Train Insanity on Merseyside!
Neon Black | 20.10.2006 20:27 | Ecology | Workers' Movements | Liverpool
At a time when the government are supposed to be worried about combating climate chaos, you might have thought they would want to encourage people to use public transport, instead of carbon-burning cars. And yet...
Today's Daily Post contains an article (
http://tinyurl.co.uk/dlzh) about a report prepared for Transport Secretary Alistair Darling. The subject of this report? How to 'persuade commuters to switch to later trains'.
Apparently, rush hour trains are much too packed, and are going to get even worse as employment increases on Merseyside over the next twenty years.
There are a couple of problems with this analysis. Firstly, there is no guarantee that employment will increase in the next two decades. Business is making a lot of money in around here at the moment, so unemployment is actually quite low by Liverpool standards. Once the Capital of Culture corporate jollly is over, the money is bound to go elsewhere, the bubble will burst and unemployment will go up massively.
Secondly, I often get rush hour trains. Yes, they can be slightly uncomfortable. But everyone gets a seat. That's more than could be said for the buses. If it's that much of a problem, the simple solution would be to attach more carriages. Problem solved.
Anyway, what are the report's proposals for curing the problem it has just invented?
a) increase peak-time fares
b) stop at fewer stations
So working people would lose out, the environment we all depend on would lose out, but who would benefit?
a) car companies
b) oil companies
We can't let this happen. We can't let the government use climate change as an excuse for building nuclear power stations, whilst trying to stop people using public transport.
http://tinyurl.co.uk/dlzh) about a report prepared for Transport Secretary Alistair Darling. The subject of this report? How to 'persuade commuters to switch to later trains'. Apparently, rush hour trains are much too packed, and are going to get even worse as employment increases on Merseyside over the next twenty years.
There are a couple of problems with this analysis. Firstly, there is no guarantee that employment will increase in the next two decades. Business is making a lot of money in around here at the moment, so unemployment is actually quite low by Liverpool standards. Once the Capital of Culture corporate jollly is over, the money is bound to go elsewhere, the bubble will burst and unemployment will go up massively.
Secondly, I often get rush hour trains. Yes, they can be slightly uncomfortable. But everyone gets a seat. That's more than could be said for the buses. If it's that much of a problem, the simple solution would be to attach more carriages. Problem solved.
Anyway, what are the report's proposals for curing the problem it has just invented?
a) increase peak-time fares
b) stop at fewer stations
So working people would lose out, the environment we all depend on would lose out, but who would benefit?
a) car companies
b) oil companies
We can't let this happen. We can't let the government use climate change as an excuse for building nuclear power stations, whilst trying to stop people using public transport.
Neon Black
Comments
Hide the following comment
Do some homework first
21.10.2006 14:03
REALLY? You conclude this because you have analyzed the traffic flow, the length of the passing sidings, station platforms, etc.? Precisely because this WOULD be so simple you need to show that it is being wilfully ignored instead of being not feasible (MUCH more likely). They aren't idiots and managers are just as lazy as anybody else. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I'd assume that they considered the trivial solution of SIMPLY adding carriages but when checked out, not feasible.
Let's look at the two "sloutions" proposed.
"a) increase peak-time fares"
YES -- this one addresses "crowding" but NOT the problem (insufficent capacity). This one is simply rationing by the neo-liberal favorite method, ability to pay.
"b) stop at fewer stations"
BUT -- this one might be addressing capacity. You need to present your analysis why it is not. Need to show, for example, that your "easy" solution of "more carriages" would not necessitate some trains skipping some stations. You'll probably need a professional "dispatcher" (railroad) and probably also some "queueing theory" person setting up a computer simulation to help you analyze the system.
Mike Novack
e-mail:
stepbystpefarm mtdata.com