Transport is often seen as a boring issue, yet a good transport system is vital to the infrastructure of any modern nation. Larger countries in particular are hampered in their attempts at self sufficiency when they are unable to move different goods from the regions where they produced to the regions where they are needed fast enough to avert shortages and avoid wastage. There is also increasing concern among the public as to the effects of transport policy on the environment. Since transport is such a massive source of pollution, and the natural resources being damaged by pollution are finite, we only have so long in which to get it all sorted out.
The UK has, structurally, a remarkably good rail network. The only sensible transport option, in the long term, is to encourage it to be used more effectively, taking the strain off the roads, especially where freight is concerned. Freight can be shipped by rail more quickly, at less real economic cost and at less cost to the environment. It is the huge profit margins assumed by the private companies currently managing the railways which puts up prices and makes this approach impossible at present. Stricter government control on their behaviour is essential to improve the overall condition of the country's economy, but of course it is politically unfashionable. Instead, successive governments have concentrated on building more roads, to the distress of local residents and environmental campaigners. Even ignoring those concerns, it's clear that road building cannot go on indefinitely, and that (considering the continuing increase in car use) it cannot be sufficient to seriously reduce congestion.
The disintegration, over the last few years, of many areas of Britain's railways, under management encouraged to be 'competitive' (and therefore encouraged to put cost-cutting before safety or long-term maintenance) has only served to highlight the dangers of the private system. Failures in the railway system have impacted heavily on the freight industry and the postal system. It is all completely unnecessary, and I hope to see the government take a more practical approach to the matter in future. Renationalisation naturally presents its own problems, but at the very least the government controls which are placed on private companies working in this area need to be strengthened.
An increasing number of UK cities are following the European lead and introducing tolls and road use limitations in an attempt to discourage private citizens from bringing their cars into overcrowded urban centres. This is all well and good in theory, but in practice it does little to discourage the salaried professional who does not see much of an alternative. Public transport needs to be improved, made more reliable, more visible and more accessible before the majority of commuters will consider changing their behaviour. Many people rely on their cars because they are disabled, elderly or otherwise infirm. The majority of buses and trains are still difficult to use for such people, though it would not take a great deal of investment to remedy this situation. Sources of information about public transport services need to be better publicised so that a new user can find out which services are available, where and when.
Those people most dependent on transport, least able to get where they need to go by walking or to access services which decrease their personal need to travel (ie: home helps for the disabled) are those who live in rural areas. Increases in the price of fuel hit these people particularly hard, effectively increasing the cost of living in a rural area, which is a bad thing for everyone, since there is general agreement that cities are increasingly overcrowded. Such situations can force people into poverty - other economic factors, such as agricultural policy changes, have already lowered the value of rural homes in most areas of the UK, so that many people cannot afford to move. A fuel allowance for rural dwellers, especially those who are on low incomes or who have other problems which make them still more dependent on cars, may well be necessary to counteract this. Public transport services for rural areas are vital, and in most cases need to be improved; their value, in terms of enabling people to remain in rural communities, is significant, and in the long term outweighs the cost of government subsidy to keep little-used services running. There is much concern at the moment over a European Parliament ruling that such subsidies must be stopped. I am hoping that the UK government will be able to find a way around this. Scotland has more intact wilderness than any other country in Europe (a fact always popular with the tourists); as a result, it has a higher number of vulnerable remote communities, especially on the small islands dependent on ferry services. Those island economies will face ruin if this measure continues to be enforced.
Another area of concern at present is responsible road use. There is, in the UK, a culture which says that traffic offences are not really criminal, and that it's not reasonable to punish people for just a little bit of law-breaking on the road. At its worst, this is the culture which tolerates drink driving; along the way, it is responsible for much other danger and disruption. Many people ignore parking restrictions as a matter of routine, chancing it on getting a ticket, knowing that there are never enough traffic wardens to do the job properly - they clog up city centres, make access difficult for emergency vehicles and supply vehicles, and even block off roads. In my own district, it is not uncommon to see cars parked three in a row, across the whole street, during office hours. This is far more damaging to urban life than acts of minor vandalism and graffiti spraying, yet we see the latter attract public outrage whilst people actually complain to the government when moves are made to introduce stricter parking controls. Similarly, people complain at the introduction of speed cameras designed to note when they break the law by breaking the speed limit. The Conservative Party, whose members were horrified fifteen years ago when Tommy Sheridan suggested a campaign of non-payment of the poll tax (whatever one things of such civil disobedience, it has yet to kill anyone) have pledged to remove many speed cameras if they are returned to office - actively encouraging people to break the law! Is it just me who find this disgusting? Speeding related accidents kill and maim hundreds of people on our roads each year, yet we are expected, by these people, to look the other way, to laugh a bit and say, well, it's only a driver having a bit of fun, or being in a hurry, the government shouldn't interfere. This is a public safety issue and it is precisely the sort of situation in which government interference is most strongly mandated. Proposed increases in speeding fines meet with horror from drivers' groups who say "Drivers will see this as just another tax. They already have to pay for road tax and insurance and MOTs." Well, that's true, but drivers do not have to break the law. If they do, they should expect to be punished as any other criminal would be. I know that there are responsible drivers out there who understand this, and who would be very happy to themselves be safer if others were using the roads more sensibly.
Go back to Jennie's page about politics.
This way to go back to Jennie's personal pages.
Last updated 7th December, 2005