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.

The Third Runway Debate - Finally...

My thoughts...

There appear to be three completely separate arguments fused within the popular 'hot topic' of what tends to be loosely labelled as the 'Heathrow Third Runway Debate'.

The first is simply whether Heathrow needs a third runway or not, and what the implications are for - or not - going ahead with one.

The second is whether there can be an alternative new runway - or airport - built somewhere else in order to increase capacity in general (and possible destinations) for the nation's airlines as a whole.

The third is the wider (and looser) argument of whether we need to be building new runways or not full stop, and whether we can come up with other, alternative solutions.. or indeed, if we can just sit back and ignore the whole thing altogether.

This blog entry is not necessarily going to have the space (or energy!) to provide definitive pros and cons for each side of each debate - and then draw a straight-forward and rounded conclusion based on them - but I will try and give my general (and most pressing) thoughts on the matter none-the-less!

1. I do not want a new runway for Heathrow!

This is not just because it is an easy side to take for a 'greeny' who doesn't appreciate the economic reasons/pressure behind having it, or someone who understands the extra noise and pollution that the planes (and all the associated transport infrastructure that serves them) creates. Indeed, it is easy to fall into the pit-trap of NIMBY-ism in such debates... but, fortunately, I do not live near Heathrow, or any other London airport.

No, in many ways, my two reasons for this not going ahead are more simple...

i) the third runway that has been proposed is too short in comparison to the other two exisiting runways and thus not a genuine solution to the primary argument behind why people are asking for an extension in the first place... namely a third runway that is able to handle the landings of the latest jet planes!

ii) the time and planning it will take to prepare the land to build it (including the inevitable compulsory purchase orders (CPOs)) will be a very long, complicated and drawn-out process, that will no doubt get tied-up by various lengths of bureaucratic red tape - some completely justified, others not-so-much.

2. The 'Boris Island' Estuary Airport is from the realm of science fiction... and should stay there!

As a dreamy teenager, I would have loved the various proposals for a new Thames Estuary Airport (whether it be Norman Foster's 'Thames Hub' design or the more recent Gensler designed 'London Britannia Airport' concept). I would have poured over the various maps and plans, 3D cut-views and mock-ups - even the stats and figures that pin it all together - for hours!

But then, I wasn't a very mature teenager...

On (e-)paper, it all sounds so good:-

i) 4-6 runways that will do all that is asked of the shortcomings of the current infrastructiure and will fully support the local and national economy (now and in the future) and more...

ii) Solid and integrated public transport links (including high-speed trains) that will no doubt connect the City of London in quicker times that it currently takes the Heathrow Express and tube lines...

iii) The creation of tens of 1000s of jobs in both the construction project itself and then the day-to-day running of the place...

iv) A much quicker and simpler planning AND construction process...

v) A site that is away than immediate areas of population... but still close to London.

 - and so on...

BUT.... I am against this too.

The truth is that such a project will take years - and years - to properly think-through and then build.

Side note:

One of the primary reasons the current London Mayor, Boris Johnson, is against the Heathrow Third Runway is the tedious process of sorting out all the complicated but necessary legislation that is needed first. He is right about the process being tedious... but his agenda is only thus because he knows it will take just as long a time to sort out the preparatory elements to his favoured alternative of the Thames Estuary Airport... and so he wants the project under way NOW(!) in order to get to the point where his ridiculously large-scale project (and all its required and related infrastructure) is actually being built instead.

But starting to build and finishing a build are two different things!

Most (voting) Londoners that are against the Third Runway will be doing so from an environmental perspective... and Boris is gorging himself off that city-wide NIMBY-ism. His dream for the Estuary Airport is then a way of placating the businessmen (and women - but to a lesser extent, let's be honest!) that still want (profitable) growth.

We are currently in the economic doldrums it's true... and one of the consistent calls (both before and during the recession) for improving the British Economy has been to increase our 'global business network' and the associated transport and communication connectivity that implies - so that it is on a par with rival European countries.

This is mainly, apparently, to be done via the implementation of new and improved airline services to 'customers' around the world...

BUT how do we know what the future will truly bring? And who is to say that being able to fly direct from London to places which aren't currently available (mainly the rich BRIC cities) is really a good thing for business? It is short term and speculative.

And... isn't the fact that places like Frankfurt or (Amsterdam) Schiphol that already have such places on offer to fly to NOW have simply beaten us to it?

------

I digress...  

For me, the Environmnetal impact of the Thames Estuary Airport is unacceptable. This link deals with that side of things better than me:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jan/18/boris-island-airport-impact-wildlife 

AND... for the pilots that would then fly into such a place (aside of the fact that this area would then be the most busy airspace on the planet making it so congested that the chances of mid-air plane collisions are high too), there would then be a very high chance of regular bird strikes (i.e. waders)... creating a very dangerous and potentially disastrous situation, every time a plane lands... on each and every day!

3. A new runway for any other 'London' Airport is equally just as disastrous.

There are alternatives to building anew at Heathrow.

All the other "London" airports (Gatwick, Luton, Stansted...) only have single runways at present and would all benefit from having a second runway that would relieve pressure on their own infrastructure as well as that of the significantly 'hemmed-in' Heathrow...

Well, sort of. The problem is that ALL of the surrounding land around ALL the London airports is either an area of high population or a complicated fabric of attractive countryside or existing roads and railways that would take a lot of work to 'tidy up' ... Just like Heathrow!

It would, again, take years to sort out - regardless of where one stood stand on the matter.

Looking at the last time a second runway was proposed - and debated - for Stansted, you can see where the problems are with that proposal being dragged out of the gutter again!

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/campaigning/our-campaigns/aviation/stansted/Pages/expansion-proposals.aspx?gclid=COe16ISpurMCFczHtAodYQMA-g

4. Building 'oop north' instead as an alternative will be ignored!

I am more far more passive to the idea of buidling new runways to airports in our northern cities, aside of the general debate about CO² emmisions and the fact our skies are full of planes already.

After all, new planes such as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner are allegedly far more fuel efficicient and environmentally friendly in their contsruction than older planes... so we may be able to make the call for 'having more'... if the 'inefficient old' are retired.

Whether it's Birmingham (not so far north admittedly), Manchester, Leeds-Bradford... Glasgow... Aberdeen... it doesn't matter. As long as the land is brownfield or not so obviously 'precious' in terms of either wildlife habitats, prime agricultural land, historical sites or areas of population... there is an argument.

However... the 'business people' won't want to hear of it.

Whether we like it or not, LONDON is what is behind the call to extend, Not the United Kingdom as a whole. The financial clout of the City of London, as the current Financial Capital of the World is what (certain) people want to protect, and not any general business or tourism concept (e.g. the now defunct Cool Britannia), however good and beneficial that is to all (/more).

What with our current transport infrastructure being old, slow and/or over-crowded in the main, building anywhere further out than, say, an hour or two outside of London will not be efficient for those business people flying in to get to their important meetings on time in the city.

5. Building anything will be too late... so let's do something else! 

Aside of the argument that London retains the image and atmosphere that people want to witness in the flesh, we may be able to argue that, in the future, most business will be done 'in the cloud' online, and not need to employ so many planes and business class seats for trivial face-to-face meetings and events.

The human animal (and business 'player') will always need to interact face-to-face from time to time it's true... and being in a hi-tech future won't change that... but there should be (and is) the capacity for the occasional business trip by plane to the UK for that now.

What we need to do is reduce the number of current journeys! We need to agree that things will only get worse in terms of traffic, pollution, population... and that any potential 'solutions' for the short to mid-term future have so many hang-ups and will take so long to sort out and implement that they are not worth investing in AT ALL.

If we lived in a totalitarian society, where the masses could be grouped and forced to produce such large-scale 'objects' at whatever cost then may be... but we don't. And how can we afford large-scale projects full-stop if we are supposed to be in the middle of a recession? If we can, then perhaps the truth is that
the money we do have is enough... and it is simply being badly organised and/or mis-managed... as opposed to not being there!

SO: If we can sort out things like Super-Fast Broadband for everywhere in London and the South-East, and 4G networks across all our major towns and cities and so on... we open up the rest of the country to potential investors... and start to relieve pressure - tomorrow.

True, the people that want to go to London, and London alone, will not want to go to a wet and grey Manchester to do business... but many people confuse London with everywhere else in the country anyway, and the main fact is that the UK is not a big place. Many businesses already 'trick' customers by playing on that fact that, on different scales, places like Bristol are close to London.

It's all subjective and down to clever marketing.

In addition, we are supposed to be getting a new High Speed Rail project to help the South-East. Aside of the fact that it won't really encourage businesses to go north and will, in truth, just extend the clogging-up of London further by helping people commute in to the capital from further afield, there seems to be no thinking from the present government that High Speed 2 and the Third Runway Debate our intrinsically linked... and that both projects could do with being handled as one big (MASSIVE!) overall project.

But the High Speed 2 Project is for another blog entry for another day...

In conclusion...

I think we have missed the boat (or, rather, plane!) on the need for a third runway.

Any 'solution' calling for new 4 kilometre-long pieces of tarmac, with all the associated clutter that comes alongside them, will come too late to really help... and will do ADDITIONAL damage on top too.

Even though the dreamy young teenager from late 1980s would disagree with me, I don't want ANY new runways in the UK...

And that young boy wouldn't have known about the Internet at that time anyway.

Who's to say what new technology the future will bring? Technology that provides us with a different approach... and solution... to all of this mess?

Zeeox

Overdue Rants

Just a quick entry to say sorry for not having created a proper entry recently!

This is not for having run out of ideas. I have sketches for at least three or four rants but just haven't found the time to sit and type them out at snail speed. I must get Dragon Voice or something!

Please watch this space (eventually) for some thoughts on...

• City versus Country living
• Heathrow and the third runway... and using Broadband more effectively
• New, inland nature reserves that 'relieve' coastal nature reserves
• The High Speed 2 Project...

All views are guaranteed to be biased, poorly researched, badly thought out... but sound in practice... and thus defendable to the hilt!

Best,
John