U.K.'s radical transport plan

David Knott
London
[email protected]

When a government minister says, "We want to take a wider, more strategic view" of something, anybody connected with that particular something naturally prepares for the worst.

When John Prescott, U.K. deputy prime minister, applied those dreaded words on Aug. 21 to transport policy, Britons trembled. To a Brit, only the weather counts as a more fascinating topic of conversation than transport.

We Brits moan about our overcrowded roads and ubiquitous road repairs, we whine about the increasing decrepitude of our once magnificent rail network, we bemoan the decline of rural bus services.

Yet anybody who suggests major change to Britain's transport grid becomes an instant target of suspicion and loathing. Not only did Prescott suggest change, however, he specifically targeted two-car families. Brave man.

Prescott launched a consultation document on integrated transport, calling for responses by Nov. 14. This will be followed by a series of regional seminars, after which government will draft a white paper.

Change needed

"Continuing with previous policies is simply not an option," said Prescott. "It is producing congested, gridlocked roads; a deterioration of rural services; declining use of public transport and greater dependence on the car; and poor air quality, which damages our environment and causes ill health.

"We cannot carry on like this. Forecasts suggest that in 20 years' time, traffic levels will be 36-57% higher than now, and that by 2025 there will be 10 million extra cars on Britain's roads.

"We want a transport system that is safe, efficient and reliable-and meets a modern nation's needs. To achieve this, we need a truly integrated transport policy at national, regional, and local levels.

"This approach is not anti-car. But we must face up to the challenge of using the car less and public transport more. We must have high-quality public transport, with improved accessibility for people in both urban and rural areas, which offers genuine choice and real alternatives to the car."

Retailers' response

A Shell U.K. Ltd. official told OGJ the company had seen the consultative document: "We welcome the proposals and will be submitting our own views."

Christopher Macgowan, chief executive of the Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMI), said, "Obviously we welcome the document, but would like to have seen more constructive and positive detailed proposals."

RMI, of which U.K.'s Petrol Retailers Association is a unit, fears the worst from targeting cars to improve congestion and pollution.

"We have seen a number of grand ideas with glib solutions," said Macgowan, "and these most definitely are not the answer. Until there is a clear, reliable, and safe alternative, people will not use public transport.

"If we look at rural areas, where is the funding going to come from to pay for Prescott's public transport? Mobility and labor throughout the country require the fast and flexible option provided by private transport.

"On Mr. Prescott's attack on emissions, he should take a close look at the emission levels from lorries, buses, and taxis and not continue to attack the modern car, where 99.9% of tailpipe emissions are clean."