Call for major switch from car to rail

[whole diary]

[grahame]

http://www.ripleyandheanornews.co.uk/news/local/your-view-public-transport-campaign-1-6711940

David Howe writes

People in communities should have a say about how their public transport systems are planned and run. Sustainable transport should also be competitively priced so it isn^t cheaper to go by car or train.
In fact if drivers switched just one in 25 of their car journeys to bus or coach, it would mean one billion fewer car journeys per year.
We all know that high ticket prices are the main reason why more people don^t take the train.

I'm not so sure I agree with everything he writes.   I'm used to people not using trains because they don't always go where people want to travel, they don't always go at the right times, and it can be very hard to find out about the details of your journey and what it's going to cost.

I also wonder at his 1 billion extra journeys.   Currently there are around 1.4 billion journeys made per year.   Is there capacity for the 60% increase he would like to see?

To a degree, I'm playing Devil's advocate here ... and looking at my own recent local experience, I don't feel that within our community a reduction on local train journey prices is needed for [further] huge growth.   If train travel were free at the point of use for certain groups, like local buses, that would certainly bring more of them onto the the trains, but that would likely be at the expense of bus rather than car journeys.

Are things very different in Ripley and Heanor, or has David Howe misread things a bit?

[chuffed]

Another reason that people might want to switch from road to rail in Derbyshire is because DCC^» (Devon County Council - website) do not put any mileages  for locations in Derbyshire on their signposts. Bizarre but true ! I found this out , the hard way when in that part of the world a couple of years ago. When I challenged Derbyshire Transport department about this, i was fobbed off with the reply 'It's always been like this !'. They could not see why I would need to know if Bakewell was 2 or 20 miles away!
Anyone else know the reasoning behind this ??

[Red Squirrel]

I'm not so sure I agree with everything he writes.   I'm used to people not using trains because they don't always go where people want to travel, they don't always go at the right times, and it can be very hard to find out about the details of your journey and what it's going to cost.

I think you're right for shorter journeys - few people would be put off by the ^3.90 offpeak return fare from Melksham to Trowbridge, or ^3 from Redland to Severn Beach and back.

For longer journeys though I think the level of fares would make a lot of people stop and look for alternatives. The vagaries of split-ticketing, and cases where two singles are cheaper than a return, add to the feeling that it's at best a shambles, at worst a racket.

[chrisr_75]

I think you're right for shorter journeys - few people would be put off by the ^3.90 offpeak return fare from Melksham to Trowbridge, or ^3 from Redland to Severn Beach and back.

For longer journeys though I think the level of fares would make a lot of people stop and look for alternatives. The vagaries of split-ticketing, and cases where two singles are cheaper than a return, add to the feeling that it's at best a shambles, at worst a racket.

Agreed, sums up my thoughts on this very well! There is also the issue of just where such significant amounts of capacity will come from! The network, certainly at the times of day when most people want to travel, is already creaking somewhat.

The key is finding a sensible balance between various different modes of transport.

[Red Squirrel]

The key is finding a sensible balance between various different modes of transport.

Ah, but then someone needs to define 'sensible!'

For my two penn'orth, I'd like to see the number of cars on the road reduced by about 90%, with rail-based systems taking up most of the slack. I can imagine that some people might find that a bit extreme...

[broadgage]

Many people, outside of these forums, consider rail travel to be hugely expensive, exceedingly complex, and to carry the risk of large "fines" being imposed.

Standard class walk up fares are several times the marginal cost of driving, first class walk up fares for two persons can be more expensive than a taxi.

Ticketing is very complex indeed, look at some of the long and complicated threads on these forums regarding the validity or not of certain tickets. Purchasing petrol is very simple and the price is ROUGHLY the same no matter where purchased. And whilst the purchasing or leasing of a vehicle, and taxing, insuring, and servicing it, can be complex, these complexities are very infrequent and not repeated for each trip.

Infrequent rail travellers are also IME^▸ (in my experience) put of by the risk of huge "fines" of several times the expected fare.

And of course cars are becoming cheaper to buy and run, and better specified, whilst trains are becoming more expensive and less comfortable with higher density seating, less luggage space, and fewer tables.

If driving, you get a seat, on a train this is optional !

Add to that weekend engineering work and frequently no effective service at holiday times, and it is not surprising that many prefer to drive.

I travel a lot by rail, and the great majority of my trips are fine. I do however generally go first class, and almost never at weekends or too close to Christmas or Easter or large scale events like Glastonbury. My experience is therefore not typical.

If rail travel is to be encouraged, then IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), the top two priorities are simplified and readily understood fares, and increased capacity (by use of full length trains, not by compressing a few more people into each vehicle)

I have heard of too many infrequent rail users who have vowed "never again" after standing for hours, or being "fined" hundreds of pounds, or waiting ages for a rail replacement bus that failed to turn up, could not take everyone, or got lost.