On 29 Aug, 21:12, ®i©ardo
nowhere.com> wrote:> Doug wrote:
>> On 23 Aug, 13:57, %%ste...@
malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>> Doug
riseup.net> wrote:>>>>> The numbers in these reports put the amounts spent on roads in the
>>>>> shade.
>>>> Hardly, they are only twice as much at very most and include such
>>>> important developments as high-speed rail which could reduce damaging
>>>> flying and motoring.
>>> Twice as much as the entire UK road *improvement* (not new building)
>>> projects, to perform a relatively minor upgrade to one rail route. An
>>> upgrade that will not increase capacity signifcantly and which cannot in
>>> any way replace the M1/M6 as the main freight route from London to
>>> Glasgow.
>
>>> Once more you prove that if you agree with the outcome that any means
>>> and any waste of time, energy and fossil fuel is OK by you.
>
>> As usual your blinkered approach ignores the fact that we are supposed
>> to be aiming for forms of transport which are less polluting and more
>> energy efficient, which rules out car proliferation and air travel but
>> should favour high-speed rail. Also, the commonly expressed, 'You
>> can't build your way out of congestion' is a very good reason for
>> spending more on trains that roads. Unfortunately though the
>> government still can't go all the way and insists on sticking with its
>> perpetual roadbuilding.
>
>
> How does anyone know that you can't "build your way out of congestion"
> if it's never been tried in the UK?
>
It has been tried for many years but despite all the road building
that has taken place in the meantime congestion is as bad as ever, if
not worse. This is because the easier it is to travel the more people
will travel. Congestion and expense are the only things holding back a
massive proliferation of car travel.
