My Community - A Sustainable Community???

Think about how closely your home area fits in with the definition of a 'sustainable community' To what extent your ward/SOA resembles a 'sustainable community' and what extent you don't think it does?

Sustainable development was originally defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”


The Egan Wheel



In 2004 Sir John Egan was asked by the Deputy Prime Minister to examine how communities could be more sustainable. Egan suggests that sustainable communities must meet ‘the diverse needs of existing and future residents, their children and other users’ by offering choice. In order to be sustainable, communities must:
􀂃 Make effective use of natural resources
􀂃 Enhance the environment
􀂃 Promote social cohesion and inclusion and
􀂃 Strengthen economic prosperity.
He introduced what is referred to as the ‘Egan Wheel’ (see above), which can be used as a tool for judging sustainable communities.


I live in Milton Keynes 009B lies within Milton Keynes 009 (Super Output Area Middle Layer).
In 2007 my neighbourhood, Milton Keynes 009B, had an estimated 1,550 residents and 660 dwellings.















I found a questionnaire from www.geography.org.uk/download/GA_PRBSCKentEgan.doc about applying the Egan Wheel to my local community. I have pasted it below, along with my scores.

Applying the Egan Wheel to your Local Community

Name of your community? Milton Keynes

Is it a sustainable community? Ring a score for each of the following:
Score 1 is very good to 6 is very poor.
a) Well run?
People are:
Included in decision-making (1) Not included (6) - 2
Feel responsible (1) Don’t care (6) - 4
Proud of local community (1) Not proud (6) - 3

b) Well-connected?
Getting in/out and around your community:
Excellent bus service (1) Non-existent bus service (6) - 2
Easy access to rail service (1) No access to rail service (6) - 2
Safe local walking routes (1) Lack of safe pathways (6) - 2
Safe local cycle-ways (1) Lack of safe local cycle-ways (6) - 2
Roads clear (1)Roads congested (6) - 2
Off-road parking (1) Parking on roads (6) - 2


c) Well served?
Access to services:
Quality nurseries and/or childcare (1) None (6) - 3
Quality primary school (1) None (6) - 2
Good range of local shops (1) No local shops (6) - 2
Easy to get local information (1) Difficult to get local information (6) - 2


Health services accessible (1) Health services not local (6) - 3
Good range of other services for all groups (1) Limited services for some groups e.g. elderly, youth, family (6) - 3


d) Environmentally sensitive?
The impact the community has on the environment,
people are encouraged to:
Recycle (1) No recycling (3) - 1
Save water (1) Water wasted (3) - 3


Save electricity or use renewable sources (1) No energy saving (3) - 3
Reduce waste (1) Lots of rubbish produced (3) - 2
Use public transport (1) Use cars (3) - 2
Build on brownfield sites (1) Build on Greenfield sites (3) - 2
Reduce litter (1) Litter (3) - 2
Reduce graffiti (1) Graffiti (3) - 2


Keep public spaces pleasant (1) Public spaces unpleasant (3) - 2
Provide wildlife areas (1) No wildlife areas (3) - 2

e) Fair for everyone?
People of all ages, races, cultures, sexes and abilities:
All can access services (1) Some groups cannot get services (3) - 1
All can get jobs (1) Some groups cannot get jobs (3) - 2
All get equal educational opportunities (1) Not everyone is equal (3) - 1


f) Thriving economy?
Standard of living:
Lots of local jobs (1) Few local jobs (3) - 2
Successful local businesses (1) Local businesses struggling (3) - 2
Things are getting better (1) Things are getting worse (3) - 2


g) Well designed and built?
Houses and local buildings are:
attractive (1) unattractive (6) - 2
safe (1) unsafe (6) - 3
useful (1) Derelict (left empty) (6) - 2
Lots of public open space to relax and play (1) Little public open space (6) - 1
Area has ‘character’ and a positive feel (1) Area has little character, dull. (6) - 3


h) Active, inclusive and safe?
Social considerations:
Good community spirit (1) No community spirit (6) - 3
Neighbours look out for one another (1) Neighbours keep themselves to themselves (6) - 3
People respect each other (1) No respect shown (6) - 2
Low levels of crime, drugs and anti-social behaviour (1) High levels of crime, drugs and anti-social behaviour (6) - 2


Friendly effective police (1) No local police (6) - 1
People feel safe (1) People feel unsafe (6) - 2


Which of the aspects a – h above, would you select as being in most need of improvement? … and why?


a - well run?: I am of the opinion that not everyone is very involved in the decision making of what happens/ the future plans of the local community. Although there are meetings, I feel that some people are almost 'scared' of attending not knowing what is expected or scared of becoming too involved and getting 'roped in' when they can not afford the time, so they feel it is better to not get involved at all, almost an easier option.

h - active, inclusive and safe?: I feel that it comparison to many communities, our neighbours keep themselves very much to themselves and little active socialising goes on, only around Christmas time. There are a few social calender events, but I feel as if there should be more and perhaps street parties and things like that would be quite nice.




I have now looked at the 8 key components of the Egan Sustainable Community Wheel and applied each aspect to my community.


Services
According to the Egan Wheel a sustainable community should be ‘well served – with public, private, community & voluntary services that are appropriate to people’s needs and accessible to all’
I believe where I live is well served. We have a relatively large Co-op Store, 1 typically ‘village-style’ pub (which has a friendly atmosphere), a fish & chip/Chinese shop; a pizza/kebab place, an unusual new eastern Bangladeshi style takeaway, restaurant and buffet lunch development (in an old pub building). There is also a church, a memorial/village hall, a Christian fellowship church. By the cricket pitch there is a notice board advertising local events, services and general information for the public, such as toddler groups times/places. These facilities are accessible to all, as they are centrally located with Great Linford and the bus route has plenty of stops along the main road accessing all parts. The bus stops are have high platforms suitable for wheelchair users to go on and off and most buses have designated spaces for those less-abled.



Environmental
According to the Egan Wheel a sustainable community should be ‘environmentally sensitive – providing places for people to live that are considerate of the environment’
There is one close in Great Linford called Solar Court where all the houses have built in solar panels, this is an innovative design which is an environmentally sustainable option as they use sun power for electricity. However, it is only one close with 5 houses! Nevertheless I believe that Great Linford is an environmentally sensitive community in comparison to many SOA of Milton Keynes, for the housing/green space ratio is considerably high. What I like about Great Linford is the way it is laid out, incorporating housing with large green spaces everywhere. The housing density is not high and the estates are not large.

Equity
According to the Egan Wheel a sustainable community should be ‘Fair for everyone – including those in other communities, now and in the future.’
I am not quite sure as to how to interpret this and apply it to where I live. All the same, I believe my community is not quite as socially diverse as other SOA in Milton Keynes. I do know of places whereby streets are made up of one religion or one particular group of ethnic people and there are just facilities for these people e.g. in Oldbrook they have built a modern Mosque! Where I live there are a range of people in terms of age, and we do have 3 old people’s/residential homes. I would regard my area to be fair for everyone, as the local school is a state school and it is not selective in who it takes, only you must live in the catchment area, which is fair enough.

Economy
According to the Egan Wheel a sustainable community should be ‘Thriving - with a flourishing and diverse local economy’
I must admit, that in terms of the local economy where I live, I would not regard it as ‘flourishing’ nor ‘thriving’. The central business area has undergone many changes within the last 5 years and the variety of small shops have changed hands and closed down radically. We use to have a freezer shop, but that closed down, likewise the hair dressers next to the Co-op. The pub, which has very recently been changed to an Eastern Bangladeshi style eatery used to experience many problems, attracting ‘unlikely’ crowds and there was a lot of trouble and conflict at times. This consequently closed down and the building remained vacant for about a year. There was also a video shop, but this experienced many break-ins and robberies that it closed down about 4 years ago. In its place came an Indian Takeaway, but that has since gone – one can only presume business was not successful there either. So on the whole, I would say business have struggled in my local area. However, the Co-op has come up quite a bit and has had a refurbishment, and the pizzeria/kebab shop is very respectable and has been there for a long period of time.

Housing and the built environment
According to the Egan Wheel a sustainable community should be ‘well designed and built – featuring a quality built and natural environment’
I have already touched on this aspect and I strongly believe that my community is very well designed and built – it is not typically grid-road styled as many residential areas in Milton Keynes are. It is formed of many cul-de-sacs dispersed between variety of green and recreational spaces, with parks and plenty of walking areas. I would regard most of the houses to be well built, however, like any area there are ‘good’ parts and ‘bad/’rougher’ parts.

Social and Cultural
According to the Egan Wheel a sustainable community should be ‘Active, inclusive and safe – fair, tolerant and cohesive with a strong local culture and other shared community activities.’
I have already mentioned that I believe my community not to be quite as diverse as others in Milton Keynes. But there is a local Christian Fellowship Church which holds ‘free-for-all’ services on a Sunday, which I can often hear if I go to the co-op, the music is playing and the atmosphere is vibrant and welcoming, everyone is always friendly and sometimes encourage you to come in and join them! There are other shared community activities, weekly, monthly and annually. Something that I feel proud of is the annual ‘Waterside Festival’ that Great Linford holds in the summer. It is a very large event and attracts many people. There are stalls, music/entertainment, local groups perform, canal boat rides, art workshops and all sorts. It is spread over the weekend and there is also a 3 mile run known as the ‘Great Linford Gallop’ whereby many people sponsor run for various charities.

Governance
According to the Egan Wheel a sustainable community should be ‘well run – with effective and inclusive participation, representation and leadership’
I would regard Great Linford community as being well run. Frequent local newsletters and flyers regarding the current affairs in the area, e.g. election polls, events, general news and welfare are posted through the doors regularly. There is the ‘Linford Letters Focus’ is a flyer created by the liberal democrats in North Milton Keynes which provides information about the results from the local elections and the programmes in operation in the area undergone by the liberal democrats. Also there is the ‘News and Views’ magazine produced by Great Linford Parish Council. It claims ‘Great Locality Proud Community’ it provides information about the various Councillers and ‘A day in the life’ of our community’s Parish Manager – Eirwen Tagg. There is information about previous and future consultations and invites people to attend various forums and discussion meetings. The magazine asks for ‘Parish Guardians’ who “give something back” – a group of people (young and old) who are classed as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the parish. This is certainly evidence for inclusive participation and representation within my local community. The Great Linford Parish Council are the leaders but they call upon the local people of Great Linford to help them plan a successful future for our community. I would declare that people in my local community are well informed and educated with how the community is run and are encouraged to be part of the work that is undergone.

Transport and Connectivity
According to the Egan Wheel a sustainable community should be ‘Well connected – with good transport services and communication linking people to jobs, health and other services.’
I believe that Great Linford is relatively well connected, better than many neighbourhoods in Milton Keynes. We have two major bus routes, as part of the MK metro bus service, the number 7 and 7A bus are frequent (working out 6 buses an hour). The benefit of these major routes is that it covers the majority of Milton Keynes and the bus is direct to as far as Bletchley (South Milton Keynes). The whole of the public transport service in Milton Keynes is having a dramatic ‘make-over’ in which improvements to service frequency, buses, bus stops and connectivity’s are being addressed. More recently, the implementation of real-time active time schedules has occurred, however these are not fully up and running yet. In addition, communication is apparent via local newspapers: the MK Citizen (twice weekly) and the MK News (once a week), this provides the people of Great Linford with information about the local services, job advertisement and general local news/events/’going-ons’. In regards to transport service and communication with health, there is a ‘Plus Bus’ service for elderly people, those either 80 years old or with special requirements are entitled to use the free service and it acts similarly to taxi service, to the doctors, the hospital, the town centre and other places of interest. The local doctor surgery has a telephone number/system call, email and fax for communication. I personally believe our doctor’s surgery to be inadequate, but that is only from my experience and other people maybe quite satisfied with the service it provides.





I have now looked at some statistical tables, which I have otained from National Statitistics. These are indicators to see how my local community compares with Milton Keyns & England.


Key Figures for 2001 Census: Census Area Statistics Milton Keynes 009B
Population
2001 Population: All people (Persons, Apr01) 1, 511; 696 males, 854 females


General health: Good (Persons, Apr01)1 65.19% 68.76
People aged 16-74 with: No qualifications (Persons, Apr01)1 24.31 28.85
People aged 16-74: Economically active: Unemployed (Persons, Apr01) 3.72 2.31 3.35
Owner occupied: Owns with a mortgage or loan 42.61 % 38.88%


It can be observed that most people are of 'good' health, and the amount of people with no qualifications is below the rest in England, unemploment rate is higher than other areas in Milton Keynes but above the national averahe, and owner occupied houses are higher than national average.

Diversity:Broad Ethnic Group , Estimated population by broad ethnic group, mid-2007
Your neighbourhood, Milton Keynes, England
White
%
n/a
86.5
88.2
Mixed
%
n/a
2.3
1.7
Asian or Asian British
%
n/a
5.4
5.7
Black or Black British
%
n/a
4.0
2.8
Chinese or Other
%
n/a
1.9
1.5


Religion April 2001
Your neighbourhood, Milton Keynes, England
Christian
%
65.9
65.5
71.7
Buddhist
%
0.5
0.4
0.3
Hindu
%
0.7
1.3
1.1
Jewish
%
1.0
0.2
0.5
Muslim
%
2.3
2.3
3.1
Sikh
%
0.0
0.4
0.7
Other religions
%
0.5
0.4
0.3
No religion
%
20.7
21.6
14.6
Religion not stated
%
8.4
7.9
7.7
Sources: Office for National Statistics

The data shows, that it comparison to the national average, my local community is relatively similar, woth the majority being of Christian religion and white british. However, there are other cultures, ethnicities and religious people within my local community so there is social diversity (an aspect of sustaible communities)

Health
People's health, April 2001
Your neighbourhood, Milton Keynes, England
Good
%
65.2
72.5
68.8
Fairly Good
%
24.2
20.4
22.2
Not Good
%
10.6
7.1
9.0

This data on health shows that my community has a higher than national average percentage of people in not so good health, and in comparison to other communities in Milton Keynes the number of people classed as in 'good' health is lower. I am suprised by this outcome, as I would have expected it to be one of the more 'better' and 'healthier' places to live as it is a relatively pleasant environment compared to many other housing areas. However, looking at the graph below, the highest percentage of the population in my SOA are the elderly - this may account for the health statistics!

Percentage of people in each age band in your neighbourhood, mid-2007


















Work
Labour market, January 2007 - December 2007
Your neighbourhood, Milton Keynes, England
Economic activity rate
%
n/a
84.2
78.6
Employment rate
%
n/a
81.0
74.4
Unemployment rate
%
n/a
4.5
5.4

Unfortunately, data for my SOA is not available, however looking at the statistics for Milton Keynes, employment rates are good, and higher than the national average, I believe this is respective of people's qualifications, and the data below on education is supportive, as education is rather strong in comparison to the national average and my neighbourhood comes out higher than the average in Milton Keynes. There is only 1 private school in my SOA area and the rest are all state schools - so the data is a pretty fair assessment.

Education
At Key Stage 4 it is usual for pupils to take GCSEs (General Certificates of Secondary Education) or equivalent qualifications.
Pupils achieving 5 or more A*-C grade passes, including English and Maths, at GCSE or equivalent, 2007 - 2008
Your neighbourhood , Milton Keynes , England
All pupils
%
56
44
48
Males
%
57
41
44
Females
%
55
47
52

Housing
Housing condition, April 2008
Decent Home Standard (DHS) - each local authority uses this to measure the general standard of its dwelling stock.
Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) Rating - the Government's approved procedure for calculating an energy rating. The measure ranges from 1 (highly inefficient) to 100 (highly efficient).

Your neighbourhood, Milton Keynes , England
Local authority dwellings that fall below the 'Decent Home Standard'
%
n/a
27.4
26.2


Dwellings by tenure, April 2008
Your neighbourhood, Milton Keynes, England
Owner occupied/private rented
%
n/a
80.6
81.8
Local authority
%
n/a
11.8
8.3
Registered social landlord
%
n/a
7.5
9.5
Other public sector
%
n/a
0.0
0.3

The majority of houses in Milton Keyens are privately owned and the condition of the housing stock is relative to that of the national average.

Crime: Recorded crimes, 2008 - 2009
Your neighbourhood , Milton Keynes ,
Violence against the person
Count
n/a
6,015
Wounding or other act endangering life
Count
n/a
30
Other wounding
Count
n/a
2,087
Common assault
Count
n/a
1,554
Robbery
Count
n/a
302
Theft from the person
Count
n/a
398
Burglary in a dwelling
Count
n/a
1,073
Burglary other than a dwelling
Count
n/a
1,179
Theft of a motor vehicle
Count
n/a
782
Theft from a motor vehicle
Count
n/a
2,174
Harassment including penalty notices for disorder
Count
n/a
1,987
Criminal damage including arson
Count
n/a
4,550

There is no data availabel for my SOA but there is data for Milton Keynes, but nothing to compare this with. Interestingly though the most popular crime was violence against others.

Environment
Physical environment: land use, January 2005
Your neighbourhood, Milton Keynes, England
Domestic buildings
%
9.0
2.0
1.1
Non domestic buildings
%
1.1
1.3
0.7
Road
%
10.6
4.1
2.2
Domestic gardens
%
25.6
6.3
4.3
Greenspace
%
44.1
81.2
87.5
Water
%
0.2
1.9
2.6
These are environmental indicators, from these I can learn that the green space % is much lower than the national average, which really suprises me, and the road % is particularly high, however, it appears that houses have bigger gardens than many in Milton Keynes and England as a whole. I must admit I have quite a large garden.

Domestic energy consumption, 2007
Your neighbourhood , Milton Keynes, England
Average consumption of ordinary domestic electricity
K/watt hours
n/a
3,893
3,952
Average consumption of economy 7 domestic electricity
K/watt hours
n/a
5,042
6,104
Average consumption of domestic gas
K/watt hours
n/a
16,982
17,508

This data looks at energy use, and it appears that my community is fairly equal with the national average.

Access to Services

Travel Methods
Milton Keynes 009B, Milton Keynes (Unitary Authority), South East, England
People aged 16-74 who usually travel to work by: Driving a Car or Van (Persons)1
%
59.23
62.91
59.18
54.92

Public transport users in households: With car or van (Persons)1
%
86.49
76.89
81.41
69.00

This data is of interest, it reflects that a higher % of people in my local community use public transport than those in Milton Keynes and England, implying they are satistfied with the service provided. However, car travel is still very dominant form of transport for work and higher than the national average.


Community Well-being/Social Care
Indices of Deprivation 2007 Underlying Indicators: Living Environment
This dataset contains the underlying indicators of the Living Environment domain, one of the seven domains contributing to the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007 (IMD 2007) that were previously published. The IMD 2007 was produced by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre of the University of Oxford for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG),
Milton Keynes 009B, Milton Keynes (Unitary Authority), South East, England
Combined Living Environment Indicator (Areas)
Score
5.53
..
..
..
Rank of Living Environment Score (Areas)
Rank
28,055
..
..
..
Housing In Poor Condition (Dwellings)
Score
0.21
..
..
..

Road Traffic Accident (Persons)
Rate
0.7
..
..
..
Combined Air Quality Indicator (Areas)
Score
1.27
..
..
..
Combined Air Quality: Nitrogen Dioxide (Pollutant)
Ratio
0.55
..
..
..
Combined Air Quality: Particulates (PM10) (Pollutant)
Ratio
0.59
..
..
..
Combined Air Quality: Sulphur Dioxide (Pollutant)
Ratio
0.08
..
..
..
Combined Air Quality: Benzene (Pollutant)
Ratio
0.05

Unfortuantely, there is no data to compare this with Milton Keynes (unitary authority), South East or England, so it is difficult to draw conclusions from this data to determine how sustainable my local community is.

Housing:Key Figures for Housing
Milton Keynes 009B, Milton Keynes (Unitary Authority), South East, England
Dwelling Stock by Council Tax Band; Band A (Dwellings, Mar08)
%
17.42
15.73
8.77
25.04
Dwelling Stock by Council Tax Band; Band B (Dwellings, Mar08)
%
21.06
27.76
16.56
19.44
Dwelling Stock by Council Tax Band; Band C (Dwellings, Mar08)
%
27.27
26.96
25.83
21.69
Dwelling Stock by Council Tax Band; Band D (Dwellings, Mar08)
%
16.21
11.99
20.08
15.26
Dwelling Stock by Council Tax Band; Band E (Dwellings, Mar08)
%
13.33
9.71
13.34
9.46
Dwelling Stock by Council Tax Band; Band F (Dwellings, Mar08)
%
2.27
5.02
8.07
5.00
Dwelling Stock by Council Tax Band; Band G (Dwellings, Mar08)
%
1.67
2.70
6.45
3.54
Dwelling Stock by Council Tax Band; Band H (Dwellings, Mar08)
%
0.76
0.13
0.90
0.56
All Vacant Dwellings and Second Homes (Dwellings, Mar08)
%
..
..
4.0
4.7
Source: Communities and Local Government

This data implies that in my community there is variety in housing stocks in all Tax bands - this illustrates equity and catering for all on different incomes, most housing lies in Tax Band C, whereas overall in Engalnd the highest percentage is in Band A (Band C is the second highest)

People and Society: Income and Lifestyles
Benefits Data: Summary Statistics (Aug 08)

Jobseekers Allowance Claimants; Total (Persons)
Count: 25
1.61%
Income Support Claimants; Total (Persons)
Count: 55
3.54%

Jobseeker's Allowance is the UK's main unemployment benefit. Trends in the proportion of the working age population claiming the Allowance shows the rise or fall in the number of claimants over time.
At the start of 2008, the number of UK claimants was generally decreasing. From March 2008, the economic downturn started affecting the labour market with the UK claimant count rising. At its lowest, the number of claimants counted was below 800,000. The count passed 1 million in October 2008, and rose to 1.5 million in April 2009.Four other local authorities had claimant proportions exceeding 5 per cent: Birmingham, Tower Hamlets, Wolverhampton and Middlesborough.The highest proportion of claimants was now in Kingston-Upon-Hull with 8.9%. Lowest of 0.5% in Mole Valley

Work Deprivation
Key Figures for Work Deprivation
Milton Keynes 009B , Milton Keynes (Unitary Authority) , South East , England , Economic Activity Rate (Persons, Jan07-Dec07)3 1
%
..
84.2
82.0
78.6
Employment Rate (Persons, Jan07-Dec07)3 1
%
..
81.0
78.4
74.4
Unemployment Rate (Persons, Jan07-Dec07)3 1
%
..
4.5
4.3
5.4
All People of Working Age Claiming a Key Benefit (Persons, Aug07)4 2
%
17
12
10
14
Jobseeker's Allowance Claimants (Persons, Aug07)4 2
%
3
3
1
2
Incapacity Benefits Claimants (Persons, Aug07)4 2
%
7
5
5
7

Source: Office for National Statistics

This is more data regarding social issues of my community, as previously acknowledged employment rates are higher than average, and unemployment rates are lower than average. Interestingly, in general more people are claiming benefits though than the national average! - this comes as a suprise to me, especially as employment and employment opportunities in Milton Keynes are very positive in comparison to places in the North of England were many industrial business have declined and unemployment is considerably higher. It is confusing that many are claiming job seekers allowance in a place where I believe job opportunities are more readily available. However, the overall claimant statistics are much lower than places such as Kingston-Upon-Hole.

To summarise, I personally believe my community to be relatively sustainable in comparison to many, however like everywhere there is always room for improvement. I would like to see improvements in how actively involved citizens of my community are with regards to the governance of my SOA. I feel very satisifed with the built environment however believe there could be many improvements in energy usage and more innovative ways to protect theenvironment, also I believe the members of my community should be educated on wastage of resources such as water, gas, and electricity. Although, recycling is becoming more structured, issues such as water use are not being addressed at all. Incentives in schemes such as re-useable nappy awards and 'cash-fortrash' schemes have proved encouraging, there is always more we could do to become a more sustainable community. I generally feel quite safe where I live, but would not venture far after dark alone. I feel well connected with the rest of Milton Keynes but I believe buses not to be all that reliable, so there is plenty of room for improvements in the field of transport!

Local Political Flyers

Here are some copies of my local 'Linford Letter' all about the Liberal Democrats and what they are doing in my area. Below is another of their flyers which are posted through our door

Education for Citizenship

Education for Citizenship
Education for Sustainable Development also includes making learners aware of their role as 'Active Citizens'. Studies of 'citizenship' are intended to equip students with the knowledge and skills needed for effective and democratic participation. It helps learners become informed, active citizens who have the confidence and conviction to work together to take action in their communities. It is important to know about rights, responsibilities, duties and freedoms and about laws, justice and democracy. Citizenship encourages respect for different national, religious and ethnic identities.

Find Out:
© The constituency in which you live:
There are two parliamentary constituencies for Milton Keynes: Milton Keynes North & Milton Keynes South.
Milton Keynes North is formed from the electoral wards of Bradwell, Campbell Park, Hanslope Park, Linford North, Linford South, Middleton, Newport Pagnell North, Newport Pagnell South, Olney, Sherington, Stantonbury, and Wolverton.
© Your local MP (name, party): Mark Lancaster MP Conservative
© The name of your local council: Milton Keynes Council
© Which political party dominates your local council: Liberal Democrat

2010 is election year.
© What is your attitude concerning people who are not planning to vote in the general election?

If people decide not to vote, then that is entirely up to them, however they are not in a position to then complain if something happens that they don’t like. They have just got to accept that they decided not to actively vote and therefore the decision is out of their hands. I am also a very strong believer that you should only vote if you know what you are voting for and what the arguments for the parties in power. People need to educate themselves on the politics before they can make decisions. It is up to one’s self as to how much they wish to be involved, but it would be hypocritical to complain if you are not actively involved in any decision making, you can not blame people for what is happening, if you have not made your voice be heard, even if just by voting. BUT Be sure of what you are voting for!

© What main concerns do you have that may influence your vote?

My primary concern is equality, however, I strongly believe that at present the ‘working class’ are being given preferential treatment and many take ‘hand-outs’ for granted when they are not necessarily needed them. I am of the opinion that the most needy do not always receive what they should because the less so needy become greedy. It is all to easy to accept handouts rather than do anything about a situation to help themselves. The upper class do not have to worry about any financial constraints, the working class are given a lot of support by the labour party, it is the middle class that seem to be forgotten and then they struggle. This is just a personal opinion and I do not want to offend anybody, as what I speak of is the minority and I do believe there are a lot of people that do receive much needed and deserved support, but there is also a minority that are ‘money grabbing’ and ‘lazy’ or ‘milking situations for all they are worth’. For this reason I am strongly against the labour party as I do not believe that they are willing or wanting to help support everybody equally. A prime example of this, which I experienced at school was EMA. Those children whose parents had an income of less than £30 000 received at least £10 a week to attend school (some up to £30 a week), which is fine with me if it was to be used for transport to-from school or the necessary books and equipment to aid their education, but invariable people at school use it for their social lives and as spending money, they didn’t give it to their parents, or use it for food or anything like that. Whereas my parents would never just give me £10 a week, or £30. In some cases I know children who are using it for their drugs or cigarettes and alcohol, and I think that this is an absurd use of government money (probably my parents taxes!).

Another concern I have that would influence my vote is how the party propose to achieve their plans, or whether they are all talk and no action. I would like to see improvements in sustainability across the board. Environmentally, socially and economically. I would like to see projects underway, transport improvements, community area improvements. I hate it when those in power talk of what they are going to do and never do it! I would like to see them live like you and I, and perhaps visit places and be actively involved in what they are preaching so that they can have hands on experience and can justify their arguments for what they plan to do. Rather than appoint the ‘middle men’ to do work for them.

At the moment the theme in class is sustainable travel. Transport undoubtedly has had a major influence on economic and social development facilitating the movement of goods, people and ideas. Greater accessibility, mobility and communication has shaped the type of global society we live in today.But is there a cost? Environmentalists will emphasize the problems associated with unlimited travel - depletion of fossil fuels, local air pollution, emissions of greenhouse gases, congestion and accidents, destruction of the countryside and the expansion of land under concrete to name but a few. Even our over-reliance on motorized transport has been linked to a general lack of fitness in the population at large.So...what are your views? Is there really a transport problem? Do the benefits of motorized transport outweigh the costs? Are there any minor (or perhaps major) changes you personally feel could make our present transport system more sustainable?

Transport
According to Munbuy (1968) ‘There is no escape from transport’, for it is woven into modern society.
‘Transport hits the core of society’; ‘gives structure to space and our concept of space’; ‘shapes and reflects our way of life and our culture’; ‘the functioning of society, largely depends on the quality and design of the transport system’ (Group Transport 2000 Plus, 1990)
FACT: 3/4 of the world’s motor vehicles are to be found in countries where just 1/6th of its population lives
World car production is steadily rising – 70million a year

The Economic Impact of Transport
Transport continues to be a key component of the modernist project and essential to assist in capitalist accumulation, and the economic impact of transport has been driven by this and globalization.
According to Root (2003) Transport technology has played a crucial role in ‘providing the physical means by which domination has occurred’. It has ensured that humankind has access for exploration and development in every corner of the globe. Improvements in transport and communication technologies has resulted in the ‘time/space compression’ (which is metaphorically speaking the shrinking of time and distance). Undoubtedly transport levels are linked to economic growth and data from DESTR, 2001a there is evidence of a rise in the number of trips when a period of economic growth is occurring.
Roads for Prosperity (The Department of Transport, 1989) acknowledges the link between economic growth and ‘the reliability of road travel’, whereby improvements to road networks reducing travel times and increasing the reliability of road travel will boost British industry therefore improve the country’s economic geography by creating opportunities for growth. Transport has facilitated the growth of trade between localities, opening greater and larger markets globally, personally I am of the opinion that this is a positive impact, however, as with every benefit they is always a hidden cost and the phenonmenon of globalization has major consequences for society in terms of economic and social relations. More recently, we have seen a strong backlash against the excesses of the growth in motorized transport, fuelled initially by environmentalists!

Environmental Impacts of Transport
Environmental Impacts of Transport can be direct (usually visual), indirect (less obvious,ysmore difficult to predict and measure) and cumalitive (caused in different ways and are results of additive effects that lead to serious damages to ecosystaems). Transport related activities have many impacts on the environment and as Transport demand grows the severity and implications of such impacts become increasingly noticeable. Passenger transport demand has grown steadily in the EEA-23 over the past decade, thereby making it increasingly difficult to reduce the environmental impacts of transport. In particular, road transport is responsible for the majority of negative impacts of the transport sector on the environment.
Indicators of the transport and environment reporting mechanism (TERM) help to monitor the progress of the EU's transport and environment integration policies.

Here are some of the environmental impacts caused by transport;
Impacts on Air Qulaity
I believe the most important negative effects are contribution to climate change and to local air
Pollution. Emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) all contribute to air pollution. Transport emissions and greenhouse gases relationship: In the EEA member countries, emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from transport (excluding international air and maritime transport) increased by 27 % between 1990 and 2005. The effects of air pollution include climate change, acidification and urban air pollution.

Natural Resource Depletion
Fossil fuels are the primary energy source for transport. In order to produce transport infrastructure and transport vehicles themselves (metals, plastics) material extraction is required which causes damage to the environment.

Land Use
In the EU, 93% of total land area used for transport belongs to roads. Increased land use for transport infrastructure increases pressures on habitats, effecting biodiversity.

Impacts on Soils
Unfortunately the soil best for building the transport infrastructure is also best for agriculture, because it is stable and flat. Therefore, transport infrastructure uses up valuable agricultural land.

Impacts on Biodiversity
There are three ways in which the transport sector contributes to biodiversity loss: direct damage, fragmentation, and disturbance (EC, 1999).

Impacts of water
Activities caused by the transport sector cause surface and groundwater flow modifications, as well as water quality degradation.

Noise
Excessive noise levels damage people health. Road noise comes from four sources: vehicles;
friction between vehicles and road; driver behavior; and construction (Tsunokawa & Hoban, 1997).

Visual and Aesthetic Impacts
Negative visual and aesthetic impacts of the transport sector are the consequences of
poor planning,
(source: Environmental Impacts of Transport, Central European University
Department of Environmental Sciences & Policy, 2002) http://web.ceu.hu/envsci/sun/EnvImpactsOfTransport.pdf


Transport and Society
In addition, transport infrastructure may significantly affect social and economic factors in local communities and influence people’s health and safety. For example, a positive impact is that transport is a key component in the rebranding and reshaping of urban space. This can be viewed as a benefit of transport. Declining areas can be turned around by greater access and investment potentials (brought by improved transportation). Transport may be the key to breaking the negative cycle of decline faced by inner city areas. Although transport infrastructure intends to connect people and increase communication speed, poor planning can cause the opposite. Giddens (1991) blames transport technologies for the ‘disembedding of social and institutional relations out of their traditional localities’ and ‘reembbeding across great spans of time/space’ by which he means transport technologies has no longer tied people to their traditional localities it has provided such opportunities which can be valued having as both positive and negative impacts. On a positive note, it has provided people with greater opportunities for personal development and employment, but having said this social exclusion is one highly acknowledged topic in connection with transport.

Social exclusion and transport connections
Due to the complexity of transport as a vital ‘tool’ to further other agenda’s, approaches to transport planning and provision must realize the coinciding consequences of any actions. There are often forgotten links between transport and social exclusion. Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR, 2000a published a report Social Exclusion and the Provision and Avaliability of Public Tansport in which many transport planners refer to for guidance.
The 4 main types of transport social exclusion:
1. Spatial
2. Temporal
3. Financial
4. Personal
Two major studies published in 2000 identified clear connections between social exclusion and transport (DETRA 200a; Jsospeh Rowntree Foundation, 2001). Connections were found among the unemployed, families with young children, the young, those with low incomes & the elderly and particularly there was a very strong relationship between social exclusion and transport in rural areas. Shifts towards investment in more environmental forms of transport, such as heavy and light rail, park and ride, quality bus routes, may not always be appropriate for socially excluded communities. A solution to this serious issue is the direction of new approaches to participative decision-making and consultation needs, to bring excluded groups into the decision-making process.
In addition a study conducted by WHO has shown that road transport is the major source of
human exposure to air pollution and noise (OECD, 2001).

With all these impacts acknowledged the future of transport has changed it’s direction. Now keen to implement various new ideas, systems and schemes. This new outlook is known as sustainable transport.

The New Outlook - Sustainable transport

Sustainable Transport
A transport system which in itself is structurally viable in an economic, environmental and a social sensed and does not impede the achievement of overall sustainability in a society (based on Richardson 2005)

Emerging sustainable development agenda’s has seen pressure applied to authorities to reduce traffic growth and promote less environmentally-damaging modes. For example Ryanair claims to be Europe’s Greenest Airline. (See link:www.ryanair.com/.../ryanair-and-the-environment)

To help measure development of sustainable transport there are various indicators locally, nationally and globally. For example indicators of the transport and environment reporting mechanism (TERM). They help to monitor the progress of the EU's transport and environment integration policies.
Transport emissions and greenhouse gases relationship: In the EEA member countries, emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from transport (excluding international air and maritime transport) increased by 27 % between 1990 and 2005.

Globalistaion and the free-market liberal agenda has made local states look for new ways to attract inward investment – focus on new hi-tech, financial & service industries. This has created opportunities to reduce car dominance and provide high quality transport to new sites of employment. Although a positive idea, practically speaking it has been hindered by insufficient funds to invest in public transport. As a result new partnerships are forming, keen to gain through direct/indirect profits of the improved business opportunities. This creates a social consequence whereby less powerful groups in society are being excluded from the benefits of such schemes.

Sustainable Transport and the UK
The UK faces two transport challenges in particular:
· Economic – the system needs to support economic growth (the movement of both goods and people)
· Environment – ensuring impact on local and globak environment is ‘acceptable’
These challenges have been addressed by the development of travel plans (formerly known as ‘Green Travel Plans’. Which are now incorporated into new development planning application documents.
As stated by DfT (2009a, p.6) “A travel plan sets out to combat over-dependency on cars by boosting all the possible alternatives to single occupancy car use. By reducing car miles it can not only benefit the environment but can produce financial benefits and productivity improvements, saving both the business and its staff money and time.”

Such travel plans focus on numerous benefits on national, local and regional scales:
· Regeneration
· Sustainable economic growth
· Promoting healthy lifestyles
· Reducing single occupancy car use
· Managing travel demands
· Climate change
· Social inclusion
(dfT 2009b, p.4)
In conclusion
I have extensively researched transport and documented various positive aspects of the development in transport, as well as outlining the costs of such rapid changes and the impacts that these have had economically, socially and environmentally.
The costs of the environmental effects of the transport sector are difficult to calculate as they are non-marketable representing externalities. (“…effects where
the profit or usefulness of somebody is affected by the actions of somebody else
without any payment being received by the person who suffers the damage from the
person who causes it.” (Quinet, 1993).) Also another difficulty in calculating the costs of the damage to the environment is a very large span of time over which the environmental effects occur.

It is impossible to estimate the future transport behavior with any certainty as I have discovered that transport policy decisions are often loaded with assumptions and looking towards the future management transport planners, professionals and campaigners need to be more aware of the broader forces shaping the city.

Are there any minor (or perhaps major) changes you personally feel could make our present transport system more sustainable?
On a personal note, there are several adjustments that I could make to my transport behavior. I car share to university (this is really because I can not drive – however if I did drive I would encourage others to travel with me, as it saves money as well as being more environmentally friendly!). I could use public transport more regularly, but to be quite frank public transport in this area is absouetly appalling. It is inadequate and unreliable therefore very inconvient. It is also very costly. In order to get people to use public transport there needs to be radical changes. I learnt about the public transport in Curitiba, we could sure learn some lessons from their planning – it is amazing, futuristic and out of this world. I would have no objection to using their public transport.

Here is the key to their success:

The outcome: social, economic and environmental success.

If only we could learn from others!