BBC NEWS | Programmes | 4x4 Reports | Britain in a Jam

BBC One's 4x4 Reports shows how Britain's roads are grinding to a halt and asks how can we banish traffic jams?

Here, Stephen Joseph of pressure group Transport 2000 and Paul Watters of the AA, offer two opposing views on how to deal with gridlock.

To: Paul Watters
Subject: Giving people real transport choices

Dear Paul
I think we need to reduce traffic and give people some real choice in how we get around because there are far too many communities - residential streets, local shopping centres and villages - which suffer from too much traffic going too fast.

It is not possible to provide enough roads and car parking for everybody to drive where they like, when they like, at American levels of taxation

Stephen Joseph
We need to give people some real choice because that is what they want. People in Britain do more car mileage per head per year than in almost any other European country, and our public transport use and cycling is among the lowest. People use cars not because they want to but because there is no other choice.

This means that instead of the AA's prescriptions - large scale road building, higher rural speeds, lower road taxes - we need a completely different agenda.

A safe route to school for every child, widespread "home zones" (redesigned residential streets with trees, benches and play equipment replacing parking spaces), a cycle route network comparable to the Netherlands and workplace travel plans with cheap buses, car sharing, cycle parking and changing facilities and teleporting.

And we also need sustained investment and regulation to create a public transport system that gives a real choice for more (not all) of the car journeys that people make. Above all it means changes in planning, with developments that are less spread-out and less car-based.

This is not anti-car - it's pro-choice, using cars sensibly. What we have to face - and the AA seems reluctant to do this - is that in a small, densely populated country it is not possible to provide enough roads and car parking for everybody to drive where they like, when they like, as fast as they like, at American levels of taxation. Time perhaps to tell your members some home truths.

Best wishes
Stephen Joseph, Director, Transport 2000.

To: Stephen Joseph
Subject: We must face reality

Dear Stephen
For the majority of people the car is the only means by which they can lead full lives. Going to work, doing the weekly shop or engaging in leisure pursuits nearly always involves having access to private transport. The distance people travel by car in Britain is only marginally above the European average.

Public transport is often overcrowded, unreliable, dirty and unsafe and doesn't exist at all in many places

Paul Watters
We have heard much about "giving people real choice" and we share that vision with Transport 2000 - but just take a look at some of the "choices" there are at the moment.

Britain's transport system has been underinvested in for decades. This means that we have congestion on road and rail and infrastructure that is in a shoddy state. Public transport is often overcrowded, unreliable, dirty and unsafe and doesn't exist at all in many places or at the times people want to travel. Our commute times are the longest in Europe.

So we must face reality. No transport system, should be overcrowded, create too much noise, be a nuisance to local people, and not be up to the job. Take a look at what our European neighbours have achieved, that is what we should aspire to - and yes they also invest in quality road solutions too!

Regards
Paul Watters, AA Public Policy

To: Paul Watters
Subject: We need to fix local transport

Dear Paul
We can, I think, agree that many - though by no means all - transport services and infrastructure - roads, railways, buses and pavements - are poor in quality and have been starved of funds.

This is not universally true - for some journeys, there is reasonable public transport but people don't know about it. When they find out they use it, and it would be nice if the AA took a more active part in telling its members about the high quality alternatives to car use where they do exist.

The AA and motoring writers talk a lot about motorists' "freedom", I hope we can agree that sometimes this freedom should be limited

Stephen Joseph
Where we disagree is what to do from now on. Most journeys people make are in fact very local, but helping these gets the lowest priority. The AA tends to advocate big spending on large new roads, and the focus of the Government's "Ten Year transport plan" is on big projects for the small proportion of long distance journeys.

By contrast, I think we need to spend the big money and attention on fixing local transport, like maintaining pavements properly (round our offices in London there have been big holes in the pavement for months where manholes have collapsed under pressure from lorries), putting in more, cheaper and cleaner buses with shelters, setting up "walking buses" and changing street layouts so that people feel they can walk or cycle safely.

Sure we need some bigger schemes - we have to rebuild our railways, put in trams, even in some cases have bypasses where alternatives won't solve local traffic problems. But local travel, and reducing transport impacts on the local environment, ought to be the first priority.

The AA and motoring writers talk a lot about motorists' "freedom". I hope we can agree that sometimes this freedom should be limited so as to give freedom to others - to allow children to play in the street, older people to cross the road, communities to thrive without intrusive or speeding traffic.

Best wishes
Stephen

To: Stephen Joseph
Subject: The AA backs sensible measures

Dear Stephen
AA members are pretty streetwise anyway. In our surveys they tell us that they do use public transport. But their experience is often not all that good - "you get so dirty and grubby using public transport", "on railways you have to plan your route because fare structures are different for every different rail company".

Our motorways were built for the very purpose of taking longer distance traffic away from towns and cities

Paul Watters
Yes, there are public transport success stories that appeal to motorists for example tram schemes like the Manchester Metro or park and ride which is always popular. The trouble is these systems are not the norm for the bulk of Britain's towns and cities and they're no good for longer distances.

Statistics can paint very misleading pictures. Many local trips are indeed walked or cycled. Our report "Cycling Motorists", published just under a decade ago now, confirmed that a third of our members were indeed "cycling motorists".

Our motorways were built for the very purpose of taking longer distance traffic away from towns and cities. That is now at risk because for over a decade we have ignored their success and not planned for the future.

Of course motorists can't have a totally free reign and that is why the AA backs sensible measures which "go with the grain" to prevent death and injury on the roads. What I have left out Stephen is of course the vast sums that motorists pay in tax - when organisations like Transport 2000 say motorists should pay even more they understandably get upset!

Regards
Paul

4x4 Reports: Britain in a Jam was broadcast on BBC One on Monday 27 May at 1930 BST.