Cambridge's Success - A Blessing or a Curse?

I came into work early this morning in order to crack on with some outstanding work... but now feel I need to get this quick rant/post off my chest first before I do!

Basically then, it's to do with the (Greater) Cambridge City Deal. I heard this morning that some form of protest is taking place later today in opposition to Council plans to shut down various city roads at different times to help address the traffic problem.

Now, the reason I want to rant is not because I disagree - or agree - with these protesters. It seems quite illogical to me that if you want to help protect trade in our dying town and city centres, the first thing you do is make it difficult for workers to get to work, goods deliverers to deliver and shoppers to shop. That said, a successful, and ever-growing, place like Cambridge needs to try and do something about its already serious transport problems otherwise things will get (far) worse. (And that, indeed, is what the City Deal purports to do.)

So, where is the rant?

Well, it just got me thinking about Europe. Yes, looking across to the continent for potential solutions to our problems doesn't seem to be very popular right now it's true, but I was thinking about both what radical plans some cities there employ to address the similar problems Cambridge has, and also, what cultural differences exist alongside them that help enable those solutions to be genuinely successful.

And I'm thinking about Belgium. Yes, that small, divided, country with two languages (three actually), an EU Parliament, and an alleged obsession with chocolate, lace, chips and (really, let's be honest, the best) beer.

When some small towns over there start to develop similar traffic issues that Cambridge is experiencing, I believe they have two distinct advantages.

1. They (tend to) have powerful, decision-making, local mayors.
2. They have a different approach to when to do business.

Regarding the first point, this is something we are slowly beginning to understand and take on board in the UK. The powers of The Mayor of London (the real one that is, rather than the one that wears a silly hat) are now seen as helpful and aiding decentralisation of Government, so proposals are popping up everywhere for other similar roles to be made for other large UK cities... and, indeed, wider areas. Will the, rather bizarre, plan for a directly elected Mayor of East Anglia be successful? Who knows. Either way, it doesn't appear that powerful roles for administering smaller cities (on their own) seems to be on the agenda yet.

And regarding the second point, this is where I feel there is an issue then, and a need to rant...

To address this then, I want to ask a couple of questions first.

Why does Cambridge have a traffic issue? 

Well, because it is ever-successful, but at the same time constrained by geography and history. You can't knock down its old buildings to widen roads! (Well, you can... but there are limits!)

Where are commuters heading? 

Cambridge has thousands of people heading into - or through - the town every morning in order to get to their place of work. Commuters heading to the train and bus stations in order to go beyond the city, students wanting to get to class, lecturers wanting to beat them there in order to teach them, scientists, researchers, regular business workers and so on. And, of course, this is the pretty much the same thing that happens in every town, wherever you go...

But it also has shop workers trying to get into work to set up shop (of course) and deal with the goods deliveries that (need to) take place ahead of opening time. Again, the same as in other UK cities... but not necessarily Belgium.

Shopaholics

In the UK, we are used to Sunday being a rest day, and down-town shops usually opening between the hours of 9am and 5pm every week day and Saturday. But in Belgium (and many other European countries), you sometimes find shops closing on a Monday or Tuesday, and not Sunday (despite an arguably more influential Church). You also find shops open well into the evening on most days, but not necessarily during the morning.

Why? Well there are different local laws in different cities (see Point 1!), but generally speaking it's because there is an acknowledgement that having everyone (try and) do the same thing at the same time not only creates traffic congestion, but it also also prevents good, strategic, business from taking place. As I see it, shops that can afford to be closed at 10 am in the morning clearly have a decent financial strategy... or at least, a balanced one.

Long story short, I believe we need to tackle the current mindset we have in the UK... or Cambridge at least. Shops should be allowed to open before 9am... and/or after 5pm. In Cambridge, we do have late closing on Wednesdays now, and that's good, but that just makes the working week longer. Those shops closing at 7pm, etc. should also be opening at 11am in order to give their workers the same working conditions that other office workers have. Also, having your workers work longer means the pressure is on to make a greater profit in order to then pay them (and address the other overheads). It needn't be that way... (shock-horror!) making extra profit isn't everything*.

Different frogs, Different times

So, if we have office workers going to their office for 9, but shop workers going to their shops for 11, we stagger the impact of the daily commute and resulting traffic on our city's transport infrastructure. Do you really need to widen roads that remain empty half the day?

Also, imagine finishing work on a weekday at 5 and being able to then do some clothes shopping in town before you head home! No need to bunch everything together for one mammoth shopping operation on the Saturday... when everyone else is thinking - and trying to do - the same thing.

Walk, bike, bus, car, train...

For me, very little that takes place in Cambridge over the next few years to help address its transport problems will have the genuine impact that helps all. Doing something will have a positive impact somewhere for sure, and it may even help a certain section of the community or a set of businesses... but what it will also likely do is upset others at the same time, or prevent some other option from doing better.

Today's planned march seems to illustrate that point well.

But I am also thinking of the Busway as I type this, too. I won't go into detail here, but the fact the Busway is now well used (and perhaps even admired by some) doesn't mean we should then forget about what could have been...

And now we hear of plans for a new Busway for Cambridge! One that takes out countryside this time (rather than a pre-existing railway track), and all for trying to, admirable though it is, remove the car from the transport equation.

Anyway, whilst my desire for there to be an orbital underground railway with spurs linking existing out-of-town Park and Ride sites in Cambridge seems fanciful and extortionate, it is worth noting that all the other transport "solutions" still cost a lot of money**... and a lot of that money ends up in feasibility studies and legal disputes rather than in actual construction.

Right, rant over: I wanted this to be short. Back to work!

Cheers,
ZeeOx

*You may disagree... but I am not trying to be a Communist here! Radical growth and profit that cannot be sustained usually results in failure, long term. That is boom and bust economics in a nutshell.

**Money in terms of budget... and money in terms of lost revenue to those businesses negatively impacted by the new operations.

Scottish Independance... why it's a bad thing. (A last minute opinion!)

Just a quick few, badly thought out, comments regarding the Scottish independence referendum, which is taking place today as I write this.

Basically, I'm not for it.

Not, of course, that I have a say in the matter... but a 'No' result WILL have an impact on my life in some form AND, in a sense, will also change my current/future attitude towards the country and influence the possibility of me taking future trips there.

My last three holidays have all been to Scotland. I love the place and also have many Scottish friends... But what's interesting there I suppose is that these passionately Scottish friends aren't allowed to vote in the referendum because they no longer live there!

Anyway, without going too deep, I'll just say that my main reason for thinking the Union is worth keeping is because the 'Yes' cause has got the wrong target in their sights.

The problem with the political infrastructure in this country right now, and its Local, Regional, Devolved and National Governments, is not that 'England' is too dominant...or that the Conservatives don't care for the average child born in The Gorbals... (even if that might be true!)...  it is the dominance of the capital of London. And.... the shackles that the Casino gaming-like world of stockbrokers and big banks has us ALL tied to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29238037 

True, Scottish 'Yes' campaigners are encouraging their (possibly soon-to-be-ex)partners in the North, or Cornwall, or Wales to follow their suit and try and break free too, but let's be realistic about this: that is silly talk.

Cornwall does not need independence, it just needs help.

And Scotland does too.

These last minute 'MaxDevo' offers do smack of desperation, but the tactic might just actually win it for the 'No' vote as I type this... with more devolved powers than ever before given to Scotland to help them manage their own affairs.

I admit, I quite like devolution in principle. But surely it only comes about because we are useless at keeping a highly centralised, unitary government focused and organised?

But all that aside, I'm much more simplistic in my view about all this...

I think it's a storm in a teacup really and that we shouldn't in this day and age be saying things like "the Scottish are One People!" and that we, south of the border, are another. We are all the same and I hate seeing people drawing lines in the sand, whether it's trendy, tourist friendly 'Yes' campaigners in kilts or nasty, poorly-educated EDL marchers.

Indeed, and pathetic though this sounds, I personally long for a future where we all come together as one, with no fences between us... rather than a world where we retreat behind fences that we should never have built. I know that is basically the contextual and historical setting for the Star Trek universe, but so be it!

Further, I find it interesting to see how some, wildly contrasting, people have come together in support of the 'Yes' vote.

We all know that the 'Better Together' team is a very shaky partnership of various Tories, Labour MPs, Social Democrats, ASDA-Walmart bosses, environmentalists... even George Galloway... and so on, but just think about the various right-wing elements joining up with your Russell Brands and your Vivian Westwoods as well. It's just as odd a bunch!

Off topic, I wonder if Russell Brand has ever given any thought that his consistently-aired 'Trews' YouTube channel philosophy of suggesting that humans need to break down the corporate* and political walls and live in small communes world-wide is merely a semantic shift (plus a swapping of some Eastern Spirituality and falafels for some fundamental Christianity and guns) from what most Libertarians and Tea Party activists in the USA are also saying right now? "Just sayin'!"

(* I note with interest that his YouTube account is fully 'monetised'... so why is that? N.B Here's an interesting angle from Private Eye.)

Anyway, what I'm saying is that you cannot look at the whole background story and compare it to that of other historical struggles - for example, say, the Québécois movement in Canada... even if the story of the political campaigns are VERY similar.

Scottish people are British people. English people are British people. They speak the same language in the main, and they look the same, and they like the same things.

Quick question:

I'm not going to Google this to cheat so hopefully someone out there reading this can inform me: 

Has Alex Salmond ever spoken (at length) in Scottish Gaelic during any Scottish Parliament debates? I'm interested to know...

***

Talking of mixed(up)-cultural heritages, Braveheart is just a film by the way - and (although I think most people know) is wildly inaccurate (and I love it by the way)... so it still amazes me that some people cling to it as an inspiration for all this.

Moreover, the Union of 1707 is proof that Scotland and England has been tied by a friendship (of sorts, true) rather than the normal story of British Colonialism and land-grabbing that we see elsewhere. Indeed, one mustn't forget that England/Britain bailed out Scotland after its disastrous attempt at colonial expansion itself:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

What's amazing is just how many Scottish people have contributed to or enriched the country AS A WHOLE over the past 300-400 years. From inheriting a Scottish king in 1603, to having three consecutive Prime Ministers in recent times with strong Scottish bloodlines.

True, if they had stayed inside Scottish borders they may have helped their home nation just as well, if not more... but who's to say they wouldn't have left anyway?

***

There are so many un-addressed economic concerns (and not just with currency questions, oil reserve estimates and nuclear submarine bases) with the independence movement that I feel a 'Yes' vote would do more harm to the Scottish people overall than do good... but I do hope I'm wrong, whatever the outcome.

Oh... and one last thing...

I don't want the inescapable prison of consecutive future Conservative Governments, which may be the result of Scottish independence for us in what is left of the United Kingdom after the referendum.

Scotland brings balance to the political game in the UK, even if it doesn't quite do enough to break the current Centrist tumor of the two party domination due to the first-past-the-post scheme.

As much I believe that the SNP are just Scotland's version of UKIP (yuk!)... we need them... in a full and whole United Kingdom, rather than a broken one.

ZeeOx.