From Professor Adrian Demaid.
FOLLOWING Roy Travert’s urgings (JEP, 8 Oct), I made my voice heard by going to the States’ website and filling in the online questionnaire about transport and the environment.
Filing the form in was not hard, but I wondered how useful it was, because policy decisions on transport are not easy. Here are a couple of examples:
In Worcester we provided a free city-centre bus on a circular route. You could phone and find out how long you had to wait before it to reached your nearest stop. The idea was that people could come to the centre without using cars and parking. Better still, people who did not own cars or who were no longer able to drive could still come into the city. Brilliant! No disadvantages. Who could argue with that? But the service was quickly shut down, because it didn’t work. Why do you think that was?
Milton Keynes was designed as a new town around a network of grid roads, American style. At the same time an equally extensive grid of cycle routes was laid down at the same time as the trees were planted, before the buildings. Brilliant! Every environmentalist’s dream. No problem with an evolved built environment, designed from scratch. It didn’t work. The grid routes are empty. Why do you think that was?
Singapore is an interesting model for Jersey. Taxis are routinely used for shopping and commuting, as they are cheap as chips. Public transport is nothing short of wonderful. Motoring is eye-wateringly expensive. It starts with a Certificate of Entitlement that you bid for, and this qualifies you to step on an escalator of increasing expense.
As other correspondents have pointed out, public transport has to be desirable before it is chosen in preference to private transport, and before private transport is made expensive. However, a Singapore solution is not possible for Jersey.Why do you think that is?