Category Archives: Air Pollution

Traffic in the City of London, and Beech Street

Posted on by
Reply

The City of London Corporation has recently published a report entitled “Traffic in the City of London”. It acknowledges that “certain major infrastructure project such as Crossrail and the Cycle Superhighway” along with new building development have increased demand on the highway network. As a result traffic congestion in some parts of the City has increased.

Their solutions include “reducing the amount of traffic in the City to a level our community finds acceptable”, making representations for London wide policy change (e.g. changes to the Congestion Charge, which would include higher charges and wider geographic coverage) and reducing goods vehicle movements. They also propose to “actively discourage vehicle movements”.

In addition they suggest bridge tolls over all the Thames bridges using ANPR technology as on the Dartford Crossing to reduce traffic volumes and more active management by TfL of traffic signals to reduce traffic into the City.

Zero Emission Vehicles Only and Beech Street

They also suggest a ban of all vehicles in the City other than zero emission ones and have already firmed up proposals to do that for Beech Street, or close it completely to through traffic. Beech Street runs underneath the Barbican and is heavily used as a cross-city route.

The City Corporation’s report is well worth reading and is a good example of the anti road transport mentality that is now so prevalent.

Roger Lawson

Heathrow Airport and Environmental Pollution

Posted on by
Reply

The Government has backed the construction of a third runway at Heathrow despite widespread objections on environmental grounds. Zac Goldsmith, who stood for the job of London Mayor, has resigned as an MP as a result. Both he and elected Mayor Sadiq Khan opposed that development.

It will bring major challenges to the road network because the new runway will have to run over the M25. So that will likely have to be moved into a tunnel. In addition the western side of the M25 is one of the most congested parts of the UK road network already and the extra traffic generated by Heathrow expansion will make that even worse. So widening of both the M25 and M4 is probably required. The costs of those improvement could be over £3 billion and it could take over 6 years to implement with no doubt a lot of traffic disruption while it is being built.

In addition the extra aircraft movements and more traffic will have negative environmental impacts in both air pollution and noise.

Comment: this is surely one of the worse decisions ever made by a UK Government. There were a number of better alternatives for airport expansion, including the encouragement of the use of other regional airports. Why does the whole country find it necessary to travel through Heathrow when smaller airports are altogether easier to use?

Roger Lawson

Second Consultation on ULEZ – Make Sure You Respond

Posted on by
Reply

The Mayor of London has announced the second stage of consultation on the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). If you are a resident or drive a vehicle in London, this consultation will affect you so it is important that you respond to it.

For example, anyone who drives a diesel car registered before 2014 may face a charge of £12.50 to drive within the North/South Circular from 2019 – or even earlier! That’s in addition to the Congestion Charge (a.k.a. Tax) so you will be paying over £20 to drive into central London. In addition older vehicles (pre-2006) will be paying an additional £10 as an “Emissions Surcharge” (or T-charge) almost immediately and many commercial vehicles will face very substantial additional charges.

Is this simply a money making scheme to fund Transport for London? Or a genuine attempt to tackle air pollution problems? You can try to answer that question by studying the supporting documents, but you won’t find any cost/benefit analysis. In addition it actually says “Predicted air quality concentrations and analysis of change in population exposure to air pollution will be provided during the statutory consultation in 2017 if the Mayor decides to take this forward”.

It would seem to be a case of consult first, then provide the data to justify the scheme later. That’s in the hope that polemics about the impact on health from transport pollution will swing the views of the public to come to a conclusion before they know the facts.

The Mayor has already done one consultation on the proposals, and there was general support indicated there but here’s one quote they give in the report on that consultation: “These latest proposals are attempts to foist unfair stealth taxation upon the vast majority, thus making the rich/poor divide worse”. Bearing in mind that there is no evidence given on the real impact, when pollution is coming down as the vehicle fleet modernises anyway so at best there will be only a short term benefit, it certainly looks more like a tax raising scheme to this writer.

The latest proposals include extending the ULEZ London-wide for HGVs and buses, possibly as early as 2019, and extending the ULEZ area to within the North/South Circular and bringing it forward to 2019.

So make sure you respond to this consultation which you can do at the bottom of this web page which summarises the proposals: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-quality-consultation-phase-2/?cid=airquality-consultation#Have your say

Roger Lawson

Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to be Toughened

Posted on by
Reply

As new London Mayor Sadiq Khan promised in his manifesto, he plans to tackle vigorously the problem of air pollution in London, a lot of which comes from motor vehicles. To that purpose he yesterday announced proposals, and associated public consultations, on strengthening and bringing forward the planned Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).

As proposed by previous Mayor Boris Johnson, the ULEZ would impose a charge on all vehicles that were not compliant with certain standards from 2020 within the existing Congestion Charge area of central London. The charge for cars was to be £12.50. Zero or very low emission vehicles were exempt and most modern cars, but not older ones and particularly not diesel vehicles. They needed to be Euro 4 compliant for petrol vehicles or Euro 6 for diesel cars – which meant only diesels manufactured after 2015 would likely be free of charge. Similar tough rules applied to large vans and HGVs with a £100 charge for the latter.

The objective, as with the new proposals, was to substantially reduce NO2 and particulate emissions which are the main health hazards and where London has been consistently breaching EU legal standards on certain roads (but as also happens in many other major cities). Although air pollution from vehicles has been falling, and will continue to fall as the vehicle fleet is replaced by newer models, the timescale is quite extended for major impacts and the increasing use of diesel cars has not helped. Diesel vehicles were mistakenly promoted by the Government because of their alleged lower emissions of CO2, but are much worse for other pollutants – and that’s assuming even that their pollution controls were working properly and the figures were not being fiddled by VW et al, which we now know to be untrue.

In summary the latest proposals are:

– To bring the implementation of the central London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) forward by one year to 2019

– To expand the ULEZ beyond central London in 2020 (to within the North/South Circular).

– Introducing a new Emissions Surcharge from 2017 for the most polluting vehicles entering central London (congestion charge zone) – in essence those older vehicles such as cars, buses and HGVs made before January 2006, or a year later for vans. This charge will be £10 (Toxicity Charge).

– Giving TfL the go-ahead to start looking at a diesel scrappage scheme as part of a wider national scheme run by the government.

– Making sure TfL leads by example by cleaning up its bus fleet and buying only hybrid or zero emission double-decker buses from 2018.

Note that as many as 9,000 vehicles that do not qualify for exemption and hence will incur the £10 Toxicity Charge currently enter central London. There will obviously be a strong incentive for the owners to replace their vehicles with newer ones, or not drive in at all.

You can find out more information, and respond to the public consultation, by going to this web page: www.london.gov.uk/cleanair

Here’s some comments from this writer:

Ensuring older vehicles are replaced, or removed from central London by 2017 is wise as they are a major source of pollution. However this will bring hardship to many, particularly van owners. Clearly those who own such vehicles are often the less wealthy or run small businesses so putting in place a “diesel scrappage” scheme would be helpful. But will the Government go along with this and provide the necessary funding? That is a big question.

Expanding the ULEZ to within the North/South Circular in 2020 will affect many more people and will be particularly difficult for current diesel vehicle owners as it will affect relatively modern vehicles at that time. Again a diesel scrappage scheme would help enormously. Note though that the previous plan to solely have the ULEZ cover the congestion charge zone made little sense as the air blows in from around and hence it was not likely to have much impact. But it was a lot cheaper because the existing congestion charge cameras could be used. Presumably a whole new technology infrastructure will be needed for the wider area. What are the costs of this likely to be? We do not know.

One particular negative effect will be on the environment on the North/South Circulars which are already heavily congested and hence have poor local air quality in some locations. This might be made worse if the boundary is just within those roads.

Note that the initial public consultation also covers such matters as giving the Mayor control over Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) receipts, the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street and your local town centre, the closure of roads (for car-free days, play streets, etc), the funding of a boiler scrappage scheme, etc, so there is lots to comment on. So please make sure you respond to this consultation.

But unfortunately there is no cost information provided for these proposals, or cost/benefit analysis, as is usual with recent consultations from TfL so any responses may be ill informed.

One last comment: the survey system asks you for lots of personal information which is highly inappropriate. I suggest you avoid answering those as best you can. But if they see any responses from 116 year olds living in Bromley with no specific gender bias then you will know who it is. For security reasons I simply do not give out such data as any simpleton now knows.

Roger Lawson

Speed Humps and Air Pollution

Posted on by
2

Air pollution from motor vehicles, particularly in major conurbations such as London, has been a hot topic of late. The impact may be exaggerated but it has certainly become a matter of public concern with the increase in diesel vehicles allegedly making it worse.

It has been known for many years that speed humps actually result in more air pollution. For example this writer published an article back in 2002 which said the following: “Pollution Caused by Traffic Calming. As a contribution to the local debate on the merits of speed bumps, it is worth covering a report produced by the  TRL (Transport Research Lab.) last year. In the past, different studies in different countries seemed to produce very diverse results, but the latest methodology seems more likely to have produced accurate figures. TRL Report No. 482 studies the effect of a number of different traffic calming measures, including road humps, cushions, pinch points and mini-roundabouts. They also studied the impact on traffic flows and delays experienced by fire engines. To quote from the report “The results of the study clearly indicate that traffic calming measures increase the emissions of some pollutants from passenger cars. For petrol non-catalyst, petrol catalyst and diesel cars, mean emissions of CO per vehicle-km increased by 34%, 59% and 39% respectively. For all three vehicle categories the increase in mean HC emissions was close to 50%. Emissions of NOX from petrol vehicles increased only slightly, but such emissions from diesel vehicles increased by around 30%. Emissions of CO2 from each of the three vehicle categories increased by between 20% and 26%. Emissions of particulate matter from the diesel vehicles increased by 30%.”

The advocates of speed humps ignored this negative evidence in their commitment to road safety even though their impact on accidents is very marginal and may be a mirage.

As confirmation for the above a recent study from Imperial College, London also found high levels of pollution from road humps – indeed higher than from other forms of traffic calming (see the Daily Telegraph on the 11/6/2016 for a fuller report on this and some quotes from me).

For example they got 47% more particulates and 64% more NO2 from a petrol car when driven over humps, and even higher figures for diesel cars.

As I pointed out in my comments to the Daily Telegraph, accidents to school children are not particularly frequent outside schools so putting humps there is unnecessary. But the health impact on children of air pollution may be particularly severe. There are numerous reasons why the use of speed humps should be banned and this is yet another – see this page for lots more information written by the author on this topic some years ago (and the facts have not changed since): http://www.bromleytransport.org.uk/Humps.htm

Roger Lawson

New Mayor’s First Acts

Posted on by
Reply

As readers will be aware, Sadiq Khan has been elected to Mayor of London, soundly beating Zac Goldsmith who ran a rather lacklustre campaign. The new Mayor has moved rapidly to implement some of his policy initiatives which includes a freeze on public transport fares for 4 years. Previously it was suggested that it would leave a £1.9bn hole in Transport for London’s budget but the Transport Commissioner, Mike Brown, says that he will deliver it. Exactly how is not yet clear but obviously TfL’s expenditure will be reduced and staff cut back, so support for local road safety and other schemes is likely to be reduced. Perhaps TfL could stop wasting money on speed cameras as one element of expenditure that has little benefit – for example the £15m alone proposed for average speed cameras on arterial London roads?

In addition to that financial gap, the new Mayor has also announced a new “Hopper Fare” that will enable bus passengers to take two trips for the price of one so long as they are both within one hours. This will be introduced in September this year. And what is the cost of this? Another £30m hit to TfL’s budget it is estimated but it will benefit a huge number of people according to Mike Brown.

Needless to point out perhaps that Mr Khan is the son of a bus driver. Is this going to be regime for bus users, whereas Boris’s became one for cyclists? We shall see no doubt.

Another initiative already announced is an attack on air pollution (Mr Khan apparently suffers from asthma so has a personal interest in the matter), with a formal policy consultation in weeks on a number of measures. These include extending the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the North/South Circular Roads and bringing it forward to be earlier than 2020; introducing ULEZ standards for HGVs from 2020, planning for a diesel scrappage scheme (assuming central Government will support it); introducing ULEZ standards earlier for double-decker buses and cleaning them up in outer zones plus putting cleaner buses on certain corridors. It also seems likely that the “Boris Bus” (aka. New Routemasters) will be replaced for new orders by other vehicles.

Such changes will of course assist in plugging the budget gap because people may not find it easy to change to compliant vehicles quickly enough so will end up paying the surcharge for non-compliant vehicles. Oddly enough the people most affected by these changes are likely to be Mr Khan’s own election supporters – namely the poorer section of the community that is running older cars.

Comment: air pollution in London is certainly a cause for concern but it has been steadily improving. Diesel vehicles are many times better than they used to be but it takes time for the installed base of vehicles to change. However the main problem is not private cars, but buses, HGVs, LGVs and taxis. In addition transport is only one element that makes up air pollution in London. Construction alone is a major factor, particularly when transport associated with it is also high.

Unfortunately the impact of air pollution on medical problems and life expectancy is grossly exaggerated by the advocates of banning vehicles. Any proposals to reduce air pollution by restricting the use of certain vehicles may have little impact in practice and have enormous financial costs. Let us hope that the proposed public consultation gives us a proper cost/benefit analysis of the proposals that are on the table before asking our opinions. There was certainly none done for the original ULEZ proposals which included many vehicles in the restrictions which would have negligible impact on air pollution.

Roger Lawson

London Mayor Transport Policies

Posted on by
Reply

As we are coming up to the election of a new London Mayor on May 5th, and of course for representatives to sit on the Greater London Assembly as well, it looks a timely moment to look at the policies of the main parties. I will only comment on their transport policies.

There is one thing that clearly differentiates the two main candidates for Mayor. It is that one is the son of a billionaire financier and businessman, while the other is the son of a London bus driver. You can easily guess which is which of course, but their policies on transport are actually not that much different. Both candidates will continue to support that expensive hand out to the electorate called the “Freedom Pass” where both the rich and poor get encouraged to consume public transport by unjustifiable subsidies which impose a major financial burden on local borough councils (and which the public end up paying for but not transparently). Both support the proposed new East London river crossings, investment in Crossrail 2 and tougher rules on HGVs entering London.

They are also both keen to reduce air pollution in London, and to encourage cycling. So Conservative Zac Goldsmith says “Dirty cars, vans and buses contaminate the air we breathe” and he intends to “make London the greenest city on earth”. As he also says in his manifesto, he has been a lifelong environmentalist and is opposed to expanding Heathrow airport.

Labour’s candidate, Sadiq Khan, is keen to expand London’s public transport network while making it more affordable. One difference between the candidates is that Mr Khan would freeze fares for 4 years and cut Transport for London’s budget. Indeed he is threatening to take personal control of TfL by chairing that organisation. As he says, TfL is a vast organisation but he thinks it is inefficient and flabby. He suggests there are major efficiency savings to be made but he would spend more of TfL’s budget on cycling – expansion of the Superhighway network and Quietways for example. He would also spend more on support of 20mph zones. Mr Goldsmith says that freezing fares is not practical to meet the investment plans for TfL and maintain operations, i.e. that a budget could not be devised to do this.

Mr Khan also opposes a third runway at Heathrow but prefers expansion of Gatwick to meet demand for air travel growth. He supports keeping the Congestion Charge (aka “Tax”) as its current level but he would bring forward the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and extend it to major arterial routes “or a wider section of central London” as he rates cleaning up London’s air to be a priority. He would also call upon the Government to “introduce a diesel vehicle scrappage scheme”, although that would surely not be likely to prompt a positive response.

Incidentally both candidates seem keen to pedestrianise Oxford Street. That has always been a popular concept but ignores the practicality of routing all the buses elsewhere apart from the objections from the retailers that this would deter a lot of their customers.

The Green Party (candidate Sian Berry), who actually did quite well in the last London elections, would also like more investment in walking, cycling and public transport. They would introduce a “smarter” congestion charge system with much more extensive coverage and also expand the ULEZ. They also support a workplace parking levy.

UKIP (candidate Peter Whittle) do not seem to have published a specific London manifesto at the time of writing, but historically they have vowed to scrap HS2, have opposed speed cameras being used simply to raise revenue, and opposed road tolls and congestion charging.

There are also a large number of other minor party candidates, if you don’t find any of the above to your liking. And don’t forget this is a transferable voting system (a supplementary vote where your second choice is used if there is no outright winner on first choices). So there is no harm in declaring your preference for a minority candidate. Just make sure you VOTE FOR SOMEONE.

Zac Goldsmith’s views on cycling 

Now it just so happens that I was able to ask a couple of questions of Zac Goldsmith at a recent husting meeting. I asked him what he was going to do to sort out the traffic congestion that Boris had created with the Cycle Superhighways, and whether he was a keen cyclist himself. In answer to the first question he said he would look at the issue when the works had been completed, and might consider mitigation measures if necessary. He avoided answering the second question altogether. An altogether weak response. I am afraid Mr Goldsmith comes across as a glib and slick politician but one who is not likely to win the election, particularly if he goes on in this manner. Needless to say he is trailing in the opinion polls at present.

But whichever candidate wins, it looks like we will get a continuation of the policies pursued in the last few years which have been so damaging to the road network of London.

Roger Lawson

Janet Street-Porter’s views on the Cycle Superhighways

Posted on by
Reply

Well known media personality Janet Street-Porter has given her views on the Cycle Superhighways in London in the Independent. She said “Sometimes it’s time to stand up and speak out, at the risk of causing offence and attracting sneers” – and she got the predictable response from the cycling lobby. She continued: “I’ve finally had enough of Boris Johnson – the man who has brought this wonderful city to its knees in the name of cycling” and “London has been turned into a gridlocked building site as roads are dug up and rebuilt to create Boris’s follies, a network of cycling superhighways”.

She argues that the extra congestion, and hence air pollution this has created has made even walking in London an unpleasant activity and she also complains that the young, the elderly or disabled may be unable to cycle. The article which also attacks cyclists as being subject to ridiculously few rules and that they frequently ride on pavements is well worth reading on the web. She concludes with the comment “If Boris becomes Prime Minister, God help us” which this writer cannot but agree with. He’s already lost my vote.

Zac Goldsmith’s views on cycling

Now it just so happens that I was able to ask a couple of questions of the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London who may take over from Boris at a recent husting meeting – Zac Goldsmith. I asked him what he was going to do to sort out the traffic congestion that Boris had created with the Cycle Superhighways, and whether he was a keen cyclist himself. In answer to the first question he said he would look at the issue when the works had been completed, and might consider mitigation measures if necessary. He avoided answering the second question altogether. An altogether weak response. I am afraid Mr Goldsmith comes across as a glib and slick politician but one who is not likely to win the election, particularly if he goes on in this manner.

Chris Boardman’s views on cycling

Olympic champion Chris Boardman was reported as saying in the Daily Telegraph that he does not ride a bike in London because it does not feel safe. He would prefer to walk. But he did argue that the Government should spend more money supporting cycling.

Shorter Street Closed

The latest destruction of road space caused by the Cycle Superhighway is the closure of Shorter Street near Tower Hill. This is a short bit of road that enables traffic coming down Mansell Street to the east to turn right so as to go west along Tower Hill and Lower Thames Street. It also enables vehicles parked in the Minories car park at Tower Hill to go to the west. They now have no practical route to do this as they can only go straight ahead (across Tower Bridge) or turn left towards The Highway. This writer did complain to TfL that this was nonsensical in the consultation on the proposals but it seems they have taken no notice.

Traffic Congestion Increased

An article by David Williams in the London Evening Standard recently reported that traffic congestion in London has been increasing. Apparently data from TomTom reveals that congestion is 14% worse in London than it was five years ago. But it need not be so – congestion in the rest of Europe over that period is 3% down, which surely demonstrates how damaging have been the policies of Boris Johnson. TomTom even reported that the “added delay” over free flowing traffic conditions rose by 37% in 2014 alone! One of the worse routes was the Embankment to Lower Thames Street for a reason you can no doubt guess – the Cycle Superhighway of course. But the new road design at the Elephant & Castle was another hot spot.

Roger Lawson

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

Boris More Damaging than the Blitz, and Age Discriminatory

Posted on by
Reply

Lord Lawson, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer (and no relation to the writer although folks often call me Nigel), said in the House of Lords last week (14/12/2015) that what is happening now “has done more damage, and is doing more damage, to London than almost anything since the Blitz“. He was referring to the “Mayor’s addiction to cycling” and the introduction of the Cycle Superhighways by Boris Johnson and Transport for London.

He also suggested that the current support of cycling was hugely age discriminatory because there is a huge section of the population of a certain age (well represented in the House of Lords of course) for whom cycling is not a practical option.

Lord Higgins complained about the “appalling increases in congestion and pollution caused by the introduction of bicycle lanes” and suggested they should be shared instead during most of the day. He particularly referred to Lower Thames Street where he suggested “they are likely to die from carbon monoxide poisoning” or other pollution any moment now.

Comment: Lord Lawson hit the nail on the head. Since the road works to put in the East-West Cycle Superhighway have reduced traffic to one lane from two there has been a massive increase in congestion across the whole of central London. Queues on the Embankment and Upper/Lower Thames Street can back up for miles in peak periods and even during off-peak periods there are long delays. In addition traffic is diverting to other routes to travel East/West causing congestion in the City and West End. Indeed the whole central London road network has been seriously degraded.

It does of course affect all traffic so even bus users have suffered as a result. This situation will not get better when the road works have finished.

Roger Lawson