A quick 60-mile spin by bike out into the Surrey countryside on Sunday. Notice anything different? The great beauty of the North Downs is now silent except for the sound of birdsong (and the odd car). The usual procession of low-flying jet aircraft conveying thousands of sunburnt chavs to Gatwick is eerily absent, thanks to the Icelandic volcano. The cloudless sky is completely clear of con-trails, a sight not seen for decades.
I could go on, but Alain de Botton does it rather better.
Of course there are losers. My heart goes out to those poor unfortunates who are unable to get back to work or school and are stuck on a sunny beach until further notice.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
West End Roadworks
A recent stroll around the West End was eerily quiet. I had previously thought the number of press reports about record numbers of roadworks were the usual road-lobby grumblings, but my little circuit from Trafalgar Square to Piccadilly Circus revealed quite a lot of streets closed...
Here's Piccadilly Circus itself:
This isn't actually closed. What they're doing is the first phase of making the area more pedestrian-friendly. You can see where the old kerb-line is by the railings, and where the new kerb line will be where the temporary barriers are. Needless to say, there are no cycle facilities planned that I've heard.
Here's Whitcombe Street looking south from Swiss Court:
and again, further north, looking south from Gerrard Street:
And here's Charing Cross Road, looking north from Leicester Square station. Single alternate line of traffic in operation:
What's interesting is that the roads seem a lot quieter with the roadworks. From a cyclist's point of view, road conditions generally seem to improve because of roadworks, because they tend to slow traffic speeds on roads that approach roadworks, and the throttling effect of road closures creates quieter roads elsewhere.
What's also interesting is that London still functions despite the effects of these roadworks. Which rather puts the lie to the idea that there's not enough roadspace in London for decent cycle routes.
Business and road organizations bandy around figures that purport to be "the cost of congestion to business" or "the cost of roadworks",but these figures are meaningless. They are comparing the notional cost of a unit of transport now with what it would be under a different, set of conditions, but they don't tell us what those conditions are. And they don't talk about how much it would cost to get the infrastructure to that second set of conditions or who would pay.
On the 'cost of congestion', we know from experience that if you attempt to reduce congestion by freeing up roadspace (or creating more roadspace), this simply attracts more traffic volumes, creating more congestion. So you have to look at how else the congestion problem might be solved. A free-marketeer might suggest a congestion charge, because this creates a market for roadspace. But that puts extra costs on businesses, and means that some businesses will be priced off the roads.
On the 'cost of roadworks', you cannot compare with a scenario where there are no roadworks, because that cannot exist (at least, not with the road and utilities networks that exist today). Roads need to be dug up for a variety of reasons. You might as well accept that the capacity of the roads network is in fact less than you would predict from the total area under tarmac. It's bad science to assume a 100% efficient system in the face of evidence to the contrary. Of course, that's not to say that roadworks couldn't be scheduled more effectively, but that appears to be a problem that is a lot harder to solve than politicians like Boris Johnson like to think. On that topic, you'll notice in each of my photos above, there are men in fluorescent jackets, which is at odds with the picture that some like to portray of deserted roadworks where no actual work gets done.
What would be a lot more useful, instead of the roads lobby complaining about the fact that the world is not as perfect as we'd like, would be to try to improve the efficiency of road use. Every day, there are thousands of vans, trucks and cars running around empty, taking up valuable roadspace and burning fuel. If the 'load factor' of transport could be improved by even a few percent, that would reduce congestion significantly. With the mobile technologies available today, I don't see any reason why that can't happen, and indeed it already does to an extent, with courier companies.
Also, cycles are a lot more efficient at using roadspace, and can use quiet residential routes without causing problems of congestion, danger, noise and pollution. A lot of journeys could be displaced from cars to cycles, with consequent reductions in congestion, but only with investment to make cycle routes safer. But of course the whingeing road lobby like to pretend that cycles are a problem rather than part of the solution, and pretend instead that a magical kingdom exists where unlimited traffic can flow freely and the streets are paved with gold.
Here's Piccadilly Circus itself:
Here's Whitcombe Street looking south from Swiss Court:
What's interesting is that the roads seem a lot quieter with the roadworks. From a cyclist's point of view, road conditions generally seem to improve because of roadworks, because they tend to slow traffic speeds on roads that approach roadworks, and the throttling effect of road closures creates quieter roads elsewhere.
What's also interesting is that London still functions despite the effects of these roadworks. Which rather puts the lie to the idea that there's not enough roadspace in London for decent cycle routes.
Business and road organizations bandy around figures that purport to be "the cost of congestion to business" or "the cost of roadworks",but these figures are meaningless. They are comparing the notional cost of a unit of transport now with what it would be under a different, set of conditions, but they don't tell us what those conditions are. And they don't talk about how much it would cost to get the infrastructure to that second set of conditions or who would pay.
On the 'cost of congestion', we know from experience that if you attempt to reduce congestion by freeing up roadspace (or creating more roadspace), this simply attracts more traffic volumes, creating more congestion. So you have to look at how else the congestion problem might be solved. A free-marketeer might suggest a congestion charge, because this creates a market for roadspace. But that puts extra costs on businesses, and means that some businesses will be priced off the roads.
On the 'cost of roadworks', you cannot compare with a scenario where there are no roadworks, because that cannot exist (at least, not with the road and utilities networks that exist today). Roads need to be dug up for a variety of reasons. You might as well accept that the capacity of the roads network is in fact less than you would predict from the total area under tarmac. It's bad science to assume a 100% efficient system in the face of evidence to the contrary. Of course, that's not to say that roadworks couldn't be scheduled more effectively, but that appears to be a problem that is a lot harder to solve than politicians like Boris Johnson like to think. On that topic, you'll notice in each of my photos above, there are men in fluorescent jackets, which is at odds with the picture that some like to portray of deserted roadworks where no actual work gets done.
What would be a lot more useful, instead of the roads lobby complaining about the fact that the world is not as perfect as we'd like, would be to try to improve the efficiency of road use. Every day, there are thousands of vans, trucks and cars running around empty, taking up valuable roadspace and burning fuel. If the 'load factor' of transport could be improved by even a few percent, that would reduce congestion significantly. With the mobile technologies available today, I don't see any reason why that can't happen, and indeed it already does to an extent, with courier companies.
Also, cycles are a lot more efficient at using roadspace, and can use quiet residential routes without causing problems of congestion, danger, noise and pollution. A lot of journeys could be displaced from cars to cycles, with consequent reductions in congestion, but only with investment to make cycle routes safer. But of course the whingeing road lobby like to pretend that cycles are a problem rather than part of the solution, and pretend instead that a magical kingdom exists where unlimited traffic can flow freely and the streets are paved with gold.
LibDem Manifesto - Cycling
Let's see what the Lib Dems have to offer cyclists.
"We want to improve the experience for the traveller and cut carbon
emissions. We will:
• Include the promotion of safer cycling and pedestrian routes in all
local transport plans."
That's a little more than the other parties, but no target numbers or tangible commitments. Like the others, no acknowedgement of the good cycling could do in reducing congestion and improving road safety and health.
There is at least talk of changing the economics of motoring:
"Undertake preparations for the introduction of a system of road
pricing in a second parliament"
However, a second parliament is likely more than 5 years away.
That's the last of the parties that could form or have much influence in the next Government, and it's pretty clear none of them believe cycling issues are worth more than a passing mention. It's a shame, because the next government will have to get to grips with climate change and a rising oil price. By 2020, the economics of travel may look very different, so we need to start now to be in with a prayer of having a transport system by then that doesn't rely on cheap oil. At least Vince Cable is named after a bicycle part.
"We want to improve the experience for the traveller and cut carbon
emissions. We will:
• Include the promotion of safer cycling and pedestrian routes in all
local transport plans."
That's a little more than the other parties, but no target numbers or tangible commitments. Like the others, no acknowedgement of the good cycling could do in reducing congestion and improving road safety and health.
There is at least talk of changing the economics of motoring:
"Undertake preparations for the introduction of a system of road
pricing in a second parliament"
However, a second parliament is likely more than 5 years away.
That's the last of the parties that could form or have much influence in the next Government, and it's pretty clear none of them believe cycling issues are worth more than a passing mention. It's a shame, because the next government will have to get to grips with climate change and a rising oil price. By 2020, the economics of travel may look very different, so we need to start now to be in with a prayer of having a transport system by then that doesn't rely on cheap oil. At least Vince Cable is named after a bicycle part.
Tory Manifesto - Cycling
Sad to report, not much from the Tories either in their 2010 manifesto.I guess there's not enough votes in cycling to merit it.
"We will support sustainable travel initiatives that work best for local communities by:
giving the concerns of cyclists much greater priority..."
Nice words, but no tangible commitments there.
"We will stop central government funding for new fixed speed cameras, and switch to more effective ways to make our roads safer, including authorising 'drugalyser' technology..."
The fact is, speed cameras work rather well. Fair enough if it's a move to mobile cameras or average speed cameras, but that's not spelt out, and the implication I detect is they don't take speeding seriously and are after the votes of the many 'victims' of speed cameras. If the Tories think they can do better on road safety with other technologies, they've got to tell us how.
Perhaps the 'big society' initiatives could benefit cyclists, if it enables residential communities to enforce speed limits and cut down on rat-running and antisocial driving. However, it seems likely there won't be any money for infrastructure measures. And of course it could work the other way - there could be communities hostile to cycle infrastructure and cycling that could cause problems.
One last thought: Cameron is a cyclist, as is Boris. My guess is that the rank-and-file Tory party is st best ambivalent and at worst hostile to cycling, but having cyclists at the top of the organization might just make a difference. I used to think that Labour would be the natural party of cycling, but after 13 years there's very little evidence of it.
"We will support sustainable travel initiatives that work best for local communities by:
giving the concerns of cyclists much greater priority..."
Nice words, but no tangible commitments there.
"We will stop central government funding for new fixed speed cameras, and switch to more effective ways to make our roads safer, including authorising 'drugalyser' technology..."
The fact is, speed cameras work rather well. Fair enough if it's a move to mobile cameras or average speed cameras, but that's not spelt out, and the implication I detect is they don't take speeding seriously and are after the votes of the many 'victims' of speed cameras. If the Tories think they can do better on road safety with other technologies, they've got to tell us how.
Perhaps the 'big society' initiatives could benefit cyclists, if it enables residential communities to enforce speed limits and cut down on rat-running and antisocial driving. However, it seems likely there won't be any money for infrastructure measures. And of course it could work the other way - there could be communities hostile to cycle infrastructure and cycling that could cause problems.
One last thought: Cameron is a cyclist, as is Boris. My guess is that the rank-and-file Tory party is st best ambivalent and at worst hostile to cycling, but having cyclists at the top of the organization might just make a difference. I used to think that Labour would be the natural party of cycling, but after 13 years there's very little evidence of it.
Commuting - Birdwatching
On my commute ride this morning I saw a yellow wagtail, a lesser spotted woodpecker and a jay; all flew up from the path in front of me. I wasn't on the A24 today in case you were wondering...
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Labour Manifesto - Cycling
What's in the Labour Manifesto for cyclists?
Not a lot.
The word "cycling" doesn't appear once, although the word cycle does - "trebling
the number of secure cycle storage spaces at rail stations". There's a whole chapter entitled "A Green Recovery", but this concentrates on insulation, power generation and recycling. There's no strategy for greening transport; indeed no mention of transport in that chapter beyond "protecting rural bus services".
Chapter 1 addresses transport. It says "Britain needs to invest in modern, high-capacity and low carbon transport infrastructure". However, there is an almost complete disconnect between that sentence and the rest of the chapter. Congestion is tackled by "extending hard-shoulder running on motorways" and "targeted motorway widening". National road pricing is ruled out. Roadworks are targeted by "increasing tenfold the penalties on utilities who allow work to overrun". And of course "we support a third runway at Heathrow" although "we will not allow additional runways to proceed at any other airport". There is a plan "to promote the rapid take-up of electric and low-carbon cars, we will ensure there are 100,000 electric vehicle charging points by the end of the next Parliament".
As a cycling campaigner, I would be interested in any measures that promote cycling or reduce car-dependency, of which there is an almost complete dearth. In terms of transport, high-speed rail is a good thing but is very long-term. Apart from that, I can't see any measures that promote greener transport. Motorway widening is very expensive; this and hard-shoulder running on motorways will increase traffic levels and ultimately lead to more congestion. I'm not sold on electric cars because they are still cars and don't solve the problems of congestion and road safety. Also, at this point the electricity they run on is in large measure fossil-fuel-generated, so they're not much greener than internal combustion engined cars. If there were a wholesale shift to electric cars, we would need a massive increase in renewable electricity generation to make the cars low-carbon. Charging points isn't enough.
This blog is about cycling so I'm not going to launch my own manifesto here. It does seem a shame that the potential for cycling to reduce congestion, reduce carbon emissions, and promote health has been completely ignored. The government published an Active Travel Strategy, in which it recognises all these benefits, but it doesn't have a plan in its manifesto to realise the vision. Labour has had 13 years in which to demonstrate commitment to cycling, and they've not done anywhere near enough. What are we supposed to conclude, other than that they don't take cycling seriously?
Not a lot.
The word "cycling" doesn't appear once, although the word cycle does - "trebling
the number of secure cycle storage spaces at rail stations". There's a whole chapter entitled "A Green Recovery", but this concentrates on insulation, power generation and recycling. There's no strategy for greening transport; indeed no mention of transport in that chapter beyond "protecting rural bus services".
Chapter 1 addresses transport. It says "Britain needs to invest in modern, high-capacity and low carbon transport infrastructure". However, there is an almost complete disconnect between that sentence and the rest of the chapter. Congestion is tackled by "extending hard-shoulder running on motorways" and "targeted motorway widening". National road pricing is ruled out. Roadworks are targeted by "increasing tenfold the penalties on utilities who allow work to overrun". And of course "we support a third runway at Heathrow" although "we will not allow additional runways to proceed at any other airport". There is a plan "to promote the rapid take-up of electric and low-carbon cars, we will ensure there are 100,000 electric vehicle charging points by the end of the next Parliament".
As a cycling campaigner, I would be interested in any measures that promote cycling or reduce car-dependency, of which there is an almost complete dearth. In terms of transport, high-speed rail is a good thing but is very long-term. Apart from that, I can't see any measures that promote greener transport. Motorway widening is very expensive; this and hard-shoulder running on motorways will increase traffic levels and ultimately lead to more congestion. I'm not sold on electric cars because they are still cars and don't solve the problems of congestion and road safety. Also, at this point the electricity they run on is in large measure fossil-fuel-generated, so they're not much greener than internal combustion engined cars. If there were a wholesale shift to electric cars, we would need a massive increase in renewable electricity generation to make the cars low-carbon. Charging points isn't enough.
This blog is about cycling so I'm not going to launch my own manifesto here. It does seem a shame that the potential for cycling to reduce congestion, reduce carbon emissions, and promote health has been completely ignored. The government published an Active Travel Strategy, in which it recognises all these benefits, but it doesn't have a plan in its manifesto to realise the vision. Labour has had 13 years in which to demonstrate commitment to cycling, and they've not done anywhere near enough. What are we supposed to conclude, other than that they don't take cycling seriously?
Monday, April 12, 2010
Peak Oil - again
It's interesting to observe the 'Peak Oil' debate, because it is a concern that unites both environmentalists and capitalists. See my previous posts here .
The latest organization to weigh in on the debate is the US Military, who say “By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day.”
Maybe they're more concerned about the cost of fighting wars than the consequences of climate change, but the consequences of oil shortages on the world economy are very real.
Of course, the usual response in the UK to high fuel prices is to whine about the amount of tax on petrol and the effect on the poor put-upon motorist. This is counter-productive. Reducing the amount of tax on petrol simply puts off the evil day when we're actually going to have to address our over-consumption. It's a bit like giving a new credit card to someone who is heavily in debt.
It would be better to increase fuel taxes as it gives a clear signal to businesses and individuals that they should choose lower-emitting vehicles, drive less and choose more sustainable forms of transport.
Of course, we could wait for the market to do the job for us, but the problems with this are:
1. It takes time for the economy to adapt. If the US Military report is correct, we could have a crisis in 2015. The service life of a vehicle is 10 years plus, so the vehicles we buy today will still be in use in 2020. It will be bad for the economy to have to scrap vehicles 5 years before the end of their life simply because as a country we didn't invest in lower-emitting technologies while we had the chance. Similarly, it will take years to invest in low-oil infrastructure.
2. As the oil price increases, an larger and larger share of our national wealth will be diverted to the oil-producing countries, which are generally not the most savoury regimes.
3. The oil price may not rise in a gradual, smooth, linear manner. A sudden price shock could cause real problems for any economy that is dependent on cheap oil.
The latest organization to weigh in on the debate is the US Military, who say “By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day.”
Maybe they're more concerned about the cost of fighting wars than the consequences of climate change, but the consequences of oil shortages on the world economy are very real.
Of course, the usual response in the UK to high fuel prices is to whine about the amount of tax on petrol and the effect on the poor put-upon motorist. This is counter-productive. Reducing the amount of tax on petrol simply puts off the evil day when we're actually going to have to address our over-consumption. It's a bit like giving a new credit card to someone who is heavily in debt.
It would be better to increase fuel taxes as it gives a clear signal to businesses and individuals that they should choose lower-emitting vehicles, drive less and choose more sustainable forms of transport.
Of course, we could wait for the market to do the job for us, but the problems with this are:
1. It takes time for the economy to adapt. If the US Military report is correct, we could have a crisis in 2015. The service life of a vehicle is 10 years plus, so the vehicles we buy today will still be in use in 2020. It will be bad for the economy to have to scrap vehicles 5 years before the end of their life simply because as a country we didn't invest in lower-emitting technologies while we had the chance. Similarly, it will take years to invest in low-oil infrastructure.
2. As the oil price increases, an larger and larger share of our national wealth will be diverted to the oil-producing countries, which are generally not the most savoury regimes.
3. The oil price may not rise in a gradual, smooth, linear manner. A sudden price shock could cause real problems for any economy that is dependent on cheap oil.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)