3 ms·

Replacing rural train links with buses invariably means significantly reducing mobility for a lot of people. It is also akin to a signed death-warrant for a loc

Replacing rural train links with buses invariably means significantly reducing mobility for a lot of people. It is also akin to a signed death-warrant for a locality that prospers from tourism and/or houses commuting families. That can be a valid choice for some localities, but it is a choice with far-reaching consequences. Travelling with a pram or a wheelchair using public transport is doable by train. By bus it is fine for a short ride (up to a few kilometres), but with increasing distance it becomes undoable for more and more people. Another group of people heavily affected are those with incontinence or bowel diseases. Trains usually have accessible toilets on-board (usable with wheelchairs as well), buses don't. A rational response is to explore all possibilities for keeping a train link operational in a sustainable manner.

kwhitefoot 7y ago
> signed death-warrant for a locality that prospers from tourism If it is prospering from tourism by rail then why is the rail line not profitable enough to warrant electrification? > Travelling with a pram or a wheelchair using public transport is doable by train. By bus it is fine for a short ride (up to a few kilometres), but with increasing distance it becomes undoable for more and more people. Perhaps my perspective is skewed because I no longer live in the UK. Where I do live (Norway) travel by medium distance bus with a pram or wheel chair is not a problem because buses have powered lifts and dedicated spaces for both. Buses are also more flexible, new routes are vastly easier to set up than new routes for trains.
- Freak_NL 7y ago
  > If it is prospering from tourism by rail then why is the rail line not profitable enough to warrant electrification? Sometimes the line is profitable as it is, but not profitable enough for electrification. It's a big investment with high maintenance costs. There are a bunch of lines like these in the Netherlands (Harlingen Haven — Leeuwarden is one I am quite familiar with). Tourism is often seasonal, so while it does add up in terms of profit (or breaking even), for electrification to be a sensible investment you are talking double or triple the amount of passengers. > buses have powered lifts and dedicated spaces for both. But no accessible toilets (big issue for many disabled people, and anyone travelling with kids), and travelling with an infant in a pram really limits your bus-range (I have an infant son and avoid buses if at all possible). Also, the dedicated spaces are great, but if there is a wheelchair there already you have to take the next bus instead (unless you have a collapsible stroller, but then the kid is older already). This is fine for incidental travelling, but not for a frequent commute. In trains you can almost always make do; in a bus you're not even allowed on when the dedicated spaces are taken, because of (valid) safety concerns. Buses are great if that's all that's available and all that ever has been available, but shutting down a train line impacts the lives of many people — some of whom wouldn't have chosen to live in town without a train link in the first place.

kwhitefoot 7y ago

> signed death-warrant for a locality that prospers from tourism If it is prospering from tourism by rail then why is the rail line not profitable enough to warrant electrification? > Travelling with a pram or a wheelchair using public transport is doable by train. By bus it is fine for a short ride (up to a few kilometres), but with increasing distance it becomes undoable for more and more people. Perhaps my perspective is skewed because I no longer live in the UK. Where I do live (Norway) travel by medium distance bus with a pram or wheel chair is not a problem because buses have powered lifts and dedicated spaces for both. Buses are also more flexible, new routes are vastly easier to set up than new routes for trains.

Freak_NL 7y ago
> If it is prospering from tourism by rail then why is the rail line not profitable enough to warrant electrification? Sometimes the line is profitable as it is, but not profitable enough for electrification. It's a big investment with high maintenance costs. There are a bunch of lines like these in the Netherlands (Harlingen Haven — Leeuwarden is one I am quite familiar with). Tourism is often seasonal, so while it does add up in terms of profit (or breaking even), for electrification to be a sensible investment you are talking double or triple the amount of passengers. > buses have powered lifts and dedicated spaces for both. But no accessible toilets (big issue for many disabled people, and anyone travelling with kids), and travelling with an infant in a pram really limits your bus-range (I have an infant son and avoid buses if at all possible). Also, the dedicated spaces are great, but if there is a wheelchair there already you have to take the next bus instead (unless you have a collapsible stroller, but then the kid is older already). This is fine for incidental travelling, but not for a frequent commute. In trains you can almost always make do; in a bus you're not even allowed on when the dedicated spaces are taken, because of (valid) safety concerns. Buses are great if that's all that's available and all that ever has been available, but shutting down a train line impacts the lives of many people — some of whom wouldn't have chosen to live in town without a train link in the first place.