Date published: 2006/06/24
The latest Lib Dem propaganda drops through the letter box. Of course it is full of the usual Lib Dem boasting about how few Tory councillors there are in Cambridge (none, but who cares).
More seriously, some government inspector recently decided that a requirement for 50% "affordable" housing in new developments was too high, and that 40% was more reasonable. It seems the Lib Dems are unhappy about this. The current developments have 30% "affordable" housing as the target. Of course the higher you make the target the less likely is the development to happen in the first place (developers have to make a profit) and so pushing a high target is one way to prevent new housing being built.
A high target for "affordable" housing is also one way of making sure we are building the slums of tomorrow today. And "affordable" housing is mostly reserved for politically correct categories of workers (in particular, government workers). In Cambridge this is particularly insidious. There are many (in particular young) people who work for the university who cannot afford the extortionate housing prices in Cambridge, and these people are just as deserving of cheap housing as anyone else, but they will not get a look in. The answer, as always, is not to require silly targets but to ensure that enough (high quality) housing is built by making sure that enough development land is available, so that housing supply matches demand. Unfortunately the Lib Dem propaganda does not address any of the real issues, it just complains about the government inspector.
In the only other news in the leaflet, it is claimed that "a car-sharing club could be set up in north Arbury if enough residents are interested". Apparently there will be "a survey of residents living north of Roseford Road and west of Mere Way" about this. Well, why just that area? Who knows. But the Lib Dem councillor (Tim Ward) says "if car clubs seem popular then they might help to ease some of Cambridge's parking problems". That last point at least is not completely crackpot. However the number one problem in this part of Cambridge is not the quantity of parking, it is the quantity of traffic and the fact that the Lib Dem council is forever making it more and more difficult for people on this side of the Cam just to get into town (there are four river crossings and they have already closed one except tidally during rush hour, and are threatening to close another).
As it happens, the people behind the car-sharing club have also had an email circulated around the university. This said:
You may be aware that Cambridge City Council, Cambridgeshire County Council and South Cambridgeshire District Councils are working on a project to assess the scope of a potential car club in Cambridge City and the wider county. Carplus is conducting the research as the UK independent charity promoting a national network of car clubs and responsible car use.
Car clubs offer access to a vehicle when it is needed without the hassle of owning one. Cars are parked close to where people live and work and can be booked at short notice for periods as brief as thirty minutes.
There are significant benefits from a car club scheme including reductions in carbon dioxide and other vehicle emissions. They are useful for enhancing a work place travel plan and - when used by a business - can reduce the costs of maintaining a pool fleet or paying mileage allowances for private car use.
This email does not make any claims about easing Cambridge's "parking problems". It also does not make the obvious claim that car clubs might be socially useful, since it might give more people access to cars (and hence able to go where once they could not). Instead they opt for the claim that car clubs will lead to "reductions in carbon dioxide and other vehicle emissions". Is this true?
There are two groups of people who will use the car club. The first group are people who currently do not own cars (for whatever reason) but who will now use one (perhaps just occasionally). For this first group there will definitely be an increase in vehicle emissions.
The second group are people who currently own a car but will now get rid of it and instead use the car club. Although the email mentions that people who use the car club are avoiding "the hassle of owning" a car, it fails to mention the flip side that using the car club by itself is a big hassle. You have to book the car (none might be available), you have to get to the place where the car is, afterwards you have to get back. If this hassle factor is low enough then this second group of people will use cars just as much as they used to. But if this hassle factor is high enough (and it almost certainly will be) then this second group of people will use their cars less frequently, and hence emissions will be reduced.
So the claim in the email that vehicle emissions will be reduced means they are counting on the service being a hassle to use, and they are hoping that the reduction then provided by people from the second group outweighs the increase from people from the first group.
_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com.
For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com
(replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").