As currently organised, rail does not deliver an efficient or well regarded service. The changes proposed may help, but I have limited confidence.
We should seriously question:
- what does a rail network excel at - mainly commuting in and out of large urban area
- what does a 19th century technology bring to the 21st - very little
- how should it be funded - those who use it
- environment - green or not - the jury is out
Rail is good at moving large numbers in and out of large urban centres which would otherwise be more congested. Otherwise car, coach, plane do a better job on most journeys.
If used for freight, it needs double handling to get from factory to railway, and then railway to final customer. Costly and slower - would need investment in facilities in stations.
Putting heavy rolling stock on fixed steel rails was the bees knees in 1850. Much better than horse and cart. Much faster than a canal barge. That advantage has completely disappeared.
Rail networks are expensive to run. Providing subsidies simply distorts behaviours. This is plain daft unless there are other compelling reasons to do so. The market should drive behaviours, limited only by adherence to agreed levels of safety, environment etc
Station to station rail may be greener than cars. Seems there is little in it compared to coaches. Factor in getting door to door which requires transport to/from station, and the environmental impact and cost of construction and the conclusions are less clear!
|
