Transport Policy: The Myth of Integrated Planning (Hobart Paper, 140)

The present government assumes an 'integrated transport policy' is required because integration will not be achieved by market forces. Its policies have an interventionalist bias. John Hibbs concludes that transport should not be regarded as 'something different' but as an industry best left alone to serve the public. Foreword / Colin Robinson -- I. Introduction -- The Effective And Efficient Provision Of Transport: State-controlled Or Market-led? -- Ii. The Government's Policy -- An Invitation To Contribute -- Breaking The Logjam -- From Workhorse To Thoroughbred -- Integration And Co-ordination: The Power Of Words -- A Positive Approach -- Re-inventing British Rail -- Mr. Prescott's Chimera -- Summing Up -- Iii. A Market For Road Space -- The Argument For Road-use Pricing -- The Politics Of Road Pricing -- Objections To Electronic Road-use Pricing -- Iv. Franchise -- The Mirage -- Neither Effective Nor Efficient -- Who Is To Run Public Transport? -- The Return Of Dirigisme -- Reversing Deregulation -- V. Railways Making Progress -- The State Of Public Knowledge -- The Railways Act 1993 -- Where Are They Going? -- Leave Them Alone! -- London And The Channel -- Conclusion -- Where Should The Trains Go Now? -- Vi. Buses Facing Problems -- Two Crisis Points -- Strengths And Weaknesses -- Quality: Assured Or Imposed? -- The Return Of The Tram -- The Coaching Trade -- Vii. The Rural Problem -- What Is The Countryside? -- The Weaknesses Of Subsidy -- Viii. The Movement Of Goods -- Road And Rail -- Some Alternatives -- Ix. Some Conclusions -- An Industry Of Low Repute -- A Suitable Case For Markets -- Integration, Market-led -- Against Dirigisme. John Hibbs. Includes Bibliographical References.