Truss Victory – But Do We Trust Her to Deliver?

Posted on by
Reply

Liz Truss has won the election for Conservative Party Leader and therefore will be our next Prime Minister. She won by the expected large majority although she would not have been my personal choice. Lacks charisma. Her acceptance speech was a lacklustre bunch of pedantic soundbites.

She has promised to cut taxes and tackle the energy crisis. But how is she going to control energy prices? It’s easy to impose price controls or subsidise consumption but who is going to pay for it and where is the money coming from are the key questions. She has promised quick answers to those questions but do we trust her to deliver?

Having a surname that is a homophone of trust should have helped her political career but now she faces real problems in the UK economy and social unrest over the cost of living. This will not be helped by the latest news that Russia has turned off the Nord Stream gas pipeline and has no intention of reopening it while sanctions persist. This will drive gas prices even higher.

How will her policies affect drivers? She did hint at some positive changes in her election campaign such as reviewing motorway speed limits and halting Smart Motorways. But I doubt there will be major changes while the commitment to Net Zero remains and she focusses on the energy crisis and cost of living.

But one positive aspect for Londoners is that she does live in west Greenwich and was actually a Greenwich councillor for four years before she became an MP. She might understand the problems faced by those who live in the London suburbs in recent years. She needs to fire Grant Shapps and bring Sadiq Khan to heel though to really have a positive impact.

Roger Lawson

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.

Spurious Evidence on the Benefits of LTNs

Posted on by
1

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) have been justified on the basis that they reduce traffic and encourage more active travel (walking and cycling). The main evidence used to support this claim is a report prepared for and paid for by Transport for London. It was written by Dr. Rachel Aldred et al – see link below.

Dr (now Prof.) Aldred from the University of Westminster has written extensively on the benefits of active travel schemes, was actually a trustee of the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) when the report was commissioned and her work has been funded by TfL. The Mayor of London does of course have a policy to encourage more active travel and has been funding LTN schemes. In summary therefore both the commissioning organisation and the researchers were not independent but had an in-built conflict of interest in the outcome of the research.

The report is a “longitudinal” study of three London boroughs – Enfield, Kingston and Waltham Forest over the years 2016 to 2021. The results are based on survey respondents who lived in the area.

How were the survey respondents recruited? Initially by random household sampling but after a very low response rate they added people from TfL databases of Oyster users and cyclists. Hardly an unbiased sample!

Were there actual changes in travel behaviour during the phases of the study? There were reported reductions in minutes of car travel in the past week but also reductions in minutes of cycling and walking. But this was a period when the Covid epidemic was rampant and there was much more working from home, and avoidance of travel in general.

Were the changes in travel modes statistically significant anyway and were there adequate control groups? We do not know.

In summary this report is quite useless as a scientific study of the impact of LTNs.

People and Places Final Report – available from here: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/cycling-and-walking

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_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.

Pay By Phone Parking – Simply Inconvenient

Posted on by
3

The Guardian have published an interesting article on the problems of pay by phone parking instead of the use of cash machines. The former are now beloved by local councils but many people have difficulty paying that way for various reasons. It does not help that different councils use different systems and other car park operators can also offer different systems. So you can turn up at a new location and find you have to waste minutes downloading a new App and recording credit card information.

As the Guardian article says: “All summer, exasperated motorists have been jabbing at their phones, trying to download and install yet another parking app. Then follows the interminable chore of entering card details and number plate, which may ultimately be derailed by poor phone signal or a glitchy app”.

But Councils say using Pay By Phone saves the authority money and reduces incidents of vandalism and theft at pay machines.

Comment: It might save local councils money but it causes great inconvenience to motorists. The ability to pay using cash should be preserved. It’s just another attack on the use of cars by making life difficult for their users.

Guardian article here: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/aug/27/rise-of-the-parking-app-makes-the-rich-richer-as-motorists-struggle?

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London You can “follow” this blog by entering your

Latest Air Quality in Bromley Data Shows No Need for ULEZ Expansion

Posted on by
1

The latest Air Quality Annual Status Report for the London Borough of Bromley which has just been published shows there is no justification for the expansion of the ULEZ scheme to outer London boroughs like Bromley.

To quote from a Council report: “There were no monitored exceedances of the annual or daily mean for Particulate Matter (PM10) in 2021. The annual average was 15.4μgm-3 . This is well below the national limit of 40μgm-3 .

The annual mean for Particulate Matter (PM2.5) concentration in 2021 was 9.7μgm-3 . This was also well below the national limit of 20μgm-3 .

Historically, the trend in Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) concentration at the Harwood Avenue permanent continuous monitoring station, shows a decreasing trend. There was a slight increase from 2020 to 2021. This was due to life returning to normal following the changes to traffic levels during the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdowns. The trends in NO2 concentrations for diffusion tube monitoring sites (for those with more than one year of data) for the 2015 – 2021 period also show evidence of a decreasing trend and all sites were below the national limit”.

In summary the measured pollution levels are well below national standards even on busy roads and the trend is downwards. There are unlikely to be any negative health impacts from the current levels of air pollution.

You can see the full report in the Agenda Reports Pack (Item 17) for the Council meeting on the 6th September here: https://cds.bromley.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=127&MId=7414&Ver=4

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_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.

Cambridge and New York Congestion Charges?

Posted on by
1

Both the City of Cambridge in England and the City of New York in the USA are currently considering congestion charging schemes. That’s despite the fact that the London scheme has proved to be an abject failure in cutting congestion even after increases in the charge several times.

The Cambridge scheme has been proposed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership and would impose a charge of £5 for private vehicles between 7am and 7pm on weekdays. There may be some exemptions and bus fares may be able to be reduced as a result – but there are no promises on either.

This would be another camera enforced scheme, like the London one. For more details see https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cambridge-5-congestion-charge-bus-24863757

Note that there was a debate on a proposed congestion charge for Cambridge at which I spoke in 2008. See a report on the meeting on this web page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/congestion . The vote at the end was against one.

New York has also been considering a congestion charge scheme for some time but there has been strong opposition. Particularly from New Jersey residents who already pay high tolls to cross bridges into the City. The proposed charge by the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to drive into downtown Manhattan would be $23 and would be used to subsidise public transport fares.

New York has the same problem as London. Transit ridership has rebounded slower than the MTA was anticipating after the pandemic. Weekday subway ridership is about 60% of 2019 levels. Revenue used to cover about half of the MTA’s operating costs but now pay for 30%, according to the MTA.

Any congestion charge scheme would still need Federal approval.

For more information see: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-26/congestion-pricing-is-going-to-be-the-death-of-lower-manhattan

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_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.

Another Bail-Out for TfL Agreed

Posted on by
3

Transport Minister Grant Shapps and Mayor Sadiq Khan have agreed another £1.6 million of funding for Transport for London (TfL) as part of a “long-term settlement”. That now makes a total of £6 billion of Government funding which of course comes from taxpayers not just in London but from the whole country. That’s about £100 for every man, woman and child in the UK.

The funding will support new Piccadilly line trains, as well as modernisations and upgrades across the District, Metropolitan, Hammersmith and City and Circle lines. It will also support the long-awaited repair of Hammersmith Bridge, the extension of the Northern Line, improvements to Elephant and Castle station and £80 million every year for active travel schemes (mainly cycling schemes).

The Mayor has agreed as part of the settlement to reform pensions and work on the introduction of driverless trains on the underground. But he is not happy with the outcome. He said in a press release: “The Government is still leaving TfL with a significant funding gap, meaning we will likely have to increase fares in the future and still proceed with some cuts to bus services. There are also onerous strings attached, such as the Government’s condition requiring TfL to come up with options for reform of TfL’s pension scheme at pace, which could well lead to more industrial action and more disruption for commuters”.

Comment: By funding gap he means TfL will continue to lose money. Users of TfL services, particularly bus passengers, will continue to be massively subsidised instead of paying the true cost of their journeys. Why should that be so?

Grant Shapps has yet again avoided the proper decision which should have been to take control of TfL away from the Mayor. Will the Mayor stand up to unions when strikes are threatened over changes to working practices and pension schemes? I doubt it.

Grant Shapps Press Release: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/future-of-londons-transport-network-secured-with-governments-multi-billion-pound-settlement

Sadiq Khan Press Release: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/statement-from-the-mayor-on-tfl-funding-1

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

Electric Cars More Expensive to Run and Number Plate Cloning

Posted on by
2

The conventional wisdom is that although electric cars are more expensive to buy, they are cheaper to run. The cost of electricity, particularly if you charge at home, means a lower cost per mile travelled in comparison with buying diesel or petrol. But an interesting article in the Daily Telegraph has debunked that assumption.

They say that as the unit cost of electricity will nearly double under the new energy price cap as a result it will cost more to travel in an electric car than a petrol one. They compared the cost of running a Jaguar i-PACE, and electric SUV, with the equivalent Jaguar f-PACE, a petrol driven version. To cover 400 miles the electric version would cost £99 more to travel the same distance. Likewise a Kia e-Niro would cost £88 more than a Kia Sportage.

With electric models often costing twice as much has petrol versions, you can see that there is a big financial disincentive to buy an electric vehicle (a Jaguar i-PACE is 66% more expensive than an f-PACE). The main difference is of course the battery cost and they are not coming down in price as rapidly as expected mainly due to the demand for lithium.

Telegraph article here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/electric-cars-will-expensive-run-petrol/

Comment: As the overall carbon cost of an electric vehicle during its lifetime, including construction and scrapping costs, is little lower than that of a diesel/petrol vehicle one has to be a committed green fanatic to ignore the economics. The better solution if you want to minimise emissions, particularly in cities, is probably to buy a self-charging hybrid such as the Toyota Yaris Hybrid – starting price £20,500 (Note: the Prius is no longer made but Toyota now have several hybrid models).

People buying new cars when we near 2030, after which sales of pure diesel/petrol cars will be banned, will need to consider the costs carefully and whether to anticipate the ban.

Cloning Rising

With the introduction of the ULEZ across much of London, the practice of cloning car number plates to save money has grown rapidly. According to an analysis by Fleetpoint, based on TfL data comparing April 2021 with April 2022, there was an alarming rise of 857% in cloning.  

Cloning a vehicle number plate is relatively easy and if you drive a popular car model you may find it wise to mark your vehicle near the number plates so that it can be differentiated from any clone. Otherwise you may find it difficult to prove it was not you when a PCN is issued.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_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.

Park Lane Cycle Lane To Be Made Permanent?

Posted on by
2

I have received an email from TfL concerning the Park Lane scheme which was introduced in 2020 as an emergency response to the Covid epidemic. The latest email tries to justify making the scheme permanent and says “there is a strong case for less motor traffic and more space for walking and cycling along Park Lane including at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch”.

It rejects the argument that cyclists can ride through the park because that is “inconvenient for people on foot using the park….”. It looks like TfL have already made up their mind to make the scheme permanent although they do say there will be another public consultation in the autumn.

Comment: Park Lane is a key route for north-south traffic in London and has always been a major road – it used to have a 40 mph speed limit now reduced to 20 mph. The scheme as introduced has created a lot of unnecessary traffic congestion when the number of cyclists using the cycle lane is very small.

In reality a small number of cyclists are being favoured while thousands of vehicle users are being prejudiced.

You can read what TfL have said about this scheme and their latest missive on this web page: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/park-lane

Note: the latest email from Fraser MacDonald, Strategic Consultations Lead, does not contain his contact information. This is symptomatic of the approach of TfL management who do not want to receive any feedback on their statements. Appallingly undemocratic.

Photo above is of Park Lane opposite Stanhope Gate in the August Bank Holiday week from a TfL camera showing a queue of slow-moving traffic in mid-morning. Totally unnecessary but due to the road being reduced to one lane.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_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.

Greenwich Transport Policy – Have Your Say

Posted on by
Reply

Greenwich Transport Policy – Have Your Say

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.

Make sure you respond to this consultation by going here: https://royalgreenwichtransport.commonplace.is/

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.

More details on the Mayor’s expenditure here: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/4m-announced-to-aid-future-climate-resilience

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_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.

Regulating Cycling – Is It Overdue?

Posted on by
3

Regulating Cycling – Is It Overdue?

female cyclist riding bicycle along mountain road in summer

Transport Minister Grant Shapps has suggested that cyclists should be insured, required to have some form of identification (e.g. number plates) and be subject to a 20 mph speed limit. There was an interesting article in the Daily Mail by Melissa Kite on this subject. I quote from parts of it:

“The last time I rode my horse on the country lanes of Surrey, I nearly didn’t come back. All thanks to a gang of cyclists.Only a few steps from the gate of the stable yard, a racing club in formation swarmed downhill towards me, spread across the lane. As poor Darcy began to panic, I screamed: ‘No, please!’ But they kept on coming. The bikes swirled around Darcy and suddenly she was spinning in circles – right into the path of a car behind me. I clung to her neck to stop myself falling, and saw the look on the driver’s face. We were so close I think we both thought I was about to end up on the bonnet. To this day, Darcy trembles when she hears the faintest whoosh of a bike. Anyone prepared to hurtle past a woman clinging to the neck of a terrified horse is not safe to be on the roads unlicensed and uninsured.

Some cyclists flagrantly break the law: running red lights, ignoring pedestrian crossings, weaving in and out of lanes and mounting pavements.

As my experience shows, the situation is dire in the countryside, where weekend cycling clubs are increasingly using the public roads as a racing track. And it’s not just the accidents they cause. It’s their anti-social behaviour. The atmosphere in many once-genteel areas has been ruined by the arrogant mentality of cyclists, hurtling along with selfish aggression”.

Comment: There is certainly a big problem in London and other major UK cities. Cyclists ignore red lights and do not give way to pedestrians. Modern bikes enable cyclists to exceed safe speeds and their brakes are not fit for purpose. If they are involved in an accident, as they are often are, they can ride away as they know there is no way of tracing them.

It has been suggested in the past that registration of cyclists or cycles would be expensive and not justified by the benefits. But a modern electronic registration system would not be expensive and a small number plate not difficult to affix to bikes. It should not put off anyone from cycling.

Tougher laws about cycling behaviour would also be welcomed by many people. Riding on pavements is a major problem which pedestrians heartily dislike and now that we have users of electric scooters doing the same we need a review of laws in this area.

Unfortunately many cyclists now think they are competing in a race against other cyclists and this has been encouraged by the promotion of cycling events. Organised events on public roads should be banned.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_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.