Second Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR2)

1. In Scotland we measure distance travelled by miles not kilometre: your proposal is flawed by this obvious EU bias.
2. I'm happy for the Scottish Government, and the public sector, to reduce its miles travelled to zero.
3. Nothing in the consultation assists me and my family in reducing the mileage travelled: neither does it convince me that we should.
4. As 'public' transport is largely privately owned and operated, the idea of a government directed policy is flawed: businesses will shift people in the most cost effective and profitable manner. The best government can do is to nudge private individuals.

the regionalisation approach reflects the bureaucratic and administrative approach to the subject.
Within towns, its probably better that the local authoritys take the lead.
For rural areas, a better approach would be to examine the majority traffic flows and the reasons for them before deciding on a course of action.

no comment

The concept of active travel is based on a fantasy held by fit young single adults living in pleasant urban areas.

The reality of this objective needs to exposed to the reality of ( from my life style over the last 10 years, located Argyll and Bute)....
Weather: Wind, rain and cold limit the available days for Active Travel.
Family composition: a family of 6, with 2 infants who cannot ride. Where are the subsidised kiddy trailers?
Family shopping: buying for a large family using bikes or public transport with young children is not practical.
Nursery/Schools: nurseries are not located adjacent to primary schools which are not located adjunct to the secondary school. Its not possible to deliver/ collect children within the time windows permitted by the schools using 'Active Travel'
Medical appointments. Active travel requires a healthy person able to use a bike or walk: the 'local' A&E 30 miles away, other specialist eg cancer, a similar distance. Public transport is badly scheduled so that it takes an entire day to get to/ from the facility, and certainly not for early or late appointments (cf family at school).
Visiting family members in hospital: visiting times don't align with available public transport.

recreation: I enjoy cycling. I like to cycle in many locations around scotland. While I can take bikes on some trains, I cant on buses. So I need a vehicle.

There are a number of major roads (A routes) in the which carry goods traffic and emergency services. Imposition of 20 mph limits on those routes is likely to hamper trade.
20 mph limits in residential areas is reapsonlbe
The current explosion of traffic lights does not help the environment due to the resulting stop start traffic. Suggest greater use is made of 'Give way' or roundabouts.

'Public' transport is provided by private companies., therefore its not 'public'.

My town is served by 4 transport organisations. Two local buses companies - which align with the train times, and serve the SIMD1 areas, and a 3rd regional bus which duplicates the train for those that wish to travel to Glasgow.

There is no direct bus service to Glasgow Airport, the direct bus services to the A&E once once per day in each direction.

The lack of integration with the services highlight the fragmented nature of cross regional and (lack of) cooperation.

As a result - public transport is the least favoured option.

The proposal to spend more on transport systems that will provide marginal benefit has to be questioned ( in light of the Edinburgh tram cost over runs).
Aslo, as Glasgow has the largest suburban rail network out side of london suggests that a tram is likely to be of margin benefit.
Why not mimic London with its Overground railway which provides a connection service across all the rail spurs?

The SG preformance on ferry replacement is now an international embarrassment.
They should realise by now that NONE of the politicians and few (if any) of the bureaucrats have any professional technical training or expertise. Ferries are complex vessels that require expertise to run, and specialist knowledge to design low emissions power plants.

Freight is run by private companies: who will ensure that the use the lowest energy costs. The best the SG can do is assist with funding infrastructure changes (eg hydrogen refuelling points).
Buses: ditto

Trains are for the most part electrical : expect for the long distance rural lines where electrification is not cost effective, therefore supporting the purchase of hydrogen fuelled traction units makes sense.

A83 Rest and Be Thankful has been a catalogue of failure since Mackay ignored local advice and continued to fund nugatory works. An estimated 10,000 tonnes of debris has been moved form the hill, with an estimated 20, 000 still to slip.
The best suggestion I've seen form Infrastructure Scotland is to bypass the Rest with a tunnel from Gourock to Dunoon linking to a bridge across Loch Fyne to Lochgilphead. That has the advantage of moving a signifant amping of traffic form the Erskine Bridge, the A82 through Dumbarton and the 'death alley' of the A82 on Loch Lomondside.

Hauliers and tourist require safe, smooth roads with rest areas and 'Airies" ( french style caravan stops).

Safe smooth roads with easy gradients reduces fuel demand and therefore emissions: so road spending should increase ( with the benefits of employment etc)

I travel on business frequently.
Rail travel is better for me as I can work: however the costs and speed of air travel significantly outweigh that of rail. Cross rail is currently too expensive and slow.

These strategies are laudable documents: however they fail at the first hurdle.

None of them are SMART: Specific, Measurable (None appear to be), Achievable (given the SG inability, thus far, to deliver any specific project for the benefits for Scotland, this is unlikely in the time available), Realistic (none of these policies are costed or resourced)< Timely (ambitious timescales...) .

As an observation- there appears to be a blizzard of 'plans, polices and programmes'... which highlights the problem: word order.

One cannot start with a Plan to deliver something ... unless one understands the Policy too which it relates. And the use of the two words together "Plans and Programmes" suggests that the spin doctors who came up with this illiterate sound bite don't understand the differences.
As NONE of the documents listed include any plans for delivery, or resourced and scheduled progrmmes, one can conclude that the thirst of this consultation is little more than hot air.

the question can ONLY be: " The SEA has reviewed polices relevant to STRP2"
Its snappier, uses less characters - printer ink for hard copies and bits for digital media - so will be more environmentally friendly.

nil

nil

nil

nil

nil