The politics of motoring

Privatised Roads?

2012-03-21T16:28:00.000Z

The problem with privatising our roads as recently suggested by Mr Cameron is primarily the need to pay a private company for the use of their asset. Now call me 'old fashioned' but I was under the impression the roads connecting our communities and industries belonged to us. We simply ask our elected government to look after them whilst they are in power. If they intend to sell them off to the highest bidder - most probably a pal with a few bob to spare, then we should at the very least have a say in it either through the party's manifesto commitment during an election campaign; or with something as radical as this, a referendum to seek the approval of the people.

If our government does go ahead and sell our roads, what is in it for us? If you believe the spin, we will get efficient, well managed roads and investment in new capacity whilst costs for the driver will fall. In reality, this is far from what will happen. The plain truth is a private company putting several £Billion's worth of investment into buying a road is going to want their money back - and to make a decent profit as well.

With tolling the likely outcome, charges for using our roads will be significant. It currently costs £5.40 to drive 27 miles on the M6 Toll road, this on top of fuel costs and VED.

Collecting tolls is an expensive business. The infrastructure, administration and enforcement needed when tolling a road is pretty significant and goes some way to explaining why the only privately owned and tolled motorway in the UK makes a thumping great loss for it's owners.

If we look at a wider scheme which uses GPS tracking and charges the driver based on where and when they used a road, the admin costs alone would be somewhere near the amount currently collected in tax from VED.

The current system is not broken. The problem is political will and powerful lobby groups skewing the arguments. For instance, rail is currently receiving massive investment. £32 Billion for HS2, 16 Billion for Crossrail, £850 Million to upgrade Reading station and new investment to electrify the Transpennine route between Manchester and Sheffield.

This when there is no taxation on rail travel at all – no VAT, no tax on distance no tax on fuel – nothing. In fact rail travel needs a subsidy equal to the entire tax paid in VED by motorists every year.

Roads on the other hand are very well financed by those who use them through taxation. Currently about £52 Billion a year is raised in motoring related taxes yet less than £1 Billion is spent on maintenance or new capacity.

Selling our roads and tolling them is unfair, inefficient and intrusive. It will not provide lower costs for the motorist but will continue the seemingly endless drive to force private transport into the hands of the rich - Roads for the Rich and let everyone else take the bus.

Increase the speed limit to 80mph

2011-09-30T18:22:00.002+01:00

The government are about to consult on increasing the motorway speed limit to 80mph.

The usual safety groups and environmental organisations are mounting a campaign against the idea saying increased speed will cause an increase in casualties. This is not supported by experiences in other countries.

Put simply, drivers tend to drive at a safe and sensible speed The majority of motorists select a speed to reach their destination in the shortest time possible and to avoid endangering themselves, others, and their property. In selecting their speed, motorist must consider traffic, weather, and other conditions.

Increased speed limits were trialled for some time in America before they were raised. An increased limit was trialled in Utah and the speed of vehicles didn't really change; nor did the accident rate. When Montana got rid of speed limits during daylight hours, their accident rate dropped to the lowest ever. Although emotion seems to direct people towards believing higher speeds cause increased casualties, the real world evidence does not support this.

Brake (a UK road safety group) argued that accidents increased dramatically when a speed limit was increased in the US. Indeed, the opposite happened. When they increased the limit from 55mph to 65mph, two years later, accidents were 66,000 fewer.

Germany has autobahns with unlimited speeds and these are also some of the safest roads in the world. Most of Europe already has a 130kph (81.25mph) limit so we are simply falling in line with the accepted safe speed already seen in continental Europe.

The following links are reports from the US showing real world experiences when the speed limit is increased:

http://autos.aol.com/article/utah-speed-limit-tests/

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

Parking problems

2011-08-03T13:22:00.000+01:00

When will councils across the country recognise that parking restrictions and high costs drive people away from town centres and damage business?

If parking was easy and cheap, many more people would visit the shops and businesses in a town making it far more vibrant and viable than we see today.

With shops and businesses closing at an alarming rate, surely councils must recognise the easiest and most effective solution - make it easy for people to visit by de-restricting parking

High Speed Rail - £billions for who?

2011-07-01T17:52:00.002+01:00

We are being told High Speed Rail between London and Birmingham is necessary for the future well-being of the country. On the surface, this seems like an inspiring and ambitious project which should be welcomed but why would we want to spend some £40 Billion on a train when the roads are in such a mess?

The road network has suffered from a lack of investment for many years and is showing signs of stress. Congestion is a problem because we are driving on essentially the same network bequeathed to us from the 1960's. As the population expands we have failed to invest in the roads and bridges needed. Estimates of the cost to the country as a result of our congested roads are widely quoted as an annual £20 billion whilst motorists pay over £50 billion into the Treasury every year in motoring related taxes.

Compare this with rail. Every year the British taxpayer subsidises the railways by £5.1 billion whilst the income from fares is roughly the same at £5.1 billion. In other words, the taxpayer already pays half the ticket price for every rail journey. And who benefits? 50% of all rail journeys are made by commuters into London and the distance travelled is less than 20 miles. The wealthiest 25% of people use trains 4 times as much as the poorer 50%. In purely economic terms, rail is not a sustainable method of transport.

The cost of this new train is half the value of the entire motorway network. For £40 billion we could build every bypass and every road we need to bring the capacity of the roads up to a level required for the 21st century. However, if we spend this money on High Speed Rail, the cost to the taxpayer will never be recouped. With a total capacity of 8 Million passenger journeys a year and a capital cost of £40 billion, a ticket to travel on HS2 would need to cost £251 each way or £502 just to cover the cost of the loan. Add the significant annual running costs and the real price of a ticket is likely to cost upwards of £500 for a single - unless of course the hard pressed taxpayer is called upon again to provide huge subsidies.

When only 3.5% of journeys outside London are made by rail, why spend so much money on a train service which will only be used by a few wealthy individuals whilst the majority us continue to travel along potholed roads desperately in need of investment?

Electric cars - Will they ever work?

2011-01-12T22:11:00.000Z

I happened to be in the Honda dealers today and took a look at their Hybrid named the 'Insight'. Whilst it is a reasonable car, it struck me that it would never have been built if engineering and marketing had driven the development.

Firstly, the engineering would have been considered implausible simply because the battery technology cannot deliver a sustained charge for a decent distance and also, the batteries will die or lose a great deal of efficiency after just a couple of years. The nearest equivalent is the mobile phone or laptop computer, These use the same chemistry as the new electric cars and how many mobiles do you know that still hold a decent charge after two or three years? Can you imagine the range of a new purely electric car on one of the cold mornings we had in December? Heater going, rear window, wipers, headlights and then power for the motors. The range would probably be halved and performance considerably reduced. Why would an engineering team spend £millions on developing such a vehicle without external pressure?

Second, the marketing departments must know the cost of producing an electric car is far higher than a conventional fuelled vehicle. The performance is dire in comparison and the range severely curtailed. Why would any marketing executive make a rational decision to push a major motor manufacturer into producing a car powered by batteries?

This leaves politics and environmental campaigners in the hot seat. It can only be pressure from governments and the likes of Greenpeace and Save the Earth hippy types who are either being used by politicians to introduce an agenda of higher taxation or the enviro-lefties have been rather clever and infiltrated the corridors of power.

Whatever the reason we are seeing these innovative but rather pointless electric cars, I believe we will have a quite interesting problem in just a few years. Owners who brought into in this new technology because they have sympathetic views towards the environment will see their considerable investment reduced to a pittance because the batteries will need changing. This will cost several thousand pounds and mean the resale value is considerably lower than an equivalent conventional car.

It is likely; these vehicles will reach the end of their life somewhat earlier than diesel or petrol vehicles and therefore be scrapped far sooner than expected. This makes a mockery of the sustainable credentials so desired by would-be purchasers and whilst disposal of the vehicle itself will prove to be an environmental problem, we must not forget the emissions hidden from view whilst the driver plods along smugly believing his ‘zero emission vehicle’ is clean as a whistle. In reality, the electric vehicle is not a very efficient user of energy and simply transfer’s waste gases from the vehicle to the power station.

I do like the idea of electric vehicles but looking rationally at their potential am somewhat struck by the irrelevance of them. A classic example of their uselessness is currently being played out in the BBC. They are running an electric Mini from London to Edinburgh but unlike a test in a conventional car taking a few hours, they are taking a 'working week'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12138420

I think even the journalist who seems to despise petrol cars is beginning to see the folly.

Train fares increase by 6.2%

2010-11-23T21:40:00.001Z

It looks like the ticket prices to travel by train are going to increase by an average of 6.2% in 2011. The predictable howls of protest are already being seen across the media but has anyone really stepped back and looked at this?

We hear an awful lot about fairness from the coalition and especially from the Liberal Democrats which is no bad thing. However, has anyone considered the fairness in costs and taxation surrounding the transport sector?

For instance, drivers pay in the region of £51 Billion in taxes every year to the treasury to use the roads. The cost of the vehicle, fuel, servicing, depreciation and maintenance are also borne by the owner of the vehicle. In return the government spends around £8.3 Billion on maintaining and building roads.

Train passengers pay no tax whatsoever, yet the government spends £8.1 Billion on subsidising travel by train.

Travel by car accounts for 749 Billion passenger miles each year whilst trains carry passengers just 59 Billion miles. This means that road transport receives £11.1 per 1,000 passengers but rail receives £138.7.

Now if we are serious about fairness, maybe train passengers should pay the full cost of their tickets including the addition of VAT to the ticket price.

Why should those who do not travel by train subsidise those who do?

I hate buses

2010-06-28T21:15:00.004+01:00

I hate buses, I really do hate them.

I hate them because they are so uncomfortable, I hate them because they rattle, stink and are sweat dripping hot torture chambers in the hot weather. I hate them because the driver cannot turn the heating off even when the outside temperature is 28deg and inside is 38deg plus. I hate them because they are so slow and trundle all over the place before letting you off. I really hate them because they are loved by the environmental zealots who think it is OK to cook passengers in tin with the heating on in the middle of summer and I hate them because they are an environmental catastrophe.

Buses are the biggest gas guzzlers on the roads. They burn diesel at the rate of a gallon every 3 to 4 miles and chuck out 1.8kg of C02 for every km travelled. A decent family car emits about 155g which is more than 10 times less.

Oh, but the public transport advocates will tell you a bus carries more passengers so they are good for both you and the environment, but the average number of people on a bus is just 9 and the car carries an average of 1.6. This means a bus passenger emits 200g of CO2 per km whilst a car occupant 97g.

I hate buses because the industry behind them is spinning the argument in favour of public transport over the car and using lies, damn lies and statistics to stake their claims. I hate public transport because the companies fund anti-car pressure groups to try and make cars the environmental pariah whilst claiming the bus/train is the solution to all our problems. I hate the bus because their backers conspire to remove parking spaces, increase parking charges, introduce speed cameras and reduce speed limits.

I hate buses because they hold up lines of traffic whilst stopping every few hundred yards at a stop and I hate them because I have to suffer their stink when behind them or when they pass by.

And finally I hate buses because they are the symbol of a socialist society where people rely on the state to provide transport.

I believe we should encourage aspiration and ambition and to make our own way in life. Owning a car offers freedoms and opportunities bus passengers can only dream of and the car is the most efficient form of transport there is.

Bad move Boris

2010-06-08T18:58:00.002+01:00

The motorcycle protest against parking charges in London has outed Mayor Boris Johnson and revealed his attitude towards the campaign.

Whilst delayed on his eco-bike because of the protesters, he stopped and threatened to remove the option for motorcyclists to use the bus lanes in London even though the trials have proven a great success with a significant reduction in accidents.

See Boris make his threat on this video:

Can this be a fair deal for drivers?

2010-05-17T16:17:00.005+01:00

For the first time in living memory, Great Britain has a coalition government.

The alliance between Lib Dem and Conservatives presented to the world in the Prime Ministers back garden heralds a new era in British politics. The manifesto’s at the centre of the new coalition hold promises of change and commitments to fairness but the issue which will ultimately define this parliament is the critical state of the economy and Labour’s legacy of debt.With the new government comes a new transport Minister in Conservative Phillip Hammond.

We still know very little about any compromises which can or might be agreed between the two very different transport manifestos of the Lib/Dems and Conservatives, but the inescapable truth is with all Government departments having to cut their budgets, there will be little money left for large scale infrastructure projects such as transport unless funding can be found from elsewhere.

This does not mean there is little work to be done; indeed nowhere is the new broom of change and fairness needed more than at the DfT. Inspired by the new creed of austerity, fairness and change, the Drivers Alliance are proposing a number of changes that would cost little but would help get Britain moving without delay.

A Bonfire of the Quangoes. The Tory pledge to slash the number of vested interest groups that receive tax payer’s money must start immediately. The practice of Government using taxpayer’s money to fund ‘on message’ lobby groups is unethical and must stop.
The Motorists Forum – A relic of John Prescott’s tenure as Transport Minister, the motorists forum was meant to give drivers a voice in Government yet it was biased with (publicly funded) anti car groups such as the Campaign for Better Transport. In reality its purpose was to disenfranchise the driver and to facilitate the Government’s policy of modal shift towards public transport. In the interests of fairness and balance, any public funding must cease.
Bus Lanes and Traffic lights. In opposition, the Conservatives promised to open up speed camera data for public scrutiny. This new transparency and openness should also extend to bus lanes and traffic lights. Specifically there is no requirement for local authorities to measure or publish the effect of reduced road space on other traffic. While shaving the odd minute off a bus journey, bus lanes and traffic lights restrict normal movement which results in lost time and revenue for business and individuals. They also increase emissions of Co2 when congested traffic is forced into an inefficient ‘stop/start’ cycle. The new coalition is committed to cutting Co2 and getting traffic moving. Removing many of the congestion causing road changes introduced over the past decade will help to achieve this as well as cutting business costs and boosting the economy. In the interests of fairness and equality why should a bus passenger’s journey take precedence over everybody else?
Fuel Duty Stabilizer. The Tory’s have reaffirmed their commitment to this policy but the level at which fuel prices are set will be critical.
Speed Limits. In a number of states in America, it is actually illegal to set speed limits below the 85^th percentile. This is the internationally recognised and scientifically backed method of setting the optimum safe speed limits. In the UK, too many speed limits have been set well below the 85^th percentile for political and ideological reasons as part of Labour’s policy to force modal shift. Speed limits should be set to keep traffic moving, minimise journey times and keep the roads safe. They should not be used as a tool to discourage driving. A law mandating that speed limits on main roads must respect the 85^th percentile principle would be a step towards ending the criminalising of safe drivers, save significant costs in enforcement and administration, and return some credibility to road safety.
Congestion. Before we can tackle congestion we need an accurate method of measuring it. Current methodology doesn’t take into account reduced road space, extra traffic lights or increased traffic as the causes of congestion. While this suited a determination to implement ideologically motivated congestion charging, the politics of the new coalition demands a more realistic, ‘ideology light’ style of decision making. During the Manchester congestion charge campaign, the local authorities own figures revealed that despite a steady reduction in the number of cars entering the city during peak hours over the last decade, traffic speeds (the current method of measuring congestion) were still slowing. Furthermore, the speed of traffic on almost empty roads at off peak times was also slowing. Clearly traffic volumes were not to blame for the lower speeds and a corresponding reported increase in congestion, but despite this, the proposed solution was to introduce a congestion charge and reduce traffic volumes even further.

Phillip Hammond will have an incredibly difficult job to deliver an effective transport policy with a reduced budget. David Cameron has promised to ‘end the war on motorists’ but will the new coalition government redress the ideological imbalances and inequalities introduced during the past ten years?

Mr Hammond is also fortunate to have the knowledge and experience from his predecessorTheresa Villiers in the transport team. As shadow transport minister, she proved willing to hear all the arguments before making a practical decision rather than one rooted political ideology. It is exactly this type of leadership and approach that the country’s dire economic situation requires. Mrs Villiers has been appointed a minister in the new government where her experience and approach to problems will be invaluable.

We need to get the country moving as quickly as possible at the lowest cost which means putting political ideology aside and recognising the true value and contribution made by each mode of transport - including the car.

The new government ends the war on drivers.

2010-05-14T11:18:00.000+01:00

Some good news for motorists. New Transport Secretary Philip Hammond today vowed that the coalition Government would "end the war on motorists”.

Motorists can breathe a sigh of relief that the Tory/Lib Dem coalition have not stuck with the Lib Dem manifesto policy of national road pricing. Hammond promised there would be no road user charging for existing roads but tolls on new roads might be introduced – a Tory manifesto policy.

There is also going to be a consultation on a "fair fuel stabiliser" which could ensure that fuel duty is reduced when world oil prices drop. The Government would also abide to a commitment made by Theresa Villiers who shadowed the Labour Transport ministers not to fund any more fixed-position speed cameras. Speed cameras are now left to local authorities to fund if they have the money and any revenue generated would go to the treasury. Hopefully local authorities will follow the example set by the coalition government and Swindon Council and move away from funding more fixed position speed cameras as they are not a panacea for road safety.

But it’s not all good news for motorists: the coalition government are committed to a new high-speed rail line, which is very expensive and will be a financial burden on the transport budget at the expense of roads.

Projects like Crossrail and the infrastructure for the Olympics are already ongoing. The transport budget is almost certain to face cuts in the fiscal crisis, so it’s promising a lot to commit to another immensely expensive venture.

As Matthew Sinclair of the Taxpayers' Alliance pointed out, the new high speed rail line will mean huge pressure on the roads and commuter railways that are most overcrowded and perform the vital task of getting people into work in the morning.

So it looks like the coalition government has recognised that motorists should not be treated as cash cows, intending to cushion the blow of high petrol prices and reducing stealth charges like speeding fines. But the government haven’t prioritised road spending, which can carry the most amount of passengers per pound spent. A mixed bag, then, but more needs to be done for motorists if the war is to truly end.

Speed camera destroyed

2010-05-05T16:48:00.007+01:00

It never ceases to amaze me how the people who control our roads are blind to the fact they could be responsible for some of the casualties they are so keen to avoid.

There is a report on the BBC website where a speed camera has been destroyed but instead of reporting the issue in a sensible and logical way, the report is highly propagandist.

The report and vandalism of the camera follows an accident where an 89-year-old car driver was killed in a crash with a van. However, the report seems ignorant to the fact the speed camera was already in place when the gentleman was killed so certainly did not prevent this unfortunate death.For instance:

A spokesperson for Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership said: "The vandalism of safety cameras is inexcusable behaviour carried out by people with a complete disregard for both public safety and property.

The report goes on to say:

"In the last three years there have been 10 crashes in which people have been injured along this stretch; including the most recent event where someone died. "The camera is there to help keep speeds down and improve safety for local residents"

The reporter seem incapable of realising the camera did not stop these accidents.

The local authorities in their desire to cut road deaths have now agreed to reduce the speed limit along the road concerned from 40mph to 30mph. Now looking at the road you can see that it was

View Larger Map

a main arterial A class road which has had the 'road safety treatment' of building central obstacles and road narrowing. It is now an obstacle course with many dangers for the driver to negotiate.

It is clear this unfortunate accident was not caused by speed as the vehicle would have been collared by the speed camera.

It is also clear that reducing the speed limit along this wide stretch of road will do little or nothing to prevent a similar accident happening again but short sighted councillors with little or no understanding of the realities of road safety continue to believe that slowing traffic and adding obstacles is the way forward.

If they continue to have their way, we will all be driving at 20mph and going nowhere. We will have rolled back the transport advances of the past 100 years in just a decade and made the world a much larger place again.

Drivers Left Dangling by a Hung Parliament

2010-04-28T16:10:00.002+01:00

The unpredicted popularity of Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and resulting Lib Dem bounce in the opinion polls means the prospect of a hung parliament is becoming increasingly likely. To counter the challenge, Gordon Brown has called for a left of centre alliance to keep the Conservatives out of office and presumably Labour in office. Ex Lib Dem Councillor and current Labour Transport Minister Lord Adonis has echoed these sentiments by claiming;

“The truth is that the Lib Dem's, for all their local opportunism, have national policy that is similar to Labour's.”

If we see a hung parliament following this coming election there will be plenty of back room deals and quiet agreements between the various parties looking to govern. With the Lib Dem's holding the balance of power; what would this mean for motorists?

The Lib Dem Manifesto says they would:

“Undertake preparations for the introduction of a system of road pricing in a second parliament. Any such system would be revenue neutral for motorists, with revenue from cars used to abolish Vehicle Excise Duty and reduce fuel duty, helping those in rural areas who have no alternatives to road travel.”

Drivers should be aware that ‘Revenue neutral’ is not the same as ‘cost neutral’. Drivers would have to pay the estimated annual £6bn cost of operating and maintaining a national road pricing system which would be additional to the current levels of motoring taxation. Given that the Lib Dem’s also view themselves as the most ‘green’ party there will almost certainly be an element of Co2 weighting involved.

The Lib Dem’s have called this section of their Manifesto ‘A Fair Deal for Drivers’. They have also promised to;

‘Switch traffic from road to rail by investing in local rail improvements, such as opening closed rail lines and adding extra tracks, paid for by cutting the major roads budget.’

Although the word fairness features in most parties manifesto’s it appears to take on a different meaning when applied to drivers. As with Labour the Lib Dem’s fair deal for drivers only extends as far as providing alternative public transport after you've been taxed out of your car. The Lib Dem’s promise to roll back the power of the state also seems at odds with their plans to introduce an intrusive spy-in-the-sky road pricing scheme.

As Lord Adonis claimed, in terms of transport policy, Lib Dem and Labour policies seems very close indeed. Is this entirely surprising given that the Lib Dem’s are the most Europhile of parties and have fully embraced an EU transport policy dating back to ex Labour leader Neil Kinnocks time as EU Transport Minister.

At a time when politicians are desperate to reconnect with a sceptical public the issues that have most engaged voters over the last decade are fuel prices, national road pricing and two congestion charging referenda yet transport has hardly featured in the election campaign to date.

It is quite feasible that following May the 6^th we will see a newly empowered Liberal Democrat party holding the balance of power in Westminster. During the horse trading with Labour or the Conservatives, it is likely policies such as road tolling or road pricing along with a serious cut in the roads budget and higher fuel taxation could be part of the deal for power.

Drivers already pay in excess of £50 billion a year in various motoring taxes and this is seen as crucial to all the political parties in their efforts to fill the economic black hole left by Labour.

What drivers receive in return depends entirely on how resolutely they argue their case.

We need to analyse Lib/Dem policies before voting

2010-04-19T11:40:00.007+01:00

Isn't it amazing how a 90 minute television appearance can springboard a political no-hoper into the forefront of British politics.

This time last week, Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats were languishing a creditable third in the polls but they had no serious possibility of holding power after May 6th. A respectable performance during the TV debate last Thursday and a poll in The Sun newspaper now puts them ahead of all the other parties.

Personally, I cannot understand the fickleness of the British voting public. A few months ago it seemed Gordon Brown was old hat and along with his party was to be consigned to the furthest reaches of the back benches for a considerable period of time. After 13 years, it seemed inevitable they would be kicked well and truly into the annuls of history.

But no! What seems to have happened is the media presence of the party leaders is dictating the voting intentions of the public. Instead of looking at policy, we look at the man and if we like what we see on TV a vote is easily won.

Now consider this. Just a couple of year's back we had a massive reaction to a then government proposal to introduce satellite tracking and road pricing of all vehicles. When I put the petition onto the Downing Street website, the road pricing debate certainly began in earnest and road pricing was revealed to be an expensive and wasteful ideological policy which could only restrict peoples freedoms and drain the economy (from drivers pockets) of vast sums of cash.

But today, on the brink of an election we have a political party in the Lib/Dems who actually have a stated policy to introduce a national satellite tracking and road pricing system costing £billions whilst at the same time cutting the roads budget by more £billions.

How many of the new prospective Lib/Dem voters know this? probably less than 1 in a hundred because if the policies of Clegg's party were examined properly, I doubt anybody would vote for them. They are massively pro EU and want to exceed even more power to Brussels, they have an immigration policy which flies in the face of what most people would consider sensible and they want to slash spending on our armed forces.

Please people; look beyond the smiling face to the actual policies and make your decision based on this. Otherwise, we could end up with the most undemocratic 'democrats' this country has ever seen.

Mobile phones and cycle tracks

2010-04-13T14:38:00.000+01:00

Have you noticed just how many people are still driving with a mobile phone clamped to their ears. The dazed look and erratic driving generally gives them away but look closer and there is normally a phone held in the left hand to keep it hidden from view.

With the cost of hands free kits down to under £10 it is incredible people continue to make and receive calls whilst driving as it most definitely is a hazard. The strange thing is, even drivers of Porches and seriously expensive cars can be seen chatting away to the phone in their left hand. Complete madness.

Cyclists!

Another observation from the past few days. Why is it these Lycra clad warriors insist on peddling along the road when there is a perfectly good cycle track provided at great expense just feet away? So often I see a lone cyclist without lights on his bike peddling along with a line of traffic behind without it seems a care in the world. No problem for him that dozens of people are crawling along because he is in the way. Not a care in the world as he wobbles around a major roundabout in a most dangerous way.

Cycle tracks when they are available should be compulsory for cyclists and legislation should also be passed to ensure any new road has a cycle track built alongside for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians. If we adopted this approach, it would not take long before a national cycle path network was in place and then we should see casualties fall dramatically.

It would not be a bad idea to licence and insure cycles as well; maybe introduce an annual safety check to ensure lights are fitted and working. And why not introduce a £10 year VED for bikes. Apparently 5 million people cycle in the UK so we could raise £50 million from them. That should pay for a few cycle paths.

I opened a car park today - there is a first time for everything.

2010-04-12T17:28:00.005+01:00

I recently met the Marketing Director for Chiltern Railways; a Mr Thomas Ableman.

As a public transport executive I expected to find an anti-car (price them off the roads) pro public transport advocate who would promote the use of rail at the expense of the car.

Much to my surprise however, Chiltern Railways have been quietly investing in facilities for drivers and improving their service to passengers. They have built 'Parkway' stations which are effectively Park and Ride facilities close to main motorway routes with easy and low cost parking for drivers who wish to leave their cars somewhere safe for the day and let the train take the hassle out of visiting London or other city centres.

Far from being the car hating pseudo tree huggers found in some public transport companies, this company actually understands why people would want to use a car; but, and this is the crucial bit, they aspire to provide a rail service which is so good, drivers will prefer jumping on a train and leaving the car at the station.

As part of this philosophy, they recently built a new car park at Haddenham Thame Parkway Station and I was asked to officially open it for them. A rather odd request I thought but why not, so today I opened a car park.

Watch a video of the opening:

I have always been a strong believer in personal choice and personal freedoms which I suppose is why I fear and despise the idea of a national road pricing and vehicle tracking system. However, it seems this train company share the same principles and far from pushing for higher taxes on cars or congestion charges, they are spending their profits on offering a decent service to tempt people onto the train.

For me this is the ideal solution to crowded city streets such as in London. A truly integrated transport option which serves the needs of the public without coercion and unjust costs.

Good on them.

Transport policies must feature during this election campaign

2010-04-09T14:44:00.003+01:00

Whilst none of the party's manifesto's have been published yet, we must scrutinise them when they are.

At the last election in 2005, Labour sneaked in a single sentence saying:

"we will seek political consensus in tackling congestion, including examining the potential of moving away from the current system of motoring taxation towards a national system of road-pricing."

We now know what that meant with the tracking and surveillance of every vehicle along with the additional costs associated with any road pricing scheme. Fortunately, 1.8 Million people signed my petition to Tony Blair and so far, road pricing has been defeated.

However, we must be careful what our political leaders are thinking and planning. Are road tolls part of Labour's plans? Certainly the infrastructure on the 'managed motorways' with the overhead gantries and cameras give the facility to toll the road but is this their long term strategy?

They are also responsible for congestion charging and tried hard to bring this to Manchester and Edinburgh. They rolled out the widespread use of speed cameras and are planning to extend the use of average speed cameras whilst lowering speed limits across the country. They can also be accused of ignoring investment in roads - you only need to see the state they are in to realise this.

We know the Lib/Dems are proposing a national road pricing system and to reduce the spending on roads by £1bn. Not just drivers, but anyone who uses a vehicle should heed this before considering a vote for them.

As a minority party UKIP has already released their manifesto. They did manage to come second in the European elections last year and might yet gain an MP on May 6th. UKIP's transport policy in a nutshell is:

· Invest an extra £3bn p.a. in the UK’s road and railway systems
· Introduce three new high-speed rail lines, and re-open some lines closed by Beeching
· Shelve plans for the sixth Heathrow terminal and third runway in favour of a Thames Estuary airport
· Make foreign lorries pay to use British roads with a ‘Britdisc’ and ban the EU’s ‘superlorries’
· Subject parking charges and revenue-raising devices, e.g. speed cameras to greater democratic control

See my newsletter on high speed rail: http://bit.ly/aVvl62

As for the Conservatives, we will have to wait for the manifesto; but they have already said they do not support road pricing, nor tolling existing roads and seem to be more in tune with the travelling public than the other two main parties.

Clearly drivers make up a significant majority of the electorate and are taxed far higher than any other sector. Motorists should take a keen interest in proposed policy and these policies must be debated before May 6th.

Transport features in everyone's lives every day. Whilst education, the police and the health service are important, how often do we actually use their services?

Road Pricing is not inevitable

2010-04-01T22:34:00.002+01:00

We have 100 years of history where road pricing was not inevitable and was not considered. What has changed is the insatiable appetite for taxation by inept and incompetent governments.

As a result, they dream up ever more complex ways to increase revenue without it seeming like a tax.

Road Pricing is one of the 'holy grails' of taxation. If a government can individualise a tax, it becomes less controversial and easier to impose. Road Pricing is just such a tax.

Instead of headlines shouting "Fuel Taxes Increase" which is a national issue, road pricing allows individual stretches of road to increase in price without the widespread 'hue and cry' from national tax increases.

Effectively, this is the 'divide and conquer' principle where a price increase along a local road will not have the same political consequence as national fuel tax hikes.

There are several overriding problems with Road Pricing as a concept. Firstly and most importantly is the civil liberties issue because any 'pay-as-you-go' system of charging for road use inevitably needs to know where you were and at what time for the bill to be prepared.

Secondly, the cost of making Road Pricing work is fantastic. Every single vehicle will need a complex tracking and communication device costing upwards of £250. Then the national infrastructure to monitor the road use and then the enforcement system will need to be installed.

On top of this there is the back office and administration costs.

All of this is estimated by the UK government to be around £60 billion. The estimate for the administration is £6 billion every year.

On top we must add the deprecation on the 'asset' which means the tracking and enforcement equipment will need replacing about every 7 to 10 years - further significant costs.

And finally, the public are not prepared for this. The UK tried to introduce Road Pricing which caused a significant public outcry and it was abandoned.

The Dutch then made an valiant effort to introduce it. The government fell which was in no small part the result of the road pricing policy and now the new government has abandoned it.

The bottom line is we already pay many time over for the roads we use - the motorist contributes some £40 Billion net every year to the Treasury after spending on roads.

What we should expect is a government which is frugal and sensible with spending our money and invests in the transport systems of choice - which is the car and roads.

We do not need road pricing, we do not need further costs and taxation, what we need is a fair deal for motorists who pay too much in taxation already.

Governments of any persuasion need to grasp the mettle invest in the road network without further costs and administration from a Road Pricing regime.

Speed Limits reduced and going down.

2010-03-26T11:47:00.000Z

The Governments attempts to reduce Co2 emissions has changed transport policy at every level from taxation to choice of mode. As we have reported previously, two Government funded bodies, The Committee for Climate Change (CCC) and the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), have published reports recommending that motorway speed limits be reduced to 60mph and rigidly enforced by average speed cameras.

They claim that such a move would save 1.4Mt/Co2 although neither organisation’s reports include the social and financial costs associated with such a move. Further investigations reveal that in a document released last year the Government has already rejected reducing and rigidly enforcing the motorway speed limit as it would cost the economy a staggering £12.2bn per annum, or in cash terms £305 per tonne of Co2 saved.

So why are the CCC and SDC recommending a policy already rejected by government? One answer is that the government are using the tried and tested ploy of the 'stalking horse' threat of a rigidly enforced 60mph limit to introduce the slightly less draconian policy of enforcing the current 70mph limit.

The Government has said it considers time gains (and also financial gains) made through breaking the current limit should not be counted as the 54% of drivers who currently break the 70 limit are profiting from breaking the law. This convenient political sleight of hand skews the economic validity of their case. Bizarrely, one source, the UK Energy Research Council, quoted in the Sustainable Development Commission report claim that ‘enforcing motorway speed limits would be popular with drivers’.

The Government has said the cost of rigidly enforcing the motorway limit with Specs average speed cameras could cost up to £1.1bn and although the Government appears to have ruled out lowering the motorway limit, it would be wrong to assume that this is the end of the matter.

In 2000 the Government also ruled out the introduction of 20mph urban limits because they increased Co2 emissions by 10%; yet now such limits are being encouraged in cities throughout the country.

The issue of 20mph limits illustrates the dysfunctional thinking on transport planning. For years road humps have been installed on residential roads despite them causing a 47% increase in fuel consumption. (http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/news/20mph-roads emissions.html)

Policies such as reallocating road space away from general traffic and traffic light inspired stop start traffic management have all increased fuel consumption and emissions.

The Government would argue that its speeds kills massage, speed cameras and traffic calming has made the roads safer yet after a decade Britains roads are no longer the safest in Europe whilst the traditional Engineering / Education / Enforcement road safety policies would have kept emissions lower.

So why is the Government considering spending billions on reducing Co2 on motorways whilst introducing urban transport plans that have increased Co2 emissions?

While urban and interurban transport policies may seem at odds they both have in common the aim of making driving more frustrating and less convenient. Recently, arch public transport advocate Professor David Begg stated that the aims of New Labour’s 10 year transport plan was to;

"...make it more difficult and expensive to drive"

He said there were a:

Series of measures to incentivize bus priority and take space from cars. The whole thrust of the policy was to make it more attractive to use public transport, walk and cycle and more difficult to drive

To many this makes a more convincing and cohesive motive for the last decade of transport policy and the introduction of motorway speed cameras than the stated aims of reducing Co2 or improving road safety. As travel by road becomes more frustrating, slower and expensive then public transport for all its inefficiencies, deficiencies and inconveniences becomes less unattractive.

The Climategate scandal and subsequent revelations that the IPCC has ‘sexed up’ its climate change predictions to stimulate national governments to take action has seriously undermined the public’s belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Despite this the Government has continued to claim that the ‘science is settled’ and that the consensus is that man (and if current Government ads are to be believed) the car is responsible. At some point this belief will have to be challenged in the court of public opinion and introducing motorway average speed cameras could prove unpopular enough to provoke a massive public backlash.

The Conservatives have identified the group they most need to attract to win the coming election as ‘Motorway Man’.

Fuel taxes are far too high and the motorist is getting a very bad deal

2010-03-17T15:43:00.004Z

Was invited to discuss Fuel Taxes on the BBC Daily Politics Show today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8572450.stm

Government needs to defer the proposed increase in fuel duty.

High Speed Rail is just too expensive

2010-03-12T17:06:00.005Z

Lord Adonis our Transport Secretary yesterday announced plans for a High Speed Rail link between London and Birmingham. On the surface, this seems like an inspiring and ambitious project which should be welcomed but why would we want to spend some £40 billion on a train when the roads are in such a mess?

The road network has suffered from a lack of investment for many years and is showing signs of stress. Congestion is a problem because we are driving on essentially the same network bequeathed to us from the 1960's. As the population expands we have failed to invest in the roads and bridges needed. Estimates of the cost to the country as a result of our congested roads are widely quoted as an annual cost of £20 billion whilst motorists pay over £50 billion into the Treasury every year in motoring related taxes.

Compare this with rail. Every year the British taxpayer subsidises the railways by £5.1 billion whilst the income from fares is roughly the same at £5.1 billion. In other words, the taxpayer already pays half the ticket price for every rail journey. And who benefits? 50% of all rail journeys are made by commuters into London and are less than 20 miles. The wealthiest 25% of people use trains 4 times as much as the poorer 50%. In purely economic terms, rail is not a sustainable method of transport.

The cost of this new train is half the value of the entire motorway network. For £40 billion we could build every bypass and every road we need to bring the capacity of the roads up to a level required for the 21st century. However, if we spend this money on High Speed Rail, the cost to the taxpayer will never be recouped. With a total capacity of 8 Million passenger journeys a year and a capital cost of £40 billion, a ticket to travel on HS2 would need to cost £575 each way or £1,150 return from London to Birmingham. With a ticket costing anything less, taxpayers across the country pick up the bill.

When only 3.5% of journeys outside London are made by rail, why spend so much money on a train service which will only be used by a few wealthy individuals whilst the majority us continue to travel along potholed roads desperately in need of investment?

Parking Manifesto launched

2010-02-24T21:20:00.001Z

We launched our joint Manifesto in the House of Lords yesterday on the Reform of Parking and Traffic Management.

Below is the report from The Daily Telegraph.

You can download copies of the manifesto in PDF format:

Forward and Executive Summary: - http://tinyurl.com/ygj87ld

Full Manifesto: - http://tinyurl.com/ykj9orh

The parking fines system should be overhauled to stop councils benefiting financially and forcing motorists to pay often trivial fines, a coalition of campaigners has said.

Road signs should be simplified, any profit returned to the Treasury and motorists should be compensated if they are given an incorrect penalty notice.

In addition, the number of mobile CCTV operators should be reduced and investigations should be held into areas where fines are “statistically excessive”.

The recommendations appeared in a parking manifesto by the Drivers’ Alliance, the Motorists’ Legal Challenge Fund and the London Motorists’ Action Group.

They were backed by Edmund King, president of the AA and actor Tom Conti who is on the board of the LMAG.

Earlier this month, figures showed that councils raised £1.9 billion in parking fees and fines last year, with some doubling the amount of money they took from drivers.

Lord Lucas, a Tory peer and chairman of the LMAG, said: “It is hard to describe the feelings of outrage, unfairness and helplessness that descend like a red mist on receipt of an unjust penalty charge notice (PCN).

“Enforcement is often administered unfairly, and all too often unlawfully. Parking rules and other traffic regulations are an important part of making everyone's life easier.

“When local authorities forget what the rules were made for, and use them to levy as many fines as possible, and neglect to maintain the signs and lines which tell motorists what the rules are, I am ready to join battle.”

In its manifesto, the group highlighted Camden and Westminster councils which it claimed issue 12 per cent of the PCNs in England and Wales.

“These, like some other councils are now heavily dependent on massive parking account surpluses they treat it like a ‘council tax’,” it said.

It said £350 million a year was being raised in parking enforcement and that motorists were being harassed by “trivialities regardless of common sense”.

Edmund King, president of the AA, said: “Too often drivers feel they have been turned over by over-zealous enforcement for minor errors which are easy to make on today’s busy streets.

“We need plain English and plain rules. If those enforcing the rules cannot get it right then the government must step in to instil greater discipline on those dishing out the punishment.

“If the worst local authorities continue to get it wrong then their enforcement powers should be reformed.”

Neil Herron, from Parking Appeals.co.uk added: “Britain’s drivers have been abused and treated as a cash cow by councils who have been recklessly indifferent to their legal responsibilities.

“Britain’s motorists are now prepared to bite back and fight back. We want a system that is fair, just and transparent and our manifesto represents a line in the sand and the start of a new way forward.”

David Sparks, chairman of the Local Government Association Transport and Regeneration Board, said the ruled were in place for a reason.

“Parking restrictions are in place to keep people safe on our streets, stop traffic jams and keep roads clear for the emergency services.

“Councils will not apologise for giving out parking tickets to stop cars parking illegally.

“The money councils get from parking fines is reinvested in improving the local transport network. If people do not want to get a parking ticket, they should not park illegally.”

The manifesto has been sent to all three main political parties and presented to a number of councils.

A DfT spokesperson said: “We know how important it is that local councils behave fairly and proportionately when managing parking on their roads.

“That is why our guidance is clear that enforcement must be open, transparent and based on robust evidence - and that penalty charges should be never be used to raise revenue.

“We are already carrying out a wide-ranging review of traffic signs which aims to ensure that all signs and road markings - including those relating to parking - are easily understood by drivers."

Motorway speed cameras by stealth?

2010-02-22T00:25:00.005Z

With the election looming the Government is rolling out its ‘Controlled Motorways’ agenda as rapidly as possible. The visible signs of this are the miles and miles of road works while overhead gantries are erected which will eventually regulate the speed we can travel when traffic builds up. The Government claims that slower speeds will smooth out traffic flows and improve journey times. The Gantries will display the current speed limit on matrix boards and will also use speed cameras to enforce the temporary limits.

Work on controlled motorways began in 1995 with the M25 variable speed limit pilot scheme becoming operational between junctions 12 and 15. A further pilot project on the M42 near Birmingham involving hard shoulder running and Active Traffic Management was put in place in 2003. Both schemes were declared a success and work has already begun on sections of Motorway around the country.

Through information compiled by Malcolm Heymer of the Association of British Drivers the two pilot schemes have not been as successful in a number of key areas as claimed. Most critically, taking both carriageways into account, peak period journey times on the M25 pilot have shown no improvement since its introduction.

The Highways Agency (HA) is responsible for the delivery of ‘Controlled Motorways’ and are currently running a consultation on a new stretch of the scheme, one on the M1 between junctions 6A and 10. The HA economic analysis for the M1 proposals do not show any journey time benefits when both carriageways are taken into account.

In reality the HA predict a net economic cost to the economy of £5.1mil over the 0 year evaluation period. Mr. Heymer surmises that this loss would be due to increased journey times resulting from the periods when reduced speed limits would be in force.

The largest economic benefit attributed to the proposed M1 controlled motorway scheme is said to be accident prevention (£47.6 mil). The M25 pilot saw a claimed reduction in injury accidents of 10%. However, the time scale for these accidents statistics were not given or whether the long term downward national trend was factored in. Accident under reporting has also increasingly become a problem as the gap between official police figures and hospital admission figures as grown wider. The claimed benefits of a reduction in accidents on controlled motorway sections could be as illusory as the claims for a reduction in journey times

One of the key targets the HA has been set is to deliver its controlled motorways at 60% of the cost of adding capacity through road widening. While the benefits of adding capacity to the road network by widening the roads in terms of quicker journey times, reduced pollution and increased economic activity are unquestioned, controlled motorways appear to be nothing more then tinkering round the edges of the problem of severe under-capacity on our road network.

The steady increase in the use of technology on our motorways brings with it the issue of function creep. A number of Government funded groups have called for the rigid enforcement of the 70 limit in the name of reducing Co2 emissions with the eventual reduction to 60mph. Currently the speed cameras used as part of the controlled motorway system are not in operation in free flowing traffic conditions. The consultation on "M1 Junctions 6A - 10 Controlled Motorway" seems to indicate these cameras will be working at all times but in any case, if the Government did decide to enforce the 70 motorway limit then the controlled motorway speed camera system could easily be switched on permanently.

There are currently 3 on going HA consultations on different controlled motorway projects. The can be found here; http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/133.aspx

Please note:

"The proposed regulations will restrict drivers from driving at a speed exceeding that displayed on the speed limit signs or the national speed limit where no other speed limit sign is displayed."

Object here

Motorways are our safest and fastest roads. Using cameras to enforce the limit serves no purpose other than to raise revenue.

Please object as it is sensless to waste 60% of the cost to widen a motorway on technology to control the speed limits.

We need better roads not more speed cameras.

2010-02-21T10:54:00.002Z

If anybody is wondering how 'research' into road pricing often results in a positive response, these are the questions from one of the latest studies:

Table 1: Statements for the indicators of the socio-cognitive factors Indicator1 Statements

General environmental beliefs

PE1 When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.
PE2 Humans are severely abusing the environment.
PE3 If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.
PE4 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
PA1 Air pollution from private car use is a threat to humans and the environment in the whole world.
PA2 Air pollution from private car use is a threat to humans and the environment in Belgium.
PA3 Air pollution from private car use is a threat to the health and well-being of me and my family.
PN1 I feel morally responsible to reduce the negative environmental effects of my car use.
PN2 I get a guilty conscience if I don't try to reduce the negative environmental effects of my car use.
WTA I am willing to reduce the negative environmental effects of my car use.

Policy specific beliefs

EFF1 To what extent do you perceive road pricing to be effective?
EFF2 To what extent do you perceive road pricing will lead to an improved environment?
FAIR1 To what extent do you perceive road pricing to be fair for you?
FAIR2 To what extent do you perceive road pricing to be fair for others?
ACC To what extent are you in favor or against the implementation of this policy measure?

My reply "Bugger off it will never be accepted" is not an option for some reason!

Download the whole document:- The psychology behind road pricing: identification of socio-cognitive factors

2010-02-18T22:42:00.000Z

Shropshire council has been lowering rural speed limits on roads with an excellent safety record for no apparent reason.

We are forming a local group to challenge and object to many of these artificially low limits with our first meeting on the 9th March in Wellington (Telford).

If you can come along, we will be explaining why we think there is a problem and what we want to do about it. As numbers will be limited, please email us at info@driversalliance.org.uk for details.

Here is a picture to highlight our concern

2010-02-10T16:50:00.000Z

People who argue in favour of speed cameras simply do not understand the dynamics and politics of road safety.

They argue that exceeding a posted limit is dangerous and the perpetrators deserve the fines, but they are being simplistic in the extreme.

Speed or preferably, velocity is an absolute requirement to get from A to B so speed in itself is not dangerous or an issue.

In the UK, we had a long and proud tradition of having the safest drivers and roads in the world. Or at least we did up until 1993 when the then government embraced the 'Speed Kills' approach along with the widespread introduction of speed cameras.

Before this, we had a long term; roughly 7% annual reduction in the numbers killed on our roads going back decades, even though traffic was increasing substantially.

In 1993, this long term reduction in deaths slowed and then stopped during the 90’s and early 2000’s until very recently when the decline resumed. During this period when statistically speaking the annual reduction should have continued, we saw the introduction engineering improvements to make our vehicles safer such as ABS, airbags, pedestrian friendly impact zones, improved tyres and vehicle handling.

We also saw the rapid increase in speed cameras take the onus of road safety away from the driver and placed firmly onto the state.

"I was not speeding officer so I was driving safely"

If we had continued with the road safety policies of the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80’s, statistically speaking we would have about 1000 less deaths annually on our roads than we do today and with the technical improvements to cars, arguably this improvement should have accelerated.

This is statistical fact - not hype or propaganda or fudged figures from the safety camera industry.

The truth is that only a tiny fraction of accidents happen above the speed limit and no matter how many speed cameras are put in place, the vast majority of accidents will continue unabated.

In conclusion, speed cameras cannot reduce the vast majority of accidents and are arguably the cause of many thousands of unnecessary deaths.

The introduction of speed cameras and the policies surrounding them are driven by a multi million pound industry hungry for profits. The fines exceed £100 million a year and many very safe drivers can lose their jobs and have their lives ruined because of a flawed road safety policy.

Why are speed limits being lowered today? We now see 60mph roads which are statistically very safe being reduced in some cases to 40mph and then speed cameras introduced. This is not about road safety; this is about large corporations distorting the safety arguments for profit and a gullible government falling for the snake oil salesmen.