Page 1 of 1

UK Transport committee - unfit for purpose?

Posted: 16 Oct 2019, 3:11pm
by atlas_shrugged
Today Grant Shapps answered questions in parliament from the Transport committee:

evidence from @grantshapps about his priorities as Secretary of State for Transport.

Banging on and on and on and on about unsustainable transport like buses, trains , cars and aeroplanes. As far as supporting Sustainable Transport and Active travel I would give this bunch zero out of 100. Only one MP to her credit Ruth Cadbury raised the issue of support for cycling. This raised almost a smirk from the minister and he waffled on about the bike being a superb invention.

Is it just me or does anyone else feel that the major politicians are unfit for purpose as far a sorting out our woeful transport and travel systems?

And by sorting out I mean the proper promotion and support for Active Travel e.g. walking and cycling.

Re: UK Transport committee - unfit for purpose?

Posted: 16 Oct 2019, 3:49pm
by mjr
Watchable at https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/7 ... 1ebfadf797 if you've time to wade through 2 hours. Any idea what time Ruth Cadbury spoke?

Are transcripts published of committee sessions?

And it's not just the UK government which is unfit on this. They've delegated much of transport to local government without proper regulation and much local government is also unfit. Our local council has just published a proposal that states cutting congestion is over twice as important to them as increasing active travel - now, you and I know that some measures can achieve both (because increasing active travel can reduce the number of cars and move more people in less space), but by setting the weightings like that, then local government basically won't care if they halve active travel overnight as long as the jams are 25% shorter in the short term.

As for more subtle basic legal requirements like not discriminating against wheelchair users or keeping HGV numbers off of school routes, forget it. They haven't even assigned such things a weighting in their proposal and I suspect it'll only act as a brake on their cars if they're slapped with legal complaints, which most of us can't afford to file.

So all levels of government here seem sick sick sick.

Re: UK Transport committee - unfit for purpose?

Posted: 16 Oct 2019, 4:09pm
by mattheus
atlas_shrugged wrote:...
Only one MP to her credit Ruth Cadbury raised the issue of support for cycling. This raised almost a smirk from the minister and he waffled on about the bike being a superb invention.
...

this is so unfortunate. There ARE people in Govt who get cycling, but they don't seem to be in these key jobs. Absurd!

[I give you J*remy C*rbyn and a certain B***s J*hnson. I dare not speak their names, as members of this forum immediately leap to attack them for various reasons. Which is sad as they are clearly pro-cycling - despite all their faults - but seem to have other things on their mind currently.)

Re: UK Transport committee - unfit for purpose?

Posted: 16 Oct 2019, 4:16pm
by NUKe
Sorry but Buses and trains in my view are sustainable transport, they just need to be made greener. Electrification of both should be a priority . Buses could be induction chanrged at stops as in South Korea. and the Government needs to follow a forgotton promise to complete electrification .


whilst I agree we need to look at active travel Buses and trains are part of the Solution.

Re: UK Transport committee - unfit for purpose?

Posted: 16 Oct 2019, 5:00pm
by Richard Fairhurst
Has anything emerged about what Andrew Gilligan is doing as the PM's special adviser on transport?

Re: UK Transport committee - unfit for purpose?

Posted: 16 Oct 2019, 8:24pm
by Bmblbzzz
mjr wrote:And it's not just the UK government which is unfit on this. They've delegated much of transport to local government without proper regulation and much local government is also unfit.

Even when local government does have clue and nouse, it lacks funds.

Re: UK Transport committee - unfit for purpose?

Posted: 23 Oct 2019, 5:12pm
by atlas_shrugged
Today the Transport Committee interviewed Jim O'Sullivan of Highways England:

https://www.parliament.uk/business/comm ... nce-19-20/

Good questions from Ruth Cadbury about Non-Motorised-Users (e.g. cyclists and pedestrians) on HE non-motorway routes. Towards the start of the 2 hour meeting. HE seem unable to have the figures.

Then a long time banging on and on about smart motorways.

Also another good question from Daniel Zeichner about why HE roads do not follow their own specifications e.g. CD195 at the new A428 junctions with the A1 for cyclists and pedestrians. HE unaware that this is the case.

In summary HE very poor on sustainable transport / active travel (IMHO):
* Suggesting UK roads best in world when it is the case that for cyclists they have a very poor safety record.
* Suggesting that all new roads will likely have segregated routes for cycling/pedestrians e.g. new 14 miles of A14. Is this really 14 miles of fully segregated grade separated track?
* Suggesting that electric vehicles are an environmental solution whilst ignoring sustainable transport and active travel