Norman Baker is in the news talking about the review of traffic signs. In a nutshell, the DfT wants to reduce the number of road signs, simplify them and make them clearer.
Why do we have so many road signs and why are they so complex?
Firstly, when there were few cars, people used to drive where they liked. As car ownership grew, traffic problems started to grow, and it was clear that you couldn't manage the free flow of traffic without restrictions, and clearly you needed road signs to inform drivers of the restrictions. Today, road signs are required by law for any restriction (such as no-entry or one-way) to be enforceable. The existing legislation is very prescriptive about exactly what signs are required where and how big they need to be, which results both in a proliferation of signs and makes it possible for motorists to wriggle out of penalty notices if the local authority hasn't followed the legislation to the letter.
Secondly, there are some very complex signs governing bus lanes and parking. When there were few cars, people parked where they liked. As more people started to own cars, streets got full of parked cars, resulting in obstructions, residents being unable to park near their houses. So resident's permits were introduced, which led to problems with visitors who couldn't park. So this led to exceptions. Shopkeepers wanted people to be able to park nearby, but didn't want commuters or residents blocking the spaces all day, which led to time restrictions. With bus lanes, politicians have seen fit to restrict the hours of operation and increase the types of exempt vehicle so that the typical London bus lane will have two periods of operation and four types of vehicle allowed in it. Trying to get all that information onto a sign that is readable and understandable by a driver at 30MPH is pretty much impossible.
In a nutshell, the reason we have a mess of complex roadsigns is simple: too many cars. That, and politicians' trying to keep as much freedom and convenience as possible for drivers (and usually not cyclists or pedestrians) whilst trying to stop drivers doing inconsiderate and idiotic things. Road signs are like the tax system: if it's too simple it becomes unfair or a free-for-all; if it's too complex, it's difficult to understand and easy to exploit.
Of course, there are some cases where local authorities have done silly things, and cases where signage can be simplified. But in general, signs are there to give pretty fine-grained control over who can do what, so if you simplify and remove signs beyond a certain level, you simply bring back the problems that the signs were there to solve, problems whose root cause is too many cars. The disease is not "sign fever", it's "car addiction". It's a good job the Coalition aren't doctors: if you went to the surgery with measles, you'd get a prescription for a spray tan.
It would be nice if this review of road signage included some benefits for cyclists. Such as making cyclists exempt from most no-entry and one-way restrictions, making most bus lanes 24-hour, and stopping parking in cycle lanes. LCC and CTC should be pressuring Norman Baker to make this happen; however I've not noticed much noise being made.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Look at All Those Westminster Cyclists
Ross Lydall reports in the Standard that there are over 13,000 registered Cycle Hire users in the City of Westminster. That amounts to nearly 10% of the electorate in that borough.
How much longer is Westminster Council prepared to ignore cycling? Clearly, from these figures, people in Westminster want to cycle, and it's a pretty safe bet that a lot more would if the Council did a bit more to improve conditions for cycling. Which wouldn't be hard, as currently they do very close to nothing.
It's not just Westminster electors that cycle in Westminster: it's likely the majority of the 110,000 Cycle Hire users will ride there, and figures show that a very significant number (25% or more) of vehicles entering central London in the morning peak are cycles. In other words, it's becoming more difficult for the Council to ignore cycling and the safety of cyclists, and less easy to justify their over-zealous and disproportionate targeting of rule-breaking cyclists instead of dangerous drivers. But no doubt they'll manage it because of their idealogical opposition to cycling.
How much longer is Westminster Council prepared to ignore cycling? Clearly, from these figures, people in Westminster want to cycle, and it's a pretty safe bet that a lot more would if the Council did a bit more to improve conditions for cycling. Which wouldn't be hard, as currently they do very close to nothing.
It's not just Westminster electors that cycle in Westminster: it's likely the majority of the 110,000 Cycle Hire users will ride there, and figures show that a very significant number (25% or more) of vehicles entering central London in the morning peak are cycles. In other words, it's becoming more difficult for the Council to ignore cycling and the safety of cyclists, and less easy to justify their over-zealous and disproportionate targeting of rule-breaking cyclists instead of dangerous drivers. But no doubt they'll manage it because of their idealogical opposition to cycling.
Oil is a Risk to the Economy
The oil price is a risk to economic recovery, say the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Hopefully the Tories are listening. They seem to be intent on expanding car ownership and car use, as they're making car parking less expensive and increasing rail, tube and bus fares. It's clear that electric cars won't be displacing fossil-fuelled cars in numbers anytime soon. Which means the transport sector is becoming more oil dependent. An oil-dependent transport strategy is very dangerous because it makes the economy very sensitive to oil price movements and the higher the oil price gets, the more of our money will be going to some of the less savoury regimes in the world.
What is dangerous as the high oil price is the ability to predict the future oil price. The world economy is barely out of recession yet, but in spite of this, the oil price is higher than many had predicted. If the world economy recovers strongly, and demand in emerging economies strengthens, the oil price could surge. Predicting oil prices is an inexact science, partly because the amount of reserves or the spare extraction capacity is regarded as commercially sensitive information by producers.
The Tories might ask why this is an issue. In a free market, people make their own choices. If they want a Range Rover or a Prius, it's up to them to pay the fuel bills, right? Not really, because a vehicle stays in the national car fleet long after the initial buyer has sold it on. Secondhand buyers have the choice made for them by new car buyers, for many of whom image and luxury trump fuel consumption. The nation won't be able to react quickly to an increasing oil price - it will take years for a generation of more frugal cars to reach the secondhand market, and years for people to adjust their travel requirements and habits.
A sensible transport policy would start today in attempting to reduce our downside risk of oil price increases. This doesn't seem to have registered with the Tories, who have declared our transport problems solved with electric car charging points and high-speed rail, and the 'war on the motorist' over. The real threat to motorists is the actions of overseas (not UK) governments and the expansion of oil demand. We'd be better advised to put up defences in the form of incentives to reduce car travel and improved alternatives to car travel, instead of - uh - doing the opposite.
It really is madness to commit yourself for a decade or more to continue buying a commodity that has a finite supply and that everyone else wants, at an unknown future price. But that's what our Government is doing. Rest assured that if and when the oil price rises, Cycalogical will be here to remind the Tories what they should've done.
Hopefully the Tories are listening. They seem to be intent on expanding car ownership and car use, as they're making car parking less expensive and increasing rail, tube and bus fares. It's clear that electric cars won't be displacing fossil-fuelled cars in numbers anytime soon. Which means the transport sector is becoming more oil dependent. An oil-dependent transport strategy is very dangerous because it makes the economy very sensitive to oil price movements and the higher the oil price gets, the more of our money will be going to some of the less savoury regimes in the world.
What is dangerous as the high oil price is the ability to predict the future oil price. The world economy is barely out of recession yet, but in spite of this, the oil price is higher than many had predicted. If the world economy recovers strongly, and demand in emerging economies strengthens, the oil price could surge. Predicting oil prices is an inexact science, partly because the amount of reserves or the spare extraction capacity is regarded as commercially sensitive information by producers.
The Tories might ask why this is an issue. In a free market, people make their own choices. If they want a Range Rover or a Prius, it's up to them to pay the fuel bills, right? Not really, because a vehicle stays in the national car fleet long after the initial buyer has sold it on. Secondhand buyers have the choice made for them by new car buyers, for many of whom image and luxury trump fuel consumption. The nation won't be able to react quickly to an increasing oil price - it will take years for a generation of more frugal cars to reach the secondhand market, and years for people to adjust their travel requirements and habits.
A sensible transport policy would start today in attempting to reduce our downside risk of oil price increases. This doesn't seem to have registered with the Tories, who have declared our transport problems solved with electric car charging points and high-speed rail, and the 'war on the motorist' over. The real threat to motorists is the actions of overseas (not UK) governments and the expansion of oil demand. We'd be better advised to put up defences in the form of incentives to reduce car travel and improved alternatives to car travel, instead of - uh - doing the opposite.
It really is madness to commit yourself for a decade or more to continue buying a commodity that has a finite supply and that everyone else wants, at an unknown future price. But that's what our Government is doing. Rest assured that if and when the oil price rises, Cycalogical will be here to remind the Tories what they should've done.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Philip Hammond's pro-car, low-carbon miracle
Latter-day messiah Philip Hammond has been explaining how making car ownership easier by allowing developers of new housing to put in more parking spaces and reducing council parking charges is compatible with lower carbon emissions. This is a seemingly impossible task, but here's what the Great One, the Wise Counsellor says:
"For years politicians peddled the pessimistic, outdated attitude that they could only cut carbon emissions by forcing people out of their cars," he said. "But this Government recognises that cars are a lifeline for many people – and that by supporting the next generation of electric and ultra-low emission vehicles, it can enable sustainable green motoring to be a long-term part of future transport planning."
"Cars are a lifeline for many people".
Hmmm. Some people are very reliant on their cars, it's true, but no-one's proposing abolishing all cars. For many people however, particularly in urban areas, a lot of their journeys don't need to be made by car, and because car dependency tends to lead to a sedentary lifestyle, cars can indirectly be a death warrant rather than a lifeline.
Electric cars will not be a significant part of the national fleet for years and probably decades. The National Grid forcasts 1M electric cars by 2020. However, according to my source in the power generation industry, you should take that figure with a massive pinch of salt, because it's in the National Grid's interest to expand their asset base on the pretext of optimistic assumptions. Others in the generation industry are not assuming significant numbers of electric vehicles this decade.
Even if we take the Grid's forecast, that means there are still 29M fossil-fuelled cars on the streets in 2020, and quite possibly more, given that Hammond wants to make car ownership easier. Nothing very low-carbon about that.
Next week: Philip Hammond turns carbon dioxide into gold.
"For years politicians peddled the pessimistic, outdated attitude that they could only cut carbon emissions by forcing people out of their cars," he said. "But this Government recognises that cars are a lifeline for many people – and that by supporting the next generation of electric and ultra-low emission vehicles, it can enable sustainable green motoring to be a long-term part of future transport planning."
"Cars are a lifeline for many people".
Hmmm. Some people are very reliant on their cars, it's true, but no-one's proposing abolishing all cars. For many people however, particularly in urban areas, a lot of their journeys don't need to be made by car, and because car dependency tends to lead to a sedentary lifestyle, cars can indirectly be a death warrant rather than a lifeline.
Electric cars will not be a significant part of the national fleet for years and probably decades. The National Grid forcasts 1M electric cars by 2020. However, according to my source in the power generation industry, you should take that figure with a massive pinch of salt, because it's in the National Grid's interest to expand their asset base on the pretext of optimistic assumptions. Others in the generation industry are not assuming significant numbers of electric vehicles this decade.
Even if we take the Grid's forecast, that means there are still 29M fossil-fuelled cars on the streets in 2020, and quite possibly more, given that Hammond wants to make car ownership easier. Nothing very low-carbon about that.
Next week: Philip Hammond turns carbon dioxide into gold.
More parking, more cars
The Tories yesterday announced a number of new 'pro-car' measures. No doubt timed to coincide with the twin increases in VAT and fuel duty that will further increase the cost of a litre of petrol or diesel, these measures will remove restrictions limiting car parking spaces for new housing developments and allow councils to lower parking charges.
Eric Pickles commented:
"The result is our pavements and verges crammed with cars on curbs [sic], endangering drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, increased public resentment of over- zealous parking wardens, and escalating charges and fines. We're getting out of the way and it's up to councils to set the right parking policy."
Cyclists? At least he knows we exist. Unfortunately, he and Transport Secretary Hammond are not stopping cars parking on kerbs or verges. They don't seem to understand that the public have a pretty-much insatiable appetite for car parking. Allowing new housing developments to have more car parking will just mean existing houses without off-street parking will be able to park second and third cars on the street. The Tories don't seem to realize that more cars means more car journeys, and at the end of each journey the car will be parked somewhere - guess where - on a verge or on the kerb. What Pickles and Hammond are seemingly missing is that the problem, in urban areas at least, isn't 'not enough parking', it is 'too many cars'. Increasing car dependency, which they seem determined to do, won't solve either problem.
As for allowing councils to charge less for parking, this will have a couple of undesirable effects. First, it will reduce the council's revenues. As I noted in a previous post, councils are keen to increase charges, not reduce them, for precisely this reason. Second, if you make the car journey cheaper by reducing the cost of parking, this will increase traffic levels, which will increase congestion unless you build new roads, which you'll notice the Tories are not proposing to do...
Eric Pickles commented:
"The result is our pavements and verges crammed with cars on curbs [sic], endangering drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, increased public resentment of over- zealous parking wardens, and escalating charges and fines. We're getting out of the way and it's up to councils to set the right parking policy."
Cyclists? At least he knows we exist. Unfortunately, he and Transport Secretary Hammond are not stopping cars parking on kerbs or verges. They don't seem to understand that the public have a pretty-much insatiable appetite for car parking. Allowing new housing developments to have more car parking will just mean existing houses without off-street parking will be able to park second and third cars on the street. The Tories don't seem to realize that more cars means more car journeys, and at the end of each journey the car will be parked somewhere - guess where - on a verge or on the kerb. What Pickles and Hammond are seemingly missing is that the problem, in urban areas at least, isn't 'not enough parking', it is 'too many cars'. Increasing car dependency, which they seem determined to do, won't solve either problem.
As for allowing councils to charge less for parking, this will have a couple of undesirable effects. First, it will reduce the council's revenues. As I noted in a previous post, councils are keen to increase charges, not reduce them, for precisely this reason. Second, if you make the car journey cheaper by reducing the cost of parking, this will increase traffic levels, which will increase congestion unless you build new roads, which you'll notice the Tories are not proposing to do...
Five Minutes with Alan de Botton
...is insufficient, but it's enough for him to out-think the Tories:
The interviewer asks, "What is the ideal form of government?"
The interviewer asks, "What is the ideal form of government?"
de Botton replies: "The ideal form of government is an enlightened government, which doesn’t have a problem with trying to teach people how to live…we’ ve got a terrible fear of the word ‘paternalism’. I actually believe in paternalistic government…we need the right sort of government that can actually teach us how to lead our lives..."
It's a favourite theme of mine that current (and previous) Government policy tends to follow public opinion, rather than lead it. This is dangerous, because public opinion forms a fragile, disjointed and self-contradictory philosophy, and a policy based on whatever the Government spin-doctors think will play well with public opinion is likely to lead to poor outcomes.
Most people would agree that childhood obesity, and obesity in general, is a bad thing. You don't have to dig very deep into the medical research to see that this problem is a public heath time-bomb that will generate massive costs for the NHS and untold misery caused by lives cut short.
An enlightened Government would want to tackle obesity by addressing both poor diet and sedentary lifestyles. Cycling could form a part of the latter. Instead, the Government are doing nothing to encourage kids to walk or cycle to school, are cutting cycling and school sports funding, and actually making car travel easier. The government are more afraid of getting blamed for the short-term inconvenience of motorists than they are for failing to halt a massive increase in obesity-related illness, death and disability.
In other words, this is a Government keen to teach us how not to lead our lives.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Fare Rises
Train fare rises have taken effect, averaging over 6% with some season tickets rising 13%. I've blogged before about the foolishness of this policy.
The government says the rise in train fares is necessary to invest in rail infrastructure.
This is both untrue and disingenuous.
It is untrue because there are plenty of other ways of raising money. The money could be raised through taxes, it could be raised through a general levy on all transport or through a bond or share issue, or a combination of any of the above.
It is disingenuous because the clear implication is that today's rail travellers must pay for tomorrow's improvements because they, and only they, benefit. In the case of student tuition fees it is easy to make the case that the student benefits from their own education; that it is an investment in their own future. With trains it is simply not true. There are some services that won't benefit, at least not proportionately. There are some people who commute by train daily but will retire before the benefits are delivered. And there are some who currently don't use trains, and therefore don't pay, but will profit in the future from other peoples' investment.
There are also people who will benefit indirectly from better railways: people who use the roads benefit from less congestion due to people not driving.
So why is it exclusively today's train users who have to pay for the infrastructure investment, some of whom will benefit and some who won't? Why are car drivers or bus users exempt? (Train users are expected to pay for the M25 widening through their taxes even if they never use that road.) Why are there people who will benefit but aren't paying? Why aren't commuters granted shares in the railways given they are being forced to invest in them? Why is the government so reluctant to force people to be more active, to use their cars less or to eat healthier food, while it is quite happy to force train users to pay for investment in better trains?
Effectively, these fare rises are a highly regressive and unfair 'stealth tax'. The burden falls heaviest on the poorest train users. Furthermore, it is a tax that actually punishes green travel and incentivises car use. Encouragingly however, it is also the Tories' least popular policy: a recent YouGov poll showed it was opposed by 8 in 10 people.
The government says the rise in train fares is necessary to invest in rail infrastructure.
This is both untrue and disingenuous.
It is untrue because there are plenty of other ways of raising money. The money could be raised through taxes, it could be raised through a general levy on all transport or through a bond or share issue, or a combination of any of the above.
It is disingenuous because the clear implication is that today's rail travellers must pay for tomorrow's improvements because they, and only they, benefit. In the case of student tuition fees it is easy to make the case that the student benefits from their own education; that it is an investment in their own future. With trains it is simply not true. There are some services that won't benefit, at least not proportionately. There are some people who commute by train daily but will retire before the benefits are delivered. And there are some who currently don't use trains, and therefore don't pay, but will profit in the future from other peoples' investment.
There are also people who will benefit indirectly from better railways: people who use the roads benefit from less congestion due to people not driving.
So why is it exclusively today's train users who have to pay for the infrastructure investment, some of whom will benefit and some who won't? Why are car drivers or bus users exempt? (Train users are expected to pay for the M25 widening through their taxes even if they never use that road.) Why are there people who will benefit but aren't paying? Why aren't commuters granted shares in the railways given they are being forced to invest in them? Why is the government so reluctant to force people to be more active, to use their cars less or to eat healthier food, while it is quite happy to force train users to pay for investment in better trains?
Effectively, these fare rises are a highly regressive and unfair 'stealth tax'. The burden falls heaviest on the poorest train users. Furthermore, it is a tax that actually punishes green travel and incentivises car use. Encouragingly however, it is also the Tories' least popular policy: a recent YouGov poll showed it was opposed by 8 in 10 people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)