The future Brighton: Motor City or Green City?

Pic: sustainablecitiesnet.com

City launches public consultation over Local Transport Plan
Brighton & Hove has launched a public consultation to discuss the future of transport. It seems to avoid asking the crucial question: should we to prioritise sustainable transport or not?

Most people say they would would prefer to use fast public transport, but private motor car is simply safer and easier to use in Brighton & Hove. Our streets are clogged with polluting cars, while public transport takes way too long and cycling is unsafe on many routes. We are stuck thinking there is no way ahead. Yet some European cities have shown there is a different way.

We need a policy decision to change things for the better, and we now have the chance. On October 29, the City Council opened a public consultation to discuss its forthcoming "Local Transport Plan". This will close on December 10. The Plan is the strategy document that will define how planners will develop infrastructure for roads, buses, cycling, rail and other ways of getting about for the coming decades.

Sitting on the Fence: Green City or Motor City?
I answered the on-line Plan consultation questionnaire. I found it frustrating. I mean, who needs to be asked: "Should we create safe and attractive streets and places that everyone can enjoy?" Surely everyone's the answer to that is: "Yes!"

The real question that needs to be asked is: "Do you want sustainable transport? Should Brighton & Hove to be a Motor City or a Green City?"

The City needs to make a fundamental decision: should the Plan give priority to sustainable transport, as has been done in other cities? My opinion is we do not want to continue to prioritise motor transport, for reasons of air pollution, personal fitness and safety, let alone climate control and global warming.

We need a bold policy decision to rearrange transport priorities resulting in fast public transport and safe cycling. At present, buses take over an hour to travel a few miles from one end of the city to the other. Cycle routes are crowded out by traffic and children have to cycle to school on the pavement. This needs to change. Priority needs to be given to sustainable transport. This is not rocket science. Look at any number of cities in Germany, Netherlands, Denmark. Cycling is an important component, but the key is fast, reliable public transport.

At present people jump into their cars to make short journeys to the shops, beach, school. When people find their car is less convenient, they will use fast buses, or safe, fast, cycle routes. We can develop tailor made solutions for our city - buses or trams for steep hills, beachfront rail, etc. At this stage, planning is more the key than money, but in later stages investment in pubic transport may help revive the city economy.

But policy half measures and lip service to the vision of sustainable transport are strangling public transport in Brighton at present.

Brighton's claim to being a city of excellent cycling and public transport: lip service
Take a look at Old Shoreham Road by Hove Park during the rush hour. School kids struggling to cycle along "pedestrian only" foot paths while aggressive drivers push and shove their cars along the narrow roadway. Public transport is at a standstill. It takes an hour by bus to travel the few miles from Aldrington to Patcham. Fifteen minutes by car. The solution seems obvious. If everyone uses cycles or public transport, it will be safe and fast to get to work on the bus or bike.

The council is effectively controlled by a Tory minority, and they are pro-motor car. The 2009 public consultation about the Old Shoreham Road Cycle Lane showed the public wanted a cycle lane, but the public also warned the scheme as planned was unsafe. The Council was suggesting that 7,000 school-kids would use the Cycle Lane to get to school, but the lane was simply lines painted on the road amid heavy traffic. Traffic simply ignores these painted lines in most other parts of the city. The public wanted the scheme improved to include protected cycle lanes. This would mean reducing room for motor cars. Cars would have to use the bypass, taking longer to get about the city. Rather than improve the scheme, the Council scrapped it.

You only have to read the text below, from an academic paper, to see why Old Shoreham Road (OSR) scheme could not have succeeded: "separate cycling facilities along heavily travelled roads and at intersections" are needed. The paper was from 2007. So why did Brighton planners put together a scheme that would fail because of safety? Was it planned to fail, by a Tory controlled council who need to show lip service to sustainability but don't really believe in it?

Local Transport Plan: opportunity for a real sustainable transport plan
Brighton & Hove should become the city of excellent public transport and safe cycling that it claims to be. Others have blazed the trail for us. The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany have made public transport fast - the route of choice - and cycling is a safe, convenient and practical way to get around their cities. The key to achieving high levels of cycling appears to be the provision of separate cycling facilities along heavily travelled roads and at intersections, combined with traffic calming of most residential neighbourhoods. Extensive cycling rights of way in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany are complemented by ample bike parking, full integration with public transport, comprehensive traffic education and training of both cyclists and motorists, and a wide range of promotional events intended to generate enthusiasm and wide public support for cycling. In addition to their many pro-bike policies and programmes, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany make driving expensive as well as inconvenient in central cities through a host of taxes and restrictions on car ownership, use and parking. Moreover, strict land-use policies foster compact, mixed-use developments that generate shorter and thus more bikeable trips. It is the coordinated implementation of this multi-faceted, mutually reinforcing set of policies that best explains the success of these three countries in promoting cycling. Compare with the marginal status of cycling in the UK and the USA, where only about 1% of trips are by bike.

Sounds to good to be true? I didn't make it up. The paragraph is paraphrased from a 2007 academic paper called "Making cycling irresistible". You can download the paper from
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a790578015~tab=content

Sustainable transport could become a flagship of policy in Brighton if the council had the vision or the will. Will it alienate motor car users? I think most of them would welcome viable alternatives to car transport, especially if it is promoted properly. Will it cost money? Not necessarily - significant engineering work might be needed on schemes like OSR, but mostly it is a matter of road use policy and planning.

Note: the Local Transport Plan
Brighton & Hove City Council's new Local Transport Plan (LTP) will set out how it proposes to maintain and improve the city’s transport network. It will outline priorities for transport up to 2026 and how to achieve them. Producing an LTP is a legal requirement and must be completed by April 2011.
The plan will include a 15-year, long-term transport strategy and a short term, three-year delivery plan of specific schemes. Brighton & Hove’s plan will be supporting the five national transport goals: supporting economic growth; tackling climate change; promoting equality of opportunity; contributing to better safety, security and health; and improving quality of life.
The Public Consultation was opened 29 October and closes 10 December 2010.
For more information, and to complete the questionaire, go to: More on the Local Transport Plan

Jack's shamanic symbols

I made a new post for Jack's Shamanic Art blog. His latest work uses silver, copper and agate to interpret shamanic ritual. Will do more with the video when I get time. For the moment it uses a slide show, imported into iMovie and slowed down.
Impressive work - click here to see it.

Geldof should tell the whole African story

Reality of Ethiopian civil war

On 3 November, the BBC World Service apologised to Bob Geldof for implying that Band Aid money might have been diverted to buy weapons. In my opinion, the apology obscures a kernel of truth that would promote positive debate on the African crisis.

Bob Geldof should own up to the problems of distributing aid money in Africa. Transparency and an accurate portrayal of what is really happening are needed if we can hope to solve the problems. Glossing over the truth preserves a romantic view of the relationship between Africa and Europe that may actually perpetuate bad governments.

The BBC apologised for a series of reports claiming money raised by Live Aid to fight famine in Ethiopia was spent on weapons, saying it had no evidence. The claims prompted a complaint from Band Aid Trustees including Bob Geldof.

An edition of Assignment, broadcast on the World Service last March, initially reported (unspecified) aid money had been diverted by a rebel group to buy guns. That story was followed up online and on programmes including From Our Own Correspondent and the BBC News which went one step further and named Live Aid and Band Aid as the source of the misdirected funds - although they had no further evidence.

The BBC's additional reporting misrepresented the original story by identifying Band Aid. That is a great pity, because the World Service made an important point: cash and other aid provided to African governments, or to opponents of these governments who are involved in armed struggle, inevitably supports arms and war, directly or indirectly. Bob Geldof didn't deny Band Aid supported armed rebel controlled organisations. He simply says the BBC can't prove the money was spent on arms.

Look what happened: the people who were funded by Live Aid and others went on to win the war in Ethiopia, and are now becoming tyrants themselves. This message is valuable: chucking money at starving Africa isn't solving the problem. Famine relief must happen (maybe better managed and administered than Live Aid) but solving the problem involves looking truthfully at it, not glossing over it as Bob Geldof does in dealing with the BBC article.

Bob Geldof says there is no evidence Live Aid money went to fund arms. Because of British libel laws, the BBC has to give in to him because they cannot definitively prove the truth of their claims in court, even though people who worked in Live Aid say it is inevitable that some money was diverted. So the kernel of truth has been obscured: when we support one faction in a civil war, we should take responsibility for the consequences.

Africa has big problems including colonial legacy, African dictators and European arms traders. Live Aid and Live 8 are wasted opportunities, because the media extravaganza should be focussed on revealing the truth about Africa, not wallowing in romantic imagery of gallant Europeans saving starving Africans. If Bob Geldof focussed on revealing the power struggles that are behind destabilised Africa, we would see a disturbing picture of big business and arms dealers and ruthless African dictators taking power by force of arms for the sake of controlling mineral reserves. International business, including business controlled by Europeans, benefits from and interferes in this process. Wars are started and millions die. It is dangerously simplistic to blame the problems on drought or on capitalism as Geldof seems to do. In doing so, he provides cover for the criminal rape of Africa to continue. I hope in future he will focus attention on the reality of African government, e.g. in Ethiopia, Burundi, Rwanda, and DRC, and provide more intelligent analysis than he has done so far, lest he be seen as contributing to a cover-up.

Well done to World Service for trying to tackle this issue, shame to BBC for misrepresenting the original reporting in such a way as to render it libellous, and to Geldof for failing to tell us the whole story. Why do they do that?

Notes
1. The apology broadcast on the World Service said: "Following a complaint from the Band Aid Trust, the BBC has investigated the programme. The investigation has concluded that the programme's evidence did not relate to money raised by Band Aid and Live Aid. However, the programme gave the impression that large amounts of Band Aid and Live Aid money had been diverted. The BBC wishes to apologise unreservedly to the Band Aid Trust for this misleading and unfair impression. The BBC also wishes to apologise unreservedly to the Band Aid Trust for a number of reports on television, radio and online which went further than the programme itself in stating that millions of pounds raised by Band Aid and Live Aid had been diverted to buy arms. The BBC had no evidence for these statements, and they shouldn't have been broadcast." The corporation also apologised to Geldof after it "unfairly" said he refused to comment on the story because it was too sensitive.

2. According to Wikipedia: Aregawi Berhe, a high-ranking TPLF (rebel) commander living in exile in The Netherlands, told German radio Deutsche Welle that "the rebel movement, TPFL, had received the money under false pretences – through its development arm, the so-called 'Aid Association of Tigray' (MARET). But MARET belonged to the party. So after the aid from donors and aid charities was collected, it was made available through the budget of the party's central committee – for logistics and financing of the resistance."
Wikipedia on TPLF

Shamanic art: Sesothu initiation ceremony

Today I was asked to set up a blog for a friend who wants to promote his exhibition of shamanic art - paintings he made of his experiences at Sesothu initiation ceremonies in South Africa. This is the result: http://shamanicjack.blogspot.com/