The back page of the magazine "World Highways" is usually worth a glance - it describes some of the amusing things which are bound to happen when hundreds of millions of people around the world use or misuse the world's roads.

One such was in the March issue. It described the collision of a pick-up truck driven by an man from Oklahoma with a full-grown elephant, escaped from a circus. The driver's excuse was that he hadn't seen it!

However, an equally dazzling display of myopia comes in one of the articles earlier on, one about the Forth Road Bridge, north of Edinburgh, which has been known for some time to be in need of replacement.

The article says, "Overall, though, the fate of the Forth Road Bridge provides a case in point for all older bridges around the world. The existing bridge was designed in the 1950s and built to high engineering standards, opening to traffic in 1964. However the bridge now has to cope with considerably higher volumes of traffic than it was designed for. In addition, the maximum GVW of trucks using the bridge has more than doubled since the link was opened."

Ahem.

It seems somehow to have escaped the writer's notice that, just upstream of the Forth Road Bridge is The Forth Bridge, that iconic memorial to Victorian engineering.

Parenthetically, its iconic status is attested to by the fact that the bridge carrying the railway is always described as The Forth Bridge: it is the adjacent road bridge which has to be described as the Forth Road Bridge.

This bridge was built in 1890, significantly earlier than the road bridge, for the trains of its time. Now it sees a steady stream of InterCity 125 high speed trains, intermodal container trains, oil trains, heavy coal trains heading for the power stations of Fife and a wide mix of commuter and regional trains. OK, there are speed limits and there are weight limits - the former allowing passengrs to admire the stunning view - but still the bridge, over 100 years after its construction, continues to do the job it was designed to do under weights unimagined by its builders.

A colleague in the United States is looking at the issues involved with release of toxic materials from railway tank cars. What happens when a tank car is derailed, damaged or sabotaged? How do you minimise the dangers?

Does anyone know of work being done on this issue, please?

Too many aircraft are scheduled to use US airports. The result - even in in good weather - is that there are delays. Or flights are scheduled to take longer than they should do - timetables are padded.

The average taxi-out time at five East Coast airports is 25 minutes.

In bad weather, or when flights are disrupted, things are worse.

For the last ten years, there have been calls for action - for something to be done about the problem.

One reaction from Continental Airlines at Newark was to reduce the number of flights they operated at peak times. It was a good idea, but it failed - because other airlines came in and filled the vacated slots. No-one, it seemed, was able to stop them.

One effect of the over-scheduling is that passengers can be on the ground in an aircraft for a long time. In the recent past there have been a few really bad experiences and, as lawyers will tell you, hard cases make bad law.

The reaction by the US Department of Transportation (DoT) to these hard cases has been to make a rule whereby passengers held in aircraft on the ground have to be allowed off after three hours - provided it is safe and operationally feasible to do so. The penalty for not doing so is a fine of up to $27,500 a passenger.

A 120-day implementation period was applied - a period many in the industry thought was inadequate to sort out the problem, especially since major construction work is going on at New York's JFK airport.

Nothing much seems to have happened as a result.

The game-plan of airlines may be to cancel flights which are likely to be delayed more than 3 hours rather than hoping they won't be. They will then, it is speculated, blame the DoT for the ensuing disruption.

De-peaking and re-scheduling is possible, although it is likely to take more than 120 days. Given the perverse reaction encountered at Newark, it's not clear who would take the initiative in starting the process, or how you would judge between competing demands for limited runway space.

I certainly find it odd that there seems to be no way to ration slots. The result is that airlines will fly small aircraft frequently rather than larger aircraft less frequently - that is in the interests of their customers, and the financial model gives them no incentive to do otherwise. Slots are priced by the ton, not by the slot.

It is regarded as discriminatory - and therefore illegal - to change this. However, isn't the present system discriminatory? Discriminating against bigger and more productive aircraft, who have to pay much more than smaller ones for the same slot?

Very few airports - San Francisco being one - have managed to ration flights at peak hours. A recent attempt to auction slots in the New York area was abandoned because of major airline opposition.

And yet economics say that this is the sensible thing to do. If a commodity is scarce, its price should increase - otherwise demand will not be rationed. At many major airports, especially in the peaks, slots are scarce!

Inevitably there's a downside - small aircraft connect small communities to the world, and charging a lot for this can be seen as inequitable. It can restrict their access to the wider aviation network.

IATA put forward their own solution - the IATA Rules - for slot allocation. Unfortunately these seem to favour incumbent IATA members rather than possible new entrants, so they have gained a bit of a bad name.

And I also hope that high speed rail will over time also contribute to reducing demand. It won't be quick enough, unfortunately, but the withdrawal of one of the airlines from the shuttles on the Northeast Corridor is a sign that train, bus and car competition is starting to bite over short distances.

It is difficult to foresee anything other than aircraft being used for journeys in excess of 4-5 hours: in a country the size of the United States, commercial flight will continue to be essential. But it also needs to be efficient: at the moment, sadly, it's not.

Just south and east of Fairbanks, Alaska, is the township of North Pole. It's quite isolated, although it is on the Richardson Highway - InterState Highway A2.

There is a proposal to provide year-round passenger and freight rail service on the Alaska RailRoad, which runs through North Pole to Fairbanks. At the moment, passenger service only runs west and south from Fairbanks to Anchorage, although there is a freight service to Eilson Air Force Base, beyond North Pole. The proposal would necessitate some environmental mitigation in this sensitive area.

Close to the line is the privately owned general aviation airport of Bradley Sky Ranch: it would be possible to provide some kind of station for people using it, but the patronage is likely to be extremely small! Indeed, the Anchorage - Fairbanks service runs close to a number of the community airports in Alaska.

I was amused to see that one of the roads near Bradley Airport is called Taxi Way!

Also of note is the story of the other - correction, another - North Pole, the one in West London used by Eurostar as a maintenance depot until their operations moved from Waterloo to St. Pancras. When the depot was built, it was of course built for reliability, including an enclosed carriage washing plant. So in its first winter, the joke was that every carriage washing plant in Britain was frozen up - except the one at North Pole!

I enjoyed this article in the New York Times of 15 March (see the web-site of the New York Times).

The only point I take issue with is the observation that the main reason why there are still flights between Madrid and Barcelona is the entry of low cost carriers like Ryan Air (sic).

I think it is more likely that these flights are carrying interlining passengers - those flying from Barcelona to Madrid to change to planes to other destinations.

If - as has been talked about for some years - there was a high speed train service between Barcelona and Madrid Airport, I think many of those flights would stop. Passengers would interline between high-speed train and long-haul plane, rather than short-haul plane and long-haul plane. This would follow the example of Amsterdam - Antwerpen, Brussels - Paris and Frankfurt - Koln.

The station at the airport's new Terminal 4 has provision for high speed trains - there are 2 platforms beside the Metro platforms with no tracks just waiting for the day!

It is received wisdom that passengers don't change airports when changing planes. There is sometimes a plea for a rail connection between Heathrow and Gatwick, for example, which is always rejected on the grounds that very few people fly into one airport and change to a plane flying out of the other. I have seen figures for this particular transfer and they are pretty low.

However, travelling back from Madrid to London City Airport recently, from casual conversation behind me it was apparent that one passenger was interlining between London City and Heathrow. He was flying out to the US from Heathrow next morning.

How that happened - whether it was deliberate, accidental or just the only combination of flights available I never found out. Maybe he just upset his travel agent! But getting from London City to Heathrow isn't easy (DLR to Canning Town, Jubilee to Green Park and Piccadilly to Heathrow, if you ever need to know). And he was clearly a naive passenger.

So inter-airport inter-lining does happen: I hope that airport railway station information systems are up to it!

Recently I had a meeting at Geneva Airport, and another the next day at Zurich Airport. I travelled between the two by train.

My meeting in Geneva finished at 15:45: I caught the 16:05 train to Zurich Airport. This arrived at 19:20. My hotel was a short tram ride away, so I actually got there at 20:00, 4.25 hours after leaving my meeting in Geneva. The distance - by air - is 228 km: trains run every half hour.

Suppose I'd flown instead? Well, there's a flight at 15:05: I would have had to have re-scheduled my whole trip to make that. The next flight is 18:15. Yes, I'd have managed that easily: I would have had a couple of hours spare!

The flight is scheduled to arrive at Zurich at 19:05: since it is domestic, I could probably have reached my hotel at much the same time as I actually did.

So on that kind of journey, between airport office and airport hotel, timings were very similar because of the relative infrequency of flights.

At the end of last year, commuting through West Hampstead Thameslink was even more problematic than usual. There is limited capacity on the overbridge which everyone has to use: it gets very congested, especially since while hundreds wish to get off trains in the morning peak, tens wish to get on - and of course they want to go down the stairs to the platform while everyone else is going up! Add to this the driver shortage before Christmas which led to a significant reduction in train services and you had a recipe for very unhappy passengers.

One morning as I approached the foot of the stairs, I was behind someone who was behind two big Africans. He made some loud comment critical of their speed of movement, obviously being impatient to get to work. It could easily have developed into a racial argument - but instead, the two in front, clearly baffled by the expression of impatience, just said, "Better let this one go first", and stood aside to let Mr. Impatient get past them. They then followed him up the stairs.

I was left reflecting on what a little patience and tolerance can do!

The UK train company Southern recently asked their passengers what they wanted in the way of multi-modal announcements - what they wanted to hear on trains and in stations about connectional opportunities to buses, trams, the London Underground and such-like.

I reckon that there are probably four types of information one can be given when travelling - the completely unnecessary, the irritating, the useful and the absolutely invaluable.

The completely unnecessary.
If you catch a non-stop train from London's Waterloo station to Woking, as the train approaches Woking you are told that you can change there for the bus link to Heathrow Airport.

So you can - but if you were going there, you wouldn't have started from here! There are three or four different ways of getting from Waterloo to Heathrow, all of which are easier, cheaper and quicker than travelling straight past it on a non-stop train to Woking and then changing to go back by bus on London's notoriously congested M25 orbital motorway.

The irritating.
As you leave London's St. Pancras station on a non-stop train to St. Albans, the recorded announcement on the new 377/5 trains tells you that, "You are now approaching St. Albans". So you are, and in around 15 minutes, all being well, you'll be there.

So tell me in 12 minutes time, not now!

This is a serious point. I first heard this on a very crowded train - it was full and standing. Had I not known where I was and how far from St. Albans I actually was, I might have left my seat (which would have made me popular), pushed through the crush to the door (which wouldn't) and then stood there for 10 minutes waiting for the train to reach its first station. What would my state of mind have been as I stood there?

The useful
Interchange information - to any other form of transport - is worthwhile if people want it. If reasonable numbers of people change between train and underground at Balham, for example, fine, announce it. Otherwise it's not worth bothering. It is irritating to get information which no-one wants.

Bus interchange information is tricky. It needs to be provided if it's useful, if there is an easy connection (a bus stop outside the station) and a good connection (less than 20 minutes to wait). If there's a 58 minute wait for the next bus or it stops more than 5 minutes walk away, forget it.

And again, only announce the useful information. To tell people on a train from London that buses run from St. Albans station to Hatfield, Watford and Welwyn Garden City is a waste of time - if they were going there, they'd go on a direct train.

The absolutely invaluable.
Commuting into St. Pancras one morning, I was told (by the driver or possibly the signalman) that the Victoria Line of the London Underground was closed. That information was solid gold - it meant that I could re-plan my journey, knowing what I know about the London Underground and the alternatives available. That was excellent service on the part of the train operator: that kind of cooperation is wonderful.

What do you think?

One problem with the lack of air and rail accidents is the shortage of detail, the shortage of trend evidence, of precursor events. Each accident tends to be a bit of a one-off: yes, you can learn from them, but investigators and safety experts always want a bit more evidence to help!

One solution is near-miss reporting. This is a way in which employees can report near-accidents - events which, but for a happy chance, could have resulted in tragedy. An example is a member of the train crew opening doors on the wrong side of the train, but where no-one gets out. Researching these helps with the risk analysis process, and helps prevent or minimise future accidents.

Confidentiality and anonymity are almost essential, so the system is usually run by an organisation separate from the train companies. In the UK it is the free-standing CIRAS - Confidential Incident Reporting & Analysis System: in the US it is the Close Call system, run by the Federal Railroad Administration.

I understand that most, if not all, railways companies in Great Britain participate. They receive the regular CIRAS newsletter, in which details of important cases are reported and important trends highlighted.

In the US, things aren't quite that good. New Jersey Transit has recently joined Canadian Pacific and Union Pacific in the Close Call system. And sadly, the only two comments in one press report on NJT's joining were to the effect that whistle-blowers always get sacked! Er - that's why it's anonymous, guys! But where are all the other US railroads and transit systems?

OK, some of the reports will be frivolous. Some near misses won't get reported. Some whistle-blowers will, despite precautions, get identified and penalised. That, sadly, is life.

But some precursors, some dangerous practices will get picked up, will get nipped in the bud. Some accidents, some tragedies, will be prevented as a result. And that, too, is life.

Vancouver's transit system has been carrying record numbers of passengers during the Winter Olympics - way in excess of forecasts.

A recent article in the "Globe and Mail" notes that, on the first Sunday, over 1.5m people used the system (light rail, bus and seabus). Forecasts before the Games were that daily ridership would increase by just 20%, from 700,000 to 960,000.

A Vancouver official is quoted as saying, "If we provide a high quality service, people will use it."

If you want to read the article, have a look at the article on the Canada Press website.