LTP3 Consultation Issues Paper - Could Wiltshire "Vote Radical" ?

The LTP3 Consultation Issues Paper has now been published by Wiltshire Council.

Those who care about rail issues will probably be struck by how little they are mentioned. Indeed, the "Public Transport" section of the Consultation Issues Paper doesnt even mention rail once.

Cynics among you may also wonder whether some of the consultation questions have been framed to invite respondents to take a certain view. Examples of where cynics may find this to be the case:

Quotes from - WC LTP3 Consultation Issues Paper:

Question 6

Which of the approaches do you support and why? If you support the ‘Radical Approach’, how does the Council pay for some of the suggested measures (e.g. significant public transport enhancements) without damaging the local economy (e.g. by having to impose high parking charges)? Have we omitted anything significant from the three approaches?

Question 12

Given the difficulty in progressing rail freight policies and the fact that most freight movements in Wiltshire are by road, should the freight strategy be reoriented to focus more on road freight or should the rail policies be more aggressively pursued?

Question 15

Given Wiltshire’s predominantly rural nature and the need to support local businesses, do you think it is appropriate to increase demand management (e.g. parking standards and charges) and traffic management measures (e.g. onstreet parking) in Chippenham, Salisbury, Trowbridge and other large market towns to help encourage the use of sustainable transport modes?

Question 16

Should commuters and/or shoppers be particularly encouraged to use sustainable transport modes by the introduction of higher parking charges?

Question 17

With a limited budget to support public transport services, how can the Council best respond to continuing above-inflation cost increases? For instance, should funding for public transport be prioritised over other Council services (with possible adverse impacts on delivery)? Should parking charges be increased to provide financial support for public transport (with possible adverse impacts on retail centres)? Or should we accept that public transport services will have to be reduced further? If you think it should be the latter, where should these reductions be made?

The LTP3 Consultation Issues Paper comes with an associated questionnaire......

....and (before you ask) that doesnt mention rail either.

It does, however, pose an intriguing question for respondents, who are asked to choose between 3 different approaches:

THE ESTABLISHED APPROACH - Roughly translated as "Roads are great, we love roads, nobody uses public transport anyway."

THE BALANCED APPROACH - Roughly translated as "Lets see how little we can get away with on the public transport front, and pass it off as balanced."

THE RADICAL APPROACH - Roughly translated as "Good grief, we cant invest a significant amount in public transport enhancements. Vital services will collapse, our local economy will grind to a halt, and I wont be able to park my 4x4 outside the hairdressers."

Of course, several forward-thinking authorities are waking up to the fact that, far from being a ‘Radical Approach’, investing a significant amount in public transport enhancements is actually rather a good idea in economic, environmental and social terms.

In these areas, investing a significant amount in public transport enhancements has not caused vital services to collapse, has not brought the local economy to its knees, and, believe it or not, some people still park their 4x4s outside the hairdressers.

A large majority of the 276 signatories so far to the pledge for an improved TransWilts rail service come from Wiltshire. I suspect that an equally large majority of those would not consider themselves to be "radical", nor would they consider the act of signing up to be a ‘Radical Approach.’

I do, however, think that it could indicate a possible surprise for those processing the consultation results after it closes on 29th May 2009.

Will Wiltshire really "vote radical" ? We'll just have to wait and see.

Finally, a note for those who have made it this far, and are somewhat perplexed by the lack of my trademark links.

As Graham Ellis put it on the Save The Train forum:

"The LTP3 consultation link is now broken ... I have emailed Wiltshire Council to ask them to restore it as a matter of some priority, as there are links out there to it, and as it's during the consultation period the papers need to be available for people to consult."

A Day Out On FGW (01/04/2009)

Just had my first good look around on First Great Western in the Greater Bristol area for quite some time.

Pleasantly surprised by:

- Full car park at the continuing success story that is Cam & Dursley station.

- Stapleton Road, including new help points with built-in train running information screens, new floral displays, good market garden progress, new "cycle park" racks, new seating and a decent lick of paint all round.

- Mosiac at Parson Street is very effective.

- Like the look of refurbished Class 143 unit.

Not impressed by:

- Cancellation of 1706 from Bedminster, which left me having to double back to Nailsea in order to travel to Bristol Temple Meads and catch connection to Chippenham. There were significant signalling problems in the area, though.

Intrigued by:

- A Class 143 unit heading south of Salisbury at around 1034. Why & where was it heading?

Day ended with a very good Melksham Climate Friendly Group meeting. By the way, if you havent yet come across the pledge campaign for an improved TransWilts Salisbury-Swindon service, please consider visiting http://www.transwilts.org.uk/pledge.html and signing up.

Welcome To Fletcherworld

Welcome to my blog.

Its been a long time coming, and I hope you enjoy it.