Nice to see none of the usual apathy and victim-blaming from the police and the media in response to this attack.
Thanks in no small part to the efforts of Martin Porter, whose tenacity and bravery is an example to us all!
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
London Congestion
Looks like the focus is on congestion this week - London Assembly's transport committee has launched an investigation, reports Dave Hill. Freewheeler also has a good analysis here.
London has the most congested roads in Europe.
The reason is simple: TfL's approach is to try to maximise traffic flow, by maintaining all roads at their current capacity and refusing to entertain the idea that the current traffic situation is less than ideal.
You can't blame roadworks. As I've pointed out before, roadworks are an undesirable fact of life that arises from services such as gas, water, telecoms and electricity being located under roads. No one likes them but no-one's figured out a way to get rid of them.
Unfortunately, maximising network capacity doesn't make journeys faster. This is not speculation: it's science. Braess's paradox tells us that additional links on a network can make the average trip slower, and the Downs-Thompson paradox tells us that increasing road capacity can make congestion worse.
It's mainly private transport - meaning taxis and private cars - that determines the level of congestion in central London. If private transport were a closed system, that would not be a huge problem, but because buses use the same road network, the congestion affects bus journey times as well, reducing the incentive for people to switch from private to public transport. Furthermore, motor traffic initimidates cyclists off the road.
Commercial traffic also shares the same road network. Slow journey times and lack of predictability can increase costs on business significantly.
If you accept the position that congestion cannot be allowed to be self-limiting (in other words, congestion will get worse until sufficient numbers of people switch modes or quit travelling), it follows that there must be attempts to discourage road use. This could either be done through economic mechanisms such as road pricing, or it could be done through restrictions. The London Congestion Charge has had some effect, but Boris has abolished the Western Extension Zone, and there's a large amount of vehicles that are now exempt, including taxis and lower-emitting private cars.
If we assume that all journeys are necessary (which is certainly arguable), the key is to get people to switch from private motor transport, which is the least efficient use of roadspace, the most congesting and the most polluting, to other modes.
Clearly it makes sense to speed up bus journeys, because that will make the bus a more attractive option, increase the capacity of the bus network and reduce operating costs. However, speeding up bus journeys requires lower congestion on bus routes as a precondition. One approach would be to ban taxis from some bus lanes, another would be to restrict private motor traffic somehow to non-congesting levels.
Cycling is not currently an attractive option but as with buses, there are good reasons to make it attractive. It is an efficient use of roadspace, and as well as health, noise and atmospheric pollution benefits, cycles can use routes (such as quiet, narrow routes) that other traffic cannot effectively use. However, to increase cycling, you need to reduce the intimidation by motor vehicles, which effectively means placing restrictions on how and where motor vehicles can be driven.
Let's look at the Mayor's current policy responses:
Crossrail, the Tube upgrades, Thameslink and expansion in the capacity of suburban rail services
All good, but how much effect will they have on road congestion? To a large extent, people are choosing to drive because the rail network doesn't provide a good alternative.
ensuring the existing network is working as well as possible - ‘smoothing the traffic flow'
This is pretty much what TfL have been doing. Trouble is, if you improve flow, you attract more traffic, and you can end up with worse congestion.
Using SCOOT to intelligently re-sequence traffic lights in response to fluctuations in traffic demand...reviewing traffic signal timings...removing traffic lights.
Again, the risk here is you simply attract more traffic. The same bottlenecks, such as Trafalgar Square and the Thames bridges will still be there. Another risk is because you're bringing the system nearer saturation point, it becomes much more sensitive to minor disruptions such as crashes.
reducing the level of disruption caused by roadworks
As I've pointed out, it's easy to talk about this but a lot harder to do something effective about it.
Maintaining and building new road assets
Not much space for new roads in London. And again, see above - adding capacity can simply make matters worse through induced demand.
reducing demand...improving information to people before they travel...helping people to choose more sustainable forms of transport, such as walking and cycling, through smarter travel programmes
It's unclear how much effect this will have without better infrastructure. People don't cycle principally because of traffic fears, and 'smarter travel' iniatives have not increased modal share beyond a very low level. There's been more success in persuading people to use public transport, but there remains the problem that existing congestion levels make buses unattractive, and public transport fares are among the highest in Europe.
You'd have to be an incorrigible optimist to conclude that these policy initiatives are going to make much difference to congestion, mainly because Boris is making no serious attempt to manage demand. The inevitable result will be that demand will be self-limiting. People who have the highest tolerance for delay will continue making their journeys, no matter whether they are important or not. People who have no choice but to use the roads will either be forced to change their schedule or simply put up with delays.
The Mayor and TfL need to accept that the whole paradigm of trying to provide for the amount of traffic that's on the roads already is a flawed one. The idea that all road journeys are of equal value and that the system will find an optimum equilibium is wrong. It's time to accept that the need to provide fast and predictable travel for the most number of people is not compatible with unrestricted access to roads by private cars. That's even without considering air quality, oil-dependency, health and quality of life.
London has the most congested roads in Europe.
The reason is simple: TfL's approach is to try to maximise traffic flow, by maintaining all roads at their current capacity and refusing to entertain the idea that the current traffic situation is less than ideal.
You can't blame roadworks. As I've pointed out before, roadworks are an undesirable fact of life that arises from services such as gas, water, telecoms and electricity being located under roads. No one likes them but no-one's figured out a way to get rid of them.
Unfortunately, maximising network capacity doesn't make journeys faster. This is not speculation: it's science. Braess's paradox tells us that additional links on a network can make the average trip slower, and the Downs-Thompson paradox tells us that increasing road capacity can make congestion worse.
It's mainly private transport - meaning taxis and private cars - that determines the level of congestion in central London. If private transport were a closed system, that would not be a huge problem, but because buses use the same road network, the congestion affects bus journey times as well, reducing the incentive for people to switch from private to public transport. Furthermore, motor traffic initimidates cyclists off the road.
Commercial traffic also shares the same road network. Slow journey times and lack of predictability can increase costs on business significantly.
If you accept the position that congestion cannot be allowed to be self-limiting (in other words, congestion will get worse until sufficient numbers of people switch modes or quit travelling), it follows that there must be attempts to discourage road use. This could either be done through economic mechanisms such as road pricing, or it could be done through restrictions. The London Congestion Charge has had some effect, but Boris has abolished the Western Extension Zone, and there's a large amount of vehicles that are now exempt, including taxis and lower-emitting private cars.
If we assume that all journeys are necessary (which is certainly arguable), the key is to get people to switch from private motor transport, which is the least efficient use of roadspace, the most congesting and the most polluting, to other modes.
Clearly it makes sense to speed up bus journeys, because that will make the bus a more attractive option, increase the capacity of the bus network and reduce operating costs. However, speeding up bus journeys requires lower congestion on bus routes as a precondition. One approach would be to ban taxis from some bus lanes, another would be to restrict private motor traffic somehow to non-congesting levels.
Cycling is not currently an attractive option but as with buses, there are good reasons to make it attractive. It is an efficient use of roadspace, and as well as health, noise and atmospheric pollution benefits, cycles can use routes (such as quiet, narrow routes) that other traffic cannot effectively use. However, to increase cycling, you need to reduce the intimidation by motor vehicles, which effectively means placing restrictions on how and where motor vehicles can be driven.
Let's look at the Mayor's current policy responses:
Crossrail, the Tube upgrades, Thameslink and expansion in the capacity of suburban rail services
All good, but how much effect will they have on road congestion? To a large extent, people are choosing to drive because the rail network doesn't provide a good alternative.
ensuring the existing network is working as well as possible - ‘smoothing the traffic flow'
This is pretty much what TfL have been doing. Trouble is, if you improve flow, you attract more traffic, and you can end up with worse congestion.
Using SCOOT to intelligently re-sequence traffic lights in response to fluctuations in traffic demand...reviewing traffic signal timings...removing traffic lights.
Again, the risk here is you simply attract more traffic. The same bottlenecks, such as Trafalgar Square and the Thames bridges will still be there. Another risk is because you're bringing the system nearer saturation point, it becomes much more sensitive to minor disruptions such as crashes.
reducing the level of disruption caused by roadworks
As I've pointed out, it's easy to talk about this but a lot harder to do something effective about it.
Maintaining and building new road assets
Not much space for new roads in London. And again, see above - adding capacity can simply make matters worse through induced demand.
reducing demand...improving information to people before they travel...helping people to choose more sustainable forms of transport, such as walking and cycling, through smarter travel programmes
It's unclear how much effect this will have without better infrastructure. People don't cycle principally because of traffic fears, and 'smarter travel' iniatives have not increased modal share beyond a very low level. There's been more success in persuading people to use public transport, but there remains the problem that existing congestion levels make buses unattractive, and public transport fares are among the highest in Europe.
You'd have to be an incorrigible optimist to conclude that these policy initiatives are going to make much difference to congestion, mainly because Boris is making no serious attempt to manage demand. The inevitable result will be that demand will be self-limiting. People who have the highest tolerance for delay will continue making their journeys, no matter whether they are important or not. People who have no choice but to use the roads will either be forced to change their schedule or simply put up with delays.
The Mayor and TfL need to accept that the whole paradigm of trying to provide for the amount of traffic that's on the roads already is a flawed one. The idea that all road journeys are of equal value and that the system will find an optimum equilibium is wrong. It's time to accept that the need to provide fast and predictable travel for the most number of people is not compatible with unrestricted access to roads by private cars. That's even without considering air quality, oil-dependency, health and quality of life.
Oil Prices - Don't Panic!
This is the message from Dominic Lawson, who argues in the Independent that because there is currently no oil supply problem, and no obvious source of one, we should all calm down and get back to normal. Nothing needs to change.
Which completely misses the point. If you work in any well-run commercial company, a lot of your time will be spent minimizing risk. You ensure your suppliers are capable of delivering quality raw materials or sevices on time. You ensure your customers are capable of paying their bills. You make sure your contracts are watertight. You make sure your costs aren't going to rise unexpectedly. You insure your assets. You might hedge against unfavourable price changes.
That's what didn't happen in the banking sector. Systemic risk built up and eventually led to a massive global recession. The economic damage that could be done by an oil price spike could make that look like a picnic.
Doing something about oil dependency is not about "terrifying the public" as Lawson puts it - it's the opposite: it's about acting calmly to minimise the economic impact of various scenarios which may play out. It's about the fact that there are many risks - the geopolitical issues we're seeing today in Libya and elsewhere, a gradually reducing global oil supply, increasing extraction and exploration costs, increasing demand from emerging economies in the future, uncertainty over reserves, climate change, China buying up chunks of capacity, hoarding of reserves, and so on. Just because there isn't an oil supply problem now does not mean there won't be one in the future. The more diversified we are in terms of energy sources, and the more flexible we are when it comes to transport, the better from a risk perspective.What the unrest in North Africa and the Middle East is showing is how cruelly exposed our economy is to changes in the oil market. It's a good thing we got this wake-up call.
Lawson also makes the mistake of assuming that the oil market is a perfect one. We've seen in the past that oil prices can become volatile for no readily apparent reason. The market can behave in an apparently irrational way. There is also considerable uncertainty as to reserves and spare capacity that can cause volatility. Lawson claiming there isn't a supply problem won't change the oil price - and price alone will cause economic damage.
Which completely misses the point. If you work in any well-run commercial company, a lot of your time will be spent minimizing risk. You ensure your suppliers are capable of delivering quality raw materials or sevices on time. You ensure your customers are capable of paying their bills. You make sure your contracts are watertight. You make sure your costs aren't going to rise unexpectedly. You insure your assets. You might hedge against unfavourable price changes.
That's what didn't happen in the banking sector. Systemic risk built up and eventually led to a massive global recession. The economic damage that could be done by an oil price spike could make that look like a picnic.
Doing something about oil dependency is not about "terrifying the public" as Lawson puts it - it's the opposite: it's about acting calmly to minimise the economic impact of various scenarios which may play out. It's about the fact that there are many risks - the geopolitical issues we're seeing today in Libya and elsewhere, a gradually reducing global oil supply, increasing extraction and exploration costs, increasing demand from emerging economies in the future, uncertainty over reserves, climate change, China buying up chunks of capacity, hoarding of reserves, and so on. Just because there isn't an oil supply problem now does not mean there won't be one in the future. The more diversified we are in terms of energy sources, and the more flexible we are when it comes to transport, the better from a risk perspective.What the unrest in North Africa and the Middle East is showing is how cruelly exposed our economy is to changes in the oil market. It's a good thing we got this wake-up call.
Lawson also makes the mistake of assuming that the oil market is a perfect one. We've seen in the past that oil prices can become volatile for no readily apparent reason. The market can behave in an apparently irrational way. There is also considerable uncertainty as to reserves and spare capacity that can cause volatility. Lawson claiming there isn't a supply problem won't change the oil price - and price alone will cause economic damage.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Electric Car Sales
In the US, 281 Chevrolet Volts and 67 Nissan Leafs (or should that be "Leaves" ?) sold in the US during February. Electric cars will likely replace internal-combustion-engined vehicles in the long term, but the moribund state of sales is evidence that consumers still don't regard electric vehicles as a good proposition at present. US patterns of purchase subsidy are similar to the UK. The UK government show no sign of wanting to coerce consumers into going electric, for example by cross-subsidizing (i.e. using emissions-based taxes on petrol vehicles to subsize the purchase price of electric vehicles), so there's no particular reason to think that UK sales won't follow the same pattern.
The National Carbon Plan - by Confused of Westminster
Following public opinion is the road to hell. The Government's "War on the Motorist" agenda seems to be catching up with them.
The Libyan crisis seems to have belatedy woken the Government from their dreams of the Top Gear test track, into the real world of increasing, and increasingly volatile oil prices that I've been blogging about for a while now. First to awaken from slumber is Chris Huhne, who reportedly told the Observer:
"Getting off the oil hook is made all the more urgent by the crisis in the Middle East. We cannot afford to go on relying on such a volatile source of energy when we can have clean, green and secure energy from low-carbon sources."
Apparently every government department will be told this week to comply with a new national "carbon plan" aimed specifically at reducing oil-dependency. And that includes YOU, Philip Hammond. Unfortunately Hammond's current "carry on driving" strategy of encouraging car ownership and raising public transport fares rather misses the mark. I've blogged before about his ill-thought-through electric car policy, and about how few serious observers think electric cars will make much of a dent in UK oil consumption for a decade or more.
Getting "off the oil hook" can't be about continuing to drive the same number of miles as we do today, because it will take too long and cost too much to replace petrol and diesel vehicles with electric ones and build renewable generating capacity to power them. Instead, in the short to medium term, it must mean travelling less and switching to lower-emission forms of transport, such as public transport and - gasp - cycling. Can this hastily-cobbled-together "carbon plan" include cycling? Well, it jolly well ought to, because cycling is one easy way, with minimal investment, that people can reduce their travel costs significantly. Furthermore, government investment in cycling has a positive return - the economic benefits can be greater than the investment costs by a ratio of nearly 4 to 1. Unfortunately, the Coalition have washed their hands of cycling and pushed it down to local authorities, who are more concerned with refuse collection and keeping libraries open than with a transport option they have no money to fund and most of their constituents aren't aware of as an option.
The Libyan crisis seems to have belatedy woken the Government from their dreams of the Top Gear test track, into the real world of increasing, and increasingly volatile oil prices that I've been blogging about for a while now. First to awaken from slumber is Chris Huhne, who reportedly told the Observer:
"Getting off the oil hook is made all the more urgent by the crisis in the Middle East. We cannot afford to go on relying on such a volatile source of energy when we can have clean, green and secure energy from low-carbon sources."
Apparently every government department will be told this week to comply with a new national "carbon plan" aimed specifically at reducing oil-dependency. And that includes YOU, Philip Hammond. Unfortunately Hammond's current "carry on driving" strategy of encouraging car ownership and raising public transport fares rather misses the mark. I've blogged before about his ill-thought-through electric car policy, and about how few serious observers think electric cars will make much of a dent in UK oil consumption for a decade or more.
Getting "off the oil hook" can't be about continuing to drive the same number of miles as we do today, because it will take too long and cost too much to replace petrol and diesel vehicles with electric ones and build renewable generating capacity to power them. Instead, in the short to medium term, it must mean travelling less and switching to lower-emission forms of transport, such as public transport and - gasp - cycling. Can this hastily-cobbled-together "carbon plan" include cycling? Well, it jolly well ought to, because cycling is one easy way, with minimal investment, that people can reduce their travel costs significantly. Furthermore, government investment in cycling has a positive return - the economic benefits can be greater than the investment costs by a ratio of nearly 4 to 1. Unfortunately, the Coalition have washed their hands of cycling and pushed it down to local authorities, who are more concerned with refuse collection and keeping libraries open than with a transport option they have no money to fund and most of their constituents aren't aware of as an option.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Tourism and London Traffic
The Tourism Minister, John Penrose, today announced a plan to breathe life into the tourism industry, thus creating oodles of new jobs.
He doesn't seem to have considered the impact traffic has on tourism. London should be a tourist magnet, with its wealth of heritage, world-class dining, museums, shops, theatres, and so forth. However, go to some of the iconic London landmarks, such as Westminster Palace, or Buckingham Palace, and they are not places to linger. Buck House in particular is in the middle of a veritable racetrack. Parliament Square, Brian Haw aside, is simply a traffic island. Victoria Embankment is a motorway, driving people away from one of the City's finest assets - the river. (Compare this with the thriving, and traffic free, South Bank).
Not only is the presence of large volumes of noisy motor traffic a deterrent to tourists staying around and enjoying the best the city has to offer, congestion can make getting to and around the city an experience hardly likely to leave the visitor with a feeling of "must-come-again".
The Cycle Hire scheme should be a massive boost to tourism. Cycling around a city enables you to stop at will at anything that takes your interest, be it a cafe, a theatre, a church, a shop or a park. This is an experience only the brave and adventurous tourist will dare to savour in central London, where motor traffic dominates even the smaller streets, and the maze of one-way and no-entry signs will confuse, confound and befuddle the average visitor.
If John Penrose is serious about boosting tourism, he should have a word with his colleagues Philip Hammond at the Department of Transport and Mayor Boris, about the fact that unrestricted motor traffic is holding London's tourist trade back.
He doesn't seem to have considered the impact traffic has on tourism. London should be a tourist magnet, with its wealth of heritage, world-class dining, museums, shops, theatres, and so forth. However, go to some of the iconic London landmarks, such as Westminster Palace, or Buckingham Palace, and they are not places to linger. Buck House in particular is in the middle of a veritable racetrack. Parliament Square, Brian Haw aside, is simply a traffic island. Victoria Embankment is a motorway, driving people away from one of the City's finest assets - the river. (Compare this with the thriving, and traffic free, South Bank).
Not only is the presence of large volumes of noisy motor traffic a deterrent to tourists staying around and enjoying the best the city has to offer, congestion can make getting to and around the city an experience hardly likely to leave the visitor with a feeling of "must-come-again".
The Cycle Hire scheme should be a massive boost to tourism. Cycling around a city enables you to stop at will at anything that takes your interest, be it a cafe, a theatre, a church, a shop or a park. This is an experience only the brave and adventurous tourist will dare to savour in central London, where motor traffic dominates even the smaller streets, and the maze of one-way and no-entry signs will confuse, confound and befuddle the average visitor.
If John Penrose is serious about boosting tourism, he should have a word with his colleagues Philip Hammond at the Department of Transport and Mayor Boris, about the fact that unrestricted motor traffic is holding London's tourist trade back.
The Mayor and Idling
No, not another blast at Boris Johnson from John Biggs ("lazy liar")...this is an initiative from the Mayor to stop unnecessary idling of vehicles.
There's an awful lot of this and it's high time it was stopped. Recently, I went past a parked police van at Embankment that was idling. When I came back half an hour later, it was still parked, still idling. This is illegal. If the police don't obey the law it's a bit much to expect anyone else to. At Charing Cross and Waterloo stations, you'll always find taxis idling. At Waterloo in particular, there's a massive long queue of cabs, and they will be moving in a very slow queue for some minutes before they pick up. To be fair to the cabbies, it's largely down to poor rank design. It would make much more sense to have the cabs parked and move them up five or ten at a time as needed, rather than the current arrangement.
There's an awful lot of this and it's high time it was stopped. Recently, I went past a parked police van at Embankment that was idling. When I came back half an hour later, it was still parked, still idling. This is illegal. If the police don't obey the law it's a bit much to expect anyone else to. At Charing Cross and Waterloo stations, you'll always find taxis idling. At Waterloo in particular, there's a massive long queue of cabs, and they will be moving in a very slow queue for some minutes before they pick up. To be fair to the cabbies, it's largely down to poor rank design. It would make much more sense to have the cabs parked and move them up five or ten at a time as needed, rather than the current arrangement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)