Peterborough is one of the most car friendly cities in the United Kingadom with its transport links and parkways. Air pollution is increasing more and more through new distribution companies being attracted to the city and people moving to the city due to work. We urgently need to be reduce Peterborough's air pollution in order prevent this affecting resident's health and wellbeing. Peterborough is wanting to be the UK's Environmental Capital. By addressing increasing air pollution in our city this would send a clear message to the rest of the UK that our political representatIves are concerned and proactively wanting to address this serious situation and find a solution. Air pollution causes permanent lung damage in babies and young children and exacerbates lung and heart disease in older people, and particularly affects people living in the city centre and near busy roads. In 2014 air pollution levels reached record highs in Peterborough with people complaining of breathing difficulties. http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/health-worry-as-air-pollution-quality-in-peterborough-hits-worst-level-1-5978333 London and other cities are implementing Clean Air Zones. Peterborough should not be left behind. The people of Peterborough deserve healthy, clean air.

However the proposed English language test for the all private hire drivers has not been properly consulted on, offers insufficient transitional arrangement and lack of support to existing drivers to meet the requirement. We call upon the mayor to withdraw the policy pending further consultation, improved transitional arrangement and full support to those existing drivers required to obtain formal qualifications.

The new traffic routes for Fishergate, Preston introduced on October 31st are causing huge traffic congestion. There is now only one route out of Preston's city centre between 11am and 6pm everyday and as a result there is traffic chaos, especially during peak times. It is damaging the city's appeal for business and visitors. Please reverse this decision as soon as possible.

Just because of skewed statistics for the benefit of insurance companies and sub standard driver training in the 90's should we suffer a loss of skills? No, today the development of UK independent business is what is helping our country climb out the mess big banks left behind. The young generation, those born in the nineties, we are the ones investing our time, passions and future into independent business and sustainable development. Many of us are finding much resistance and obstacles to gaining the skills and legal certificates to make our growing businesses viable and recognised. These obstacles are surprisingly the effect of polices that have only been implemented in the last 20 years, therefore effecting our generation severely. I have been running and managing mobile catering at outdoor events for the last three years, and now I am ready to expand and develop but I can't drive and tow the vehicles to make this jump; i have access to these tools, but I can't use them. Yet those only 10 years older than me can, by default. To me this feels like discrimination, despite understanding that according to statistics our generation are higher risk. Yet if you look at the same reality with some common sense in tow and holistic view: The syllabus for UK driving licenses is far more rigorous than it was; before 1996 there wasn't even a theory test, and now there is the Hazard Perception Test as well (Introduced in 2002). Not only is our generation more qualified than previous years, but we have also have grow-up with and learnt on far more hectic and crowded roads, between 2000 and 2016 the number or cars on the road has increased by more than 4 million. Last but not least; the stats that our Government uses to support the changes to our driving licenses and other related policies effecting young drivers actually falls quite short; the Guardian in 2013 reviewed some stats from Transport Research Laboratory to be used to support a Goverment policy increasing the age at which you could apply for provisional license to 18. When considering the raw data only 2 of 100 of drivers between 17 - 19 yrs old are involved. Also the academic support for conclusions of TRL were majority form a 44 year paper! If our Government, and its trusted stats providers are skewing the data then, where is the support for the 1997 change to the driving license limitations and legalities? Not to mention the extortionate insurance premiums that have become the norm for all young drivers. Please Help me make it easier for young people to expand and develop their opportunities in business and work by levelling the playing (or driving!) field. On top of property prices, student debt and unpaid internships, we don't deserve to be constrained by any more age specific policies.

Something needs to be done before someone is hurt. Cars are mounting pathways in front of pedestrians. Keep us safe!

Disabled people cannot use footpaths obstructed by vehicles. It also puts the elderly, children, and babies in prams in danger, by forcing them onto the road.

I find this very important due to the fact I am now in a position of paying £276. every month to a private company to see my wife who is in critical care and may not survive . there are no concession rate for long term parking on a daily basis and the parking company keep all proceeds and the hospital get none. even the nurses doctors and everyone working at the hospital have to pay many the same rate has me and thousands of other patients and visitors. the Hospital in question is the Coventry and warwickshire University Hospital. I believe the Government must act now to stop these companies taking advantage of the sick and vulnerable. it is not possible to park close to the hospital due to parking permits needed and only issues to local residents making the hospital carparks the only place to park . I know not all charge the same rate has my local Hospital parking charges are £7 a week when paid in advance but again this option is not available at Coventry University Hospital and the hospital has no input and the charges made due to the parking being provided by private greedy owners. I can not afford to visit my wife I have reduced all payments to everything I need at home to very basic supplies and still can not afford the £276 per month parking charge charged at a daily rate of £9.20 a day. that is not including travelling costs to and from the hospital. I am registered disabled and using public transport like buses is not an option for me and taxis are way to expensive. please this is not a complaint from me this is me being concerned for all people having to visit hospitals all over the country that could be charging extortionate prices for some private company to get rich quick . end all Hospital charges or make all parking charges fair and affordable and owned by the hospitals to get extra funds.

It costs £20/25 to get a taxi too and from work and to get to family . When a bus would cost you less then £6

'Herefordshire Transport Alliance' have teamed up with 'Rail and Bus for Herefordshire' campaign to promote alternative transport solutions to those currently being proposed by the Council, who are solely intent on building more and more roads instead of looking at more effective alternatives. The ‘Pre Metro’ light tram system, currently running in Stourbridge, is ideally suited to the size and layout of Hereford, It could advance the cause of a greener economy and be a ‘Feather in Hereford’s Cap.' It could play a major part in the County’s Economic Masterplan to enable everybody accessing Hereford, whether for employment, or use of its shops and services. With a Department for Transport funding (up to £27million) to be used on 'any' measures to relieve congestion in the South Wye area, the tram vision could be a more responsible, sustainable, and better spend than the obscenely ineffective and expensive Southern Link Road – a.k.a. 'the road to nowhere.' It is not too late for the council to look at superior options for the majority to access, rather than encourage more people to continue using their cars for short journeys and/or transpose motorists from one road onto another. As an additional solution to Hereford’s transport problems it would have enormous advantages as a cleaner, efficient solution, and, if constructed alongside safe pedestrian and cycle routes, be accessible for all, including students, women and older people who feel insecure walking along a route where crime is a known hazard. It would also benefit those who do not have a car, or wish to access facilities such as the Courtyard, college, or hospital without facing parking difficulties.“ Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRtcmHErfCI

When you buy a second hand vehicle you have no way of knowing whether the "registered keeper" is legally entitled to sell the vehicle. If you buy it and the "legal owner" disputes the sale you would have to give it back to the legal owner and lose your money paid. This would also stop the taking back of vehicles bought as "gifts" by the legal owner and given to the registered keeper. This has happened to my son, his dad bought him a car, and registered my son as the "registered keeper". They then fell out and the dad transferred the car into his own name as the "registered keeper", claiming that he was the "legal owner", then sold the car. Unbelievably, the dvla say this is allowed. The V5C document requesting the transfer was not signed by my son (the registered keeper) even though the document states that the registered keeper "must" sign. Apparently, the V5C wasn't signed at all! This isn't "fair" so by changing the V5C, prospective buyers and registered keepers will know where they stand as far as "ownership" is concerned.

Theresa May has just announced that she will spend £24m in the North. Unfortunately, it's going on cycling. While this is still welcome, it's hardly a priority. HS3 is such a thing; it's what a priority looks like, and sounds like, and is like. It's a priority. The Cameron administration pledged an 'HS3' link for the North. What they meant was a line linking Leeds and Manchester, electrified to run at about 140mph at most. HS2 is planned to reach 250mph. We need a line that runs at the same speed as HS2. Remember 'Northern Powerhouse'? That was just George Osborne's posh name for Manchester The North of England is not just Manchester. It's much, much more. We want HS3 to run into Liverpool and Bradford. And we want half of the trains into York and then north to Newcastle, and the other half to Hull. These cities desperately need a better service than the one they have today. And we also need a high-speed line from Manchester to Sheffield. Sheffield can't be overlooked anymore. The importance of connecting it to Manchester is really very obvious. There is already talk of a new road in a tunnel between the two cities. Why not make it rail? We can only see the real benefits if it is a high-speed line. And then it'll certainly be worthwhile. My parents used to live in Durham. My father worked in Middlesbrough, my mother at the University of Manchester. She had to commute from Durham to Manchester Piccadilly and back every day - and although there were no changes involved, it was piteously slow. I've travelled that line. It was slow then and it's just as slow now. And the trains are even more crowded, the M62 and the A-roads more packed. But there's no alternative. This is what we want to change. For the North to have more autonomy the major cities need to be connected together - certainly more than they need a high-speed umbilical cord to London. People say that 'it's grim up north' - and it's not true. But maybe that's from their experience of travelling from one side of it to the other. We need to build a Britain for the future. And we need a North for the future. Much more infrastructure and spending per head is located in London and the South East. It's time to redress the balance. We need a level playing field. This is more important than HS2. It will effect local business and economies in a bigger and better way. It will massively cut journey times between the fractured sides of the North. Communication between Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Hull would improve massively. The North would seem more united. And as for the many, many people that use the current Trans-Pennine line between Yorkshire and Lancashire, their journeys would be improved ten-fold. Bradford would be connected properly for the first time. Over 500,000 people live there, and it contains some of the most deprived areas in the North. It would benefit greatly from a high-speed service as its economy would improve and its people would be better connected. So that's what we want: a new, high-speed railway line from Manchester to Bradford, Leeds, and then a junction: Hull one way, and York (joining the mainline to Newcastle and Teesside) the other way. And we also want a high-speed link between Sheffield and Manchester. Except this: we don't just want these projects, we need them. Chris Grayling heads up the DfT, so he's our target for this petition. Come on, Chris, make it happen! This is our message to Theresa May: here you have a brilliant opportunity to show how you are committed to improving the North. Take it with both hands, honestly. You need us. Remember that. HS3 gives us a platform (not just a railway one, either) for working on that. Here we have the foundations of a proper, working, breathing North, a North for the future. We all just need to see it.

Although we acknowledge that the policy was designed to prevent antisocial behaviour, it is hard to ignore that many people (of many ages) are 'caught out' by the guards who choose to prosecute them for resting a foot/feet on the wide metal frames of the chairs. Often this will be a person who is against the wall of the train and thereby creating no obstruction to people wishing to sit, or in any way damaging the condition of the chair itself...they merely rest their leg on what is, to most, a convenient footstool-height piece of metal. This by-law currently appears to be a revenue-driver for Merseyrail that does little to protect or benefit the public, other than to make the 'victims' of prosecution feel unfairly like criminals and make onlookers emotionally uncomfortable at seeing a fellow traveller so harassed. I observed a 19 year old boy, travelling home to London after visiting his girlfriend, given a potential fine of £140 for having his left leg resting lightly on a chair-frame whilst he was on his phone...he was quiet, unobtrusive and the train was none the worse for this 'criminal act'...and yet for the sake of a weekend at his partner's home city we were going to risk charging him £140. We're asking that the company revise this by-law so that only those people with feet actually on the cushion/upholstery be at risk of prosecution. This will continue to act as a deterrent to anti-social behaviour, whilst allowing visitors to our city (and residents) to have some measure of leeway when being advised by railway security to remove their feet from the vicinity of chairs.