| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:enough history, this is 2010 | |
| Posted by: | Alan Clark | |
| Date/Time: | 25/01/10 12:14:00 |
| I'm confused about a couple of points. First, from the plans the new moorings look like fixtures that could be readily removed. They are floating pontoons not fixed structures. So if there is a future flurry of freight traffic then these can be moved to make way for the demand. No? Second, creating the possibility of freight (leaving lots of space) is different from creating demand for freight (lots of haulage firms vying to get use of the canal). There's enough puff about the former - but nought that I'm aware for the latter. Third, who exactly wants to see garbage being transported down the canal? The thought of smelly and unsightly refuge barges chugging up and down the canal is not an attractive one. Fourth - what exactly is the basis of the environmental claims of the canal freight argument? I get the large truck engine versus the taxi engine size and fuel consumption concept; I do not get the 3 hours to drive to Brum compared to 2-3 days to chuck up the canal to Brum; let alone the 'we'll need to get another truck to get the goods from the canal basin to the warehouse / customer' issues. Why can we be certain that the barge is cleaner? |