Mark Ballard's right, flying is the most urgent problem. Can anyone explain to me why people think flying to London/Bristol/Manchester from Scotland is acceptable? Even with the price-gouging conducted by the railway companies? As this article points out, the small decrease in driving by private citizens is overwhelmed by all the other polluting behaviour. This Executive's policies of encouraging air travel and building motorways need to be stopped in their tracks.

Regarding the flying issue. I'm still open minded on this one but I would like to know whether a flight from, say Inverness to Luton, produces less pollution that if the passengers were to take their cars and drive to Luton? Or, take the same passengers and send them by train (few of which are electric outside of the Thames valley), would this be the least polluting option?
I'm really interested to know this. Anyone have a (reliable) web site that gives figues?

I find it interesting that experts were required to conclude that better public transport, higher awareness of the environment, increased petrol costs and traffic congenstion lead to people using their cars less often!

The only real solution is to Nationalize all forms of energy. Severly restrict the ownership of privately owned automobiles. Give the public a choice, ride a bicycle or use public transport. Total electric, generated either from hydro, solar, wind, or nuclear power plants. Cold turkey on fossil fuels. Someone must protect the public from itself, and whose to do this? Government, of course. James, Richard, are you really seriously concerned, and willing to make a change? Or do you just like to chat about a real world problems? Cursing the stupidity of your government and it's elected officials on one hand, but enjoying the benefits they give you on the other hand. The world will not change, until you change!

Poor planning and developer greed have led to a huge increase in commuting in Aberdeenshire as more and more outlying towns and villages are expanded. My own village has almost doubled in size in the past three years with no improvement in public transport at all which is generally very poor anyway.

This miniscule fall in the use of cars is I suspect a statistical blip. I see no evidence of nor indeed don't know anyone who has actually given up using their car. I have though - I started working from home five years ago.... Have Broadband - don't travel is my motto !!

JD, people like you give environmentalism a bad name. The loony fringe is just holdng your cause back. That's why I think many people find it difficult to accept some of the Green warnings as they are usually bundled in with some leftist, anti-capitalist attack on our freedoms and way of life.

JD I suggest you talk to your cranially challenged President about your thoughts before pontificating here.

George Hazel, a professor of transport policy at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, said increasing Executive and local authority investment in public transport, coupled with an increased public awareness about climate change, has led to more people abandoning cars.****---could it not be just the price of petrol---**** and he is a professor

JD, I am concerned enough to post a question that I am trying to find an answer too. However I do not, by any stretch of the imagination, share your off-the-wall views. I will not be brow-beaten into using poor/inadequate services but I am open to change should a real and viable alternative be offered.
In my case I must travel to Inverness, Oban or Dingwall should I need to "do some real shopping". On average this means a round trip of some 170 miles. Should I need to travel from Edinburgh to my home, using public transport as I often do, I take 2 x buses and 2 x trains and, leaving at 13:30, I get in my door at 21:00. This costs around 67 pounds sterling one way.
I suppose I could sell up and go and live in a city! Would this also tie in with your "state controlling plans of the populus" in order to save the environment?
Great Britain is already doing far more than "it's bit" with regard to pollution reductions. There is still much more we can do. However, until the big pollutors such as India, China and the USA also join in, whatever we do (and we will still do it regardless) is a drop in a mighty ocean of pollutants.

Oh, hang the environment.
JD and Richard, I just wish you people would learn to spell properly - like not using "whose" when you mean "who's" (JD), or "too" when it should be "to" (Richard).
Go to the bottom of the class both of you and don't attempt to make any further public pronouncements on the issues of the day until you can express yourselves properly. And no, JD, being American is not an excuse. See me after class.

Thanks Allan, I shall avoid using one extra letter in other comments I make x, whoops did it again, so sorry.

Speaking as a resident of the burgh I can't believe that the council allowed a vote on a congestion charge (before I moved here). Look at London, never mind a vote just impose it. Edinburgh needs a congestion charge -- as a cyclist I can't believe the amount of traffic on the clogged streets esp. given the fairly good bus system. More investment in buses and trams in Edinburgh, and a congestion charge to raise the money is needed urgently. Also more bus lanes and more restricted use and a clamp down on vans/cars etc.. parking in them -- that's who the traffic wardens should be focusing on.

The right way out of all of it is to find a way to work from home, and to stop using transport of any kind altogether (as far as possible). If that puts oil companies, vehicle makers, the police, the traffic wardens, the bus and train companies, and boring, tedious former-commie Lord Mayors out of business as the insolent levies on the hapless motorist plummet, 'well, boo-hoo - they all had a jolly good party out of it, but now it's over'.

(Another way round the cost of motoring is to be self-employed, but continue to own your car as a personal, non-business-asset possession. That way, business mileage is a chargeable expense against your tax bill, at the rate of 40p a mile for the first 10,000 miles a year, 25p a mile for the rest - as are toll tickets, car park costs etc. Considering that the cost of running a properly-maintained small or medium car is about 15-25p a mile with everything taken into account, that even takes care of vehicle depreciation (to an extent). You don't even need to have a new car to do it - a presentable 'budget banger' is fine, for most things ... it's a good way to hit back at a bad system. Keep a mileage and fuel log, and that's the job done.)

Also, cars should be stripped of all comforts other than an effective heater, have their engines governed electronically (via control signals from the mobile phone networks) so that they can't possibly be driven faster than the local speed limits permit, and have trackers fitted so that drug dealers and other stupid crims can be hunted down with ease. That'll fix pollution levels as well (to an extent).
Elect me as PM, and I'll do all of that tomorrow, first thing. All transport will be halted while the vehicle equipment levels are adjusted.

Once the comfort and entertainment value of driving is gone, the problems of excessive traffic will subside as a matter of course.

#11, I agree with you on parking attendants priorities. They seem more concerned with cars being 1 inch out of a parking bay, but are quite happy to leave the dozens of cars that park in bus lanes and bus stops alone. there are few things more annoying than being stuck behind a bus in town, and having to stop everywhere it stops, but it cant get into its lane or even its stops because there are cars parked there.

Back to the issue tho, and the most important thing for me in this article is the 93% increase in air travel. I would like to see how much of this is internal flights, how much "essential" 1/2 week breaks to the med, and how much is ppl going for longer/business etc...

Why dont people holiday in scotland any more?

After 10 years of frustrating commuting by train, I switched to an express bus service between Edinburgh and Stirling. At PM peak times the bus now passes by my stop in Edinburgh becasue it is full of OAPs on a concessionary trip as part of a shopping or leisure day out. The Scottish Parliamnt need to revise the concessionary travel arrangements to ensure that the standard provided working commuters are not compromised. Otherwise people will start going back to their cars.

what about a fine for the the cyclist who go s through the red light or up the one way street that's who the traffic wardens should be focusing on.
nick not the car /van

My guess would be that the cause of the marginal decline is the punitive parking restrictions introduced by government. Like smoking this is another case of government making peoples lives harder & declaring it a success.

I disagree with jd 3 "Someone must protect the public from itself, and whose to do this? Government, of course." & & Nick (11) "never mind a vote just impose it".

Controling people appears to me to be exactly what the "environmentalist" movement is all about. Nothing to do with the environment at all as their fanatic opposition to CO2 free nuclear power shows.

Good to see that the bicycle is being recognised as the most efficient form of city transport, albeit slowly.
Your illustration, however, shows one of the big 'No, No's' on a bike.
NEVER EVER carry anything on or near the handlebars when cycling, unless it's in a properly attached handlebar bag.
There have been too many fatalities due to this practice already.

In answer to Richard's query [2] on comparative energy consumption Try an excellent Peak Oil web site by Paul Thompson :- http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/ and go to his list of charts.

As far as JD's comments [3] are concerned may I suggest he reads Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" which might improve his insight into his country's conduct of energy, financial, and foreign policies, and if he also visits http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/ he will also find enough links to obtain an appreciation of the appauling prospects all world citizens face. But it is US citizens with by far the highest and most profligate consumption of energy who need to demonstrate by democratic action that their concern for the planet transends their narrow self interested comfortable lives of freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

I find these comments really interesting and I am active in trying to do my share to help the environment such as recycling etc etc. I am also considering fitting a wind turbine in my garden to produce electricity. I have read your comments and agree that every little helps but until the government practice what they preach then you are not going to get the majority of peoples attention. One thing that sticks in my craw is the immense waste of energy and damage to the environment caused each day by people queing to get over the Forth Bridge. ( Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of manhours that are wasted each day) Now I do not really want to get into the argumant of whether or not Tolls should be paid- that is another debate entirely. But if we have to pay to cross the bridge then why can't we have a system which collects payments without slowing the flow of traffic. ( yes it can be done) At present there are new toll booths being built- but why?
I know one side of the argument would be that people collecting the Tolls would lose their jobs - could they not be trained to collect payment online etc and still work for the same empleyer. If there were to be job loses would it not be a small price to pay for a huge environmental and manhours gain?
The councils should also think about granting planning permission to the Likes of Tesco on the A8000 road when the infrastructure for the increased traffic is not in place.
Thanks

James in the first posting asks why anyone thinks flying between Scotland and London is acceptable. The obvious answer is that it is acceptable because it is more often than not quicker than any other form of transport for those of us who have jobs to go to.

And when the government had one of its periodic hissy fits in the wake of a train accident, and imposed speed controls over much of the network earlier on in the decade many passengers, myself included, gave up on trying to travel up and down from Scotland to London by train unless time was not of the essence.

I don't think anyone particularly enjoys the flights. If we had a decent modern high speed train link between London and Glasgow I am sure many more would use the train. But we don't and I'm not sure there is any realistic prospect of this in the foreseeable future.

I voted Labour in the 97 election in the hope that public transport would be made a priority by the new government. But it never has been. Labour's priorities are clear, unquestioningly throwing money at health and education. For whatever reason they are not interested in any major revamp of our overworked and out of date public transport infrastructure. Douglas Alexander continues the trend of secretaries of state for transport appearing to have nothing to say on strategic planning for transport.

I expect he and his family fly to London like all the other Scottish MPs one sees on the plane on a Friday or Sunday.

Simple answer: Move the offices elsewhere. If the commuters are coming from Livingston then why not build the offices there? Why not build the offices in places like Livingston, Dunfermline and other surrounding towns? It would save a lot of people travelling large distances to get to work and reduce polution in the capital.

Donald, Aberdeenshire. Many thanks, I shall have a browse over the weekend.

I agree with you Ciaran, Government should encourage the building of "self-contained communities" where the business premises are within walking distance of the residential areas where the workers with the appropriate skills for that particular business live. These "communities" could have their own leisure and shopping facilities within the area; this concept would save both the stress and expense of commuting as well as being environmentally friendly. It is not a new concept though: remember when dockers all lived within walking distance of the docks and factory workers lived close to the factories where they worked. It is a bit like reinventing the wheel.

In the majority of cases the cost of housing is a major factor in the use of cars. Both my husband and I worked at the Western General Hospital but on an NHS salary could not afford suitably sized house in that area, other that ex-council, which we did not want. We found a property with a garden outside of town, which was within our price range and chose to commute. This takes us about 50 minutes each way every day, but this was the compromise we undertook. With prices in near my work starting at £200K for 3 bedrooms how are employees supposed to buy property near their work. As I have specialised in my job there is little room to move to somewhere nearer my home.
Edinburgh is also renouned for having either the highest or second highest private school population, again the choice of parents, but once more afforded by living in less expensive housing out of town, for many parents. With the expansion of public transport extending now to places such as Dunbar the house prices there have gone through teh roof. Locals cannot get onto the housing ladder. The whole pollution / house prices / travelling situation is bound by money. Until more affordable housing is found people will have to commute and public transport doesn't always reach those in outlying communities who are losing hours each day travelling. The choice is not always simple.

JD, maybe you should get your own house in order before pontificating to us about environmental issues. I bet Texas produces more pollution per year than the whole of the UK

Some good comments here, good to see lots of people taking the issues seriously.

A couple of thoughts on the Scotland-London (etc.) train thing. You can often travel point-to-point in not much more time by train, and the time can be used much more constructively than hanging around airports. I'd much rather have a little more quantity but much greater quality of time on the train. But it can be very expensive and there isn't much capacity to expand on existing routes. I haven't seen GNER and Virgin using the current air scare to try and boost their traffic from Scotland - I don't think they can take many more. It really is time for a proper high-speed link from London... Eurostar and the TGV show that rail can beat air.

Most trains from Scotland to England are electric, Richard, as are many of the trains travelled on in Scotland: 50m of 75m rail journeys were in the Strathlyde area where the network is mostly electric.

Land-use planning and patterns of development don't get enough attention in discussions about transport. Transport is only a means to an end - getting from one place to another. If you allow lots of small-medium sized dispersed developments (as in Aberdeenshire - Dick is spot on), then there isn't the critical mass or the predictable movement pattern to support good public transport.

Self-contained communities: that's what cities should (largely) be. You can have short (walkable, cycleable) trips, good public transport but still have a good variety of jobs and facilities. According to the last Census of Population (2001), it was only in Glasgow and Edinburgh where the majority of employed residents did NOT drive to work. Conversely, I don't want to live in a village and be told that's the only place I can look for a job! Scale and density is important for (both) specialisation and diversity - that's why cities are the home of high-value functions like universities, HQs, etc. etc.

On the question raised by JD from Texas as to whether governments should protect citizens from themselves, I find this fascinating. It does seem to me that the closer politicians are to the people they serve, the more such protection they are able to exert. For example, the directly elected Mayor of London, Ken Livingston appears untarnished by the odium generated by Tony Blair's unquestioning obeisance to world capital and his Washington cronies and has managed to implement some very radical schemes, including a successful road charging system. They have also recently spent millions on advertising promoting cycling. This seems to me a very effective way of protecting citizens from themselves.

But for those ideologically opposed to Big Government, there is an equally effective solution: wait.

Energy prices in our lifetime will go, in general, in only one direction: up. Moreover, this hike in prices, in spite of continued technological process, is likely to be periodically exponential as crunch moments come and go. Any attempts to control the remaining reserves of fossil fuels are doomed to failure as the Iraq and general Middle East debacles show. There are basic principles of justice involved in what Thierry Breton, the French Finance Minister calls "the energy war" (aka, the War on Terror). If the governments fail to act, the price of energy (=the cost of bullying third- and second-world countries into giving up their national energy reserves) will continue to rise and/or "terrorists" will continue to attempt to shock us out of our ridiculously unsustainable lifestyles.

The choice is ours...

#3 J.D. from Texas

JD, only problem with your agenda is that you're not asking us to change, you're telling us to change. As in not giving a choice or looking for alternatives. Or assuming that we're wise enough to make our own minds up.

If we're not, then we deserve everything we get - evolution in action surely?

Incidentally, mass nationalisation of transport infrastructure?, no private transport?, bike, bus or foot? That's more than even the labour governments in the UK in the 1970's would have attempted.

How did you live to reach adulthood in Texas with an agenda like that? :-)

Travel on our island is either by car, on foot, or not at all. We have no public transport. Yet, everybody has to get to town to buy necessities. Yes, most households have 2 cars, and need them - especially if one of the householders is employed while the other keeps house. D'ye want us to "abandon" the car? Get us some public transport in here! Further, when our cars remain parked, and we remain home, it usually has to do with the ridiculously high fuel prices - so yes, I'd say that's one of the biggest determinants of who will, or will not, use their car for more than the necessary driving.

Renate, I was also raised in a very remote rural area (with no roads, let alone public transport!) but I came to the painful conclusion that it is ridiculous for people to live in the country for lifestyle reasons. If one is a farmer, or a wind-turbine repair man, then obviously there are good reasons to live close to one's work, which in these cases can be used to subsidise the high cost of private transport. But there are currently far too many people living in the country for the "good life" and I for one would like to see these forced to move to the city.

It is an awful lot more efficient, per capita, to house, feed, transport and heat citizens living together in an urban context.

Public transport in Scotland is a total joke compared to the majority of European cities and even London (which itself is far from perfect). Politicians preaching about using public transport instead should try doing so as part of a busy lifestyle and see how pointless, self-defeating and useless it is unless you want to travel from the suburbs of Glasgow or Edinburgh to and from the city centre at peak times with no connecting journey.

We see lots of boasting about money being spent but no actual improvements in service - possibly because the money goes on paying for bus companies to take pensioners on pointless journeys around the country or converting road space for their exclusive use during the 4 hours a day they can actually be bothered running proper services.

Why does it cost £16 to travel between 2 cities that are 40 miles apart on a train that takes longer than it did 20 years ago? Why would a group of 4 people travel in this way rather than take a car for a fraction of the cost? Why is it impossible to buy integrated tickets for bus and train services at a meaningful discounted rate from walk-on fares and make the system user-friendly enough to allow proper use as hop-on, hop-off services - as happens in proper cities not run by out-of-touch idiots?

#32 Tommy, spot on! Please export your views to America. There is a reason why urban areas came into existence.

Is it the cities which are run by "out-of-touch idiots", or is the national governments who - for reasons of ideology - have made the components of our transport system so disjointed that integration is near impossible. Some of of the problems were created by Acts of Parliament and will require resolution through similar means. The cities themselves have little power over public transport.

This isn't to say that everything should be nationalised or run by bureaucrats - these are sensible compromises. London has managed to make integrated ticketing happen and its buses better through public-private partnership. Edinburgh's buses are also better than most - run by a private company owned by the Councils. Glasgow's private sector bus free-for-all is as hopeless as its public sector subway which stops at 6pm on a Sunday and where stations don't open because they can't sort out the staffing...

Steve, Tommy,
I'm a city fan too - but 'forcing' people to move in sounds a bit like Pol Pot in reverse. Let's have more positive reasons, make our cities more attractive - better schools, more affordable housing, for example. Then people - other the young and childless - might be more tempted to come/stay.

We also need to look at planning policy (which is happening in some places): why should Edinburgh not expand? Is 450,000 the optimum size of a city? At present, the pressures for growth are being displaced to the surrounding region, creating more and longer car-commutes.

Brad,
You're right "forcing" people to move is over the top. I agree, we do need beter planning. In the US rural property is eaten up at an alaring rate and it seems the areas around the cities are now becoming bedrooms and nuseries. However, the workplaces are still in the city but not the tax base. This makes improvements to the cities unfunded. If you find a solution, I would love to see it imported. I'm an architect and a planner and I know good ideas come from many places.

sorry, better planning, not "beter planning". And good on the Scots for driving fewer miles! A drop in the bucket is a good start.

JD - are you sure you are from Texas? You sound alot like that bloke who rules North Korea.

All surveys by the scottish executive cannot be taken seriously,George Hazel, a professor of transport policy at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, said increasing Executive and local authority investment in public transport, coupled with an increased public awareness about climate change, has led to more people abandoning cars.
If you believe this rubbish you,ll believe anything.

There should be huge taxes on 2nd family cars, and huge taxes on 2nd homes. There won't be, cos lots of politicians have 2nd cars and homes.

Ok, I must "fess up", my initial post was a ruse! I monitor this forum because it has lively post's from the common people in the UK. Actually, I'm hardly what could be defined as an "evironmentalist", the exceptions being on my own property, and perhaps the areas I fish. I would suggest a closer look at Alistiar's post @25. I'm sure that more efficent use of energy would be a benefit to you in the UK. You might win that bet Peter @27, but you do realize that the State of Texas has more land area, more industry, and a larger population than the UK. I personally do not use public transportation, not because I wouldn't, I just prefer driving or flying. Don't suppose owning, and piloting a light aircraft is practical in the UK though. I'm not necessarily opposed to a central gov't, in theory! Of course, I realize that you folks in the UK are culturally different than the US, and have a totally different social and political agenda. I would not presume to advise you how to achieve your goals. However, every society does share common issues, do they not? And those could be rationally debated, and are, by some! We also have a segment of our society, that are so frustrated they become irrational. I'm sure it is because the problems far out class their ability to deal with. Fortunately for society, practical minds usually find the most efficient ways to deal with any problem life might throw at them. Iain @ 30. Right you are Iain, if that was my "agenda", the folks here would be democratic enough to give me a choice, albiet, one of two choices, #1. move to the UK, or #2. hanging!

to no 15 please read the header......
Motorists clock up 150m fewer miles in their cars
LOUISE GRAY AND JASON CUMMING

Scottish Executive's transport survey reveals car addiction is reducing Petrol costs, congestion and public transport improvements causing change Road casualties also down to lowest figure since 1952 ///
Just how the idea of bike comes into the topic amazes me.

Dear #15

I think you'll find traffic wardens have no powers over cylists that are moving, but do have powers over parked vehicles -- that's why they are sometimes called PARKING attendents.
No doubt you're one of those motorists who, stuck in traffic, wonder why there should be such a problem but are unwilling to consider that YOU are part of the problem. Also, have you never been stuck behind a bus as it has to come from the bus lane, or even worse stop to let passengers on and off in a traffic lane due to some idiot who's parked in the bus lane. If not, lucky you. I would suggest that there's more chance of a PARKING attendent fining a PARKED car than a MOVING cylist, even if they had powers of the cylist (which they don't). Hopefully that's spelled it out for you. If not PARKING ATTENDENTS = juristriction of PARKED cars, not MOVING CYCLISTS.

Cyclists shouldn't jump lights or cycle the wrong way up one-way streets - but that's hardly relevant to the article or the discussion here.

If you're really concerned about the rules of the road, Steven (#15), perhaps venting your displeasure at those people who drive 1+ ton lumps of steel at 40mph down city streets and/or while on their mobiles should be the focus of your ire? If they hit something, it's often the something (or the someone) who suffers: reckless cyclists are most likely to damage themselves.

I love cycling, but I must confess there are Two things that I find quite irritating when cycling to work. Firstly, the roads in and around Edinburgh are absolutely dreadful. Secondly, inconsiderate motorists, who are permanently in a hurry going absolutely nowhere. Between watching for potholes and pathetic drivers, cycling is more of a hazard than anything else.

Also, whether cyclists do or do not jump red lights etc... is neither here nor there when discussing pollution and traffic congestion -- both of which are caused by too many motorised vehicles using the roads.