On Jun 21, 5:41 pm, Tony Polson  wrote:
> Mark Robinson  wrote:
> >Paul Corfield wrote:
>
> >> The point here is that successful public transport should get some of
> >> the car users out of their cars occasionally.  
>
> >Not in the eyes of the DfT. Remember that the reduction of fuel tax
> >income due to getting drivers out of their cars has to be accounted
> >for as a *cost* in the CBA for a public transport scheme.
>
> But it *IS* quite clearly a cost.  Why should it not be accounted for?

The problem is that benefits, such as reductions in CO2, air pollution
and journey time reliability are under-valued in the same economic
appraisal system.  Other road scheme costs are not monetised: quality
of life, community severance and so on.  The result of these biases is
obvious: road schemes go ahead and PT projects are swept aside, thus
entrenching and generating further car dependency that will be harder
to tackle in the future.  The CO2 issue is particularly serious -
DEFRA should intervene to ensure the precautionary principle is
adopted, to replace the low 'marginal social cost of carbon' values
employed by DfT economists.

> This is the problem when road users are so heavily taxed that the
> revenue can be used to pay for other, usually completely unrelated
> things (only a tiny fraction is spent on roads, while rail gets a bit
> more).

Citation please.  The RCEP's 1994 Report on Transport and the
Environment stated that road users pay for around 110% of measurable
and monetised costs, with private cars subsidising heavy goods
traffic.  I don't have a more recent study to hand, but I would assume
this figure has dropped to below 85% in light of today's volume of
traffic and revised values of carbon (from Stern and the IPCC to name
but two references).  It hasn't gone down, that's for sure.

> When road users transfer to public transport, a considerable
> amount of revenue is then lost.

But direct wear and tear costs, the need for new road infrastructure
and the other costs I mentioned all decrease, possibly generating a
net saving.

> If the motorist isn't using the road, he/she isn't paying, which begs
> the question, where is the money going to come from?

The net savings described above, plus other tax revenues such as
business rates (e.g. Crossrail) and loans.  Three Norwegain cities
introduced toll rings that continued until sufficient revenue had been
generated to cover the capital costs of new transport infrastructure.

> So I repeat, why
> should it not be accounted for?  

See above.

EE507  wrote:

>Do let me know if you are aware of any rail schemes that are anywhere
>near as destructive as the elevated M74 through the Glasgow suburbs.


Try building a new elevated high speed rail line through the Glasgow
suburbs, and you will see that the level of opposition will be exactly
the same.  Just wait until you see the opposition to any proposal to
re-open the former Great Central main line and to any/all of the
proposed new high speed lines.  

At least motorways are of genuine benefit to enormous numbers of
people, ironically including those living nearby.  The high speed
lines will benefit only relatively tiny numbers of people who will use
them.  Yet they will still be built next to, over and/or under the
homes of a vastly greater number of people who will get absolutely no
benefit from them, but will suffer during their construction and again
during their operation, probably for the rest of their lives.

Trainspotters who think that the building of high speed lines will be
popular with the general public (over 90% of whom don't use a train of
any kind, let alone a high speed train, for their daily journey, 70%
of whom don't use a train at all in any given year, and 50% of whom
have never used one in their lives) just haven't got a clue.

Tony Polson wrote:
> EE507  wrote:
> 
>> Do let me know if you are aware of any rail schemes that are anywhere
>> near as destructive as the elevated M74 through the Glasgow suburbs.
> 
> 
> Try building a new elevated high speed rail line through the Glasgow
> suburbs, and you will see that the level of opposition will be exactly
> the same.  Just wait until you see the opposition to any proposal to
> re-open the former Great Central main line and to any/all of the
> proposed new high speed lines.  
> 
> At least motorways are of genuine benefit to enormous numbers of
> people, ironically including those living nearby.  The high speed
> lines will benefit only relatively tiny numbers of people who will use
> them.  Yet they will still be built next to, over and/or under the
> homes of a vastly greater number of people who will get absolutely no
> benefit from them, but will suffer during their construction and again
> during their operation, probably for the rest of their lives.
> 
> Trainspotters who think that the building of high speed lines will be
> popular with the general public (over 90% of whom don't use a train of
> any kind, let alone a high speed train, for their daily journey, 70%
> of whom don't use a train at all in any given year, and 50% of whom
> have never used one in their lives) just haven't got a clue. 

And 90+% won't live next to the route.

"Let alone a high speed train". Well, to all intents and purposes there 
aren't any to use in the UK. It is rather good news for the rail lobby 
that the best arguments you can come up with are silly claims like 
"daily journey". This is as silly as previously arguing against 
electrification because there would be no point in wiring the whole network.

In 1950 no-one used motorways. I guess you believe that reviving the 
northern extension of the M23 would be more popular round here than a 
high speed line to the north?

The claim that 50% of people have never used rail was rubbished in the 
past. Simply wishing it to be true won't make it so - evidence would be 
nice.

If you have any evidence of your various claims, why are you so 
dependent on the use of the word "trainspotter" in the hope it will 
magically make everyone think you have a clue?

(sits back and waits for "trainspotter", "killfile", "I advised Henry 
Ford on cars", "God e-mails me for advice" etc etc).
-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

EE507  wrote:

>On Jun 27, 8:17=A0am, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The claim that 50% of people have never used rail was rubbished in the
>> past. Simply wishing it to be true won't make it so - evidence would be
>> nice.
>
>Some people still think that a modal share of 6% of passenger km means
>only 6% of the population uses trains.


Some of us are quite capable of looking at the DfT statistics for
passenger-journeys as well as passenger-km.  Why aren't you?

Probably because they tell the truth, and the answers don't suit your
view of how the world should be.

;-)

EE507  wrote:

>On Jun 28, 10:14 pm, Tony Polson  wrote:
>> EE507  wrote:
>> >On Jun 27, 8:17=A0am, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> The claim that 50% of people have never used rail was rubbished in the
>> >> past. Simply wishing it to be true won't make it so - evidence would be
>> >> nice.
>>
>> >Some people still think that a modal share of 6% of passenger km means
>> >only 6% of the population uses trains.
>>
>> Some of us are quite capable of looking at the DfT statistics for
>> passenger-journeys as well as passenger-km.
>
>There's been precious little evidence that you can!


Nonsense.  I have a full set saved on my PC, and often refer to them. 
You could do that, but then you would have no excuse for the
ridiculous statements you make, trying to justify your point that
everyone should adopt your eccentric and highly personal lifestyle.

On Jun 29, 10:15 pm, Tony Polson  wrote:
>
> >> Some of us are quite capable of looking at the DfT statistics for
> >> passenger-journeys as well as passenger-km.
>
> >There's been precious little evidence that you can!
>
> Nonsense.  I have a full set saved on my PC, and often refer to them.
> You could do that, but then you would have no excuse for the
> ridiculous statements you make, trying to justify your point that
> everyone should adopt your eccentric and highly personal lifestyle.- Hide quoted text -

Firstly, I am thrilled that an existence without a car can be
described as 'eccentric' - that does, of course, mean that the
inhabitants of 25% of UK households are also eccentric [1]. Even if
you include only the 'carfree choosers' - those that adopt the
lifestyle by choice - that's still 7-12% of those without a car [2].
It appears some autoholics are losing sight of the ability to function
outside of their metal boxes.

Maybe a regard for the environment is also eccentric?  The
inconvenient truth is that cars are responsible for 15% of our CO2
emissions.  A perceived 'need' to drive doesn't make it OK!  If you
don't care, I would rather you just said so (like Clarkson and, I
suspect, the majority of climate change deniers), then we can move
on...

Finally, please explain where these figures come from (it does worry
me that you spout them with such obvious glee on a railway forum...):

> Trainspotters who think that the building of high speed lines will be
> popular with the general public (over 90% of whom don't use a train of
> any kind, let alone a high speed train, for their daily journey, 70%
> of whom don't use a train at all in any given year, and 50% of whom
> have never used one in their lives) just haven't got a clue.

[1] DfT Transport Trends 2006.
[2] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/03/19062/34291 and
http://www.stevemelia.co.uk/ (dissertation.doc)

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:49:37 +0100, EE507 wrote
>
> Maybe a regard for the environment is also eccentric?  The
> inconvenient truth is that cars are responsible for 15% of our CO2
> emissions.  A perceived 'need' to drive doesn't make it OK!  If you
> don't care, I would rather you just said so (like Clarkson and, I
> suspect, the majority of climate change deniers), then we can move
> on...

I don't give a toss about the environment.  There, now will you stop 
preaching about it?

On Jun 30, 10:07 pm, Stimpy  wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:49:37 퍝, EE507 wrote
>
> > Maybe a regard for the environment is also eccentric?  The
> > inconvenient truth is that cars are responsible for 15% of our CO2
> > emissions.  A perceived 'need' to drive doesn't make it OK!  If you
> > don't care, I would rather you just said so (like Clarkson and, I
> > suspect, the majority of climate change deniers), then we can move
> > on...
>
> I don't give a toss about the environment.  There, now will you stop
> preaching about it?

Possibly. Polson, Tbird?

In message 
, at 
13:49:37 on Mon, 30 Jun 2008, EE507  remarked:
> The inconvenient truth is that cars are responsible for 15% of our CO2 
>emissions.

Passenger cars and taxis are 12.8%, but I'm becoming daily more 
convinced that the contribution from this sector will decrease because 
of a combination of the cost of oil, and recession. If you want to play 
the CO2 card, I'd be looking elsewhere.

-- 
Roland Perry

You won't provoke me into saying that I don't care about the
environment - I have done and am probably continuing to do more to
steward the real macro environment than all the tree huggers rolled up
together - I just don't preach about it.

What I don't give a toss about are the adherents to this decades fad,
then the next and so on.

First, thirty years ago it was Nitrogen gases and global cooling, then
in the eighties and nineties it was the Ozone layer and were all going
to die of the Big C

Now its Carbon Dioxide - of which the oceans and nature produce 97% so
mankind produces 3% and Britain produces 2% of that and the car
driver ................ you get my drift.

And do you know - I have no intention of retreating to pre-industrial
revolution standards of living, because I will bet everything that the
tree huggers own, that they won't either.

We are where we are because because of technical advances, and we will
likewise get to where we are going for the same reason, and not
despite them.

So - if you want to stay true to the principles you are espousing -
you walk; you work in a non technical; non power assisted workplace -
if you can find one; you grow your lentils; you make your clothes out
of tree bark; you jump up and down in the winter to keep warm, if not
dry :-

I'll be the one laughing at your futile efforts and using what
mankind's ingenuity has discovered and created not to be in that fetid
condition.

Your remedy?

On Jul 1, 7:15 am, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message
> , at
> 13:49:37 on Mon, 30 Jun 2008, EE507  remarked:
>
> > The inconvenient truth is that cars are responsible for 15% of our CO2
> >emissions.
>
> Passenger cars and taxis are 12.8%, but I'm becoming daily more
> convinced that the contribution from this sector will decrease because
> of a combination of the cost of oil, and recession. If you want to play
> the CO2 card, I'd be looking elsewhere.

Unfortunately the evidence suggests otherwise.  The magical renewable,
high energy to portability ratio (and cheap) future fuel does not
exist.

Efficiency gains are consistently wiped out by more of us driving
further, more often and with fewer occupants.  Hopefully you are right
that economic factors will cut consumption, but I simply cannot
envisage de-carbonisation occuring faster than in the service and
industrial sectors.  I would expect the trend towards smaller
households to increase emissions if no serious attempts are made to
dramatically improve the existing stock.

TBirdFrank wrote:

> You won't provoke me into saying that I don't care about the
> environment - I have done and am probably continuing to do more to
> steward the real macro environment than all the tree huggers rolled up
> together - I just don't preach about it.

That seems to be what you are doing, in your own way, in 
this post ;-)

I tend to agree with you about C02, etc, but I do think
that the western world does need to cut down on waste, 
including unnecessary use of fuel, and faddy replacement
of things that are perfectly OK or can be repaired. If
global warming scares can achieve some of this, then that's 
fine with me.

> And do you know - I have no intention of retreating to pre-industrial
> revolution standards of living,

Would you like or expect to see the people of China, India 
and Africa (etc) have something like our current lifestyle? 
If so, do you think that is achievable though advances in
technology, or will we all have to cut back our 
expectations? If not, why not?

Charlie