Author Archives: Freedom for Drivers Foundation

Rotherhithe Cycle and Pedestrian Bridge

Posted on by
5

An article contributed by the Rotherhithe Bridge Action Group:

Sadiq Khan’s Taxpayer funded vanity project – the world’s longest and tallest vertical lift bridge.

Rotherhithe Bridge 2Rotherhithe Bridge 1

TfL recently confirmed that their chosen bridge design, connecting the eastern fringes of Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf, is a vertical lift bridge with a truss deck. The bridge will have concrete towers 90m tall and 15m wide, supporting a bridge deck 180m long. The Rotherhithe Bridge design is 10m longer than the Arthur Kill railroad bridge, currently the world’s longest vertical lift bridge. The deck will lift to a height of 60m above the mean spring high waters to facilitate the movement of large vessels.

The initial cost of the Rotherhithe Bridge is currently estimated at £400m+, with project costs at £600m (including operating, renewal and maintenance costs of £2.4m per annum over the appraisal period of the asset). Currently the GLA have allocated just over £100m towards the Rotherhithe Bridge. As private funding has failed to meet the remaining cost, TfL have confirmed that the funding will come from the 2017/18-2021/22 Healthy Streets Programme budget. As a result many programmes, which include cycling projects, are at risk of being postponed or cancelled.

TfL analysed the Navigable Bridge (swing design) as having the highest Benefit to Cost Ratio (“BCR”) value of 1.97:1, as compared to a tunnel or enhanced ferry. Further investigation shows that TfL used a bridge cost of £19m or less to achieve this favourable 1.97 BCR value. Using the current bridge cost estimates gives a realistic BCR value of just 0.65:1. This project, therefore, represents poor value for money and always has done. TfL have actually estimated a swing bridge cost of between £182m and £274m (including 52% optimum bias), so it is difficult to understand the reasons for using the erroneous £19m value in the BCR analysis. Sadiq Khan and TfL have failed to provide an explanation. Since the Mayor was made aware of this material error in 2018 he has spent a further £7.2m on the Rotherhithe Bridge project.

More information on the BCR analysis is provided in this document:

https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/80a646fd/files/uploaded/BCR%20analysis.pdf

TfL have chosen the central alignment connecting Durand’s Wharf Park, south of the river, to Westferry Circus. No feasability study was commissioned to determine the most suitable location for a bridge in East London. TfL confirmed that this was because the location had been selected by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Spending £600m on any project without commissioning this basic assessment is irresponsible at best.

Thames Clippers is currently working with Beckett Rankine to develop a rival scheme to the Rotherhithe Bridge. This uses three all electric, zero emission, ferries with a new pier at Rotherhithe and an extended pier at Canary Wharf. The total cost would be under £30m which is a fraction of the £400m+ cost of the Rotherhithe Bridge. The ferries would be cycle-on cycle-off and during peak times all three would run, departing every few minutes. There are a number of examples where this works well around the world including Gosport and Amsterdam.

With Sadiq Khan’s mantra being that he will not tolerate any waste of public money; it is hard to understand why so much Taxpayer funds are being spent on the Rotherhithe Bridge. The free to use enhanced ferry is a far cheaper viable alternative, which meets the “Healthy Streets” objectives without compromising other projects.

Karryn Beaumont

Rotherhithe Bridge Action Group

www.rotherhithebridge.uk

 

City of London Corporation Ignores Representations

Posted on by
Reply

We reported previously on the consultation by the City of London Corporation (effectively one of the London boroughs) on their future transport strategy – see https://tinyurl.com/yd3qne6c . We opposed several aspects of the proposals including a City-wide speed limit of 15 mph and a zero emission vehicle only standard for the whole of the City. The “Unblock” body also made representations to change the routing of the East-West Cycle Superhighway from the Upper/Lower Thames Street route.

The Corporation has now reported on the results of the consultation and its proposed decisions. Although there were many individual objections by organisations and individuals, no significant changes to the proposals, including the points above, are being considered.

The reason is because there was overall support for reducing road traffic and putting walking first – as most of the respondents to the consultation will have been City workers, that may not be surprising. But it totally ignores the needs for those who have to service business activity in the City, and the practicality of these proposals. It seems that the City Corporation has been captured by the irrational anti-vehicle fanatics.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

Higher Permit Parking Charges in Croydon, Kingston and Lewisham

Posted on by
Reply

We previously covered the increase in permit parking charges in Camden – see https://tinyurl.com/y2tw5kcd . This will particularly affect users of larger vehicles that emit more CO2 and diesel engined vehicles and are described as “Emission Based Parking Charges”.

Now Croydon, Kingston and Lewisham are proposing similar changes. In Croydon it will mean the permit parking charge for a vehicle emitting more than 225 g/km of CO2 will rise from £80 to £300. There will also be an additional surcharge of 30% for pre-2015 diesel vehicles. It is also proposed to introduce similar increases for Pay & Display Parking Spaces. There is more information and a link to the full council report in this Inside Croydon article: https://tinyurl.com/y4pfwj99

The justification is to reduce air pollution and help with climate change when levels of CO2 have no impact on public health whatsoever – if anything higher CO2 levels have benefits for plants and animals. So it’s fundamentally misconceived. There is also no evidence that such charges will have any impact on air pollution as anyone with off-street parking will not be affected, many vehicles that drive on Croydon roads do not park in the borough and most problem emissions such as particulates are from buses, HGVs and LGVs which won’t be affected.

Although the Council has not yet published the impact it will have on money raised by the borough from permit parking charges, it is likely to lead to very substantial increases. Readers are reminded that permit parking charges can not be used as a revenue raising measure. This is well established by previous legal cases (Camden v Cran and in Barnet).

There will be a public consultation on these proposals – Croydon residents are encouraged to respond.

Kingston Council

Very similar proposals are also being put forward by Kingston Council. See https://tinyurl.com/yxdss7do . In Kingston the highest rate will be £350 per annum plus an additional £50 for diesel vehicles (even diesel hybrid ones). Affected residents should submit objections.

These changes are undoubtedly being encouraged by Transport for London (TfL) as part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. But the attempt to improve public health by introducing emission based parking charges is fundamentally misconceived and will not work. It’s all about money as usual with Councils of late.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

Mayor Lies at the People’s Question Time in Bexley

Posted on by
Reply

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA On the 14th March there was a “People’s Question Time” in Bexley where Mayor Sadiq Khan answered questions from the public (photo left).

It commenced by the Mayor suggesting that London’s roads were unsafe because he had no control over road safety in response to a question on junction improvement. He claimed that 95% of the roads are controlled by local boroughs, suggesting it was their fault. But in reality, the Mayor via TfL controls almost all the money spent on roads and road safety. TfL dictates what projects local boroughs can spend on by only funding what they like. In addition they dictate transport strategy directly. As a result, boroughs are forced to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on 20 mph wide area speed limits that have been proven to be totally ineffective, on cycle lanes, speed hump schemes and other pointless measures.

The Mayor was also criticised for spending £400 million on the proposed Rotherhithe cycle/pedestrian bridge, and when it came to policing there was applause from the audience when one person suggested he could solve the crime problem overnight by just diverting money spent on cycle lanes to the police.

When discussing public transport the Mayor said that London is the only city in the world that is not subsidised by Government. That is simply not true. TfL receives £3.2 billion in grants which is 31% of TfL’s income. Most of that money comes from taxes and much comes from central Government – see https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded .

In response to questions on the environment the Mayor said that London air is a killer which is a gross exaggeration. But he got one point right – namely that diesel buses are a major problem. He said the worst areas for air pollution in London are those with the most buses. He said they are not buying any more diesel buses and are retrofitting existing ones.

He got criticism on the ULEZ but apparently expects central Government to bail out folks who cannot afford to buy a new car, which is highly unlikely to happen.

His final major point was to promote another referendum on Brexit. What a pity that Parliament ruled it out the same day which probably pleased the audience and certainly pleased me.

You can see a recording of the meeting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmqgw6OjMD4

Mayor’s Tax Precept Rises

There were a number of criticisms of the Mayor’s financial policies at the meeting described above. London residents may have just realised that their local Council Tax is rising significantly this year and one reason is that the Mayor’s tax precept that you pay in your Council Tax, and is passed through to the GLA, is rising by 8.93%. That’s way ahead of inflation and is another example of the Mayor’s financial incompetence.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

Permit Parking Charges to be Hiked in Camden

Posted on by
Reply

Parking_PermitOnly

The London Borough of Camden is proposing sharp increases in permit parking charges. That will particularly apply to larger engined or older vehicles that emit more than 225 g/km of CO2/km. Charges for those will rise from £296 p.a. to £475 p.a. and there will be an increased “diesel surcharge” of £102. Smaller vehicles face even larger increases on a percentage basis. These proposals are part of the councils Clean Air Action Plan. This is some of what one local resident had to say to Councillor Brenda Busingye:

“1. The proposed charges represent an increase of over 70% (in my case) which is an outrageous increase for any tax under any administration.

2. There is no justification for increasing this tax other than your stated ‘vision’ which is based on a narrow, highly politicised and anti-car ownership bias. Millions of ordinary people depend on private transport and the alternatives simply do not provide the facilities required. I am one of them.

3. There is no recognition in either the existing or proposed charges that, with Euro VI standards and new technology, diesel cars are now amongst the cleanest, producing far less CO2 than petrol equivalents and far less NOx emissions (note that it was a Labour government that whole-heartedly promoted diesel as a means of reducing greenhouse emissions which is one of the reasons I bought one).

4. Although it is true to say that electric vehicles are the future (and I am a big supporter), the technology in terms of range (a particular issue for me), charging infrastructure and cost means this option is still years away for most people. That is unless you happen to be very wealthy (I am not) in which case for such individuals the parking permit charges would not be an issue.

5. I have no choice not just because I need my car but also because I cannot stop you. Therefore Camden will continue to ‘gouge the motorist’ simply because we are an easy target. This is lazy administration and fundamentally unfair. Also I have no choice not just because I need my car or because I can’t stop you but also because I can’t vote this administration out of power. Camden is a solid Labour council and constituency. Therefore I am and have always been politically unrepresented and unprotected from policy excesses such as this one.”

Comment: this is certainly an unjustifiable increase and is probably unlawful in that it appears to be a revenue raising measure rather than just covering the costs of administration and enforcement. Residents should consider legal action.

Full details here: http://tinyurl.com/y62bf2wd . Residents have until the 29th March to object.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

Bus Accidents Kill Too Many People

Posted on by
Reply

The trade union GMB have complained about the number of people killed or seriously injured by buses on London’s roads. There were 45 people killed and 1,017 seriously injured in the last 5 years, which is certainly a large number which should be tackled.

The GMB, which represents bus drivers, claimed one of the causes is the pressure put on bus drivers to drive fast so as to meet schedules and punctuality targets. They also blamed the culture at TfL. GMB regional secretary Warren Kenny was quoted as saying “Sadiq Khan has to get a grip on the problem he inherited from the past managers who designed the outsourced killing machines that TfL presides over”.

But is the problem as simple as suggested? Many of these accidents involved pedestrians stepping off the pavement in front of buses without looking. Others are cyclists hit by turning buses or being squeezed under the wheels. Other accidents arise from injuries to bus passengers as they are jolted by abrupt braking or turns, or from pedestrians being clipped by bus wing mirrors.

It is possible that drivers are having difficulty in meeting timetables as buses have been slowed by increasing traffic congestion of late. But it seems unlikely that bus drivers are deliberately driving more dangerously. They can be traumatised by accidents to pedestrians so no experienced driver would risk such an accident. Perhaps there is an issue of driver recruitment and education.

But all the above are hypotheses. Clearly more research is needed into the causes of such accidents and how to prevent them. It is an unfortunate fact that when it comes to road traffic accidents, those with little knowledge are all too quick to jump to conclusions without examination of the detailed accidents statistics, and research into specific accidents and their causes.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

Legal Action Against Mayor by Minicab Drivers

Posted on by
2

PHV (Minicab) drivers are incensed by the recent steps by the Mayor of London and TfL to make them pay the London Congestion Charge while licensed taxis will continue to receive an exemption. That and the proposed ULEZ charges will threaten the livelihoods of minicab drivers who are relatively poorly paid already. Many will have to give up and end up out of work.

They are supported by the Independent Works Union and have issued a “pre-action” letter to Mayor Sadiq Khan, prior to the launch of a judicial review.

They are also claiming that as most minicab drivers are BAME (black, coloured or from ethnic minorities) while most taxi drivers are white, this is indirect discrimination.

Comment: Such drivers are certainly incensed by this proposed change as I saw at a recent meeting I attended (see https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2019/02/12/cab-driver-protests-escalating/ ). There does not seem to be any rational reason for treating one set of cab drivers different to another, particularly as the likely impact on the number of PHV drivers in central London is not forecast to change much, which was the justification for the change. It will of course affect some drivers much more than others.

I wish them the best of luck with a judicial review although these are not easy legal proceedings (I have been involved in more than one), and depend on a lot more than the moral arguments.

Could it perhaps be about money rather than traffic congestion, or principles?

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

London Air Pollution Alert, or Perhaps Not

Posted on by
Reply

This week (on 26/2/2019) Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, issued an “Air Pollution Alert” in a press release (see https://tinyurl.com/yxud56ya ). He claimed that this is evidence of London’s air quality crisis and why we need the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) which will result in Londoners paying millions of pounds in charges.

But if you read further down the press release it says: “This is due to a combination of poorly dispersed local emissions and sustained import of particulates from Germany and France” and he goes on to say this will get worse on Tuesday. But he omitted to mention that the winds from the south are also bringing dust from the Sahara. This was covered in the Financial Times where Alexander de Meij of MetClim is quoted as saying “it is a rare phenomenon because of the Sahara dust” and added that local and European pollution were contributing factors.

Despite all these hysterics, at Wednesday lunchtime, when air pollution was forecast to be “high”, according to the London Air Quality Network it was in reality only “moderate”. The lack of the normal wind and rain in London does not help perhaps but that will change tomorrow.

Readers are reminded that emissions from vehicles are only one contributor to outside air pollution in London and are in decline as they have been for many years. We reported recently on how air pollution on the Underground is much worse and noted how air pollution inside people’s homes is also relatively poor. That was confirmed in a recent report from the University of Texas in the USA where a study of cooking in a typical American home showed high levels of pollutants was the result. Even simply cooking toast raised particle levels substantially.

Meanwhile, you might be surprised to learn that the UK Government is funding activist lawyers ClientEarth through the Foreign Aid Budget – that’s an organisation that has actually been launching legal actions against the UK Government. See this report from the Taxpayers Alliance for more information: https://tinyurl.com/y5aeqdl8

As a result, local councils have been introducing Clean Air Zones with charges on vehicle users, such as the ULEZ in London. But do they have any impact, such as protecting the health of children or anyone else? The answer is no according to this report from the Taxpayers Alliance: https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/there_s_something_in_the_air

The conclusion must be that these impositions are about extracting money from vehicle users rather than a motive of improving health because they will not do so. The Mayor latest scaremongering is just another example of how he is using scare tactics to get people to support the ULEZ.

The Mayor is promoting London as an “Open” city, but perhaps he should try closing it to air pollution from the EU and North Africa. An imitation of King Canute would be appropriate perhaps?

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

3D Zebra Crossings

Posted on by
Reply

The first 3D zebra crossing has been installed in the UK on St. Johns Wood High Street (borough of Westminster) – see http://tinyurl.com/y5h33jnr . They have been used in other countries such as Iceland and are designed to look like the road contains vertical boxes. They won’t fool anyone after the first drive over them, but might cause unfamiliar drivers to slow down, or brake abruptly which might be positively dangerous.

These are using the same principle as painted speed humps (they look like real road humps until you drive over them). They are of course much quieter than conventional humps. They have been used in a few streets in the UK, including some in London. But the lack of widespread adoption rather suggests that they are less effective in slowing traffic.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

Dockless Bike Hire Schemes Fading Away, and TfL Scheme Economics

Posted on by
Reply

Cycle - Ofo.jpgDockless bike hire is where cycles can be picked up, used and then discarded anywhere on the streets of a city, for a small fee. That contrasts with the TfL/Santander bike hire scheme in London where you can only retrieve and return bikes from docking stations. Dockless bike hire has taken off in some cities across the world, and a number of operators launched such schemes in London.

The Guardian ran an interesting article recently on the success, or otherwise, of such schemes in the UK under the heading “Life cycle: is it the end for Britain’s dockless bike schemes? See: http://tinyurl.com/y37ugqc3

Many operators who launched in the UK have found to their cost that there are high levels of theft and vandalism of bikes. In addition, many local councils (i.e. boroughs in London) have opposed their introduction because it means that bikes get abandoned on streets, often causing obstruction. Some boroughs have taken to removing bikes unless the operator is approved, although technically they do not have to be licensed as yet. This means that as some boroughs have approved operators but others not, bikes cannot be ridden across borough boundaries without the risk of seizure.

Failures include oBike who put 1,330 bikes in London in July 2017 and withdrew them four months later. Wandsworth impounded many of them as they appeared without warning they claimed. Ofo, a very large Chinese company, launched in London but is now withdrawing altogether from the UK.

Comment: Clearly an example of a “good idea” which ignored the amount of criminal activity and general vandalism in some parts of London. An example of an unproven business model which has yet to demonstrate it can be run as a viable economic business.

But is the TfL “docked” scheme economic? The answer is no. It lost £3.7 million in 2017/18 even after the sponsorship income of £6.3 million from Santander. So losses are about equal to the fare income in reality. Or to put it another way, the fares paid by users cover less than half the operating costs. That year was similar to the previous year and the one before that was even worse. Clearly a totally uneconomic solution for the transport needs of London users, heavily subsidised by other TfL income (which is mainly bus/tube fares and taxes) and by Santander.

You can see more detail on the economics of the TfL scheme here: http://tinyurl.com/y44cyebj

This was another “good idea” introduced by cycling fanatic Boris Johnson pandering to the cycling fraternity, just like all the very expensive cycle lanes built in London in recent years. The result is enormous expenditure to no good purpose and it is financially unjustifiable. But recent Mayors of London have tended not to be hot on financial management as Sadiq Khan has shown repeatedly with TfL running up large deficits while Boris Johnson wasted £43 million of public money on the “Garden Bridge” before it was recently abandoned altogether. Politicians are good at spending your money, and politicking it seems to pander to the whims of the electorate, but not at managing budgets and staying within their income. That’s one reason why Mr Khan is so keen to raise taxes via the ULEZ scheme.

Roger Lawson