Postscript - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 441

at service stations and other main interchange points, with signing (like bus stops)
indicating the main destinations. This is a formalised version of hitch-hiking with the
important difference that provision would be made for access to and from the pick-up
points via the local road network, including by car with free parking for those taking
lifts. (The Agency's views on extending the functions of MSAs are set out in a recent
consultation document - see Highways Agency 2007.)
The same arrangements could also be used for people to access motorway coach
services. (Coaches would also benefit from MOV lanes etc. introduced on the
motorways themselves.) A major opportunity missed at the time motorways were
built was to make provision for coach use for intermediate journeys. As a result
frequent services are currently only available for journeys between the main cities (e.g.
London-Birmingham or London-Bristol) where the 'end to end' demand justifies it.
Even relatively large towns in between such as Coventry, Northampton or Swindon
have much poorer levels of service because of their lower 'end to end' demand and/or
because of the time losses incurred in deviating from the relevant motorway to access
the central bus or coach station at more than one point along the route. These slow,
infrequent but cheap and convenient through services cater for distinctive sections of
the overall travel market (principally as an alternative to rail) but have little to offer
would-be car drivers, particularly those whose trip origins or destinations lie in outer
suburban, dormitory or rural areas.
Ironically it is precisely the development of motorways and the inter-urban road
network generally which has encouraged the shift of households and businesses to
these peripheral areas, but without any measures to facilitate public transport use
for journeys between them. As a result inter-urban public transport (road and rail) is
caught in something of a time-warp, catering best for those journeys between the main
centres of population which were dominant two generations ago.
With strategic planning now focusing on urban regeneration the significance
of these traditional patterns is recovering, but there remains a major part of the
contemporary travel market which is inextricably linked with places where using the
inter-urban road network is the obvious choice. Even in main corridors where frequent
inter-urban rail services operate, car owners in these places are likely to find road use
preferable for journeys up to 100 miles or so (other than to Central London) because
of the time losses otherwise incurred in gaining access to and from the rail network. It
is to this market that a new breed of motorway coach services should be aimed, at the
same time providing much-improved travel opportunities for people without the use
of a car living in outer suburban and peri-urban areas.
The Highways Agency should be empowered to contract these corridor services
(in a similar fashion to franchised rail services) with open access provision for other
services to utilise passenger facilities at the interchange points. Real-time information
would be an essential feature. The DfT is in a position to adopt a strategic planning
role in the integrated management and development of transport infrastructure and
passenger services (road and rail) in the nation's principal corridors.
Although the concept of interchange points has been introduced here in the
context of managing travel demand on motorways it is also significant in terms of
urban transport planning. (It is essential therefore that their planning should proceed
in partnership with local transport authorities.) The possibility of people travelling
'outwards' from urban areas on to motorways, changing modes at the interchange
points is matched by the possibility - desirability in fact - of motorway users changing
modes when travelling 'inbound'. In effect the interchange points become two-way