Democracy trumps environment in Edinburgh 23 February 05

Regretable as it is, the result of the Edinburgh referendum is nevertheless a democratic one and in a democracy we have to accept that it was the failure of reason to triumph over perceived self interest that won the day. What Ken Livingstone achieved in London was as a result of the power vested in the position of elected Mayor. Despite the testimonies of thousands of workers and residents in London who are benefitting from the improvements, (and on my regular visits, I have certainly noticed the improvement) the Mayor is still under an incessant barrage of mindless criticism and a vendetta from sections of the media who have set their minds on his destruction.

But that’s the way it is in the democracy that we all fight so hard to protect and promote. So when the vested interests knock us down, we pick ourselves up, and start planning again. Perhaps it was the wrong point to try and break the vicious circle. If car-users rejected the congestion charge which was going to fund enhancements to public transport, that doesn’t mean they don’t want public transport that’s cheaper, cleaner, faster and easier to use. The deal just wasn’t convincing enough yet. Petrol at £10 per gallon will do the trick, and its coming.

Something that has emerged recently is the even more worrying fact that when local authorities, development agencies and the like put together the costings for a public transport project designed to get people out of their cars and onto a more sustainable mode of transport, they are obliged to include the loss to the exchequer of fuel duty caused by the reduction in car-usage as a NET COST TO THE SCHEME. This is why the treasury tells the minister for transport that urban light rapid transit and tram systems are ‘not good value for public money’. Now that is a scandal in a democracy such as ours and gives the lie to the pro-environment posturing of our government.

Colin Keyse

And use the revenues from the £1 into lowering the mass transportation charge. Whatever you do, don’t build more roads or widen them. That has been found only to increase traffic until it gets as congested as before, if not more so.

Use the revenues from the £1 to lower people’s taxes. Who could complain about that? Or maybe half to lower mass transit & half to lower taxes. And point out the savings from reduced road repairs and health costs (from pollution-related disease) makes it all the more worthwhile. Also have a bunch of free bicycles painted white around the town (clonky single speed ones no one would want to steal) – they do that in Denmark. People grab them, use them, and leave them wherever they are when they finish with them.

In a few months, I should be able to let you know more news about the proposed Wales green bike scheme, where we are trying to link recyclers pulling wrecked and dumped bikes out of the waste stream, rebuilding them in workshops to provide training for people at risk of exclusion or in need of social support, and providing them to community groups to offer as really low cost cycle hire right across the country: the whole lot linked to public transport, park & ride schemes and with a central phone and web-based booking system. The project is with the consultants for a feasibility study at present and if this shows it to stack up, will be trialled in a pilot area later in the year.

I believe New Zealand also has a similar scheme.

watch this space

kind regards

Colin Keyse

I have been watching the conversation. The way they build roads where I live, it is unsafe to use a bicycle in most places. That has made a difference for me not to ride as much as I did when I lived elsewhere.

Dan

Here in Edinburg (Texas), you’re risking your life to go out on a bike, or even a car. And we do have bike paths, but cars use them to make turns & drive very erratically, zipping in & out of everywhere. Our parish priest used to ride his bike everywhere, until he was in an accident. I sold my 3-speed ladies Schwin before moving here, thinking I’d get a better one, but my husband and I decided it was just too dangerous. Anyway we got as close as we possibly could to work. Everything is so spread out in much of Texas & rural states, like Montana. That makes it a bit harder for us Americans to reduce GHGs.

A substantial amount of work has been done in the UK over the last decade to create a comprehensive network of dedicated, off-road, cycle routes and cycle-friendly zones These are the national cycle network, safe routes to work and safe routes to school programmes. They have been promoted by the national charity Sustrans and if you want to check out their website, the link is www.sustrans.org.uk The majority of their funding has come from the National Lottery distributors under various programmes, principally the Millennium commission. They are a great group and, if you have particular questions, I’m sure they would be happy to try to provide answers for you. We have worked together in Wales on a number of projects and the only time we disagree is where they want to use bits of closed, former railway lines that have the potential to be reopened. Mostly we have worked our way around potential conflicts in an effective manner so that bikes and trains can complement each other in the future.

I do not know what organisations exist in the US to promote cycling, but was under the impression that there was quite a lot going on in California ?

kind regards

Colin Keyse

I have seldom seen a better definition of hubris. It also is a pretty good definition of supercilious.

How is it that you are the person who defines reason, and perceived self-interest? Why do the opinions of those who voted against you count (even though they outnumbered the philosopher kings)?

Those who oppose you have “vested interests”. And you do not? Give me a break here.

Yes Lynn,

I went to Dallas/Fort Worth area for a week once and was cut off intentionally 3 times in one week trying to make an exit.

I had to learn to drive a little more assertively while there.

Texans are very aggressive drivers.

Dan

Your response has, of course caused me to re-read what I have posted in some haste and with, perhaps a bit of passion which you have labelled hubris. But supercillious I can’t agree with. If I have sounded condescending, then for that I apologise, but not for holding the views I do, whether you feel that to be arrogant or not.

Vested interests: none that I’m aware of and certainly none in Edinburgh! If by that you mean that I am keen to promote individuals and groups in society making changes to the way they live that might benefit them and their environment then guilty as charged. It is for those individuals to make the choice for themselves. In none of these cases do I make any personal gain whatever.

In the case of a democratic decision such as the Edinburgh congestion charge referendum then if the proposal has been rejected by such a large margin, then there was obviously something wrong with the proposal or its presentation at this point in time and those concerned need to re-evaluate what it was.

I would be interested to hear your views on traffic congestion and its effects on localised atmospheric pollution (let’s leave the GHG’s out of it for the moment) stress, loss of business productivity and increased indirect costs of traffic accidents policing etc., as well as the loss of personal time cuased by longer journeys and of course the pointless waste of a finite fuel resource whilst traffic is stationary.

Is it an unarguably good thing to allow complete freedom (I use the word advisedly) of movement through such a limited infrastructure, or to attempt to intervene to promote more efficient management of the available capacity through a different pricing regime?

I’m keen to know if you identify the same problems as I do and how you suggest they could be better dealt with.

I do not profess to be any kind of expert and am not seeking to impose my views on others, only to exhort them to engage in the debate. You have engaged: now please progress to knocking my ideas down. When I am wrong, I am delighted to acknowledge it and will thank you for the enlightenment.

with all best wishes

Colin Keyse