COUNCIL OPINION

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
 

NO-GO AREA FOR CARS
Derby will soon be a no-go area for cars when the Eagle Centre is completed, with traffic lights and islands all on top of each other. We cannot plan and build any project without traffic lights and islands. How many years have we been trying to build the Eagle Centre, and how much money have we wasted on so-called improvements in that time? The Eagle Centre should never have been built in that area. We had the space to build everything required to put Derby on the map with Pride Park, shopping mall, theatre, ice-rink, athletic stadium, bus station, park-and-ride, a green area and a massive free car park.

The possibilities were endless for attracting top shows, top artists and sports people, all of which would have generated money for Derby. We also had water to attract visitors. A shopping village, a green area for wildlife or a wildlife park, boat trips, here too were possibilities to do something with space. Other cities and towns that have water have built tourist attractions. Other cities and towns have built shopping malls away from their centres, having found the right space and built from scratch. They do not have to charge for car parking, and block city and town centres with traffic.

They still have shops in the centre if one wants to shop and visit. What will happen to our shops in the centre? Will all shops have to close because of the Eagle Centre? Will it be a ghost city because of congestion charges also coming into the equation? The Government and the council have been talking about global warming, pollution, and congestion for nearly 10 years. All they can come up with to combat the problem is to attack the motorist with measures that include car park charges, parking meters, speed-camera fines, road tolls, congestion charges, road pricing per mile, road and fuel tax. B Flood

BUS SERVICE BETWEEN EMA AND DERBY
Derby City and Derbyshire County Councils and Skylink, are conducting talks with a view to introducing a bus service between Derby and East Midlands Airport. I view these discussions between the parties as somewhat hypocritical, considering the campaign mounted by the airport and the airlines, with the support of the East Midlands Development Agency, to re-name the airport Nottingham East Midlands Airport. Has our city council leader Maurice Burgess, and Derbyshire county councillors, already forgotten about this issue that continues to rankle within the hearts and minds of many residents in the city and the county? We must not overlook the fact that the airport was originally known as Derby Airport then located at Burnaston. Following the welcome development of the former RAF Castle Donington Airfield relocation from Burnaston took place and thereby East Midlands Airport came into being some 40 years ago.

The airport served us all exceptionally well as East Midlands Airport and as such had a unifying aspect to it as a cmmercial aviation icon that transcended all of the region's county borders and business communities generating a certain pride in having "EMA" as your regional airport, whether you resided in Leicestershire. Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and even further afield for that matter. So why on earth should councillor Burgess and County Hall, be considering spending Derbyshire tax payers' money on such a proposal, which will probably end up being another white elephant exercise anyway? Councillor Burgess might well be advised to spend a few days observing and assessing the Nottingham to EMA service, if he did so, he may be surprised by his findings. I would suggest to councillor Burgess and County Hall, a Robin Reliant, complete with roof rack and a trailer for luggage, may be sufficient to fulfil the response for such a service.

Anyway, what about our local hackney and taxi companies, which are much better placed to provide a door-to-door service, so to speak? The councils would do well to consider the revenues they receive from these public service providers before embarking on some commercial gimmicky exercise to benefit a few and subsidised by the majority of tax/ratepayers who will never use the proposed service. Who in their right mind is going to traverse the city at the most inconvenient times of the night and day to catch a link bus to EMA adding the combined cost together for the outbound and return journeys from home to EMA and back? It would be far more convenient and cheaper to obtain an alternative service.

Should the city need such a service, which I doubt very much, let the executives of BMI, EasyJet, Ryanair and the EMDA pay for it as they were the ones who were so dismissive and arrogant when it came to considering the views of the residents of Derbyshire with regard to the airport name change. Councillor Lucy Care, Derby City Council cabinet member for transportation, recently said, "They have identified the top four areas which are most deserving of a bus service". Councillor Care, went on to say, "So unless a bus company comes back and says it can put on a service for, say, £30,000, we will not be able to do more than one of them". That is after putting our car parking charges in Derby city centre up by the equivalent of 14 times the rate of inflation to an "all time high", allegedly to partly subsidise our local public transport services to an estimated £70,000.

Where does Councillor Burgess expect to find the extra finance that will be required to subsidise the EMA bus link? I suppose through another local tax/charges hike, as yet undeclared? Therefore, unless Councillor Burgess has designs on becoming Derby's version of Inspector Blakey of "On the Buses" he should fast track his Fly-Bus to oblivion and spend the taxpayers' money on something more worthwhile, like the much-needed local routes the council cannot afford to finance, or give the Derby Kids' Camp its funding which our miserly city bureaucrats say they cannot support financially to the same degree as previously was the case.

However, the city bureaucrats/administrators, who are the employees of the taxpayers, will always find some other means of wasting resources on projects with little or no value and therefore to the detriment of something that has been traditionally more worthwhile in the community. Anon

LACK OF INTEREST
The Council Planning Committee was requested in November 2004 to explain just how access to the main entrance of the university campus at Markeaton Street was to be made. The reason for this request was that access is only possible using one of Cowley/Markeaton/Merchant streets, all of which are narrow residential streets in which the parking and traffic congestion problems already verge on the intolerable. It was pointed out that unless some positive prior remedial action was taken to control or allocate parking and improve safe traffic flows, then access to the new campus would not just be difficult or inconvenient, it would be virtually impossible.

To date, no remedial actions to ease or assist adequate and safe traffic flows from the construction site are apparent. On September 15, 2005, almost the whole length of Markeaton Street was completely blocked for a considerable time, by a convoy of five extremely large construction trucks which were stuck, unable to move either backwards or forwards. Private cars and a taxi were trapped between the trucks and were also unable to move. The truck drivers stated they had no alternative to using Markeaton Street as Merchant Street was even worse.

I must express surprise and consternation that site construction, with the inevitable use of heavy vehicles, was allowed to proceed with no heed having been taken of the obvious difficulties for safe adequate access to and from the site. The volume of heavy construction traffic will obviously increase as the major construction activities proceed. Cars continue to be double parked with no controls. Once again, the council and its planning department, in their dealings with large organisations, have displayed a lack of interest to the genuine concerns of local residents. Michael Thomas

<<< Prev