The other major flaw is the assumption that we need to keep providing more capacity for roads and airports, then after increasing traffic volumes we're apparently going to achieve some magical low carbon transport system. Er....
Lots of waffle about electrifying more of the rail network, which could be a good thing, but no-one's declared where Network Rail are going to purchase their electricity from.
5 million notes to improve cycle parking - at 10 major stations. Probably no bad thing, but its arse backwards when most people start their journey at a small station and probably have no requirement for a bike at the city centre station end. Seems most of that money will go to London as usual. In the next sentence he then goes on to admit that car parking is being expanded at stations, which in most cases only serves to generate more traffic.
Fair amount of crap about interchange at stations. Usual shining examples of integration wheeled out - invariably in those areas where traffic restraint is politically easier to achieve. Proper bus/rail integration will never happen unless there is a fundamental change towards regulation of bus services. The powers in the Local Transport Act in this respect are largely a waste of space as any attempt to invoke them can be objected to by operators who just have to say their commercial interests are threatened, in which case the act says you then have to leave them alone.
dellzeqq said:
interesting stuff on cycling, but we wait in vain for some bright spark to connect development patterns and settlement types to transport. And the acceptance of journey times at 1.1 hours is pretty silly. It all smacks of transport being in some policy ghetto.
