National Transport Strategy

Jdsk
Posts: 26425
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: National Transport Strategy

Post by Jdsk »

Pinhead wrote: 6 Jul 2024, 11:18am Has the Labor party got a transport strategy that is in plain English, and about cycling.
Very little yet on active transport.

"General Election 2024 — What do the main parties promise for cycling and active travel?":
https://road.cc/content/feature/general ... vel-309155

"Labour promises to allow every community to take back control of local bus services":
https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-rel ... -services/

"Labour’s plan for our railways: How we will deliver for passengers with Great British Railways":
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/l ... -railways/

But lots of attention to this in the public health work of the think-tanks.

Jonathan
User avatar
Pinhead
Posts: 1477
Joined: 11 May 2023, 4:12pm

Re: National Transport Strategy

Post by Pinhead »

Jdsk wrote: 6 Jul 2024, 11:25am
Pinhead wrote: 6 Jul 2024, 11:18am Has the Labor party got a transport strategy that is in plain English, and about cycling.
Very little yet on active transport.

"General Election 2024 — What do the main parties promise for cycling and active travel?":
https://road.cc/content/feature/general ... vel-309155

"Labour promises to allow every community to take back control of local bus services":
https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-rel ... -services/

"Labour’s plan for our railways: How we will deliver for passengers with Great British Railways":
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/l ... -railways/

But lots of attention to this in the public health work of the think-tanks.

Jonathan

:D :D :D
AUTISTIC and proud
Jdsk
Posts: 26425
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: National Transport Strategy

Post by Jdsk »

"‘We’ll move fast and fix things’: the big transport issues for Labour":
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... for-labour

Jonathan
Steady rider
Posts: 2766
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: National Transport Strategy

Post by Steady rider »

I would suggest a letter to all MPs, asking the new members if they would like to join the All Party cycling group and include details like the list below and if new towns could be made a priority because.
1)
Providing new towns would provide for more houses without adding congestion or pollution to existing towns and cities.
2)
Designing new towns with good cycling infrastructure could provide many routes to school, largely traffic free, encouraging children to walk and cycling to school.
3)
Providing new towns could include better local services, sports fields, swimming baths, parks and shops, minimising the need to travel.
4)
Positioning new towns close to existing rail networks could help reduce road traffic.
5)
Power generation for new towns could be sourced locally, via wind, solar and water, limiting power needed using long distance distribution and saving on costs and providing at a lower cost per KW.
6)
Sewage management to be largely self contained within the area, so that there would be minimal risk of extra pollution into streams and rivers.
Labour is planning an extra 1,500,000 extra homes. Building new towns could help achieve this and also contribute to a national transport strategy of more walking and cycling.
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5852
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: National Transport Strategy

Post by pjclinch »

I question the particular emphasis on New Towns in the limited context of cycle campaigning, not because I'm against New Towns but it will remain the fact that most people don't live in them, so at some point we've got to grasp the nettle of fixing the existing ones with regard to active travel provision as well as energy, sewerage etc.

Also, I suspect that if pressed ahead with right now there would be considerable danger of over-emphasising the role of private cars because too much existing planning practice exists that pushes its place. It's been a while now, but have we actually learned the lessons of Stevenage that if you create a great place to ride a bike that's also a great place to drive a car in a culture that feels cars are the way to get about, then you don't get much cycling?

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Steady rider
Posts: 2766
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: National Transport Strategy

Post by Steady rider »

Possibly a few issues there.
The government is planning on building 1.5 million homes, if not in new towns, they would mainly be additions to existing towns or cities, adding to the problems, cycling and otherwise. This would not help with extra congestion etc.

New towns could be designed on a population basis to cater for a secondary school, possibly 15,000 population, and about 1 mile radius or less. The emphasis could be on making them cycling and walking friendly.

Stevenage has about 80,000 people, much larger than is needed for a town communicant to function.

The other problems of making cycling conditions better in existing towns or cities is depending on individual circumstances and locally people may have been trying for some time. Improvements may be very limited, bridleways unlit, muddy, uneven surfaces, a range of problems.
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5852
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: National Transport Strategy

Post by pjclinch »

Steady rider wrote: 12 Jul 2024, 9:36am Possibly a few issues there.
The government is planning on building 1.5 million homes, if not in new towns, they would mainly be additions to existing towns or cities, adding to the problems, cycling and otherwise. This would not help with extra congestion etc.
It wouldn't help with congestion in those places, but we already have these problems and they're not going away.
Steady rider wrote: 12 Jul 2024, 9:36am New towns could be designed on a population basis to cater for a secondary school, possibly 15,000 population, and about 1 mile radius or less. The emphasis could be on making them cycling and walking friendly.

Stevenage has about 80,000 people, much larger than is needed for a town communicant to function.
The size of Stevenage or notional New Towns/Villages isn't really relevant, the point is that although Stevenage was designed with excellent active travel facilities they were largely ignored because it was so easy to drive/park anywhere at a time when cars were being established as the way "normal people" get around.
Making somewhere friendly for active travel has a proven track record of not doing much if it remains easy to drive. New Towns are relatively easy to make driving friendly too, and as our culture is still dominated by private motoring it strikes me as entirely likely that any new design made now will follow the example of Stevenage, and have great active travel facilities that are largely ignored because folk will drive instead, and at home they'll be parking at their houses which would have a minimum parking limit built in because that's current practice on new builds, and so on.
Steady rider wrote: 12 Jul 2024, 9:36am The other problems of making cycling conditions better in existing towns or cities is depending on individual circumstances and locally people may have been trying for some time. Improvements may be very limited, bridleways unlit, muddy, uneven surfaces, a range of problems.
The biggest problem is typically lack of political will (both central and local) and a planning process that works against cycling infrastructure. If you've not read it yet have a look at Laura Laker's "Potholes and Pavements" about the NCN, which illustrates the games that need to be played to get cycling infra in and how there is a lack of level playing field when comparing how to get driving infra in.
Getting around these issues and moving to a point where we see as a society that existing towns do not have space for everyone to drive everywhere is fundamental in solving our problems of creating liveable towns. There's nothing wrong with New Towns per se, especially if they embrace the principles that cars are a benchmark case of You Really Can Have Too Much Of A Good Thing, but getting that cultural shift is the fundamental thing, New Towns or old.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Steady rider
Posts: 2766
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: National Transport Strategy

Post by Steady rider »

I think a medium sized town up to 15,000 and perhaps 1 mile radius or less with several off road routes allowing children to cycle to school largely traffic free would lead to more cycling and the routes connecting to all the main places people visit, shops, doctors, sports fields, would be a good approach. The schools would need to be fairly central, so that cycling may take no more than 5 to 10 minutes for nearly all children. Once children know they can cycle almost traffic free to nearly any p[art of their town or visit friends, it may lead to less driving kids from A to B. So town size is important, because if it is quicker to jump on a bike and not catch a bus or have to use the car for kids to get to school that changes life styles and people are not so reliant on their cars.

https://inrix.com/press-releases/traffi ... -16-years/
according to this link, £300 billion over 16 years,
2013-2030 Per UK Household Cost of Congestion Increase: 44 percent

£1,426 in 2013
£2,057 in 2030 (three times the average UK monthly rent in 2014)
The location of the new towns, trying to be close to rail links, helps to avoid congestion and within the new towns congestion could be minimized. The design of new towns would be setting the example of how to avoid congestion. Making most journeys within the town taking no more than about 10 minutes each way by bicycle or less if using a car.

Where I live is about 8 miles from York, if they built 500 new houses here, people may spend 20 minutes each way going shopping in York etc. adding to York's congestion affecting 200,000 people. Building small towns in the right locations will be helpful.
atoz
Posts: 610
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 4:50pm

Re: National Transport Strategy

Post by atoz »

Carlton green wrote: 20 Mar 2023, 8:04pm
Ultrafast internet could mean that business travel will reduce significantly over the next half century, so is prioritising high speed rail a good allocation of resources?
Prioritising the likes of HS2 and not discouraging long distance high speed daily commuting isn’t wise. We do need quick and efficient rail services, but note those two particular adjectives. For long distance travel, when it’s truly needed by passengers, the electric equal of the 125’s should be fine and further electrification of the rail network should be a priority.
We're always told that high speed internet will reduce the need for business travel and commuting. I'm dubious. It hasn't happened yet. You're fortunate if your employer supports working from home, even hybrid working. I used to work in further education for years, and it was only the pandemic that finally triggered a more positive attitude to remote working. Even then, when lockdown ceased, it was still not always encouraged. I now work in another sector where I regularly work from home and it's made a huge difference to my wellbeing. That's because the horror story that was my daily commute is gone, and good riddance.

We will need public transport at an acceptable quality for many years yet. Not everyone is able to have an acceptable cycle commute or store their bike securely when they get to work. High speed internet will help, but only if employers are willing to relinquish some outdated working practices. I'm not holding my breath.
Carlton green
Posts: 4011
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: National Transport Strategy

Post by Carlton green »

atoz wrote: 12 Jul 2024, 3:03pm
Carlton green wrote: 20 Mar 2023, 8:04pm
Ultrafast internet could mean that business travel will reduce significantly over the next half century, so is prioritising high speed rail a good allocation of resources?
Prioritising the likes of HS2 and not discouraging long distance high speed daily commuting isn’t wise. We do need quick and efficient rail services, but note those two particular adjectives. For long distance travel, when it’s truly needed by passengers, the electric equal of the 125’s should be fine and further electrification of the rail network should be a priority.
We're always told that high speed internet will reduce the need for business travel and commuting. I'm dubious. It hasn't happened yet. You're fortunate if your employer supports working from home, even hybrid working. I used to work in further education for years, and it was only the pandemic that finally triggered a more positive attitude to remote working. Even then, when lockdown ceased, it was still not always encouraged. I now work in another sector where I regularly work from home and it's made a huge difference to my wellbeing. That's because the horror story that was my daily commute is gone, and good riddance.

We will need public transport at an acceptable quality for many years yet. Not everyone is able to have an acceptable cycle commute or store their bike securely when they get to work. High speed internet will help, but only if employers are willing to relinquish some outdated working practices. I'm not holding my breath.
Daily commutes can be, and many are, horrid experiences - done it so I know. To my mind there is a certain madness about building homes well away from where people work and in employing people who live considerable distances from their place of work. Of course that’s simplistic but it’s a start point from which to consider further.

The likes of HS2 are, I believe, a bonkers use of money because what’s really needed (by the vast majority of travellers) is good local transport to enable folk to go about their day to day business. What’s local transport (?); well certainly cycling facilities but also bus services, local train services and park and ride. My local community had people parking in a biggish car park and then taking a bus into the nearest city, along came the council and put up car parking charges and the local buses again became empty again. Getting people out of their cars, reducing congestion and reducing emissions requires joined up thinking.

Working from home has its plus and the environment does, I believe, benefit from that practise. However many jobs simply cannot be done from home and others do benefit from hybrid working (part in the office and part from home).
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Jdsk
Posts: 26425
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: National Transport Strategy

Post by Jdsk »

Jdsk wrote: 6 Jul 2024, 11:25am
Pinhead wrote: 6 Jul 2024, 11:18am Has the Labor party got a transport strategy that is in plain English, and about cycling.
Very little yet on active transport.

"General Election 2024 — What do the main parties promise for cycling and active travel?":
https://road.cc/content/feature/general ... vel-309155

"Labour promises to allow every community to take back control of local bus services":
https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-rel ... -services/

"Labour’s plan for our railways: How we will deliver for passengers with Great British Railways":
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/l ... -railways/

But lots of attention to this in the public health work of the think-tanks.
Cycling UK: "What the King’s Speech means for cycling":
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/what-kin ... ns-cycling

Jonathan
Post Reply