Philip Hammond's transport speech to the Tory Party Conference was a mixed bag. I'm going to concentrate on the 'sustainable transport' bits.
"But most journeys are short. And in local transport, some of the best investments that can be made are in smaller-scale projects addressing, at local level, congestion, air quality, environmental issues, road safety and public wellbeing in our urban areas."
OK, but how do you square road safety with switching off speed cameras? And why didn't you mention 'cycling' ? This does not sound like a departure from Labour's policies which failed to address any of these issues.
"So how do we deliver these investments?
Well, what I have inherited at the Department for Transport is a system which is truly a monument to Gordon Brown's tenure at the Treasury. Something the Soviets would have been proud of.
A top-down system with The man in Whitehall deciding whats right for Bradford, for Bristol or for Birmingham.
The form-filling, the box-ticking, and the monitoring.
The we know best approach that underlies it all.
And I can tell you this today: we will sweep it all away.
We will scrap the multiple streams of transport resource funding for local government and replace them with just two a formula grant which will go to all authorities to allow them to set their own priorities.....
...... and a Local Sustainable Transport Fund which will consolidate the remaining money in a single pot for which local authorities can bid to support their plans for their areas."
Oh good. Well, perhaps. The DfT are hopelessly car-centric and haven't got a clue about sustainable transport, based on the outcomes of the past 10 years, and based on Jonathan Porritt's experience of them. However, local government's record is not exactly stellar either. But it has to be a good thing to have a separate fund for sustainable transport and have one authority in charge of it, as I've previously noted in this blog.
"And I do mean their plans for their areas.
And I want to go further still. Once the Local Enterprise Partnerships are formed, I want to see how far my Departments local capital funding can be devolved.
Improving local accountability.
Reducing bureaucracy.
Cutting costs.
This is a truly localist agenda. And, yes, sometimes it will mean local authorities making decisions that Whitehall may not agree with."
OK, but there is a difference between 'localism' and 'nimbyism'. In more enlightened areas, where councils understand sustainable transport, it could work. But you cannot have measurable progress toward sustainable transport without tough decisions being necessary - and that means making it more difficult and more expensive to drive in urban areas, while making other transport modes more attractive.. We know from experience that local resident interest groups tend to oppose cycling projects, in particular anything that reallocates roadspace from motor vehicles to cycles. Local councillors simply cave in, based on the assumption that there are no votes in cycling. Also, local councillors are often misguided, grey-haired, car-centric bigots like this one (credit to Freewheeler). So without a strong mandate from the centre, it is very difficult to see how cycling will progress through the impassable marshlands of local politics. Without any disincentives or alternatives to car use, it is very difficult to see car use declining, and hence difficult to see any solution to issues of congestion, road safety, environmental issues or public wellbeing. Buses? They're not an alternative to cars, because the worse the congestion gets, the worse the bus service becomes.
In summary, this is a speech that does not demostrate either the intent or the ability to deliver anything in terms of sustainable transport. And it doesn't mention 'cycling' once.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Philip Hammond defies the Laws of Physics
From Hammond's speech to the Tory Conference:
….. let’s not forget that over 80% of all journeys are undertaken by car ... Clearly, while motoring was synonymous with carbon production, it couldn’t be a major part of Britain’s future transport plans.
But the idea that the only solution is to force people out of their cars is pessimistic, outdated, Labour dogma. This Government is supporting the ultra-low emissions technologies that will see the carbon output of cars plummet over the next two decades.
Drawing fuel, not from petrol pumps, but from an electricity grid which Chris Huhne is determined to make one of the greenest in Europe. The Coalition has signaled its commitment to de-carbonising motoring by confirming, ahead of the spending review, grants for R&D and generous consumer incentives for every ultra-low emission car sold.
...
So motoring can again become part of our future transport planning, as the greening of the car saves it from extinction and that means we can end Labour’s indiscriminate war on the motorist as we focus on the real enemies – carbon and congestion.”
Let's look at the feasibility of replacing some or all fossil-fuelled cars with electric cars.
The electric Nissan Leaf has a 24KWh battery pack, which the manufacturers claim gives a 100-mile range. Let's say the owner drives 12,000 miles a year, which in the UK is average. . Over a year the car will consume 2880KWh, that is, 2.88MWh. As Hammond says, we're not "forcing people out of their cars", which means we need to assume mileages stay as the are currently, if they don't actually increase.
So every million electric cars will consume 2.88TWh.
How many cars are there in the UK? Around about 30M.
So the power you would need to enable those cars to drive 12000 miles a year each would be 86TWh.
The annual electrical energy used in the UK is currently around 360 TWh. To produce 86TWh using renewables, you would need approximately 30,000 1MW turbines. Currently, the UK is aiming to increase the percentage of electricity generated from renewables from 2% to 15% by 2020. 86TWh is nearly twice as much additional renewable gneeration capacity. (I'm ignoring transmission losses here.)
So to power the existing UK car fleet based on current mileages would require an increase in generating capacity of 24%. However, I've not taken into account commercial vehicles, which would up the total considerably - cars only represent 55% of UK transport-related carbon emissions. I've also not taken into account the charge efficiency. Not all the energy you put into charging a battery ends up as stored electrical energy, so this puts the total up further still.
Bear in mind that this required increase in generating capacity is taking place against a backdrop of decarbonizing electricity generation. There's no point in replacing petrol cars with electric cars if the electricity is fossil-fuel-generated. Fossil-fuelled power stations must therefore close, and this capacity will need to be replaced by renewables or nuclear. It is also likely that oil and gas as heating fuels will be partly replaced by electricity. While this may be offset by better home insulation, it's unclear what the net effect on electricity demand will be. Higher summer temperatures may increase the use of air-conditioning, which will inflate electricity demand.
This really is desperate stuff from Hammond. He's already demonstrated that he doesn't understand transport, he also clearly doesn't understand the laws of physics. The idea that we can continue to drive the same amount of miles as we do today is somewhat beyond believable. To base a whole transport policy on such fantasy runs the risk of breaking the whole economy. If we don't start to give the signals now that both businesses and individuals must drive fewer miles - massively fewer miles - we'll have a country that is totally dependent on cheap energy just at the point when energy becomes expensive. We'll face an energy deficit. Unlike a fiscal deficit, you can't live beyond your energy means - you cannot 'borrow' energy and pay it back in the distant future.
See also this piece from the admirable Lo Fidelity Bicycle Club.
….. let’s not forget that over 80% of all journeys are undertaken by car ... Clearly, while motoring was synonymous with carbon production, it couldn’t be a major part of Britain’s future transport plans.
But the idea that the only solution is to force people out of their cars is pessimistic, outdated, Labour dogma. This Government is supporting the ultra-low emissions technologies that will see the carbon output of cars plummet over the next two decades.
Drawing fuel, not from petrol pumps, but from an electricity grid which Chris Huhne is determined to make one of the greenest in Europe. The Coalition has signaled its commitment to de-carbonising motoring by confirming, ahead of the spending review, grants for R&D and generous consumer incentives for every ultra-low emission car sold.
...
So motoring can again become part of our future transport planning, as the greening of the car saves it from extinction and that means we can end Labour’s indiscriminate war on the motorist as we focus on the real enemies – carbon and congestion.”
Let's look at the feasibility of replacing some or all fossil-fuelled cars with electric cars.
The electric Nissan Leaf has a 24KWh battery pack, which the manufacturers claim gives a 100-mile range. Let's say the owner drives 12,000 miles a year, which in the UK is average. . Over a year the car will consume 2880KWh, that is, 2.88MWh. As Hammond says, we're not "forcing people out of their cars", which means we need to assume mileages stay as the are currently, if they don't actually increase.
So every million electric cars will consume 2.88TWh.
How many cars are there in the UK? Around about 30M.
So the power you would need to enable those cars to drive 12000 miles a year each would be 86TWh.
The annual electrical energy used in the UK is currently around 360 TWh. To produce 86TWh using renewables, you would need approximately 30,000 1MW turbines. Currently, the UK is aiming to increase the percentage of electricity generated from renewables from 2% to 15% by 2020. 86TWh is nearly twice as much additional renewable gneeration capacity. (I'm ignoring transmission losses here.)
So to power the existing UK car fleet based on current mileages would require an increase in generating capacity of 24%. However, I've not taken into account commercial vehicles, which would up the total considerably - cars only represent 55% of UK transport-related carbon emissions. I've also not taken into account the charge efficiency. Not all the energy you put into charging a battery ends up as stored electrical energy, so this puts the total up further still.
Bear in mind that this required increase in generating capacity is taking place against a backdrop of decarbonizing electricity generation. There's no point in replacing petrol cars with electric cars if the electricity is fossil-fuel-generated. Fossil-fuelled power stations must therefore close, and this capacity will need to be replaced by renewables or nuclear. It is also likely that oil and gas as heating fuels will be partly replaced by electricity. While this may be offset by better home insulation, it's unclear what the net effect on electricity demand will be. Higher summer temperatures may increase the use of air-conditioning, which will inflate electricity demand.
This really is desperate stuff from Hammond. He's already demonstrated that he doesn't understand transport, he also clearly doesn't understand the laws of physics. The idea that we can continue to drive the same amount of miles as we do today is somewhat beyond believable. To base a whole transport policy on such fantasy runs the risk of breaking the whole economy. If we don't start to give the signals now that both businesses and individuals must drive fewer miles - massively fewer miles - we'll have a country that is totally dependent on cheap energy just at the point when energy becomes expensive. We'll face an energy deficit. Unlike a fiscal deficit, you can't live beyond your energy means - you cannot 'borrow' energy and pay it back in the distant future.
See also this piece from the admirable Lo Fidelity Bicycle Club.
Cyclist Down - Battersea
I came through Battersea Park today. At Chelsea Bridge, the junction of Queenstown Road and Carriage Drive North, this is the scene that greeted me:
The cyclist appeared to be conscious. I didn't see the crash, and I don't know if either of the vehicles in the picture were involved. Get well soon whoever you are.
Here's the paramedic arriving:
Queenstown Road has a cycle lane on the footway at this point. At the Carriage Drive North junction,there is no treatment to indicate to drivers that cyclists may be approaching the junction on the pavement. A right turn from the southbound lane of Queenstown Road into Carriage Drive North is allowed. This is potentially very dangerous, as a right-turning vehicle has to turn across two lanes, one of which is busy and may impair visibility. Once a car has started to make the turn, they are unlikely to stop and give way to a cyclist crossing the road, even though the cyclist has right of way.
The cyclist appeared to be conscious. I didn't see the crash, and I don't know if either of the vehicles in the picture were involved. Get well soon whoever you are.
Here's the paramedic arriving:
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Ask me what my priorities are..
And I will tell you - insulation, insulation, insulation.
I don't normally endorse commercial organizations but you could do worse for the planet than head to B&Q and pick up some subsidized loft insulation. A quid a roll means you can lag your loft for around £25 - £30. Just don't try to get eight triple-roll packs into a hatchback like I did. (There are some things you can't do on a bike).
I don't normally endorse commercial organizations but you could do worse for the planet than head to B&Q and pick up some subsidized loft insulation. A quid a roll means you can lag your loft for around £25 - £30. Just don't try to get eight triple-roll packs into a hatchback like I did. (There are some things you can't do on a bike).
The Judge, the Cyclist and the Cab Driver
This story, is about a cyclist, Jared Kelly. He was allegedly assaulted by a cab driver, but in an unbelievable turnaround, found himself standing trial for assault on the cabdriver, The case caught my attention a while ago, and I was eagerly awaiting the result. It was tempting to empathise with the cyclist, but there are always two sides to any story. However, the outcome of the trial was revealing. Mr Kelly was cleared of assault after the cabbie's evidence was found to be not "credible". While Mr Kelly is relieved not to be doing porridge, it's hardly a happy ending to this particular fairy story.
What is most worrying about this case is the behaviour of the police. I am normally a supporter of the police. I have found them to be fair, reasonable and diligent in my few dealings with them. I believe that the vast majority of them do a good job under difficult circumstances. A policeman's lot is not a happy one: they are required to deal with some of the most dangerous and unpleasant people in society, and must make snap judgements under considerable pressure. We should not be surprised if they make mistakes. However, it's also essential that they are open and transparent when they do make mistakes, and it is imperative that they are seen to be even-handed. In this case, it appears the police and the legal system failed Mr Kelly. Vital witnesses were dismissed. The case should never have been prosecuted.
There is a real danger that the police and the legal system are seen by cyclists as unsupportive of them. While some cyclists break the law, in terms of actual casualties sustained cyclists are overwhelmingly the victims rather than the perpetrators. Amongst cyclists, certain perceptions are becoming widespread:
1. that the police turn a blind eye to the daily intimidation of cyclists by motor vehicles that are speeding or driving dangerously, whilst prosecuting minor offences by cyclists;
2. that the judicial system allows the killers of cyclists to walk free from court;
3. that cyclists are the victims of poor policing, as appears to be the case here.
The authorities need to remember what happens if a group considers the police to be institutionally prejudiced against them: it is not good news for law and order generally.
I suggest the police need to take remedial action as follows:
What is most worrying about this case is the behaviour of the police. I am normally a supporter of the police. I have found them to be fair, reasonable and diligent in my few dealings with them. I believe that the vast majority of them do a good job under difficult circumstances. A policeman's lot is not a happy one: they are required to deal with some of the most dangerous and unpleasant people in society, and must make snap judgements under considerable pressure. We should not be surprised if they make mistakes. However, it's also essential that they are open and transparent when they do make mistakes, and it is imperative that they are seen to be even-handed. In this case, it appears the police and the legal system failed Mr Kelly. Vital witnesses were dismissed. The case should never have been prosecuted.
There is a real danger that the police and the legal system are seen by cyclists as unsupportive of them. While some cyclists break the law, in terms of actual casualties sustained cyclists are overwhelmingly the victims rather than the perpetrators. Amongst cyclists, certain perceptions are becoming widespread:
1. that the police turn a blind eye to the daily intimidation of cyclists by motor vehicles that are speeding or driving dangerously, whilst prosecuting minor offences by cyclists;
2. that the judicial system allows the killers of cyclists to walk free from court;
3. that cyclists are the victims of poor policing, as appears to be the case here.
The authorities need to remember what happens if a group considers the police to be institutionally prejudiced against them: it is not good news for law and order generally.
I suggest the police need to take remedial action as follows:
- Investigate this case in a transparent way and ensure nothing of the sort happens again.
- More cycling police. This needs to happen anyway, for economic reasons, as noted by the Earth Policy Institute: "Officers on bikes are more productive in cities partly because they are more mobile and can reach the scene of an accident or crime more quickly and more quietly than officers in cars. They typically make 50 percent more arrests per day than officers in squad cars. Fiscally, the cost of operating a bicycle is trivial compared with that of a police car." Cyclists will be reassured to see that police get to witness the same road-user behaviour that they do.
- The police should resist attempts to force them to target cyclists as opposed to generally targeting antisocial road use. Enforcement needs to be seen to be even-handed and proportionate.
- Ensure that cyclists have input into police priorities.
New Car Sales Dive
Cast your mind back a couple of years. Due to the credit crunch, the global boom in car sales hit the wall. Some of the biggest names in the car industry, General Motors and Chrysler, were effectively bankrupt. However, it wasn't just the sudden reduction of consumer demand that killed them. They had bet their businesses on continuing demand for large vehicles that generated a large profit but also had high fuel consumption. The oil price spike that accompanied the end of the consumer boom sent what few customers remained running in the direction of manufacturers of more frugal vehicles. GM and Chrysler were unable to adapt their business models quickly enough.
In a free market, a corporation that makes products that customers don't want to buy will go out of business. Not so in the auto industry, where governments in America and Europe bailed out their metal-bashers.
As a result, we have a car industry that is still tooled up to deliver the same volume of cars as it did in the years of the cheap-credit-fuelled consumer boom. As the Standard reports today, new car sales are still in a dive that has not been slowed by the new '60' registration plate.
You'll remember the £300M 'scrappage' scheme whereby the UK Government subsidized new car purchase. If that £300M had been invested in green transport, home insulation or renewable energy, we'd have created more UK jobs, and we'd still be reaping the benefits in terms of lower energy bills and a lower carbon footprint. Instead of which, we've fostered car dependency and many of the benefits have gone to overseas car manufacturers. Meanwhile we've merely delayed a little longer the long-overdue downsizing of the car industry. The scrappage scheme was one of the last acts of a government that talked a lot about climate change, but did very little about it. It believed that unrestrained consumerism was the only way to run the economy. We'll see soon in the Spending Review how the Coalition's priorities compare.
In a free market, a corporation that makes products that customers don't want to buy will go out of business. Not so in the auto industry, where governments in America and Europe bailed out their metal-bashers.
As a result, we have a car industry that is still tooled up to deliver the same volume of cars as it did in the years of the cheap-credit-fuelled consumer boom. As the Standard reports today, new car sales are still in a dive that has not been slowed by the new '60' registration plate.
You'll remember the £300M 'scrappage' scheme whereby the UK Government subsidized new car purchase. If that £300M had been invested in green transport, home insulation or renewable energy, we'd have created more UK jobs, and we'd still be reaping the benefits in terms of lower energy bills and a lower carbon footprint. Instead of which, we've fostered car dependency and many of the benefits have gone to overseas car manufacturers. Meanwhile we've merely delayed a little longer the long-overdue downsizing of the car industry. The scrappage scheme was one of the last acts of a government that talked a lot about climate change, but did very little about it. It believed that unrestrained consumerism was the only way to run the economy. We'll see soon in the Spending Review how the Coalition's priorities compare.
A truly unique cycling story...
...in The Daily Mail.
What's unique about it? When I read it, none of the comments mentioned 'pavement cyclists', 'lycra louts', or 'red-light jumping'.
What's the world coming to when decent, upstanding bigots are afraid to parade their petty prejudices?
What's unique about it? When I read it, none of the comments mentioned 'pavement cyclists', 'lycra louts', or 'red-light jumping'.
What's the world coming to when decent, upstanding bigots are afraid to parade their petty prejudices?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)