It is possible that the aim of reducing overall demand for transport should have been included among them: if everything else is equal, movement is pointless. I recognise in this that reducing overall demand for transport could alternatively be seen as a way of achieving other aims outlined in paragraph 10 (such as promoting 'environmental objectives', promoting 'greater efficiency...' and notably ensuring 'a high standard of safety across all modes').
Similarly, an aim of reducing law-breaking in transport sector could have been included among the aims in paragraph 10, although it could also be seen largely as a route to achieving a 'high standard of safety'.
On the other side of the issue, promoting 'economic development...' is not entirely appropriate. Promoting economic development in London and the South East should not be a high priority, especially when compared to improving the distribution of wealth in the region. There are already excessive environmental impacts of industry in London and the South East (including excessive water extraction, pressure on land use, and poor air quality - partly as a result of transport). Similarly, some desirable developments (such as increases in recycling and reuse and an increase in the proportion of work that is telework) may reduce the level of economic activity (or reduce its rate of growth), while producing overall benefits for society.
On the question of promoting 'greater efficiency in the use of scarce resources', it is a surprise to me that rail capacity is mentioned, as across most of the United Kingdom, rail capacity is under-used. Indeed, part of the reason that rail capacity is under-used is that it is priced as if it is scarce even when it is not. By contrast, road capacity is priced as if there is an infinite supply, when (especially during the rush hours) it is scarce. Further, increases in rail capacity can virtually always be achieved without significant environmental harm (whether through running longer trains or through using better signalling), and always with less environmental harm than equivalent increases in road capacity.
It seems a little inappropriate that enhancing 'the vitality of town and city centres' is an aim of the Government's transport policy: although it quite clearly will be part of the method of achieving other aims within the policy.
The aim of 'reducing social exclusion' surprisingly fails to mention those who are currently excluded from transport through poverty (for instance parents looking after children without access to a car during the daytime).
Finally, the aim of ensuring 'a high standard of safety across all modes' is worded so as to enable the reader to infer that promoting safety through changes in mode is excluded. Clearly, given the disparity between the levels of safety achievable by rail and road, changes in mode could make a massive contribution to increased overall levels of safety (indeed theoretically they could do so even if safety levels fell within each mode).
Overall, however, as I have said, the aims in paragraph 10 are generally appropriate.
Measures should be taken to end the requirement for wheelchair users to book rail journeys in advance (in the interim, though, a single national telephone number, open 24 hours, 7 days a week and where telephone calls are answered promptly would be a massive improvement).
Pavements that slope towards the road are a substantial problem for wheelchair-users. The mobility of wheelchair users could be improved by pavements being re-laid so that they standardly are cambered, with a peak in the middle. Moreover, because the first wheelchair issued by the NHS is harder to push than better wheelchairs, in combination with pavements that slope towards the road, many wheelchair users are put off using a wheelchair in situations where other people walk because it is too difficult at a time when their arm muscles are weak. Further, if a higher proportion of destinations were wheelchair accessible, and there was more access to powered wheelchairs, less disabled people would feel the need to use the car as virtually their sole means of transport.
It is clear that if Government does not change policy, some increase road traffic is likely. However, I am not convinced that it will be as great as even the lower forecast of Chart 1. If the average rate of increase in passenger travel by road in the period 1989-1996 (Chart 2) were continued over the next 25 years, there would be an increase in road use closer to 20 per cent than the 40 percent-plus lower forecast. There are also new factors that may tend to reduce the demand for road transport for passengers, most notably the increasing use of telematics that may contribute to a wider uptake of teleworking, with a reduction in road use being a likely result. The potential cost savings to both employers and employees of a wider use of teleworking could well result in dramatic changes in travel patterns and reductions in rush-hour traffic (thus meeting concerns expressed in paragraph 8) that would make forecasts even more inaccurate than they have been.
The Government should further move the emphasis of taxation on motoring towards taxation of fuel: thus discouraging road use. Current taxes on motoring are too heavily biased towards on-the-road costs, meaning that when motorists have paid to get a vehicle on the road, they are more inclined to use it to get a return on their investment.
This should equally apply to freight transport. Many changes in manufacturing that are increasing the distances goods are transported by road are premised on current low transport prices. An increase in such costs would result in a reversal of this trend to move goods ever further during the manufacturing process. It can thus be expected that the increased prices of transport of goods would not all be passed on to consumers.
The major advantage which the lorry and van give road transport for many journeys (paragraph 6) is exaggerated by the fact that those using such transport (as with car drivers) do not pay the full costs of their road use. However, it is recognised that buying fuel overseas is a more practical proposition for freight transport. To avoid this, and to seek to encourage equally good transport policies elsewhere, the Government should seek to secure a general increase in taxation of fuel across the European Union. If this fails, it may be that other forms of charging, such as road pricing might be necessary for freight transport, if the true costs to society of such road use is to be recovered.
To promote its environmental objectives (paragraph 10, aim 1), the Government should work towards a Europe-wide policy of encouraging the manufacture of longer-lasting vehicles (through taxation and technical requirements). This would also reduce the depreciation of cars, thus reducing the annual on-the-road cost of owning a car (although overall costs of motoring should be increased by the increases in taxation of fuel).
One of the major factors behind many short car journeys is a feeling that alternatives are not safe (paragraph 5), thus there is a need to ensure that incidents where cyclists and pedestrians have been injured or killed are thoroughly investigated to ensure that unsafe driving was not a factor (reversing the current assumption that it is an accident unless there was particular evidence otherwise).
More generally, extra resources should be provided for the enforcement of laws relating to motoring (including the detection of speeding, passing through red traffic lights, other dangerous driving, failing to indicate direction of turn, driving or parking in bus and cycle lanes). This is the crucial role for enforcement (paragraph 9) in any new transport policy. The costs of this to the Government, local authorities and agencies could to a certain extent be offset by increased revenues from fines and penalties, although the main aims of the policy should be improving safety, and reducing law-breaking, rather than raising money in fines and penalties.
If measures to enforce driving laws are successful, then speed limits should be reduced. Reducing speed will reduce the numbers of accidents, and dramatically reduce the severity of injuries, and the proportion that result in deaths. It will also reduce the ability for motorists to make personal savings of time and money at the expense of endangering others. It is almost certain that this would be the single greatest contribution that could be made to safety through transport policy (paragraph 10, aim 7; issue 23).
As a way of promoting safety (paragraph 10, aim 7; issue 23), the Government should make re-taking the driving test obligatory after every driving conviction, and periodically if there have been no convictions (every five years may be a suitable period). Furthermore, there must be a very real role in improving road safety for adding further road safety elements to the driving test. Such changes would help contribute towards a feeling of greater safety among pedestrians and cyclists.
Feelings of lack of safety caused by traffic are a major factor in parents taking children to school in cars rather than walking or cycling with them (as implicitly recognised in paragraph 8), and are a major inhibitor on walking and cycling for other purposes.
Similarly, there should be a substantial increase in the levels of fines imposed on businesses that operate unsafe vehicles (whether freight, coaches, busses or cars), or employ staff knowing that they are violating safety regulations (including tachograph, drink-driving and speed restrictions)(paragraph 10, aim 7; issue 23). Such an increase in fines should be combined with an increase in the numbers of personnel (whether police, vehicle inspectors, or others) dedicated to the detection of such offences. Such increases in detection could be expected to generate further revenue from fines. Such a policy will reduce the possibility of those using road transport from gaining a competitive advantage by endangering the lives of others.
The ultimate aim of the various measures to improve the safety of road transport should be to make the UKs roads the safest in the world, for the amount of overall surface travel by all modes.
The Government should recognise that free car-parking is a socially harmful perk provided by businesses for their employees. It is entirely appropriate that it be taxed.
Receipts from such taxation should be used primarily to improve public transport. In doing so, the costs to individuals could be offset, to the extent that they switch to public transport.
Similarly, car-parking at out-of-town shopping and leisure centres should be taxed, to encourage operators to provide public transport links and to reduce the advantage of driving to these out-of-town centres rather than using town-centre facilities. Receipts from this could be used to provide incentives for stores to offer home-delivery services, so that consumers do not feel the need to take a car to get their purchases home.
Further reductions in expenditure on road projects would be a way of releasing some of the constrained resources (paragraph 12). Road-building projects quite simply do not meet the broader aims of the Government's policy.
Road traffic provides a major inhibitor to those who wish to walk, both by creating dangers and by creating obstacles. Alongside many roads, pedestrians are in fear of being hit my vehicles mounting the pavement (perhaps as the driver loses control or avoids an obstacle of some kind). There is an important role for bollards in preventing such incidents. Bollards, equally, prevent parked cars from blocking pavements, which can be a particular problem for wheelchair users and families with push-chairs and prams. Bollards have the advantage over crash-barriers of being cheaper, while permitting pedestrians to cross the road, and permitting people to enter and leave parked cars and busses. They thus can be deployed in very many more situations. The Government should seek to ensure that councils provide many more bollards to protect pavements. There are designs: notably a pyramid shape, in use in the Netherlands, that are much harder to damage than those currently in use in the UK.
The major way road traffic causes an obstacle to pedestrians when not parked on the pavement is by simply making it difficult to cross roads. There is massive scope for increased numbers of pedestrian crossings, especially zebra crossings. Roads without crossings and pelican crossings give a message to pedestrians that they are only allowed to cross roads if it is not too inconvenient to motorists, no matter that waiting can be even more inconvenient to the pedestrian (for instance if it is raining). Only zebra crossings can give substance to a policy of favouring pedestrians over motorists. The message that inconvenience to pedestrians is a consideration secondary to inconvenience to motorists is given more weight when pelican crossings are temporarily out of operation, whereupon government policy does not allow temporary measures to allow pedestrians to cross the road.
The Government could do a massive amount, relatively cheaply, to promote cycling. Bicycles already are more environmentally friendly vehicles (issue 12) that can (as has been shown in The Netherlands) play a part in providing daily transport for large numbers of people.
Many existing cycle routes are of little practical use for daily travel, with barriers to deter motor-cyclists meaning that pedal cyclists have to repeatedly dismount (as frequently as six times in a mile on some routes). Many such barriers are also narrower than most bike handlebars, causing further difficulties, while others are constructed in such a way as to prevent the passage of a bike carrying panniers, when much serious use of bikes for daily travel necessitates carrying luggage (which is most safely done in panniers). Virtually all such barriers prevent the passage of bike trailers, recumbent bikes or tricycles (or, for that matter, wheelchairs). Similarly, most existing cycle routes require cyclists to give way (and often even dismount) whenever the route crosses even a very minor road. This is frequently the case when a cycle route runs parallel to a main road, meaning that cyclists cycle on the road rather than the cycle route to save time (but at a risk to their own safety). By contrast, where a cycle route is on the main carriageway, cyclists are held up less at traffic lights and pedestrian crossings than motorists, who have to queue behind eachother because of the amount of roadspace that each vehicle takes up.
To meet the aim of an increase in the amount of cycling (paragraph 8), there should be a massive increase in the number of cycle-lanes and cycle-routes towards the levels currently existing in the Netherlands. The Government should ensure, through planning law, that all new developments have cycle lanes on each road, on both sides, as part of the main paved carriageway. The law should be changed so that (as in Netherlands) cyclists in a cycle lane parallel to a main road, and continuing straight on, have priority over motorists turning onto or off that road, or crossing it: in other words, cyclists should have the same priority as motorists taking the same route. Planning law should be amended so that all new non-residential properties (or substantial alterations to existing properties) have under-cover cycle parking (with Sheffield racks) closer to their entrance than any car parking (except for disabled motorists), and showers and changing space.
There is a massive need for the provision of more under-cover cycle parking in city and town centres. Such cycle parking should use Sheffield racks to enable cyclists to make their bikes reasonably secure from theft. A legal requirement to make such provision, in sufficient quantities, should be laid upon local councils.
It is stunning to me that when the consultation asks about what priority should be given to various users of scarce road space (issue 20), cyclists are not mentioned at all. This I consider to be a major oversight. While cyclists do not occupy much road-space, they occupy some. Moreover, if only a small proportion of additional journeys that could be done by bike were, the effect on congestion would probably be highly noticable. I would suggest that the priority should be: Emergency vehicles, then cyclists, then wheelchair-accessible busses, then other busses, then pedestrians then motorcyclists, then coaches, then taxis, then disabled motorists, then goods vehicles, then other motorists.
As cycling is so vastly better for the environment than motoring, and has so few social costs, the Government should seek to reflect this in subsidising bike repairs and such consumables as tyres, inner tubes and brakes. The Government should also investigate the potential for opening subsidised secure cycle parks (along the lines of the one in Leicester city centre), with subsidised bike hire, at five hundred major railway stations.
In the consultation document (paragraph 7), the Government says "we want to explore whether there is scope for motorcycles to contribute to our wider objectives".
In the Netherlands, cyclists and riders of small motorcycles and scooters co-exist reasonably well on cycle paths. It may well be that there is scope for similar cycle-and-motorcycle paths and lanes in the UK.
Motorbikes ridden responsibly represent less of a danger to others than cars and vans, because they have less mass, and can more easily avoid cyclists and pedestrians in the road without pulling out of their lane. Additionally, they can achieve incomparably better fuel economy than cars do. Thus, if four-stroke engines are used, motorbikes can represent a massive reduction in pollution levels compared to cars.
Additionally, motorbikes can reduce congestion: where one person currently sits in a car, a motorbike can take up less than one third of the road space.
Better integration of public transport would necessitate closer integration of taxis with busses and rail services. It should be a requirement on operators that there are working telephones at all bus and railway stations, from which people can telephone for taxis, and there should always be somewhere dry and out of the wind to wait for such taxis, which should preferably be heated.
Taxis can be further integrated with other forms of public transport through the introduction of a scheme similar to the Netherlands Railways Train Taxi service, whereby for a small flat additional fee (NLG 6 - approx. UK Pounds 2) a special taxi can be taken to any destination within the town, with costs being kept down by such taxis being shared between all passengers arriving within a ten minute period that wish to use them.
Consideration should be given to providing some subsidy to Taxi journeys that involve a set-down or a pick-up at a rail or bus station.
These various possible changes involving taxis and other public transport could go a significant way towards making sure that public transport offers a genuine alternative to the door-to-door flexibility (paragraph 6) and realising greater use of public transport (paragraph 15).
Integration of public transport can also be promoted by co-ordination of subsidies for rail and bus, so that greater subsidies can be achieved by operators that run timetables that provide good connections (and thus for bus routes that serve railway stations).
Moreover, in the sphere of planning, it must be recognised that from time to time bus stations are re-constructed. It should be a requirement that whenever such projects seek planning approval, consideration is given about whether it is possible to locate the new bus station by an existing railway station, or whether it would be possible to site the new bus station somewhere where it would be possible to open a new railway station.
A general increase in the usage of public transport will increase the perceived level of safety while using it, which will, in turn, encourage people who are particularly worried about their safety to use it (paragraphs 10 and 15). It is thus important that the Government take pump-priming measures to encourage greater use of public transport. Other measures that can be taken to increase safety (and perceived safety) include improvements to the level of lighting at bus-stops and (rail- and bus-) stations, and on the routes to and from them, and maximising the number of (rail- and bus-) stations that are staffed, and the number of hours for which a station has at least one member of staff on duty. This would also help improve access to public, and especially rail, transport for disabled people.
The emphasis of public subsidy of the railways should, as opportunity arises, be moved from subsidy of particular services on a profit making track towards subsidy of the track and fixed facilities, reducing track access charges and enabling increases in service levels to be made for the current overall level of subsidy and without fare increases, which will tend to realise greater use of railways (paragraph 15).
Funding should be provided so that railway lines that are currently goods-only are re-opened to passenger traffic (so that, for instance, through trains can be run between Milton Keynes or Bedford to Aylesbury or Oxford).
To the extent possible, over time, service subsidies should be made conditional on the re-opening of stations closed since 1960 (including re-opening local stations on what are currently high-speed only lines), and the re-introduction of fast trains on lines with all-stops services at present (such as Swansea-Craven Arms).
Where trackbed is available, lines should be re-laid. Such lines should be directly subsidised, with no (or massively reduced) track-access fees for operators, to encourage use. This would be a way of improving transport infrastructure without the environmental damage associated with road-building, and could be funded by cuts in the budget for road building. As an example the through line from London to Rugby (via High Wycombe or Aylesbury) should be re-instated, as has been Labour Party policy in the past, as part of the development of through services to Europe (paragraph 2). Other opportunities would include the East-West rail link between Ipswich and Swindon via Sandy and Bedford, that consultants Steer, Davies and Gleave have found would be viable, and the route from Cheltenham to Stratford-Upon-Avon that was closed in the 1970s.
The integrity of through ticketing arrangements are currently being threatened by the proposal by Virgin trains to end Supersaver fares on their routes. These are the most widely used return tickets for long-distance journeys, and have been universally available for longer journeys outside the South East (as well as being available for some journeys within the South East). The claim that advance-purchase tickets can replace them is not valid. Advance purchase tickets may well have a role in promoting cheap rail travel, but they are less widely available, thus directly giving problems of through ticketing. Additionally advance-purchase tickets by their nature require two visits to the major station where they can be purchased. This is liable to involve an increased number of car journeys to stations (undermining aims 1 and 3 of paragraph 10), as well as deter a proportion of travellers. Regular travellers will, similarly, be deterred by the need to pre-book, because of the extra inconvenience and also the possibility that their travel plans will change after tickets have been purchased. Moreover, the number of advance purchase tickets available for each train is limited. The proposal to end Supersaver fares is an example of how the Government needs to establish more effective and accountable regulation of the railway (paragraph 18).
Where it will not use former railway land (which potentially could be needed for future rail use, etc), land near stations should be prioritised for possible use as bus stations. If it will not be needed for a bus station, it should be the first land used for any residential or commercial development in the area (where as part of such developments there should be restrictions on car-parking at the premises or within 3 miles, but instead there should be provision for under-cover cycle parking).
The government should prevent further sales of railway land that could have a use in future for passengers, freight or line-side industry with rail access, unless the uses it is put to are compatible with such future use.
More generally, planning policy should favour industrial development close to railways (both current, and those that can be re-opened), provided use of the railway for freight transport is part of the plans. There may be a role, within such plans, for pipelines laid alongside the railway on existing railway land between factories and sidings. There should be the strongest controls on the siting of industrial developments that could use bulk rail freight transport in some form at locations away from those where rail access can be provided.
Given the large proportion of current industry that is not sited close to railways, the use of containerisation provides the only practical means to quickly reduce the amount of freight on the roads. Containerisation could enable freight to complete the major part of its journey by rail (and/or ship), with short road transfers at either end of the journey. Containerisation can be encouraged by differential taxation, whereby some of the additional costs of transporting the extra weight of containers and flat beds on which to carry them are offset by lower taxation. It is important, however, that this is not done in a way whereby it becomes cheaper to transport the goods by road in a container than over the same road journey in a non-container lorry.
A major factor in determining levels of use of busses is the availability of information about timetables. Instability in services since deregulation has meant that such information is needed more frequently than before. As there have not yet been improvements in the technology used to deliver such information commensurate with this instability, the Government should seek to introduce regulation of sorts that will increase timetable stability (paragraph 19).
Another factor is the quality of bus shelters. The quality partnership approach (paragraph 23) is one that should be strengthened. I can see no reason why local authorities would not be suitable for this task, provided sufficient resources are made available.
Regulation of Coach Services should be introduced, so that coaches are wheelchair accessible, and fully integrated with the railways. Integration would require integration into the rail ticketing system, so that through journeys could be made on a single ticket, available throught the combined network. Coach timetables should be changed so they connect with rail timetables. Coach routes should be changed so that connection between coach and rail in a town or city does not require travelling more than 200 metres between the coach stop and the railway station. Coach routes should also be changed so that journeys between different parallel railway lines have a more frequent service (eg Cambridge - Bedford - Milton Keynes - Aylesbury - Oxford - Reading: see the railway route map).
While motoring will remain an essential part of many disabled peoples lives, vastly more can and should be done to enable access to public transport for disabled people. This is particularly the case because there are huge numbers of disabled people that cannot drive because of the nature of their impairments.
Railway stations should systematically be made wheelchair accessible: with access to all platforms (the overall project on this should prioritise stations according to amount of general passenger traffic, proximity of alternatives with wheelchair accessible bus links and so as to make whole lines wheelchair accessible). In order to ensure that this enables wheelchair access to transport, access to trains should be possible without staff assistance, in the same way as it is on the Tyneside Metro.
The Government should require that every single new bus bought is fully wheelchair accessible. Additional subsidies should be provided for routes that are only operated by wheelchair accessible busses (and where frequency has not dropped by more than say 10% over five years). Grants for the purchase of new busses should be re-instated, provided such busses are wheelchair accessible and embody the best available environmental performance.
Notwithstanding the Government's proposals in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995: the Government's Proposals for Taxis, the Government should require that at least half of all taxis and private hire cars in each local authority are wheelchair-accessible in the same way as black London taxis are within seven years. The Government should act immediately to make it illegal for higher fares to be charged for booking or using a wheelchair-accessible taxi.
As the Government recognises (paragraph 9), planning controls can contribute substantially to achieving the goals of the new transport policy.
Planning controls should be changed to require a more general integration of workplaces with housing, except where businesses create a nuisance for residents. Methods to accomplish this should include a requirement for new conventional offices to be sited in mainly residential areas (to realise the potential for reduction in travel distances there should also be a planning requirement on such developments that no more than say 20% of employees travel to work by car). Another potential method would be the encouragement of telework in current residential areas (see the response of the Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility of De Montfort University). Finally, space in current town and city centres should be prioritised for residential use.
Because public transport is better in existing centres, planning controls should be used to inhibit further building on the edge of current villages, towns and cities (helping to meet aim 4 - paragraph 10), and at all in villages that do not have sufficient public transport to enable commuting by public transport. There should be no building permitted on current green-belt land, and the Government should seek to extend the green-belts. With a predictable increase in the use of telework (particularly if the Government is to take measures to promote it, as recommended by the response of the Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility of De Montfort University), it is to be expected that demand for office buildings will fall. Such space should normally either be converted to residential use, or the buildings replaced with others in the same place for residential use. Allowing developers to build new detached and semi-detached properties with two garages on greenfield sites without adequate public transport has provided a strong incentive to car ownership and use over the last decades. To continue to do so would be to continue to encourage unsustainable levels of car use. Developers may claim that there is demand for more and different types of housing, but such housing should not need greenfield sites.
One of the inhibitors of residential building on former industrial sites is an understandable reluctance of mortgage lenders to make loans for the purchase of properties on such sites. There is an urgent need for a system of certification of such sites, whereby when they are adequately de-contaminated and made safe, a certificate is issued that provides a real guarantee to potential purchasers and lenders that the de-contamination and safety measures will ensure that the property will not become effectively unsaleable, or of vastly reduced value. Such guarantees need to be backed by a scheme whereby if an individual contractor goes into liquidation, they are still effective.
There is great scope for the provision of new bus-and-cycle lanes on existing roads. This could be implemented wherever there are bus routes at present on roads that are wide enough for three or more lanes of traffic between the two directions (or two, in a one-way street or on one side of a dual carriageway). This might need a reduction in the amount of on-street parking allowed. It would give a practical expression of how transport policy is supporting public transport and cycling, and seeking to reduce the effects of many years of massive support for private motoring. It should enable massive improvements in the speed and reliability of services, and consequently the frequency of busses, which could even enable some reduction in fares (if they complete each journey faster, each bus and its crew can make more journeys in a day for little additional cost). These developments would increase the attractiveness of busses to people who at present use cars (paragraph 15). The increase of the amount of car and lorry free roadspace would go a long way towards enabling safer cycling on routes that are practical for daily travel needs.
One of the greater absurdities of the privatisation of the railways has been the increasing use of road-transport by railway companies. The Government should seek to introduce a ban on the carriage of railway rolling stock by road. The Government should investigate the possibility of levying a windfall tax on the extra profits that may result for Railtrack from such a move.
There is undoubtedly scope for greater use of park-and-ride. The example of Southampton Airport Parkway shows how a run-down station can be transformed into a major transport interchange. Park-and-ride could be used in many locations where a railway line leaves a large town or a city. This could be done in conjunction with re-opening a formerly closed station or opening a new station. However, there are considerations against doing so. If the schemes are successful, drivers may well drive further to get to the park and ride station. To avoid this there need to be park and ride stations easily accessible from all sides of the town or city. Typically this will mean that a through train will make three stops for the town or city instead of one. Such adding of stops to existing rail journeys may make them less attractive, unless additional fast services are run.
The Government says that it wants a railway which operates as a network and which is integrated with other forms of transport - cars, busses, coaches, air travel, etc - so that passengers can make seamless journeys (paragraph 16).
It could almost be seen as symptomatic of the poor current relationship between cycling and rail-travel that cycling was left out of that list, when cycling has vast potential to provide seamless journeys.
Present arrangements for taking bikes on trains are so complex and difficult to negotiate that in many parts of the country they come close to an effective complete ban. There are a high proportion of services - notably at times when people might wish to commute - on which bikes are not allowed. On many more services only one bike is permitted (or sometimes two are), requiring booking many days in advance because demand vastly outstrips supply of spaces. The national rail enquiry service contrives to be even worse at giving information to people wishing to take bikes by train than other potential passengers (I, for instance have been told that I would have to pay a UK pounds 3 fare for my bike, and pre-book, where in fact no bike ticket or pre-booking were required). The system of bike fares, where they operate, is ridiculous. On short journeys the bike fare often is more than the fare for the accompanying passenger.
In combination cycling and rail use could provide an excellent way of providing the door-to-door convenience of motoring (paragraph 6), but without the consequent pollution and congestion, thus realising greater use of public transport (paragraph 15). The Government should ensure that such issues are taken into account when passenger rail franchises are renewed and should seek to amend current franchises. Amendments to franchises, and new franchises, should move the railways towards a situation whereby bicycles can be transported free of charge on all services without the need for pre-booking. Where space constraints make it impossible for all bicycles to be transported on the service their owner desires to use, compensation for delay should be payable to the owner of the bike. It may be in the railway operating companies interests, in these circumstances, to offer reduced price tickets to passengers travelling with a folding bicycle that when folded can fit into ordinary luggage spaces. The current requirement that such folding bicycles be in a carrying bag should also be ended. In these circumstances it would also be in the train operating companies interests to ensure that there was adequate, adequately secure under-cover cycle parking (using Sheffield racks) at railway stations, to provide cyclists with a real alternative to taking their bikes on the train.
Improvements in access for disabled people such as passenger-operated lifts and ramps between platforms and street level would also help cyclists using trains.
This web page was created, and is maintained, by Ben Fairweather