 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 27
|
|
65
|
All across the Great Western territory / Buses and other ways to travel / Changing (or not) place names on bus routes
|
on: July 21, 2021, 07:29:03
|
|
The Turnham’s Farm house is still there at the junction of City and Little Heath road. The original 33 terminus was short of this using Barton Road as a u-turn, without any stops on it. I grew up in this area and nobody referred to it as Turnham’s Farm. Only the Rec was called that. The route was one of the first Coporation routes to leave the borough, with the original intention being that the estate at the top, the Bird’s estate and the estate around Hilden’s drive (which is half in and out) becoming part of the borough eventually. This never happened
As far as name changes of stops are concerned, I like the history involved as to finding out why particular stops have particular names. It’s a nice historical nod, like underground stations named after pubs in London.
|
|
|
|
|
66
|
All across the Great Western territory / Buses and other ways to travel / Changing (or not) place names on bus routes
|
on: July 20, 2021, 18:57:07
|
|
Both Turnham’s Farm and the no longer used Sheraton Park bus destinations in Reading, were names simply used by the bus company and not what the places were ever referred to by those that lived there. Turnham’s farm is the name of a recreation ground which the 33 route that started in the late 70’s never reached until some point in the last decade.
To Reading Transport staff, THE terminus is the former trolley terminus at Northumberland avenue, a road generally referred to as ‘the avenue’.
The 17 route is still called the mainline, a reference to its tram and trolley days.
|
|
|
|
|
69
|
All across the Great Western territory / Looking forward - after Coronavirus to 2045 / Re: UK government's Transport decarbonisation plan
|
on: July 16, 2021, 16:19:17
|
Full overhead wiring looks like it will only get as far as Exeter, then on battery power to say Newton Abbot -Plymouth to get over the banks and charge the batteries for the trip into Cornwall. The other saving is no overhead in stations low bridges, or level crossings.
I really hope that this is not the case! It is beyond appalling if Plymouth at least does not get OHL▸ when places as diverse as King's Lynn, Harwich, Clacton, Norwich and Skipton already have it. Would it be such a loss if the wires stopped short of a complex junction or multi-platform station if the batteries had just been fully charged on a simple stretch of overhead wires. If battery trains are successful the wiring at Paddington maybe could be removed. No maintenace and CHEAP. But this is aimed at cost saving again. Maintenance means reliability, a cost that cannot be calculated. Not to mention every train requiring a battery that will need materials continually sourced and questionable disposal. Over head wiring works, it has worked for decades. Planning because the technology might get better in the future is just short term thinking and cost saving. Batteries will have their uses on branch lines and sensitive locations but all mainline railways should be electrified. I feel the same with buses. Yes batteries can be used but we need to reduce the reliance on them where routes are generally fixed in urban areas. If it doesn’t change route except for the occasional incident, wire it. Additionally, are we going to manage charging every car, lorry, bus and train overnight? |
|
|
|
|
70
|
All across the Great Western territory / Looking forward - after Coronavirus to 2045 / Re: UK government's Transport decarbonisation plan
|
on: July 15, 2021, 14:01:07
|
|
It will probably always come back to the same thing, that public transport is run as a retail choice rather than a public service. Both railways and road based public transport are expected to turn profit and where savings can be made in the short term to be perceived as profit. Reliability suffers when you make profit by cutting away staff or sensible maintenance. It must be clear now that there is no money in it. Publicly run transport fills those gaps that in buses as explained above and has staff to maintain railways to a reasonable standard, although I sense that under a government similar to the current they would be under continuous scrutiny, yet would we notice the priceless benefits to the environment and society, and see that as something worth paying taxes for?
|
|
|
|
|
71
|
All across the Great Western territory / Looking forward - after Coronavirus to 2045 / Re: UK government's Transport decarbonisation plan
|
on: July 15, 2021, 07:45:10
|
I am going to suggest that most UK▸ Jo(e) Publics wants to keep moving around in the way that (s)he has done for the last fifty years, largely with private vehicles, but perhaps with fossil fuels replaced by electricity that comes from the magic "sustainable" tree that provides an endless supply at no cost to the environment. The utter convenience of having a private powered vehicle at your home, which you can use to ...
* go just about anywhere
* at a speed significantly in excess of anything self powered
* at any time you wish
* at an affordable price
* taking significant goods and chattels with you
* without having to mix with people not in your circle
... is attractive and hard to argue against.
Of course, but what’s missing is the choice for any other way of moving, particularly in urban areas, and that requires a change in planning too. We’ve built, and are still building, areas which are car dominated. So no wonder people have built their lives around the most convenient option, and option which also requires a certain level of affluence to keep turning over. We never want to take the risk as a nation of saying no to this way of living, particularly in the provinces. We suggest that a build it and they will come approach is the wrong way of doing things. So the loop will never be broken under the banner of it making the individuals life harder, less convenient and cost more money. A cost/benefit analysis approach to our future will end up with the same levels of congestion, and possibly similar levels of pollution just in different ways. All because it’s believed the public will refuse to use any new public or sustainable travel infrastructure and choose the perceived most convenient option of the car, the option that takes up the most room. |
|
|
|
|
72
|
All across the Great Western territory / Looking forward - after Coronavirus to 2045 / Re: UK government's Transport decarbonisation plan
|
on: July 14, 2021, 23:49:20
|
I'm not sure why you say that - there are numerous places where public transport is mentioned, such as: Priority 1: Accelerating modal shift to public and active transport
Increasing the share of journeys taken by cycling and walking does not rely on any technological breakthrough, delivers a host of co-benefits and is fundamental to any good local transport plan. With better quality infrastructure through high quality road design, dedicated routes, and networks, and enabling people to access cycles, people will feel safer and more confident walking and cycling for more and more short journeys.
A cohesive, integrated, and affordable net zero public transport network, designed for the needs of the passenger, will empower users to make sustainable end-to-end journeys and enable inclusive mobility. Zero emission buses will link communities with each other, town centres and the wider transport network. A modern, net zero rail network will connect the country and regions, serving commuters, holiday-makers and business travellers alike with a faster, cleaner, and more reliable rail service fair for all. We must make buses and trains better value and more competitively priced. Starting with bus fares outside London we want simpler, cheaper flat fares that you can pay with a contactless card, with daily and weekly price capping across operators. Affordable fares and season ticket caps will continue to be protected on the railways.
Where the car remains attractive for longer journeys, it will face competition from high-speed decarbonised rail and zero emission coaches offering affordable alternatives.
But you are right that, while the clear advantage of cars in rural areas and some longer journeys is mentioned more than once, the need for more and better public transport is not linked to urban areas. And that despite the evident need for less traffic to make space for more cycling etc. Perhaps the missing link is in the paragraphs following the above quote: Embracing new ways of sustainable travel, such as e-cycles and other emerging technologies, will create opportunities for more people to travel this way and foster new alternatives for journeys too time consuming, or too long, to previously walk or cycle. Innovation is driving this change fast, with new operating models transforming traditional transport services. What's that about - ideas, anyone? Public transport is always mentioned in plans like this, in the same method it would be in a local council plan. It’s mentioned in a way that is suggested that it won’t be the individual reading the piece that will change what they do. It’s mentioned in a way that suggests these other options might be possible for you but others will do the changing, you can carry on as before. As far as I’m concerned, traffic is big problem as well as pollution. Vehicles racing past on dual carriageways or queuing along urban roads is still at the detriment of the other dominant three forms of ways of getting about. If you really want modal shift the other options need far more concentration than the private automobile. New technology is not needed to change, we have had the technology required for decades, we just need the will to change for the benefit of the generations of young people now and those beyond us. Something that no government report would ever be willing to admit |
|
|
|
|
73
|
All across the Great Western territory / Looking forward - after Coronavirus to 2045 / Re: UK government's Transport decarbonisation plan
|
on: July 14, 2021, 22:42:03
|
|
Yes, largely the plan is based around the hope that this island will be able to continue moving around in the same way as we do now, except that batteries replace combustion engines. I believe this will be unachievable in urban areas and clearly larger investment is needed in public transport, cycling and walking, all three of which compliment each other. We are so bloody stubborn in the U.K. about our personal, class based show of wealth transport that we are prepared to completely ignore what other countries in the world are doing to change to ways of moving about that we like to mock as being out of date. Can’t go back to trams or trolleybuses, it’s seen as resigning, we must wait for the latest and best, those other things are out of date. When what’s really out of date is the internal combustion engine, by about 30 years.
|
|
|
|
|
