13 June 2005
Going over the top in the transport war
There are no winners in the transport battle: just miles of trenches containing grim-faced soldiers in for a long slog, ready to go over the top at the slightest provocation. Such is the animosity that even a football match in no-man’s land seems out of the question.
Sometimes ground that has been fought over, won and lost has to be fought over again. Park-and-ride, for instance. This was meant to keep cars out of cities, and it did: but what was the cost?
Bang! More buses in cities, for a start – and buses are bigger and dirtier than cars. Bang, bang! Some said park-and-ride encouraged greater car use, because people who had been taking a long, meandering bus ride from their home town into the city would find it more convenient to drive directly to the fringe and get a quick-fix ride in.
Bang, bang, bang! Others realised that there was huge scope for cashing in, once people had got used to park-and-ride and abandoned the alternatives.
But most people in and around Norwich grew to accept the jolly, bright-coloured teletubby buses, and many found them useful. There was a temporary ceasefire.
Now someone has noticed that these huge car parks on the edge of the city actually look pretty ugly, rather like those dreary caravan parks west of Cromer and Lowestoft’s grey industrial coastline. Bang! The Campaign to Protect Rural England is concerned that countryside is being eaten up and green belts are disappearing.
One is tempted to ask what they expected from a scheme that required people to leave their cars outside cities? Did they expect them to magically disappear? Or is this yet another case of environmentalists demanding something without working out the obvious implications?
During the early exchanges someone who saw rather more clearly than most suggested that park-and-walk would be a better idea, with smaller car parks closer to the city centre But this was brushed aside, and car parks that would have fit the bill were closed. At the same time the Castle Mall was built, encouraging drivers into the very heart of the city, and now Chapelfield will do the same. It’s all a bit of a mess, rather like the first world war. Does anyone know what’s going on?
Not the road sign we really wanted
The problem with most of our road signs is not that they’re unnecessary, but that they’re boring.
A friend on holiday in Australia was delighted when she came upon a sign that read “This is not the road to Crystal Bay” and found that indeed, it wasn’t. I feel sure that East Anglia could benefit from that kind of approach.
“This is not the road to Hemsby” is an obvious winner, although environmentalists might object that it would attract new traffic. Readers may want to suggest other possibilities, though I hesitate to invite this, as the response when I asked for film titles that could be used by Norwich City Council was rather lacking in imagination.
Not as lacking in imagination, though, as Norfolk County Council’s well-worn “Byway”, designed to confuse rural motorists into giving up trying to find any small village not on an A-road. They could replace that with “This is not the road to Nutwood, and if it was we wouldn’t tell you, so there. In fact it may not be a road at all”.
And if you think motorists wouldn’t have time to read all that as they flash past at up to 25mph, try reading one of those yellow rectangles that tell you “This road will be closed for 35 essential weeks from June 23 except alternate Sundays from 2pm till 4.30am, even when there are no workmen here, so you’ll have to go 20 miles out of your way but it serves you right because you’re driving a car”.
Of course, not being boring isn’t everything.
Want to speak to the police? Sorry, long number
Norfolk police are anxious that we should not dial 999 unless there is a real emergency, and in case we are not clear what a real emergency is, they have explained that it is “a crime happening now or someone in immediate danger”. Helpfully they give examples of things that are not emergencies, like “a noisy gang of teenagers outside”. This probably fails their test on both counts, but you can’t blame them for trying to stop us hassling them. After all, who wants to rush out and confront a crowd of yobs when you could be taking non-urgent phone calls?
Finding a dead body is presumably not an emergency either, which is bad news for Morse, Frost, Holmes, Creek, Marple, Dixon and Dalgliesh, among many others. It is understood that Michael Buerk is planning a TV programme called 0845 456 4567 which, in case you had neglected to stick it to your phone, is the Norfolk police number for non-emergencies.
For those not mathematically inclined, I can reveal that this is very nearly four times as long as 999. Perhaps they think we’ll give up in the middle.
Newts reject referendum for Erpingham
Asked whether they planned a referendum in Erpingham on the controversial scheme to forge a super-state out of the disparate communities of North Norfolk, a consortium of great crested newts said last night that this would not happen, because the super-state idea had been rejected by both Cromer and Sheringham.
But this move was attacked by local legend Henry (Fred) “Shrimp” Houseago, 106, who said the people of Erpingham had a right to be heard, and in any case he did not trust the newts, who would probably bring the super-state in by the back door, side window or cellar.
A newt spokesamphibian said this was not their intention, though there were elements of the super-state that would sit very well in Erpingham, and these should not be “thrown out with the bathwater”. Demands that Erpingham should be allowed to vote were dismissed by the newts, who are believed to be forging an alliance with the Liberal Democrats. “Of course, if it’s pretty certain the villagers would vote yes, then we would certainly have a referendum,” they added. “We call it the Blair approach.”