Brits lead the way in choosing train over plane for long-distance travel

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From the Global Railway Review

Brits lead the way in choosing train over plane for long-distance travel

Brits are the most likely in the world to choose to travel by train over car or plane for long-distance journeys, according to a new global survey commissioned by Hitachi Rail.

The study found that 46% of Londoners prefer to travel long-distance by train (versus a global average of 34%), compared to 41% by car and just 10% via short haul flights.

Respondents also indicated that train travel will play an increasingly important role in their future travel. More than a third (38%) believe that they will travel more by train over the next five years, far outstripping the figures for car travel (18%) and short haul flights (3%). This data is important in the context of the return and growth of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) inter-city leisure market.

The survey, carried out by SavantaComes, collected data from 12,000 people in 12 different cities around the world, including London, Milan, Berlin, Paris, Washington D.C., San Francisco, Singapore, Dubai and Sydney. It asked respondents to share their sentiment towards a range of travel options for journeys taking longer than two and a half hours.  By focusing the UK data collection on London, the study captures the views of users where a significant amount of intercity routes either begin or end their journeys at London stations.

The study found a substantial majority (60%) of Londoners would even support banning short-haul flights where high-speed rail alternatives exist. A similar policy was introduced in France last year, as European countries increasingly explore how to promote green sustainable travel.

The survey also revealed the factors in determining long-distance travel choices to be cost, convenience, and comfort, with most car or plane users willing to switch to train if it was faster or cheaper. Those who already prefer long-distance travel by train said they were likely to stick to their preference even if presented with cheaper or quicker alternatives.

To me, this suggests that the UK in particular has a swell of public sentiment that would/will allow our rail use to increase - should HMG and others concerned put the stuff in place to let it.

[IndustryInsider]

I think it’s right to be slightly suspicious of any survey on transport that has been commissioned by a group with particular interests in one part of that sector, as it is with Hitachi Rail in this case.

[Red Squirrel]

London is a different country. The post-Beeching railway is highly focused on allowing people to get to, from, and about London. For other journeys, rail is often far slower and far more expensive, particularly for those who have access to a car.

Would that it were otherwise!

[PhilWakely]

I think it’s right to be slightly suspicious of any survey on transport that has been commissioned by a group with particular interests in one part of that sector, as it is with Hitachi Rail in this case.

Pretty much any survey organised by 'an interested party' will be loaded in favour of the answer the party seeks. A few years ago, a planning application was submitted to East Devon with Exeter being an affected party. A traffic survey was requested and the 'interested party' conducted said traffic survey, starting at noon on Christmas Eve and finishing on Sunday, 30th December. Needless to say, both coucils accepted the traffic levels as 'low enough to permit additional development'

[paul7575]

“ By focusing the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) data collection on London, the study captures the views of users where a significant amount of intercity routes either begin or end their journeys at London stations.”

Now I might be sticking my neck out here, but I think a lot of the target users might not actually have a car either… 

Paul

[broadgage]

I think it’s right to be slightly suspicious of [...]¹ Hitachi Rail [...]².

Quote fixed for you

Moderator's note: This quote was edited in a way that does not represent IndustryInsider's views. I have inserted '[...]' to show where the words 'any survey on transport that has been commissioned by a group with particular interests in one part of that sector, as it is with¹' and 'in this case²' have been edited out.
- Red Squirrel

[ChrisB]

On a point of order....no one should be amending a quote unless it's one from something that member posted.
Otherwise mayhem could easily break out by someone completely misquoting someone else & potentially libelling a third party. Sorry, but a quote should always be a quote & that ought to be policy.

[grahame]

On a point of order....no one should be amending a quote unless it's one from something that member posted.
Otherwise mayhem could easily break out by someone completely misquoting someone else & potentially libelling a third party. Sorry, but a quote should always be a quote & that ought to be policy.

I am quoting you in full ChrisB

Quoting someone partially is dangerous especially where that partilaisation changes the meaning or the drift of the original document and, yes, it risks upsetting to say the least the person being partially quoted.   I suppose it could get legal if the person quoted gets upset.

Having said that, if I quote from a long post, I will amend it by quoting only the part relevant to my follow up.  Always done with care with the risk known, and usually with "...." or a word like [snip] to make it clear it has been done.   You yourself, ChrisB, amend in quoting by partial quoting - for example at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=28495.msg344449#msg344449

I agree that in this quote case, a "...." would have been helpful. I am not about to specify a policy that all quotes should be complete, for the reason given in the previous paragraph, and following the way you, and I, and many others do it.

[ChrisB]

You missed my point Graham.
Do check back to the quoted post & you'll find that this wasn't said at all. And that is what I am encouraging you to ban. If one quotes, it needs to quote exactly, if not in full, in part. no changing the quote.

I think it’s right to be slightly suspicious of Hitachi Rail.

Quote fixed for you

this is what II *actually said

I think it’s right to be slightly suspicious of any survey on transport that has been commissioned by a group with particular interests in one part of that sector, as it is with Hitachi Rail in this case.

[grahame]

You missed my point Graham.
Do check back to the quoted post & you'll find that this wasn't said at all. And that is what I am encouraging you to ban. If one quotes, it needs to quote exactly, if not in full, in part. no changing the quote.

I think it’s right to be slightly suspicious of Hitachi Rail.

Quote fixed for you

this is what II *actually said

I think it’s right to be slightly suspicious of any survey on transport that has been commissioned by a group with particular interests in one part of that sector, as it is with Hitachi Rail in this case.

I don't think that I did miss your point, Chris.   The quote you objected to was a trimmed sentence, and I agreed with you that it was trimmed in a dangerous and misleading way - at the least there should have been a "..." in there to indicate that trimming. 

It is arguable whether or not it changed the meaning, I suppose - it certainly changed the emphasis.   Had a "not" been taken out too so that the quote had reversed the original meaning, then I would have said that the line had been crossed but, as happens from time to time with a for example removed the line was approached but not - in my view - quite overshot.   Should the person who's quoted words were reduced express concern, then - yes - we would probably require the quoting to be changed though the more we discuss it the more complex that gets, and the more obvious to all our readers that the emphasis has been changed by the partial quoting.

[grahame]

I think it’s right to be slightly suspicious of any survey on transport that has been commissioned by a group with particular interests in one part of that sector, as it is with Hitachi Rail in this case.

Yes, correct to be concerned.  Having said that, though, it is a comparative report and from travelling around I see a lot lower proportion of longer distance travel by train in many parts of Europe - amazed that some lines survive, frankly, if they are doing. At the same time, there's a lot of looking forward / new modern works and high speed lines and cutoffs.  I can believe the gist of the survey, though my comments and observations are not direct evidence to back it up.

[broadgage]

My remark was intended to be light-hearted criticism of hitachi and their nasty little trains, there was no intention to mislead and I regret any confusion or offence caused.

[IndustryInsider]

My remark was intended to be light-hearted criticism of hitachi and their nasty little trains, there was no intention to mislead and I regret any confusion or offence caused.

Just spotted this, thanks to ChrisB for pointing it out, and I do accept you were just trying to be funny and the clarification afterwards.

But I would appreciate it if the quote could be removed/altered back to what I said, as it’s never a good idea to mis-quote someone without asking their approval, even in jest…especially when it just so happens to then conform to your own views which, as you know, I don’t share.

[ChrisB]

Yes, that is why I was asking for a policy that quotes aren't changed - ever.

[Red Squirrel]

I think it’s right to be slightly suspicious of [...]¹ Hitachi Rail [...]².

Quote fixed for you

Moderator's note: This quote was edited in a way that does not represent IndustryInsider's views. I have inserted '[...]' to show where the words 'any survey on transport that has been commissioned by a group with particular interests in one part of that sector, as it is with¹' and 'in this case²' have been edited out.
- Red Squirrel

I have edited broadgage's post to clarify what IndustryInsider actually said.