-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
quit building on our green areas
- Thread starter luckylady
- Start date
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
Bill Cash has been vocal on planning issues lately.
http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/News/Barlaston-tearoom-brews-up-a-storm-18072013.htm
http://www.staffordshirenewsletter....destroy-character-of-the-village-17072013.htm
Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt
Well-Known Forumite
We had a system of Regional Planning under the previous Labour administration that produced Regional Spatial Strategies. These (whilst far from perfect) were more strategic in nature and dealt with a lot of those "bigger than local issues" that you mention. Both the Tories and the Lib Dems were committed to ditching Regional Plans and they have done just that.
I don't agree with you about car use and you seem to exist in some sort of turn of the last century, cottage garden utopia. Like it or not car usage is here to stay. It may not in the future be via the internal combustion versions that we see around us today but personalised transport will remain with us. After over half a century of personal mobility being the norm people simply won't go back to the horse pulled narrow boat or the horse and cart. If you or house developers are anticipating the mass unravelling of the personal transport method of travel then you are living in cloud cookoo land.
The capitalist market will provide for personal transport because personal transport is what people want - even if it is powered via wind or potato pealings.
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
I'm not suggesting eliminating car use, but it is a realistic expectation that car use can be reduced. There are examples in the UK like York, Oxford and Cambridge with far higher levels of cycling and bus use. One of the reasons is that car use is restrained. Decline in oil production is likely to force a reduction in car use.
Personal transport has been with us for longer than half a century - in the form of bicycles. A large proportion of journeys are less than 5 miles and can be cycled quicker than the car at peak times.
Current levels of car use are not sustainable from many view points - land use, burning fossil fuel, and congestion. Car journeys are artificially cheap which skews mode choice.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Look at the cities that cycle and you'll find a decent cycling infrastructure. Our government needs fuel tax to survive, they can't get by on fans and booze alone, so can't be arsed. Didn't Boris promise a half billion pound cycling infrastructure in London? What happened to that?
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
It's a discussion that's been had many times before. The short answer is that car users do not pay the full costs that at inflicted by that car use. Consequently everyone is paying whether they drive or not. In purely economic terms, congestion is occurring because price is set too low, since otherwise supply ans demand for road space would be in equilibrium.
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
You'll also find less city centre car parking, with much higher charges for the car parks that are in the centre. Stafford is a bargain.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
Slightly cheaper to be fined than pay to park all day in Cambridge - http://www.staffordforum.com/xf/ind...k-charge-at-wickes-carpark.12100/#post-192585 ..
Some places are worth paying more expensive parking charges, Liverpool, Chester, York etc but most places are struggling to pull in punters as it stands. For example it is expensive to park in Hanley which is a pretty dreadful place to go shopping.
Both York and Chester have a number of Park and Ride sites which intergrates public transport and car use.
Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt
Well-Known Forumite
The rose tinted specs are out it would seem. To compare Stafford to the like of York, Oxford and Cambridge is comparing apples with pears. We are nothing like those places with their rich university traditions and history and the tourist trap that provides. People use public transport in those places because the sheer quantity of visitors makes it stack up financially and logically. Stafford is more of a commuter town, more akin to Cannock, Dudley, Crewe - places like that.
Picking totally different towns to support your argument does nothing of the sort.
I agree that most journeys are below 5 miles and the evidence backs that up. I don't agree that in a town like Stafford (not to be confused with an ancient, tourist laden university City) there is much evidence that the car will be on the way out any time soon - as and when fossil based transport goes the way of the dodo personal propulsion will no doubt be provided via some other way - where there is a market....
Also the idea that motoring is somehow over subsidised in comparison with other options is laughable. Trains are subsidised to a gigantic proportion by the tax payer, irrespective of whether you ever use them. We even bail out their failed track operating companies when their corrupt and bonus heavy management can't organise drinks in a drinking establishment
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
What gets me about public transport is that if there was any money in it someone would offer a private service. The only private version is taxis, and there seem to be loads. You only catch the bus if you are on your own and skint, otherwise you get a taxi (or just walk/cycle).
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
I am distinctly underwhelmed by your grasp of the links between land use planning and transport, and between transport policy and mode choice.
You've forgotten to account for the economic benefit of the railway system and the economic disbenefit of congestion on the roads. Agree the privatised structure of the railways is a farce. That could be solved by nationalisation. The roads lobby is utterly corrupt.
Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt
Well-Known Forumite
I note that bizarre Stafford town comparisons to UK Cities that feature World Heritage sites of tourist interest have quietly been dropped from any line of argument....
Of course there is a link between land use planning and transport choice - I don't remember ever saying there wasn't. What I did say is that in the majority of towns LIKE STAFFORD the major choice of transport is via the car and that isn't just down to one reason such as how planners and developers spatially draw up & build our housing stock. It is because the car is convenient , air conditioned in the summer, warm and dry in the winter and is there when people want or need it. Public transport offers none of these things on a consistent basis.
I'm afraid for many, many people they either can't use public transport or just choose not to & in a town like Stafford the situation is unlikely to alter significantly.
As for Nationalisation - yep, we have such a great record in this Country with regard to Rail and other public company Nationalisations what could possibly go wrong? Now where did I put the keys to my well built and perfectly functioning British Leyland Austin Allegro...?
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
Nope the comparison with the likes of York is simple. Car use is made less attractive by less parking supply and higher parking charges, along with restrictions on accessing certain roads. Better provision is also made for cycling. Being a world heritage site does not of itself have any effect on mode choice. Nottingham have introduced a work place parking levy, historical city it isn't.
In Stafford it ought to be fairly simple to reduce car use. We are a fairly flat and compact town. There is a lack of political balls basically.
On railways, BR was about the most cost efficient railway in Europe prior to privatisation and had to operate on about a fifth of the money that the privatised system gets today.
In Stafford it ought to be fairly simple to reduce car use. We are a fairly flat and compact town. There is a lack of political balls basically.
On railways, BR was about the most cost efficient railway in Europe prior to privatisation and had to operate on about a fifth of the money that the privatised system gets today.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
So tax parking spaces? Not sure that really helps most workers in the immediate future, just forces people to move house every time they move jobs. The estate agents will thrive though, so one upside I guess? Will keep the housing market high in areas of employment, so good for banks too.
Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt
Well-Known Forumite
Population of Nottingham - >300,000. Greater Nottingham around 600,000
Population of Stafford - 66,000. Greater Stafford about 200,000
Nottingham is a major Regional centre with many large multinationals including Boots and others. It has two large shopping centres, an integrated tram system, numerous museums and galleries a Regional airport hub nearby...the list goes on again. Once again your comparison makes no sense.
You will not compare like for like because you can't. Is the reliance on personal transportation in Stafford any different to lets say Walsall, Dudley, Cannock, Uttoxeter? The answer is no.
As for BR - how time dampens the memories. In public ownership the rail system was expensive, didn't run on time, ran old rolling stock and ran unprofitable services. The rail system in the UK in both public and private ownership has shown that it would collapse without being propped up by the tax payer. Rail track went bust only a few years ago and was bailed out with a truly astonishing amount of tax payer funds and re-appeared as network rail. The idea that all would be well if the tax payer owned the lot is not supported by any evidence. Chances are it would be even more bloated and inefficient.
The road system on the other hand collects over £30 billion in direct motorist taxation and puts around £3 billion per year back into building new and maintaining existing roads.
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
Greater Stafford? WTF?
I always thought .... Population of the town of Stafford about 60,000
Population of the Borough of Stafford about 120,000
Population of the County of Stafford about 1,000,000
But thinking can be dangerous in this day and age as I have found out
henryscat
Well-Known Forumite
The purpose of the comparisons are to demonstrate that there are places where the proportion of trips made by car is much lower than Stafford. This can be achieved by different policy instruments and better land use planning. Stafford is a compact town where the proportion of car trips could quite easily be reduced with the political backing to put in place the necessary measures. For a lot of trips, the car is not "relied" upon, but is used out of choice. The comparison makes no sense to you, because you have failed to look at the factors affecting choice of transport mode.
The privatised system costs the public purse at least five times as much as BR. BR was not expensive. In terms of fares, BR was cheaper in real terms since fares have been pushed up well above inflation year on year. "Unregulated" fares have shot up even more.
BR did very well on the money it had. The railway today operates services you would deem "unprofitable", but you can't measure the value of the network on fares vs operating cost. There are economic and social benefits on top of that.
Same goes for the road network.
The privatised structure is flawed. Railtrack was appalling. They got rid of all their engineers and employed "managers" who knew the grand total of nothing about running a railway. Network Rail isn't a great deal better.
That's a duff statement - road transport related taxation / duties are not hypothecated. Everything goes into the same pot along with all other forms of taxation. You imply a £27 bn profit on the road network which is completely false. You need to cost up: road maintenance, road construction, emergency services, cost of congestion to the economy, cost of accidents to the economy, cost of pollution to the environment, health, and the economy. You'll find that lot adds up to more than car users pay. Also, using your logic as applied to the railway, most of the road network should not be maintained - it is completely unprofitable to maintain lots of country lanes and minor roads used by just a few vehicles per day.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
If you want to stop them building on your green spaces, you merely have to prove it is yours.
HC, I thought you had a car? Can't help wondering how bad your journeys would be if the infrastructure was not updated for the last half a century to accommodate more vehicles, do you commute or walk/cycle to work? I have moral superiority over most of you it seems, I've never had a car and not used my motorbike in nearly a year. I rarely even use public transport, I like to go places under my own steam. Anything else is a cop out TBH, and I don't even care about car numbers!
HC, I thought you had a car? Can't help wondering how bad your journeys would be if the infrastructure was not updated for the last half a century to accommodate more vehicles, do you commute or walk/cycle to work? I have moral superiority over most of you it seems, I've never had a car and not used my motorbike in nearly a year. I rarely even use public transport, I like to go places under my own steam. Anything else is a cop out TBH, and I don't even care about car numbers!