It is BRTA's view this should be a solely rail-based scheme arcing East Anglia/Norwich/Cambridge rail network with a link between Stansted and Colchester/Braintree as well to Kent/Canterbury and the Channel Tunnel and vice versa for passenger and freight. Unless the government picks up on this, it will be catastrophic for yet more congestion, emissions, delays, spiralling costs and land-take, which is a premium for multiple and sometimes conflicting demands of land-use and allocations.
BRTA would ask those who agree with us, to email their MP's and if one MP gets more than 5 such emails, they have to look into it apparently and maybe the government can start listening as well? https://members.
Likewise, the River Severn boasts 2 road bridges, but just one Victorian Tunnel for rail, when rail should be taking more and more traffic from roads, but lacks capability and capacity to do so. BRTA suggests a River Severn Rail Bridge (twin track) to enable more passenger and freight by rail and boost the environment, the economies of England and Wales and speed-up end-to-end timings?
Elsewhere in Scotland, a new Solway Rail Link and Viaduct would give a bypass to Carlisle for everything and on the Far North Line, a revisiting of the Dornoch Crossing, would give more flexibility tot hat lines operations and choices.
The road lobby always includes extras in its lists of scheme, knowing some will always get through; rail just seems to stick with bare necessities and cascades down other candidates, which as the Borders Rail Project has shown, punches above their weight in exceeding all predicted usage in a mainly rural setting.
Yes, Cirecester's of this world and Ross-on-Wye and elsewhere need a national programme of local rail reopenings and a policy of switching to rail as much as possible, both policy direction and funding towards local rail solutions, reopenings and existing line capacity enhancements like needed at Northampton, Bedford and Leicester for example.
Richard Pill
BRTA CEO
No comments:
Post a Comment