…Or Gatwick Airport’s staff bus???

Call me bitter but this seems an awful lot of money and disruption for Gatwick to shuttle their staff about! I expect that no one has noticed that a lot of Gatwick workers work shifts? Will there be a Fastway Bus available to take someone home at 4 am?

No.

I love Wikipedia. Just found this on Fastway if you are unfamiliar with what it’s all about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawley_Fastway

It will be interesting to see if the Fastway bus route has any impact on traffic, good or bad - it’s certainly bad at the moment with all the disruption of building it.

Locally to me, the Fastway model is causing bad feelings as everyone that I have spoken to is sceptical about whether people will actually use it or not. I doubt it will make one iota of difference. In Horley, the bus is always empty - I can’t see it suddenly getting full!

If people DO start to use the bus more - are the Government going to impose a bus congestion charge as they are talking about with trains? I haven’t heard anything so ridiculous in ages! It shows how out of touch the powers that be are. They must think that we don’t notice the irony of this latest proposed congestion charge.

4.Climate Change
Issue
We welcome the inclusion of climate change as a cross cutting issue, however there is no adequate policy to follow this through. References to climate change are weak and do not adequately reflect the IRF commitments for mitigation. Climate change should be recognised as the single biggest threat to people and wildlife in the SE; there must be a clear policy commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Found this on the http://www.sefs.org.uk/ site.

They raise some very interesting points and have some good recommendations for the future. Especially this part!

2.Economic Growth
Issue
We support the stated commitment that economic development will be sustainable and the recognition that ‘more of the same’ is not acceptable. However it is clear that the goal of sustainable development is constantly being undermined by the pursuit of economic growth, regardless of social and environmental consequences. We therefore question the sustainability of the SE Plan adopting an annual growth rate of 3% GVA. The SE currently has a higher economic growth rate than any other region in the UK and it is widely recognised that this level of growth is pushing against – and in some instances exceeding – environmental capacity regionally and globally.

http://southeast.greenparty.org.uk/news.html#SEPlan says:

A lack of urgency with regard to climate change. We need to achieve cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of over 85% by 2050 to avert major changes in global climatic conditions. We note that the SE is likely to be exposed to the most serious effects of climate change in the UK. Since the draft plan also notes this, we are concerned by the lack of adequate measures to address this problem especially with regard to surface transportation, aviation expansion and building standards. We note that the Institute for Public Policy Research calculates road traffic will be up 25% by 2015 in the SE, water use up 15% and air pollution by 7.5%.

They go on to list further reasons for opposing the South East Plan mainly criticising infrastructure and resources along with energy conservation. It looks like they don’t trust all the promises that are being made with regards to the South East Plan.

There is no doubt that many of the climate change scenarios are extremely challenging to our flood defence role. Southern Region is dominated by its coastline. Climate change will make it extremely difficult to maintain standards of defence against both flooding and erosion.

-Gary Lane, Regional Water Manager, Environment Agency, Southern Region.

The South East avoided the famous Easter Floods in 1998 but this is no reason for complacency. Climate change will mean more winter rainfall, wetter soils in winter and a greater risk of extreme flooding.

(no source)

Doing nothing is not an option. You may doubt some of the predictions and their likely impacts, but I suggest that a sensible analysis of the risks does not allow us to sit back and wait.

Peter Ewins, Chief Executive, The Met. Office. From a lecture given to The Royal Academy of Engineering, January 1999.

I wonder how much worse it would be if a large percentage of land were concreted over in the South East Plan?

Jez.

“The South East Plan should send a message to Government that the South East, as a region, is genuinely committed to sustainable growth. Otherwise we provide them with an excuse for not investing in our people and infrastructure. This investment is essential to provide an environment in which businesses in the South East can remain globally competitive and people can continue to enjoy a high quality of life.”

Quoted from http://www.brightonbusiness.co.uk/htm/ni20050308.756436.htm

I don’t think that sustainable growth is an issue - undoubtedly, everyone wants the best for their area, schools, hostpitals, transport etc… But, do people want it at the expense of sacrificing the local countryside of the place they have chosen to live in? Is something as ill thought out as fastway bus routes going to appease the population of the south east? I don’t think it will.

Wouldn’t growth be better suited to somewhere with less industry and jobs? Somewhere that could really use such an investment?

Q8. There are a number of options under consideration for the total number of homes that should be built in the South East each year. Which one of the following options would you be most likely to support?

The rate we have been actually building over the past five years - about 25,500 each year giving the South East 510,000 over 20 years 21%

Aiming to increase this by a small amount - to about 28,000 each year giving the South East 560,000 over 20 years 21%

Aiming to increase this by a larger amount – to about 32,000 each year giving the South East 640,000 over 20 years 8%

Aim to increase this further 3%

Or build at a lower rate than we have been over the past five years 42%

Don’t know 6%

Read the full questionnaire results http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2005/SEC%20-%20Mar%2005/SEC-plan-march05.asp

London’s problems of living and travelling are addressed by ever-higher rates of investment and by transferring most of the problems beyond its boundaries. The larger towns of the South East survive by the rebuilding of those whose character is already lost, and by rigorous restraint by those which retain their self-respect. The latter export their problems and costs but the countryside and its villages cannot deflect the problems of others as their local plans provide no protection. The external pressures which degrade and destroy the fragile fabric of community are beyond control.

By Sir Alan Muir Wood, FRS, FREng

Excerpt from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1563662,00.html

Questionnaire results

People attending the local consultation meetings were also asked to complete a short survey with questions selected to reflect those being asked by the South East Counties in their ICM telephone poll and by SEERA in the ‘Your Shout’ leaflet. Key results are that:

• 91% believe it is ‘very important’ that new development should only be allowed when it is certain that the additional infrastructure and services needed to support it will be provided. A further 7% believe this to be ‘quite important’.

• 85% think that transport improvements, particularly to major road and rail services, are ‘very important’ to the county’s future economic prosperity and growth. A further 9% think such improvements are ‘quite important’.

• Nearly two-thirds (64%) consider that the quality of the local environment should be protected at all costs, even if this means that some needs for housing and jobs will not be met. Just over one quarter (27%) would give greater priority to meeting local needs for homes and jobs even if this means some environmental loss in some areas.

• Only around 10% believe there is a lot of scope for further development on either previously developed land or greenfield sites in the county. About half believe there to be hardly any scope at all.

• 51% support an overall level of future housing provision across the South East that is lower than SEERA’s lowest option of 25,500 homes per year, while another 19% would support that level of development (i.e. the annual average actually achieved over the last five years) continuing. Just 4% are in favour of making provision for 32,000 new homes per year, SEERA’s highest consultation option.

• 70% would support a 10-20% reduction in future housing provision along the whole of the Sussex Coast (from Chichester to Rye) from the existing average development rate of around 3,000 homes per year.

• Just under half (46%) would also support a 25% reduction in housing development in the rest of East Sussex from the current average development rate of around 400 homes per year.

A friend was telling me about the deal that the Fastway people made with the County Council people in which money was lent to the Fastway people to keep Fastway on track in the Horley area - BEFORE the Masterplan was ever agreed upon. It just shows you how democracy truly works. Decisions like the Horley Master Plan are made without the general public having any say at all. Any notion that we do have a say is just a facade.

Anyway, I have drifted from the point I was going to make.

On searching Google for information about the said underhandedness above, I note that all the results in the top 10 on Google.co.uk search for “fastway horley money” (without the quotes) throw up eight results in .PDF format (Portable Document Format) and the last one being this site (written in honest to goodness html and plain text). I have noticed government sites doing this more and more. I can only assume that it’s because it’s more difficult for the often controversial information enclosed in the PDF file is more difficult to propagate around the web and less people are likely to view it (and complain about it).

However, google also caches the page as some weird form of HTML - I have no idea how it works and the sentences are only selectable as single lines (this may impair search ability also). If anyone knows how this works, please tell me.

Anyway, I finally found it - here are some excerpts:-

The cost of extending Fastway from West Sussex into Surrey was originally to be funded by contributions from developers as part of the Horley Master Plan but with proposed developments delayed the County Council will guarantee approximately £1 million to keep the project on schedule. The council will recoup the money later when the Horley Master Plan gets underway.

11th December 2003 the document is dated. It’s no wonder that the Horley Master Plan was pushed through in the face of fierce opposition the way that it was.

The document goes on to say:-

“It means that the people of Horley can look forward to a state-of-the-art transport service that is frequent, efficient and reliable and one that offers a real alternative to the private car. With around a third of Gatwick’s employees living in the Crawley/Horley area Fastway will be a very welcome amenity for the Horley area.”

I for one will be very interested to know whether the Fastway bus will run 24/7 to reflect the shift patterns of the third of Gatwick’s employees living in the area? Or is it just another waste of money that no one will use or is unsuitable for their work patterns?