A petition on Change.org spells out how London Boroughs such as Lambeth can undermine local democracy by becoming an increasingly authoritarian regime – see https://chng.it/6TQgf76kW5 . It spells out how some Labour dominated councils can destroy democracy. It’s definitely worth signing the petition.
You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.
Transport for London (TfL) have announced the proposed charges for the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels – the latter is expected to open in 2025. These charges should not be a surprise as they have been planned by Sadiq Khan ever since the Silvertown Tunnel was first proposed.
Are the charges necessary? They have been justified as a way to pay for the cost of the construction of the Silvertown Tunnel. The charge for cars will be £1.50 outside peak hours but will be £4.00 between 6.00 am to 10.00 am northbound or 16.00 to 19.00 southbound. Or effectively £8.00 per day for those who commute daily though the tunnels. There will be discounts for some local residents and businesses and 100% for Blue Badge holders.
I personally use the Blackwall Tunnel occasionally and reducing the queues at the Tunnel by charging is welcomed – but I have to declare a personal interest as I am a Blue Badge holder. One of my concerns is that traffic will be diverted to the Rotherhithe Tunnel which I also use but TfL only forecast a 4% increase in traffic through that tunnel.
But it’s certainly worth reading and responding to the public consultation even though no apparent cost/benefit information is provided or the cost of running a charging scheme. The proposed charges are unlikely to stay at the proposed level for long.
This just appears to many people as yet another money grabbing scheme by Mayor Sadiq Khan. He has reportedly asked the new Government for a doubling of the £2 billion per annum that London gets from central Government to support his plans and maintain public transport in London.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
So in London we have another 4 years of Sadiq Khan as Mayor. That will certainly mean higher Council taxes and more taxes on motorists. Sadiq Khan helped himself to win the election by promising free school meals to primary pupils and no rises in public transport fares – paid for out of your taxes of course.
With a possible Labour Government in Parliament, the outlook is indeed bleak for financial prudency. Labour have promised to “renationalise” the railways when part of the rail network is already in Government ownership and all of it is very heavily subsidised. The Taxpayers Alliance have published a note on this subject showing how misconceived it is – see https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/briefing_railway_renationalisation . As the article points out, “Three of the four largest subsidies given to franchises in 2022-23 were given to renationalised railway services with £697 million, £602 million and £402 million given to ScotRail, Northern and South Eastern respectively”. That’s not peanuts!
Boris Johnson has pointed out that Transport for London (TfL) has been “bankrupted” by Sadiq Khan and he is right. Massive subsidies coming out of taxpayers and motorist’s pockets are the only thing keeping it afloat. Khan wants billions more pounds in subsidies which he might get from a Labour Government, or from a London road tax which he has already asked for.
Three ways that taxes are likely to be raised in London on motorists are by ULEZ schemes, LTNs and road charging “pay per mile” schemes. There is a new Parliamentary Petition you can sign to enable these to be controlled by Government. Please sign it: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659730
There is also a Public Consultation on “Restricting the Generation of Surplus Funds from Traffic Contraventions” from the Department for Transport – see https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/restricting-the-generation-of-surplus-funds-from-traffic-contraventions . This is definitely worth responding to as it is clear that many local councils are abusing their powers simply because they wish to raise money to fill their budget holes. It’s not about improving road safety or regulating traffic or parking.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The Committee emphasised the need for a simple system if a road user charging scheme was implemented. This committee was chaired by Sian Berry (Green Party) so the result is not surprising but the Conservatives submitted a minority report.,
The Conservative Party have said this in response to the report: “OUR VIEW ON PAY PER MILE: We want to be very clear: The City Hall Conservatives do not support – and will never support – any London Mayor introducing a pay per mile system as an additional tax on Londoners. Sadiq Khan seems to be exploring ever more creative ways to squeeze money out of Londoners, and it’s time to put a stop to it. Implementing Pay Per Mile would be unfair to those who rely on their cars, unfair to those who spent thousands upgrading their vehicles specifically to comply with the ULEZ, and unfair on the pockets of every Londoner”.
That’s probably the view of many Londoners and shows how the Conservatives are gearing up to win the popular vote in outer London.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The London Borough of Greenwich is conducting a public consultation on future transport policies using the Commonplace platform. To quote: “The council has ambitious plans to make the borough greener, healthier and more connected, with a particular focus on how walking, cycling and public transport can be improved”.
They say this in the published Transport Strategy document: “Having declared a climate emergency in June of 2019, this strategy supports the Royal Borough’s goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2030 and supporting a green post-pandemic recovery. Transport is the second biggest source of emissions in the borough. The Royal Borough has recognised that to become carbon neutral it is necessary to work to: a) reduce the number of journeys made by polluting motor vehicles, and b) enable people to walk, cycle and use public transport wherever possible”.
In other words, the use of vehicles will be attacked in the name of addressing the climate emergency. Is there a climate emergency and will reducing vehicles make any difference to the climate? The simple answer to both those questions is NO.
Just because we have had a slightly hotter and dryer period of weather this summer does not mean there is a climate emergency and emissions by vehicles in Greenwich cannot have any significant impact on the climate even if you accept that carbon emissions might be influencing the climate.
The whole of the UK produces less than 1% of worldwide emissions so any reduction in Greenwich alone will have a negligible impact.
In reality this is just another unnecessary and unwelcome attack on the use of cars.
How do they propose to discourage vehicles? By introducing more Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), more Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) and more School Streets.
Reading the detailed report shows how Greenwich is failing to meet the Mayor’s targets for active travel, improving road safety and reducing emissions – see page 26. A particularly telling statistic is that the percentage of people killed and seriously injured (KSI) in collisions in Greenwich is on average lower compared to adjacent boroughs but a high proportion of such collisions are made up of people who are cycling (17%). Given that people cycling in the borough makes up less than 2% of the mode share, this demonstrates how dangerous cycling is in reality.
Meanwhile Mayor Sadiq Khan has committed to spend £4million on making London a greener and more climate resilient city despite him being desperately short of money to keep TfL afloat. This includes funding more LTNs in Hackney and Enfield but it will also include rain gardens and tree pits (rain gardens might replace parking spaces and help to absorb excess rainfall which we are not exactly overwhelmed with this year).
Planting more trees and generally greening the environment may be welcomed but spending more money on non-essential projects at this time of economic difficulty is surely unwise.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
One of the big topical issues in London is air quality, particularly as there is an allegation that the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) that have been introduced have made air pollution worse.
One of the justifications for introducing LTNs including road closures in boroughs such as Lewisham was the need to improve air quality. However it is alleged that the diversion of traffic onto main roads has actually made matters worse in some locations.
Lewisham has now published a Draft Air Quality Action Plan which is now open to public consultation (see link below). It gives some more data on the air pollution issue and what the council plans to do on this subject in 2022-2027. It’s well worth reading and commenting on by Lewisham residents and is probably typical of many other London boroughs.
Some comments before you respond to the consultation: This report and the associated consultation contain a mass of data and a few recommendations, but the information is hardly presented in a clear way. It is hardly the kind of document that an uninformed general member of the public will find digestible. I will try to pick out some of the salient points.
Firstly is there an air quality problem in Lewisham that is affecting the health of the general population? That’s opposed to those such as Ella Kissi-Debrah who was the subject of a recent inquest (i.e. the particularly vulnerable or suffering from other medical conditions), or children.
The report says: “An assessment of air quality in Lewisham has shown a decreasing trend in the levels of two pollutants, nitrogen dioxide (NO²)) and particulate matter (PM) in recent years. However more needs to be done to meet the guidelines set out by the World Health Organisation”. The report repeatedly refers to WHO guidelines which are not the legal limits set by EU and UK regulations (see link below). The WHO limits are much lower and are not necessarily those justifiable by scientific data on health impacts.
The report emphasises the health effects of exposure to nitrous oxides (NO2) despite the fact that there is no clear consensus on the long-term impacts of NO2 – see the latest COMEAP report from the Government Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (see link below). However it does say that “On average, annual mean NO2 concentrations at both roadside and urban background monitoring locations have decreased between 2014 and 2020 by an average of 42% and 37% respectively”. You can see the trend in NO2 emissions in Lewisham in the chart above.
Particulates (PM2.5 and PM10, particularly the former) are probably more of concern although here again Lewisham is within UK legal limits where the air quality is measured. Similarly here also the trend has been falling. It is difficult to see from the report that air quality is a substantial problem in Lewisham so far as health impacts are concerned. The data is not there to show that.
The air quality has clearly been improving in the last few years, but this is not obviously down to any actions by the local council but from changes to the vehicle fleet, central government regulations, improved heating systems, etc.
However the Council has clearly taken up the public clamour by attempts to reduce car use, making walking and cycling the preferred choice of travel, reducing children’s exposure by such measures as School Streets, and of course the LTNs.
Page 3 of the council’s report attempts to provide further justification by mixing up air quality and the council’s response to the alleged “climate emergency” as if improving NO2 or PM will have any impact on climate, when the latter is allegedly more related to CO2 emissions. There is no such link.
The council is adopting targets to reduce PM2.5 despite the fact that much of those pollutants come from outside the borough – indeed outside of London, even outside of the UK altogether, over which the council has no control.
The council’s proposals for action include an expansion in monitoring activities (more diffusion tubes to monitor NO2 and new PM2.5 monitors) and raising public awareness by more social media activity. They also propose:
Reducing pollution in and around schools and extending school audits to other schools in polluted areas.
Enforcing the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) Low Emission Zone.
Promoting and enforcing Smoke Control Zones.
Promoting and delivering energy efficiency retrofitting projects in workplaces and homes.
Regular Car Free days/temporary road closures in high footfall areas.
Reducing emissions from Council fleets.
Some of these measures may be beneficial but how much so is unclear.
In summary this report from Lewisham Council is a typical one. Policies are proposed with no clear cost/benefit justification and no obvious measures of success. Just as with the Lee Green LTN, there is no clear outcome that will indicate whether the scheme is a success and justify the expenditure on implementation.
Neither will it satisfy Lewisham residents who are being affected by worse air pollution because there are no specific actions proposed to tackle their complaints (for example air pollution near the South Circular).
Even the proposed actions are unspecific and the on-line consultation form asks wishy-washy questions rather than specific ones. Do Lewisham residents, or their visitors, actually support “car-free” days for example?
But residents should certainly respond to the consultation.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Transport for London (TfL) have launched a new “Consultation Hub” where you can give feedback on new projects in London – see https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/ . You can also register to receive notifications of new consultation events.
This is not just about consulting on future projects but also submitting comments on live ones – such as the trial of E-Scooters that is currently running.
The new consultation “hub” will replace the existing consultation web site (see https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/ ) which contains consultations on Streetspace schemes, bus lanes and other matters at present.
Is this a big improvement or is there any reason for the change? It’s not obvious how this change will help and moving and renaming a web site is never a good idea.
Readers are advised to register with the new site so as to be sure of being informed on new consultations.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
One of the few road traffic schemes in the London Borough of Bromley prompted by the Covid-19 epidemic and financed by funding like other schemes to encourage cycling was that in Albemarle Road, Beckenham. This road is a major route between Beckenham Junction and Bromley Town Centre via Shortlands. It worked perfectly well but the introduction of a one-way system, with a cycle lane and other changes has created more traffic congestion. For our previous comments on this scheme, see https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2020/11/23/covid-19-induced-madness-comes-to-bromley-in-albemarle-road/
A petition against the “temporary” scheme has collected almost 2,500 signatures on change.org and many residents of Albemarle Road and surrounding roads have objected.
Now Bromley Council have launched a public consultation on the scheme. They give a couple of options, one of which is to remove the scheme completely. But it might make sense to retain traffic lights on Westgate Road bridge to avoid vehicle conflicts.
They want answers by the 3rd of March which may be rather soon. Traffic has not returned to normal levels because of the lock-downs and recent poor weather. But it certainly does not appear to have encouraged more cycling on this route.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
There are now multiple campaigns all over London opposing Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs). See this web page for a list of some of them (if you know of more please let me know so we can add to the list): https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/london-road-closures.htm . They show how anger is growing against the road closures which have been counterproductive in so many ways.
Lewisham Council Meeting
There was a meeting of Lewisham Council’s Overview and Business Scrutiny Panel on the 24th November. They finally got around to discussing the Report on the “Temporary measures to support safer talking and cycling in response to the Covid 19 pandemic”, i.e. the report on the Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) introduced in Lee Green and Lewisham. But it is of course a misnomer as this was a scheme planned well before the epidemic hit and it has nothing to do with the epidemic at all.
You can actually watch a recording of the meeting (see Ref. 1 below) but you would not find it particularly revealing (Item 4 is about 58 minutes in).
The Chairman and other speakers blamed the Government for the timescale imposed to implement the measures which meant there was no time for public consultation. But it is important to note that the Council did not have to take the money or implement the schemes as they have done! It was their choice to do so.
It is clear the Council hopes that the traffic will “evaporate” over time as people get used to the road closures but that is surely a vain hope (note that traffic congestion has certainly reduced in recent weeks but that is because of the lock-down restrictions recently in place with shopping, eating out and visiting friends severely restricted).
There were however some concerns expressed about the use of the Commonplace system as a consultation method, which I cover below in more detail.
The Commonplace system is used by a number of Councils and other organisations as a consultation mechanism, or a “community engagement platform” as they call it. It is a commercial operation which sells its services to councils (see https://www.commonplace.is/ ) and is funded by venture capital.
The system is not an unbiased platform in that typically it is used to promote what a Council is planning to do – and more recently that means after decisions have already been made to implement schemes.
It also has the problem that unlike a conventional public consultation only people who are internet enabled, and are even aware of the platform, can respond. This excludes a large number of people such as the elderly who are not internet connected or don’t spend much time on it. So it tends to be dominated by young activists and those active in local politics, i.e. the comments on it are unrepresentative of the wider population.
How unrepresentative is it? It’s impossible to say because little information is collected on the profile of those who add comments and not even names are shown on the published comments, i.e. people can comment anonymously which is never a good idea.
But it is very clear if you look at the comments published on Lewisham’s LTN that many comments are repetitive and the same comments are made on multiple roads. There seems to be no attempt to stop duplicate comments so the system can be exploited by organised activist groups such as cyclists.
There is no way that Lewisham Council can get a balanced view of the comments received or any statistically useful information. They can pick comments out to justify any stance they wish to take.
Wildly inaccurate comments can also be made on the platform with no “rebuttal” possible – you can only “Agree” with comments, not “Disagree” with them and you cannot comment further in response. Clearly there are many people commenting who are not directly affected, and those that are affected just give very polarised comments. The comments are not helpful in determining a sensible compromise to meet the needs of the majority.
In summary, Commonplace is a system that can be used by Councils to claim they are “listening” to residents when in reality it is not a fair and honest way to collect the views of all residents. It is not an alternative to a proper public consultation and is more designed to promote the views of scheme promoters than collect unbiased information.
DO NOT ACCEPT COMMONPLACE AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO PROPER PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS!
Surveys Give the Truth – Ealing Opposes LTNs
Surveys of residents are more likely to give an unbiased and honest view of LTN schemes. Those undertaken by the LibDems and by us in Lewisham show a very large percentage opposed to road closures. The latest such survey is one done by the Conservative Party in Ealing – see https://www.ealingconservatives.org.uk/news/LTNSurveyResults . As their headline says: “95% of people living in Ealing’s LTN zones want them removed”. The Ealing Commonplace site just shows again how the platform just provides a way for extremists of all kinds to vent their anger rather than provide constructive criticism.
Funds for Legal Action
It is clear that Councils such as Ealing and Lewisham are going to persist with schemes that are opposed by the majority of local residents. As it will be two years before local councillors come up for re-election, and they are unlikely to change their minds in the meantime, the only short-term way to stop the proliferation of road closures under the name of “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” is to mount a legal challenge.
We believe there are good grounds for a legal challenge to these measures and have looked at the legal issues in some detail and have taken legal advice already. But we do need to raise substantial funds to launch a challenge (thanks to those who have already donated but we need many more people to do so).
The London Borough of Croydon has launched a public consultation on their “Streetspace” proposals. Namely the road closures that have hit residents in the Crystal Palace and South Norwood areas under the guise of a “Low Traffic Neighbourhood” when it has been anything but that. Traffic congestion has been horrendous and has even impacted roads in the adjacent borough of Bromley.
They are also consulting on Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes in Broad Green and Albert Road with the former including a permit scheme for residents. There are also proposals for the Town Centre.
See https://new.croydon.gov.uk/croydon-streetspace for details – see bottom right for an open on-line consultation on the Crystal Palace and South Norwood scheme. This is the opportunity to have your say so please complete it!
These measures are claimed to be temporary but if the Council gets enough support they will undoubtedly make them permanent in due course. There is an active campaign against the closures under the name “Open Our Roads” who have already filed for a judicial review of the Council’s actions.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
