|
|
|
A FAIR DEAL FOR THE MOTORIST |
|
|
“YOU KHAN’T USE YOUR CARS!” - IT’S HIGHWAY ROBBERY! |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
In 2016 Sadiq Khan was elected Mayor of London on a bland manifesto
pledging to tackle congestion through harmless-sounding measures like
encouraging car clubs and managing road works. He even claimed to be ‘A Mayor
for all Londoners’. He would not
have got elected if it had come out with aggressive anti-motorist proposals
like those in his draft Mayor’s
Transport Strategy. |
|
||||
|
· SPACED OUT, OR PUSHED OUT OF OUR CARS? Mayor Khan promises platitudes such as
London being ‘a better place for all’. Public transport users are to be
treated to a ‘customer service’ approach. However, despite lip service to
“equality issues”, car users are considered as towards the bottom of the heap
in the ‘hierarchy
of road users’ operated by Transport For London (TFL). Some animals are clearly more equal than
others. The “opportunity to reduce car use” will
use various flimsy excuses. There will be measures to reallocate road space
away from motorists but of course “this is not about being anti-car”. Khan promotes one-off, trial and even regular
street closures including for activities such as play This can actually set a
dangerous precedent for children to play in the street, as well as depriving
motorists of the use of streets they’ve paid to use. It is distorting the truth to claim that ‘streets
can be planned for people, rather than cars’. Cars do not typically drive themselves, they are used by people to go about their
everyday lives. They enable families to enjoy walking holidays, visits to
relatives and friends, trips to work and recycling centres, collection of
heavier goods and general shopping that benefits the local economy. The cost of motoring and the condition of
roads (etc) mean that in practice motorists will often only make a journey by
car if it’s the ‘least worst’ option.
Who are the bureaucrats with their free travel perks to decide if
someone else’s journey is or is not “essential”? They are already looking eagerly at
penalising journeys to work through a Workplace Parking Levy and staggering a
‘Khangestion Charge’ for the rush hour when many
are going to or from work? ORWELLIAN
DEFINITION OF ‘CHOICE’ It is also disingenuous to talk up ‘Opportunity
Areas’ - mandatory (i.e. compulsory) ‘car-free’ and ‘car-lite’
housing developments and similar schemes where people can ‘choose’ to walk
and cycle, but in practice where a mean bureaucratic attitude denies them the
choice of them (or their possible visitors) parking a car. The suggestion of more car-free days in
high streets, town centres and central London comes at a time when local
authorities are moving away from the orchestrated gesture politics of ‘car-free
days’. After Mary Portas’ review, the more
enlightened are offering free or cheaper parking to safeguard high street
shops and local businesses. Oddly while promoting car clubs ("Scheme
that facilitates vehicle sharing") in his Manifesto,
Khan now has reservations about car-sharing, on the grounds that it might
lead to more journeys! Perhaps the real objection is over enjoying personal car
ownership? ‘THE
LEFT HAND GIVETH, THE RIGHT HAND TAKETH AWAY’? Ironically while ‘demand management’ is
being hyped, Khan seems to be welcoming and even encouraging large-scale
population growth in London – even though it increases ‘demand’ - pressure on
resources like road space. At the same time the gratuitous removal of
road space for political ends can add to difficulties on the ‘supply’ side. Some
years ago, Trafalgar Square was pedestrianised
as part of a meaningless ‘World Squares’ project. The surrounding area saw
traffic tailbacks
for miles despite assurances from TFL that all would be well. At King Street,
Hammersmith. the former council’s removal of a road
lane affected traffic around the Broadway, aggravating a busy arterial route while roadworks
created dangerous tailbacks on the eastbound A4. The wider pavements created
served no real useful purpose but were hyped as ‘Street Smart’. Although car journeys in London have gone
down, so have road speeds. TFL have admitted
that the removal of road space had played a part. That doesn’t stop Khan
seeking to reduce speeds even further, with more crawling 20mph speed
limits. TFL believe
congestion can be addressed by encouraging transport modes that allegedly make
efficient use of road space, such as the bus (‘the most efficient’), cycling,
and walking. This may only really be true when measured stationary. The assumption of
‘efficiency’ is questionable, as it may ignore overall efficiency in terms of
journey time, speed and cost effectiveness. Particularly on split and longer
journeys, as, for instance buses do not always go where the traveller wants,
and even if they do, it may not be by the directest
route. Scarce road space can
be wasted (e.g. by under-used bus lanes, particularly 24 hour ones, causing
traffic to bunch up in other lanes). Buses might slow down other traffic when
stopping and even then have to wait up for minutes to ‘even out gaps in the
service’. The expansion of cycle superhighways has
occurred for politicised reasons, even though it produced opposition
because of its impact
on ‘essential’ business travel. Although Khan would like us to think that
action is taken on ‘robust’ and ‘compelling’ evidence, his plans seem to have
a blind spot on inconvenient evidence. |
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
· OTHER ANTI-MOTORIST POSSIBILITIES INCLUDE This is the second of four
pages outlining the proposals. The first
covers:
The third
covers.
Other proposals and our
positive alternatives are covered on a fourth page.
The above pages provide
information on how to simply object to the proposals. Please object a.s.a.p. and get your friends to do the same. The Mayor and his PC crew are
counting on you doing nothing and just paying up!
CLICK
FOR HOW TO OBJECT |
|
||||
|
References: MTS physical
pages 17, 28, 30, 40, 43, 46, 52, 62, 70, 97, 102, 129 (/151) |
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
MANY THANKS FOR
YOUR SUPPORT |
|
Campaign index |
‘Fair Deal’ home page |
How you can help |
