Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom Commis
1. To scrap all subsidies on passenger railways and removing the obligation on operators to continue unprofitable services. I suggest this for enviromental reasons chiefly - the much vaunted enviromental efficiency of rail (that is fuel per passenger mile) disappears when you have a lot of services with few and sometimes no passengers. You could introduce more subsidised minibus services in rural areas to compensate.
|
Your argument makes a lot of sense, but so what? No, I mean it. It is not what the public want to hear. They still think the Beecham closures were a mistake (those that have an opinion). People look to the continent and admire the rail systems there. 'Run like clockwork', 'always on time'. This has only been achieved by massive public investment. I once heard that the French rail network cost more than the debt of some African countries. (Don't know how true that is).
No one will vote for a party that promises to cut funding in something perceived as a public service, in my opinion. So overall, I would actually suggest the opposite. Sorry.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom Commis
2. To use the money saved not subsidising passenger services to subsidise rail freight at least temporarily. The purpose of this is to reduce road freight which is responsibile for most of the wear and tear on roads. This benefits the remaining road users.
|
Agree, except of course, that it can't be done from the savings from 1 that I don't think should be made
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom Commis
3. The best thing both economically and enviromentally is for journeys to be as swift as possible and this would be helped by minimising roadworks. This could be achieved by using the most durable road surfaces (not done at present) and by getting utilities to synchronise their works. I also believe much of work done by phone and gas companies should not neccesitate digging up roads; you could access pipes and wires from the pavement.
|
Re digging up roads, I thought they were trying to do that already. All sensible suggestions, though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom Commis
4. To raise the speed limit on motorways to 90mph which I think reasonably safe. I would balance this by introducing other measures to make roads safer such as limits on the cars new drivers can own (like the ones they have for motorbikes) as most serious accidents seem to be caused by young drivers and also a certain number of random test retakes for which drivers would be eligible five years after passing their test.
|
Raising speed limits might be a touchy subject. Personally, I believe in variable speed limits, but that will take some doing (i.e. at low volume times a higher limit than at high volume times). I think the speed limit issue is a general problem to be addressed as a whole (see the speed camera thread!) I think the problem is that speed limits will always be reduced by authorities for fear of being blamed for road deaths.
I'm also not sure about limiting cars to new drivers, because bad driving can be done in any car. I understand the principle though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom Commis
These ideas seem pretty sensible to me but I'd appreciate some feedback, most attention on transport seems focussed on the issue of speed cameras (which I'd cut back on massively by the way).
|
I agree that a transport policy needs to be wide ranging. People will want to hear 'more investment' however. Raising speed limits might be a vote winner, but see Mikeuk's last comment on the speed camera thread, where he says he was accused of irresponsibility for suggesting they be got rid of.
I hope I haven't been too negative.