Election 2010 Transport policy, party-by-party

[Capybara]

And to be effective in enticing people out of their cars they need to have the option of being able to decide to have a day out on a whim, rather than plan it weeks in advance.

 

[mickey]

This has been offset for some people by the introduction of cheaper advance fares but not everyone wants to be dictated to as to which train they must travel on.

Which is why despite what TOCs say we absolutely must keep off-peak walk-on tickets. What it comes down to is our different opinions as to what constitutes reasonable, which in fairness could come from the fact that my routes (WCML and TPE) seem for some reason to be lower per mile than yours (GWL). I stress again, however, that in other countries where more balanced fares apply off-peak customers who want flexible tickets are in effect penalised by being charged the same as peak-time business customers - if indeed flexible tickets are available (high-speed lines such as the TGV and ICE3 require a compulsory reservation at all times).

 

[gordonthemoron]

most if not all ICE trains do not require reservations, I've been on some services (friday/sunday evening) where the loading has been approaching 200%

 

[Lampshade]

The scrapping of ATOC should be on someone's agenda. Each TOC should be held accountable for its own decisions, not some group of the transport elite sitting in a room deciding how to make life more difficult for the passenger.

 

[Mojo]

Atoc is not in any way anything to do with the government; it is effectively a trade association for train operating companies and open-access operators.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Sorry I'm late in posting this - I simply assumed that the pidgeon delivering it this morning had just sh** on me!
Actually, the Party's Policy document was attached to its leg.

So here it is:
The UK Monster Raving Loony Party in Alliance with the Manx Republican Party - Transport Policy

If elected,

The UK's neglected canal network will be fully restored to working order as a priority, and will be offered to freight operators with no access charges.

The route for HS2 will be determined by the public consultation, using a low-cost poll on a web site. The compulsory land purchases and route alignment will follow, funded publically, but not the infrastructure or rolling stock. If no commercial operator is forthcoming to invest in stock and to operate a service, the route will be completed as a canal (see above).

Road speed management. Suburban roads in cities will have their tarred surfaces removed and replaced with uneven cobbles. Speed 'bumps' and cameras will be phased out. Speed cameras will be linked to Google Street view and will be remotely controlled in real time (to enable family members to follow each other).

Bus, rail and tram subsidies will be increased and funded from a doubling of vehicle excise tax and road fuel tax. Subsidised rail and bus operators to provide warm bus shelters and stations, hot drinks, wi-fi and spacious seating on all services.

Under 16s travel free on Saturdays, Over 60's travel free on Sundays.

Licenced Freight operators will pay no vehicle excise tax for horse-drawn vehicles (and will qualify for subsidised oats).

Bus passes shall be issued as at present, but only valid when seating is not required for paying passengers.

Road safety standards to be radically improved to the level of rail and air operations - all holders of driving licences to be re-tested to new, higher standards as a priority. For example, no vehicle permitted to enter a section of road already occupied by a vehicle.

3rd rail electrification to be extended - to airport runways. Aircraft to be fitted with 3rd rail shoegear, to reduce fuel costs during takeoff.

Heritage railways will be eligible for support as a Lottery "good cause" and will be eligible for main-line operation, if they ask nicely.

The 2012 Olympics will be sent back to Greece (where it belongs) to support these developments.

I think that was all

--------EDIT------------

Oh, and in the Party's cultural policy we have proposals for art on trains. Here's an example from Moscow -
That seems to deal quite nicely with the common complaint about seats that are not aligned with windows

 

[PhilipW]

I think there are prehaps too high expectations of the other parties here but parties that are not in government do not really have the money, resources, desire, need and everything else to spend millions of pounds on consultants, surveyors and the like to draw up maps, reports and anything else that needs to be done to build a high speed line. You can give a general idea, as they have, but there's little more that can be done.

After that little amusing interlude from the Monster Raving Loony party, back to the Conservatives and Heathrow Hub.

All I really want is a "general idea" from them about where the station will be and how people will get from there to T3, T4 and T5 without spending many billions more than the current plans outlined by Lord Adonis. No need to hire consultants, just give me a general idea.

I fear even that is lacking, which means that the Conservative policy is meaningless to the point of being non existant.

Frankly I don't think Theresa Villiers is a fit person to hold the office of Secretary of State for Transport after 6th May if this is the best she can come up with.

Other policies aside, on purely Transport matters, I would rather have Andrew Adonis or Norman Baker any day.

 

[kev151]

A contribution from Stephen Hammond to this debate:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2010-03-30a.181.0&m=1927#g199.1

gives a bit more insight into the Conservative thinking around HS2/Old Oak Common/Heathrow:

"On the failure to link Heathrow, we all accept that Old Oak Common will be a necessary stop because of the dispersal arguments, which the Minister raised. However, he failed to say that on the 20 and 25 per cent. dispersal, there are some real arguments. Without the connectivity to Heathrow, it is not the airport. Changing trains and getting to and from Old Oak Common are all issues that need considering. High speed rail also provides a huge alternative to short-haul flights. Being wedded to not allowing a remit to assess potential modal shift from air to rail by high speed rail will clearly frustrate and restrain the argument for a direct link to Heathrow. That is a huge flaw in the plans."

 

[WatcherZero]

extend those personal car things to Old Oak, you select which terminal you want to go to and it solves the problem of only one station, mirrors the 3 existing rail links which feature different combinations of terminals and freight terminal. Its also been calculated that only 15% of HS2 passengers would want to use the Airport the argument that it connects the rest of the country to doesnt stack up so they are obviously the minority and should be treated as such, people who say it needs a whopping prestige station are being seduced by BAA and London MP's.

 

[PhilipW]

However, he failed to say that on the 20 and 25 per cent. dispersal, there are some real arguments. Without the connectivity to Heathrow, it is not the airport. Changing trains and getting to and from Old Oak Common are all issues that need considering. High speed rail also provides a huge alternative to short-haul flights. Being wedded to not allowing a remit to assess potential modal shift from air to rail by high speed rail will clearly frustrate and restrain the argument for a direct link to Heathrow. That is a huge flaw in the plans."

Not really a masterclass in plain English. I'm afraid I don't really follow the point he is trying to make.

 

[Drsatan]

extend those personal car things to Old Oak, you select which terminal you want to go to and it solves the problem of only one station, mirrors the 3 existing rail links which feature different combinations of terminals and freight terminal. Its also been calculated that only 15% of HS2 passengers would want to use the Airport the argument that it connects the rest of the country to doesnt stack up so they are obviously the minority and should be treated as such, people who say it needs a whopping prestige station are being seduced by BAA and London MP's.

The Tories do not appear to have stated how much time will be added to the journey if the line is routed via Heathrow, nor do they appear to have discussed the future of Heathrow itself.

There have been several proposals in the past 30 years to close Heathrow airport and build a new one on an artificial island in the Thames estuary. I believe Boris Johnson suggested this idea, but it wasn't taken too seriously, which is unfortunate as it should be given serious consideration. Building an airport on an artificial island's nothing new - Hong Kong airport is located on an artificial island replacing Kai Tek airport which was located within the city itself. Watching a plane land at Kai Tek was spectacular: watch this video and you'll see what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKqO6gdJIz8 . The only problem was that life was very noisy for the residents of Hong Kong due to planes landing. If you live near Heathrow Airport the noise of passing planes must be a nuisance.

Closing Heathrow Airport would improve the quality of life for local residents, and low-cost housing could be built on the site of the airport. Heathrow airport's running at 96% capacity anyway (the highest capacity usage rate of any international airport - Amsterdam Schipol and Paris Charles de Gaulle run at 75% capacity anyway), so by building an airport elsewhere, London would get a bigger airport. Many long-distance flights seem to leave from Heathrow, resulting in journeys to Heathrow (often by car), which results in more CO2 being emitted and more cars on the M25, so the Tories, IMO, should encourage the expansion of more provincial airports (e.g. Manchester, Leeds-Bradford) and encourage more long-distance flights to use those, such as trans-atlantic flights.

The new airport in the Thames Estuary would be served by a branch from HS1, and a new line from Kent, which means trains from Chatham, Maidstone, and further afield could terminate at the airport. It could also be served by a new line from East Anglia. HS2 trains could conceivably access the airport via the North London Line and then HS1.

 

[yorksrob]

Thanks to Metroland for posting this column.

I suppose what's worrying me is that the Conservatives and Labour are planning to ring-fence certain non-transport budgets, which, as people on other posts have pointed out, in an environment of a shrinking budget overall, will ultimately affect transport disproportionately. Whilst there will be efficiency savings to be made, these will only save so much, leading to cuts eating into service provision and necessary infrastructure improvements. Also, if there are efficiency savings to be made in transport, I find it hard to believe that there aren't savings to be made in the ring-fenced budgets as well.

 

[Katherine]

VERY, VERY impressed with the Lib Dems' rail plans!

 

[jamesontheroad]

Sorry for minor thread drift, but it's important - especially as this thread's OP has been so carefully prepared and has garnered so much interest.

If you're not sure whether you are registered to vote, whether it's because you reached the age of majority since the last election or because you've moved home / constituency in the last four years, you can find out more about how to register to vote at the website of the Election Commission:

www.aboutmyvote.co.uk

It took me 90 seconds to call my local registrar yesterday to confirm my details had been updated, and to request an application for a postal ballot paper (because I won't be able to make it to my polling station on the day).

Here's an embarrassing statistic: more people voted in the first season on Pop Idol than in the 2001 general election. Personally, I don't care if you think politicians are all the same. They're not. Not bothering to vote at a general election is pure laziness. If you honestly don't like any of the candidates and you want to register your protest, then go to the polling station and spoil your ballot paper.

Enjoy the campaign! And be sure to grill your local candidates and their representatives when they come looking for your vote

 

[furryfeet]

Atoc is not in any way anything to do with the government; it is effectively a trade association for train operating companies and open-access operators.

What I would like to see is ATOC stripped of the power to set fares and charges. Do any of the political parties have this in their manifestos ?

Then the government would have a window through which they could set the
fares which were previously set by ATOC
itself and hopefully at prices which would encourage people to use rail rather than the car.

 

[Mojo]

Hang on; one of the things holding back our railways is the constant DfT micromanagement and meddling. The reason our railways are so expensive is because of limited capacity, demand management and the need to pay the government a premium.

 

[Minstral25]

Make the public transport
a) reliable, including better integration between different modes.
b) comfortable
c) runs at a frequency that the public wants, including evenings and weekends
d) above all gives value for money

Excellent point

This can only be done with a policy to clear up bottlenecks in track layouts to stop delays (example South London - get rid of all the opposing flat crossings and build some more flyovers) and deliver at least 1,000 more carriages spread across the national network to stop overcrowding!

Much cheaper than HS2 and probably a better benefit for the cost to many more customers.

 

[mickey]

Here's an embarrassing statistic: more people voted in the first season on Pop Idol than in the 2001 general election.

I agree entirely with the rest of your post but is this bit strictly true? I know there were more votes cast in the PI ballot, but how many of these were down to the same people voting more than once? It would indeed be an extremely embarrassing situation if more people voted in PI than in the election, but I suspect we'd be hearing more about it now if it were true.

 

[LE Greys]

What I would like to see is ATOC stripped of the power to set fares and charges. Do any of the political parties have this in their manifestos ?

Then the government would have a window through which they could set the
fares which were previously set by ATOC
itself and hopefully at prices which would encourage people to use rail rather than the car.

It would also be curious to see what would happen if the TOCs themselves were able to set their own fares, within a maximum of say 20p/mile for the cheapest walk-up fare. This would allow price competition. Ideally, railway companies should be able to write their own timetables, but that would only happen if they owned their own track.

However, I don't know many governments who have said, 'You decide what to do, nothing to do with us.'

 

[deltic]

from
http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/new_transit/news/?id=22015

General election - transport policies lost up a cul de sac

It's election time and all the political parties are showing their usual enthusiasm for transport, which will miraculously disappear as soon as the election is over. Probably just as well given many of their policies will do little to address the main transport problems facing the country. Eddington stated that the strategic economic priorities for long term transport policy should be addressing growing and congested urban areas and their catchments; the key inter-urban corridors; and the key international gateways. In addition he stated the transport sector also needs to play its role in economy-wide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in part by ensuring it meets its full environmental costs.

So what are all the parties coming out in favour of - high speed rail - despite no-one having a clue how to pay for it and that it is as likely to lead to an increase in carbon emissions as a decrease.

In terms of the rail network generally, there are some sensible proposals: for electrification; less micro-management of the network; and fare reductions on rail replacement buses. Then some less sensible ones such as: widespread rail reopenings, often of lines that closed because they served the back end of nowhere; and greater fare subsidies. UKIP, just to be different advocate scrapping London’s Crossrail which would be a good waste of the couple of billion already spent on the scheme.

On the buses, which are of course used by far more people than the railways; the move seems to be towards more regulation and subsidies for “green” buses. How that will attract more people to use them without additional constraints on car use is of course generally glossed over. Little mention of light rail and trams although the Greens are positive and UKIP state they will use saving from our European contribution to pay for some.

Lots of warm words about bicycles but again not clear how warm words will lead to a cycling revolution.

Rather surprisingly Labour comes out as the most pro-aviation party, while the rest are generally against airport expansion in the south east if not altogether. Shipping as usual barely rates a mention.

So finally what about the road network on which we are all dependent. Here the usual weasel words about making more efficient use of roads – whatever that means - and passing the buck to local authorities to tackle road congestion. Road pricing is generally limited to nasty trucks and preferably nasty foreign trucks. The Lib-Dems will scrap road building while the Tories will build some and toll them.

So where does that leave Eddington – generally ignored. No one has any real answers to the issue of congestion in our urban areas, the only policies on inter-urban links are a few rail electrification schemes and international gateways are forgotten. And the greatest market failure in the 21st Century as Stern referred to, climate change, and ensuring the transport sector meet its full environmental costs? Forget it, even the Greens are not really pushing for road user pricing.

In other words the elite London intelligentsia of the political world remain wholly disconnected from reality and the electorate. The latter’s top transport priority, according to a poll by the RAC Foundation (who incidentally seem to be the only group lobbying for road charging these days), is filling in the pot holes.

 

[LE Greys]

from
http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/new_transit/news/?id=22015

General election - transport policies lost up a cul de sac

It's election time and all the political parties are showing their usual enthusiasm for transport, which will miraculously disappear as soon as the election is over. Probably just as well given many of their policies will do little to address the main transport problems facing the country. Eddington stated that the strategic economic priorities for long term transport policy should be addressing growing and congested urban areas and their catchments; the key inter-urban corridors; and the key international gateways. In addition he stated the transport sector also needs to play its role in economy-wide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in part by ensuring it meets its full environmental costs.

So what are all the parties coming out in favour of - high speed rail - despite no-one having a clue how to pay for it and that it is as likely to lead to an increase in carbon emissions as a decrease.

In terms of the rail network generally, there are some sensible proposals: for electrification; less micro-management of the network; and fare reductions on rail replacement buses. Then some less sensible ones such as: widespread rail reopenings, often of lines that closed because they served the back end of nowhere; and greater fare subsidies. UKIP, just to be different advocate scrapping London’s Crossrail which would be a good waste of the couple of billion already spent on the scheme.

On the buses, which are of course used by far more people than the railways; the move seems to be towards more regulation and subsidies for “green” buses. How that will attract more people to use them without additional constraints on car use is of course generally glossed over. Little mention of light rail and trams although the Greens are positive and UKIP state they will use saving from our European contribution to pay for some.

Lots of warm words about bicycles but again not clear how warm words will lead to a cycling revolution.

Rather surprisingly Labour comes out as the most pro-aviation party, while the rest are generally against airport expansion in the south east if not altogether. Shipping as usual barely rates a mention.

So finally what about the road network on which we are all dependent. Here the usual weasel words about making more efficient use of roads – whatever that means - and passing the buck to local authorities to tackle road congestion. Road pricing is generally limited to nasty trucks and preferably nasty foreign trucks. The Lib-Dems will scrap road building while the Tories will build some and toll them.

So where does that leave Eddington – generally ignored. No one has any real answers to the issue of congestion in our urban areas, the only policies on inter-urban links are a few rail electrification schemes and international gateways are forgotten. And the greatest market failure in the 21st Century as Stern referred to, climate change, and ensuring the transport sector meet its full environmental costs? Forget it, even the Greens are not really pushing for road user pricing.

In other words the elite London intelligentsia of the political world remain wholly disconnected from reality and the electorate. The latter’s top transport priority, according to a poll by the RAC Foundation (who incidentally seem to be the only group lobbying for road charging these days), is filling in the pot holes.

All sounds very London-centric, and hardly ever mentions the roads never finished (A1M anyone?), decisions on new airports in the south, no serious plans for suburban electrification in Yorkshire, yet more arguments over Crossrail and Thameslink and nothing on Pacer/Sprinter replacement. I take it these 'green' buses run on guideways and are not trolleybuses. There never seems to be a true vision, but that has more to do with elections being every four years than anything else.

Whoever said that democracy is the worst way to run a country - until you look at all the others?

 

[WatcherZero]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47623000/jpg/_47623530_-20.jpg

New Labour policy expected to be in Manifesto.

Passengers will be entitled to a full refund if their not sold the cheapest valid ticket for their journey. ORR would be responsible for adjudication.

 

[Metroland]

Even more interesting, Rail companies franchises are going to be opened up to non-profit making and mutuals:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ele...sell-cheapest-tickets-under-Labour-plans.html

 

[Mojo]

How would this work? Surely anyone who knew they'd been overcharged (which is probably a small percentage of actual passengers) would either challenge the person at the ticket office there and then, or write back in and the TOC would refund. Sounds like a nothing pledge to me.

The Conservatives plans for a more accountable Infraco and longer franchises (but with regular reviews) sound sensible to me, will hopefully lead to better services, improvements in infrastructure and rolling stock, more special offers and a stronger industry.

 

[jon0844]

...And they have been extremely successful in encouraging more people to travel more often on them.

Can we say that this was all down to the railway, or the fact that in the last 10 years, fuel has agone up by an incredible amount?

I remember in the late 1990s when a litre of fuel was 59p (and I remember moaning about it). Now I've just paid £1.23 a litre and it's still going up. So that's doubled, and we haven't had that much inflation.

I knew people who were moaning about 60p a litre and went out and bought scooters (remember when everyone was buying them?) to save money. I guess, once people realised they didn't like to dress up to ride a scooter, wear a helmet and so on - they opted to use public transport. I'm not talking about people who are able to use a pedal cycle.

I am sure public transport has already benefited from the high cost of motoring (and has done for some time) at least for commuting which is a) at peak time, b) when you're probably on your own and c) is the most busy, so driving can mean ages to find parking etc. But I'm talking about London; outside of a big city, driving can still win - especially if you're driving east to west where there might be no railway line.

Off-peak, where you might travel in a group, the car is still able to hold its own. Filling a car with 5 people and bags that don't have to be lugged around is always going to be favourable. It would continue to be so even if it was more expensive as it's very convenient.

What you want is for people to consider the most appropriate option at the time. Sometimes it will be car, other times it will be rail, bus, coach. I would say that there are many people who are totally against rail, but that's not down to any rational thinking. Ditto some people pro-PT who are against cars and aren't willing to compromise at all.

 

[jopsuk]

I'm sure I'd already seen that ASLEF were considering forming a cooperative to run the East Coast franchise.

WatcherZero- I think you might have posted the wrong link! You've linked to a picture of Vladimir Putin at the site of the plane crash that killed the Polish President....

 

[WatcherZero]

Whoops, that was for a caption contest

Well the telegraph article covers it in greater detail than mine, though it doesnt mention that 43% of passengers are sold the wrong ticket (which is what prompted this policy)

 

[deltic]

Well the telegraph article covers it in greater detail than mine, though it doesnt mention that 43% of passengers are sold the wrong ticket (which is what prompted this policy)

43% of passengers are not sold the wrong ticket - nothing like - very few are sold the wrong ticket and even fewer would ever know they have been sold the wrong ticket.

If you have been sold the wrong ticket now you can claim a refund - how is the new policy going to help anyone anymore - is the man from the Ministry going to be sitting in every ticket office checking every ticket transaction to ensure the harrassed ticket seller has offered you a 3 way split return ticket combined with a weekly rover and student railcard discount - plus the option of the 1st weekend upgrade to make sure you dont pay 50p to much?

Is the Rail Forum ticketing expert going to be paid to check every single ticket machine to ensure its being programmed to offer you the lowest price possible on the 6m+ possible origin/destination combinations - never mind that there are 10-20 ticket types for each of those origin/destinations.

No - I didn't think so

 

[jon0844]

How long will the RPI-1% last? Clearly it can't go on forever, unless we want to travel for free one day!

 

[Metroland]

Not sure how selling passengers the cheapest ticket would work in practice anyway. For example, some people want to travel in the peak, travel first class, or want the flexibility of walk on. With 3-4 million passengers a day, making sure they all get the cheapest ticket, with the ticket system so complex and so man varying demands for passengers (who may or may not know the system) seems rather heroic.

It's like anything else, I'm not sure I want the cheapest internet connection, the cheapest food, cheapest car, and so on. There's more to any product than price.

I agree the railway companies need to get better at advertising the cheaper tickets (advance fares, rovers and so on), but that's as far as it goes.