Topic

public transport

36 petitions

Update posted 4 days ago

Petition to Secretary of State for Transport, East Midlands Rail Franchise Consultation Co-ordinator, Minister with responsibility for rail

No service cuts & keep Intercity trains to Bedford, Luton, Wellingboro, Melton & Oakham.

Please provide your details at https://goo.gl/forms/R14XEmbb9OsMp4sJ2 - that is the best way to help now!  East Midlands Rail Campaign (fb.me/EastMidsRailCampaign). The Department for Transport consultation on the replacement East Midlands rail franchise (http://bit.ly/east-midlands-consultation) proposed there to be no more Intercity trains for Luton, Luton Airport, Bedford, Wellingborough, Melton Mowbray or Oakham, and limited Intercity services for Beeston. It also proposed a reduced service between Leicester and Kettering.On these proposals passengers between Luton/Luton Airport/Bedford/Wellingborough and Market Harborough/Leicester/Loughborough/Beeston/Nottingham will have to change onto the reduced number of Intercity trains that stop at Kettering (p29).People that currently rely on these services will be struggling to get to and from work, or to visit relatives, when they have organised their lives around the current train service that will be cut. The proposals would make the problems of 'limited connectivity' (p18) worse, and are contrary to the expectation of passengers to "be rewarded for their loyalty" (p6) and to be respected (p24). As such, we (as individuals and as part of the East Midlands Rail Campaign fb.me/EastMidsRailCampaign) oppose the approach of the consultation.  It is fundamentally wrong in strictly splitting services between electrified 'commuter' services and bi-mode Intercity services.  The distinction between a 'commuter' market and an 'Intercity' market that the consultation makes does not match the reality of "peak time" services (full of commuters) between London, "Nottingham, Sheffield and Derby" that the consultation talks of (p18). We also oppose the connected decision to cancel electrification between Kettering and Leicester/Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield.  By ending the strict split between electrified 'commuter' services and bi-mode Intercity services, Melton Mowbray and Oakham should retain their Intercity trains. The consultation proposal is to increase capacity on the Midland mainline.  This should mean better services for all. The extra train compared to current timetables should be an hourly train London/Luton (or Airport)/Bedford/Wellingborough/Kettering/Leicester/East Midlands Parkway/Long Eaton/Derby, sometimes going on to Sheffield, sometimes to Manchester. We also believe there should still also be hourly trains London/Luton Airport Parkway/Bedford/Wellingborough/Kettering/Market Harboro/Leicester/Loughborough/Beeston/Nottingham (our opposition to the opproach of the consultation should be explicitly taken as support for continuation of these existing services as well as Intercity services to Melton Mowbray and Oakham, as well as the stops that provide a second Intercity train per hour serving Market Harborough, Loughborough and East Midlands Parkway).  Improving the "door-to-door journey experience" can only be acheived by increasing, rather than reducing the number of through trains, requiring all existing through services to be retained.  Rather than cutting stops and services, we consider that since the next operator is to "come forward with plans for modern, fast, efficient and comfortable trains...including...Intercity trains" (p6), that those trains should be specified with enough/wide enough doors, specified for positions within the coaches that enable quick entry and exit.  We consider this to be a better overall approach to reducing delays by calling at intermediate stations (p18). We call on the Department for Transport to take account of our views in drawing up the new franchise Invitation To Tender for the East Midlands. 

Ben Foley
8,766 supporters
Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to Lancashire County Council, Chris Anslow, Blackpool Council, Fylde Council, County Councillor Tim Ashton, County Councillor Peter Buckley, County Councillor Fabian Craig-Wilson, Mark Evans, Allan Oldfield, County Councillor Jennifer Mein

Extend the Blackpool Tramway to Lytham.

Extending the Blackpool Tramway to South Fylde, along with the already approved Blackpool North Station link, will provide an integrated, modern transport system on the Fylde Coast. Efficient transport is a critical component of economic development. As local campaigners, Trams to Lytham believe passionately that light rail can and must have a greater role in the overall transport plan for the Fylde Coast, delivering the network the region deserves and so badly needs to become an integral part of the 'Northern Powerhouse'. Linking Blackpool's ever popular tramway (which recently had its highest annual passenger count in 10 years) to the South Fylde Line will solve many of the issues facing the whole of the Fylde Coast. LRT will bring a cheap, reliable and more frequent service that the inadequate route so desperately craves (whether it be line conversion or parallel routing). Better transport links are also needed to provide more job opportunities to the area, with cheap, quick connections to future economic centres like the Blackpool Airport Enterprise Zone and the Talbot Gateway development possible through LRT. Satisfaction of the service would be extremely high, as the current tramway is a winner of a TripAdvisor certificate and has around 96% service approval rates, in stark contrast to the current South Fylde service. Travelling to St Anne’s or Lytham from Blackpool is difficult and lengthy, and neither the current outdated hourly train service or the often unreliable buses are satisfactory for either local or regional travel. A tramway service on the South Fylde Line would vastly improve both of these important issues, and we hope that, alongside any heavy rail improvements, serious consideration is given to create a tram/train/bus interchange on the route and that this option can be taken forward by Lancashire County Council and Blackpool Council. Light rail has been a revolution in towns and cities across the whole of Europe in recent decades, with Manchester being the nearest and arguably one of the most successful systems to date. Green, efficient transport has proven to be the economic way forward, and the Fylde borough should not miss out on its huge transport potential. Our public support has grown significantly over the past few years, and we acknowledged that there is a strong local will for such a service, which can be clearly seen on our social media pages. We hope that you agree and sign and share this petition. Thank you. PLEASE NOTE: We are not proposing a tram service along Clifton Drive. Trams to Lytham Facebook: www.facebook.com/tramstolytham Trams to Lytham Twitter: @tramstolytham Trams to Lytham Email: tramstolytham@outlook.com #lightrailrevolution

Trams to Lytham
2,696 supporters
Update posted 3 weeks ago

Petition to Transport for NSW, Andrew Constance

Keep the Gong Shuttle Free

For the last five years, around 3.3 million people per year have caught the free Gong Shuttle bus around Wollongong. Operating on Bus Route 55, the Gong Shuttle is a relatively new, yet essential, part of our city's infrastructure. Whether you're a cash-poor uni student who needs to get to class, an urban professional, or simply a tourist looking for a great way to get acquainted with the City of Wollongong, the regular buses have become an ingrained part of life here.  Transport for NSW and the New South Wales State Government want to make this service paid. Standard OPAL fares will apply from 29 January 2018. Transport for NSW argue that this will assist in making the service less crowded and will remove any passengers attempting to shirk on fares by not taking a more appropriate paid route.  But Wollongong needs this service. Issues with a lack of parking are already rife, and making the service paid will not only drive traffic congestion up, it will make travel around Wollongong completely inaccessible to thousands of people. This includes more than 30,000 University of Wollongong students who rely on this service to get to campus and attend classes. Crowding may be an issue - but this is purely because so many people rely on this service to get around.  Making the Gong Shuttle paid might decrease crowding. It will, however, make getting out and about inaccessible for too many people. And a bus service with no passengers would be much more of a waste of money for Transport for NSW than a free bus could ever be.  Please sign this petition to call on Andrew Constance and Transport for NSW to reverse this decision.   

Callum Harvey
16,678 supporters
Update posted 4 weeks ago

Petition to West Yorkshire Combined Authority, Peter Box

Reinstate a Train Station in Methley Village

If your village had a  train line that ran through the middle of it and linked 2 cities and also had a major 'A' road splitting it in 2 which also led directly to a major city only 8 miles away, you would think that the residents of the village would have no public transport issues wouldn't you? However residents of Methley village, which had not 1, not 2 but 3 train stations servicing it for over a 100 years, now have to travel 3 miles in either direction to reach a train station and to rub salt into their wounds, the outskirts of the village are earmarked for the proposed HS2 railway line but again they are not being supplied with access to it. In addition to the lack of access to a train station, the bus service for the village has to be split into 2 to accommodate the major A road (A639) which means that each side of the village only has one bus every half an hour and even less on evenings and weekends and if you live on the wrong side of the village, one of these buses only runs to Leeds or Pontefract, neither of which are our nearest towns. The other buses that service the village run approximately 3 times a day at 2/3 hourly intervals and not at peak times, thereby reducing their use for the majority of residents (and unfortunately the opportunity to walk to the next bus stop should you miss your bus is also not effective, as the buses are timed within minutes of each other!). The village therefore relies heavily on cars for transportation and most houses have at least one car if not 2 or more, thereby causing congestion and parking issues and even health and safety concerns around the school. When Methley had 3 train stations the village was a quarter of the size it is now. Since the early 1990's to the present day, over 500 extra houses have been built in the village, with a development of another 181 houses proposed (ironically these are proposed to be near to the site of one of the old stations and tellingly the proposal to the planning department for these houses states that the current local public transport arrangements doesn't even meet the draft Core Strategy Accessibility Standards required for new housing developments in Leeds). As many of the houses are 3 and 4 bed detached houses, that house an average of 2.5 persons, the population of the village has therefore increased by approximately 1250 extra residents in that time. Furthermore during the same time period, we have seen the bus service through the village decline from 3 to 4 buses per hour (with extra at peak times) to the situation of today of one per half hour. This has led to a 'Catch 22' situation, whereby residents do not use the service as there is not enough frequency or choice, which leads the bus companies to state that they are cutting the service further as they are under used, which leaves less choice etc. etc. My request therefore is simple, I would like a survey to be carried out to check the viability of reinstating one of our stations, the cost of which would include a platform, signalling and car parking. The benefits however to the local economy and lives of local people would be a immeasurable. The old station house is still for sale and could be utilised to assist this scheme or local farmlands or fields could be purchased or reclaimed and used, as the roads which serviced these stations before are still useable. It is well documented that demand for rail travel has steadily increased since the 1990's, and is now at its highest since the 1920's but on a smaller network. Due to this the government has promised to put aside money to help local projects to re-open railway stations and lines that closed many years ago and I firmly believe that our village should be considered for this funding and assistance. The northern powerhouse has been spoken about in the media a lot, as has the HS2 project. Our cities need to be accessed first and foremost by those communities that live around them, if we cannot get into our local city quickly and easily, why would we need a faster rail link to another city? and how will that create a powerhouse, Northern or otherwise?!

Angela Barker
531 supporters