Tom Commis

I haven't read a lot from UKIP on transport and I was wondering what peoples thoughts were. I think it's an important issue economically and possibly a fertile area for UKIP, firstly because our rail and road network are so badly managed at present and secondly because few people have idealogical fixations. The priority should be to make the movement of goods and people across the country cheap, rapid stressless and enviromentally friendly, to which end I offer these suggestions.

1. To scrap all subsidies on passenger railways and removing the obligation on operators to continue unprofitable services. I suggest this for enviromental reasons chiefly - the much vaunted enviromental efficiency of rail (that is fuel per passenger mile) disappears when you have a lot of services with few and sometimes no passengers. You could introduce more subsidised minibus services in rural areas to compensate.

2. To use the money saved not subsidising passenger services to subsidise rail freight at least temporarily. The purpose of this is to reduce road freight which is responsibile for most of the wear and tear on roads. This benefits the remaining road users.

3. The best thing both economically and enviromentally is for journeys to be as swift as possible and this would be helped by minimising roadworks. This could be achieved by using the most durable road surfaces (not done at present) and by getting utilities to synchronise their works. I also believe much of work done by phone and gas companies should not neccesitate digging up roads; you could access pipes and wires from the pavement.

4. To raise the speed limit on motorways to 90mph which I think reasonably safe. I would balance this by introducing other measures to make roads safer such as limits on the cars new drivers can own (like the ones they have for motorbikes) as most serious accidents seem to be caused by young drivers and also a certain number of random test retakes for which drivers would be eligible five years after passing their test.

These ideas seem pretty sensible to me but I'd appreciate some feedback, most attention on transport seems focussed on the issue of speed cameras (which I'd cut back on massively by the way).

spaman

I would say this would be most unpopular - you would be seen as punishing those that already suffer heavily with a poor yet expensive service.

Really need to apply a little logic to this subject....... something lacking, certainly from the current government.

The policy should be along the lines of:
" .... reorganize transport across the UK in line with a logical assessment of requirements."

Currently, eveything flows through and around London.... the following should be persued:
1. companies should be encouraged to move their workforce out of London - its overcrowded, and the North is getting empty
2. in anticipation of 1 above, and an analysis of the current flow of traffic throughout the UK, bottlenecks should be reviewed and corrected
3. freight, which clogs our roads should be moved to the railways following the analysis and correction in 2 above, and the completion of an acceptable, renewed and fully functionable rail network and freight depots.

The road network is close to bursting point, but a little bit of common ense in the short term could pay massive dividends - FOR EXAMPLE: Look at the journeys being made, survey start and end points as well as middle points - start providing alternate routes....... and sorting out the junctions/motorway stretches/ tolls etc etc that cause the traffic to grind to a halt..and fix it.....

Actually, UKIP transport policy, as on so much else should read 'COMMON SENSE WILL BE APPLIED'


:shock:

kernow

[quote="spaman"][quote]







3. freight, which clogs our roads should be moved to the railways following the analysis and correction in 2 above, and the completion of an acceptable, renewed and fully functionable rail network and freight depots.

quote]

The problem with this idea is from the rail depots the goods still have to be delivered to the customer, so with the amount of lorries/vans moving out from the depots delivering to various customers you would have even more town gridlock. My local town which has a railway station is gridlocked now for most of the day, massive amounts of freight arriving at the station to be dispursed would just add to the chaos.
The problem to-day which did not excist 50 years ago, is most people can now afford a car, which on the one hand is a good thing, but on the other hand because we live on an Island and have a growing population is a bad thing. How we solve the problem? I have not got a clue! Until someone, somewhere comes up with the fool proof answer, we'll just have to put up with it.
The EU just might come up with the answer? :roll: I know, all people who live on Islands are banned from owning a cars! :cry:

Tom Commis

spaman wrote Not really because only little used services would be cut, I've often been on trains where I was the only passenger, this is madness from both economic and enviromental perspectives. The heavily used commuter lines would be improved because the train companies would have more money to spend on them so a better service or lower fares.

I agree but this is more of an aspiration than a policy. I don't really see how you could "encourage" companies to move out of London.

SGK

Your argument makes a lot of sense, but so what? No, I mean it. It is not what the public want to hear. They still think the Beecham closures were a mistake (those that have an opinion). People look to the continent and admire the rail systems there. 'Run like clockwork', 'always on time'. This has only been achieved by massive public investment. I once heard that the French rail network cost more than the debt of some African countries. (Don't know how true that is).
No one will vote for a party that promises to cut funding in something perceived as a public service, in my opinion. So overall, I would actually suggest the opposite. Sorry.

Agree, except of course, that it can't be done from the savings from 1 that I don't think should be made

Re digging up roads, I thought they were trying to do that already. All sensible suggestions, though.

Raising speed limits might be a touchy subject. Personally, I believe in variable speed limits, but that will take some doing (i.e. at low volume times a higher limit than at high volume times). I think the speed limit issue is a general problem to be addressed as a whole (see the speed camera thread!) I think the problem is that speed limits will always be reduced by authorities for fear of being blamed for road deaths.
I'm also not sure about limiting cars to new drivers, because bad driving can be done in any car. I understand the principle though.

I agree that a transport policy needs to be wide ranging. People will want to hear 'more investment' however. Raising speed limits might be a vote winner, but see Mikeuk's last comment on the speed camera thread, where he says he was accused of irresponsibility for suggesting they be got rid of.

I hope I haven't been too negative.

Tom Commis

SGK wrote You are probably right but the policy does offer benefits to the majority of passengers (those that use busy routes) these people will appreciate the idea.

Some people will - sensible people. The others want increased spending on transport, increased spending on health, increased spending on education and lower taxes :roll: . What would you suggest saying to people like that?.

True but it's more serious in powerful cars, I proposed it to reduce deaths on b roads where I think most occur and also to counter the charge of irresponsibility that raising motorway limits might provoke.

Yes you have, I'll have to go to bed now with a tub of choc chip ice cream :wink:

As I said I'd like to hear other view about transport.

John Carter

Make the driving test much harder. Simple as that.

And make everyone retake it every 10 years.

Also, introduce a Swiss-style system where people can only go for their test a set number of times (the Swiss system, IIRC, allows for three tests. If failed, you have to go see a specialist who will assess you suitability for driving and has the power to let you try one last time. If you fail that you don't drive.)

This would reduce the amount of cars on the road, but more to the point it would also reduce the number of unsafe drivers on the road, meaning less accidents. Two birds with one stone.

SGK

Well the main parties promise it all
Personally I think major cuts can be made in a lot of areas. After 8 years of socialist government most of the country is on benefit, a quater of it is employed by the state, taxes are high, spending is high and efficiency is low. The country never learns.
For me, the core 'health, education, crime and transport' need increases in structured efficiency and spending. Some benefits should be streamlined and increased too, particularly unemployment benefit. But all other things should be scrutinised. These are where I believe the savings could be made.

John Carter, the statistics I have for the year 2000 actually show the roads in Britain to be safer than the roads in Switzerland. 0.006% fatalities to population as opposed to 0.008%. Also, what percentage of the population is actually banned from getting a driving lisence?

John Carter

2000 was a low rate year for the UK.

Plus, I'm not actually comparing the UK with Switzerland - I'm comparing the UK with the UK if it were to introduce a Swiss-style system. I know I'm not presently comfortable sharing road space with folks like Maureen Rees.

No idea. I got the info off http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/imm...g_license.html

kernow

Your ideas are good, but I don't think they will have a serious affect on reducing the number of cars on Britains roads.