|You are in: Talking Point|
Tuesday, 25 July, 2000, 15:08 GMT 16:08 UK
Can we spend our way out of gridlock?
The UK government wants to spend a massive £180 billion over the next ten years to improve the country's transport infrastructure. The package will include:
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
Laugh all you like but a solution to this could be to install computers that take over full control of the car whilst driving on the motorway. It's been happening in the air for years, why not do it on the road?
Lindsay Ponting, UK
The car is not solely responsible for the pollution in our cities and large towns. Busses create over 100 times the pollutants of a normal car, that goes up to 3-400 times if you compare them to a motorbike.
The pressure to reduce road usage by cars and lorries must be kept up, as so much of the roads lobby is moaning the policy must be working! However money must be pumped into public transport and encouraging cycling and walking
Some imagination is needed in how this money is spent, but probably more is needed. We need to think 20 or 50 years ahead. We have more or less the same infrastructure as we had 50 years ago (only more of it). We need to think seriously about how we move the increased traffic around efficiently.
More money alone is probably not the solution. As the transport network has become ever more fragmented due to privatisation an integrated transport policy is no longer possible. The money announced by Prescott is surely just a sop and subsidy to these private companies.
A. Faulkner, Switzerland (UK citizen)
There's one small point that those arguing for no more money for roads seem to have missed - what do buses travel on? Why, roads of course. So do coaches - often on our motorways. Unless the infrastructure is in place to allow rapid and efficient journeys for these vehicles, we'll stay exactly where we are now.
I think we are panicking for no real reason. Necessity is the mother of invention and the only reason that we are gridlocked at the moment is that we are still working in a Victorian, factory-based 9 to 5 world. As the knowledge economy grows, more and more people will be able to work at home rather than travel to an office. I believe that humans will become more solitary and will not need or want to travel by the end of this next century.
If you wish to relieve city centre congestion then implement incremental road tax rates in proportion to car engine sizes and have city centre lanes dedicated for buses and cars with 2 or more passengers only.
Motorcycles cover more miles each year than bicycles and are the fastest growing form of flexible private transport - so why no mention in the Government's 10 year plan? Come on Tony - stick to your manifesto to beat congestion and pollution!
I also think that funding for more roads is misplaced. However, since there will always be cars on the road efforts should be made to reduce pollution and noise.
The anti road brigade go on about congestion on the road. But they need to travel on the tube or a commuter train into London to know the true meaning of congestion. The tube for example is carrying 5 times the number of passengers it was designed for and my commuter line has seen the number of passengers double over the last few years.
Those who suggest that building bypasses and opening new roads is pointless should realise that before improvement of the A303 and the opening of the M3 gridlock happened in most villages and small towns on the route from London to the West Country during every summer weekend: a problem which no longer occurs.
I support this long overdue ten year commitment to public transport but some of the expansion of road capacity needs to be more selective. More emphasis is needed on traffic calming and giving more road space to pedestrians.
Having lived in Britain for two years, and having been a frequent rider of
British Rail back in the '80s, I think that the government should put even
more money into the railways. Britain has an excellent rail system, particularly
in the Inter-City sector, but it is an old system, so a heavy overhaul of
the infrastructure, to allow for 200+ mph train service is required.
I am sure that this will be unpopular but I think expensive petrol and cheap buses will deliver less congestion. Those people who want to clog up the roads by car commuting have to face the responsibility for wanting it both ways, a nice home in the country and a well paid job in the city.
Aren't trains, rail infrastructure and buses all privately owned now? Public money for private enterprises... remind me again which party is in power?
Spend it all on public transport and it might succeed, build another lane of motorway and it will only increase the gridlock.
If all MPs and especially government ministers were made to abandon their privileged modes of transport and use only public transport boy would we see some rapid improvements in the services on offer. All the while people like John Prescott only go near a public service vehicle for a photo opportunity the words will be there but very little personal commitment to making any significant improvements.
There are three types of public transport: Local, National, International. I'd be interested in seeing if the government will differentiate between these and instigate different initiatives on each. I use the word initiative with some hesitance!
Gary's idea of building high-speed rail links to run alongside motorways is nonsense. On the whole, motorways work well, other than near conurbation's where too much local traffic is attracted to them because of the appallingly poor local road structure.
If we reduce the number of motorway junctions near conurbation's and ensure that traffic can flow through the main routes in the suburbs, instead of being channelled through our high streets, the whole system would work far more efficiently.
If you accept the claim that "more roads means more cars", then you
should also accept the argument that "more hospitals means more sick people" or "more schools means
more children". I commend the government's
wise decision to give us drivers back a small proportion of the 36 billion pounds we pay a year in fuel
taxes, I just wish they'd given us more.
Suddenly, John Prescott is pro-car again. He has learnt that being anti private car, will lose votes. The money for public transport is good for the elderly and rural buses, etc, but the new road programme will be yet another waste of money at the expense of the environment. Remember the Newbury bypass fiasco. Cars will simply fill very quickly new road capacity as it is made available. Sadly, New Labour is just the same as all previous governments, political expedience rules!
I am working class. That means that I have to get up and go to work to pay my bills as do
approximately 98% of the country. (Pensioners and children excluded.)
One of the pleasures in my life is driving a car on uncongested roads.
So why do some people still insist on increasing the cost of one of my pleasures?
You obviously attack problems from the wrong end. If public transport was reliable,
people would not have to be persuaded to use it. And it's good to have a choice.
Matt Law is talking rubbish. I live in the country and would dearly love to have the option of using public transport. When I go to visit friends for a drink, I can't actually drink as I need to drive home. I would love to be able to leave my car at home, have a few beers and still get home in the evening without having to drive at all. If the transport were available and reliable I for one would use it.
I live in a semi-rural area with a very good bus service into the main town centre - low cost, reliable, frequent. And yet the majority of my work colleagues who hark from the same place choose to use their cars. However, in the light of recent fuel price increases, a select few are considering making the change. It's unfortunate, but a change in attitudes will take more than 10 years to instigate. In the meantime, tax fuel to discourage unnecessary car journeys and spend the revenue on raising public transport so that we can all enjoy a viable alternative. And more spending on the cycle networks please!
Matt Law must be living on the moon. If rail services were reliable and subsidised then of course I would use them. I drive 40,000 miles a year. I would much rather let the train take the strain but it is too expensive and unreliable. I know because I checked. My car costs £10 less a week than it costs to get the train. Lower the prices or make season tickets available for all journeys and then I will not need my car.
I applaud the spending on public transport, however the contention that improving roads just brings more traffic is foolish, followed to its logical conclusion the result of paving the entire country would be that it all filled with traffic... so where are you going to find all these people to drive all these cars? Robots perhaps.
If the money was spent on better public
transport then yes, we would get out of
the gridlock. I used to live in a village where
there was only one bus a week (out of the village)
and non returning. The nearest regular bus stop
was 3 miles away.
We have moved to another rural area (house prices
exclude urban living from us). It would cost
myself and my partner £120 a month on
bus fares to commute the (short) journey
to work, when the petrol costs are only
£20. Make rural to urban bus fares cheaper
please, and give buses to those who don't
Andy Spencer, England
It is good that they are spending money on both public transport and roads. I have a car myself but I like to have the choice of using public transport as well. I live in a village, and am confined to using my car but if I was living in a town with good public transport then I would mix my use of the car and public transport depending on the purpose of my journey. If I'm travelling long distance, then I like to take the train if viable as it is a more comfortable and more relaxing journey. Hopefully with this investment package, other people might mix their use of private/public transport, like they do in Europe.
The sizeable sum of money for public transport is very good news. The almost-as-big sum for building more roads is not. When will politicians realise that car usage simply expands to fill the available road space? Yet more British countryside sacrificed for politicians' careers.
Question - If the Government is serious about
supporting Public Transport why on earth did it
"invest" Millions in Rover cars instead of letting
it go to the wall?
I think one of the recent BT campaigns had it
right, work from home rather than commute.
Just imagine the effect not commuting in on
one day a week would have, be it by bus, road
or rail. Any new/additional infrastructure uses
Most people (excluding those who travel in to London) do not want to give up their car, do not want to use public transport... No amount of money spent on public transport will get us out of our cars... the ONLY way to get us out of our cars and on to the busses is by making car ownership costly...
Please spend the money on public transport. Car drivers moan about tax on petrol but fail to realise how much their selfish driving costs the rest of us. (Asthma, traffic accidents, air pollution, noise pollution, I could go on but that would make me a whinging green, right?)
S Pilchard, UK
As this government's sole purpose is to collect ever more taxes this is an ideal ploy. More and bigger roads equates to more vehicles which equates to more taxes for the Labour coffers. And if anyone believes that this administration, no matter how much money they throw at it, will deliver better trains and buses must have very short memories.
Whatever happened to the telecommuting revolution?
I love cars and see them as the ultimate in freedom of movement. However, I am also extremely concerned about the environment. Happily, low emission vehicles are already a reality. Unfortunately, the government has chosen not even to recognise this in their transport plan, which I can characterise in one word: Pathetic.
I am alarmed to see more money being spent on roads rather than on public transport.
I live in London, which is virtually at a deadlock on the roads and yet it is still more attractive to people to use their cars because the tubes, trains and buses are so unreliable, smelly, uncomfortable and expensive.
100 more bypasses? 130 more "full scale local road improvements" and 360 miles of widened motorways. Is it only me that remembers the Labour promise that "there will be no more Twyford Down's under Labour"?
I'd like to hear expert opinion on the concept of re-testing drivers every decade or so. I realise this may require huge resources, but essentially if it were correctly balanced you would limit the number of drivers on the road; and also improve road safety - only drivers who pass their tests would be allowed on our roads.
More money = more roads = more cars = gridlock. Answer? Public transport.
There needs to be the right mix of attraction measures for public transport, and discouragement to drivers in urban areas. To this end I would have welcomed a more positive statement, as opposed to vague promises, on the introduction of more tram systems. Alongside these, city centre congestion charging measures need to have more firm backing from the government.
I am delighted that more money is to be spent on public transport, although I am worried that it will not be enough.
However, I do not believe that improvements alone, welcome though they are, will entice the vast majority of car users onto public transport.
So many people are addicted to their cars: including my brother, who despite living in Sydney with its excellent public transport, refuses to use it, preferring to sit in a jam in comfort instead.
When discussing solutions to transport problems, why does no one mention scooters and motorcycles? One person riding a scooter takes up much less road space than one person in a car, and uses far less fuel!
Further investment in roads is surely only a short-sighted attitude. Perhaps if it wasn't for the Beeching cuts then more Rail travel would still be possible to areas which have no alternative but roads. Getting goods onto the railways instead of HGVs clogging up the roads would make a huge difference.
Instead of wasting all that money on new roads the government should buy new cars for everyone. People would drive politely and more carefully so as to protect their new cars, thus increasing safety and reducing gridlock.
If the money is spent wisely and not just poured into the coffers of privatised railway companies to spend on dividends and pay rises, real improvement should be possible.
£130bn over the next ten years. That sounds a lot but, allowing for inflation, it's only a fifth of what the government will raise from taxing the motorist. If all of the money was spent on road improvements the motorist would still be being ripped off. But then it is this Government which is always going on about rip-off Britian.
There is a naive view; proliferated by the green brigade, that reducing traffic to a crawl is a good thing. The fashion for negative camber, traffic calming, compulsory give ways and traffic lights on roundabouts means cars have to come to an unnecessary stop. Build bigger roads with fly-overs, underpasses and slip roads instead of junctions and you've a much more time efficient and system which also reduces fuel consumption.
Alex Banks, Wales
To work, public transport has to be effective, fast, frequent, clean, safe and affordable - for all. If Mr Jags can meet all of these criteria with his various projects then why not? Road widening schemes are a depressing reflection of how this country is turning into a huge park.
Let's hope this increased spending will be directed at local street level initiatives - Home Zones for example, where traffic is reduced to a walking pace through re-designed residential streets. This will make our urban environment a safe and pleasant place to walk and cycle. My fear is that Prescott will go for the headline chasing big schemes and ignore local communities seeking to reclaim our streets from cars.
It is a lot of money and about time too! After years of under-investment by the Tories, this Government has got the priorities right and after three years of prudent financial management, has the money to realise those priorities and invest over the long-term.
Well we certainly have a long way to go. Train tickets are so expensive that a friend of mine chose to buy an old car to travel from Scotland to Kent and then sold it for a little less. The difference plus the fuel was amazingly less than the ticket for him and his wife! And he actually got to where he was going on time!
The lack of good transportation systems in this country is gradually choking it to death, unfortunately the chances of this money being spent wisely are very slim. I believe that a large percentage of it will just be swallowed up by bureaucratic Whitehall departments.
It may as well be said plainly that this is simply not sustainable in the long run, no matter how we organise our transport systems. As a society we will, eventually, be forced to organise ourselves in a more local fashion, so that much of our current travel is rendered unnecessary.
Robert Jones, England
What we need is regular, clean, affordable and safe public transport to all areas, or otherwise to acknowledge the fact that motoring for the majority is a necessity and focus on delivering near zero emission cars. When I see old buses belching out clouds of grey black smoke I do wonder which alternative is actually better: I for one, would prefer green cars.
If one is going to subsidise, it must be sustainable through the tough times; if one is going to invest, it must realise a return. Otherwise, we are simply creating yet another public spending burden on the already exhausted tax payer.
These are the lessons we learned from previous Labour administrations, brutally (and rightly) made clear by the "corrective" Tory years.
Therefore, using tolls and car taxes to specifically and clearly pay for improving roads and subsidising public transport is the way to go.
Simon C, UK
It would seem that the government's transport plans include nothing for pedestrians, and the nightmare we tolerate in British cities with reckless drivers. How about a zero-tolerance policy on traffic violations, funded by the fines it would raise? As well as improving road safety, imposing severe penalties would quickly reduce the number of licensed drivers, forcing them into public transport (or even on foot!)
As usual the so-called intelligencia of this country are tackling this from the wrong angle. There are sufficient roads already; the crux of the problem is the principle that personal transport is a seen to be a right. If your skills are poor you should only be allowed to drive small capacity cars in a urban environment, increasing in measured steps to a performance licence which will include skid pan and high speed track work which will allow you to drive any vehicle on any road. Re-testing every 5 years, will also create jobs for instructors and testers, with more tests and lessons creating extra revenue. So many people on our roads do not realise how bad their driving actually is. How many people do you know that you have been in a car with and have actually been scared without being driven fast.
Deborah Benbrook, England
Mr Brown has unfairly hammered the motorist with his super-tax on petrol so it is only right that Prescott spends the ill-gotten gains on improving the roads.
It is well understood now that road building and widening does nothing to reduce congestion - though politicians choose to ignore the research. More road space just encourages more people to work further away from home, bringing more cars on to the roads. The Government might just as well have set fire to the £130 billion, for all the good it will do. The only way to cut road congestion is to make public transport; particularly train travel, preferable to the car for the majority of people. That means making those services faster, more reliable, cheaper and less congested. Sadly, that requires much more money than the £40 billion allocated!
It's about time a decent amount of money was spent on the transport system. I just hope it's spent wisely - infrastructure is the key. However, I think the decision to delay motorway tolls is wrong. They offer an alternative (in generating revenue and in considering environmental impact) to the high prices currently seen in the fuel market. They also would not affect rural populations nearly as much. Finally, they would put road and rail back towards a level playing field. If a government can privatise the rail industry, why not privatise some of the roads, especially the motorways?
It depends how the money is spent. If "Two Jags" is just going to widen roads to allow more cars to clog them up in ten years time, then it's money down the drain.
I'd like to see some really imaginative solutions to the transport crisis, not just more trains and cars on jam-packed networks.
David T, UK
Let us hope that the outcome of all this money is a situation where people want to use their cars less, not forced to use their cars less. A perceived increase in personal freedom is the obvious carrot to entice people off the roads.
Richard N, London, UK
Based on vast travelling experience around the globe, I would recommend to create fast, convenient and cheap public transport means for private users and efficient rail and waterways for industrial users and rather stop investing completely on roads that are primarily used for get to work and fun driving. It is only the road inconvenience that will remove drivers from them and that only if attractive other transport means is available.
20 Jul 00 | Politics
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Top Talking Point stories now:
Links to more Talking Point stories are at the foot of the page.
|E-mail this story to a friend|
Links to more Talking Point stories
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> | To BBC World Service>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy