Okay - a rant.
Our road network is overloaded with traffic - in particular huge numbers of lorries. Meanwhile, our rail network is predominantly over 100 years old, crumbling and no longer fit for purpose....why can't we spend money on improving the rail network instead of continuing to subsidise the haulage industry?
Here's what I mean - the current road tax for lorries is subsidised by the government; trucks cause far more damage to the road network than their road tax pays for. I'm sure you've all driven down motorways where the inside lane has a lovely pair of "truck tracks" grooved into the road surface.
In the mean time, freight haulage costs on the rail network are proportional to the impact caused by the trains. Why can't the government spend money on improving the rail network and make it economically viable to move most freight by rail and have local depots served by LGV's? Road traffic would massively decrease, carbon emissions would decrease and the cost of just about everything would fall as moving a trainload of stuff would reduce haulage costs significantly. Therefore lower inflation, and as demand for diesel would drop fuel prices would come down too.....not to mention our cars would be more economical as we wouldn't spend hours sitting in traffic jams caused by unroadworthy Lithuanian trucks shedding their loads all over the M1.
I think the main problem is that the governments transport policy STILL assumes an oil price of between $25 and $50 per barrel - with this assumption road transport is the way forward but in the real world it just doesn't work!
And it's not just freight either:
For the cost of a return ticket from Doncaster to Reading (a journey I unfortunately must make every month or two - £206 if you're interested) I could drive from lands end to john o'groats and still have enough fuel to make it back to Edinburgh.....crazy.
Still - on the up side, the government has decided to invest in some stretches of high speed track - trains will be able to travel at over 120 mph! Crikey, at that rate we'll soon be able to compete with the Japanese Bullet trains that are a mere 40 years old.
And the government still won't pay for the entire network to be electrified - so we're trying to buy new high speed diesel trains when the rest of Europe is only buying electric trains because they're so much more efficient, less polluting and quieter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Very astute observations there, Timbo.
But the investment in electric trains , and other infrastructure would pay for its self in maybe a couple of decades. But the country would be set for the next 100 years.
The Channel Tunnel still hasn't paid for itself - but it will do one day. But we're set for ever with a chepa dn a quick way to get to the continent.
Short sightedness seems to be a common trait in our leaders
Indeed it does...mainly because anyone who can be bothered with the money, work, hassle and political ass-liking required to become a leader (be it government or CEO of a large corporation or whatever)is normally the kind of person who's not in it for the longevity of the human race and other such philanthropic aspirations.
They are usually, power hungry, money driven, self-obsessed prats...and those who would actually make good leaders, or do get there with the right ideas are quickly shot down and over powered by this majority.
Everyone here has seen 'Yes, Minister' I presume?
Ultimately such people capable of making a change are only interested in the way they look and the next couple of decades that they're around, hence all the short-sighted decisions.
Not that I'm a cynic or anything you understand...:-s
Given the massive shortage of deivers in the country, one would have thought that the powers that be would have made this observation (especially in light of the fact that us mere mortals can see the obvious gap). Too busy lousing up the economy I guess!! :-(
Drivers! Damn typo's.
Post a Comment