Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Stephen Mountain

Recent activity

Comments (8)

  • Comment on: Download it now: new and improved NCE on a new and improved app!

    Stephen Mountain's comment 16 December, 2014 1:57 pm

    When is this lkely to be available for Windows phones?

  • Comment on: More roads mean more traffic – an inconvenient truth the government has ignored

    Stephen Mountain's comment 4 December, 2014 1:36 pm

    I much prefer Mark Hansford's take on this - a view far more realistic and sensible. You have only got to look at the images of the miles and miles of traffic stuck at Stonehenge (and elsewhere) to realise that this is not about driving roads through for the sake of it, rather it is to sort out the last of the pinch points which result in traffic rat-running off the Strategic Road Network through towns and villages on roads wholly unsuitable for the purpose. That transforms quality of life for those communities no longer dogged by such traffic, reduces accidents and improves all manner of metrics.

    Yes of course new roads attract traffic but that's only a problem when those roads are not adequate for the job. The RIS seems to recognise this and will make the SRN, by and large, fit for purpose, which at present it is not.

    It's about time that the the Campaign for Better Transport woke up and smelled the coffee. They seem to be unable to differentiate between strategic long distance traffic (such as in the RIS) and local, urban traffic which, by all means, lobby to divert drivers towards walking and cycling - typically 50% of urban journeys are of a distance that could be walked or cycled. But Stonehenge has no local traffic, it's in the middle of no-where.

    CfRT will gain no favours if they stand in the way of this welcome and long overdue transformation.

  • Comment on: Special report: Prince Charles on rethinking the way we work

    Stephen Mountain's comment 10 February, 2012 9:52 am

    Sorry, but I'm struggling to understand the engineering basis on which the Prince thinks he is qualified to ‘challenge the Charter’. Will the ICE be changing our Charter in response to every new fad that comes along? In the 60s and 70s it was the threat of a new Ice Age, but we still managed to build a thousand mile motorway network in less time than it will take to break ground on HS2. Leave the Charter as it is please. The green agenda has become a new religion, and the Prince appears to be manoeuvering to be its High Priest. ‘Educating’ (read ‘indoctrinating’) the future etc. Woe betide dissenters!

  • Comment on: Government launches climate change adaptation plan

    Stephen Mountain's comment 27 January, 2012 4:11 pm

    "The number of days in an average year when temperatures rise above 26°C is projected to increase from 18 days to between 27 and 121 days in London by the 2080s."
    Makes the track record for estimating for engineering projects look good, doesn't it? How can anyone take this seriously with a spread like that?

  • Comment on: Euston to be Labour high speed rail hub

    Stephen Mountain's comment 23 March, 2010 11:47 am

    The problem with through running from HS1 to HS2 is of course that all the HS2 stations served by through continental trains would have to have passport control / immigration / customs etc. On that basis I agree a link between HS1 and 2 is needed for freight, but not for passengers. As long as the indicated 'rapid transit' between Euston and St Pancras is exactly that, then I don't see a problem - no worse than crossing Paris betwen different TGV termini.

View all comments