Strategy - Transport
Introduction
This site explores transport.
Transport systems are arteries which carry the economic lifeblood of the country and indeed the world.
This fundamental service is that it is too important to be distorted by the vagaries of the taxation system. Taxation should be a way for governments to raise the most money with the least distortion of economic activity. (The Economist www.economist.com 2 May 2009). For all forms of transport it should not be a revenue generator or if it is the burden should fall equally on all forms of transport. In short, it should be a level playing field.
At the present time only roads bear a burden in excess of subsidies. But all means apply levies to cover the measures environmental, social and accident/injury costs of each form of movement of people or goods.
This is echoed in the Department of Transports recent advert for a Head of Strategic Transport Analysis & Review which says “Transport plays a vital role in all our lives, it is a key enabler of prosperity providing us with access to goods and services as well as business, employment, education, social and leisure opportunities. But transport also imposes costs, through pollution, congestion, noise and accidents. The transport system of the future will need to maximise benefits, whilst reducing negative impacts.”
I hope that distorting taxation and political dogma will be spotted and isolated.
Political Correctness
It has been ingrained into human nature for centuries that you aspire to afford you own personal transport. Look at the growth of personal transport in India and China. First the bicycle, then the motor bike and now cars of all price ranges. Why? Only the roads go from your own front door to your (multiple) destination(s). All other forms involve enforced changes of transport, exposed to the elements and time consuming. Add to that to reducing mobility of the UK's ageing population.
But, popular politics is to drive people out of the most ubiquitous form of transport - their cars. But is it the majority wish? Most probably not. Should the single woman working irregular hours be forced to leave her car at home? If she can afford it and chooses to spend her income that way, why should it be made impossible. She may well change here job location instead. Cars for most of the day in most places are still provide the shortest journey times and time is either money or more taken out of an individual’s leisure time.
There are many forms of road transport that exist and interact appropriately or not.
On land - roads
Purpose - Local, Commuting (rush hour of not), Intermediate distance, long Distance, to carry people or goods.
Personal power – on foot, pedal power (solo or rickshaw). Horse (rider or cart/trap/carriage
Fossil fuelled, any type, goods or people, short or long haul, congested or not.
Non-fossil fuelled, goods or people, short haul, congested or not.
On land - rail
Repeats most of the above, the variety is huge.
Many measures force the road user to rail through offering no other practical choice, i.e. with little or no regard of the economic or social impact. So short of draconian bans, deterrents are bound to fall short of the desire of the ardent pressure groups.
But first a word or two on congestion. This is what people, whatever their choice (enforced or otherwise) of transport mode complain about most. It is also has a considerable bearing on reducing the cost and environmental efficiencies of the entire system. On the roads there is much that can be done to reduce congestion.
If there are to be outright bans are to be considered, then pedal powered rickshaws should be top of the list. The stress and congestion caused to other road users is considerable. Cycles in generally do move faster and the rider is at least keeping fit. Although the logic of a 10mph cycle going down a bus lane, followed by a bus capable of 30mph does take imagination.
We could ban delivery vehicles in towns and develop INTERNET shopping even more, encouraging more delivery vans into the less congested suburbs. But what about those people living in the inner suburbs without a PC. Without bans there is much that can be done by design. It is said that prior to the introduction of the initial congestion charge, that the phasing of lights was changed and then changed back again to show that the charge was improving traffic flows. It is to be welcomed that phasing is now to be reviewed on a case by case basis. I sure that some are too short, but many are too long. I recall a TV documentary on the topic, where the reporter had time to twirl diagonally across the street. One can often sit at a traffic light controlled intersection, with nothing happening at al in any direction. There are also many three way junctions that do not allow filtering, when it is clearly safely possible. The adoption of the equivalent to “Right on Red” of the USA would be good.
The extension of the Congestion Zone into Chelsea, apart from ignoring the publics view in consultation phase was clearly just a revenue raising measure as congestion in the original central zone would clearly rise from many thousands more people living within the zone.
We do have the safest roads in the developed world. Whilst keeping up the pressure to design them to be safer, bringing in more measures that the police have not got the resources to enforce or the prisons room to incarcerate persistent offenders is not going to achieve society’s aims. That said causing death or serious injury whilst driving should as a norm get a serious sentence. If there are drugs, drink or evading arrest involved, lengthy custodial should be the norm.
I make it clear that I offer no support for the inconsiderate, selfish, dangerous whatever you wish to them, motorist. Unfortunately one sees them every journey. So why not relocate the “safety cameras” to cover the location where these acts happen. Lack of lane discipline is one instance that causes congestion, rage and thus danger and yet rarely gets punished.
Make transport a choice one of balancing convenience and cost, with as few taxation and regulatory distortions as possible.
When fully published the supporting background material will be sent on request for the nominal payment of £15.