Transport Crisis in London

Both Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, and Andy Byford, London Transport Commissioner, have warned that unless they get more money from the Government then there are going to be savage cuts in public transport and on major infrastructure projects. The latter might include the required repairs to the Rotherhithe Tunnel, the A40 Westway and A12 Gallows Corner flyover leading to their closure.

Some 100 bus routes face the axe and frequencies may be cut on 200 other routes. Other proposals are no more electric buses, no more step-free stations, no more “Healthy Streets” cycling and walking schemes and no more 20mph zones or safer junctions.

Now some readers might welcome some of those things and clearly the Mayor is trying to scare the Government into providing more funding within weeks. But some of those suggestions like closure of the Rotherhithe Tunnel and the Westway would be disastrous for the functioning of the road network in both east and west London.

How did TfL get themselves into such a mess? It all stems from the policies adopted by Ken Livingstone which was for massive subsidies to buses and commitments for large expenditure on Crossrail and other underground projects. The bus network has certainly been greatly expanded but at a cost that was never justified and Crossrail has been a financial disaster. Over budget, over schedule, and never justified on a cost/benefit basis. The Mayor was relying on income from it to cover TfL’s future budgets which it never has.

Boris Johnson never tackled the problems created by Livingstone when he was Mayor while Sadiq Khan has actually made matters worse by spending enormous amounts of money on cycle lanes, LTNs, and other schemes that have damaged the road network. He has also encouraged the growth in the population of London while the infrastructure never kept up with it despite massive central Government funding.

A report in the Express shows that £515 more per person was spent on transport schemes in London than on the North of England. A new report from the IPPR North think tank has published an independent analysis of transport spending over the past decade. Between 2009/10-2019/20, the North received just £349 per person in transport spending. In comparison, the UK as a whole received £430 per person, while London received a staggering £864 per person. Where did it all go one might ask? On pointless and generally uneconomic schemes not justified by any cost/benefit analysis is the answer.

The daft transport schemes such as the Congestion Charge and the ULEZ have actually encouraged people to move out of London and the cuts to public transport that are proposed will expedite that trend. With falling income from bus and tube fares already caused by the pandemic, the outlook is certainly bleak. But failing to maintain the infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels and flyovers while the Major prefers to spend money on other things is surely a sign of gross incompetence.

London needs a new transport plan where expenditure is matched to income and needless subsidies removed. In other words, people should pay the cost of the trips they take on public transport and free riders should be stopped. But will a socialist Mayor ever take such steps? I doubt it. So London is likely to go into further decline and more people will move out.

But London is at the heart of the UK economy so there is some justification for central Government stepping in once again to reform London’s governance. We need less populism (which generally means hand-outs to win votes) and more financial acumen in the leadership. Certainly the current arrangement where you have a virtual dictator in the role of Mayor and a toothless London Assembly is not working.

The key to improving the London transport network is not to have it all (both public and private transport) under the control of one body (TfL) which leads to lack of competition and perverse incentives. For example, encouraging cycling to relieve pressure on public transport while causing more road traffic congestion and introducing schemes such as the ULEZ to help subsidise public transport while increasing the cost of private transport.

Perhaps we need a new Dr Beeching to put the London transport network back into a cost-effective structure as he did for British Rail. But at least the Government seems to have taken some rational decisions by cancelling the eastern link of HS2 to Leeds. Just like Crossrail in London, HS2 was never justified in terms of benefits achievable and the money would have been better spent on smaller projects. But politicians love grandiose schemes. Reality seems to be finally sinking in on the national scene even if not yet in London.

Roger Lawson

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

ULEZ Had Minimal Impact on Air Pollution

According to a new study by Imperial College, the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) had minimal impact on air pollution in London.

The researchers used publicly available air quality data to measure changes in pollution in the twelve-week period from 25 February 2019, before the ULEZ was introduced, to 20 May 2019, after it had been implemented. They controlled for the effects of weather variations, and then used statistical analysis to look for and quantify changes in pollution.

They found that, compared to the overall decrease in London’s air pollution levels, the ULEZ caused only small improvements in air quality in the weeks following its start date: an average reduction of less than 3 per cent for nitrogen dioxide concentrations, and insignificant effects on ozone and particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations. They also found that the biggest improvements in air quality in London in fact took place before the ULEZ was introduced in 2019.

Although London’s air quality has been substantially improving in recent years, that improvement is down to other factors such as newer vehicles in use, and central Government measures such as tax incentives. The ULEZ scheme, and particularly its expansion to cover a lot of outer London, was never justified on a cost/benefit analysis. See our analysis of the ULEZ here: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/environment . Its introduction was clearly motivated by financial revenues to the Mayor and TfL, not by health benefits.

You can read more details of the study from the link below but the comment that air pollution in London causes 4,000 deaths per year is simply wrong.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/231894/london-pollution-improved-with-evidence-small/

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

The Changing Face of Car Ownership

The way people buy cars has been substantially changing in recent years. Few people buy new cars for cash – indeed it is quite difficult to do so with attractive leasing or hire purchase options with very low interest rates being pushed on you by dealers.

Car supermarkets offering a range of vehicles with click and collect purchasing systems are now common. You can now select a vehicle over the net and even have it delivered to your door.

Now there is a further revolution being promoted by a company named Onto (www.on.to) which have been advertising on television. They are offering an “all inclusive electric car subscription”. You need only commit for one month, with no deposit, and servicing and breakdown cover is free, road tax is included, insurance is included if you are over 35 and charging on public networks is free.

For as little as £399 per month you can hire a Renault Zoe ZE50 with a range of 190 miles – see photo above. They also offer Volkswagen ID4 and Audi E-Tron models but at higher prices. In comparison the Renault’s list price starts at £27,595 so at £4,800 per year to hire you can see that it makes for a very attractive financial option particularly as it removes the worry of batteries degrading over a few years.

Onto has been in business a couple of years and there are other subscription services such as Care by Volvo, Elmo and Cazoo.

You can see that the electric car rental option might be very attractive for those who do relatively low mileages.

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Car Usage Increases in Lambeth

The London Borough of Lambeth is one where there is very strong opposition to the Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) schemes that the council has introduced. That includes a legal action pursed on behalf of one disabled resident by a group called One Lambeth. A judicial review challenge was rejected by the High Court in June but they are appealing and raising funds to do so – see https://www.gofundme.com/f/jzgfd-appeal . Please support them.

Now we learn by an article in the Daily Telegraph (see link below) that one of the objectives of the LTNs which is to reduce traffic has clearly not been met in Lambeth. The number of residents applying for parking permits actually rose by 18.6% between 2019 and 2020.

That is contrary to the general trend in car use in London in recent years. Clearly the policy of discouraging car use encouraged by Grant Shapps and some London councils is not working.

Cars are simply too valuable a mode of transport while most people won’t take up cycling as the main alternative. The Covid epidemic has actually increased the demand for private car use as people are wary of using public transport. The latter has also been discouraged by cuts to bus services.  

LTNs do not provide the benefits that are claimed for them. They should be scrapped which is what a majority of residents in Lambeth and other boroughs want.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/13/car-usage-appears-increase-london-borough-low-traffic-neighbourhoods/

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Electric Buses in Bromley

London’s buses are one of the major contributors to air pollution in the capital, mainly because most of them are still diesel powered. There are a number of hybrid or electric buses being purchased particularly for central London routes where battery electric buses are viable.

Such buses have limited range however and can only be charged in depots. But there was a presentation by TfL to a Bromley Council Committee of the possible acquisition of electric buses that use an overhead pantograph to do “opportunity” charging whenever a bus is stopped along a route. This could be a viable option for the 358 route from Orpington to Crystal Palace.

A similar system is already in use in Harrogate and has clearly been a success. The buses only take 6 minutes to fully charge from an overhead mast.

Comment: this seems an eminently good idea. Let us hope it is pursued with adequate funding.  

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Transport Committee Reports on Smart Motorways

Parliament’s Transport Committee have published a report following their inquiry into Smart Motorways (those where the hard shoulder is turned into a running lane).

There is grave concern among the motoring public about the safety of such roads which were introduced a few years ago without any real evidence on their safety. There were 15 deaths on motorways without a hard shoulder in 2019 and several coroner’s reports criticised the safety of these roads.

The Transport Committee recommends more emergency refuge areas, an inquiry by the Office of Rail and Road into the effectiveness of stopped vehicle technology and revisions to the Highway Code. But it is unclear whether these changes will have any significant impact on the safety of such roads.

The National Highways organisation (formerly Highways England) are even running an expensive advertising campaign telling drivers to “Go Left” if they breakdown. This makes sense if there is a hard shoulder, a nearby exit or a nearby refuge area, but otherwise if there is not it simply puts the vehicle into the left-hand lane typically occupied by HGVs. This is the most dangerous position to be in as such heavy vehicles will demolish small cars and likely kill the occupants.

This is surely a misconceived piece of advice in response to concerns about accidents on motorways.

Comment: Smart motorways have been introduced as a way to maximise traffic capacity without spending more money on widening motorways. In other words, road safety has been compromised on the alter of economics. There was never a proper cost/benefit analysis of smart motorways which are expensive to introduce and manage.

All lane running also creates problems for the police and other emergency services when accessing accidents because typically all lanes are blocked when an incident occurs and there is no hard shoulder.

As with LTNs, the Department for Transport seems to be poorly led, produces policies which are irrational, and in this case dangerous.

We suggest that the expansion in the number of Smart Motorways should be halted and more money spent on improving road capacity by other means.

Transport Committee Report:  https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7703/documents/80447/default/  

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Southwark Ignores Dulwich Objections

The London Borough of Southwark undertook a consultation on the Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) in Dulwich implemented via Temporary Traffic Orders. Over two thirds of people responding objected and wanted the closures removed. There were particularly strong objections to the closure of the central junction in Dulwich Village.

But the council is now proposing to make the changes permanent with Permanent Traffic Management Orders.

This is a massive abuse of democracy which will be very damaging to everyone who needs to use a vehicle to get around Dulwich. Please make sure you object by sending an email to traffic.orders@southwark.gov.uk quoting the following Traffic Orders:

1.       Dulwich Streetspace: Calton Avenue area (TMO2122-015_DS Calton Avenue area)

2.       Dulwich Streetspace: Champion Hill (TMO2122-016_DS Champion Hill)

3.       Dulwich Streetspace: East Dulwich area (TMO2122-017_DS East Dulwich area)

4.       Dulwich Streetspace: Melbourne Grove south (TMO2122-018_DS Melbourne Grove south)

5.       Dulwich Streetspace: Timed bus, cycle and taxi only routes (TMO2122-019_DS bus cycle taxi routes)

Please note that no. 3 covers Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Grove Vale and Tintagel Crescent, and no. 5 covers Burbage Road, Dulwich Village, Townley Road and Turney Road.

Objections are best in your own words but clearly these closures will result in longer journeys for many people, causing delays and effectively destroying the road network. They are prejudicial to the elderly or disabled and those who provide services in the area. They are unjustified on any cost/benefit basis and it is wrong to ignore the wishes of the population.

Just make sure you reference the Traffic Management Orders above.

MAKE SURE YOU RESPOND NOW – THE DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS IS THE 11TH NOVEMBER!

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

ULEZ Expansion – It’s Mainly About Raising Taxes

From today (25/10/2021) the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is expanded to cover everywhere within the North/South Circular. If you drive into it and your car or van is not compliant it will cost you £12.50 per day.

Many people are going to get a big shock because a high proportion of people affected do not seem to be aware of the charges they will suffer – as many as a third of drivers in London and the South-East who will be affected are not aware of the change – see the “This is Money” article link below.

Particularly badly affected are those who bought diesel vehicles a few years ago after encouragement by the Government and will now have to buy a newer vehicle or pay the charge.

We have consistently argued against this unjust imposition of more taxes when the benefit in terms of improved air quality will be both small and of limited duration. See our web site page here for more details: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/environment

You can see the real motivation for expanding the ULEZ when you read that it could bring in an extra £723 million per year for TfL. With the Mayor and TfL suffering from a major budget crisis you can understand why the Mayor is trying to justify this scheme on health grounds. But the facts do not support it.

To check whether your vehicle is compliant, go here: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/check-your-vehicle/

This Money Article: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-10112743/ULEZ-extension-Three-five-drivers-London-unaware-changes.html

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Air Pollution in Outer London

On the 20th October, my local M.P. Bob Neill issued this tweet: “In the House of Commons pressing ministers on air quality targets in the Environment Bill again this afternoon. We need to make real progress on particulate pollution now, not just in city centres but in suburban areas like Bromley & Chislehurst too”. You can see his speech and the minister’s response here: https://twitter.com/neill_bob/status/1450832879798439941 .

He expressed concern about particulate pollution specifically in “hot spots” and asked for a hot spot policy. My response was “I’m not convinced that particulates are a problem in Bromley, at hotspots or anywhere else. Seems you have been listening to the eco-fanatics” and “Bromley meets all the national standards for particulates. See the councils air quality action plan….”. It generated a number of comments from other contributors including a claim that only one location is monitored in Bromley (only true for particulates as there are 10 locations for NO2 monitors which provide good measures of air pollution).

You can obtain the latest Bromley Air Quality Annual Status Report from here: https://www.bromley.gov.uk/downloads/download/437/air-quality-annual-status-reports . The report makes it clear that for both particulates and NO2 the pollution is within national standards. It is also clear that pollution levels have been falling substantially in recent years.

Further responses were received from members of an organisation called Fresh Air Bromley (see https://freshairbromley.org.uk/ ) which apparently is a spin-off from the LibDem Party in Bromley. They have installed a number of particulate monitors (both PM2.5 and PM10) in Bromley and published the data on their web site. The reported figures are all very low apart from at Harwood Avenue (the Council’s own monitoring location) but even there the numbers are within national standards.

This data does not show there is a significant particulate problem in Bromley which is no doubt why they say this on their web site: “We are looking for people to host an air pollution monitor! We are especially looking for hosts who live near possible air pollution hot spots (traffic junctions, schools, etc.)”.

This work is a useful contribution to the air quality issue. But does it demonstrate a major “hot spot” problem? I do not believe it does. I am not saying that there are not locations in Bromley where air pollution is a concern – mainly where there is heavy traffic such as on Widmore/Tweedy Road (photo above). Exposure to high pollution levels may be limited though as the duration of exposure of vehicle users or pedestrians is limited and such roads are not generally residential streets (with a few exceptions).

Car exhausts are being cleaned up by legislation although that may still leave a problem with brake and tire wear. But the big culprits are HGVs and buses and the emissions from vehicles at congestion hot spots. Remove the congestion and air pollution will improve.

Fresh Air Bromley have not demonstrated that existing pollution levels are a major health hazard. As regards particulates, a large proportion of particulates blow in from outside Bromley, or even outside London. Some of it comes from natural sources such as dust storms and agriculture. You also have to bear in mind that particulates are generated in the home from such activities as cooking and from open fires – particularly the modern fashion for wood burning stoves. Historically people have lived with high levels of particulate pollution for thousands of years.

I covered air pollution in another outer London borough (Lewisham) in a previous blog post – see https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/09/11/air-quality-in-lewisham/ . It references the Government’s COMEAP reports on the medical effects of air pollution and an FFDF publication on “Air Quality and Vehicles”.

In conclusion, is air pollution a significant problem in outer London boroughs such as Bromley? The answer is surely NO.

Roger Lawson

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

TfL Consultations – Make Sure You Respond

A few months ago Transport for London (TfL) launched a new “consultation hub” – see https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/ . I advised our blog and newsletter readers to register on the site so they get notified of new consultations. But I registered and have never received any notifications.

The photograph above taken from the web site shows TfL’s vision of the future – queues of traffic stuck behind cyclists!

The web site also just contains a list of TfL Projects with some description of them and people can add their comments on each. The result of course is that there are no doubt a wide variety of comments some of whom support the proposals and some of whom do not. Such arrangements are open to exploitation by pressure groups.

This is one comment I added on the topic of lowering speed limits: “This form of ‘engagement’ is a good way to get a biased set of responses from ill-informed sections of the public which TfL can then use to justify more attacks on motorists by picking out selective comments. It’s not even a proper survey with random responses from anonymous contributors.  This is a disgraceful way of claiming that this can be a fair way of consulting the public. It’s another example of TfL trying to justify their policies by manipulation of consultations”.

You can see all the active projects by going here: All projects: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/projects

Ones that may be of particular interest are:

Euston Road: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/euston-road . Greatly increased traffic congestion due to introduction of cycle lane.

Park Lane: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/park-lane . Pointless cycle lane reducing road space for vehicles when there is a parallel cycle lane in the Park. Has Created traffic congestion.

Bishopsgate: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/bishopsgate . Bus gate that bans all vehicles for most of the day except buses and cyclists. Closing a key road in the City of London effectively.

Trafalgar Road and Woolwich Road (A206): https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/greenwich-woolwich Limited turns inconvenience road users and cycle lane reducing road space.

Lowering speed limits: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/lowering-speed-limits . There is no evidence that reducing speed limits actually reduces road casualties. The published evidence shows no benefit from 20 mph signed-only limits for example. 

But there are many other projects covered that are spread over the whole of London. Please go to the web site and add your own comments on any that are of interest.

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.