20 MPH Limits are so Tedious and Unnecessary

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.

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.

Rishi Sunak Speech and 20 mph Limits in London

Rishi Sunak’s speech at the close of the Conservative Party Conference is surely to be welcomed by all those who use our roads and want rational economic decisions to be taken. It included this statement on HS2: “I am ending this long running saga. I am cancelling the rest of the HS2 project. And in its place we will reinvest every single penny, £36 billion, in hundreds of new transport projects in the North and the Midlands, and across the country. This means £36 billion of investment in the projects that will make a real difference across our country. We’ll help Andy Street extend the West Midlands Metro… Build the Leeds tram, electrify the North Wales main line…Upgrade the A1, the A2, the A5, the M6 and we’ll connect our Union with the A75 boosting links between Scotland and Northern Ireland. We’ll fund the Shipley bypass, the Blyth relief road and deliver 70 other road schemes. We’ll resurface roads across the country”.

So we should be getting some improvements to congested major roads even if money is to be wasted on tram systems which are rarely justified on a cost/benefit ratio.

Meanwhile in London Sadiq Khan is putting up two fingers to the Government’s commitment to halt irrational 20 mph speed limits. Transport for London (TfL) will introduce 65km of new 20mph speed limits within the Royal Borough of Greenwich, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Lewisham, Southwark, Wandsworth, Merton, Bromley and Lambeth. The new speed limits will be introduced in stages over the last four months of the year.

TfL is also working with the Met Police to increase their capacity to take enforcement action against drivers and riders who speed. They are currently on track to be able to take action on a million speeding offences by 2024/5, to provide a more effective deterrent to speeding.

A 20mph limit will be introduced on sections of the following roads:

A232: West Wickham High Street (scheme to go live in September)

A205: St John Wilson Street, Well Hall Road (scheme to go live in October)

A4: Cromwell Road, Brompton Road (scheme to go live in October)

A3220: Pembroke Road, Holland Road, Warwick Road, Redcliffe Gardens (scheme to go live in October)

A20: Eltham Road, Lee High Road, Lewisham Way (scheme to go live in November)

A202: Queens Road, Peckham High Street, Camberwell Church Street, Camberwell New Road (scheme to go live in December)

A2: New Cross Road, Old Kent Road (scheme to go live in December)

A201: New Kent Road (scheme to go live in December)

A100: Tower Bridge Road (scheme to go live in December)

A200: Jamaica Road (scheme to go live in December)

A3: Clapham Road, Kennington Park Road (scheme to go live in December)

A3204: Kennington Lane (scheme to go live in December)

A203: Stockwell Road (scheme to go live in December)

A23: Camberwell New Road, Streatham Hill, Streatham High Road (scheme to go live in December)

A214: Tooting Bec Road (Scheme to go live in December)

A24: Clapham Common South Side, Balham High Road, Upper Tooting Road, High Street Colliers Wood (scheme to go live in December)

A205: Woolwich Common, South Circular Road, Catford Road, Stanstead Road, London Road, Thurlow Road, Christchurch Road, Poynders Road, Dulwich Common (scheme to go live in December)

Comment: This is an irrational and unjustified attack on drivers. Speed of traffic has already been considerably reduced in recent years in London with no obvious impact on road casualties.

Rishi Sunak speech in full: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/rishi-sunaks-full-speech-conservative-27843617

TfL Press Release: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/september/tfl-to-launch-65km-of-new-lower-speed-limit-schemes-to-cut-road-danger-across-the-capital-and-save-lives

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 Changes to be Made Permanent. Another Hatchet Job on the Road Network.


Transport for London (TfL) have published a note saying that after reviewing the public consultation responses they have decided to make the changes permanent.
To remind you, Park Lane has always been a major thoroughfare in London. The recent introduction of wide bus and cycle lanes has reduced the road space for all other vehicles and caused congestion as a result (see photo above). What used to be a three-lane highway is now only one.

Park Lane is a key part of the road transport network in central London and has now effectively been downgraded. A few cyclists might have benefited but vehicle users have been seriously disadvantaged. This shows how prejudiced TfL is against vehicle users.

The results of the consultation showed that there was no overall support for the scheme but a lot of opposition. Only 31 per cent of respondents stated general support for the Park Lane scheme and vision while 30 per cent raised concern that the scheme has a negative impact on traffic congestion, including displacement of traffic to other nearby areas; and 22 per cent suggested that it is preferable to cycle in Hyde Park than on Park Lane while 22 per cent suggested to remove the cycle lane and the scheme altogether.

What is the point of doing public consultations when the feedback is simply ignored? This is yet another example of TfL ignoring the views of the majority of road users and implementing proposals that favour the small minority who are cyclists. This scheme should never have been proposed when there were much better alternatives.

For the TfL Consultation Report see https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/park-lane/widgets/33040/documents

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.

Transport for London Quarterly Performance Report – Clearly a Financial Basket Case

Transport for London (TfL) have published their quarterly performance report. It covers the quarter to 11 December 2021 and gives some useful information on the slow recovery in passenger numbers from the pandemic lows.

In Q3 demand plateaued however and is still only 68% of pre-pandemic levels. But to really get a good picture of how TfL is a total financial basket case you only have to jump to the Appendix. That shows that the “Net Cost of Services” is £2,267 million (i.e. £2.3 billion of costs more than income) for the quarter. This deficit is only made up by £3.4 billion of “Grant income” no doubt mainly from central Government.

Indeed the Chief Financial Officer clearly thinks that he is doing a great job because he says “we are performing better than budget” while staff numbers have actually increased despite passenger numbers falling.

Somebody asked me recently how much London buses were subsidised. I did not know the immediate answer although the last time I looked at this it was an enormous figure. But this report gives you guidance on it. The Appendix reports that for the Operating Segment of “Buses, streets and other operations” there is a deficit of £754 million for the quarter and that probably includes the income from the Congestion and ULEZ charges.

It is clear that TfL are still relying on enormous Government bail-outs to stay afloat and that shows no signs of changing.

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.

London Bus Action Plan Published

Transport for London (TfL) have published the Mayor’s Bus Action Plan – see link below for the full document. This document promotes bus travel as an “active travel” mode. But what is “active” about sitting on a bus?

The plan is full of such sophistry. Consider the following statement in it: “Meanwhile, climate change is a real and present emergency, as demonstrated by recent flooding in London and across Europe, and increasing numbers of wildfires in Europe, the Middle East, north Africa, North America and Australia. This is why the Mayor of London has made clear his ambition for London to be a world leader in tackling the twin dangers of air pollution and the climate emergency, and has brought forward the 2050 target for London to be a net zero carbon city to 2030”.

There is no evidence that recent storms and flooding are other than random events. Promoting the use of buses certainly won’t help when most of them are still diesel powered.

The big problems with London buses are well known. Bus journey times have slowed thus putting people off using them and the pandemic has contributed to lower usage. More cycle lanes have obstructed buses and diversion of traffic off minor roads in LTNs to major roads has increased congestion. Meanwhile the cost of bus journeys has increased.

In outer London few people want to wait in the rain for the next bus and take circuitous routes to destinations when they can jump in their own private car or call a taxi to do a door-to-door trip in a quicker time.

But the report does say that they can reduce carbon emissions “By accelerating the delivery of a zero-emission bus fleet to 2030”. Is that a commitment to actually deliver a zero emission bus fleet by 2030. No it’s not. It’s the typical weasel words of politicians.

The report says “In contrast, a modern bus service that provides an inclusive customer experience”. What does that mean? It does not explain.

It also says: “A well-connected bus network will enable car-free lifestyles by providing a high-quality, attractive mode of transport to connect new developments to shops, stations and other destinations”. But buses cannot provide for all the needs and trips that people take via car, particularly if you wish to travel outside London or other than in and out of the centre.

How do they propose to speed up bus journey times? By introducing road user charging that will deter other vehicles from using the roads you have paid for. And by putting in more bus lanes and bus plus cycle only streets.

There is one big omission from this report. Namely any consideration of the financial position of London buses. The fact they get massively subsidised out of taxation is not even mentioned. If bus users had to pay the real cost of their journeys they would choose another travel mode.

In summary this report contains some useful facts but it’s full of management speak and is way too long. It ignores the basic problem that buses can only meet a minority of the desires and needs of Londoners for transport.

Bus Action Plan: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-action-plan.pdf

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.

Mayor Pleads, But Now Threatens

First Mayor Sadiq Khan pleads with the Government for more money to fund Transport for London in their financial crisis. But with the Government reluctant to concede without a clear picture on future budgets, now he has turned to threatening the public.

He has announced that he plans to increase his share of council tax by £20 per year to support TfL and phase out the over 60+ Oyster card. This will presumably not affect the over 65 Freedom Pass. Fares on the network are planned to increase by inflation plus one per cent next year which will be an over 5% increase.

In addition he plans to scrap Travelcards making the network paperless – contactless bank, credit cards or Oyster cards can be used instead if you have one. Also tube journeys on the Piccadilly line to Heathrow will be charged at a premium rate.

Comment: As usual the Mayor blames the Government for forcing him to make these changes which is primarily the result of his own financial mismanagement.

But these changes are not unreasonable. If Londoners wish to have their public transport subsidised then it is not unfair to put it on Council Tax rather than introduce new taxes such as the ULEZ. The latter imposes charges on people who may not use public transport. Increasing charges to everyone in London as most will use public transport to some extent is fairer and scrapping the 60+ Oyster Card is not unreasonable. The 60+ card was never justified but was just a bribe to win electoral favour when most people could afford to pay the normal fares.

Increasing fares by inflation and more also makes sense as clearly at present fares paid do not cover the cost of running the TfL network.

But we still do not have a clear picture of how the Mayor is going to make TfL financially sustainable.

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.

How to Reform London’s Transport

Following on from my previous blog post about the financial crisis faced by Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor (see link below) I have given some thought to how the problems might be resolved.

The solution from Sadiq Khan and London’s Transport Commissioner is to ask the Government for more money. Not just some millions of pounds in immediate bail-outs but billions in the next few years.  There is no doubting the dire financial situation that TfL has got itself into partly because of the Covid epidemic which has reduced income substantially. But it was slow in responding to that and had not been managing its financial resources properly for years.

The big problem is that TfL has been run to pander to its political master whose key focus is to please the population of London so they can get re-elected when the time comes. But TfL is not just a useful transport service to serve the growing population of London but is in essence a business. It should be run like a business and if it is not it will continue to rack up losses and need repeated bail-outs.

The rot set in when the Mayor of London was given responsibility for TfL (and he chairs the Board of TfL), particularly when TfL took over responsibility for all underground, bus and main roads in the capital. From Ken Livingstone onwards, decisions have been made to please the electorate rather than ensure that TfL ran on a commercial basis. Ken expanded the bus network enormously which resulted in subsidies of over £1billion per year. Buses ran more frequently on routes that were often under-used but only now is the network being reduced.

Concessionary fares such as the Freedom Pass were expanded – again a very popular policy but one which imposed costs on the transport operators even if local councils covered some of the costs.

Ken installed a Congestion Charge system (in essence a tax) while promising it would solve traffic congestion which it never did and now we have the ULEZ tax which it was claimed would solve London’s air pollution problems, but which it has not – see Reference 2.

Sadiq Khan froze public transport fares for 5 years until March 2021. This no doubt helped him to get elected. But this was a political decision not a sensible financial one. He gambled on revenues from Crossrail filling the budget gap that was created but that project was over budget and severely delayed. When the Covid epidemic hit there was no margin of safety left to absorb the reduction in income that comes from bus and tube fares.

Instead of cutting services to meet the reduced demand level and hence save costs, services were maintained at a high level for political reasons and to avoid conflicts with trade unions. That’s not how any commercial business would have tackled the problem.

TfL is a commercial business where less than half its income comes from fares paid by willing customers. Much of it comes from grants and other subsidies, often indirectly from taxpayers. That is the core of the problem which no politician, whatever the hue of the Major of London, is going to tackle.

The solution to many of these problems is to remove TfL from elected political control and give it a clear mandate to be run solely on a commercial basis. A commission, independent from the Mayor of London, should be established with very specific terms of reference which should be binding on a new London Transport Commissioner. Such a commission should report to a Government minister but be independent in terms of policy making and executive decisions, i.e. the Government and any Mayor of London should only have a consultative role.

The remaining issue is whether roads and public transport should be combined under the same Transport Commissioner with roads being financed and maintained to some extent from public transport fares. Although the Mayor currently obtains some income from the Congestion and ULEZ charges, he argues that he should receive a share of national taxes used to finance road development and maintenance. That would only make sense if it was removed from political control in London.

But there is a built-in basis for irrational decisions if the London Transport Commissioner is responsible for multiple transport modes – underground, surface rail, London buses, taxis/PHVs and private vehicles (cars, LGVs and HGVs). Each of these should be made standalone businesses so that no one role subsidises the other. They should be made independent profit and cost centres. London Underground should not subsidise London Buses and vice versa. Road vehicles including buses should be covering the maintenance costs of the road network (including that for bridges, flyovers and tunnels) in London. If there is any surplus in any one sector it should be used to expand the relevant network and improve services, not be used to subsidise other loss-making activities.

The claim for a single transport body such as TfL was that it would enable the construction of an integrated transport system but apart from a common fare payment system there is little real integration.

The above is a manifesto to reform London transport so that it meets the needs of consumers of its services on a viable economic basis in the future. No other solution can do that.

There are of course other possible escapes from TfL’s financial problems. It has assets it could sell off. Perhaps someone would like to buy the London Underground?  But that will never happen while it is subject to political interference. Or it could borrow more money but that would not solve the basic financial problem. When expenditure exceeds income in your household budget, the last thing you should do is to increase your mortgage or raise the limit on your credit cards.

As it stands, the Mayor’s only solution seems to be to ask his fairy godmother (the Government) to come up with oodles of more cash. The Government should ignore the Mayor’s wailing and threats and get down to imposing substantial reform along the lines I suggest.

Roger Lawson

Ref 1. Transport Crisis in London blog post: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/11/19/transport-crisis-in-london/ 

Ref 2. ULEZ Had Minimal Impact blog post: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/11/17/ulez-had-minimal-impact-on-air-pollution/

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 Crisis in London

Both Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, and Andy Byford, London Transport Commissioner, have warned that unless they get more money from the Government then there are going to be savage cuts in public transport and on major infrastructure projects. The latter might include the required repairs to the Rotherhithe Tunnel, the A40 Westway and A12 Gallows Corner flyover leading to their closure.

Some 100 bus routes face the axe and frequencies may be cut on 200 other routes. Other proposals are no more electric buses, no more step-free stations, no more “Healthy Streets” cycling and walking schemes and no more 20mph zones or safer junctions.

Now some readers might welcome some of those things and clearly the Mayor is trying to scare the Government into providing more funding within weeks. But some of those suggestions like closure of the Rotherhithe Tunnel and the Westway would be disastrous for the functioning of the road network in both east and west London.

How did TfL get themselves into such a mess? It all stems from the policies adopted by Ken Livingstone which was for massive subsidies to buses and commitments for large expenditure on Crossrail and other underground projects. The bus network has certainly been greatly expanded but at a cost that was never justified and Crossrail has been a financial disaster. Over budget, over schedule, and never justified on a cost/benefit basis. The Mayor was relying on income from it to cover TfL’s future budgets which it never has.

Boris Johnson never tackled the problems created by Livingstone when he was Mayor while Sadiq Khan has actually made matters worse by spending enormous amounts of money on cycle lanes, LTNs, and other schemes that have damaged the road network. He has also encouraged the growth in the population of London while the infrastructure never kept up with it despite massive central Government funding.

A report in the Express shows that £515 more per person was spent on transport schemes in London than on the North of England. A new report from the IPPR North think tank has published an independent analysis of transport spending over the past decade. Between 2009/10-2019/20, the North received just £349 per person in transport spending. In comparison, the UK as a whole received £430 per person, while London received a staggering £864 per person. Where did it all go one might ask? On pointless and generally uneconomic schemes not justified by any cost/benefit analysis is the answer.

The daft transport schemes such as the Congestion Charge and the ULEZ have actually encouraged people to move out of London and the cuts to public transport that are proposed will expedite that trend. With falling income from bus and tube fares already caused by the pandemic, the outlook is certainly bleak. But failing to maintain the infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels and flyovers while the Major prefers to spend money on other things is surely a sign of gross incompetence.

London needs a new transport plan where expenditure is matched to income and needless subsidies removed. In other words, people should pay the cost of the trips they take on public transport and free riders should be stopped. But will a socialist Mayor ever take such steps? I doubt it. So London is likely to go into further decline and more people will move out.

But London is at the heart of the UK economy so there is some justification for central Government stepping in once again to reform London’s governance. We need less populism (which generally means hand-outs to win votes) and more financial acumen in the leadership. Certainly the current arrangement where you have a virtual dictator in the role of Mayor and a toothless London Assembly is not working.

The key to improving the London transport network is not to have it all (both public and private transport) under the control of one body (TfL) which leads to lack of competition and perverse incentives. For example, encouraging cycling to relieve pressure on public transport while causing more road traffic congestion and introducing schemes such as the ULEZ to help subsidise public transport while increasing the cost of private transport.

Perhaps we need a new Dr Beeching to put the London transport network back into a cost-effective structure as he did for British Rail. But at least the Government seems to have taken some rational decisions by cancelling the eastern link of HS2 to Leeds. Just like Crossrail in London, HS2 was never justified in terms of benefits achievable and the money would have been better spent on smaller projects. But politicians love grandiose schemes. Reality seems to be finally sinking in on the national scene even if not yet in London.

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.

ULEZ Expansion – It’s Mainly About Raising Taxes

From today (25/10/2021) the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is expanded to cover everywhere within the North/South Circular. If you drive into it and your car or van is not compliant it will cost you £12.50 per day.

Many people are going to get a big shock because a high proportion of people affected do not seem to be aware of the charges they will suffer – as many as a third of drivers in London and the South-East who will be affected are not aware of the change – see the “This is Money” article link below.

Particularly badly affected are those who bought diesel vehicles a few years ago after encouragement by the Government and will now have to buy a newer vehicle or pay the charge.

We have consistently argued against this unjust imposition of more taxes when the benefit in terms of improved air quality will be both small and of limited duration. See our web site page here for more details: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/environment

You can see the real motivation for expanding the ULEZ when you read that it could bring in an extra £723 million per year for TfL. With the Mayor and TfL suffering from a major budget crisis you can understand why the Mayor is trying to justify this scheme on health grounds. But the facts do not support it.

To check whether your vehicle is compliant, go here: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/check-your-vehicle/

This Money Article: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-10112743/ULEZ-extension-Three-five-drivers-London-unaware-changes.html

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.

New TfL Consultation Hub

Transport for London (TfL) have launched a new “Consultation Hub” where you can give feedback on new projects in London – see https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/ . You can also register to receive notifications of new consultation events.

This is not just about consulting on future projects but also submitting comments on live ones – such as the trial of E-Scooters that is currently running.

The new consultation “hub” will replace the existing consultation web site (see https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/ ) which contains consultations on Streetspace schemes, bus lanes and other matters at present.

Is this a big improvement or is there any reason for the change? It’s not obvious how this change will help and moving and renaming a web site is never a good idea.

Readers are advised to register with the new site so as to be sure of being informed on new consultations.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.