PowerSwitch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds ... 242248.stm
I note scheme will be completed in 2011 and wonder whether it will 'deliver a robust transport solution for 30+ years' (typically the minimum criteria to justify such projects)?

We need to start with challenging air flight predict and provide and go on to the rest.

When you say ?challenging air flight predict ? do you also have alternatives in mind? It?s ok to point out problems but to move forward we need also to look at alternatives. Anybody know what the airlines planes are for the future?

How about man powered flight?

Hmm .. going to be a long and wet flight to the US

I still think airships should be given serious consideration

johnhemming wrote:We need to start with challenging air flight predict and provide and go on to the rest.

I agree but, to quote John Westwood, energy consultant who addressed the Offshore Europe 2005 conference in Aberdeen last week re peak oil, 'what we don't have is time'.

Currently there are 2 major rail routes from London which still lack electrified infrastructure - Paddington to Bristol/ Cardiff/Plymouth and St Pancras to Derby/Nottingham/Sheffield. The southern part of the St Pancras to Derby route runs parallel to section of the M1 being upgraded. Rail produces substantial energy savings v road; using fully loaded freight trains over substantial distances these energy savings can amount to 5 to 10 fold v trucking. Electrification provides yet more energy savings via use of regenerate, as opposed to friction, braking and critically allows a variety of energy sources to be used - coal, gas, NP and renewables as opposed to road's current 98% oil dependency.

The current oil situation can only worsen; even if peak were postponed to 2015 supply cannot grow enough to keep up with rising demand (3.7% demand growth for past 12 months). Furthermore there are clear indications that light sweet crude has already peaked. More big increases in the cost of crude lie ahead...and will bite at a time when UK imports are about to increase massively due to gas (and shortly oil) self sufficiency being lost and deficit will increase inexorably year on year.

Capital cost of this road scheme would allow a substantial start to be made to rail electrification on the St Pancras route north of Bedford. If we simply wait until the effects of peaking really show up in ernest there will be less capital funds to persue such projects and, not least, enforced switching to rail in a hurry will have occurred thus making necessary route closures to persue electrication more problematic.

These road schemes are extremely short sighted in view of the energy situation as well as allowing transport's share of CO2 emissions to grow unchecked. The section of the M1 in question already has 3 lanes, surely there is an opportunity for more journeys to be staggered and private vehicles to be shared rather than some 80% continuing to have just a single occupant at peak hours which typically happens now. I was suspect that by 2020 the route could more than suffice with 2 lanes, let alone 4!

This is in my neck of the woods (junction 13 is one of MK's junctions). With current traffic levels, such enlargement would be beneficial (I don't know who designed junction 13, but they did a terrible job). However, current traffic levels look unlikely to be sustainable.

Is there anyone who I could contact to make this point? Is it worth contacting the local MP - who says, incidently, that he will sign EDM 419 when he returns to Westminster in October?


Peter.

The point I am making about politics is that it is changing direction that people should work for rather than the final destination.

johnhemming wrote:The point I am making about politics is that it is changing direction that people should work for rather than the final destination.

Hmm ? I think that one needs some clarification. Isn?t don?t you work for changing direction so that you can to a final destination? If so, then don?t you need to work on your final destination before you change direction?

Personally, I work by setting a goal then working out how to get there.

isenhand wrote:

johnhemming wrote:The point I am making about politics is that it is changing direction that people should work for rather than the final destination.

Hmm ? I think that one needs some clarification. Isn?t don?t you work for changing direction so that you can to a final destination? If so, then don?t you need to work on your final destination before you change direction?

Personally, I work by setting a goal then working out how to get there.

There is no final destination. The only constant is change itself. To think that there is a final destination is the mistake that idiots like Francis Fukuyama (The End of History) make. I bet he's feelling pretty silly now.

All we can do is constantly re-evaluate and try to make the best decisions we can in the light of current knowledge.

For instance, with the knowledge that oil is a finite resource does it make sense to subsidise the production of gas guzzling SUVs or smaller more energy efficient vehicles, and the development of alternative / renewable energy sources? Unless you are the American government, thats a no-brainer.

There is no 'final destination' involved. As predictions of the future are almost always wrong. All we can do is play it by ear and try to stay flexible and undogmatic. The ability to admit that you've got it wrong and change direction is a huge strength, and an inablity to do that the major achilles heel of the conviction politician. They always end up smashing into the wall of reality, eventually.

The only final destination (for an individual or a society) is death - all else is change, growth or decay.

Actually, politicians often change direction. How often have you read in the paper about a 'u-turn' on this or that? The problem is that the media makes too much of a big thing of it.

From a politician's point of view, they held their previous conviction on the basis of the information that was available to them at the time. As they learn more, so their view may change/evolve. This is the same for any of us. There is not even, really, a need to admit one was wrong: one simply didn't have the same information or experience previously, therefore one's view was different.

The problem for the politician is that any change in view or policy is greeted with derision in the media. That derision can easily translate into a lack of confidence on the part of voters. That, in turn, can mess up the politicians whole operation - if he or she fails to retain office and is therefore unable to do something useful with the knowledge that has been aquired.

In short, being a politician is a nightmare. With the media, you're always wrong, - even when you're right. And ordinary people expect you to be perfect, as opposed to human.