Showing posts with label trains. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trains. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Works in Waterloo: an improvement or just a cash making scheme?

The Evening standard continues with their objective questionable journalistic, er, standards and regurgitates yet another press pack, this time from Network Rail for a change:
Waterloo station turns trendy as Carluccio's, Corney and Barrow, and Thomas Pink open up on new concourse - Transport - News - Evening Standard

Just to put things in perspective:
1. On congestion, Network Rail have made it worse by making the underground concourses longer and shut outside of peak hours

2. The Eurostar platform has been mothballed for the last 5 year... with four EMPTY platforms -quite a disgrace.

3. Finally, are they going to pull down that hideous screen/wall between the concourse and the plaforms? There's no reason Waterloo can't be as beautiful as the Gare du Nord in Paris.

To me it seems the only goal of this revamp is to provide more retail space, in other words it's a cash generating scheme that adds no benefits to the commuters.


Previous posts on Water-loo station: 

Thursday, December 02, 2010

BBC - Mind The Gap: Why do south London trains suffer most in the snow?

BBC - Mind The Gap: Why do south London trains suffer most in the snow?

Another proof that our transport system is antiquated and no longuer fit for purpose:
In south London the companies like Southern Railway, Southeastern and South West Trains have to operate using the "third rail system".That is, the electricity is transmitted to the train using an electrified third rail that the train picks up through a bit of metal called a shoe. So, while Network Rail have been running "ghost trains" (empty trains) and de-icing trains through the night there comes a point when it doesn't help.
When the snow and ice hits, if the conductor third rail is cold as soon as snow hits it, it freezes.





, , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Waterloo: more Boris Bikes but still no sign of life for the Eurostar old platforms

1009_waterloo.jpgTwo good posts this week on Londonist.
  • The first one is on the continuing mystery of the old Eurostar platforms and why they cost £4.1 to keep in mothball state -quite a good example for a pathetic failure on behalf of people in charge of the nation's rail infrastructure. It's especially enraging when you're waiting on the approach to the station in a commuter train for a platform...  I've blogged before about this, see links below.
  • And it looks like TfL has heard about my winging on Boris Bike stations being located far away from stations: Huge New Cycle Hire Station For Waterloo.  Shame common sense did not prevail in the first place, I still wonder why they looked at Montreal rather than Paris for municipal cycle hire best practices...

See my previous posts on those subjects:





, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, March 15, 2010

Join the Facebook group "Stuck at North Sheen level crossing"

Just join:
Facebook | Stuck at North Sheen Level Crossing
See my previous posts on the level crossings and the footbridge...

Do also check this BBC News footage, partly filmed at North Sheen:
As far as I am concerned, it's all too easy for Network Rail to accuse people to be careless when a level crossing is down for up to 15 mn at the time and is located in a densely populated area.

North Sheen level crossing belongs to a long bygone area and the line should be running in a covered trench at this place, leaving space for a commuters bicycle park and a more modern station for instance.



, , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 04, 2010

I could not say it better

Saw the quote below in INTERVIEW: The Man in Seat 61... - Londonist:
seat61.2.jpgIf you had a magic wand, what one thing would you do to improve London’s current transport problems?
We urgently need Crossrail, and Thameslink 2000 (or is it 3000 by now?). Like the RER in Paris, this will bring suburban trains right through the centre of the city and out the other side, relieving the Underground and for many passengers, avoiding the need to switch from train to Tube at all. But whereas other countries seem to plan ahead, we Brits prefer things to reach crisis point before we do anything.




, , , , ,

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Lessons to be learnt from the Eurotunnel Christmas debacle

Alright, this isn't very timely but I was enjoying my holidays in a nice farmhouse in Dordogne. So, here I am: we too were stuck with Eurotunnel because of some Eurostar trains stuck in the chunnel.

Our short story is that we heard on the radio a 5 am that the tunnel was closed, so we went back to sleep and set off late around 10 to try get through the EuroTunnel shuttles. After spending some time in a traffic jam on the A20 caused by Operation Stack (another typical English Dad's Army band-aid-like approach to solving infrastructure issues) we came back on a trailer lorry after out car broke down. Which wasn't that bad since friends of ours spent 18 hours getting through -not that nice with two small children.

At no point Eurotunnel proactively contacted us to advise on the situation, either by email or telephone, mainstream media was at least 2 hours late and we got our most reliable information from Twitter and Facebook.

Jasmine Birtles puts it well here: How not to do it – lessons from Eurostar and Eurotunnel.

Use social media and use it properly. As I pointed out above, I’ve been following #eurostar and #eurotunnel for at least a week and it was quite clear from the start that neither had a proper social media strategy. Eurostar had brought in a fledgling social media company to promote itself on Twitter using the handle @little_break but they hadn’t even taken up the @eurostar name which was used by a guy in China! It took them days to get round to tweeting information – it should have been minutes. People on the stranded trains were tweeting, angrily, the moment they got out of the tunnel. The anger and hatred poured out on the Twittersphere and Facebook (which set up a ‘We hate Eurostar’ group after just a day or so) and was largely ignored for the first all-important 48 hours after the incident. Social Media is here and is a very important means of communication. Ignore it at your peril.

Their web site was reduced to a single page, only referring to a telephone number. That number was diverted to a recorded message prompting to call that same number.

On the causes of the incident, they are now quite well documented (wrong kind of snow), but I must say the PR has been way better in France than in the UK -they got some journos onboard of the test trains, etc... As Daniele Beccari (@danbec) points out in his blog post "Eurostar communication failure: here is a glimpse of what caused it" point out details of the communication breakdown between Eurostar and Eurotunnel, in particular when it comes down to liaising with the staff in the trains inside the tunnel, it's far from clear whom the responsibility lies with.

Daniele concludes that he is "now getting nervous for my future travels, because I don’t like the idea of being left alone in an emergency situation due to gaps in responsibilities."

This same post also goes on to comment that incredible Eurotunnel press statement fingerpointing Eurostar -well worth a read for anyone in communications. They accused Kent Police too -can't think this will benefit them in any ways...

His conclusions:
  • Eurostar staff inside the trains was probably not allowed to do and say anything at all. They have probably been waiting for information from Eurostar HQ, which was in turn waiting for information from Eurotunnel HQ.
  • Eurotunnel staff have executed the emergency operations, and they probably have the instructions to report to central without leaking any information – even to Eurostar staff.
  • Eurotunnel HQ has probably taken the time to verify every detail and ensure control before communicating to Eurostar.
  • Eurotunnel is not a consumer facing company. Hence I am not sure if they have any marketing, customer service or consumer focused PR agency. I am not sure if they have any procedure for external communication at all. [There is an @eurotunnel Twitter account but it seems never been used].
  • This is probably a stretch, but if Eurotunnel zone of responsibility stops just outside the tunnel I wonder if this explains the reports from passengers that they had to wait again for hours once outside the tunnel for someone to come and pick them up.

On my side've tried to send them an email, but all I only ever get was an autoresponder.

Heather Yaxley MIPR echoes this in her post "Winter blunderland – snow highlights poor PR at Eurostar, Eurotunnel and more":
  • Marketing messages are still being communicated – I called the Eurotunnel FlexiPlus phone number yesterday (to cancel a booking) and instantly was advised this was the fastest route to France. What a joke!
  • When there is a crisis, hiding behind recorded messages is insulting. In the case of Eurotunnel, the customer information line (08444 630000) provided little information and directed customers to the web (www.eurotunnel.com) to rebook. That means of communication was equally poor – and only allowed you to select another date, to travel in the same direction. The online instruction was to call the customer contact centre (08443 35 35 35) to cancel – which was another pathetic recorded message. (Or you can email: customer.relations@eurotunnel.com) Hence, under “contact us” I found the FlexiPlus premium customer line (0844 335 3335) answered (after the marking message) by a real person. Although no apologies were expressed my cancellation was efficiently wiped off the system with a “phew that’s one out of the way” attitude.
  • There has been no direct communication with people booked onto either Eurostar or Eurotunnel – and this seems common in other organisations such as the airlines. When making most travel bookings, you are required to provide email and mobile phone contact details. So, why not use these to actually update customers. Relying on media reports, rarely updated websites or recorded customer phone lines does not put the company in control of its own communications. Hence people turn to Twitter and other forums where wider criticism of the organisations soon escalates. I was busy packing my car to leave yesterday when my mum called – she lives in France but heard a television news report regarding Eurotunnel’s “saturation” meltdown – without this, I would have been stuck with two dogs in freezing conditions for hours. A text or email – or preferably both – would have been simple. After all, my dentist, doctor and car dealer all manage to do this for routine matters.
Not so simple if you don't have a good CRM system...

The information provided by Eurotunnel on the situation was to not travel and we decided to tempt our chances again on Tuesday 22nd. We had been unable to either call Eurostar or change our booking via your web site as the reservation below did include a password.
At this point, Eurotunnel was still indicating long delays and even that your Folkestone terminal was closed.

We eventually crossed but this has not only costed us a 180 miles roundtrip and a full day in the car for nothing and we missed two important Christmas celebrations with some relatives we typically only see once a year.

We arrived there and saw the shortest queues we've ever experienced in over 12 years of regular custom!

Bottom line:
I believe all that could have been much better managed by Eurotunnel (not to mention Eurostar), via real time communication with their customers by SMS, email and some PR that would focus on actually helping customers (rather than finger pointing Eurostar). Or put in other words, their response has simply been inadequate: answerphone, autoresponder, finger pointing PR.

I've asked Eurotunnel a full refund of my ticket, some vouchers for a new crossing in the future and £100 in compensation for the journey that we undertook in vain and the expenses incurred then. We'll see what we get...

PS
Slate.fr explains (in French) that UK is now much more European than it was 15 years ago and that Brits can't now do without the tunnel anymore. UK isn't an island then?

Thursday, January 08, 2009

What if those who govern us had a long term view about strategic infrastructures?

I posted the following comments on this blog post of this morning:
The Toleration Of Public Transport on Jonathan MacDonald.com

These are the consequences of the refusal to invest in a proper public transportation system for 30 years: high prices and bad service.

They've tried to privatise and introduce competition, but the idea just doesn't work with infrastructure: you just can't make a profit, provide universal access, good interconnections and good service with redundant infrastructure.

If the government had taken a long term approach, the results could be:
- that the Eurostar platforms don't stand un-used for a year after they've innaugurated High Speed 1 and St Pancras International, when on the other hand trains are waiting for a platform on approach to Waterloo station
- that the Waterloo and City line would not be an isolated branch but would serve as a junction tunnel between the overground in Waterloo to the overground in Moorgate (strange that no one ever thought that trains could come from Reading / Portsmouth all the way to Stevenage / Cambridge)
- an airport in the estuary with 5 runways instead of 5 airports in dense conurbations, each with 1 or 2 runways
- a high-speed line to the Midlands and Scotland, with an interchange with the Eurostar
- Water pipes that are buried so that they don't freeze when the temperature drops

And so on... it's a long story of incompetence and short-sighted decisions.


, , , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 05, 2009

Thursday, December 04, 2008

More on Manor road and Heathrow

Seems now the government is embarrassed:

Decision on third runway delayed(BBC.co.uk)























"Anti-Heathrow expansion campaigners claim the government is stalling"

"A decision on whether a third runway
should be built at Heathrow Airport has been put back to January 2009,
the Department for Transport has said.
"


And also, the impact of the Airtrack on local level crossing is making into national news:




BBC NEWS | England | London | Rail link 'may cause longer wait'


Read also my previous post: Airtrack and North Sheen Crossing


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, November 17, 2008

Airtrack and North Sheen Crossing

I picked up last week a flyer from the LibDems at North Sheen station, to read that at my great pleasure Susan Kramer has obtained that the footbridge to the South side of the track will be rebuilt.

This is not only a practical issue, as with the new train schedules the level crossing in Manor road is down a a lot (read in the RTT: Level crossing bottlenecks choking Richmond, apparently it could be 75% of the time in the future!) it is also a safety issue. Indeed, I'm glad to get someone chiming in on something I've raised over two years ago:

Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon discussed safety concerns to pedestrians brought about by the delays.She said: “People get so frustrated waiting for the barriers thatsome have been tempted to go round them and run across the tracks.“Children have been seen doing this and it’s just an accident waiting to happen.”

It's also unfair for local residents: we get all the congestion but only four trains per hour at peak time. At least, we should get four trains per hour off-peak as well.

(plus, let's fine stationary cars too: Stuck at a level crossing? Turn off the engine or pay £20 fine - The Times)

What's the link with this and Airtrack, the plan to improve Heathrow's access by rail? At first sight, it looks like a good idea, and I am always supportive for better public transport.

However, it's hard to read without being suspicious of BAA's intentions, here's my take:

  1. BAA and BA build a new terminal in Heathrow (despite massive local opposition, read on BBC.com: Heathrow runway debate a 'sham'), claiming it's vital for the economy (without supporting this with any proof) and despite London being served by 4 other airports...
  2. Oh, shoot, access to Heathrow by public transport isn't that good and, as opposed to what's going on the continent, there's no high-speed rail link.
  3. And, bugger, if they extend the airport, they won't meet the new EU emission criteria, even with BAA's imaginary green’ jumbo (The Times).
  4. Easy: they just improve the public transport and create a car-free zone around the airport.
  5. Expensive? Not really, they say let's just extend the existing train lines, charge more for parking and create a road tax on the model of Red Ken's London Congestion Charge.
The snag? The train network, for not having received significant investments in the last 30 years, is completely saturated in the South East of England. And those trains to Heathrow, they will have to run somewhere. Like through Richmond...

This is why I oppose Airtrack, unless they actually invest significantly to increase rail capacity: North Sheen should be buried underground, a car park created on top to encourage people to park and take the train and we should see 8 trains an hour.

You can make your views heard on Thursday


Read my other posts on the North Sheen footbridge and those on Heathrow Expansion.

And also: MPs attack Airtrack (RTT)


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Lyon-Paris vs. Manchester-London (from Euroblog by Jon Worth)


I could not have articulated this better than Jon Worth in his Lyon-Paris vs. Manchester-London post.

This compares the two segments and how they are served by air and rail: guess who wins?

Just another statistic: on the London-Paris segment, the Eurostar has a 70% share on passengers (and they're carbon neutral). How many airplanes does it displace?

I guess this further proves the point that the Heathrow expansion case is flawed.


Read also my other related posts: richmondtransits.blog/railways


Monday, September 29, 2008

Some Heathrow news...

A collection of interesting news items over the last couple of weeks...

Firstly, it seems politicians are starting to get their head about the anger caused by the unabated Heathrow expansion pushed by BAA and the DfT:

Government body calls for Heathrow review (RTT, 19/09/08)
Wandsworth Council leader Edward Lister said: “First the environment
agency now the SDC, how many more of the Government’s own advisers have
to tell Gordon Brown that he has got it wrong on Heathrow expansion?
“The economic case for expanding Heathrow seems to hinge on a
future of cheaper flights and ever-growing demand. But none of these
assumptions seem to take account of rising oil costs, the economic
downturn or the government’s own CO2 targets.
“No serious attempt has been made to compare the benefits of a
third runway with other transport solutions such as high speed rail for
which there is great demand on Scotland and the North.

“It’s five years since the airports white paper was published and
it is looking increasingly irrelevant to the nation’s transport needs.

“Brown should order an independent study that looks at the full
impact of expanding Heathrow on all sectors of the economy – and
compares it to the alternatives. There must be more to UK transport
policy than what is good for BAA.”


Did he read my previous posts on the subject???  The Sustainable Development Commission report is here.

Tories promise to shelve plans for third runway (RTT, 29/09/08)




"shadow transport secretary Theresa Villers said a Tory Government would
spend £20billion on a high-speed rail line between London’s St Pancras,
where the Eurostar is based, and Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds."


I couldn't agree more!

Boris Johnson has smelt the opportunity and resurrected the plans for a new airport in the estuary:
Boris Johnson airs plan for Heathrow-on-Sea (Times Online 10/02/08).  Makes total sense to me, as it's not that much more expensive than a third runway and a much better location. Unfortunately, short-sighted politicians have stalled it so far:

"Since the 1960s, 13 major cities including Paris, Milan and New York have
moved their airports further out. In Hong Kong, the government spent six
years and $20 billion building an airport on an artificial island and
linking it by bullet train to the city.In Britain, however, similar proposals have repeatedly been blocked. In the
1970s a scheme to build an airport on Maplin Sands near Southend-on-Sea in
Essex was abandoned because of a shortage of public funds."


(Image from "Scrap Heathrow and build a £30bn airport on an island, says Boris Johnson", Daily Mail 22/09/08)


PS: just to confirm that the company running Heathrow isn't up to the job:
Bacteria leaks and lost passengers among Heathrow breaches (RTT, 28/09/08)
CAA supports forced sell off of BAA airports


, , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

What do you think of low cost carriers?

Saw this post today and commented on my own experience:
bmi baby: cheap but not cheerful AccMan

I've never been found of low cost carriers: yes, they're cheap. Except that you find out after that you need to pay for food, luggage, make your way to remote airports, etc...

And the service is poor. That's actually not true: there's no service.

Furthermore, they're quite bad for the economy and the environment: I don't believe we should have stag parties in Estonia or elsewhere just because it's cheap.

Without low cost carriers, would BAA scream to expand Heathrow? Do we actually need another runway or would it be better to improve the rail links to allow people to spend time in the UK???


, , , ,

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Waterloo plans mean no end of misery for commuters


Read today on ThisIsLondon.co.uk: Rail bosses reveal radical revamp plan for Waterloo. I guess this means the former Eurostar terminal won't be useable by commuters trains before long: what a disgrace! (read Londonist: What Next For Waterloo? for more).

It's about time someone sorts out Waterloo: one of the businest station, the passenger flows are chaotic and platforms are too short for longer trains.

Also, the partition erected some 30 years ago (?) removes the perspective (see photo) and makes the station really ugly.

An underground concourse and the removal of the partition would be good news indeed, let's just hope we'll get it sooner than later. I would not bet on this though....


Tags: london, waterloo, trains, railways, UK, transportation, richmondtransits.blog

Monday, August 18, 2008

Some news on those level crossings...

I've blogged numerous times on the North Sheen station footbridge, because to my mind it's simply daft that we can't access the station from both sides of the level crossing.

It's also quite dangerous, especially with all those kids crossing itevery day. And not accessible.

And, since you can be stuck for over 12 minutes behind it, it's a traffic hog, especially when it breaks down.

Read all my previous posts on the infamous North Sheen footbridge and level crossing.

Apparently, it's not going to improve: in order to provide Heathrow with better train services (hello world, is this a planning mistake or is it deliberate to try curb car emissions so that planes can continue to pollute for free?) this level crossing (and Mortlake, Barnes...) could be down for up to 45 mn in one hour.

Read on the article: MPs attack Airtrack.

This is a joke, they might as well close it for good and let us gridlocked!

PS: if you did not click on all the links above, do check this one: HEATHROW – ARETIREMENTPLAN by Town and Country Planning.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Economic case for Heathrow expansion 'flawed'

An article in the RTT needs little to be added to:
Economic case for Heathrow expansion 'flawed' (From Richmond and Twickenham Times)

The Friends of the Earht have commissionned a report to the Stockholm Environment Institute was commissioned: see their press release here.

The report was written by Elizabeth A. Stanton and Frank Ackerman from the Stockholm Environment Institute - US Centre. A link to the full report is here:www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/consumer_surplus.pdf

From the RTT site:

The report found three major flaws in the assessment of these benefits and called for an independent review:

  • The passenger demand projections are uncertain - for example they rely on fares falling because the cost of oil per barrel is predicted to fall from an assumed $65 in 2006 to $53 in 2030. Oil is currently around $130 a barrel and experts predict will not fall below this before the end of 2016.
  • Foreign passengers changing planes in the UK are counted as a benefit to the UK economy - but this is against HM Treasury guidance on project appraisal. In 2005 nearly 30 per cent of Heathrow passengers were travellers simply changing planes.
  • It assumes “doing nothing” is the only alternative to airport expansion ignoring alternatives with less environmental impact like switching short haul passengers to rail travel, investing in video conferencing or limiting transfer passengers.
This comes as little surprise, after the government commissioned a study on the future of transportation by no one else than the former BA boss: The Eddington Transport Study.

Strangely, although it's successful everywhere else in Europe, he did recommend against high speed link (see my previous post: Finally, high speed train gets national coverage).

Just to repeat myself: looking at Heathrow in isolation is at best misleading since there are 4 other international aiports in London (plus spare capacity in Portsmouth, Midlands, ect, all easily reachable by high-speed train if there was any) and it is dishonest because it doesn't look into alternative transport modes.

But then, the DfT, BA and BAA are forming a ménage a trois to protect the commercial interests of BA and BAA...

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, July 14, 2008

Greenpocrisy

So politicians want us to be green... Seems laudable, especially since it is badly needed, the country being bad at recycling, etc...

But then, it seems it always only translate in one thing for citizens: more taxes. Car are an obvious and easy target, but even if one accepts taxing based on CO2 is a good idea (I don't), France for instance have figured out a way to achieve the same goals with a fiscally neutral system.

But in the UK, nope -it's always tax more.

For example, there are no incentives to install solar panels for (the payback is something like 15 years) the German or France again goverments provides grants in the shape of subsidised feed-in tariffs (home and business can sell solar-generated electricity back into the grid), which makes it affordable and reduces the return on investment to 3-5 years). As a result, over half a million homes are equiped in Germany, helping with mass production scale economies -and creating 400 000 jobs in the process.

But in the UK? Nope. Another bad example is public transportation, where the goverment wants rail users to contribute more: reduced subsidies mean that passengers revenue will climb from 50 to 75%!!!

This is my point: the Government is taxing polluting cars on one hand, but not taxing aviation fuel and increasing the cost of alternative, less polluting, transportation modes. Can't think of being more hypocritical on green issues!


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 09, 2008

Politics and GreenWash

I've always been interested by ecology, tryign to do my bit -like leaving a camping/picinic site cleaner than when I arrived. But my green attitude is based on common sense, not on any form of green religion inspired by city-luddites, the kind of people who were trotskyst before, green priests now and impose on others their attitude of green moral superiority.

For instance, at a time where we had agricultural surpluses subsidised by the EU, it only made sense to me that we should do biofuels. The current debate now about sustanability of biofuels comes from a herd movement towards biofuels when the infrastructure is not there.

Then the polititians came in and suddenly started to talk green. The only issue is that for politicians, it seems that Green = More Taxes. And we only see tax, tax, tax -but still no rail infrastructures
or maybe the're taxing the wrong stuff: Focussing on CO2: good for bears, bad for humans? Methane for instance stays in the atmosphere longuer than CO2: should we fit a meter at the back of each cow, or become vegeterians? (seems vegan is not a good idea...)

In my mind, it's not only taxes but there are many other ways of being greenner: microgeneration is one. The Guardian had a great full page article on how power from the people could cut CO2 emissions - with government help (shame the online version doesn't have the graphs).

But it seems the government is busy making broken promises and trying to substanciate the fact that Heathrow, thanks to its "Low Emission Zone" will be clean. In passing, we have to thank the EU for imposing stricter anti-pollution norms... (and NB: no, curbing LHR's growth won't harm the capital because it's only one of the FIVE London airports).

This is why I've become highly suspicious of Green Politicians: to me they will provoke a backlash and what they decide isn't even good for the environment.

PS: but kudos to Westminster to allow cyclists use one way streets riding counterflow. This is commen sense, doesn't cost anything and works (just go to The Hague if you don't belive me).

Friday, February 08, 2008

RTT on White Hart Lane level crossing

The Richmond and Twickenham Times has just published an article on the White Hart Lane level crossing.

Network Rail is "thinking about" a bridge (£25k, peanuts compared to the useless repaving of downtown Richmond) and Con. Trigg said "it's a difficult problem to solve". I think it;s quite simple in fact: here are the comments I've posted on their web site:

I've blogged numerous times on the North Sheen crossing which is equally dangerous: only last week a vehicule came stuck in the barrier which caused traffic mayhem all around.

The options offered are just lame: yes, a footbridge would be good, closing the crossing would just cripple the area.

I've travelled a lot in Europe and never saw level crossing in urban areas: are they more clever?

But the real solution would be to either bury the train line underground (expensive but the resulting free land overground could be part sold for profil and converted into commuters parking to incitate people to leave their car and travel green) or digging a road mini-tunnel.

Seriously.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Friday, January 25, 2008

It's about time indeed

In the Times this morning:
It’s time to make way for £50bn high-speed network, says rail chief - Times Online

It's about time indeed -20 years after the French- to rejuvenate the British Rail Network, take market share on air travel.

If the goverment is really serious about cutting CO2 emissions and provide a sustainable future for our children, it should invest in fast and affordable public transport infrastructures. Then the commuters will switch from planes and car, but they won't if there are no alternatives even if taxes keep rising.

Tags: , , , , ,