Author Archives: Freedom for Drivers Foundation

Consultations in Name Only

Posted on by
2

Recent public consultations by Transport for London (TfL) have typically omitted any costs, or cost/benefit information, about the proposed schemes. For example on the “Safer Speeds” proposals for many more 20 mph speed limits in London, or Cycleway schemes. Nor do they ask a simple question as to whether people support the proposals overall or not.

I complained about those omissions in the ABD’s response to TfL and got a note back from Esme Yuill (Lead Consultation and Project Communications) which contained much waffle but did say “consultation is not usually about the principle of a project, but the proposed design”. In other words, the consultation is usually based on the project being a fait accompli and TfL have already decided to push ahead with it. That is not a consultation in the usual sense of the word, and clearly undermines the democratic principle that consultations should not assume pre-conceived notions.

Indeed this approach is contradictory to that laid down by the Government in their Consultation Principles where it says: “Consult about policies or implementation plans when the development of the policies or plans is at a formative stage”. See https://tinyurl.com/ycb3mwvk

That document also says: “Give enough information to ensure that those consulted understand the issues and can give informed responses. Include validated impact assessments of the costs and benefits of the options being considered when possible…..”. Neither of the recent consultations I referred to in my complaint (the “Safe Speeds for Central London” and the “Wood Lane/Notting Hill Gate” schemes) contained any costs or cost/benefit analysis and that has been a consistent omission in recent TfL consultations.

TfL has been one of the most impervious and undemocratic bodies since it was set up by Ken Livingstone. They do not listen to anyone. Indeed was it not Ken Livingstone who said “Consultation is a good thing when people agree with you, and a waste of time when people don’t agree with you” and TfL are clearly still following that principle. By avoiding consulting on the key questions as to whether projects should be done at all, and not informing respondents on the costs and cost/benefits, they are avoiding any meaningful consultation.

Is that the way that you think the body that runs transport in London and has one of the biggest budgets in the world should run consultations? I do not and I will be pursuing this matter.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Rotherhithe Bridge – A Bridge Too Far

Posted on by
3

Work on the proposed pedestrian/cycle bridge at Rotherhithe is being “paused” which is probably a face-saving admission that it is being cancelled as being unaffordable. With costs rising above £400 million it was always a ludicrously expensive way of providing another river crossing east of Tower Bridge. The alternative of supplying a ferry will now be examined by TfL.

The bridge was strongly opposed by us and by an active local pressure group. See these previous blog posts for more information:

https://tinyurl.com/y3ddvgzr

https://tinyurl.com/y5sgglzh

https://tinyurl.com/y3a9gll9

At least the Mayor has stepped back from what would have been yet another example of his financial profligacy, but one has to ask how this project ever saw the light of day. Such projects, rather like HS2, gather their own momentum when they should be killed off as soon as the cost/benefit ratio is obviously inadequate. No doubt we may learn how much money has been wasted on this project sooner or later.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Chislehurst Commons – Accidents May Be Reduced, Perhaps

Posted on by
Reply

Commons roundabout accident

The mini-roundabout on the centre of Chislehurst Commons in the London Borough of Bromley is the scene of numerous road traffic accidents. It is one of the worst accident black spots in the borough. There were 8 personal injury accidents in the last three years alone despite several previous attempts to improve the junction. Above is a photograph of one incident.

A Bromley Council Committee considered proposals on the 18th June for changes to the junction in another attempt to reduce accidents. Council staff forecast a reduction of 50% but I spoke at the meeting and queried whether that would be the case. Surely it would be better to try and cut out the accidents altogether? This is some of what I said in a note to the Committee Chairman and to others:

  1. I fear that the latest proposal will have no great impact and will just be another half-baked solution that does not stop all such accidents from happening. It also has other considerable disadvantages.
  2. The probable cause of these accidents is that vehicles approaching from right angles to each other at similar speeds are concealed by the now wide windscreen pillars on modern cars. This is compounded by the fact that the junction is not that obvious to those unfamiliar with the roads. I do not see how building a speed table will solve those issues.
  3. In addition it is proposed to build a speed table when the Council has an adopted policy of a preference for “non-vertical traffic calming devices”. That policy was adopted for good reason to placate those people who find such devices very uncomfortable, particularly those with certain medical conditions, e.g. back pain which is an enormously common complaint.
  4. Loop Road is also a bus route and any traffic engineer will tell you that it is not recommended to put speed humps (or tables) on bus routes because bus suspensions cope very badly with such humps and passengers are discomforted or jolted around.
  5. Speed humps also generate considerable noise from passing traffic which will hardly make a positive contribution to the environment of the Commons.
  6. In addition it is proposed to install bollards and widen the pavements which will also be detrimental to the visual amenity of the Commons and might themselves be a safety hazard.
  7. It is in my view most disappointing that we have yet another half-baked proposal being proposed which is very unlikely to stop all accidents at that junction. I doubt the suggested 50% reduction will be achieved, and why cannot we have a proposal that will achieve 100%?
  8. There have in the past been proposals put forward to revise the roads over the Commons that would remove that roundabout and also enable improvement of other junctions on the Commons (e.g. at Heathfield Lane/Ashfield Lane where they are also numerous accidents including one to my personal cost). These would enable the release of more road space to the Commons green space and improve the visual amenity, unlike the latest proposals.
  9. I would even consider the closure of Ashfield Lane to be a better solution than that proposed and I doubt that it would increase traffic congestion substantially as there are good alternative routes.
  10. In summary, I doubt the current proposal is going to be the best solution to the road safety problem at this junction, and we will be looking again at this junction in another few years’ time. The short-term expenditure will effectively be wasted yet again with the other disadvantages of the scheme being ignored. We need a full and comprehensive solution to the road safety problems on the Commons.

In the meeting I also criticised the persistent obstruction by the Commons Trustees to any significant changes in the roads over the Commons that might fully resolve this problem. For those unaware, the Commons are governed by an 1888 Act of Parliament that enables the Trustees to block any changes. The Trustees are an undemocratic and self-appointed body who are accountable to nobody. Is it not time to replace that Act by a more modern one, as I suggested in the Committee Meeting?

However, the Committee decided not to oppose the proposals and just made a minor suggestion to make the roundabout more visible. I fear in another few years’ time this subject will come up for discussion again after a few more serious accidents occur.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Heathrow Airport Expansion, M25 Diversion and HS2

Posted on by
Reply

Heathrow Airport has announced a public consultation on its plans to expand by building a third runway. This will require diversion of the M25 into a tunnel over which the new runway will be built.

The western side of the M25 is one of the busiest sections of the national motorway network and has regular congestion at present. The additional traffic generated by the airport expansion plus the construction traffic and the disruption caused by the diversion is surely going to make congestion worse both in the short term and long term.

In addition the additional planes flying in and out of the airport will add to air pollution in the area which is already one of the worse such spots in London. The airport plans “no significant increase in parking at the airport despite the scale of growth” which seems somewhat unrealistic. But they plan to deter people from driving to the airport by introducing a ULEZ charge for most visitors. Effectively folks using vehicles will be targeted as a way to offset the additional emissions from planes.

As regards the general merits of expanding the airport, we have no official stance as there are differing opinions on the subject. But the impact on the M25 and surrounding roads will clearly be negative and should be opposed.

For more information and to respond to the consultation, go here: https://aec.heathrowconsultation.com/

HS2

Boris Johnson, our potential future Prime Minister, is drawing up plans to have an independent review of HS2 which many people oppose. But it is likely to be run by Douglas Oakervee who chaired HS2 between 2012 and 2013. This looks like a future “whitewash” and a sop to those who oppose HS2 on economic and environmental grounds.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

More Uber Competition and Scooter Mania in Paris

Posted on by
Reply

We reported last month on the launch of Uber competitor Kapten in London. But there is now another called Bolt (formerly called Taxify) that has just launched. The company is backed by SoftBank and claims that it will offer lower fares to passengers and better pay for drivers. More competition might well help consumers of such services but it will no doubt contribute to the traffic congestion in London.

Another likely competitor is Ola who are in discussions with TfL over a licence. Surely what we need is an App that tells us which service is the cheapest, or which will get the driver to us soonest. Now there’s a business idea for someone to take up!

Go to https://bolt.eu/en-gb/ for information on the Bolt service.

Meanwhile in Paris electric scooters are all the rage, but there are many complaints about their use on pavements and about them being abandoned all over the place (several companies offer low cost rentals). The French call them “trottinette”. They are as much a danger to pedestrians as cyclists on pavements as they can go at very fast speeds and are silent. At least one death has been reported.

But they are also dangerous for users. The death of a scooter user was reported yesterday after being hit by a truck.

Paris is looking at regulating their use, but surely we also need such regulations in London?

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Royal Parks Movement Strategy

Posted on by
Reply

Some of the Royal Parks in London contain roads that go through the park, e.g. Regents Park, Hyde Park and Richmond Park. These roads are sometimes used by people visiting the park in cars/taxis, but are also sometimes used by vehicles crossing the park to get to the other side, as has been the case for very many years. Indeed the fact that they were designed for use by vehicles is given away by the fact that some of them are named “Carriage Roads”. But the Royal Parks organisation is now developing a “Movement Strategy” which will potentially limit the use by vehicles on park roads – for example by “commuters” as they call some users although how they differentiate between those and other vehicle users is not obvious.

The strategy includes a policy which states: “Park roads are primarily for the use of park visitors coming to the parks, not for commuters travelling through the parks. Over time, we will discourage the through-movement of motor vehicles within our parks”.

They make no mention of the use of some of the roads, such as the circular road around Regents Park, by cyclists who as the Evening Standard put it “use it for fitness training”. The volume of cyclists and vehicular traffic can now make it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road at certain locations, although crossing points have now been provided at some locations.

Greenwich Park is one example of limiting the use by “commuters” which has been in operation for some years. The through road is only open from 10 am to 4 pm, and not at weekends. Closing other parks to through traffic would be exceedingly inconvenient though for some users.

You can give your views on this subject by going to their consultation page here: https://tinyurl.com/yyzmr4q7 before the 14th July.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

20 MPH Speed Limits Spreading in London

Posted on by
1

20 MPH Sign

Transport for London (TfL) have announced that 20 MPH speed limits are to be imposed on many central London roads. That will include many of the key arterial routes including:

Victoria Embankment, Upper/Lower Thames Street and Tower Hill, Albert Embankment, Millbank, Borough High Street, Blackfriars Road, Elephant and Castle roads and Aldgate “gyratory” even though that no longer exists.

These proposals are part of the “Vision Zero Action Plan” and Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Transport Strategy which we have strongly opposed (see  https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/against-mts.htm for campaign details). It’s just another step in discouraging and impeding vehicle traffic which is adding to journey times and damaging London.

Will it have any impact on road casualties as claimed? Highly unlikely as the City of London wide-area 20-MPH scheme has demonstrated where there was no overall reduction in road accidents and minor casualties actually increased. The solution to road casualties is to look at where accidents occur and re-engineer the roads. Not more speed cameras and lower speed limits.

There is a public consultation and more details of the proposal you can access here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/20/ . PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU RESPOND TO THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ASAP.

These are some of the comments we have already submitted which you can copy:

“There proposals will not have any benefit for those walking and cycling but as it will slow bus journeys, the numbers travelling by bus will continue to fall as they have been lately, thus reducing TfL income.

As regards vehicle users, I think they will ignore the 20 limit as they do elsewhere if they consider the new speed limit inappropriate, as it undoubtedly will be in certain traffic conditions. It will just result in more speeding prosecutions which is already being used by the police to finance their operations by diversion to speed awareness courses – a totally unethical practice.

It will add delays to journeys. To minimise the impact, the solution would be to look at road engineering measures where too many accidents occur instead – and I don’t mean speed humps or tables which have a very negative impact on those with medical conditions. Indeed I would suggest that you are discriminating against the disabled by implementing raised tables.

A 20-mph speed limit will not reduce casualties as demonstrated by the statistics from the City of London’s 20 mph speed limit which actually resulted in minor accidents increasing and no overall benefit.

In summary we are opposed to these proposals in general, and there is no cost, or cost/benefit justification provided – this is yet another disgraceful example of a defective public consultation from TfL, with no simple question as to whether people support the proposals or not.”

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Silvertown Tunnel Goes Ahead

Posted on by
Reply

Transport for London (TfL) have named the Riverlinx Consortium as the preferred bidder for the Silvertown Tunnel. This is the new tunnel to relieve congestion at the Blackwall Tunnels, something that has been desperately needed for some years.

The Consortium is a private finance project backed by several investors. They will get the build costs and the initial maintenance costs from a toll on the users of the both the Silvertown and Blackwall Tunnels. Some vehicles will also be paying an additional ULEZ charge because the tunnels will fall within the expanded ULEZ area.

TfL say they do not have the funds to finance such major projects despite the Mayor of London having an annual budget of over £18 billion, one of the largest for any municipal organisation in the world. Relying on private finance initiative funding has been shown to be one of the most expensive ways to provide public infrastructure in the long-term so this is probably another example of Mayor Sadiq Khan’s financial ignorance. Perhaps it’s a case of TfL being unable to borrow the money to finance the project as they are beginning to look like a basket-case of the first order.

The new tunnel should substantially reduce congestion and cut air pollution from the queuing or standing traffic that happens most days at present. The build contract should be formally awarded in the summer, with completion by 2025. But the Green Party are still opposing it.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

The Cost of Khan – 3

Posted on by
Reply

The Conservative Group on the Greater London Assembly have produced their latest report on the 3-year record of the Mayor in the “Cost of Khan”. It analyses the performance of Mayor Sadiq Khan in the job. Anyone who thinks he is performing well in the role should read it. For those who think he is performing badly, it provides the evidence.

I’ll focus on a just a few of the issues in this note. Khan’s war on the suburbs with the new “London Plan” is covered where housing density is increased and back gardens are allowed to be built on. It includes proposals to limit car parking provision which shows the Mayor’s lack of awareness and consideration for outer London residents and their needs.

Financial incompetence is highlighted such as over Crossrail, the pay of TfL employees and the ULEZ scheme. The staff in City Hall have gone up from 897 when he became Mayor in 2016 to what will be 1,232 staff in the next financial year. That’s a 37% increase and pay in total has gone up an even more staggering 59%. That’s one reason you are paying more in Council Tax!

Even his record on the environment and air pollution is poor with promises of tree planting not met, and the very high pollution from diesel buses which account for 20% of NO2 emissions is not falling as replacement is slow. The ULEZ scheme will be very expensive to implement and operate and is not likely to have a great impact on air pollution.

In summary, the Mayor is a great expert at blowing his own trumpet by spending large sums on PR and social media. He also spends a lot of time on politics that are outside his remit such as Brexit and the Trump visit. Perhaps he just wants to distract the public from his failings to do his job effectively?

You can read the detail report here:

https://www.glaconservatives.co.uk/cost-of-khan.html

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

City Pushes Ahead with 15 MPH Limit

Posted on by
Reply

 

15 MPH Sign

The City of London Corporation has decided to push ahead with their proposal for a 15-mph speed limit across the whole of the City. Almost all the elements of their proposed transport strategy that we covered last October are likely to be implemented including targets for vehicle reduction, zero emission roads, more space given to pedestrians and cyclists and other damaging proposals for taxi/PHV drivers and goods vehicles which service City businesses and residents.

The 15-mph limit is irrational because the limit of 20 mph they imposed in 2014 has proved to be totally ineffective in reducing accidents. In fact minor accidents went up. But City Corporation Council Members and staff of the Corporation seem to have been infected with paranoia and anti-car fever while ignoring the objections they received in a public consultation.

Although the average speed of traffic in the City is less than 10-mph there are some roads at some times of day where traffic of all kinds (including pedestrians) is low so it is safe to do a higher speed than 15-mph. Although it’s not going to have any impact on accident rates, drivers are likely to collect numerous PCNs for speeding. The City of London Police have been quite vigorous in enforcing the 20 limit so presumably will commit even more resources to this wasteful project.

The only thing that may stop the 15-mph limit is that it will require approval from the Department for Transport – there are no DfT approved signs for 15-mph for example. Let us hope they see sense and do so.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.