URBAN ROAD AND RAIL POLICY

The expectations inherent in legislation concerned with urban transport policy since the 1968 Transport Act are reviewed, and the reasons why these objectives are considered not to have been achieved are discussed. It is suggested that the main reasons for this situation are: institutional flexibility has been more apparent than real, the dearth of really attractive urban public transport capital projects, the apparent irrelevance of public transport subsidy to the congestion issue, the weakness of parking restraint policy, and the inadequate arrangements for administration coordination. The degree of importance placed on urban transport policy in the consultation document (no more than part of a chapter) is shown to indicate a reduction of emphasis on such problems, and the implications of such a philosophy are considered in relation to such topics as car-restraint policies, measures to reduce the public transport peak, taxation, business cars and problems of management. It is concluded that the change of emphasis - towards a concern for the transport provision for those without a car available - has implications for public transport policy differing from those appropriate to treating public transport as a way of combating congestion.