A challenge from Susan

A comment from Susan Scott which deserves a fuller response than it would get as an add-on to an article. She writes:

“I appreciate your aims but your plans for transport do not appear to make provision for a person like me with severe mobility problems who would not get anywhere without a car. They do have some advantages!”

I wholeheartedly agree. There are uses for cars, and helping people with mobility problems is one of them. And if we could reduce the number of people choosing to use a car when they do not need to – then life would be a lot easier for those who do need to – in terms of less traffic congestion, safer roads and easier parking.

And I am suggesting that we provide alternative forms of transport or reduce the need to travel not just making it difficult or expensive to use a car.

Transport in Northumberland

Seems the worst thing the LibDems have against us is ‘The Greens are against dualling the A1’ – which is true, I’ve never denied it, and I’m happy to give reasons if requested. But dualling the A1 is for central government to fund, it’d be too much for regional funding let alone the new Northumberland Council. However – there are a number of transport initiatives we would like the new council to undertake:

i) Make best use of ICT to avoid the need to travel in the first place
ii) Develop and use car sharing, travel plans etc, especially for trading estates and other employment centres.
iii) Make better use of bus services to feed the trains at rail stations
i) Develop the expanding concessionary bus fare plans to facilitate realistic journeys; and include local rail services in the scheme
ii) Provide bus information points (including maps) near the centre of all towns and villages, co-located with other services where possible.
iii) A single county-wide car parking scheme as part of integrated traffic management which balances the viability of towns and retail centres
iv) Better parking provision at all stations in the County to facilitate transfer to rail for the longer part of the journey.
v) Develop a strategic road policy to make best use of the County's key roads, recognising that increased capacity generates increased traffic.
vi) Re-classification of under-used rural roads as quiet lanes, re-directing road maintenance funds to key parallel roads used to get people to work education retail and leisure.
vii) Introduce a maximum 30mph speed restriction between the name signs of all named villages
viii) Relocate 30mph signs to include all junctions etc near to the existing signs, eliminating the need for early warning signs.

I’ll post more specific infrastructure proposals later…

Transport and Mr Bateman

My friend Norman Bateman has written an interesting letter in the Morpeth Herald (23rd August “Rail: Time to think again”) attacking Government policy on fuel and road tax duty and the prohibitive cost of rail travel. Characteristically he makes a provocative aside claiming that the Green Party policy on CO2 emissions is anti-car to the exclusion of all else.

I have, of course, written a rebuttal letter for the Herald – but I can develop some of the ideas more here.

Transport does generate about a third of CO2 emissions in the UK, but it is the only sector where emissions are growing – and growing fast. And of course, air travel is the most damaging because not only does it generate high levels of CO2, it emits them in the upper reaches of the atmosphere where the ‘greenhouse effect’ occurs. So policy needs to focus of emissions arising from transport.

Mr Bateman is quite correct is saying that the first focus must be on reducing the need to travel. We should be decentralising our provision of health, education, shops, work, leisure etc facilities. And we should be insisting on local produce whenever possible. If we’re serious about planning ‘sustainable communities’ – then we should be providing far more than just houses – even if they are ‘eco-friendly’.

And Mr Bateman is correct in saying that current fare structures militate against using lower emission modes of transport. It is ridiculous that short hop air fares are cheaper than rail fares; that a shared taxi is cheaper than travelling by bus or that road freight is more cost effective than rail freight.

Unfortunately, Mr Bateman then succumbs to the popular usage that spending on rail infrastructure is ‘subsidy’ while spending on roads in ‘investment’. In fact, the train operating companies actually pay the Government for franchises to operate and pay Network Rail for use of the track. It is these payments and the notion that the trains should be run to make profits for shareholders that keeps train fares up, while the road network is almost entirely operated as a state-funded public service with the result that the real cost of operating a car has decreased by around 10% in the last ten years.

He also comes up with some curious ideas about discounting fuel tax on heavy lorries and increasing Vehicle Excise Duty. Since the real problem is vehicle use, not vehicle ownership – it would seem a better idea to minimise Vehicle Excise Duty and maximise fuel tax. But – not before investing in public transport – bus and rail - to make it an adequate alternative to car use, and making it easier and safer to travel by bike or on foot.

Unfortunately at present, Government policy on transport – be it aviation, rail or road – is totally at odds with Government policy on climate change and reducing CO2 emissions.

Getting around town...

Have you seen the proposals from Gateshead Council for a ski lift to carry people between Gateshead town centre and the Baltic on the Quayside?

It set me thinking that we could do something similar in Morpeth

- how about a ski lift down from Lancaster Park?
- or maybe a cog railway or funicular alongside Curly Kews?

...they'd certainly be an attraction to the town.

Climate Change and Local Authorities

The Borough Council agreed to sign up to the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change at Full Council last Thursday (22nd Feb) – with a commitment to producing an Action Plan by next March (2008), but a suggestion that all we’ll be doing is ‘badging up’ things we are already doing.

Obviously, I feel we should get as committed to taking action on climate change as possible while its still ‘flavour of the month’ with the other political parties. We’ll see how things go….

Meanwhile - the Local Government Association (see www.lga.gov.uk) has set up a "climate change commission" launched today (26th Feb) intended to make sure that councils are in the lead in delivering climate change policies. Everyone can give evidence to this commission and point out what local authorities should or could do.

In my view – there’s a lot councils can do to sort out our own act before taking on a self-declared leadership role:

* bypasses are a big problem: The Lancaster northern bypass supported by Lancashire County Council produces 25,000 tonnes of CO2 each year which when costed at Treasury rates over the normal 60 year life of the road comes to £44M. There are dozens of these bypasses around the country

* airports: Councils often support airports (e.g. part of Newcastle Airport is in Castle Morpeth). Councils have to be far clearer in taking on the role of saying "enough is enough" (I understand that Uttlesford DC has just done this for Stanstead)

* cycling, walking, public transport: Castle Morpeth BC adopted a green travel plan when it relocated to Longhirst Hall, but I’m not aware it has been implemented in any real sense.

* procurement: There’s a lot of scope here. Currently, it’s getting more centralised and the main pressure is to cut costs. If we’re serious about climate change, we should be including carbon counting or eco-auditing as part of the procurement process.