Author Archives: Freedom for Drivers Foundation

Press Release: Growing Opposition to Road Closures

Posted on by
Reply

We have issued the following press release:

Opposition to road closures, particularly in London, has been growing. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) have proved to be anything but and have worsened traffic congestion in the City.

A number of grass-roots campaign groups have sprung into existence to oppose these measures in boroughs such as Lewisham, Lambeth, Islington, Croydon, Ealing, Waltham Forest and several others – see this web page for a list of those known to us:  https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/london-road-closures.htm

They typically have collected thousands of signatures opposing the road closures, and two of them (Croydon and Ealing) have already filed for Judicial Reviews in the High Court.

They have also run public street demonstrations despite the current Covid-19 restrictions which shows the strength of feeling against these schemes.

For example, we have been actively supporting a campaign by local residents in Lewisham where nearly 12,000 people have signed a petition asking for removal of the road closures and proper public consultation on them. The lack of public consultation using the Covid-19 as a spurious excuse has what has particularly angered residents.

You can read more about the Lewisham campaign here: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/lewisham.htm and the many irate comments we have received from residents here: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/Lewisham-Comments-Received.pdf

Campaign Director has commented: “The road closures have been justified on environmental grounds but in reality the closures have meant people have simply driven around them on main roads this emitting more air pollution and damaging the health of people who live on those roads. There has been no modal shift as few people are willing to take up cycling and they have been avoiding public transport during the epidemic. The advocates of these schemes might have had the best of intentions but they have been shown to be abject failures. The dogma that promoted these schemes is still being actively promoted with claims such that traffic will evaporate if roads are closed. But it does not.

Democracy has been thrown out of the window as local councils impose these schemes on the electorate without consultation. Some have backed down and withdrawn the closures but most boroughs are persisting while the Government and TfL support them with new “guidance” and funding. I suggest London boroughs need to listen to their electorate a lot more if they don’t wish to see a political revolution”.

<END>

Croydon Streetspace Consultation

Posted on by
Reply

The London Borough of Croydon has launched a public consultation on their “Streetspace” proposals. Namely the road closures that have hit residents in the Crystal Palace and South Norwood areas under the guise of a “Low Traffic Neighbourhood” when it has been anything but that. Traffic congestion has been horrendous and has even impacted roads in the adjacent borough of Bromley.

They are also consulting on Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes in Broad Green and Albert Road with the former including a permit scheme for residents. There are also proposals for the Town Centre.

See https://new.croydon.gov.uk/croydon-streetspace for details – see bottom right for an open on-line consultation on the Crystal Palace and South Norwood scheme. This is the opportunity to have your say so please complete it!

These measures are claimed to be temporary but if the Council gets enough support they will undoubtedly make them permanent in due course. There is an active campaign against the closures under the name “Open Our Roads” who have already filed for a judicial review of the Council’s actions.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Sadiq Khan Bailed Out Again and Legal Action Over LTNs

Posted on by
Reply

A deal was done over the weekend to keep Transport for London (TfL) afloat – at least temporarily. The Mayor’s Press Release issued yesterday (see below) was headlined “Mayor sees off plan to extend C-Charge as deal reached on TfL funding” which is a typical bit of political point scoring from Sadiq Khan. There was of course an enormous amount of opposition to extending the Congestion Charge (a.k.a. Tax) to a wider area as so many people would have been affected. But the Mayor has had to concede to some changes to keep London’s public transport system functioning until next March.

Some of the details are:

£1.8 billion of Government grant and borrowing made available – but note the increase in borrowing when TfL already has too much debt.

Concessionary fares will remain for older and younger Londoners.

Public transport fares will only increase as previously agreed.

Transport for London to make £160m of savings this financial year, and City Hall will need to raise additional income to protect concessions for older and younger Londoners for future years – if the Mayor wants to continue these. But where is he going to make those savings or raise the additional income from? It does not say.

A modest increase in council tax is to be looked at and the temporary changes to the central London Congestion Charge that were introduced in June 2020 will remain, i.e. they are likely to become permanent.

As one commentator said, this looks like kicking the can down the road as it will not solve the basic imbalance between income and expenditure in TfL over the next 6 months so come next March some tougher decisions will need to be made. It is very unlikely that the impact of the Covid-10 epidemic will have disappeared by then.

Postscript: the full terms of the bail-out have now been published in the Government’s letter to Sadiq Khan. See https://tinyurl.com/yyyxnvnp . You can see why he might be furious over the outcome because it makes it clear that TfL will remain under Government scrutiny and the Mayor has to come up with a sensible and “sustainable” financial plan for it.

Legal Action Over LTNs

The Daily Telegraph has reported on the commencement of legal action against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in Enfield which we covered in a previous blog post. See link below to full article. It refers to “Emergency Traffic Orders” when I think it is talking about Temporary or Experimental Traffic Orders introduced under the Emergency Procedures introduced in June because of the Covid-19 epidemic.

The Telegraph articles also refers to legal challenges being mounted in Croydon and Lambeth. The OneLambeth campaign are raising funds for the legal challenge – see https://www.gofundme.com/f/OneLambeth . Please support them.

It will be worthwhile to follow these legal cases and we hope to report more details in due course.

Just to show how strongly the residents of Crystal Palace (Croydon) feel about the road closures, see this YouTube video of a demonstration over the weekend:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMrQna7tFmM

Telegraph Article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/31/green-roads-council-becomes-first-taken-court-campaigners-say/

Emergency Traffic Order Procedures: https://tinyurl.com/ybns7rwx

Mayor of London Press Release: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-reaches-deal-on-tfl-funding

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Legal Challenge Against LTNs in Ealing

Posted on by
Reply

A group named One Ealing have launched a legal challenge against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in the borough. They are raising funds using Crowdfunder to cover their costs and I suggest that you give them some support. See https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/oneealing

They say on their web site: “Ealing Council has divided our community by installing CCTV cameras, bollards and placing planters in an unsafe and undemocratic manner. We are all for cleaner air, but not at the expense of the residents and schools on the main roads”. In other words, they have the same complaints as in other London boroughs where LTNs are installed.

PLEASE SUPPORT THEM.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

The Consequences of Shutting Out Traffic

Posted on by
Reply

There was a very intelligent article recently published by Building Design from David Rudlin. He covered the downside of blocked roads in estates in Moss Side in Manchester. It was the equivalent of a Low Traffic Neighbourhood but in the 1980s.

He calls it a “disaster” as gangs of kids on bikes could disappear into the area where the police could not follow. He says “pretty soon no one who did not live there would go into the neighbourhood”, turning it into a “no-go zone”. But reopening the roads subsequently transformed the area.

Will the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London turn out to be a mistake when crime spirals out of control? We will soon see.

See https://www.bdonline.co.uk/opinion/consider-the-consequences-before-shutting-out-the-traffic/5108602.article? for the Rudlin article.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Government Rejects Popular E-Petition Against Road Closures

Posted on by
Reply

The Government has responded to the parliamentary petition which called for withdrawal of guidance and funding of road closures and cycle lanes that are creating severe traffic congestion (see https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/552306 ).

This petition quickly collected more than 20,000 signatures which required the Government to respond. However the response is an appalling travesty of justice and could have been written by the original civil servant who developed the defective policy to begin with.

The response says for example: “The Government is committed to delivering a step change in levels of active travel. We know the majority of people support giving more road space to cycling and walking in their local area”. Where is the evidence for the latter claim? There is none. Vehicle users object very strongly to having road space removed.

It also says: “Although some schemes have attracted negative attention, this is still only a small minority of the people living in those areas”. Simply not true. For example, a large proportion of the residents of Lewisham oppose the road closures as is evident from the surveys already undertaken (but which the Council is avoiding doing).

The result of these Government funded Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) schemes is that congestion and air pollution have increased, people are inconvenienced, local businesses have lost trade and lives have been jeopardised with emergency vehicles stuck in traffic. Cycle tracks are often empty, while the roads alongside are jammed.

Readers should write to their Member of Parliament about the triviality of the response – go here to obtain their contact details: https://members.parliament.uk/members/Commons

PLEASE SIGN THIS VERY IMPORTANT PETITION

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/552306

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

The LTN, Air Pollution and Climate Emergency in Lewisham

Posted on by
1

The justification for the Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme in Lewisham was spelled out by Mayor Damien Egan in his webinar on the 22ndOctober (see https://tinyurl.com/LTNResidentsMeeting to watch a recording).

He said that the reasons the LTN was proposed was to a) Improve Air Quality; b) Making streets safer by reducing car journeys; and c) Making it easier to walk and cycle. He also said “road traffic is the number one cause of toxic air and toxic air kills”. Unfortunately he is wrong in several respects.

Toxic air is usually judged to be based on the level of particulates (dust) in the air and the level of nitrous oxides (NOX), although there is some debate as to whether NOX (mainly NO2) is actually damaging to health. Particulates, namely PM 2.5, are the major concern and to quote from the report in Reference 1 below “Road transport accounts for around a quarter of PM2.5 in London, with a large proportion also coming from construction, wood burning and commercial cooking”.

We covered the issue of the contribution of vehicles to air quality in a report we published two years ago – see Reference 2. The Conclusion in that report said this:

“In conclusion, let it be clear that we are supportive of improving air quality in the UK, particularly in urban areas and on particular roads where transport is a major generator of emissions. But there is no public health crisis and measures to improve air quality should be both reasonable and moderate. According to a recent report from Defra, since 1970 NOx emissions have fallen by 72% and Particulates (PM2.5) by 79%. The hysteria about air pollution is wrongly being used to generate tax revenues to local government (e.g. the ULEZ in London and similar proposals for other UK cities) without any justification in terms of cost/benefits. The likely improvement in air quality that will result will be unlikely to be noticed by residents because it will simply be too small and it will have no significant long-term impact on health”.

Even if you consider NOX to be of concern as a lot of it does come from transport, in practice LTNs mainly affect car users while the majority of NOX comes from buses and commercial vehicles – only 33% comes from petrol or diesel cars – see Reference 3 for the data from 2013 and it’s probably considerably less now.

Does “toxic air” kill, as the Mayor said? In reality it is very unlikely that the level of air pollution in Lewisham kills anyone at all. If you live on one of the worst streets for air pollution such as on the “A” roads where there is heavy traffic (particularly HGVs and buses), it is possible that life expectancy might be shortened by a few days. But you are likely to experience more exposure to particulates from domestic cooking and heating than from road transport. The exposure of smokers is also many times worse. Your life expectancy is most dependent on your lifestyle, domestic and work environments, not on background air pollution.

The Mayor also suggested that the streets would be safer if car journeys were reduced but diverting the journeys to main roads as the LTN is doing is not going to help. The accidents will move also to roads where higher speeds may be present. There is no evidence that overall road casualties will reduce by such an approach. In practice LTNs do not reduce car journeys significantly if a wider area is considered – they just divert journeys to longer routes.

As regards the comment that the LTN will make it easier to walk and cycle, there is no obvious problem in using either of those modes in the LTN and reducing traffic will not assist.     

Another justification given in the webinar for the LTN was by CEO Kim Wright who said it supported the Climate Emergency Strategic Action Plan adopted by the Borough – see Reference 4. Many Lewisham Councillors clearly believe they are helping to save the world from global warming by cutting CO2 emissions. Without getting into a debate on the science of global warming, you can see how futile that is in terms of actions possible by the London Borough of Lewisham by considering this data:

Lewisham emitted 805,000 tonnes of CO2 in 2017/2018 which is 0.2% of UK emissions of 354 million tonnes in 2019. The UK proportion of world emissions is about 1%, so Lewisham’s contribution to world emissions is 0.2% of 1%, i.e. 0.002%. The UK is taking vigorous actions to reduce overall emissions while countries such as China (28% of world emissions) are still building hundreds of coal-fired power plants. Any actions by Lewisham will have negligible impact on emissions in the UK let alone the world, and actions to tackle excessive CO2 emissions should be taken at a national level where it can be most effective.

In fact LTNs are unlikely to have any impact on CO2 emissions for another reason. Over 50% of CO2 emissions arise in housing – mainly domestic heating, and only 14.7% arise from cars.

In summary the main reason for the introduction of LTNs in Lewisham given by the Mayor of Lewisham simply do not stand up to scrutiny. The dogma about the need to reduce vehicles on our roads is not only unjustifiable on any cost/benefit analysis, it is simply unjustifiable full stop.

This virtue signalling by Lewisham councillors is imposing enormous inconvenience and costs on Lewisham residents that cannot be justified. Journey times have increased enormously, while air pollution on roads that already had high levels has clearly worsened.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods do not solve anything and are based on irrational opposition to the use of vehicles which the world has come to rely on.

Roger Lawson

Reference 1: Air Pollution Monitoring Data in London: https://tinyurl.com/y57nucz9

Reference 2: Air Quality and Vehicles: The Truth: https://tinyurl.com/yx9bk9kg

Reference 3: Lewisham Air Quality Action Plan (2016-2021): https://tinyurl.com/y2n684bz

Reference 4; Lewisham Climate Emergency Strategic Action Plan: https://tinyurl.com/y34bwcnj

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Congestion Charge Extension – Who Is Telling the Truth?

Posted on by
4

Readers are probably aware of the financial difficulties of Transport for London (TfL) and hence Sadiq Khan. The fall in income has been devastating as people have avoided public transport because of the epidemic while TFL have continued to run the same frequency of services on buses and the underground. As these services are the main sources of income to TfL while costs have remained unchanged, the result has been a ballooning operational deficit. The Mayor is now asking for billions of pounds to keep TfL afloat.

He alleges that the Conservative Government is forcing him to extend the Congestion Charge (a.k.a. Tax) as a condition for supplying more money while the Government says that is only one of several “proposals” that they are asking the Mayor to consider to put the finances back in a stable position.

The Prime Minister alleged in the Commons that TfL had been put into a state of “bankruptcy” which was “entirely the fault of the current Labour Mayor of London” due to his policy on fares. But the Mayor described the Prime Minister as lying and has defended his financial record, blaming the problems purely on the Covid-19 epidemic. It’s basically a “blame game” so beloved of politicians.

But the reality is that I wrote negatively in January (i.e. before the epidemic hit) on the subject of TfL budgets and finances (see Reference 1 below). The article included these comments:

“Despite cutting operating costs, one of the few good things reported, there will be deficits of £307m, £493m and £513m in TfL (after “capital renewals”) for this year and the two following ones and barely break-even in 2022/23. As a result, the Mayor will have to substantially increase borrowing to cover that and large amounts of capital expenditure for both Crossrail and other network improvements. That includes £2.2 billion this year and next year, followed by £1.2 billion each year in subsequent years. Total borrowing will reach £12.3 billion within 2 years” and “…..the Business Plan may be totally unrealistic. In summary the Business Plan and Budget demonstrate an incompetent Mayor and senior management at TfL who wish to get us all cycling, walking or using public transport while the road network gets worse”.

But ignoring the blame game and past history, what can the Mayor realistically do to avoid TfL becoming bankrupt? These are the main options as I see them:

  1. Reduce services and cut staff (the major proportion of their costs) in TfL so as to match income.
  2. Increase bus and underground fares substantially, a politically unpopular choice as the Mayor has lauded his past fare freezes.
  3. Increase the Mayor’s precept on Council Tax, which would raise Council Tax for all Londoners. A politically unpopular choice for the Mayor as he comes up for re-election in May 2021 and local councils would blame the Mayor for the increases in Council Tax they have to impose.
  4. Expand the Congestion Charge over a wider area, or increase the charges on that or for the ULEZ – the latter is already planned to expand to the North/South Circular in October 2021.

Expanding the Congestion Charge zone would be deeply unpopular with drivers and there are enormous numbers of people who live within the North/South Circular and drive vehicles (about 3 million people with probably 50% of households owning a car).  This is what Deputy Transport Mayor Heidi Alexander said at a recent TfL meeting: “Neither the Mayor nor I can see how it would be right to charge people £15 to drive a mile from Wandsworth to Clapham, or from Catford to Lewisham from October of next year …”.

There have already been over 100,000 signatures on a petition opposing an expansion of the Congestion Charge – see http://chng.it/7zNp6sHhm8 . Please sign it!

The Mayor is therefore faced with some very tough choices, hence his approach of blaming the Government no doubt. But it is his responsibility to make the choice.

I suspect there is going to be a mixture of all the above, or some other compromise, if the Government simply refuses to hand out more cash with no view of when TfL finances will be stable. That is something it should definitely not do.

The Freedom for Drivers Foundation has of course consistently opposed the Congestion Charge, a tax under another name. It is very expensive to collect and has not reduced congestion as claimed. See this web page for an analysis of the Charge and why we still oppose it: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/congestion

We suggest the Mayor should choose options 1 to 3 only. It is not clear to us why drivers should pay to keep public transport afloat – they already pay billions more in taxes than the cost to maintain the roads. In reality part of the problem is that transport in central London is heavily used by commuters from outside London who do not pay the realistic costs of the provision of bus and underground services. Buses for example are subsidised by almost £1 billion per year in London, which is no doubt politically popular (even Boris Johnson bottled bringing it under control when Mayor). But that is one lunacy that should surely be stopped.

TfL Budgets have been driven by political populism for many years when it is in essence a business and should be run like one. Why should TfL who obtain income from public transport also have control of the road network? The result is bias against other forms of transport. It is surely time to remove TfL from the Mayor’s control.

Griff Rhys Jones wrote a very interesting article for the Spectator recently about the dire London transport situation. One of his comments was “The most effective planet-saving reforms would be to prevent commercial ‘centres’ and to spread ‘live-work’ across the entirety of London. Instead, we are once again pursuing outmoded and outdated ‘visions’. (Or ‘fantasies’, as London-wide protests by ordinary working people are calling them.) Our capital is a success because people inhabit it”. See Reference 2 below.

The Mayor’s Transport Strategy has certainly been very defective, apart from the budget lunacy and that is one reason why London was so vulnerable to the virus.

Roger Lawson.

Reference 1: TfL Budgets. https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2020/01/17/tfl-business-plan-and-budget-for-the-next-5-years-more-of-the-same/

Reference 2: Spectator Article: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/london-s-war-on-motorists-isn-t-helping-anybody

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Extremism in Southwark

Posted on by
1

The London Borough of Southwark held a cabinet committee meeting last night (20/10/2020). One of the items on the agenda (Item 8) for discussion was petitions that have been submitted about the road closures in Dulwich. There were two petitions considered – the first one which collected 2,475 signatures asked for the immediate removal of the road closures while the second one which supported the closures received 29 signatures. One would have thought that was a pretty conclusive view of public opinion in Dulwich.

Councillor Catherine Rose who is responsible for “Leisure, Environment and Roads” spoke in support of the closures. Her speech was full of platitudes about the need to tackle climate change and reduce air pollution.

The problem that the closures of roads such as Burbage will prevent east-west travel in Dulwich and divert traffic onto the South Circular is being ignored. Businesses in Dulwich village are clearly being adversely affected. It seems unlikely that the closures will be removed soon, if ever.

Item 22 on the agenda was consideration of a report on Air Quality and the recommendations therein. These include:

A – The roll-out of a School Streets programme (i.e. timed road closures near schools).

B – To “drive down” total private vehicle usage by 2030 so that only a few electric vehicles remain.

C – To lobby for expansion of the ULEZ not just to the South Circular but wider – as far as the M25.

D – To increase the cost of car parking, and reduce parking provision by 50%.

E – To implement Low Traffic Neighbourhoods borough wide.

F – To lobby for the introduction of road user charging by the GLA.

These measures, if adopted, will mean the death of the use of motor vehicles in Southwark. Southwark is of course a large borough which stretches from central London to Dulwich in the south. Some parts are much better covered by public transport than others. The needs of those who rely on motor vehicles, or the preferences of those who live in the wealthier parts of the borough are simply being ignored. Those people too old to cycle or walk far are advised to leave the borough, sooner or later.

It is in summary a good example of the extremism that is now pervading the councils of some London boroughs.

You can watch the Cabinet Meeting on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/user/southwarkcouncil

Or read the agenda and supporting documents here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=6663

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Redbridge Removes Road Closures

Posted on by
Reply

The London Borough of Redbridge has abandoned its “Quiet Streets” scheme (a Low Traffic Neighbourhood enforced by “planters” that block the roads). It is to open up the roads. This is after numerous complaints from residents.

This is what Council Leader Jas Athwal had to say: “Many local people have reached out to me directly about the recent Quiet Streets pilots in Barkingside South and Cranbrook West. It is clear that residents have genuine concerns about the schemes. Although we have received some positive comments and significant support for the scheme’s principles, including reducing air pollution and making our roads safer, the overwhelming response has been to ask us to reverse the changes, and we are listening”.  See more here: https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/news/october-2020/redbridge-council-statement-quiet-streets/

Comment: Councillor Jas Athwal and his colleagues are to be commended for their quick and decisive action on this matter. It is very unfortunate that the Government encouraged such schemes and that the anti-car factions have taken such a hold of many local councils, particularly in London.

The use of the Covid-19 epidemic to rush in such schemes without prior public consultation is an absolute disgrace and should not have been permitted in a democratic society. It is very clear that the residents of most London boroughs do not support such schemes and the implementation of such schemes is counterproductive to improving the environment.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.