How much space do we have?

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!

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

So... it is June... and I have still not posted the two blog entries I promised. Sorry about that. I know I have written and saved something for the HSR2 entry somewhere, so that must be coming soon at least (surely!). But as for the Town and Country text, mmmm. Watch this space! (But not often, as you will get bored... and sore eyes.)

HSR2 and the Town and Country debate...

A belated Happy New Year! It's only March after all.

Just to say then: I am 'planning' some more blog entries shortly, and will start with overdue opinions on both the High Speed 2 Project and then the Town and Country 'debate'.

I know this blog isn't updated regularly, or that the topics perfectly coincide with what's happening in the news... so I am sorry about that. If only 6 perfect numbers would come up on a Lucky Dip at some point though, and in which case, you can expect to find far more waffle here!

Cheers.

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

Austerity versus Conservation

The differences between words such as 'conserve' and 'preserve', 'frugal' and 'abstain' are merely down to semantics.

They exist in a rich seam of the wonderful English language that, despite such close relationships of meaning, helps provide subtle nuances of interpretation that result in them being categorised separately... and prevents them from ever being aggregated together into a singular dictonary entry.

But... in more simple languages, and indeed, if we employed more plain talking in our own everyday speech and correspondance, they do effectively mean the same thing. And no doubt such words would have been easily targetted in the first edition of the Newspeak Dictionary from Orwell's '1984'.

N.B. I am not proposing that we start thinning down the dictionary for this blog entry by the way!

Anyway, so: to be careful with the way one uses money or careful with the way how one looks after the 'environment' is surely connected?

To continue the dictionary angle for one final paragraph, the word 'environment' is simply defined in some books as 'surroundings' or 'atmosphere' (and in others, as 'the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates')... so surely, if you don't help look after your own surroundings, you put yourself in big trouble, regardless of how solvent you are?

There are certain situations, regardless of happiness, that money cannot not buy you out of.

----

Nowadays, in terms of politics and the media, we tend to capitalise the word and only use it in conjunction with all things 'Green'... and especially alongside the other common word and term: 'conservation'.

As a result, and as these times that we find ourselves in are, without a doubt, 'hard', we can then find it easier to dismiss them in terms of their importance... as we have to consider the more pressing financial matters at hand.

Many people think that the ideology of Green politics at this moment in time, is a luxury we can simply not afford to apply to our everyday concerns.

However, it makes sense to be careful with natural resources if we wish to also be careful with what finances we have left. And if our future governments, regardless of their political leanings, were aware of this (or worked harder to achieve it), then surely it would be the closest one could be to being conservative... with a small 'c'? The clue is in the title!

Why, in this time when all the world's economies are suffering, do the leaders of the richer western powers, such as in my home country, not take a lead and be genuinely more frugal and forward thinking at the same time? Anticipating the inevitable problems we will face in the future is a good thing as we can then help prepare to deal with them more effectively now rather than later!

Making cuts to various budgets is fine... but money is just an abstract concept. It literally doesn't grow on trees!
 
When people are finding it hard to make ends meet, all they are interested in, quite rightly, is in ensuring financial security for themselves, their family and their business.

But... that is why we have governments. They can think of the bigger picture and be less selfish in order to help with the greater good. What could be better than if we had a government that openly admitted that times are always going to get tougher in the future, not better, and that pressure on our resources (financial and physical) is going to increase as we continue to overpopulate this world and use up those physical materials that have a finite lifepsan and can never be replaced?

Regarding energy, not only can we/must we heavily invest what spare cash we have left into
alternative/renewable energies such as anaerobic digestion, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, tidal and wind power, but we must also avoid thinking we have cheap and easy short term get-out clauses in things like 'fraccing' (aka: hydraulic fracturing) or imported natural shale gas.

In addition, we must also support the subsidary industries and businesses that spin-off such concepts as: cogeneration, energy efficiency, green building, microgeneration, passive solar and the 'Organic Rankine cycle'.

If you asked the average person on the street if they would be happy if their future energy bills were to be reduced by, say, 75%, or, indeed, that they might even get money back from selling on the excess energy that they create, then surely they would be saying: 'of course!' and then: 'who do I vote for that offers that?'

If all our new houses were carbon neutral, and older houses re-fitted as to be more energy efficient, not only would we have less overheads, but we would have more jobs.

It has been proved many a time that large-scale house building is the best method of re-igniting a slumped national economy... so why don't we do it with these environmental'/'conservation'/'sustainable' (WHATEVER!!!) concepts in mind from the off? It's a 'no-brainer' as far as I'm concerned.

If we were ever to do this, then not only are we more genuinely 'austere' by definition, but we would also safeguard our economy, build the hundreds of thousands of houses we desperately need... and create many new jobs in new, innovative industries.

We then lead the world by example, and show everyone how it can be done... and thus, eventually, the whole planet benefits.

Looking after our 'cash under the mattress' AND our natural resources CAN be done at the same time... and by being a bit more sensible and temperant for the good of all will not only help our economy right now... but will also reduce the hardships faced by our progeny in the future.

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