Closing existing rail lines and converting them to BRT is a bad idea for five key reasons: • environmental impact • passenger comfort and perception • loss of network benefits • reliability • cost It is widely acknowledged that given a choice, people see rail / light rail as a superior mode to bus, and would be more encouraged to switch to rail should the service be enhanced. Removing the line from the rail system means that people would see it as ‘just another bus route’, rather than as a feeder to the rest of the rail network. Bus usage has been on a steady downward trend outside London since 1986 whilst rail usage is at record high levels. On the environmental impact, a simple appreciation of physics confirms that the rolling resistance of a rubber-tyred vehicle on a concrete track is significantly higher than steel wheels on steel rail. Furthermore the imposition of BRT would imply dismantling of the existing Overhead Line Equipment (OHLE) which allows trains / light rail to operate with zero emissions at the point of use. On the contrary, it is assumed that buses operating under BRT would have to be self-powered, each having to carry around their own power unit, with consequent penalty for weight and hence fuel consumption. If they were to be diesel-powered, this raises serious questions about the impact on local air quality. The consequences of pouring thousands of tonnes of concrete to create the guideways in itself is a CO2-intensive activity, additionally noting that doing so through Bricket Wood would be within a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). On reliability and cost, a ‘pioneering’ scheme on the old Cambridge to St Ives railway line suffered severe delays, cost overruns and quality failings – which are still being addressed. To make the service more attractive and boost ridership, ABFLY have long been calling for an increase in the service frequency on the single track line, which provides a train every 45mins in each direction. They believe this can be achieved by installing a ‘passing loop’ and bringing in a second train to operate a higher frequency shuttle. The costs of building a passing loop are thought to be somewhere between £4m and £7m based on historical estimates. Whilst the Hertfordshire Rail Strategy, published last July, dismisses the passing loop as, “unlikely to be considered by funders as a priority, as it would require provision of two train sets and train crew in place of the current one, making it difficult to achieve a favourable business case”, no such business case has ever been presented for public scrutiny, and in any case it is thought to be severely undermined by a high level of usage going unrecorded because of ticketless travel on the branch. This issue has recently been acknowledged by the Department for Transport’s very own figures. According to the Transport Vision document, the cost of the BRT scheme is quoted at £90m, over ten times the price of a passing loop, but no business case is presented for BRT either.

Public transport is not reliable when staff work shifts as bus timetables are reduced and some staff are having to rely on buses and trains which can add up to 2 hours if not more on to an already busy working day when in some instances a car journey is only 30 minutes for the same destination. Staff are already under pressure to arrive at work on time without having to try and find a parking space. All we ask is that Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS continue to provide an off site car park for their staff to allow staff to travel to work in the knowledge they will be able to park their car safely and will have a parking space. The staff who already use the current off site car park are happy to walk the 10/15 minutes from the car park to the hospital and would be happy to continue to do this.

This would incentivise railway companies to put on enough carriages or services so that people could travel sitting down on seats, instead of standing up or blocking the aisles. I don't like having to pay some £60 for a standard class off peak return to London only to find some mornings that I have to stand for much of the journey, or chance sitting in a reserved seat and hoping that the seat holder doesn't turn up.

When parents park in these places it leaves those crossing the roads unable to see and be seen as they create blind spots for both drivers and pedestrians. Even worse is when parents are forced to walk into the road at the busy junctions with their children in tow, often with push chairs because drivers have left no space on the pavement (such as the bottom of Hillcroft Rd). These drivers also create a nuisance to neighbours, making life during the week stressful and upsetting. These inconsiderate drivers do not care, and despite Mr Merrell (the headteacher) doing his best to control the situation the drivers of the cars just do not care, even ignoring him when he stands at the school gate to try to deter this behaviour. He receives around 6 parking complaints a day, so it is time we helped and made our voices heard. Mr Merrell has been asking the council to make our area into a category B parking area which will mean we will have parking attendants to deter the bad parkers and make them park further away from the school. Please help us and help yourselves and your children by signing this petition! Once we have reached 100 signatures it will be sent into Trafford Council. So many of us are fed up and angry with the terrible parking happening on our doorsteps and outside of our children's school. Please help make a difference by signing the petition and campaigning for traffic wardens to be in force at school pick up and drop off times.

We have one of the best bus systems in Europe. Why do we need to spend more money on a tram system that is not required. This is a vanity project and they should hold a referendum on whether or not the people want it.

Department for Transport figures show that a driver impaired or distracted by their phone was a contributory factor in 492 accidents in Britain in 2014, including 21 that were fatal and 84 classed as serious. (BBC, 2016) AA statistics also suggest that up to a third of UK drivers use their phone while driving. But despite the widespread nature of the problem, and the danger it places other road users in, drivers can be caught twice before even going to court and through legal loopholes can still maintain their license at this stage. Lee Martin was killed by a driver using their phone at the wheel whilst out cycling. The man who killed him had at least 6 previous convictions for using a phone at the wheel but had managed to keep his driving license. Had the authorities been tougher and taken away his license then Lee Martin would not have died. Using a phone whilst driving sends out a clear message that you believe that your call is more important than somebody else's life. If people with that level of arrogance are on our roads, they need to be prevented from getting behind the wheel.

The scheme currently being implemented was designed to give safe passage to pedestrians and school children through the village. However, from the start of the campaign it was clear that the main priority was improved vehicular access to one property on the lane. The village as a whole voted for a cheaper and safe footpath to be installed. Despite this clear majority the council have instead decided to spend an estimated 1/3 of a £ million on improving the lane surface. This not only makes it much more dangerous for pedestrians but also is a complete waste of public money in a time of austerity. There has not been one single incident of school children or pedestrians being hurt by vehicles on school lane. There are numerous schools in Cardiff where there have been many documented incidents. Instead of spending money on improving safety at these schools Cardiff Council have decided to spend ludicrous amounts of money on improving the surface of the lane in the name of "safe routes to school". It doesn't make sense. It reeks of corruption and collusion. Throughout all of this the Council has purposefully left the residents of school lane in the dark. When they have responded they have lied. This has to stop! On top of this the scheme is destroying a historic part of the village with an ugly urban road. They are proposing to remove protected trees from the woodland and widening the lane. This is in a conservation area! Help to keep school children safe! Help to stand up against corruption! Help to save public money!

Recently the accidents are more frequent,with some fatalitys.

Students now have to be in education until they are 18 yet there are no transport concessions from age 16. Student railcards are available only for those in full time education yet cannot be used to travel until after 10 am These students pay the same as an adult commuter

This is a main thoroughfare for pedestrians between Winchester University (via West Hill Cemetery), Winchester City Center and the Railway Station. I personally walk there frequently, have impaired vision coupled with delayed reactions, and so find it hard crossing busy roads. It can take up to five minutes to cross sometimes and it is difficult to see in both directions on the hill, and then you have Clifton Terrace traffic to consider. This is a very dangerous crossing point in our city which should have had a green man crossing years ago as there are already drop curbs in place. It isn't JUST a crossing safety issue either. It is well known that we have a SERIOUS air pollution problem in Winchester, where 40 to 50 people a year die from air pollution related illnesses. If the city could be made more accessible to people wanting to get about on foot, in a wheelchair, with pushchairs, mobility scooter or on bicycle, this would help to increase air quality. There are nowhere NEAR ENOUGH places for people to cross Romsey Road safely, with the pavement disappearing on one side for large sections, and it is one of the main air pollution traps of the city. Priority of access to Winchester needs to be turned around so that walking and other low-carbon forms of transport are catered for in the first instance, followed by public transport (buses). Also speed limits MUST be properly enforced, especially with the new homes to be built where the old Police HQ was. This will create massive increases in footfall and greater need for safe crossing points and enforcement of speed limits. I suggest flashing signs to tell drivers to stick to 20 mph. Last year Winchester City Council, in collaboration with WinACC (Winchester Action on Climate Change), launched FeetFirst, their Walking campaign led by Liz Kesler. They have been conducting Walking Audits on different routes to determine areas which need to be made easier, safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and others using low-carbon forms of transport. This includes making sure pavements are maintained, foliage is kept out of the way so it doesn't take up too much room, and adequate signage. The crossing for which I am campaigning was highlighted as a major obstacle to people getting around Winchester on foot. Work has already started to dig up the pavement to see if it is possible to put in the electrics for a crossing. This is promising, but I won't hold my breath as progress has been delayed. Also, it needs to be a crossing that beeps all the time and gives pedestrians a fair amount of time (1 minute) PLEASE SIGN MY PETITION AND HELP MAKE WALKING THE PRIMARY MEANS OF TRANSPORT FOR GETTING AROUND THIS BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC CITY!

As a doctor and a leisure and commuting cyclist I know first-hand the physical and mental benefits of cycling whether it be a ride in the country with friends, cycling to work or popping to the shops. I would like more adults and children to feel confident and safe to cycle in their cities and countryside and feel better all-round as a result. Cycling UK View (formal statement of Cycling UK's policy): •The economic benefits of investing in small scale projects that typically benefit cycling are often underestimated. On the other hand, car-dependence is a significant cost for society and large scale transport projects (e.g. roads) are not the value-for-money they are often thought to be. •Cycling makes a positive contribution to the national economy and it is a cost-effective investment. It can help: ◦Reduce congestion; ◦Improve public health and save NHS money; ◦Create jobs; ◦Save employers money and improve productivity; ◦Inject money directly into the economy via the cycle trade; ◦Boost the vitality of town centres; ◦Deliver goods efficiently; ◦Lift house prices. •The Treasury should incentivise cycling through: ◦Adhering to the principle that 'the polluter pays' as the basis of taxation of transport users; ◦Maintaining a tax-free mileage rate that makes cycling on business financially worthwhile; ◦Supporting cycle commuting schemes that save businesses and employees tax (e.g. the ‘salary sacrifice’ Cycle to Work scheme); ◦Reducing VAT on cycle repairs and cycles; ◦Maintaining its policy of not taxing cycles for the use of the roads. •Both national and local authorities should dedicate sufficient resources to smarter choices, recognising that they rely on revenue rather than capital funding. •Economics-focused bodies such as Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), regeneration agencies, developers and retailers should recognise the value of cycling and take action to promote and encourage it. The government's stated ambition is to make "cycling and walking the natural choice for shorter journeys, or as part of a longer journey" A You Gov survey, commissioned by British Cycling shows that almost 60% of parents would be uncomfortable with their children cycling to school on a regular basis. Just 2% of school-age children cycle to school in Britain compared with 50% in the Netherlands. There is a major discrepancy between funding for cycling and walking, when set up against the planned investment for highways and trunk roads - 72p per head (outside of London) for 2020 for cycling and walking compared to £86 per head for roads. Cycling UK’s #funding4cycling initiative called for at least £10 per head per person. http://www.cyclinguk.org/ https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/

This double track rail line was successful for 100 years; closed for the last 50 years as road and rail congestion has worsened, with the Black Country conurbation becoming more densely populated, more homes built; and, with the nearby M5/M6 getting increasingly clogged with traffic. The M42 is also way over capacity and is on the eastern side of this mothballed but unused main line railway.