According to a report in Kent Online most drivers in Kent receiving fines for non-payment of the ULEZ in London are still refusing to pay. Meanwhile Sadiq Khan is chasing up more non-payers by using bailiffs to do so. Total of outstanding fines is £370 million and 1,400 vehicles have so far been seized for repeated non-payment. How much is that costing? That’s not been disclosed but it could be very expensive as avoiding bailiffs is not difficult. One issue is that those resident in Kent don’t get a vote on who is Mayor so it’s taxation without representation.
It just demonstrates the anger with which motorists view the ULEZ system which has not made any significant improvement in air quality and is just viewed as a tax raising system.
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.
Transport for London (TfL) have published their latest report on transport in London. It claims some success on achieving the goals of Sadiq Khan’s London Transport Strategy but in reality the goal of achieving more “active travel” is simply not being met.
Walking mode share actually fell in 2023 to 26% and although public transport share rose this is a combination of recovery after the covid epidemic as well as throwing money at subsidising buses and London underground where people do not pay economic fares.
See chart below from the report – the full report is obtainable from the link below.
Meanwhile the Mayor has said he is not safe as a “Muslim politician”. It is certainly the case that he is widely hated but I suggest this is not because of his religion but because of his economic policies including raising taxes such as the ULEZ scheme and attacks on private motorists.
The Mayor’s comments just help to increase division and he should leave religion out of politics.
The cover of the new report is shown above and it’s worth noting that it shows someone walking across the road while looking at her phone. Not a safe practice! She should have been shown using a pedestrian crossing and not using her phone at the same time.
Yesterday I drove into central London from my home in Bromley to attend an appointment at Guys Hospital. I regularly drive in as I wish to avoid public transport mainly because I now use a wheelchair and wish to avoid the risk of a Covid infection to which I am vulnerable. So I took the A20 and A2 through Lewisham, New Cross and Deptford.
The whole route now has a 20 mph speed limit once you are in Lewisham. This makes it extremely tedious and is totally unjustified on road safety grounds. The A2 is of course the historic road from London to Dover. It should be a four-lane motorway with a 70 limit but is now reduced to a crawl from the GLA boundary.
It’s a typical example of how Transport for London (TfL) have destroyed the London road network under the chairmanship of Sadiq Khan in the last few years.
I may have a ULEZ compliant vehicle, exemption from the Congestion Charge as a Blue Badge holder, and free parking at Guys Hospital but when TfL create road congestion through stupid restrictions I end up taking hours on simple journeys.
Many years ago I used to commute into central London via car. Now that is totally impractical due to TfL induced congestion.
Since the 1960s there has been no comprehensive plan to improve London’s road network. That’s why we have horrible air pollution on roads such as the South Circular. Improvement plans are regularly defeated by anti-vehicle lobbyists and by individual councils such as Lewisham and Greenwich by nimby factions.
The UK Government has said it will back motorists who keep our country moving and its plans would include: a review of guidance on 20mph speed limits in England to prevent use in “areas where not appropriate”. Well the whole of London’s A roads should be excluded for a start.
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.
Today (the 29th August 2023), the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) has been extended to the whole of Greater London. This is unjustified on the scientific evidence of the miniscule benefit to air pollution and improved population health but it will cost many Londoners (and those who live in surrounding counties) dearly.
In practice it’s just another tax to support Sadiq Khan’s mismanagement of TfL’s budgets.
How did Sadiq Khan manage to obtain such dictatorial powers that he can impose such wide-ranging taxes without the consent of the people? He did so because central Government were asleep, or distracted by other political issues such as Brexit and a national pandemic.
But the tide is turning as people see how incompetent Khan has been at managing not just London’s transport network but in other areas also such as crime and housing. The only thing Khan has been good at is blaming central Government for his own failings and bribing the electorate with their own money – free transport and free school meals for example paid for out of taxes.
It could of course have been very different if the population had seen Sadiq Khan for what he is – a runt whose politics are all about building his ego and his stature by a relentless power grab.
But the tide is turning. Direct action to remove the ULEZ cameras or damage them is escalating while a serious challenge to Khan’s re-election next May is looming. Just as Ken Livingstone became so hated by his extreme policies that the call was to vote for “anyone but Ken” it will soon become “anyone but Khan”.
On a personal note I concluded that Sadiq Khan was not going to back down on the ULEZ expansion a few months back. He is clearly incapable of compromise and needs the money raised to pay for existing commitments. So I decided to change my ten-year old diesel Jaguar XF for a two year old petrol Jaguar XE. It’s very economical and is of course ULEZ compliant. Hopefully it will last me for many more years of low mileage motoring.
I am of course in the fortunate position of being able to afford to change my car every few years but many people are not. The scrappage scheme is simply a sop that will not significantly help them. Let us hope they remember that next May.
The economics of switching to an electric vehicle did not make sense just yet but it might do in a few years’ time. I am open-minded on the pros and cons of electric vehicles but the high capital cost and low resale values do not make them attractive as yet.
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.
This week in Parliament there were two Westminster Hall debates on parliamentary petitions that got enough public support to get debated. These covered these issues:
On Road User Charging Schemes, revoke local government powers to charge CAZ, LEZ, and ULEZ.
Amend the 1999 GLA Act to remove the [London] Mayor’s power to impose road use charges”.
Although Labour MPs apparently mostly chose not attend, so avoiding any embarrassment no doubt in having to support unpopular policies, there were useful contributions from Conservative MPs.
Gareth Bacon, MP for Orpington in South East London made several good points. He said his constituents quite rightly saw the ULEZ as a “tax-grabbing scheme to fill the holes in Transport for London’s finances”. He pointed out that the public consultation was manipulated by the Mayor and hundreds of cameras were ordered even before the consultation was launched.
It’s well worth reading what was said in the debate which highlighted the costs being imposed on many people who live in outer London when the impact on air pollution will be negligible.
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 stock market is quiescent and it is time to ponder questions such as should I buy more BP shares and should I buy an electric or hybrid car? There is an article in the FT today on the rejection of resolutions focussed on climate change at the ExxonMobil and Chevron annual meetings. It said: “shareholders solidly rejected climate change proposals at the US oil majors’ annual meetings on Wednesday, scaling back support from last year and splitting with results at peers in Europe where resolutions related to global warming have won stronger support. Only 11 per cent of Exxon shareholders supported a petition calling for the company to set emissions reduction targets that would be consistent with the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. A similar proposal at Chevron received less than 10 per cent support”. See FT article here: https://www.ft.com/content/7faccadc-beef-4b10-be53-ae7aceaeafce
Resolutions on this subject at the BP and Shell AGMs were similarly defeated even though many institutional holders like to promote their green credentials.
Individual shareholders need to make up their own minds on how to vote on whether to put companies like BP and Shell out of business by stopping their oil development activities. Both BP and Shell argue for a transition to renewable energy at a pace acceptable to their customers and which does not impose unreasonable short-term costs and I agree with them. The transition to renewable energy for many purposes may make sense but for transportation carbon fuels have a very high energy intensity and the infrastructure to support electric vehicles means a high loss in the transmission system.
I have a pressing personal decision to make on this issue. My diesel-powered Jaguar XF is almost ten years old now and I like to buy a new car when they have done more than 60,000 miles as they get more unreliable and expensive to maintain after that. I don’t do many miles now so a somewhat smaller car might make some sense. But should it be an electric vehicle, a hybrid or a petrol/diesel one?
I think a hybrid is the best bet and have booked a test drive of a Toyota Corolla. They are self-charging hybrids but can only run a short distance on battery power so I am betting that petrol will be readily available for at least the next ten years.
I am surprised that Jaguar are still selling XF models but they do now have a petrol option and a “sportbrake” version which probably shows how well liked the car is but I fear that diesel will be discouraged by regulation soon.
They do sell all-electric models now but they are expensive and are bulky SUV style cars when I prefer smaller vehicles. Note that the environmental benefits of electric cars over petrol ones are quite marginal if you take the all-in lifetime environmental impact costs into account and the latest scare is that the heavier weight of electric vehicles is causing damage to our roads – thus explaining why there are so many potholes in our roads of late. The weight of current electric batteries is becoming a major problem while the production and recycling of batteries is a negative aspect not yet confronted.
Electric cars are cheaper than they used to be but they either have limited range or are expensive (£43,000 to £58,000 for a Tesla Model 3 for example, or over £70,000 for a Jaguar I-Pace).
Readers of this article can suggest alternatives for me to look at. Use the comment box below.
I could of course hold on to my current vehicle for another few years in the hope that Sadiq Khan changes his mind on the ULEZ expansion (my Jaguar XF is not compliant) or is not elected again next May. There are several strong contenders lining up to take him on. But I do so few miles within the ULEZ area (current and future) that it does not bother me much what the Mayor decides to do. Whatever he decides he is bound to be wrong based on his past decision record.
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.
We have just passed the twentieth anniversary of the introduction of the London Congestion Charge. This has been hailed as a success by TfL management and Mayor Sadiq Khan but is it? In reality it might have reduced the number of vehicles on the roads of central London as some users have been deterred or changed their travel modes or patterns, but it has not reduced congestion.
This scheme was installed in 2002 to the City and West End with a Western Extension into Kensington and Chelsea introduced in 2007 which was later removed. There is a charge per day for driving anywhere within the zone boundary. This was originally set at £5 per day but rose to £10 at the end of 2010, when the Western Extension was scrapped. It was raised to £11.50 per day from June 2014, and to £15 from June 2020 plus extended to 24 hours per day every day.
The original justification for the charge was that it would solve London’s perennial road traffic congestion (environmental benefits were not an argument used because it was known they would be minimal). But it did not solve the congestion problem with that soon returning to the same level as before and subsequently becoming a lot worse. The environmental claims made by some have also been shown to be false with air pollution within the zone basically unchanged as a result. Neither does it raise any significant funds for public transport improvements because almost all the revenue from the scheme goes in operating costs. Indeed if it was not for the accidental fines people collect from forgetting to pay the charge, it would probably lose money. Note that the Congestion Charge was introduced by socialist car-hating Mayor Ken Livingstone. It has impacted the poor more heavily than the wealthy and hence is a very regressive tax.
The Congestion Charge is of course a remarkably stupid system where the charge is only payable once per day however many times a vehicle drives into the zone or how far they travel. This has encouraged the use of Private Hire Vehicles and taxis which have increased enormously in numbers as a result, thus adding to congestion.
Neither does it encourage low emission vehicles or discourage high emission ones.
Nor does it discourage travel at the busiest times of day as the charge is the same whenever you travel. So there is little benefit in reducing congestion.
Nor is there any concession to people who need to travel within the zone for medical reasons (several major London hospitals lie within the zone and although there is a refund claim system for NHS patients it is complicated to make claims). Nor for any other people who provide essential services such as social carers or plumbers/electricians.
Now the Greater London Assembly (GLA) is holding an inquiry into Smart User Road Charging and are inviting evidence – see https://tinyurl.com/5n8h453s . The Freedom for Drivers Foundation has submitted a response to this inquiry which can be read here: https://tinyurl.com/rryz64hw
If the Mayor pushes ahead with the expanded ULEZ he will have a lot more cameras which could be used to make the Congestion Charge system more intelligent but it can never be made a really sophisticated system without a change in the technology.
There is one thing for certain though. Public reaction to road user charging will continue to be negative as it is just seen as a way to raise more tax from drivers.
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.
Both the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail have reported that the Government may block the expansion of the ULEZ to outer London. It is suggested they could use Section 143 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. This gives the Secretary of State the power to veto the Mayor of London’s policies which are inconsistent with national transport policies (see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/section/143 ).
Paul Scully, Transport Minister, has argued that as the ULEZ affects many people who live outside of London itself. He said “It affects a whole load of people in Surrey, Kent and Hertfordshire who didn’t get a say on it. It is taxation without representation”.
Comment: Whether Section 143 of the Act gives the requisite power to block the Mayor is legally questionable in my view but it might be worth fighting in the Courts. However, and as I have said before, as ultimately the Government has the power to change the 1999 Act, they should threaten to do so. They could simply remove the ability to introduce or continue with charging schemes. Simply threatening to do so would put the Mayor in an impossible position because he would incur very substantial costs in building the camera network which would then not be recoverable.
The Government just needs to make some tough decisions and lay down the law on this issue instead of sitting on the fence and trying to please everyone.
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.
London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has embarked on a steadily intensifying witch-hunt amounting to the complete obstruction of motorised commercial and private mobility, through the misuse (potentially illegally) of Temporary Traffic Orders during the Covid-19 outbreak. These have been used to implement lowered speed limits, carriageway narrowings, superfluous cycle lane widenings, and so-called “Modal Filters” (roadblocks in plain English). This has incensed, amongst others, London cabbies: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1289098/Sadiq-khan-London-news-public-transport-tfl-taxis-disabled-vulnerable .
This policy particularly adversely affects the elderly and the infirm – who often have no alternative to private car use – but also increases congestion, unnecessarily elevates vehicle emissions and wastes precious economic time. This is time that can be ill afforded, as the whole country seeks to climb out of the deep economic well created by the Covid-19 outbreak.
Campaigns Manager, Roger Lawson, is spearheading the investigation of a legal challenge (https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/lewisham.htm ) to measures implemented in the borough of Lewisham without adequate public notice or consultation.
COVID-19 was not supposed to bring with it rampant inconsiderate cycling schemes and “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods”.
Abusing emergency powers, Park Lane for example is now down to one lane Northbound. With a pre-existing cycle lane already in the park, there is now a parallel, totally redundant one on Park Lane. Mayor Khan inexplicably thinks that this is effective traffic management.
In the past, local authorities had in place a perfectly good, real consultation process that had to be completed with residents, local public transport AND all three of the emergency services, prior to any road closures, so that public safety and response times could be met. Sadly this approach no longer prevails and people’s lives are being put at risk in a mad rush to slash vehicular access.
If you know of any instances of emergency vehicles being delayed by these (or any other traffic impeding) measures in the London area (or indeed anywhere else) and that have had adverse health implications for anyone, which is a failure in a local authority’s basic duty of care, for which they may be punishable in law, then please send us a message.
What local and national politicians actually need to do is avoid the pitfall of making excessive provision for cyclists at the expense of adequate road space for vehicles. The constraints applicable to the realistic extent of future commuter cycling – i.e., distance, terrain and weather; plus the current imperative of avoiding public transport, indicates that car use will be the primary practical mobility solution for the overwhelming majority of road users. So under current circumstances there should actually be concerted efforts to smooth and ease motorised traffic flow and increased provision for car parking; instead of the very opposite.
Transport Minister Grant Shapps’ incomprehensible call to local authorities “to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians, to help embed altered behaviours and demonstrate the positive effects of active travel” is the root of all the road space reallocation problems currently taking place https://www.localgov.co.uk/Roads-to-recovery/50932 .
We have a rolling campaign to oppose these fundamentally anti-mobility and anti-democratic policies which are all part of Sadiq Khan’s London Transport Strategy which he adopted a couple of years ago but is now using the Covid-19 epidemic as an excuse to bring them in without proper public consultation. See https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/against-mts.htm for more information and to register your support.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
In 2018 the Mayor of London launched the Vision Zero strategy to reduce road casualties in the capital city. But road casualty figures for 2018 show that Killed and Seriously Injured (KSIs) on London’s road actually increased by 5% to 4,065 in 2018. Vision Zero is a key part of Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Transport Strategy along with the encouragement for modal shift with the aim of getting more people walking and cycling.
However, cyclist fatalities actually rose by 20% to 12, and cyclist serious injuries rose by 14% to 770. Cycling is one of the most dangerous ways to travel so is this encouragement to cycling misconceived?
The trend in London KSIs matches the national picture where road deaths have plateaued in recent years. See chart below from the DfT report of national road casualties in 2018.
We will no doubt see renewed calls for lower speed limits and more enforcement, but the Freedom for Drivers Foundation has consistently argued that the focus on simplistic solutions to road safety problems, such as traffic speed reductions, cannot and will not work to cut the horrendous toll of road casualties. The encouragement of cycling is surely an example of an unintended consequence of a policy introduced with the best of intentions to improve the health of the population. In London enormous expenditure on Cycle Superhighways and cycle lanes of other kinds has been incurred in the last few years. This was justified on improving cycle safety but in reality the impact is not apparent. The encouragement of cycling may have actually made the road casualty statistics worse.
We argue that Vision Zero is a counter-productive road safety fantasy, and that more attention should be paid to road user education and road engineering.
Postscript: With the appointment of Andrew Gilligan as a transport advisor to our new Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who as former London Cycling Commissioner under Boris was a big contributor to the growth of cycling in the capital and what many argue is the wasted expenditure on Cycle Superhighways, will we see the same defective policies being spread across the country?
