|
|
|
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 further look at the
main concerns on the management of road space. Watch out for consultations
and lobby your elected reps. |
|
· SPACED OUT, OR PUSHED OUT OF OUR CARS? TFL warn that an ever-growing population
and greater travel by sustainable modes will produce an inevitable squeeze on
road space. This is a bit of a half-truth, as TFL are actively pushing the Mayor’s
ambitious targets for cycling to represent 5% modal share
in London by 2025 and 1 million extra walking
trips a day by 2031. The proposed approach is to bias and restrict the use of road space away from drivers. Some of the
squeeze in recent years has been caused by officialdom, gratuitously removing
road space or parking space for political aims. TFL believe
congestion can be addressed by encouraging transport modes that make
efficient use of road space, such as the bus (‘the most efficient’), cycling,
walking and powered two-wheelers (P2W). Cue increased provision for these
modes, and initiatives to manage demand through ‘behaviour change’. The assertion of
‘efficiency’ is questionable, as it may ignore overall efficiency in terms of
journey time and speed, particularly on split and longer journeys, space
wasted (under-used bus lanes) and cost effectiveness. TFL are working with the GLA to shape
London Plan policy towards car-lite development as the basis of planning
decisions; by default ‘car-lite’
lifestyles are dictated by prescribing walking, cycling and public transport as the natural and default
choice for people living and working in these areas. Interestingly, this does not rule out car
club expansion, which makes you think if the exercise is an attack on private
ownership. |
|
· A DANGEROUS GAME Just as local
authority ‘car-free’ days seem to be dying out, TFL are pushing Orwellian
measures under the dissembling heading Fun and active streets: [encouraging] “- more informal use
of our roads and streets as public spaces with a programme to allow
temporary, traffic-free events for public enjoyment in some of London’s
iconic locations, such as Regent Street in summer and the Embankment. If
successful, we will look to manage these as regular events”. Elsewhere, London boroughs are to be
‘supported’ in delivering local events requiring the temporary closure of roads or high streets and
associated public transport provision This is just a
vanity project aimed at denying
drivers the use of the road. The recent example of RideLondon had a
severe impact on car and bus users and hit some local businesses. The
examples given are likely to deter shoppers and tourists. TFL are also pushing longer term uses of road space in central London - wider pavements and
more pedestrian space, and places where children can play. The latter sets a dangerous
precedent for playing in the street?
Meddling with road space has seen some negative experiences. Trafalgar Square
pedestrianisation 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 useful purpose. TFL claim that they can ensure residents
and visitors are able to access and enjoy town centres, high streets and
other destinations “currently dominated by private vehicular traffic”. Several existing gyratories will be removed
by 2021/22, and there is the prospect of reduced
speed limits. The potential impact of losing thoroughfares on shoppers
and businesses might not have been thought through nor might the dangers of
“being dominated” by polluting buses, as seen in Putney High Street. So much
for “sustainable transport”! TFL also hint at “better targeted
enforcement” with the rules of the road, but the wording “[where] there is potential conflict between road users
and competition for road space” might indicate ulterior motives. |
|
· UNDERGROUND OVERGROUND... TFL seek to increase space for what they
call ‘living’ functions. Examples
include unlocking new development areas, or areas for pedestrians to meet and
congregate. TFL will consider relocating space for motorised traffic to
enable this, maybe leaving the old space for walking and cycling access. Will the ‘relocated space’ count as ‘new
infrastructure’, with charges for use? Measures might include floating roundabouts
for cyclists and pedestrians, bridges over arterial roads and roofing over or
tunnelling under particular locations. (The replacement of the Hammersmith
flyover by an A4 tunnel may be a salient example). There could be
an agenda to remove roads in sites
where prime property might be developed? (The Hammersmith tunnel might be
paid for by prime property development in the space freed up. Other areas to
watch might be around the Inner Ring Road, A205/A406.) |
|
· OTHER ANTI-MOTORIST POSSIBILITIES INCLUDE This is the second of four
pages outlining the proposals. The first
covers:
The third
covers.
For balance, there is also a fourth page
on measures that sound beneficial, but need to be qualified. TFL seem to have practically
accepted the proposals from a task force loaded with vested interests (such
as IBM, promoters of congestion charging and ‘smart cities’, road pricing
lobbyists ‘London First’ [sic] and CILT; ‘green’ lobbyists, etc. Drivers were apparently
‘represented’ by David Quarmby of the pro-road pricing RAC Foundation (RACF)
and a former RACF man AA President Edmund King. Where were the objections from
the latter pair?, It is interesting that they are
the former and current Chairmen of the DFT Motorists’
Forum that is supposed to champion drivers’ interests!. |
|
· 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 |
