say that the money should come from the private sector, not the public purse.

traffic on English roads is expected to rise by at least 29 per cent by 2015.

My instinct tells me that traffic growth must slow down. We are richer than ever, 2 car households are the norm etc etc. Are we approaching car ownership saturation with future growth likely to come through population expansion rather than increasing ownership per capita?

I would imagine we'll see a change in the traffic mix though. For instance seriously long commutes appear to be getting more prevalent (e.g my 2 1/2 trek) but they don't cause congestion only when I enter the built up areas and how far I travel has little bearing on that.

No doubt this is too simplistic a view.

It is strange that they do not see that we don't need to be in the same building to meet up at all.

broadband is more likly to reduce the congestion than a few trains.

One problem with rail transport - one set of passenger commutes long distance . Other set commutes to next town. We need two sepearate sets of train systems--so we need two sets of tracks.. Next - have we got an integrated transport system - do busses arrive/depart from train stations regularly , even if going to a central bus station - as far as i can see from stations in the Midlands - NO
So what incentive have people got to travel by train - i could get to my local train station, get a train to my work station , then have a quarter of mile walk ---not nice in rain etc.

Buses are an essential service for those who do not / can not drive, but a door-to-door integrated public transport system has always seemed a bit unrealistic to me.

It bugs me how things are trotted out as "the solution". Trains are a great solution to certain problems (like last week I needed to be in London for 3 days but could only be away from home for one night ... train there and back on Tuesday, train back Wedensday morning, home on Thursday night). Bicycles are the solution for other types of journey, but not all. Bikes on Trains, again, suitable for another type of journey. Buses, cars, taxis, walking, the Underground, trams, DLR (LRT), small panes, big planes, river taxis. They are all good for something, but unless they are seen as part of a bigger whole, they are doomed to failure and possibly even ridicule.

In my very humble opinion.

Not door to door --- but terminal to terminal - you walk to the bus - walk from the bus station etc to the train , and at the other end , would expect to find a bus to take you into town etc.
Most rail stations are remote from towns/town centres - thats why it's essential to provide a bus service to town, how else can people be encouraged to give up the car??