Rail Professional Article Published and Values in Transport

re: https://issuu.com/railpro/docs/rail_professional_december_issue_318?fr=sNzljNTg5NTExMTc

Thanks to the kind people at Rail Professional, I received an interview published on page 28 of the said Magazine laying out the British Regional Transport Association (BRTA) stall and I would wish that people who support the message, would either join or donate to BRTA via: https://brtarail.com/become-a-member/ and not read it merely in parochial terms of "is my area mentioned?" but consider it as to the pattern and plan for the nation as a whole. Gaps in the rail network, mean roads default has the monopoly and that means unless addressed, elsewhere gets more than its fair share of road reliance than modal shift back to rail to save land, the environment, cut emissions pollution and enhance mobility based on a sounder sustainable manner.

I recall in the 1980's discussions on saving the world and planet of how a religious leader said "morals and ethics follow lead actions." Their philosophy was that overwhelming prioritisation was to secure the end of the world for their faith, than consider advancing a belief system with morals and ethical considerations intact at every stage. I took the latter view and within 5 years I had left that radical church outlet; the same that gave us at a Party Conference 2004 "people on welfare benefits need hands up, not hands out." statements, along with Foodbanks, Centre for Social Justice (for whom?) and rising homelessness amongst young people; and I disagree with them and that pragmatic 'get it all over and done quick' approach even now and that based on bottom lines and 'costs' rather than the view every person matters, is made in the image of God and is worth dignity. Additionally, what is wrong, is to pretend business as usual and we can just pluralism on transport in a fashion akin to the adage "all roads lead to London". Reality is they do not and from Roman times, this was appreciated. So those who do courses on "Surviving Sustainability" as if doing economic, social and environmental activity was not to consider the dynamic relationship of good stewardship of planet with economic activity was somehow a 'threat' and in all but name 'act as if you can do what you like without environmental consideration, care and concern reaching to all people and places and back to the business model in planning and practise'.

I think the sustainability tri-une presentation of social, economic and environmental in balance, should be quadrilateral, and include morals as another consideration. Is a development or policy 'moral' or immoral? On a scale, how far do we go and on what basis does the greater good out-flank the consideration of relocation packages in development for example?

We have politicians hailing net zero agendas, but refusing to engage on local government planning policy and plans which if executed could in some cases thwart aspirations for rail alternatives, capacity and enhancement to challenge total locked-in gridlock congestion, emissions and growing and unnecessary NHS waiting lists!

The dismantling of the planning system to speed up development must be balanced with are we doing planning and development with people, places, land use and the environment intact? Reality as far as Lower Thames Road Crossing is an emphatic "no" in my view. Kent and East Anglia with a European dimension for people and goods would have been far better to be a rail-based project, decongesting roads and opening up Norwich-Canterbury-Channel Tunnel direct opportunities and them to East Anglia in a sustainable fashion.

Likewise, the Severn Estuary has 2 road bridges, just one over capacitated Victorian Tunnel, surely it is time to reinstate a twin-track rail bridge to enable more passenger and freight movements by rail?

I think the onus on demands for Green Book Business Cases to rail proposals, the onus should be on those demanding such to do the lion's share, as it involves avariced costs, delays, complicated maths and really is a brake on rail aspirations from lay people, which are nationwide (England, Scotland and Wales) if anyone listens and cares? It is in our own national interest to engage more humbly and work at nurturing reopenings via partnership, pro-planning and choosing rail over road upgrades which ripple congestion further and elsewhere.

Finally, level crossings on rail, are a tried and proven technology over decades. Most accidents happen when abuse comes from road users, who need better engagement and education. They must be rigorously maintained as well. Bridges get bashed and underpasses still need maintenance. So surely Office for Road and Rail (ORR) needs reform with rail user/lay public involvement. Reopening of rail link schemes are having costs put up avarice causing delays and rising costs, when level crossings would reduce delays and speed delivery for the benefit of all up. Likewise, 'special dispensations' whereby no bridge or duck-under can be done, should revert to a level crossing. Priory Park entrance on the former Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge Railway is one such example and another the Wisbech Branch in North Cambridgeshire?

Please address these issues and help re-rail our nation for everyone's benefit. ceo@brtarail.com