|
Focus Summer 2001 - Menu - Index - Previous
- Next
"Mending is better than ending"
(to misquote "Brave New World")
My attention was drawn to Chloride's comments
in the last issue on the difference between investment in the
transport infrastructure and maintenance thereof. Given the old
wive's tale of "a stitch in time saves nine" (don't
get me wrong, I feel strongly that we throw away old wisdom like
that at our peril) - given that old adage, we should throw our
resources into preserving what we've got before we try to expand
the system.
That way we'd not suffer from the appalling
potholes which have sprouted across the land this winter ("King
Frost and Prince Rain doing their work again", as a road
engineer friend of mine recently commented); we'd not have the
disgraceful road surfaces we tolerate in our town (has any Borough
Official tried riding a bike down Devonshire Way, Shirley? It's
on the formal Cycle Route from Croydon to Bromley, but the surface
was achieved by hiding all those road repairs, gas board trenches
and water board holes from yesteryear - when standards weren't
what they are now - under a layer of fresh tarmac with no
attempt to smooth the road surface first, hence the bumps are
still there but you can't see them); we wouldn't have the
rail crashes which take the headlines (I feel desperately sorry
for those families caught up in the Hatfield disaster; but deaths
on that scale happen every day on our roads and no-one blinks);
we wouldn't end up with out-of-date rolling stock and ancient
buses trying to prop up the public transport system.
But this is typical of the way finance is
run these days; ask any charity about fund-raising. Anyone who
seeks funding from a grant-giving body (a charitable foundation,
perhaps, a Borough Council, or a heritage or European fund) will
know that cash is more easily extracted for new projects. Fund-givers
are happy to support new initiatives for a limited period - say
three years - to get it off the ground after which it can be
self-supporting. Trying to find funding for ongoing projects
of proven worth is sometimes like trying to get blood from a
stone. We're hooked on the "new" because yesterday's
project is yesterday's news and can't attract the publicity.
It's quite right that we should question the
renewal of funding for existing projects - asking those running
them to prove that the project's continued existence is justified
by the results, with a view to ceasing funding schemes which
died in the water ages back but no-one's noticed. The Croydon
Society, for example, happily accepts the principle that a working
party might be established to cope with an issue; and that the
working party is wound up when the issue is resolved; we're not
enamoured of keeping subcommittees going just because they're
there. If they don't justify their existence any more, we wind
them up and do not regard that as being in any way a diminution
of our valuation of the work they did. Similarly, if a project
exists to deal with a problem that has now been solved, wind
it up!
But if the project still has a purpose, keep
it going, and don't cut funding. Too many charities spend too
much time worrying about their cash-flow instead of being able
to get on with the excellent work they do. Similarly, we should
be maintaining our transport systems so long as they do a good
job. As most of us live on roads, those roads should be maintained;
as most of us use private or public transport within towns,
those systems should be maintained. The provision of funds to
build roads elsewhere which save a few minutes on a journey to
(for example) Southampton should be subservient to that maintenance.
Unglamorous it may be; essential it certainly is.
Andy Bebington
|