Transport affects virtually everyone every day yet never figures in elections. Even the amazingly contentious issue of rail privatisation barely featured in the 1992 election, despite the fact that it did not take a Cassandra to realise that it would cause the biggest upheaval in the railways since 1948.
In the run up to previous elections, I have often been rung by TV companies saying would I be on hand to comment should any big transport issue arise. I always say ‘sure’, knowing the phone will never ring. And it never does.
This time it has even gone quiet on transport before the election. Partly, that is because both Ruth Kelly and her counterpart, Theresa Villiers, are relatively new. Both, so far, seem to be speaking from their scripts, with very little attempt to formulate any new ideas or policy. Road charging, for example, seems to have disappeared off the agenda.
There are ideas popping up from the fringes, like the commissions set up by David Cameron. But it is noticeable that the ideas in them are being knocked down almost as soon as they are published. At a Conservative conference fringe, for example, I asked Villiers whether she endorsed John Redwood’s idea of boosting rail capacity by 50 per cent. We would like to increase rail capacity, she said guardedly, ‘but I would not like to pin myself down to a particular figure’.
Redwood, by the way, is Upminster, one stop beyond Barking. I had a brief chat with him over his ideas and he seems obsessed with the idea of lighter trains which, for some reason, he thinks these would greatly increase capacity. He also wants to see rubber tyred trains, not aware that the whole point of metal on metal is that there is far less friction and therefore less use of fuel, and he also talked about seat belts on trains, unaware that the idea has just been rejected after a comprehensive
When challenged, he just says that he is thinking the big ideas and that its up to other people to work out the detail. John Gummer, in his quality of life report, has done the opposite, producing over 500 pages which of course no one will ever fully read. No wonder the Tories have us much chance of winning an election this autumn as I have on recouping a substantial sum I have placed on QPR this season, given they are the only team of all 92 in the league not to have won a single game yet.
Transport off the agenda, again
Thursday, 4 October 2007
posted by Christian Wolmar at 02:11
7 Comments:
I share your frustration. In particular, the Conservatives have failed to come up with anything of any substance at all, effectively just bribing voters with tax cuts - which makes transport even less likely to get any attention.
I wish someone would actually view the issue as important - after all, millions of people commute by public transport, and hate the experience. Any government that promises to deal with overcrowding, punctuality etc, and then delivers, will win the hearts and minds of a hell of a lot of people.
Surely Crossrail is going to be a big issue, although hardly a particularly divisive one, I admit.
Also the London mayoral elections are always about transport more than anything else.
For the people of Wokingham, transport ought to become an election issue. Laissez-faire policies have ensured that only 2% of commuters to Wokingham town arrive by bus, and road traffic congestion is appalling. If we had effective local Passenger Transport Authorities, they would have the power to stimulate far greater public transport use. However, the electorate are likely to look to their wallets, vote John back into Parliament, and sit in ever-longer traffic jams.
Steve Bacon
Yes, more PTAs would be a great idea - but could they be feasible in Wokingham? Its rather too small, isn't it?
Yes, transport has featured in the mayoral election, but even there, with the exception of the congestion charg, the key issue has been the personality of the candidates, rather than controversies over transport. After all the PPP was a done deal before the first mayoral election.
Many people, public and politicians, don’t look at transport in the round. They see themselves as 'drivers' or 'commuters' rather than 'transport users'. So, the lobbies for different interests promote narrow-minded agendas. Car drivers are represented as a separate species which never walks or uses public transport and so must inevitably suffer from the mildest attempts to reduce car use. The branches of the rail industry bicker in tribal groups rather than unite to promote rail’s common interests. Great that Crossrail’s been approved, but how much damage did the silly Crossrail v Superlink argument do? They agreed on the core tunnel, and end points can be adjusted over time. If transport interests promoted common cause on the big picture politicians might have more confidence in developing policies that will be seen as helpful to all who need to travel rather than in terms of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’.
My point about PTA's is that they are needed for areas the size of the Thames Valley, not to cover existing local authority areas. In Berkshire, the average bus route passes through between two and four local authority areas, each pusuing its own narrow political agenda. This is particularly so for Berkshire, which lost its County Council in favour of 6 Unitary Authorities.
Steve Bacon.
I agree that PTAs are a good thing - witness the excellent local networks in the likes of Tyneside, Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow. It's a real pity however that the most recent railway reforms took away some of their autonomy. London and Scotland are the only two parts of the UK that have forward looking plans to boost rail capacity with large schemes such as Crossrail, Thameslink 2000, Glasgow Airport Rail Link, Airdrie-Bathgate and so on currently on the go - and it's no coincidence that both these areas have devolved government who have a clear and coherent understanding of local transport provision needs and have a strategy to fulfil them. What we've seen here is more evidence that when it comes to providing local transport improvements - national govermnent is full of hot air.