Author Archives: Freedom for Drivers Foundation

Travel in London – It’s Certainly Changing

Posted on by
Reply

A report that should be essential reading for everyone who has to travel around the London metropolis has recently been published by Transport for London (TfL). It’s called “Travel in London – Report 8). It shows how transport in London has been changing, partly as a result of the growth in population, partly from attempts to encourage cycling and “modal shift” in general and the impact of a buoyant economy. Here’s a brief summary of the contents, with some comments.

The population of London grew to a record 8.6 million people in 2015, the highest point since 1939. In 2014 total trips rose to 26.6 million in the average day – that’s 8% more than in 2008, and 2% more than the previous year. In other words, travel has been showing strong growth in London.

There is however a trend for falling private car use, but rising use of public transport and more cycling and walking. As it says “a feat unprecedented in any major city“, driven by “consistent policies”. The population of London is expected to continue to grow rapidly, but will feature more older people.

About half of all bus journeys in England are now made in London – an unbelievable figure which demonstrates just how much they are subsidised. But bus patronage has levelled off in recent years because of “a similar trend in service supply”, i.e. fewer buses are being run as subsidies have been slightly reduced so the consumption falls to put it in plain English.

London Underground, DLR and Overground rail services likewise show strong growth with more capacity on these lines supporting the growth.

Road traffic has fallen for much of the last decade, but has increased in the last two years. For example traffic volumes were up by 3.4% in central London in the most recent year, and 1.9% in outer London. This is thought to reflect population growth and economic trends, but the increase in traffic has brought pressure to bear as congestion rises from reduced road space and other causes. As the document says: “….effective network capacity for general traffic continued to be reallocated to other MTS (Mayors Transport Strategy) priorities“.  I think they mean changes to accommodate more cyclists, more bus lanes, removal of gyratories in the name of road safety and similar such measures. There was a sharp 13% increase in average traffic delay in 2014 according to the report, which won’t surprise anyone who has to drive in London – and that does not even reflect the changes made since the start of 2015.

The number of licensed taxis has remained stable, but the number of private hire vehicles (minicabs) has risen sharply – up by 19% in the latest year alone. That has had a significant impact on traffic congestion of course.

Cycling levels rose by 10.3% between 2013 and 2014, and walking has risen but only by the same trend as population growth. There could be more people commuting into central London by bike than by car soon, but that change is much less noticeable in the outer London boroughs.

There are positive trends in CO2, PM10 and NOX emissions (a lot of which come from transport vehicles) reflecting initiatives to improve local air quality.

Comment: this report shows the impact that Boris Johnson’s policies have been having on transport in London. Basically more people cycling, with cars discouraged by reductions in road capacity. Cycling has also been encouraged by sharp increases in public transport fares which have been rising faster than inflation making it one of the most expensive cities in the world for public transport – unless of course you are one of those who hold a Freedom pass where your travel is subsidised by the rest of the population for reasons which this writer finds difficult to understand. Originally introduced by the Greater London Council in 1973, it has remained a financial millstone around the necks of London boroughs even though the GLA was subsequently abolished by Margaret Thatcher.

Encouraging more cycling has had some unintended consequences because it is one of the less safe modes of transport, particularly when you get a lot of new, inexperienced cyclists on the roads or those who like to “pedal furiously” as is now a frequent sight on the roads of London. The end result is demands for more measures to improve the safety of cyclists, which can be very expensive.

Are all these changes of benefit? You might not think so if you are one of those increasing numbers of older people who are not able or willing to cycle. It seems unfortunate that Londoners have never really been asked what they would like as public consultations on these matters have been low key and certainly the cost/benefit of all these changes have never been spelled out. But it seems unlikely that this will be a debating topic for the competing Mayoral candidates.

Roger Lawson

Cycle Superhighway on the A40 Westway

Posted on by
Reply

A public consultation has been launched on the part of the East-West Cycle Superhighway that is to run along the A40 road (from Paddington to Acton) – that includes a segregated cycle lane on the elevated section of the Westway.

One lane of the Westway heading east will effectively be removed and converted into a cycle lane for use in both directions. The proposals will have an impact on journey times for vehicles based on TfLs modelling. Some routes in certain directions and certain times will improve, while others will get worse.

Of particular concern is that the journey from Gipsy Corner to Westbourne Bridge could be 4-6 minutes slower, and the trips between Holland Park Roundabout and the Paddington area in the morning peak could be 8 to 10 minutes slower, with long queues resulting. However TfL say they are investigating a number of measures to reduce the delay and the scheme will not go ahead unless it is reduced.

Road users affected should make sure they respond to the consultation which is available here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/east-west-phase-2?cid=east-west-consult

Roger Lawson

The Latest Accident on Chislehurst Commons

Posted on by
Reply

Last week saw yet another accident at the white spot roundabout in the centre of Chislehurst Commons (on Centre Common Road) – see the aftermath in the photo.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

This junction has been the scene of numerous accidents over the years, some involving serious injury. Typically vehicles approach from two right angle directions at the same time and one does not give way to the other – indeed it seems likely they do not see the other vehicle or recognise it is a junction.

Several attempts have been made by Bromley Council to rearrange the approach roads, and signage, but nothing has worked. The only real solution is surely to remove the junction by rearranging the roads over the Commons. This indeed is part of a proposal from the Council which is under discussion with the Commons Trustees whose permission is required for any changes but they seem reluctant to support it even though they would gain more “green” space.

The latest accident even involved a Transport for London (TfL) vehicle as can be seen in the photograph which might help to get their support for finance to tackle this issue.

Roger Lawson

Press Release on Speed Cameras

Posted on by
Reply

We have published a press release on the latest evidence concerning the effectiveness of speed cameras.

It highlights analyses of the claims for speed camera benefits in London, the Thames Valley and Wales which contradict the claims made for their effectiveness. There are also doubts about their use in Scotland and a wider scale study by Idris Francis, a well known campaigner against cameras, is about to be published.

Here is a brief extract from the press release: “The response of the authorities and other vested interests to soundly-based criticisms that their claims were clearly nonsense has certainly been consistent.  Since the first official reports from 2002 onwards, they have sought to bury their heads in the sand – in the hope that the damning and mounting evidence that cameras are useless for road safety purposes will simply go away. Given how very lucrative are speed cameras and their downstream operations; it is hardly surprising that Camera Partnerships and other financially-involved, vested interest groups continue to systematically and cynically misrepresent the reporting of casualty data trends and the effects on them of speed cameras. The emerging evidence clearly shows that speed cameras are nothing less than a monumental waste of a very great deal of money – that ought to be put to better use elsewhere on: e.g., road and junction improvements, dualling etc.” 

Those who promote the benefits of speed cameras, and continue to advocate more expenditure on them, as has happened in London of late, should surely study this data more carefully. Regrettably those who make decisions on these matters often seen to have closed minds and have little background in the science required to make sense of the data.

Roger Lawson.

Mayor’s Transport Budget

Posted on by
Reply

When you wish to see what is happening in London, and what the priorities for transport will be in future, one of the key documents to look at is the Mayor of London’s Transport Budget. His new budget for 2016/2017 has just been published. Here are a few comments on it:

Improving bus journey reliability is a key objective. But guess what, bus journey times have been negatively impacted by the “Road Modernisation Plan” (which includes on-going “improvements” to a number of major road junctions and lots of cycle lanes which have removed road space). As a result “bus mitigation schemes” are required. What does that mean? Probably a lot more bus lanes in essence.

The Road Modernisation Plan is actually costing £4 billion although some of that will apparently go on improving or maintaining existing assets – such as strengthening the Hammersmith Flyover and upgrading the Fore Street tunnel. It will also include “transformational” projects to replace the Wandsworth town centre gyratory, the Vauxhall Cross Gyratory, and projects for the Euston Road, King’s Cross, Highbury Corner and Croydon Fiveways.

For cycling projects there will be £913 million spent through to 2021/2022 which includes the Cycle Superhighways, a number of “Quietways” (cycle routes on minor roads) and numerous smaller projects.

Money will be spent on replacing obsolete wet film speed cameras by digital cameras (amount to be spent not declared), on financing 20 mph schemes, and a trial of “mandatory Intelligent Speed Assistance” (note the rebranding from the former “Intelligent Speed Adaptation”!).

You can see the real priorities by looking at the proposed split of the capital expenditure budget for 2016/2017. This is £1,673m (47%) on Rail and Underground, £1,299m (36%) on Crossrail, £435m (12%) on Surface Transport, with the balance of 5% on “Corporate” (the latter includes commercial development and ticketing projects). In other words, the road network is yet again to be starved of funding in comparison with rail/underground projects despite the road network being used for many more journeys (counting bus trips, private cars, cycling, etc). Indeed if you consider the expenditure on cycling and buses alone, there is surely not much left for other improvements to the road network.

So now you know where the money goes.

Roger Lawson

Castles in the Air, or Tunnels under London?

Posted on by
Reply

Boris Johnson has proposed two new east-west tunnels under London to reduce congestion by up to 20 per cent. With the population of London still growing rapidly, and measures such as the cycle superhighways reducing road space for vehicles on key east-west routs, the Mayor of London invited TfL (Transport for London) to look into using tunnels to relieve congestion last year.

TfL have suggested that two major routes be examined in detail – one running from the A40 at Park Royal in the west to the A12 at Hackney Wick in the east, and one running from the A4 at Chiswick to the A13 in Beckton. In addition there are proposals for “flyunders” at various locations such as on the A13 at Barking and to replace the Hammersmith flyover.

The Mayor is calling for the Government to divert some of the Vehicle Excise Duty they collect from Londoners (about £500 million per year) to help finance these schemes.

Comment: After managing to seriously damage the road network of London during his time as Mayor (by removing road space in favour of cyclists, removing gyratory schemes that actually helped traffic flows, and lots of other minor degradations such as closing roads) he is leaving this as a parting shot to his electorate before moving onto to higher things. Will such major investments in cross-London tunnels actually happen in your or my lifetime? It seems exceedingly unlikely from the past experience of long term planning in London. Tunnels have been used successfully in Boston, USA and in cities in Scandinavia but they are exceedingly expensive. We certainly have the technology to build such tunnels now relatively quickly, as is apparent from the Crossrail project, but is it likely that the idea for tunnels will be pursued by his successor as Mayor? With the two main candidates competing on their “environmental” credentials, it seems unlikely they will work hard to obtain the required funding even if they were advised to take on these projects.

Roger Lawson

HGVs and Cycle Safety

Posted on by
Reply

Transport for London (TfL) are consulting on a proposed new regulation to require lorries to have additional side windows. This is what it says: “At present, lorries are currently only required to have a window on the upper section of passenger-side door.  This makes it difficult for drivers to have a direct view of pedestrians and cyclists who are near to the front left hand side of their lorry.  

We propose that the fitting of vision panels in passenger-side doors, wherever they can be fitted, should become the mandatory standard for lorries operating in London. Fitting an additional clear window panel to the lower section of the passenger-side door gives drivers a better, direct view of adjacent cyclists and pedestrians.”

The consultation also says: “Lorries are disproportionately involved in fatal collisions with pedestrians and cyclists.  Between 2010 and 2014, lorries were almost 10 times more likely to be involved in a fatal collision than cars; Seven of the nine cyclist fatalities in London in 2015 have involved lorries; 79 per cent of fatal collisions with cyclists in the past three years have involved lorries designed to be driven off-road”.

Clearly there is a problem here that should be tackled. But it is surely wrong to propose regulations for vehicles in London that differ from the rest of the country. This should be done by national regulation, not local regulation as vehicles can obviously travel long distances and if all cities introduced different regulations it would cause enormous confusion and lead to poor compliance. However meritorious the proposal, the strident demands of cyclists in London should not dictate how this measure is implemented.

As usual with consultations from TfL of late, there is no information provided on the likely cost of these proposals (i.e. the burden on lorry operators), or a simple cost/benefit analysis.

The full consultation is here if you wish to respond yourself: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/safer-lorries

Roger Lawson

More Congestion in the City

Posted on by
Reply

We have covered the worsening congestion in the City of London arising from the works around Aldgate and the impact of the new Cycle Superhighways during 2015. But it is going to get worse in 2016.

There will be in addition be major works that will close the junction of Aldgate, Leadenhall Street and Fenchurch Street requiring that all three roads be closed from January to April.

In addition Tower Bridge will be closed to “re-deck” the bascules (the raising part of the road surface). This is likely to take place in Q4 2016 and will require traffic on the inner ring road to be diverted via the Congestion Charge zone to use Southwark or London Bridges.

The end of 2016 might also see a closure of Bank junction (see previous blog post on that topic).

Note that the Highways Team in the City of London Corporation now have their own Facebook page (see https://www.facebook.com/Squarehighways) and Twitter feed so you can easily give them your comments on news items.

There is one thing for certain in 2016 – road users will find life more difficult in the City.

Roger Lawson

Accident Statistics – An Inconvenient Truth

Posted on by
Reply

A very good analysis of the road traffic accident data in London is present on this web page: http://www.londonbusroutes.net/miscellaneous/Accident_trends.htm. It has only recently been brought to my attention but it is definitely worth reading if you care about road traffic casualties.

It tackles the question of whether traffic calming, and in particular 20 mph speed limits, have the benefits claimed or are cost effective. One table in the report which I reproduce below is based on an analysis of the accident reductions in different boroughs with differing levels of traffic calming (it gives all the underlying data based on TfL figures if you want to check out your own London borough):

Level of traffic calming Reduction for
Deaths KSIs All
Low 42.21% 62.32% 38.71%
Moderate 53.54% 62.01% 37.11%
High 43.97% 57.07% 33.49%

 

As the report says, the correlation is the reverse of that normally claimed. It notes they are statistically significant although correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

The author of the report apparently has a keen interest in buses (most of his web site is about bus routes in the capital), and also says that most of his travel is by rail. So this is not the normal profile of a person who opposes traffic calming – indeed he seems most concerned about the delays to buses from wide area 20 mph schemes. But it is a very intelligent analysis of some of the issues and well worth reading.

Roger Lawson

Are Cyclists Racing on London’s Streets?

Posted on by
7

Are cyclists racing against each other on London’s streets? This was a question raised in a letter to the Daily Telegraph this morning (29/12/2015) by Gareth Hayton following previous letters about speeding cyclists putting pedestrians at risk. His answer was yes because he said if you go to the internet and search for “Strava segment Embankment” it shows you that cyclists are recording their times on the stretch of road along the Embankment from the City to the West End (part of the http://www.strava.com web site).

The “winner” in the Men’s category at the time of writing is Tom Moses with a time of 3 minutes and 9 seconds which it gives as an average speed of 58.7 kph (i.e. 31.7 miles per hour). Apart from the fact that there are several traffic lights and pedestrian crossings on that stretch of road, clearly Mr Moses is exceeding the 30 mph speed limit along that road.

These timings can be recorded automatically by mobile phone apps or GPS products and there are large numbers of recordings being submitted – for example there are 247,000 records on the Westminster to Millbank segment of the same road.

As the writer to the Telegraph said “Many cyclists are racing, not just on roads, but on paths and tracks throughout the country every day, with complete disregard to others“. This activity is of course illegal. Cycle races of any kind have to be authorised by the police, and as pointed out above, speed limits are obviously being broken. Note also that “cycling furiously” is a criminal offence under the 1847 Town Police Clauses Act or under the  Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and there have been past cases prosecuted under those laws.

So if you wonder why cyclists are often the source of accidents to both themselves and others, now you know. They may be competing to get into the record books!

Roger Lawson