25 March 2002
Desperate bid to keep us out of driving seat
I see that Norfolk County Council’s exciting Local Transport Plan aims to give public transport advantages over the car in terms of journey time, quality and convenience. If it wants something easier to go for first, it might try draining the North Sea.
I use public transport frequently, although not for commuting. A few days ago I travelled by train to Thetford and back (well, someone has to do it).
It was a cold morning, but the train was at the platform when I arrived 15 minutes early; so I anticipated warming up inside. Unfortunately the train was locked. About 50 passengers had to shiver on the platform until the crew arrived with about four minutes to spare – and even then took their time getting settled before opening the doors. I am sure there is some health and safety regulation that demands this.
On my return journey from Thetford I was seven minutes early for the 11.52. An electronic monitor, however, informed me that the train was delayed – sorry – and would not arrive until 12.06; so to avoid shivering on another platform, I went for a fairly brisk walk. Hard to believe, but there it is. Returning about 10 minutes later, I saw my train pulling out – at 11.55 – leaving me an hour to kill in Thetford.
The only way to make a car less attractive than this would be to put obstacles in the road and introduce limits well below optimum speed, resulting in congestion and pollution. This would make life worse for everyone and so would have to be rejected unless – hang on, that’s exactly what’s happening. And of course it’s still not working.
This leaves us with the last, ludicrous option of disrupting road traffic arbitrarily on some idiotic pretext that doesn’t fool anyone. Amazingly, this too is happening.
Last week, massive disruption was caused to rush-hour traffic on the A47 for the sole purpose of asking drivers where they were going. Why anyone should think that a driver held up pointlessly for the previous half-hour will give an honest answer to such a question is beyond me. But apparently it is a government requirement for councils to do this if they want money – which for some reason doesn’t surprise me at all. So the bizarre activity will continue, presumably until a driver hits someone, or maybe beyond.
But never mind, the council is apologising in advance, and it’s only going to cost you and me over £200,000.
What’s really frightening is that this is not even a sinister plot. It’s just the usual bungling.
New planning twist
![[Cartoon] New planning twist](/articles/images/020325Planning.jpg)
Many readers of this page, I know, like to stand around in the city – waiting, perhaps, for someone to build another bridge across the Wensum, or a bus station of some kind. In such a state, a person might easily find himself reading a planning application.
Since time immemorial – even before Richard Dawkins was created – these have been fixed to Norwich lamp-posts for the delectation of passers-by. Unhappily, things are changing.
Instead of being mounted on a board for easy reading, they are now wrapped round the nearest pole. Obviously this makes them much harder to read, and I suspect the influence of the great crested newts that infest all corridors of power. Such amphibians are used to twisting themselves – and everyone else – into ever-tightening contortions, particularly over planning matters.
Are they trying to keep something from people with normal necks? We should be told.
Contamination risk unforeseen as bug strikes
The hindsight bug has struck again.
Widespread criticism of the ill-judged parking meter scheme in Norwich has meant that changes costing £16,500 are called for, and Norwich Highways Agency committee chairman Leslie Mogford has been tragically struck down.
“In hindsight we could have made it work better,” he said. “But hindsight is a wonderful thing.”
In what way is hindsight a wonderful thing? Well, for one thing it is a wonderful device for deflecting legitimate criticism. But it’s wearing a bit thin.
Meanwhile parking meter experts RTA Associates must be a trifle red-faced. In 2000 they estimated the monthly income would be £76,000. It turned out to be £38,000, which is not particularly adjacent. Could this be another case of a council getting expensive experts to make a prediction that its own staff could have done for comparatively nothing – and scarcely less accurately? Hindsight again, no doubt.
Health officials are already closing East Anglian borders to prevent the plague spreading. Helicopters are even now spraying council offices and other areas of risk. No one is safe.
Wrong blame for bedlessness
In writing last time about the reluctance of managements generally to provide plenty, going for a bare minimum instead, I wrongly blamed the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust for the shortage of beds at its brave new building.
In fact the trust has always wanted more beds, but the Norfolk Health Authority, which is responsible for allocating cash from a single government pot to hospitals and primary care trusts, consistently went for a minimum figure. The difference is quite substantial – 701 instead of 910 – and it was inevitable that the hospital would have far fewer beds than it wanted.
The National Beds Inquiry, which is a countrywide NHS review, regards 83 per cent occupancy of beds as the ideal – giving sufficient leeway to deal with emergencies. The percentage at the new hospital is a less than reassuring 97 per cent.
As it happens, the Norfolk Health Authority is about to disappear off the face off the earth, to be replaced by a Strategic Health Authority covering a much wider area. Will this cash-wielding body take a more enlightened view, or is it simply old men with new hats? I shall not be holding my breath.