This interesting December article from the BBC's website gives a little statistical background behind the claim that there could be a 'plague' of golf courses sweeping through the nation:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24378868
It focuses on the plight of the county of Surrey and a particularly hot debate over the need to create its 142nd(!) golf course at Cherkley Court... within its (just) 1662.5 square miles of land.
It then goes on to list the counties with the most percentages of land covered by golf courses and the number of 'holes' the courses contain.
Unfortunately, it does not then go into detail about how other land uses compare... because the figure of the largest 'offender', Merseyside (at 2.82% coverage*) is arguably very low if not given context. Some people may think that a figure of 2.82% is very little, and they'd be right really... so what was then needed was some other big 'offenders' listed just so we can have an idea of what impact these golf courses truly have.
Golf is a popular (or at least growing) sport no doubt, and the article presumably attempts to draw out the needs of its golfers by mentioning how many holes they get as well as land. It mentions the average figure per hole as 2.5ha and that a metropolitan area in Florida, USA has just 212 people per hole (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/mar/08/study-collier-marco-tops-national-leaderboard-for/?print=1).
Oddly, the charts then do not then give equivalent figures for the British counties... but a quick trip to Wikipedia gives me 1,381,200 for the population of Merseyside alongside its 729 holes... therefore giving us 1895 people per hole.
So, so far nothing helps the people arguing against having more golf courses. But what is interesting is the mention of the plight of Bermuda, where just under 10% of the whole (and very small) country is given over to golf courses! And the article does well at making one question just how much golf a place needs. It does not take sides.
For the record, I am not a big fan of golf courses. I like playing it from time to time, and don't think it is a good walk spoiled, so don't think I am really biased here. However, it is still an elitist sport in my opinion, and not the best type of 'sport' that should be supported by Governments to keep people healthy and happy. Also, they are a very good 'chameleon' at convincing people that they are 'good for the environment', because they are 'pretty', have nice big trees and lots of lovely green grass. What people do not know is that they are potentially very bad for the environment, if built in the place of true natural landscape**, and do not encourage/support the kind of biodiversity one might think. They also require a hell of a lot of water in maintenance... which we can't always afford.
Anyway, what the article also points out is that the percentages do not include the driving ranges, pitch and putts, and non-affiliated to Golf England courses. So... many of the places where 'ordinary folk' first encounter the game are not even covered.
For the record, the UK has 23.43% of its land defined as 'cultivated', but has over 70% of all land in agricultural use in total. It also has 11.65% under forest and woodland (DEFRA figures)... leaving very little left for the (subtracted) category of 'urban and other land', which golf courses (as well as housing, transport, sand dunes, inland waters...) must sit within.
This figure is 14.43% of all land for the whole of the UK... and therefore represents a truer aspect of what amount of the country is actually on the front line for potential change.
If we take the very rough figure that 1% of the UK is covered in golf courses, this actually represents a figure nearer 7% of the actual living space that we have given over to golfing. And, interpolated for Merseyside, gives a figure close to 20%.
In my humble opinion, that is enough for now. We don't have any virgin forest to hack away for the easy creation of more courses, and too many other land uses and needs in the areas where most people (who may want to then play golf) actually live. Golf courses are big creatures, and selfish. By definition, they don't allow many people to enjoy the sport at the same time in the way that other, more communal, sports do.
And I just can't understand how we can live in an era where we sell off school playing fields for housing but are happy to let new golf courses keep nibbling away at incredibly precious and fragile land. It's almost as if we care more for the needs of rich retired people as opposed to our children.
So... if you are desperate to play golf, then get out the Xbox, or take a holiday in Scotland.
Or Bermuda.
* Surrey is third, with a mere 2.65%
** http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-fails-to-deliver-on-golf-resort-jobs-pledge-8693854.html
P.S. If you are still in any doubt as to whether a figure of 2.82% can be a lot in terms of land use, read this similarly BBC-based article from way back in 2012 which suggests that there is a myth, an urban myth if you like, that the UK is "concreted over": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096.
It suggests a very tidy figure of 2.27% of for the proportion of England's landscape (not the UK's) which is "built on" and whilst, like a lot of such investigations, one can find a way to pick (golf?) holes in the statistics, it is both scary and fun to suggest that some parts of England could now be defined as more golf course than urban built-up space!
Monday 30 December 2013
Tuesday 3 December 2013
High Speed 2
I must write this entry for the HS2! I have had so much to say on it over these last few months but just kept forgetting to put it 'down' here. So, finally, here is an update of my latest thoughts - and perhaps I will have a chance to add more to this post later so it can be refined... and my overall opinion articulated as best I can.
I have just heard an interesting viewpoint on the 'latest' plans for HS2 you see, as the Government continues its push to get the show on the road. This viewpoint was that the reason behind the construction of the railway was/IS all down to the financial benefits.
If it is deemed profitable, it will go ahead... and if not, it won't.
That sounds clear and right... except that I was of the thinking that that wasn't really the main drive for it. Surely HS2's main drive is to be the middle phase of a three phase programme that connects the southern half of the UK with the north? That is, that there will be a HS3 as soon as HS2 is done, so that the whole country is connected up for our future needs.
BUT I am hardly hearing any references about the third phase... it is all about the second and nothing else.
The argument is all about projected costs and projected profits of HS2. There is a push for the taxpayer to pay all... and that an estimated £50 billion in costs will immediately create £15 billion in profits to trade in and between cities and towns outside of London...
In opposition, some have said that the projected 'profits' are based on unsound calculations, and that it is nigh-on impossible to fathom how much money will be made.
Similarly, there has been much discussion about what areas and settlements will do BADLY out of the scheme. In other words, those left off the path of the railway will be left out of a share of the profits... despite having to pay for the project through taxation. I have read that it will cost the taxpayer £1500 each overall, but I still need to investigate about what overall time period that refers to - and if it is to all the populace or those on the route (a la the Olympics local taxation).
Anyway, all that aside, I just can't understand why the 'fundamentals' aren't being argued. I think the fundamentals are to do with the development timescale and the available technology. I just don't think a 225 mph train running through the Home Counties to Birmingham a decade from now is going to be of any great worth. At least, in comparison to the overheads.
What should we do instead?
Well, for fear of being a broken record here, as in my argument against the need for a third runway for Heathrow, I think the way we approach business is the key here. London dominates the UK, in all ways, and we need to spread the profits out... by using digital means. Digital business is done in the 'cloud'... it does not need so much expensive infrastructure. Some yes, but wires aren't as wide as trains.
People seem to think that HS2 will help new businesses set up in the north, and that may be true to an extent. But I think the impact will be small. The main 'profit' will simply be an increase in the numbers of rich commuters being able to commute from homes OUTSIDE London INTO London in record time to do their high-end work. Just like before.
The increase in speed will just allow commuters to live (just that) little bit further out than before, buying up the best houses in places that were originally too far from London. And what does that mean? It means local people being priced out of particular areas because these affluent London commuters push up the prices of their housing, but then give nothing back to the local business community as a result.
In terms of technology, if we must push for a fancy train, then why not go full-hog and commit to a Maglev solution? These trains go much faster than conventional trains. 300-400+ mph is feasible. Current trains in Spain, France, China and so on already average the 200+ mph speeds that we are trying to target here... and remember that this thing is going to take ages to build once compulsory land purchases are given the go ahead. Who knows what they will do next why we are still building?
Britain led the way with innovation in the railways once, so why not be more radical? Be ahead of the curve, so to speak.
Also... and here's the other idea: if we must have HS2, then why not leave it 'til the end and build HS3 first?
We can then genuinely target business growth OUTSIDE London by encouraging commuting between the Far North and Midlands... and address the urgent need for new housing in areas that can accommodate it, rather than the already crowded South-East.
How good would that be? New, affordable, housing in the north, and new jobs 'fizzing' into being as a result of a modern railway that encourages business to set-up and locate away from the capital.
Once that has all kicked in, we can connect the south with the north with HS2 and have the more balanced country that we all deserve.
Right, that will do for now. I will add subsequent entries or revisions to the above a.s.a.p. as I see fit. I know I had a few more points to add, although my main point has been made: If we must do this - let's have HS3 first, HS2 later!
Cheers,
ZeeOx
http://www.hs2.org.uk/hs2-phase-one-hybrid-bill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24012888
I have just heard an interesting viewpoint on the 'latest' plans for HS2 you see, as the Government continues its push to get the show on the road. This viewpoint was that the reason behind the construction of the railway was/IS all down to the financial benefits.
If it is deemed profitable, it will go ahead... and if not, it won't.
That sounds clear and right... except that I was of the thinking that that wasn't really the main drive for it. Surely HS2's main drive is to be the middle phase of a three phase programme that connects the southern half of the UK with the north? That is, that there will be a HS3 as soon as HS2 is done, so that the whole country is connected up for our future needs.
BUT I am hardly hearing any references about the third phase... it is all about the second and nothing else.
The argument is all about projected costs and projected profits of HS2. There is a push for the taxpayer to pay all... and that an estimated £50 billion in costs will immediately create £15 billion in profits to trade in and between cities and towns outside of London...
In opposition, some have said that the projected 'profits' are based on unsound calculations, and that it is nigh-on impossible to fathom how much money will be made.
Similarly, there has been much discussion about what areas and settlements will do BADLY out of the scheme. In other words, those left off the path of the railway will be left out of a share of the profits... despite having to pay for the project through taxation. I have read that it will cost the taxpayer £1500 each overall, but I still need to investigate about what overall time period that refers to - and if it is to all the populace or those on the route (a la the Olympics local taxation).
Anyway, all that aside, I just can't understand why the 'fundamentals' aren't being argued. I think the fundamentals are to do with the development timescale and the available technology. I just don't think a 225 mph train running through the Home Counties to Birmingham a decade from now is going to be of any great worth. At least, in comparison to the overheads.
What should we do instead?
Well, for fear of being a broken record here, as in my argument against the need for a third runway for Heathrow, I think the way we approach business is the key here. London dominates the UK, in all ways, and we need to spread the profits out... by using digital means. Digital business is done in the 'cloud'... it does not need so much expensive infrastructure. Some yes, but wires aren't as wide as trains.
People seem to think that HS2 will help new businesses set up in the north, and that may be true to an extent. But I think the impact will be small. The main 'profit' will simply be an increase in the numbers of rich commuters being able to commute from homes OUTSIDE London INTO London in record time to do their high-end work. Just like before.
The increase in speed will just allow commuters to live (just that) little bit further out than before, buying up the best houses in places that were originally too far from London. And what does that mean? It means local people being priced out of particular areas because these affluent London commuters push up the prices of their housing, but then give nothing back to the local business community as a result.
In terms of technology, if we must push for a fancy train, then why not go full-hog and commit to a Maglev solution? These trains go much faster than conventional trains. 300-400+ mph is feasible. Current trains in Spain, France, China and so on already average the 200+ mph speeds that we are trying to target here... and remember that this thing is going to take ages to build once compulsory land purchases are given the go ahead. Who knows what they will do next why we are still building?
Britain led the way with innovation in the railways once, so why not be more radical? Be ahead of the curve, so to speak.
Also... and here's the other idea: if we must have HS2, then why not leave it 'til the end and build HS3 first?
We can then genuinely target business growth OUTSIDE London by encouraging commuting between the Far North and Midlands... and address the urgent need for new housing in areas that can accommodate it, rather than the already crowded South-East.
How good would that be? New, affordable, housing in the north, and new jobs 'fizzing' into being as a result of a modern railway that encourages business to set-up and locate away from the capital.
Once that has all kicked in, we can connect the south with the north with HS2 and have the more balanced country that we all deserve.
Right, that will do for now. I will add subsequent entries or revisions to the above a.s.a.p. as I see fit. I know I had a few more points to add, although my main point has been made: If we must do this - let's have HS3 first, HS2 later!
Cheers,
ZeeOx
http://www.hs2.org.uk/hs2-phase-one-hybrid-bill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24012888
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)