Tag Archives: Sadiq Khan

New Thames River Crossing at Rotherhithe?

Posted on by
3

Transport for London (TfL) are proposing a new river crossing between Rotherhithe (Canada Water) and Canary Wharf. Before you get too excited, this would be for pedestrians and cyclists only. Their preferred option is a bridge, although they have also considered a tunnel (more expensive even if done as a submerged tube), or a ferry (much cheaper).

The bridge would cost as much as £300 million but they estimate as many as a milllion pedestrian trips and 340,000 cycling trips per year would use the crossing. But recovering the cost over ten years would require the users to pay over £20 per trip. Needless to say, they are not being asked to pay for that as there would be no tolls or charges for use – at least they are not mentioned in the consultation documents.

Comment: the only option that makes any financial sense in my view is a ferry which is much cheaper and more flexible to cope with demand variation and inaccurate forecasts of usage. The Rotherhithe Tunnel can be used by pedestrians and cyclists but demand there is minimal so even TfL’s forecasts of usage seem optimistic to say the least.

Such large expenditure being considered for this project would surely be better spent on a proper road crossing (bridge/tunnel) further downstream which has been wanted for many years but gets continually delayed.

This could likely be another vanity project like Boris Johnson’s Emirates Cable Car, or the recently cancelled “Garden Bridge”. The cable car has over a million users a year and covers its operating costs at least, but is mainly used by tourists. At a return trip cost of £9, you can see why. It’s questionable whether it will ever recover its capital costs. Perhaps Mayor Sadiq Khan wants a bridge they can name after him as a legacy when he departs? There seems no good reason to build it otherwise. 

But it’s a good example of the financial profligacy to pander to the London electorate beloved by the current Mayor.

For more details or to respond to the public consultation on these proposals, please go to: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/rotherhithe-canarywharf/?cid=r2cw-crossing

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

Mayor Pushes Ahead With ULEZ

Posted on by
Reply

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has announced today that he is definitely going ahead with the introduction of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in central London from 2019, i.e. he is bringing forward the original planned date based on the results of his last consultation.

This will cover any vehicle that enters the existing Congestion Charge zone and will operate seven days per week, 24 hours a day, unlike the Congestion Charge (a.k.a. tax). The additional charge will be £12.50 for cars, vans and motorbikes that do not meet defined emission standards, or £100 per day for lorries, buses and coaches.

Diesel cars that do not meet the Euro 6 standard, which means most of them that will be more than 4 years old in 2019, will need to pay the additional charge – making it cost as much as £22.50 to drive into central London. Petrol cars will only have to meet the Euro 4 standard so even older such vehicles may be OK. Go to this web page to check your vehicle: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/check-your-vehicle?intcmp=32646

The ULEZ will replace the “T-Charge” on older vehicles which came into force in October this year.

The Mayor is also introducing a “particulate matter standard” to the ULEZ standards bearing in mind recent concerns about that kind of air pollution. It is not clear how that will work as it suggests that vehicles that comply with the Euro standards might fail on other grounds.

Bearing in mind that the ULEZ may be extended across a wider area (for example to the North/South circular), it seems likely that not many London residents will be buying diesel cars in future as emissions standards tighten, and more will buy electric vehicles.

The consultation responses (over 18,000 in total) showed 72% of the general public support the principle of a ULEZ, with only 21% opposed. But for those who drive within central London, 65% were opposed. Some 52% of drivers were also opposed to bringing forward the ULEZ to 2019.

The Mayor also makes a pitch for a national vehicle scrappage scheme, a new Clean Air Act, changes to VED, and more money for City Hall in his press release.

Will the announced measures reduce air pollution? Probably although these are improving anyway as older vehicles are scrapped and replaced. But the main culprits as regards pollution were and are HGVs, LGVs, buses and taxis. Imposing such draconian standards on cars and even motorbikes 24×7 is not a cost-effective solution. The fact that the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) have failed to provide any cost/benefit justification, nor even any of the budget costs of the scheme in response to an FOI Act request just tells you one thing. This scheme is as much about making money for the Major’s coffers as improving air pollution. This was also reflected in the consultation comments “written in” where 5% of respondents suggested it was a tax/revenue raising scheme for TfL.

But there were very few comments in support of extending the ULEZ boundary. Only 1% supported extending it to the North/South Circular. Let us hope that kills off that idea which would impose a major financial burden on many more London residents.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

Should a Value Be Placed on a Life, re Croydon 20MPH?

Posted on by
Reply

The scheme to implement a wide area, signed-only 20 Mph speed limit in the London Borough of Croydon has been covered in past article. The scheme will cost over £1 million and there have been lots of objections from local residents. But Councillors have pushed it through regardless.

It is now the subject of a Judicial Review over the defective consultation process. In addition, I made a complaint to Croydon Council about that in June, and after an initial brush off have had a final response from Jo Negrini, their CEO. She ignored my arguments about the lack of proper cost/benefit justification and lack of provision of the likely benefits in the consultation documents. She simply argued that a value cannot be placed on a life.

This is an extract from my response: “you say (on page 3) that “the report emphasises several times that a value cannot be placed on a life and therefore the benefit of preventing, even a single fatality, cannot be said not to represent value for money to the public”. You use that statement to justify the fact that no proper cost/benefit analysis was done, or the benefit of the scheme put to councillors before they made a decision to proceed.

Such a statement just shows how ignorant you are on road safety matters and the decision-making process used on public schemes (or perhaps you are not so ignorant and are just using this as a poor excuse). A value is placed on a life everyday when evaluating public expenditure. That is for the simple reason that when comparing projects, or looking at where limited cash resources are spent (and as Theresa May recently said: “there is no magic money tree”), it is rational to choose the most cost-effective projects in which to invest. By so doing, the most lives are saved.

The problem with the Croydon 20 wide area scheme is that an enormous amount of money has been spent, that could have been better spent on other road safety projects. And hence saved more lives!

Valuing lives may be seen as somewhat hard-nosed for those who do not have any scientific background, or have not been schooled in how to make rational decisions, but it is how road safety schemes normally are, and should be evaluated.”

This unfortunately is a very good example of the poor quality of local authority decision making in not just London but the UK as a whole. Uneducated and ill-informed councillors make policy decisions that their executive staff are expected to justify and implement. But good council officers should tell the truth and stand up for what is right.

Similarly the Mayor of London has caught this bug. So he went ahead with the London “T-Charge” this week despite being advised that it would not show any significant benefit in terms of reduced air pollution. It has just imposed enormous costs on one of the poorest sections of the community (those who drive very old cars), but the Mayor thinks it makes for good headlines. Just line up some young schoolchildren for a photo-shoot (a very dubioius practice) and explain this is one step to fixing air pollution problems in London. It makes for great publicity, and helps the Mayor to raise more in taxes under the guise of public health! Great politics if you can fool the public for long enough.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

Air Pollution from Small Particulates

Posted on by
Reply

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has released new research giving the emissions of toxic particles known as PM2.5. He claims most Londoners are exposed to levels that exceed WHO guidelines. Here’s a summary of the report:

The research, based on the latest updated London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, shows that 7.9 million Londoners – nearly 95 per cent of the capital’s population – live in areas of London that exceed the guidelines by 50 per cent or more.

PM2.5 are small toxic air particles which are alleged to have the greatest impact on health with both short and long-term exposure increasing the likelihood of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Children are particularly affected and may develop reduced lung function and asthma.

Around half of PM2.5 emissions in London are from external sources outside the city, however, the main sources of PM2.5 emissions in London are from tyre and brake wear, construction and wood burning.

The Mayor is clear that he wants to reduce emissions from wood burning through improved education about the types of fuel that should be used and when they should be used. He also wants a stricter set of emission standards on future sales of wood burning stoves to tackle this problem.

Comment: Why anyone should be permitted to use a wood-burning stove in central London when most people think such usage was banned under the Clean Air Act rather surprises me. But a lot of the particulate emissions are from construction in London, or are blown in from outside – and much of those are from agriculture, or even pollution from other countries. It is not at all clear how the Mayor is going to tackle these, but dust from tyre and brake wear is more easily controlled. Whether this would have a significant impact overall, or are cost effective measures, is not obvious though. Unfortunately this looks like political posturing by the Mr Khan, using children as his cheer leaders in this campaign.

Regrettably such pollution is mainly a symptom of over population, which Mr Khan and his predecessors seem not to want to do anything about.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

Uber Kicked Out of London

Posted on by
1

Transport for London (TfL) have announced that Uber’s licence to operate in London will not be renewed. That means their service will terminate in a few weeks and 40,000 drivers will be put out of work. There are as many as 3.5 million Uber users in London and a petition to reverse the decision has already been established on Change.org which has collected 450,000 signatures in about 24 hours – see https://www.change.org/p/save-your-uber-in-london-saveyouruber

TfL, supported by Mayor Sadiq Khan, claim Uber is not a fit and proper organisation to hold a license due to its failure to report incidents, failures on vetting drivers and other grounds. Uber have 21 days in which to appeal, and no doubt there will be a legal challenge as well if TfL do not back down.

TfL previously announced that license fees for Uber to operate in London will rise from £3,000 to £3 million for a 5-year license, so it is clear that the Mayor is attacking Uber via more than one channel. Why is he doing this? It is clear from the Mayor’s recently published Transport Strategy (see http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/against-mts.htm ) that Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs) such as Uber operate are contributing to traffic congestion in London in a big way. But it is also clear that the Mayor objects to all private vehicles whether you drive them or someone else drives them for you.

Are there alternatives to Uber? Lyft is a big similar operator in the USA but does not operate in London yet. Taxify launched in London recently but then had to suspend operations after TfL queried its license. There is a service called Hailo that operates to call conventional taxis (don’t bother trying to use it in outer London though in my experience), and numerous local PHV operators plus larger operators such as Addison Lee who have a ride hailing app.

Comment: I am not totally convinced that the allegations against Uber are serious enough to warrant refusal of a license. Perhaps Uber should up its game in several areas, but is it any worse than other PHV operators? As a relatively new service, with lots of new drivers, there are likely to be some teething problems. Other penalties could surely have been considered. For example, a grant of a new license for a limited period on certain conditions being met.

I have used Uber a few times and the service is both efficient and low cost (Uber loses money in a big way I understand). For example, I called Uber recently to take my wife home at 3.00 am in the morning from an outer London hospital. The driver arrived in about 3 minutes. Great service at very reasonable cost.

Many people will see this act by the Mayor for what it is. A simple attack on a service that the Mayor and those in TfL would like to put out of business so that people have to walk, cycle or use public transport (i.e. use many less safe alternatives) if you read his Transport Strategy. That is why we opposed to it.

It is true that the number of PHVs is contributing to traffic congestion, but there are other ways to ration their numbers and usage (e.g. on price).

I recommend that you sign the petition, as I shall be doing.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

A Vision in a Dream, After Coleridge

Posted on by
Reply

 

The following manuscript has recently come to light, perhaps written by an acolyte of poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

Roger Lawson

<A Fragment>

In London did Sadiq Khan

A stately Transport Strategy decree:

Where the Thames, the sacred river, ran

Through caverns measureless to man

   Down to a sunless sea.

So twice five miles of fertile ground

With walls and tower blocks girdled round;

And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,

Where blossomed many a conker tree;

And here were roads ancient as the Romans,

Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.

But oh! that deep romantic chasm which slanted

Down among the City streets!

A savage place! As Mammon rampaged free

As e’er beneath a waning moon was haunted

By women wailing for West End shopping!

And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,

As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,

A mighty fountain momently was forced:

Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst

Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,

Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher’s flail:

And mid these dancing rocks at once and ever

It flung up momently the sacred river.

Fifty miles meandering with a mazy motion

Through East End industry and London’s suburbs,

Then reached the caverns measureless to man,

And sank in tumult to a polluted North Sea;

And ’mid this tumult Sadiq heard from far

Ancestral voices prophesying air pollution doom!

   The shadow of the dome of the GLA

   Located nigh the sacred river;

   Where was heard the mingled pleas

   From politicians left and right.

It was a miracle of rare device,

An un-costed Transport Strategy at the behest of Sadiq!

   A damsel with a dulcimer

   In a vision once I saw:

   It was an East European maid

   And on her dulcimer she played,

   Singing of Mount Street Mayfair.

   Could I revive within me

   Her symphony and song,

   To such a deep delight ’twould win me,

That with music loud and long,

I would build anew that dome,

Upon a new democratic model!

With freedom to ride the roads at will,

And all should cry, Beware the wrath of Khan!

His flashing eyes, his floating hair!

Weave a circle round him thrice,

And close your eyes with holy dread

For he on honey-dew hath fed,

And drunk the milk of Paradise.

<End>

The ABD’s comments on Sadiq Khan’s Transport Strategy are present here: http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/against-mts.htm . Please register your opposition.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

What Has the Mayor Got To Hide?

Posted on by
Reply

We have issued the following press release:

In June, London Mayor Sadiq Khan opened a crucial consultation that will decide the future of transport in London. We spoken to several members of the public and found that hardly anyone was aware of it. Some felt that it had been seriously under-publicised.

There have been occasional tube station posters, but they are very bland, mentioning housing and employment but not the quite drastic policies planned for drivers. For instance, the Mayor’s Transport Strategy threatens the extension of the Congestion Charge across Greater London and new taxes to force drivers out of their cars.

Congestion charging spokesman Brian Mooney asks: “What has the Mayor got to hide?

He amazingly claims that drivers pay too little to use the roads and they are subsidised by public transport users. Our research provides evidence to the contrary – that drivers pay four to five times over to use the roads and our taxes in fact subsidise public transport. The Mayor’s office was challenged to provide some evidence via a Freedom of Information Request, but could produce none.” [1] [2] [3] [4]

If he thinks that the overtaxed driving public will support him forcing us to pay even more – or worse still depriving us of using the roads we’ve paid for – then he should at least be upfront with us over his plans.

It would be quite unacceptable if he takes silence as approval for his uncosted proposals  – or even a blank cheque. Particularly as he was elected on a promise not to extend the Congestion Charge. [5]

I challenge the Mayor to appear on a mainstream phone-in with me to face the public over this important issue. This should be within the next three weeks to meet the consultation deadline.” [6] [ENDS]

Notes for Editors

[1] The claim is on p265 of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy consultation draft. “…the fundamentally inadequate and unfair way in which road use is paid for in London, with motorists paying too little, and in effect being subsidised by public transport fare payers.” https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/transport/our-vision-transport/ draft-mayors-transport-strategy-2017   Evidence to the contrary illustrating the net tax paid by drivers is on http://www.fairdealforthemotorist.org.uk/2017mts4.htm#_FOOTNOTE

[2] FOI request: MGLA280717-2452, correspondence available on request.  Failure to respond properly breaches both GLA and wider Local Government standards. “The Mayor is determined that the GLA leads the way in openness and transparency.” https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/governance-and-spending/sharing-our-information/openness-and-transparency https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/522205/Local_government_transparency_code_FAQ.pdf

[3]  Roger Lawson has experienced similar evasion from Mayor Khan’s aides at Transport for London. Roger asked for basic financial information on the costs and benefits of the ULEZ proposals, but no budgets or estimates of the costs have been provided (FOI Request Ref: FOI-0071-1718) – it is currently subject to a complaint to the Information Commissioner but the delays alone have frustrated democracy.

[4] There is other evidence that the Mayor’s MTS consultation does not meet legal expectations. Cabinet Office consultation guidelines include: “Consultations should provide sufficient information to ensure the process is fair.” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data /file/255180/Consultation-Principles-Oct-2013.pdf  The Supreme Court ruled in 2014 “The demands of fairness are likely to be higher when the consultation relates to a decision which is likely to deprive someone of an existing benefit.” (UKSC56, Haringey v Moseley) https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/search-results.html?q=Moseley%20v%20Haringey  In a more recent case, Justice Patterson reiterated the principles upheld by the Supreme Court case that a consultation will be fair if it: 1. communicates the public authority’s proposal to those with a potential interest; 2. explains why that proposal is being considered; 3. provides the consultees with sufficient information to make informed responses to the proposals. (R (Angharad Morris and Donna Thomas) v Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council [2015] EWHC 1403 (Admin)) http://www.burges-salmon.com/practices/disputes_and_litigation/publications/public_consultation_does_not _necessarily_need_to_set_out_alternative_options_moseley_revisited.pdf

[5] The 300 page MTS document fails to give proper ballpark figures for what will certainly be the large sums of money Mayor Khan plans to take from those who can currently afford to drive in London or the substantial cost of implementing his schemes. Sadiq Khan’s 2016 manifesto promised (p36) “to maintain the Congestion Charge at its current level”. http://www.sadiq.london/a_manifesto_for_all_londoners  The MTS threatens a range of punishing measures including: – Extending the Congestion Charge (road pricing) London-wide, with drivers being charged to use local roads – New and higher motoring taxes to stop drivers using our cars – A ‘workplace parking levy’ – a tax on going to work – Reduction in the availability of parking – Measures to remove road space from drivers who’ve paid for it – Gratuitous ‘car-free days’, road closures and speed restrictions.

[6] This offer is specifically aimed at the Mayor, not an underling or lobbyist substitute, as he made his promise in a personal manifesto. The timescale would be between now and 20 September to allow listeners adequate time to respond to the consultation which concludes on 2 October. .

Mayor’s Latest Announcements on ULEZ

Posted on by
1

On the 4th April the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, made his latest announcements on how he intends to reduce air pollution from road vehicles in London. Not a mention of how he intends to reduce the 50% of air pollution caused by things other than road transport which is still growing as the population of London increases, but let us say no more about that for the present.

Mr Khan has revised his previous proposals somewhat, presumably based on the last public survey which did show overall support for his proposals with some reservations. But he is now definitely committed to:

– The introduction of a “T-Charge” of £10 for older vehicles (pre-2006) commencing in October this year. This will only apply within the existing Congestion Tax area of central London.

– The introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) for all vehicles from April 2019, which will again only apply to the central London zone and replace the “T-Charge” mentioned above. The ULEZ daily fee to drive in the zone will apply 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and apply to all vehicles that do not meet the following standards:

a) Petrol Euro 4/ IV

b) Diesel Euro 6/ VI

c) Powered Two Wheelers Euro 3

These standards mean that petrol cars more than around 13 years old in 2019, and diesel cars over 4 years old in 2019 will have to pay a charge which will be £12.50 for cars, vans and motorbikes, and £100 for heavy vehicles such as HGVs and coaches.

They will be in addition to the Congestion Charge where applicable. The ULEZ will apply to all vehicle types, except black taxis, which are already being made cleaner through licensing restrictions. From next year all new licenced taxis must be zero-emissions capable.

Unlike the Congestion Charge, which only applies for limited hours on weekdays, these charges will apply all the time. So trips into central London for the evening will cost you £12.50.

There is again a public consultation on the above which everyone who drives in London should respond to and it is present here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/airquality-consultation . PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU RESPOND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 

In addition to the above the Mayor is considering expanding the ULEZ to nearly all of Greater London in respect of heavy diesel vehicles such as buses, coaches and lorries to be implemented in 2020. Also he proposes to consult on extending the ULEZ to all other vehicles including cars within the North/South Circular, to be implemented in 2021. So you could be paying £12.50 just to drive within that ring road, although a lot of the previous respondents to the last consultation suggested a lower charge.

Mr Khan is calling on the Government to deliver a nationwide diesel vehicle scrappage scheme but there is no sign yet that the Government is listening. There is some concession to residents who live within the ULEZ and for disabled vehicle users who will have a “sunset” period until 2023.

Comment: some information required to make any intelligent comments on these proposals is not apparently available. For example what is the likely impact of these proposals on the level of air pollution within the zone or outside it? What is the cost/benefit justification? What is the cost of implementing this scheme and how much revenue and profit will TfL obtain from it as a result?

These questions are very important because the Mayor has a very strong financial interest in these proposals as the additional charges will no doubt raise much needed revenue for the Mayor and TfL whose budgets are currently under pressure.

It is most regrettable that this is yet another example of asking the public’s views on a matter without giving them the full facts to enable them to make a reasoned judgement on the proposals.

I have asked TfL to provide this information and will let you know if I receive it.

But having walked the streets of the City of London last week I certainly think something needs to be done about air pollution because my lungs were definitely affected and I have not suffered from asthma for many years. The problem was that all the roads such as Cannon Street, Eastcheap, Bishopsgate and around Aldgate were just gridlocked in the middle of the day with stationary traffic which consisted mainly of buses, LGVs, taxis and private hire vehicles. This happens quite regularly now because of the impact of the Cycle Superhighways, road closures, removal of gyratories and other measures promoted by the previous Mayor and local authorities over the last few years.

Vehicles may have been getting cleaner, only somewhat confounded by the Government’s misconceived promotion of diesel vehicles so as to save CO2 emissions. But if transport planners create gridlock then the inevitable will happen – air pollution will continue to get worse until only zero emission and expensive electric vehicles are allowed. We also need to tackle other sources of air pollution and the best way to do that is to stop the growth in the London population or even reduce it.

Postscript: on 9/4/2017:  This interview with Professor Tony Frew, a respiratory expert on TalkRadio is definitely worth listening to if you want the facts about air pollution and its sources: http://talkradio.co.uk/news/sadiq-khans-40000-pollution-deaths-year-zombie-statistic-and-isnt-true-says-respiratory

Julia Hartley-Brewer whom conducted that interview also attacked the promotion of the 40,000 deaths per year in the UK from air pollution in an article in the Daily Telegraph on the 7th April. She said “This 40,000 figure is alarmingly high. It is also alarmingly wrong”.

And as of today I am still awaiting a response from TfL on the data requested giving the data on the impact of the ULEZ on air pollution. Not even an acknowledgement of my request so far so I have submitted a Freedom of Information Act request.

Roger Lawson

New Mayor’s Broken Promise

Posted on by
Reply

No sooner had new London Mayor Sadiq Khan taken office than it transpired that one of his key vote winning pledges was not what it seemed. He promised to freeze public transport fares for four years but that will only apply to certain fares it is now reported.

Mr Khan told the London Assembly last week that the price freeze would not extend to season tickets because they can include stages on trains run by private companies. Those companies are regulated by the Government and not by the Mayor and TfL. The Government has rejected any idea of freezing fares so the Mayor’s original promise cannot be delivered in full.

Mike Brown, Transport Commissioner, gave us the good news though. This means the cost of the “promise” will only be a £600m impact on TfL’s budgets rather than the £1.9bn that he was talking about under the previous regime. But that’s a lot of money to find to fill the hole in the budget and still deliver on the Mayor’s other promises.

Mr Khan is hoping to save money by tackling inefficiencies in TFL where more than 400 staff earn more than £100,000 a year and both they and their families get free travel perks (now under review).

Old Mayor’s Advice Ignored – Bus Passengers the Main Losers

An article in Local Transport Today (LTT) had long-standing public transport supporter David Begg complaining that Boris Johnson ignored advice to reduce road vehicle demand in central London while introducing the cycle superhighways. By not reducing traffic volumes, the result has been worsening congestion and slower traffic speeds. He said “Bus passengers have been the main losers”. The article reported that bus speeds have fallen by more than 5% on a third of routes in London in the last year. This has also reduced bus passenger volumes. But even Mr Begg concedes that “It is the substantial reduction in road space, with planned roadworks increasing by 362% over the last three years, which has led to significant increases in congestion”. Editor’s comment: how amusing to see this arch advocate of road pricing and congestion charging admit that congestion has been caused in London by the previous Mayor’s perverse destruction of the road network in the pursuit to get us all cycling.

Roger Lawson

New Mayor’s First Acts

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roger Lawson