Category Archives: Road Network

London Plan Meeting

Posted on by
Reply

I attended a meeting yesterday (1/2/2018) hosted by the GLA on the London Plan. It was in Bexley Civic Centre in Bexleyheath. The lead speaker was Jules Pipe, Deputy Mayor for planning, regeneration & skills. Someone later asked who elected him – nobody of course – he was appointed by Mayor Sadiq Khan. There were a number of other Greater London Authority staff present who had worked on the London Plan including Gareth Fairweather from Transport for London (TfL). I spoke to him later and gave him my views on the London Plan and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.

There were about 100 people in attendance, local councillors and the general public who could afford to spend three hours in the daytime to attend. After the initial presentations, which were somewhat boring although planning policies always are, there was plenty of time for comments and questions from the audience. It was clear there was wide opposition to the London Plan with particular concerns about the densification of the local borough (although there were also concerns about affordable housing provision), the restrictions on parking provision, the difficulty of accomodating more people and houses without more infrastructure (in schools, hospitals, etc), and the prejudice against the use of cars. Theresa O’Neill, Leader of Bexley Council, said they would be “sending back a robust response” to the consultation on the London Plan. Let us hope other London boroughs do the same. Another councillor said that Mayor Sadiq Khan does not understand outer London.

I asked a couple of questions:

1) Why does the London Plan (and the speakers at this event) talk about car dependency when using a car is simply a rational choice? It’s a prejudicial term and would not be used to describe people over-reliant on their cycles (as members of the panel might be)? Answer: it’s just a term to describe excessive emphasis on using cars when most trips can be done by walking, cycling and public transport (the Mayor’s target is 80%).

2) The main purpose of streets is surely to assist the movement of goods and people. While the London Plan and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy seems to want to turn them into places for social interaction and exercise. Please justify. Answer: Different roads have different purposes. Some might be used for movement while others might best be classed as “places”. Comment: George Orwell made it plain how changing the language can turn black into white. So defining a key road junction as a “place” (such as Bank junction in the City) enables closure of the road to traffic.

One speaker made a good comment on the provision of housing in Bexley. Apparently a former Planning Inspector decision suggested that only 450 new homes per annum could be built in Bexley due to limits on infrastructure. But the Mayor’s London Plan is ignoring that and insisting on 12,000 more homes.

Another speaker talked about the lack of hospital provision and other infrastructure. The nearest A&E if you live in Bexley is Woolwich or Dartford. They could be 30 minutes or more away. There was also a problem with water supply.

One particular vociferous Irishman suggested that cycling up hills in the borough would be exceedingly difficult.

Those attending were encouraged to submit responses to the public consultation on the London Plan.

As the speaker from the GLA pointed out, there will be an independent review by a Planning Inspector so it’s possible notice will be taken of comments in the final version of the London Plan which will dictate policies in London for the next few years (unless Mayor Sadiq Khan is ejected when his re-election becomes due). He is surely not going to get much support from the residents of outer London boroughs if the meeting described is anything to go by.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

London is Pampered while the Mayor Whinges about Lack of Money

Posted on by
Reply

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is repeatedly saying that he does not have enough money to support his transport plans and develop high quality public transport services. This is very clear from the last two articles posted on this blog – on the ULEZ finances and on the Mayor’s Business Plan for the next few years. But in reality, London gets more money than all other parts of the country.

Both ITN National news and the Sun covered a report by think tank IPPR North. They said that per person London gets twice as much as the North in terms of transport funding – £4,155 per person versus £1,600 as an average for all other regions. In some areas such as the North East and South West it is less than £1,000 per person.

Those “up north” in such major conurbations as Leeds and Manchester are complaining of gridlocked roads and very poor services on public transport which is the result of this lack of investment. A typical example of the bias is given as the decision by the Government to fund the Crossrail 2 scheme in London at a cost of £30 billion, while electrification projects in Wales, the Midlands and the North were scrapped or downgraded. The Government disputes the analysis by IPPR.

The breakdown by region according to IPPR is as follows (infrastructure spending from 2017/18 onwards per person):

London: £4,155

West Midlands: £3,029

North West: £2,439

South East: £1,307

East Midlands: £1,134

East of England: £1,134

South West: £984

North East: £855

Comment: Unfortunately this is the result of the London-centric political scene and the fact that the key decision makers (politicians and civil servants) tend to live in London and the South-East. Certainly the economics of Crossrail 2, and even Crossrail 1, in terms of the cost/benefit have been dubious in the extreme. HS2 shows the same effect – enormous expenditure just to enable a few business people to get from/to London somewhat quicker. But the road network in the South-East gets less investment than in the North, with most of the money going on train and underground schemes beloved by the central London intelligentsia. A more rational approach would make a lot of sense, but there is no sign on either major political party taking the lead on this subject. They are both stuck in past ways of thinking.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

 

Press Release: The Real Reason for the ULEZ – It’s About Money

Posted on by
Reply

We have said before that we are suspicious about the reasons given for the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in London. The proposed measures, particularly the extension to within the North/South Circular, seemed disproportionate to the likely benefits from reductions in air pollution. This is particularly so, bearing in mind that emissions from vehicles are rapidly falling, as newer vehicles replace older ones.

Now we know the truth!

In April 2017 we asked for information on the financial budgets for the ULEZ – the likely costs and income the Mayor would get. The request was refused and we eventually had to appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). We have now received the requested data following a judgement in our favour. These are the figures received from Transport for London (TfL):

  • Implementation costs: £38.4 million.
  • Operating income and costs:
  • Impact of introduction of ULEZ on income (£m) over 5 years 2017/18 to 2021/22 inclusive. (+ve is net increase in income): £55.3 million.
  • Impact of introduction of ULEZ on costs (£m) over 5 years 2017/18 to 2021/22 inclusive. (-ve is net increase in costs): -£12.7 million.

But these figures make absolutely no sense as against the figures we have calculated for operating income based on data provided in the ULEZ consultation documents. For example we estimate income over five years as being £313.6 million rather than £55.3 million.

In reality TfL may be making a profit over five years of £300.9 million for a capital investment of £38.4 million. At a stroke Sadiq Khan will solve his budget problems with the ULEZ implemented.

The Mayor has great financial difficulties, as is apparent from his recently published budget for the next few years, where he begs for more financial support from central Government. But he surely will not need their support with this scheme in place, even though he does not have the funds to do it without more borrowing.

Just like the central London Congestion Charge (a.k.a. Tax), where charges were later raised (more than doubled), thus making it a very profitable for TfL, once the infrastructure, such as cameras are in place for the ULEZ, charges can then be raised. The scheme can also be extended way past when traffic air pollution ceases to be a problem, thus potentially introducing more general road pricing.

Will the health benefits outweigh the costs of the scheme to Londoners? The answer is no because they are only valued at £7.1 million over 5 years. This duplicity in justifying the ULEZ on health grounds, which few are likely to oppose, when the real reason may be to fund his empire, is surely typical of Mayor Sadiq Khan’s approach to politics and democracy. Who does not want cleaner air? But there are lots of ways to improve air quality from transport and other sources, without imposing such enormous costs on road users.

To remind readers, the ULEZ charge for non-compliant cars will be £12.50, imposed 24/7, and enormous numbers of people will need to buy new cars to avoid this cost.

Readers should make sure they oppose the extension of the ULEZ by responding to this public consultation before the 28th February: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-quality-consultation-phase-3b/?cid=airquality-consultation

More Information 

Our full analysis of the costs and benefits of the ULEZ are contained in this document: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/_files/ugd/84d4d3_56efa46d4aa4417087f4aa709ed3584a.pdf?index=true

The ULEZ proposals are part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy which we are vigorously campaigning against – see this web page for more information: http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/against-mts.htm

The unnecessary delays and obstruction by TfL in responding to our reasonable request for information on ULEZ costs is documented in this blog post: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2018/01/09/press-release-tfl-forced-to-disclose-ulez-costs/

Our views on the ULEZ proposals and how the Mayor is scaring Londoner’s unnecessarily about air pollution and health are documented here: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2017/11/30/panicking-londoners-consultation-on-ulez-extension/

For more information on this issue, contact Roger Lawson on 020-8295-0378.

TfL Business Plan – Mayor Sadiq Khan Wants More Money

Posted on by
1

Just before Christmas, Transport for London published their proposed Business Plan for the five years to 2022/23. See http://content.tfl.gov.uk/fc-20171205-item10-draft-business-plan.pdf for the details, but what follows is a summary, with some comments.

The foreword by Mayor Sadiq Khan contains the usual whinging from him about the lack of central Government subsidy and his budget difficulties. It is true that TfL no longer receive a central Government grant for operating subsidies, but that was agreed by Boris Johnson on the basis that they would obtain extra income from the new Elizabeth line. There are still substantial capital grants though.

The Mayor is of course suffering from his self-imposed hair-shirt by promising to freeze public transport fares in London when campaigning to get elected. He has implemented that, at least as far as TfL controlled fares are concerned. He even goes so far as to say that this “will put £200 back in Londoners’ pockets by 2020”. Surely he is confusing stopping increases (which mainly covered inflation), with reducing fares?

TfL’s latest budgets are particularly constrained by a reduction in forecast public transport revenues. Bus usage for example has been falling, so revenue growth is anticipated to be lower than expected in previous budgets. Bus operating deficit was £599 million in 2016/2017 but will rise to £632 million this year and be has high as £647 million in 2022/23. These are enormous numbers.

Looking at the Financial Summary (page 30), shows that overall TfL will show an operating surplus before “capital renewals” and “financing costs”. After the latter they are running big deficits up until 2020/21. This is what one might term “political presentation of finance data”. Cash flow was negative to the tune of £1,353 million in 2016/17 and it only really becomes positive 4 years later. For someone with experience of looking at the finances of organisations, as this writer has, this looks a very unhealthy financial profile.

One result of this financial plan is that the Mayor is cutting funding for road maintenance that goes to local boroughs. This will not necessarily affect minor road maintenance but it will mean cuts to major projects. Part of the reason is because a lot of the money is going to support cycling initiatives, the redevelopment (pedestrianisation) of Oxford Street and other major projects that are mainly in central London.

Local boroughs are likely to be very unhappy with the cuts to funding of Local Implementation Plan (LIP) programmes, particularly as projects tend to be planned years in advance so abrupt changes in funds available may mean a lot of planning work is wasted.

The lack of major renewal work on roads will surely cause the proverbial “stitch in time” to come true. It will lead to expensive short-term fixes, and more major work in due course if proper maintenance is delayed. For example, bridges often require substantial work after many years of use and that cannot be deferred forever.

Big projects that are consuming the funds are more cycle superhighways, Vauxhall Cross, Wandsworth Gyratory, the Silvertown Tunnel and the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf bridge (which I commented on negatively as regards its’ financial wisdom in a previous blog post).

The Mayor and TfL are complaining that the cost of operating and maintaining London’s roads of up to £350m per year are effectively being cross-subsidised by public transport fare payers and they need some of the money raised from Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) to pay for it. This is nonsense. The Mayor has very substantial income from business rates and other sources (such as congestion charging) – these more than cover the costs of operating and maintaining the road network.

All that is happening is that the Mayor is choosing to spend large amounts of money on cycling, on his “healthy streets” projects, on expensive remodeling of gyratories (past ones have introduced congestion where none existed before), on massive subsidies to bus travel when nowhere else in the country does this take place and while removing budgets from local London boroughs. This is not a formula that will please Londoners who understand what is happening, nor improve TfL’s financial position.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

 

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

 

Mayor’s Transport Strategy – Feedback

Posted on by
Reply

We have received a lot of comments from the general public on our campaign against the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. Many were not aware of what was proposed and those particularly concerned were the elderly and disabled. This is a typical example recently received:

“I’ve just received your leaflet re the above and I’m aghast at the mayor’s proposals you’ve listed.  I rarely use my car to pop to the local shops, preferring to walk, for the exercise.  However, it’s much more convenient and quicker to drive to the nearest swimming pool (for more exercise!) than it is to get the bus (which I know I could do).  I also do the weekly shop once a week after swimming and this would not be possible without using my car.  I know I could do it online but I prefer to choose my own products – and anyway it still requires a vehicle to do the delivery! 

I certainly don’t see why I should pay more than I already do for this!  

We also get frequent visits from carers who help look after my wife – a lot of them use the bus but some of them use cars and I think it would be unfair for them to have to pay more. 

Perhaps you would be kind enough to send me the link to the relevant detail and proposed timetable for implementation and also details on how to object please.”

There are of course enormous numbers of elderly and disabled people living in London who often rely on cars and PHVs (minicabs) for day to day transport. Suggesting most of them can walk or cycle is simply nonsense and even using buses can be impractical for them due to the instability of such vehicles.

In addition, there are large numbers of ladies who feel insecure walking the streets at night and using public transport can be seen as risky.

Another group of objectors are those running small businesses who have to transport goods and those with large families who do a “bulk” shop at a supermarket once per week. The load that results is too large to carry other than in a vehicle.

The Mayor’s Transport Strategy focuses on the young and healthy who have office jobs in central London to which they commute via public transport, or those fit enough and willing to cycle in all weathers, while it ignores a very large proportion of the population. It needs to be scrapped and a new plan put forward!

Roger Lawson

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

 

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

Press Release: TfL Forced to Disclose ULEZ Costs

Posted on by
4

We have issued the following press release:

Back in April 2017 we responded to a public consultation on the proposed extension of the ULEZ. However we criticised the lack of information on the cost/benefit of the scheme, indeed of any information on costs and likely revenues at all, which made making an informed response to the consultation difficult.

As Transport for London (TfL) refused to provide such information when requested we submitted a Freedom of Information Act request. TfL refused the request on the grounds of “commercial confidentiality” so we asked for a review and subsequently appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

They have upheld our complaint and so we should get the requested information after all (unless they appeal to the First Tier Tribunal). But is it not disgraceful that TfL can obstruct and delay this legitimate need for such information?

TfL claimed it was commercially sensitive because they were already talking to possible suppliers but the ICO judged that there was insufficient evidence that such disclosure would result in specific harm to TfL that would justify refusal.

In our view the ULEZ proposals are out of proportion to the benefit to be obtained. The fact that TfL are apparently reluctant to disclose the financial budgets for this scheme suggests to us that it is more about tax raising than simply tackling the air pollution health issue.

In addition the costs of the scheme may be so high that even with the additional taxes raised from vehicle users, it may be unaffordable. BUT WE DON’T KNOW BECAUSE TFL REFUSED TO TELL US.

It is unfortunately typical of late for the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to issue public consultations in his name that are biased polemics of the benefits of his proposals while not disclosing the facts. Democracy is undermined when a public authority acts in this way.

It is further undermined when TfL refuse to disclose information and by doing so delay its release past the consultation due date when they know any appeal process will take many months.

There is great public concern about the costs imposed on London residents by the ULEZ proposals, often on the poorest residents. It needs to be clear that the benefits are justified by the costs and that more cost effective solutions to tackle London’s poor air quality cannot be found.

More information will be published when we get the requested data.

More Information

The ULEZ proposals are part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy which we vigorously campaigning against – see this web page for more information: http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/against-mts.htm

There is also an attack on vehicle usage and parking provision in the “London Plan” which we are also opposing on the grounds of irrationally and the use of emotive phrases such as “car dependency” to describe people’s rational choice of transport mode.

For more information on this issue, contact Roger Lawson on 020-8295-0378.

London Plan – Comments Submitted

Posted on by
4

We made some initial comments on the “London Plan” in December. That is a document that spells out how Mayor Sadiq Khan intends to plan your life – at least so far as residents of London are concerned or those who have to use the transport system in the capital.

What’s the London Plan? It’s a document that sets the “spatial development” strategy for London over the next few years and has legal implications for planning developments, housing construction, transport infrastructure, and many other aspects of our lives.

The London Plan spells out how he intends to enforce “modal shift”, i.e. force you to use public transport or walk/cycle and ensure you take more exercise to improve your health. He intends to turn roads whose essential purpose is the movement of goods and people into places for “social interaction”.

Cars and other private transport modes will be discouraged by such means as reducing parking provision to zero, thus forcing us back into the Victorian era if not further.

He wants to fix his budget problems arising from financial incompetence and promises he made to get elected, now called a “funding gap”, by raising taxes including taking control of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED).

Some of this is covered in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy of course which we have encouraged people to respond to. But the important point is that unlike that where the Mayor will decide on the outcome, the London Plan is the subject of an inquiry led by a Planning Inspector, i.e. it’s an independent review.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

Hammersmith Flyunder Going Nowhere

Posted on by
Reply

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has made it clear that the proposed scheme favoured by Boris Johnson to replace part of the Hammersmith (A4) flyover with a tunnel is going nowhere. This would have improved the local environment and enabled buildings to be constructed on the land thereby made available, helping to pay for the scheme. It would also have been linked to remodelling the Hammersmith gyratory and got the strong support of the local council. But the Mayor has made it clear that he will not support it financially.

This is what he said in response to a question on the subject:

“TfL completed a feasibility study for the Hammersmith flyunder in 2015. The scheme looks to address issues of congestion, mitigate against noise and air pollution from traffic, provide space for new housing and make the area more appealing for walking and cycling. The study indicated that it would be technically feasible to build a tunnel to replace the flyover and provide opportunities to regenerate Hammersmith town centre.

The likely construction and operational costs of the scheme were found to be significant and could not be covered through local sources and from proceeds from associated development in the town centre. As this is primarily a regeneration scheme, it is being considered further by the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham who are developing a Supplementary Planning Document for the town centre.

While I am supportive in principle of schemes such as the proposed Hammersmith flyunder, any such schemes need to be fully funded by development in the local area. TfL will work closely with the Council, but the scheme has to demonstrate that it can deliver the benefits and meet the key challenges before I can fully support it.” 

In effect he is saying that the Mayor and Transport for London are not going to help fund any projects to improve the road network. That’s despite the fact that they have spent enormous amounts of money on new cycle superhighways, cycle lanes, quietways and pedestrian schemes.

Comment: Bearing in mind that the A4 elevated section is now very aged and was closed recently for emergency repairs that cost £100 million, this seems to be a very-short sighted decision. The flyover is also an ugly blot on the landscape. The proposed scheme (along with other similar flyunders in London) was an innovative approach to improving the road network which we desperately require.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

Sadiq Khan Decides PCNs Will Increase

Posted on by
Reply

Back in September 2017 Transport for London (TfL) announced a consultation on proposed increases in the level of PCN charges. They proposed to increase the standard charge for not paying the Congestion Charge (a.k.a. Tax), and for red route and other infringements, to £160 from £130. That’s a 23% increase which is much higher than inflation of course.

As we said at the time, this looks like part of the Mayor’s strategy to make life more and more difficult for the average motorist as a very high proportion of infringements that result in PCNs are accidental or from ignorance by drivers rather than deliberate avoidance. In addition it will also help the Mayor’s budget which he continues to have problems with due to unwise past decisions.

Sadiq Khan has now decided to proceed with the proposals as they stand. The public consultation results show a lot of opposition (the full report on that is available here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/general/penalty-charge-notices/ ). There were 7,411 responses to the consultation (including one from us of course). Many of them came from central London boroughs but there were a large number from outside London also.

TfL analysed the main issues raised by respondents and there were over 4,000 which criticised the proposals on various grounds. Only 265 responses were supportive of the increase, with another 325 making alternative suggestions. In reality that demonstrates there was widespread opposition to the change from the general public and even among “stakeholders” a number of concerns were expressed. The lack of data to support the proposal was also criticised.

But Sadiq Khan and TfL have rejected all these comments and are going ahead regardless. That’s how democracy works in London. The Mayor decides he needs some more money, does a token “consultation” and then does what he proposed in the first place. It’s called a dictatorship.

The Congestion Charge

One of the interesting comments in the report in response to criticism of Mr Khan’s motives for increasing the charge was that £1.9 billion in net revenue was generated by the Congestion Charge over the last fourteen years. This was fed into “on going investment in the Capital’s transport infrastructure” it says, but then goes on to say that £1.5 billion of that was spent on improvements to the bus network. In other words, the vast majority of the income surplus was used to subsidise the losses on London buses where usage continues to fall.

So motorists (and goods vehicle owners) are continuing to pay through the nose to subsidise public transport and other programmes from which they get no benefit. Instead of funding for road network improvements, all we get is funding to make it worse – such as the millions spent on cycle superhighways.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

City of London Traffic Reduction

Posted on by
Reply

The City of London Corporation are developing a Transport Strategy as part of the Corporation’s “Local Implementation Plan” that all local councils in London have to prepare. The proposals from Steve Presland, Transportation and Public Realm Director, include “measures to reduce traffic” and “the reallocation of road space to increase priority and comfort for people on foot….”. There will be research to agree the optimal allocation of space between all travel modes and a review of the potential “for permanent or timed road closures to improve conditions for people walking, cycling and using public transport”. Yes we are likely to see more damage to the road network such as the one recently introduced at Bank. The move to reduce traffic is despite the fact that the level of business activity in the City is likely to increase over the next few years. So traffic congestion will no doubt get even worse.

The Transport Strategy will be subject to a public consultation in early 2018 but you can see what it is likely to contain.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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