Extremism in Southwark

The London Borough of Southwark held a cabinet committee meeting last night (20/10/2020). One of the items on the agenda (Item 8) for discussion was petitions that have been submitted about the road closures in Dulwich. There were two petitions considered – the first one which collected 2,475 signatures asked for the immediate removal of the road closures while the second one which supported the closures received 29 signatures. One would have thought that was a pretty conclusive view of public opinion in Dulwich.

Councillor Catherine Rose who is responsible for “Leisure, Environment and Roads” spoke in support of the closures. Her speech was full of platitudes about the need to tackle climate change and reduce air pollution.

The problem that the closures of roads such as Burbage will prevent east-west travel in Dulwich and divert traffic onto the South Circular is being ignored. Businesses in Dulwich village are clearly being adversely affected. It seems unlikely that the closures will be removed soon, if ever.

Item 22 on the agenda was consideration of a report on Air Quality and the recommendations therein. These include:

A – The roll-out of a School Streets programme (i.e. timed road closures near schools).

B – To “drive down” total private vehicle usage by 2030 so that only a few electric vehicles remain.

C – To lobby for expansion of the ULEZ not just to the South Circular but wider – as far as the M25.

D – To increase the cost of car parking, and reduce parking provision by 50%.

E – To implement Low Traffic Neighbourhoods borough wide.

F – To lobby for the introduction of road user charging by the GLA.

These measures, if adopted, will mean the death of the use of motor vehicles in Southwark. Southwark is of course a large borough which stretches from central London to Dulwich in the south. Some parts are much better covered by public transport than others. The needs of those who rely on motor vehicles, or the preferences of those who live in the wealthier parts of the borough are simply being ignored. Those people too old to cycle or walk far are advised to leave the borough, sooner or later.

It is in summary a good example of the extremism that is now pervading the councils of some London boroughs.

You can watch the Cabinet Meeting on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/user/southwarkcouncil

Or read the agenda and supporting documents here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=6663

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 (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Motorists to Pay for Sadiq Khan’s Financial Incompetence?

Newspapers have reported that the Government is imposing tough conditions for another bail-out of Transport for London (TfL). TfL are in severe financial difficulties as most of their income comes from fare paying passengers on buses and the London underground. But passengers have declined very sharply as they are avoiding the risk of Covid-19 infection on public transport and many City workers have moved to work from home.

TfL have already had £1.6 billion from the Government in May to keep them afloat, but it is reported that they are asking for another £2 billion for this financial year alone, with another £2.9 billion later.

Taking into account the population of London that means every man, woman and child in London will be paying the equivalent of £700 each in taxes to keep TfL afloat. A completely ridiculous sum!

The Government is allegedly requiring TfL to extend the Congestion Charge zone – presumably to the North/South Circular – plus increases in public transport fares and cancellation of free travel for children and older people.

Clearly tough decisions are required unless the Government comes up with some cash, TfL may be forced to issue a Section 114 notice – the equivalent of a public body going bust. Such a Notice inhibits any new expenditure which would severely hamper the Mayor and TfL. But would that be a bad thing when so much money is currently being wasted on daft road schemes and cycle lanes?

The basic problem is that while customers have disappeared, TfL have continued to run unchanged services which no commercial business would have done. They should have reduced services to save money, i.e. matched services to customer demand. What is the point of running trains or buses with nobody on them? It’s financial lunacy. They are also suffering from past financial mismanagement and delays to the Elizabeth line which meant they had no financial buffer to cope with the epidemic.

But who is going to pay for these problems? Apparently the motorist which is quite unjust.

I have sent the following email to my Member of Parliament  – I suggest readers do the same:

To Robert Neill, M.P.

Dear Bob,

I see that according to press reports the Government is demanding tough measures from Sadiq Khan and TfL to keep the latter afloat. That includes an extension of the Congestion Charge (a.k.a. Tax).

It is absolutely unacceptable that motorists should be required to bail out Sadiq Khan and the management of TfL as a result of their financial incompetence.

The Government should simply say “no more hand-outs – you need to adjust your revenue and costs on public transport so that they match”. Otherwise they should let it go bust and take over direct control of the organisation and institute some sensible management. That includes cutting out all those expensive cycle lanes and other traffic schemes that do not generate any revenue at present but cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

Yours, Roger Lawson  

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 (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Congestion Charge Increase – Make Your Views Known!

Anyone who pays the London Congestion Charge will know that it is proposed to increase it immediately to £15 per day and extend the hours. Although it is suggested this is a “temporary” increase, bearing in mind it seems to have been prompted mainly by TfL’s financial difficulties, it is quite likely it will be made permanent.

Transport for London (TfL) are inviting comments on the proposals. You can send your comments to yoursay@tfl.gov.uk. But it needs to be done by the 4th June so don’t delay!

These are some comments we have sent which you can use as you see fit but it’s best to use your own words:

“Please note that we object to the proposed increase in the Congestion Charge (a.k.a. Tax)  to £15 per day, whether a temporary increase or a permanent one. We also object to the extension of hours.

The very large increase in the charge is simply irrational. The Congestion Charge was originally designed to reduce traffic congestion but has not done that (see this page of our web site for a full analysis: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/congestion.htm ). It has just turned into a tax on Londoners to support public transport. And it is an excessive and punitive tax where the costs to collect the tax consume most of the revenue. It particularly discriminates against the less well off and those who have no choice about their working hours or transport options – for example the disabled or elderly.

The impact of the Covid-19 epidemic might encourage people to use private transport rather than public transport because the former is clearly safer. But the cost of the Congestion Tax is already so high, plus the cost of parking is very high, that it is very unlikely to result in substantial numbers of people moving to commuting by car into London. Most of the vehicles entering the Central Congestion Zone are goods vehicles, or those on essential journeys or on ones that cannot be made by public transport. They cannot avoid paying the tax.

Clearly the intent of the proposed increase is to solve the budget problems of TfL by raising a tax on a small minority of hard-working Londoners. Why should they have to pay for the Mayor’s financial incompetence which is as big a cause of the deficit in TfL as the recent pandemic.

The increase in the charge and the extended hours will have a very detrimental impact on businesses such as theatres that rely on customers visiting central London. It will also prejudice those such as the police who have to work unsocial hours in central London and cannot easily use public transport. This simply looks like the Covid-19 epidemic is being used as an excuse to attack private vehicle use in London, which is totally unjustified.

We urge you to reconsider this proposal, and look at other ways to balance the TfL budget.

In our view the Congestion Tax should be scrapped as being ineffective and regressive, not increased”.

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.

 

Good News for Londoners, and The Truth About TfL Budgets

As readers probably know, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has run out of money with the result that Transport for London has had to be bailed out by the Government. The Mayor subsequently decided to raise the Congestion Tax by 30% and restrict usage of the Freedom Pass. That’s bad news but one consequence is that the funds provided by TfL to London boroughs for such projects as “Healthy Neighbourhoods” or “Mini-Hollands” will be curtailed.

An article in Local Transport Today (LTT) reports that in a letter to Transport Commissioner, Mike Brown, borough representatives have complained about what this will mean in terms of their operations and their ability to deliver transport projects.

Local boroughs are under great financial pressure from the Covid-19 epidemic because it has resulted in a loss of much of their parking income and PCNs. Now they may lose one of the major sources of funds for transport projects. To quote from the LTT article: “Frost and Jones say there is a risk that boroughs may “no longer be able to assist TfL in delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) in any meaningful way.  This would be particularly damaging because, as the MTS acknowledges, the boroughs are a key delivery partner as the authorities, which manage the vast majority of London’s highway network. They say a “severe reduction” in borough capacity will also “hamper the opportunity for officers to work with TfL to explore how some of the positive behaviour changes observed on the network in recent weeks (improved air quality, more active travel, reduced private vehicle trips etc) can be locked-in and a ‘new normal’ forged.  This could therefore represent an historic missed opportunity in what is likely to be a very small window of time where people may be open to doing things radically differently”.

The ABD suggests that scrapping projects that involve road closures, reducing road capacity and the expenditure on more cycle lanes which are little used would be a very good idea indeed. We have been campaigning against the MTS since it was launched as it is a misconceived attempt to change travel behaviour, force people to travel as the Mayor and TfL want rather than by their choice, and has never been justified by any cost/benefit analysis.

One example of the new financial limitations was indicated in a note issued by a Lewisham councillor. It said: “Healthy Neighbourhoods – while the lockdown has highlighted how pleasant life can be without traffic, TfL’s parlous finances mean it has halted funding for HNP. The Council is looking at whether and how the plans for Lee Green and central Lewisham can be integrated into some temporary measures we have funding for as part of Covid-19 response that would encourage social distancing, walking and cycling. We expect to be able publish these within the next few weeks”.

It seems neither the Council nor central Government is giving up on wanting us all to walk and cycle everywhere to relieve the pressure on public transport and avoid the close contact and hence infection risk on buses and the underground. But the Mayor’s policy of raising the Congestion Tax and taxes such as the ULEZ will pressure people to stop using cars and move to public transport. It’s simply irrational.

A good letter was published in the Times newspaper on this subject from John Hines who lives in Loughton, Essex. This is part of what it said: “This is bound to push more travellers back on to trains, the Tube and buses, where social distancing is next to impossible. One would hope he has calculated the effect this will have on the R number. He should be held to account, particularly as many of us who travel into London do not live in London and have no say in who is elected mayor”.

The Government has made it plain that it was solely the Mayor’s decision to raise the Congestion Tax and that he should not blame them. They also said this in a note issued on the bail-out: “The settlement for TfL was needed for two reasons. Most important is the significant fall in revenue caused by COVID-19. However, an important secondary factor was the pre-existing poor condition of TfL’s financial position as a result of decisions made over the last 4 years. Combined with significant cost increases and delays to Crossrail, this left TfL in serious financial difficulty even before the public health emergency.

The Mayor has claimed a great success in achieving a reduced operating loss in TfL. But this ignores all the wasted capital expenditure on projects such as Cycle Superhighways and the interest on debt that has risen to record levels. A proper analysis of the financial position of TfL, issued before the epidemic hit, is here: https://abdlondon.wordpress.com/2020/01/17/tfl-business-plan-and-budget-for-the-next-5-years-more-of-the-same/

Is it not time for the Government to step in and take full control of TfL? It is wrong for the Mayor to pursue reckless policies such as his Transport Strategy when there is no financial justification and no democratic mandate for it.

But the Government is actually recklessly encouraging local Councils to “embed new social norms” for travel by restricting vehicle use and encouraging walking and cycling. They want to change the way you wish to travel and to live without consultation and with no justification. That’s not democracy.

Roger Lawson

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.

 

 

Should the ULEZ and Congestion Charge be Suspended?

Should the ULEZ and Congestion Charge be suspended in London? Bearing in mind that crowded public transport is a good way of spreading the coronavirus and even Sadiq Khan has changed his tune and is advising everyone to stop non-essential travel, would it not be a good idea to encourage people to use private cars and taxis instead?

Using your own vehicle would ensure that you did not come into contact with other people so it is surely a wise move, particularly as traffic levels have reduced and the school run will be non-existent from today. The ABD certainly thinks it is a good idea – we issued this press release to highlight the issue: https://tinyurl.com/rcdoqow . It would enable essential workers to get around in relative safety.

Conservative Mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey supports the idea and has also called for parking charges to be abandoned – see https://tinyurl.com/w7nn8je . But will the Mayor suspend the ULEZ and Congestion Charge? It seems unlikely because the main object of these schemes is to generate money for the Mayor and TfL and they have not reduced congestion or air pollution. Indeed traffic congestion has got even worse since the charge was introduced. It might be simpler and wiser to abandon them altogether!

Postscript: only hours after issuing this post, the Mayor announced the suspension of the Congestion Charge, ULEZ and LEZ.

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.

Getting Rid of Cars in London

Bus Jam 208-01-17There was a good article recently in the Guardian by Gwyn Topham entitled “How London got rid of private cars – and grew more congested than ever”. It described in graphic terms how despite falling numbers of cars, congestion has got worse. Part of the problem is that the reduction in private cars, which are almost non-existent in central London now, has been offset by the increase in PHVs (Uber etc) and LGVs delivering internet parcels or doing “just-in-time” deliveries.

Cycle lanes and other reductions in road space have also made matters worse while the Congestion Charge has been totally ineffective in reducing congestion (see this page for our analysis of that costly and ineffective system: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/congestion.htm ).

The impact of more congestion has hit bus users hard and reduced ridership. Slower buses put people off using them and congestion also means an unreliable service. Traffic speed is now down to about 8 mph.

All of these problems have been caused by poor transport policies in London with unintended consequences. Attacking private car use has been turned out to be particularly pointless and just makes matters worse, as Councillors in Lewisham with their “Healthy Neighbourhoods” scheme will no doubt soon learn if they do not reconsider their proposals.

There is a better way, but the Mayor of London and his transport bosses will not listen because they seem more interested in making money from charging road users than fixing the congestion problem.

You can read the Guardian article here: https://tinyurl.com/yxy8g5lq

Roger Lawson

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

How to Rack up a £11,970 Bill at the Dartford Crossing

Below is an email we have received from a user of the Dartford Crossing. We have removed the sender’s name for reasons that will become apparent.

“I am in a serious situation financially that within the next month will probably see me lose my house and my family as this I have kept to myself for over a year and now I am at a tipping point with no way to escape.

Here goes…

I live in Kent and work in Essex, so have to go both ways most days using the Dartford Crossing, I was fortunate to have a company car for 3 years prior which was automatically paid for so I never had to worry or even think about paying the Toll, the journey was just the norm.

However personal Tax and Tax on my fuel card led me to no option but to ditch the company car and buy my own car. So I just carried on doing the journeys.

At this point I was also desperately trying to sell my house and purchase a new house, and I had not got a lot of money so was just living month to month.

Then the letters started coming through the door – a £2.50 charge was now £35, and a £5 a day one was now £70. When you get 3 or 4 at once you then all of a sudden get £280, then more and more come through, and that’s when you realise that you have not paid. After years of doing it naturally you just don’t think… I spoke to my company and they said they would put my car onto their auto pay account, but I don’t think they did that for a week or so, so more fines came through.

Now I was in a situation of not being able to pay, as I had so many fines. This is where it gets even more out of hand, as I could not afford to pay so it escalated and all of a sudden it was sent to the courts and ended up with Bailiff company (JBW) pursuing me. Each £2.50 crossing then became £197. The Bailiffs turned up at home so I started to find the money. I took out credit cards so that I could pay the debts as I was getting letters and texts everyday.

Things got even worse just after Christmas when the company removed all private cars off of the scheme, and didn’t tell us until a week later, so that meant more fines…

In total I had 67 crossings (about a month’s worth) not paid … all innocent mistakes as I just didn’t think at the start because I had never needed to pay…

It would have cost £167.50.

I am now having to pay off £11,970.59.

In which £6814.50 is the Dart Charge fees.

And £5156.50 are Bailiff fees.

I have currently paid £4,652.09, without my partner knowing, but because of the pressure this has meant I have fallen into arrears with Council Tax and my mortgage too…

I have to pay another £200 next week otherwise I will break my agreement but I can no longer cope with the pressure of hiding it, and I know I can’t pay it next week so the Bailiffs will be at my door…

To date I have now paid the equivalent of 1860 crossings. It was an innocent mistake now I will lose everything. I wrote to my local MP at the start of all the letters for help, and they only advised to make sure I pay the Bailiff on time.

I am only writing this to warn people that debt spirals, and pressure spirals”.

Comment: This is indeed a sad case and shows the problems that can arise with camera enforced payment systems which the ABD has consistently opposed because of the large numbers of accidental infringements that arise.  This is one good reason (there are several others), why tolls on such crossings should be removed. It is of course worth signing up for the Dart Charge Autopay system if you use the crossing regularly.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

 

 

Travel in London Survey – How It’s Being Made More Difficult

Transport for London (TfL) have released their latest survey of travel patterns in London.  It’s a mine of statistics but the “spin” put on the data is generally grossly misleading. For example, it says “Londoners and visitors make increasingly sustainable choices for how they get around, choosing to walk, cycle and use public transport”.  Walking and cycling have slightly increased – see comments below, but how is public transport “sustainable”? A high proportion of public transport is buses and diesel London buses are a major contributor to air pollution while air pollution on the London Underground is worse than on London’s streets so how is that “sustainable”? Of course there is no definition of “sustainable transport” in the Report  – it’s simply a way for TfL to claim some things as good and others bad.

Total travel demand in terms of number of trips taken has been flat for the last three years despite the continuing growth in the population. In reality Londoners are choosing to travel less simply because traveling in London has become more difficult. Public transport has become overcrowded while private transport (cars and PHVs) are being discouraged in numerous ways.

Bus journeys declined by 1.8% last year probably due to the same reasons as the decline in use of cars – traffic congestion has slowed journey times, making it quicker to walk in many cases.

Cycling in terms of cycled kilometres rose by 5% it is claimed but still only accounts for 2.5% of all trips despite the massive expenditure on cycle superhighways and other cycling facilities. This figure is also distorted by using distance cycled instead of number of trips by that mode. You can see the data more clearly by looking at this chart from the Report:

Per Person Trip Rate

This shows clearly that cycling has not been growing and any alleged increase is simply down to the growth in the population of London. This is what one person had to say on Twitter: “The same tiny number of people cycled 5% further because the weather was a bit nicer than usual that year; at a cost of £millions to taxpayers, while record numbers of Londoners sleep rough and get murdered. In any other setting this would be surreal: but not in Sadiq Khan’s London”.

The Report also claims success in the Mayor’s objective of promoting more “active travel” such as cycling and walking to make us more healthy. As regards walking the above chart shows how walking has declined over the last ten years. And Figure 5.2 in the Report shows that the percentage of people achieving 20 minutes per day of active travel is basically unchanged in the last ten years.

The big trends over the last ten years have been increases in underground patronage – up 25.6% – and national rail usage – up 41.5%. Which explains why you cannot get a seat on the trains or the underground and during rush hours you’ll either be squeezed into the carriages or can’t even get into the station. This has arisen because of a failure to match public transport provision with the growth in London’s population which incidentally is mainly from immigration as the Report spells out.

Bus journeys declined by 1.7% last year and have actually declined by 0.6% over the last ten years. It seems that nobody likes buses. Perhaps it’s that standing in the cold or rain waiting for a bus or unreliable bus arrival and trip times that puts them off – it certainly does this writer.

Motorised road travel declined slightly in inner and central London but rose slightly in outer London. Londoners are apparently reluctant to give up car use despite the ever increasing restrictions on them. One change though is the use of PHVs (mini-cabs) has risen to offset the decline in private cars. For example it is estimated that as much as 40% of car traffic in central London at certain times is accounted for by PHVs, but their numbers are forecast to fall substantially due to removal of the exemption from the Congestion Charge (a.k.a. Tax) and the new ULEZ tax.

The Report notes how serious road traffic casualties increased last year which shows how the Mayor’s “Vision Zero” strategy is failing. But interestingly it also notes that injuries in the London Underground increased by 6% last year to 3,968 while bus passenger injuries declined by 8.6% to 4,889. These are surprisingly high numbers but still less than those injured in road traffic accidents.

Only 56% of London households have access to a car with an even lower proportion in inner London. But this proportion has not substantially changed in the last ten years (see Figure 4.12 in the Report).

The report gives some data on air pollution and in particular of NO2 emissions which mainly come from transport. This has been falling substantially, particularly in central London, mainly due to changes to newer vehicles in the vehicle fleet. See chart below taken from the Report.

NO2 Trends

The Report goes on to claim an impact from April 2019 from the introduction of the ULEZ in central London but in reality the trends in the above chart will simply have continued so any claim for an impact from the ULEZ is a figment of TfL’s imagination. It is simply too early to claim any impact as reliable data is not yet available. And just to remind you, there is no clear medical evidence of any negative impact of NO2 on human health.

In summary although this TfL Report contains some useful data, it misinterprets the trends in London travel patterns and the impact of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. Most of the changes in travel trends in London have probably occurred from a rising and ageing population.

The report is very selective in both data reporting and interpretation. For example there is no data on traffic congestion which from most users experience has worsened considerably in recent years. That degradation has taken place from policies pursued by TfL which has meant removal of road space from cycle lane installation, widening of pavements, junction changes, more pedestrian crossings and traffic lights and other negative changes.

However an interesting section of the Report is on future travel demand and possible “Scenarios” in Chapter 14. One of the three scenarios is “Accelerating London” with high levels of population growth and immigration, high housing costs and rising crime rates, i.e. more of the same. A second scenario is a “Rebalanced London” with lower economic growth, a stable population size with actual falls in inner London and a slower pace of life. It sounds positively utopian if you read it. The third scenario is “Innovating London” where there is a focus on more technology both in employment and facilitation of travel. It does not say which the Mayor of London might back however.

Regrettably as with anything the Mayor or TfL issue, the Report is more of a public relations document than an unbiased analysis of the trends in London travel and its causes.  It should be read with caution.

You can find the Report here:

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-12.pdf

It just remains to wish readers of this blog Best Wishes for the New Year and a belated Happy Christmas

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

Sadiq Khan’s Election Manifesto – Have Your Say

The Labour Party are inviting everyone to have their say on Sadiq Khan’s Manifesto for re-election as London Mayor in 2020. You can read about his achievements to date and submit answers to their questions via this web page: https://tinyurl.com/y29yu999 . It is of course a very biased document like all consultations that Mr Khan presides over, but anyone can respond – you don’t need to be a Labour Party member.

Perhaps the Mayor is short of ideas to ensure he gets re-elected. His last big vote winner was freezing public transport fares but after three years of holding the tide back of inflation in King Canute fashion he has managed to dig a deep hole in Transport for London’s finances which simply cannot continue. Bus services are being reduced as a result while traffic congestion increases. His policies on Congestion Charging and the ULEZ will impose higher costs on many Londoners with minimal public health benefit. He has also clearly failed to tackle rising violent crime and not solved London’s housing problem – indeed his only proposal for the latter is to introduce rent controls which would make matters worse.

But he does admit to increasing the Council Tax Precept (what you pay to the Mayor from your local council taxes) to the maximum allowed. No thanks Mr Mayor. All his other claimed achievements are quite trivial in relation to the problems Londoners perceive as key issues.

All the way through the document, the Mayor emphasises that he has limited powers over many aspects and clearly wants more. But it would be very dangerous to give him more.

Here are some of the questions and how you may care to respond to them (I have only covered those questions that are relevant to transport):

Environment and Climate Change:

Question: How do we take the next steps to clean up London’s air and oversee a massive shift from polluting cars to walking, cycling and electric vehicles at the same time?

Answer: concentrate on fixing the vehicles over which you have control and which are major contributors to air pollution, i.e. diesel buses. You also need to tackle air pollution on the Underground. Otherwise any measures should be justified on cost/benefit grounds and scare-mongering over an imaginary public health crisis as the justification for higher taxes should be stopped. The expansion of the ULEZ to the North/South Circular should be halted and the introduction of more Cycling schemes that create more traffic congestion (and hence air pollution) should be halted.

Transport:

Question: How else can Sadiq make London’s transport system affordable and accessible to all Londoners?

Answer: Stop wasting money on schemes with very poor cost/benefits (such as the proposed Rotherhithe bridge and most of the Cycle Superhighways the finance for which has to come out of public transport fares. He needs to stop spending money and imposing taxes on road users to make the transport system more affordable for everyone. That includes halting the investment in 20 MPH speed limit schemes and cycle schemes that have poor cost/benefits. He should also cease support of road-pricing and workplace parking levies.

Question: What are the future major schemes that Sadiq could focus on delivering?

Answer: The Silvertown Tunnel is one which will be a major benefit for east London. Repairing the Hammersmith Bridge is another for West Londoners. Improving major east-west and north-south road routes such as the Embankment rather than degrading them with 20 MPH speed limits and cycle lanes should be another key objective.

Question: What more can be done to promote walking and cycling?

Answer: Some youth elixirs for the elderly and inform would help and concealing the dangers or cycling is another. That is of course just a witty response to a proposal that is unnecessary and has major disbenefits.

Question: When asking for more powers and devolution from Government on transport issues, where should Sadiq focus his energies?

Answer: Give the Mayor powers to introduce policies to reduce the population of London so as to reduce pressure on the transport, housing and public health systems. Specifically redistribution of business and people out of London and powers to reduce immigration and encourage birth control.

He should also argue for a commitment to devolve more powers to local boroughs so as to avoid TfL dictating local borough policies and more funds financed by central Government to be given to local boroughs solely to be used on improving the road network in London. In addition the Mayor should be given the power to set sensible minimum parking standards for new developments (not maximum ones) in London boroughs.

Those are just a few ideas to help Mr Khan, or indeed his opponents, to get elected.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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

Dartford Crossing Charges to be Permanent

Charges have been maintained on the Dartford Crossing despite a previous Government promise to drop them once the bridge had been paid for, which is now long past. They were increased when free-flow charging was introduced but the Charging Order was due to expire in 2020. They are now proposing to make it permanent. See https://tinyurl.com/y4meo6q5 .

The ABD will be putting in an objection but anyone who uses the Dartford crossing should do so also.

It is completely unreasonable for the Government to break a promise on this matter, particularly as tolls on other river crossings such as that at the Severn Bridge have been removed. There is simply no justification for the charges, or their level, at the Dartford Crossing and it’s purely a way for the Government to extract money from road users

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

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