Transport policy needs a radical rethink if we are to get people out of their cars
LIKE many people not directly affected by the dreadful illness of Covid-19, I have been enjoying the relative peace of lockdown, the quieter streets, more space to walk and cycle, the sound of birds and, of course, the recent good weather. We now hear about moves to come out of lockdown and while there is talk of using public transport, albeit with social distancing or walking or cycling, unless there are attractive options, many people will use the transport mode they know best and jump in the car.
This will simply bring back the congestion, the pollution, the collisions and other road traffic incidents that occurred before Covid-19 unless radical action is taken. In Glasgow we have the benefit of one new cycle lane along by the Clyde and the closure to motor traffic of a road through Kelvingrove Park, but this is far from sufficient to convince people that it will be safe to cycle to their work, school, to the shops or to visit friends and family.
Realistic alternatives must be presented that give people the option of escaping the cost of running a car and using a mode of travel that is better for their health and better for the environment. Why is it currently cheaper to drive from Glasgow to Inverness or to fly from Edinburgh to London than take the train? The economics of transport must be reassessed.
Public transport must be reliable and affordable, perhaps with free bus travel for all. Bus lanes must operate 24/7 along all major routes, with traffic-light priority over other vehicles.
Residential areas must be closed off to through motor traffic; rising bollards allowing buses and emergency vehicles through. This will maintain access for cycles and mobility scooters, making cycling a convenient way to get around our neighbourhoods with the added benefit of making local streets much safer for all users.
For cycling outwith our local neighbourhoods, there must be cycle lanes, protected from motor traffic, along all arterial routes into our urban centres, with traffic light systems that recognise cycles allowing them to proceed.
Urban centres must generally be open to buses, trams and cycles with cars restricted to use by only those people whose mobility prevents them from using a suitably-adapted cycle or public transport. Deliveries must also be restricted with emphasis given to the use of cargo bikes from local distribution centres.
The Transport Secretary’s announcement of more funding for active travel (“Public transport face coverings now ‘expected’”, The Herald, May 27) is welcome but longer-term and more significant action must be introduced to escape a return to the turmoil and pollution caused by the excess of motor traffic that has developed since the cuts to our rail services by Beeching and Thatcher’s deregulation of buses. Yes, this will cost money, but think of the savings to be brought about by reducing pollution and reducing the cost to our NHS and emergency services and the misery caused by the collisions, the deaths and the injuries on our roads. Patricia Fort, Glasgow G1.
GIVEN the exhortations to walk or cycle to and from work rather than using public transport for all returning, I wonder what will be the maximum distance individuals are prepared to walk or cycle?
Will business premises be able to provide adequate safe space for the storage of bicycles? Will businesses be able to provide suitable and legally-compliant changing accommodation, possibly with showers as cyclists and even walkers will want to change into more suitable clothes for their work situation?
R Mcmurtrie, Currie.