|
|
|
A FAIR DEAL FOR THE MOTORIST |
|
|
|
“YOUR MONEY OR YOUR WAY OF
LIFE?” Or why TFL’s latest initiative spells trouble!!! |
|
· In July 2013, a long set
of documents was released under the heading Mayor’s Roads Task Force (RTF) reports
(The key document proposing action is the TFL
Response). This page provides a more detailed
summary of the main concerns. Watch out for consultations and lobby your
elected reps. |
|
· THE
THREAT OF EXTENDING THE CONGESTION CHARGE, BUT EVEN MORE WIDELY (cf. NATIONAL
ROAD PRICING) Interested parties had
previously been assured that considering any extension of ‘congestion
charging’ (AKA road pricing) would only be a last resort. However, at the
launch of the RTF/TFL documents, RTF member Prof Peter Jones suddenly raised the
possibility of ‘smarter charging’, either for moving or parking. Under the heading, Smart
Charging, TFL will review current
congestion charging policy and technology “to ensure they are up to date”.
This is worrying given the backdrop of other proposals and the presence of
various lobbyists In rather toned down language, TFL urge
pushing the national
debate on the future means of paying
for road infrastructure, whether through subsidiarity (local retention)
of road tax, the potential for a London vignette (time-based road user
charge) or tolling new infrastructure. Extending the Congestion Charge was
deliberately included as an option in the 2010 Mayor’s Transport Strategy.
Why include something if you have absolutely no plans of adopting it? |
|
· MEASURES TO DISCOURAGE CAR USE The reports come
against a backdrop of trying to force drivers out of their cars, a prejudice that
became national policy by that dinosaur transport minister, John Prescott. TFL claim to be producing a road network for 21st century, but such
is the bias towards walking and cycling that you could be forgiven for
thinking that it yearns for the days before the car was invented! "We have to get people used to the idea of taking
space away from cars and giving it to bicycles." - Andrew Gilligan, Mayor's Cycling Commissioner, quoted in the Guardian,
2 Sept 2013. Even Boris Johnson’s foreword’s comments have
been playing to a PC audience: “Being
‘pro roads’ has been seen as being exclusively ‘pro motorist....’” He should remember that the car is the
preferred mode of transport in outer London; and (with buses) the preferred
mode for journeys of 1-3 miles. Above all he should recall his own commitment
to equality of road users, and that people only tend to drive in much of London
because it is the ‘least worst’ option. |
|
· RELIEVING OR CREATING CONGESTION? TFL plan local measures to address
congestion hot-spots, including re-shaping junctions, at 150 sites a year up
to end of 2021/22. However the benefits to drivers might be reduced by
additional bus and cycle ‘priority points’ at key locations. TFL talk of flexible management of lanes as
another way to reduce congestion, but there is no clear prospect making it
easier for drivers to use under-used bus lanes? This points to a greater
waste of road space and may aggravate congestion? Some congestion
results from gratuitous 24 hour bus lanes or badly signed bus lane hours,
causing other traffic to needlessly line up. TFL will undertake future studies to
understand the scope for reducing congestion on the network using new
approaches to demand management and/or additional capacity. (There is no
guarantee that additional capacity will be for drivers). |
|
· DEMANDING WITH MENACE? Potentially draconian measures are proposed on the pretext
that London needs to cope with the ‘huge population boom’ which will hit over
the next few years.
Amazingly for an organisation fixated with ‘demand management’, they and their GLA friends don’t seem to be
interested in applying the same principles to an unsustainable population
growth. A London population as high as 10 million people
by 2030
is forecast, bringing with
it the need for 400,000 new homes, and more jobs and business developments, A TFL manager admitted off-record to the
difficulty in making assumptions related to this sort of growth. There may be
a clue in other GLA development plans, but that’s outside the scope of this
article. TFL’s Business Plan sets out a range of
further measures over the next 10 years... Capacity enhancements at key
locations (e.g. on the Inner Ring Road and in east London) to support planned
economic development, However TFL don’t just intend to respond
to ‘demand’ – they actually seek to influence it. There may be room for some ‘carrot’ in the
sense of encouraging teleworking, flexible working and ‘out of peak’ travel, to
reduce demand in the peak periods, However there are also indications of
plenty of ‘stick’, particularly towards discouraging
car use. The agenda is not just to
shift people from making shorter journeys by car to cycling and walking, but
a radical review of ‘road space management’ that looks to reallocate road
space to public space. |
|
· OTHER ANTI-MOTORIST POSSIBILITIES This is the first of four
pages outlining the proposals. The second
covers:
The third
covers.
For balance, there is also a fourth
page on measures that sound beneficial, but need to be qualified. |
|
· PROPAGANDA WATCH On balance, TFL’s response is of concern, given the persistent anti-car flavour. Their commitment to conduct customer satisfaction and attitude surveys to further improve service sounds rather hollow when related to drivers. During 2013, TFL will be working closely
with boroughs and other stakeholders to run a communications campaign. The
aim is to ensure that their overall approach gains widespread acceptance in
London. TFL hint at “changing the processes by
which decisions are made and how people are involved in these decisions”.
This needs explaining, and could be an opportunity or a threat. |
|
MANY THANKS FOR
YOUR SUPPORT |
|
Campaign index |
‘Fair Deal’ home page |
How you can help |
