Easiest Website Builder ever! · Build your own toolbar · Free Talking Character · Email Marketing
powered by
bravenet.com
|
|
Rail
conversion - the indisputable facts by E.A. Gibbins, C.M.I.L.T.
A site aimed at bringing a
sense of reality to those obsessed with converting railways to roads who cannot see the wood for the trees.
& rebutting their claims
with fact & figure.
Advocators of conversion claims include:-
Claim 1 – that widths
of railways, &
the width & height of bridges & tunnels are adequate for use as fast
motor roads
Claim 2 - that railways converted to roads will have massive spare capacity for existing road traffic
Claim 3 – that passenger terminals
will
require only 25% of their existing space to accommodate replacement buses
Claim 4 – that upon conversion all railway passengers will travel
by bus
Claim 5 – that bus fares would be
substantially less than rail.
Claim 6 – that changeover from
railways to roadways will be simple, swift & cheap
Claim 7 – that fuel consumption will be
less for road transport than for comparable rail transport
Claim 8 – that transferring rail freight
to road would be more efficient
Claim 9 – that safety of roads is better
than rail, & converted railways will be as safe as m-ways
Claim 10 – that taxes on road transport
create profits for government, whilst rail is subsidised
Claim 11 – that costs for converting
railways into roads will be outstripped by benefits, so that the cost will be
zero.
Claim 12 – that huge financial benefits
will accrue from conversion
Claim 13 – that there have been no major opportunities to
convert railways into roads
Claim 14 – that conversion of railways will release valuable land for industrial use.
A web site jibe by
Transwatch selected 37 words referring to two statements from an 809 word
article – which was not an
extract from the above book as claimed. Many points in the article will not be
found in the book. It is a tacit admission that there was no answer for the
other 25 issues, which preceded, fell between or followed the points
criticised, much less hundreds of other flaws in conversion theory which had
been addressed & demolished in that book.
Transwatch’s
Flawed ‘Fact-Sheets’
sheet-1
claims that there would be plenty of capacity for PSVs & HGVs carrying
displaced rail traffic and even lots to spare for
existing
road traffic to transfer to the new ‘Motor Roads’.
sheet-2 claims that casualty rates would be less on
converted roads than on the railways they replaced
sheet-3
claims that the width & headroom of
sheet-4 tries to compare ‘subsidies’ to rail
& profits to road
sheet-5
tries to compare road & rail fuel consumption
sheet-6
Project costs for railway projects
sheet-7 Road
v rail track costs
sheet-8
Track maintenance costs
sheet-9
Vehicle costs
sheet-10
Rail safety costs
sheet-11 Various claims: Journey lengths, speed, seats
& fares
sheet-12
Conversion costs & rates of return
sheet-13 Tax revenue from roads & subsidy to rail
An article cataloguing the
flaws in Conversion published in Focus, Journal of
the Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transport
Transwatch submitted a paper on conversion to the Transport Select Committee. Click Select Committee for a rebuttal of those claims
Transwatch had circulated a paper on conversion, with references to waste railway capacity. Click Answers to see a rebuttal of that paper.
Transwatch responded to “Answers”. Click Response for details, together with my further demolition of his ‘response’
See my article
“Railway Conversion is a Pipe-Dream”
responding to an article by Transwatch published in the Public Service Review
See www.transportmyths.co.uk
for
various letters to the media
countering claims about railway conversion then click Letters-Convert
Contact via transportmyths
bravenet.com