Jun 242011
 

“Which of our conflicting transport demands are most important?” asks Jonathan Hamilton Russell in this edit of his longer article, written to encourage debate on the future of personal and freight travel in NE Scotland.

Scotland has extremely ambitious climate change targets, yet we prioritise airport expansion and roadbuilding.

The NE economy needs transport infrastructure to allow movement of goods; people have to get to work with few holdups.

Meeting climate change targets means embracing sustainable transport usage by reducing car, road freight and air travel yet Aberdeen Airport has the fastest-growing passenger numbers in Scotland; public transport is the only option for many, but the majority are wedded to car use. Among Scottish cities Aberdeen car count is highest; Aberdeenshire has the highest rural area car usage; increasingly, Aberdeenshire residents drive to work in Aberdeen, exaggerating traffic bottlenecks.

Public spending cuts mean local and national governments face stark financial choices affecting resources for maintaining and enhancing transport infrastructures.

The days of cheap petrol have passed. Prices will continue to rise.

Bus fares are higher here than throughout Scotland.  Southbound buses are often of poor quality although local buses are of a high standard, and Aberdeen citizens, on average, are nearer bus stops than other Scottish cities’ residents.

Bus use in Aberdeenshire can be problematic, but could be increased by driving to stops and transferring to buses – less stressful than car travel. Council cuts to services for the disabled and elderly have made travelling significantly more challenging for such socially-excluded groups.

What can we do?

There’s general agreement that people should be encouraged to travel more sustainably. Cycling activity is increasing, although levels are lower than elsewhere in Scotland, and it needs to be encouraged as a healthy, environmentally-friendly activity.

Cycle pools, common in many European cities, could be created. Cycle routes to school, given priority, would provide more fun and health benefits for children than car travel. Cycle safety measures would need to be put in place, particularly at roundabouts, to make them less dangerous.

Park and ride schemes, particularly at Kingswells, are less successful than envisaged but remain a commuting option. Car-sharing, whilst becoming more common, is far from the norm. NESTRANS, responsible for planning and transport implementation, has suggested piloting car-share lanes.

Laurencekirk railway station has re-opened, but more stops are needed, possibly at Kittybrewster and Altens. The Haudagain roundabout obviously needs improving, with priority for cyclists, buses and car-sharing.

A new Bridge of Dee is needed – contribution to its cost from that area’s large retailers might have been written into the conditions when planning consent was agreed. Any new development should prioritise cycles, buses and car-sharing.

Aberdeen is a fairly small city and walking should always be marketed as a healthy, cheap and quick transport option.

Traffic lights in pedestrian high-use areas should give priority to pedestrians. 20 mph restrictions have improved safety, although limits are regularly broken by a minority of drivers.

Offering flexible working hours is effective in reducing peak-time traffic levels. Salary benefits for those cycling or car-sharing could be introduced, with car pools for staff who have to drive during  work time. Working at home, for at least part of the week, is an option as is business conferencing rather than travelling to meetings. Both would reduce business costs.

it is well-documented that increased road space leads to increased traffic

Will the increased price of petrol reduce car use enough, or do we need to introduce road pricing, viewed as the single measure most likely to effect change to how we travel? The increased motoring costs would make drivers consider alternatives.

Aberdeen would almost certainly benefit, reducing the numbers moving to Aberdeenshire as extra travel costs outweigh housing cost savings.  It is a hot potato, however, and would be unpopular due to the high levels of car use locally. Few politicians would have the courage to suggest its introduction, despite being effective in reducing car  dependency.

We also need to identify new means of financing transport developments and to maintain the current deteriorating infrastructure. Road pricing could raise those funds.

Some planning decisions have encouraged car use. Union Square adjoins both bus and rail terminals but it has also provided increased parking opportunities.

 It has had a detrimental commercial effect on Union Street, George Street and Bon Accord Centre shops, all more accessible by bus.

The proposed Union Terrace development would increase city centre car parking availability, flying in the face of the need to reduce car travel and move towards more sustainable transport methods.

All measures have advocates and opponents. The Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR) for example, highlights conflicting views and interests.  Newton Dee Village fought an effective campaign to stop the road encroaching on that community; Road Sense has successfully raised legal objections, forcing public inquiries, even if of limited scope.

The AWPR has both advantages and disadvantages. It would help take freight off Aberdeen’s roads although significant volumes still have to come in and out of Aberdeen.

It would reduce travel times although there are other bottlenecks further south. It would reduce congestion at the Haudagain roundabout and Bridge of Dee, but it is well-documented that increased road space leads to increased traffic. Roads in general will become more congested.

The AWPR would help businesses. It will allow more people to live outside Aberdeen as it will be quicker, at least initially, to travel into Aberdeen but will lead to an increasingly-ageing city population.

Such demographic change will leave Aberdeen City Council with less money and greater demands on resources. An excellent deal has been negotiated in terms of local authorities’ contributions, with the Scottish Government meeting 82% of costs. These, however, have already escalated and impending substantial expenditure cuts will leave less money in the overall pot.

The low level of rail freight uptake is a national scandal. Road freight transport’s perceived flexibility sees it preferred.  Historically, there were conflicts with rail unions, who, however, are now keen for freight to move to rail. This will need increased public and private investment, less likely in a period of reduced public spending, although in terms of providing work and kick-starting the economy this option should not be ruled out. This also applies to the AWPR.

There would need to be contracts developed between the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, rail companies, unions and government at all levels.

The replacement of the freight terminal by Union Square was a setback for future local rail freight capacity.

New freight facilities have been introduced at Craiginches and at Rathes Farm but this has not increased capacity. There are sea/rail links at Waterloo Quay and freight yards at Inverurie and Huntly. NESTRANS strategy states that development of new open-access freight terminals could be explored and if transferring freight to rail becomes reality, new depots would be needed.

Aberdeen harbour is an excellent freight facility and passenger transport gateway to Orkney and Shetland, with potential to expand both services. Currently five million tonnes of freight are exported through the harbour, but the loss of rail freight infrastructure in the station interchange area was a lost opportunity to link sea freight with rail.

We have to decide on our priorities.

Are we really concerned about climate change?

Can we move towards more community-based forms of travel from those currently privatised?

Do we want a more healthy society that walks and cycles more?

Can our business needs dovetail with our environmental needs?

Is it possible to think more holistically when making planning decisions?

Aberdeen Voice would welcome contributions to this debate.

Image credits:

RAILWAY JUNCTION © Davidmartyn | Dreamstime.com
CAR INTERIOR © Li Fang | Dreamstime.com
BICYCLE PARKING LOT © Chris Mccooey | Dreamstime.com
UTG DENBURN © Mike Shepherd

Jun 182011
 

Nuclear Power has always been a contentious issue. There have always been advocates for and against. International concerns about Climate Change, an impending energy crisis and the nuclear accident in Japan have highlighted the issues concerned. Jonathan Hamilton Russell writes.

For CND there has always been the concern of the link between the technology of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons. The Sustainable Development Commission chaired, at the time by Jonathon Porrit in 2006, produced a report for the then Labour Government stating unanimously that, following a detailed analysis of sustainable development factors, that Nuclear was not the preferred option.

This followed a Government White Paper in 2003 which had concluded that Nuclear Power was not an Economic Option. Several days after the Sustainable Development Commission reported, Tony Blair announced that Nuclear Power was to be an essential component of our future Energy Provision.

Recently high profile environmentalists James Lovelock and George Monbiot have been converts to Nuclear Power given their concerns about Climate Change and the resulting requirements to cut back on Carbon omissions.

The SNP have long championed alternative energy and have been against Nuclear Power, as have the Scottish and English Green Parties, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Jonathon Porritt, who was sacked as the chair of the Sustainable Development commission still sees alternative energy and energy conservation as the way forward.

We have had until recently a bonanza of cheap energy in Scotland and the UK and the public has become used to cheap energy and the ability to regularly drive, fly and live and work in centrally heated buildings. This situation will soon end. The reality of peak oil and the need to import Russian Gas have yet to be admitted to the public by most politicians, and the expectations of the general public is that the status quo remains.  Whatever decisions are made, there will be inevitable opposition to both nuclear power and alternative energy. Climate Change has already gone down the political agenda.

We have failed to invest and research sufficiently, concentrating our efforts on oil, gas and also nuclear

The costs of producing both Nuclear Power and Alternative Energy will be much higher than present costs and will require both increased public subsidy and will mean rising costs for the consumer. The costs are likely to reduce as we become more expert at production of nuclear or its alternatives.

The costs of South Korea’s Nuclear Reactors went down by 28% by the time they produced their 7th and 8th Reactors.

Safety measures have improved – the Reactors in Japan are 40 years old – and the safety technology no longer requires power from outside. However, the risk of human error intentional or otherwise and unknown hazards still exist. The costs of insurance are high and do not include de-commissioning. The potential hazards of storage of spent Uranium still remain to be seen. Only three councils have agreed to storage underground – all three being in Cumbria.

There is however still uncertainty of risk in relation to this method of storage. Storage and waste costs still have to be borne by government. Increased use of Uranium will lead to shortages as estimates are that about 100 Years worth still remain, and when it runs out what will happen?

There are concerns and restrictions in many countries regarding the mining of Uranium, and Kazakhstan – a Muslim country on Iran’s border – has the main stocks. The costs of Uranium are likely to increase if there is more demand. There has historically been considerable contamination of local communities when mining has taken place, and even with greater safety measures some risks will remain.

The alternative is increased energy conservation and the use of renewables. As identified by the Sustainable Development Commission the UK – and in particular Scotland – has the potential with tidal energy, wind power, carbon capture, waste and power, and solar developments to cover our energy needs.

However there are challenges. We have failed to invest and research sufficiently, concentrating our efforts on oil, gas and also nuclear. There would have to be significant resources put into research and design, and if we were also putting our efforts into nuclear then opportunities with renewable would be lost.

The recession will mean there is less money to invest. A much better use than cutting the cost of petrol in the long term would have been to use the money from taxing oil companies to pay for the development of renewable energy resources.

There would be problems both with nuclear and renewable as to where to place energy resources.

There has been significant public opposition both to nuclear and wind developments. The Crown Estate commission has powers in relation to developing resources at sea which would have to be overcome.

The North-East of Scotland has a huge potential for the development of renewable energy and the area would benefit from more focus on its development. The main problem I would suggest in relation to our future energy provision, is public expectations and politicians needs in terms of re-election. People have become used to private transport and cheap central heating and whichever way we go will be unpopular.

My own conclusion is, that spending on Nuclear Energy developments will divert money that could be spent on energy efficiency and renewable energy. There is a challenge in relation to needs in terms of peak usage – such as before Christmas – but these could be overcome by us linking into a European network of energy.

In historical terms Nuclear Power is just another short term fix whilst the opportunity of renewable energy will always be with us. In some countries which are landlocked, Nuclear may be the only possible route but given what has happened in Japan potential risks of location would have to be taken into account.

Pictures: © Mark Rasmussen | Dreamstime.com, © Devy | Dreamstime.com

Apr 082011
 

By Ivan Mejia Cajica.

The United Kingdom has a large portion of the renewable energy resources available in Europe; it has the greatest wind resource of any European nation; and its long coastline suggests plenty of opportunities for power generation firms to develop wave and tidal renewable energy projects.

The outskirts of Aberdeen has a considerable share of these resources.

This wealth of renewable resources has largely been overlooked in light of the UK’s reserves of coal, oil and gas, as well as losing out to the nuclear industry in terms of obtaining allegiance for financial support.

By embracing the EU Renewable Energy Directive, the UK has made commitments and established targets to increase its renewable energy generation capacity.  To achieve those targets, which are the most challenging of any European Union member state, the UK Government has put in place mechanisms to support the development of electricity generation from renewable sources through the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) System (Ofgem 2010).  Through the Renewable Obligation Certificate System, UK electricity suppliers are obliged to increase the proportion of their electricity generation from renewable sources.

At the regional level, according to the Aberdeenshire Local Plan 2006, Aberdeenshire Council adopted the “Renewable Energy strategy”, which aims to encourage the generation of electricity from renewable sources (Aberdeenshire Council, 2010).

Since the various privatizations of the public utility firms during the 1980s, the customer acquired the right to choose an energy provider. One of the key aims behind the privatization process was the goal of stimulating competition within the electricity industry whilst reducing electricity prices to consumers. Another key objective of the privatisation process was the belief that a liberalised market would contribute as well to continuous improvement in quality as the public utilities had done.

This is the moment to envision the future for Aberdeen and its citizens

However, some of these objectives remain unfulfilled. The environmental impact caused by the electricity industry is still high. In fact, in 2008 UK electricity consumption accounted for 42% of end-user carbon (CO2) emissions, according to the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC, 2010).

According to OFGEM, the electricity industry regulator, there has been little consumer desire to exercise choice and support the electricity generation from renewable sources.  In fact, despite commitments at both state and regional levels, in 2008 the electricity generation from renewable energy resources amounted to only 6.5% of the total electricity generation in UK.

This figure is lower than the portion of renewable electricity generation in others European countries such as Portugal (32%), Denmark (28%), Spain (19%), Germany (15%), and Ireland (12.5%) or of the average of the European Union as a whole (17%).

How can Aberdonian citizens have a more active role in redirecting the path of Scotland’s electricity industry?

Since the 1970’s Aberdeen City has played a leadership role in the Oil and Gas Industry.  However, now that the North Sea’s reserves are diminishing, there is a general agreement within the industry that renewable energy has an important place in Aberdeen’s future.  This is the moment to envision the future for Aberdeen and its citizens with a better quality of electricity and environment.

A study is being carried at The Robert Gordon University in order to provide some insights on the roles assumed by Aberdonian citizens in the purchase process of electricity.

This study will contribute to a better understanding of the future that Aberdonians envision for the city and for the electricity generation industry.

To participate in a survey and share your opinion on this topic of electricity generation and how you purchase electricity, please follow the web link: http://edu.surveygizmo.com/s3/506003/RGU-Sustainable-Electricity-Research

Oct 082010
 

Aberdeen Forward…Aberdeen Forward…Aberdeen Forward…Aberdeen Forward…

Few people – and even fewer mothers – would deny the ease and convenience of disposable nappies, yet they are relatively costly in terms of the family budget and to the environment.

Now, as part of its Real Nappie project, local environmental charity Aberdeen Forward  is hoping to raise awareness of the issue and at the same time help newly-established charity North East Scotland Support for Romania (NESSR).

The two charities will combine forces at a Coffee Morning this Saturday at Udny Station Hall where staff will be on hand to advice on the environmental and financial advantages of using natural materials for these essentials. All nappies donated will be given to NESSR for delivery to Romanian orphanages and parents.

Aberdeen Forward spokeswoman Vicki Brown explained: ‘There are 8 million disposable nappies used each day in the UK alone. This is hugely detrimental to the environment and expensive options for families. Most end up in landfill sites, they take forever to biodegrade and many people using them are unaware of this. We are keen to get this message out and if we can encourage awareness in other countries too, then that’s fantastic. Of course we’re also delighted to be able to help another charity at the same time.’

NESSR is a recently formed charity which has taken over the role played by the Romanian Support Group which was affiliated with the New Hope Trust based in Peterhead. It provides humanitarian aid – such as money, clothing and bedding – which is distributed through church agencies to communities and families in Western Romania.

Sep 242010
 

Aberdeen Forward…Aberdeen Forward…Aberdeen Forward…Aberdeen Forward…

Did you know that one child uses on average six and a half thousand nappies from birth to potty training?  This results in 8 million disposable nappies being thrown away in Britain every day!  That’s 2.4% of all household waste! Continue reading »

Aug 062010
 

Aberdeen Forward …Aberdeen Forward …Aberdeen Forward …Aberdeen Forward …

Feeling creative? Fed up of buying cards and gifts, when you’d rather give something handmade? Aberdeen Forward’s series of craft workshops can help you reuse and recycle scrap materials to create stunning, individual cards and presents – but you may want to keep them for  yourself!

Continue reading »