|
|
|
|
|
NB Please post your constructive comments, enthusiastic response and new ideas to the Sustainable Transport and Tourism Wales Forum for everyone to share and exchange their knowledge. You will be notified of responses to your postings and any new topics you care to introduce. Wales has a great opportunity to take the lead and profit from this information exchange.
12th May 2005
Wales Tourism Alliance; Caravan Sector
Sir Brooke Boothby
Dear Dr Bilsborough
It is with regret that I believe the whole strategy of STTW needs comprehensive revision. The document that we are asked to comment on has no thinking outside the box containing 'spend more money on public transport and the marketing thereof'.
Given the likely constraints on both European and UK public funding in the 2007–2011 period, the box itself is not in itself sustainable. Couple that to the VisitWales aims of more AB customers, each spending more per night via more short breaks, and the strategy itself becomes unsustainable.
Please consider the following definitions of public transport:
a. Often meaning walking, cycling and public use of transport (and in some circumstances "car sharing"), which is considered to be less damaging to the environment and which contributes less to traffic congestion than one-person car journeys.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/government/en/1115310689529.html (NB the subtle 'public use of transport' instead of 'public transport'.)
b. Sustainable transport is a phrase which was coined in the late 20th century to describe all forms of transport which minimise emissions of carbon dioxide and pollutants. Sustainable transport can mean public transport, car sharing, walking and cycling as well as technology such as electric and hybrid cars and biodiesel. The term is based on the phrase sustainable energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_transport
I would submit that virtually no tourists make 'one-person car journeys' anyway, so by definition they are more sustainable on holiday than when they are at home. From a UK perspective we should encourage people to go on holiday more often even if by car. Secondly technology and price will have an impact that no amount of subsidised tinkering at the margins can hope to match.
Page 23 waxes lyrical on the economic outputs but there is nothing that I can see in the report that covers economic inputs. Nowhere does it state how much STTW and its projects have cost in that period. I strongly suspect that if the total cost were aggregated they would exceed the added value to Wales of the visitors brought in, which would prima facie indicate that the money might be better spent elsewhere e.g. encouraging bio fuel inclusion in petrol or electric recharging points for hybrid cars.
It also does not encourage me to think that money is being well spent to see in every item in table 5
Costs = All costs involved including in kind contributions
Funding = Source of funds to meet all costs
So scarce funding is going to be used to pay for in kind contributions which in my world are precisely the contributions that do not require funding. I am minded to submit an account for my in-kind time in submitting this response.
My most sever criticism of what STTW appears to have been doing for the past 7–8 years is that it is supply led. I can see nothing, which indicates that anyone, has actually sat down and analysed what the AB or short break or event or heritage or business tourist actually wants. There appears to be a situation where WTB has spent millions and VisitWales will continue to spend millions on attracting visitors that STTW does not want to know about. Not exactly joined up government. In an attempt in a short response to look at reality, the vast majority of visitors to Wales come by car. The report quotes 85%, I suspect that in the target markets noted above, that figure is well over 90%. this is not surprising, and what is more not likely to change. The figure quoted in Appendix 10 - Wales public transport arrivals 13%, UK 23%, are simply a matter of geography and urbanisation and should in no way themselves constitute a justification to attempt to close the gap. London grossly distorts any such comparison having a population 8 times that of the next largest city Birmingham. London alone attracts huge numbers of public transport visitors as do Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh and so on, much of it by air. Only Cardiff has a population of over 200,000 and that places it between Stoke and Bradford.
Therefore with the possible exception of the M4 corridor as far as Swansea, tourism in Wales is essentially rural and seaside. Walkers honourably excepted, almost all visitors to those markets have serious baggage. Travelling by public transport with significant baggage – or a sustainable cycle – is not easy. Increasing train capacity from 2 cycles to 4 is hardly a big hitter move. Let us say that on a typical Friday night in summer 50,000 visitors move into or intra Wales as visitors. Say over the next decade you persuade just 10% to be more sustainable by having cycles. That is 5000 cycles on a Friday night. Arriva would need 50 extra trains. (which the track wouldn’t carry) all full of cyclists. Then by November you wouldn’t need them. If you must subsidise, pay for each visitor to have a free cycle rack fitted on their car – that would bring in the numbers and help the environment at the same time.
As just noted, even with the best will in the world most visitors are seasonal. Businessmen may come to a conference in November, but a beach simply cannot be said to have the same attraction as in July, especially if children are involved. So any serious attempt to provide a public transport infrastructure for the majority would automatically founder on either being woefully inadequate in summer or equally woefully uneconomic in winter.
All this on top of the unbreakable advantage of the private motor vehicle which is that one can move when one wants and where one wants. Despite all the problems of fuel costs and traffic jams when did any of us last take trip across Wales travelling broadly North/South that would have been quicker, cheaper or more convenient by bus or train that it was by car.
So to my mind the STTW should accept that the car is dominant now and will be for the foreseeable future. Other than by tax (on cars) or subsidy (for public transport) both of which are self-defeating in terms of net economic benefit to Wales, it is unlikely that this will change. Therefore STTW should concentrate on achieving reduction on pollution by cars when they are in Wales and reduction in emissions per head per day rather than swimming against the tide by tying to cajole people into doing something they do not naturally want to do. Try and tackle the 90%, don’t focus on the 10%. If you need evidence, consider that a 2.5% per annum real growth rate for the national economy means that every 28 years real wealth doubles. Do some research and ask visitors to Wales if they would be using more or less public transport if they were twice as rich as they were at present. The answer gives you the pattern for the future. In 1930 millions went to Blackpool, nearly all by public transport. Today they still go but they are richer, so they go by car (the rich ones always did).
So how can we reduce the overall impact of the cars? Cars pollute most when idling or travelling very slowly. In addition the localised build up of fumes in congested traffic has a disproportionate effect on the community where it occurs – sometimes perceptional, sometimes genuinely harmful – but people really do not like it. Meanwhile the tourist in the congestion is not a happy camper whether literally or metaphorically.
Equally unnecessary emissions occur every time a car driver is either lost, or cannot find his/her destination or cannot park. So to me the first priority should be to ensure that every tourist destination has adequate parking and good signage. Yes, the car park will be 3/4 empty in February but unlike empty public transport at least that does not cost money, and signage doesn’t draw a salary either. As another look forward, more and more of the AB – short break takers will have Satan in their cars so another priority should be to ensure that all tourism destinations attractions and their car parks are properly routed by this means. There are still too many directions that simply send cars down unsuitable roads or to wrong places (encourage the use of unique post codes on every tourism site e.g. Tics should be given a unique post code, as should the nearest car park to them.)
Next look at bypassing small towns. One off expensive indeed and controversial in local planning terms, but it has huge benefits. If I may take as an example a local rural market town near my home – Cowbird, Vale of Glamorgan. Years ago Cowbridge was dying on its feet. Nobody wanted to live on the main road, shops were noisy and the continual congestion pollutes everything. The A48 ran straight down the Roman road that forms the ‘main street’. Then in relatively close succession came the M4 and a bypass for the A48. Today Cowbridge must be one of the most prosperous towns in Wales. A thriving main street with a wide variety of shops. All the old stone frontages revealed now the pollution has reduced. A new Physic Garden under construction, a winter food and craft fair, a farmers market, all attracting visitors from miles around. Meanwhile the traffic that does not wish to visit Cowbridge passes along the bypass or motorway at 40–70 (80) mph which is the speed where the engines are most efficient. The journeys are also shortened thus reducing congestion/pollution on two fronts and increasing good humour as well. Residents, visitors and passers by have all gained from this change – the only item lacking is enough parking.
I would then suggest that the marketing angle for reduction in pollution should be aimed at reducing the number of miles travelled by each car on each visit. If targeted under the heading of something like HELPYT – Help the Local Environment Plan Your Trip, visitors would be encourages to save themselves money by planning their daily trips in advance so as to minimise mileage. They should be encouraged to visit attractions especially those that offer the opportunity for a whole day out in one spot. Research for the Rural Tourism Review showed that people on average will walk 400m from their base. So tourism accommodation providers should be encouraged to produce plans showing what can be done in a 250m, 500m, and 1000m circle (5000m and 1000m for cyclists) from their establishments. Once people set out on foot they will often walk a bit further than they planned. Competitions could be held to see who could devise the best day out in Wales achieved on the lowest number of miles driven. At least you would then be working with the grain of saving money – which with any luck would be spent locally anyway.
Each tourism sector should be looked at differently. Tourism caravan owners are axiomatically not going to use public transport to arrive. However allowing more tourers to stay put for weeks or months would reduce the emissions engendered by towing and congestion. Their owners might even be persuaded to travel to and from their caravan by public transport. A little more blue-sky thinking could be a ‘keep a car in Wales’ slogan. Here regular visitors could be encouraged to keep a small-engined, low polluting, car near a railway station and use it when visiting. Ideal for second home owners and caravan holiday home owners – baggage handling on the train and secure parking would be the problems, but perhaps a local farmer could diversify into storing cars an a field an running a minicab to the station.
By contrast walkers should be encouraged not to bring cars at all. What they probably most want (?research?) is a network of minibuses to move them between points where walks start and finish and rail/bus terminals. The problem is seasonality, but perhaps local authorities could be persuaded to allow some minibuses permits to work in the country for say 9 months a year and in a town around Christmas and new year when all the partying increases the demand for alcohol free drivers?
Overseas tourists and sports visitors are other minority sectors where ‘public’ (more likely private) coach transport is suitable.
I could continue at great length, but in summary my thesis is that present policies are simply running counter to the natural wishes of both the existing mainstream market and the target growth segments. Increased affluence can only exacerbate this position. Therefore I advocate a new direction which should, as in the Cowbridge example, look to benefit both residents and local and long distance visitors by ameliorating the 90% problem rather than trying to support the 10% minority with a great deal of public money.
|
1
|
MISSIONS, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
|
|
1.1
|
Do you agree broadly with the missions, aims and objectives of the strategy as set out on page 4?
|
|
|
No. STTW has no business generating trips, that is VisitWales and the industry's job. STTW should focus on minimising the impact of trips generated by others.
|
|
1.2
|
Are there any issues that you feel have not been adequately covered?
|
|
|
See main text.
|
|
2
|
PROPOSED WORK PACKAGES
|
|
2.1
|
Do you agree broadly with the nine work packages set out in Table 1 on page 8?
|
|
|
No – too much focus on public transport and paper production. The Outcomes are unrealistic e.g. to demonstrate 150% rise in visitor trips by public transport in 4 years will need some very creative (ac)counting.
|
|
2.2
|
Are there any issue that you feel are not adequately covered by the work packages?
|
|
|
See main text.
|
|
3
|
KEY OUTCOMES
|
|
3.1
|
Do you believe that the target outcomes shown on page 3 are achievable?
|
|
|
I support Outcome 1 but do not define sustainable tourism as presently listed e.g. I wish to include multiple occupancy cars and reduced congestion and less mileage. Outcome 6 looks suspiciously like tax subsidised job creation which is not itself sustainable.
|
|
3.2
|
Are there any additional outcomes that you feel need consideration?
|
|
|
Yes – a better experience for visitors that come to Wales by car – better signage, better parking, etc.
|
|
4
|
OPTIONS AND PRIORITIES
|
|
4.1
|
Do you agree broadly with the options and priorities laid out in Table 4 on pages 12–18?
|
|
|
No meaningful comment on priorities and and options can be given as nothing is costed, nor is the intended funding source shown.
|
|
4.2
|
Are there any options and priorities that you feel may have been overlooked?
|
|
|
As for 4.1
|
|
5
|
CONCLUSION
|
|
5.1
|
Are you in general agreement with the conclusion reached on page 7?
|
|
|
No. Conclusion 1 would need a very hard look at the figures to be sustained. What about lost jobs as garages close? What about lost amenity as garage toilets close? How much did that extra spend cost?
Conclusion 2 - special scenic routes and steam rail lines apart, I doubt you would get much take up for the proposition 'I really loved my public transport trip in Wales last week'.
Conculsion 3 - yes, but market distorting if in fact the opportunity is a result of subsidy, and consequential displacement from unsubsidised attractions/businesses takes place. Conclusion 4 - I doubt even if the target outcomes were achieved it would make much impact – the numbers would be swamped by the increase in cars if VisitWales met its own targets. Has anyone considered that one half empty bus in a narrow town centre causes 20 cars to back up behind it, all increasing their emmissions because of the bus? Conclusion 5 - is not sustainable on the seasonality argument alone. Only urban large areas like London, Dublin or Edinburgh, can sustain a 12 month increase in public transport linked to visitor demand.
|
|
5.2
|
Are there any significant issues that you feel remain unaddressed in reaching this conclusion?
|
|
|
Yes – there is an opportunity to achieve a step change in the way visitor uses their car in Wales. This will have much greater impact than subsidising public transport and will run with the grain of visitor demand.
|
|
6
|
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
|
|
|
Please feel free to provide any additional comments:
|
|
|
Enough said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FEATURE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sponsored links
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
