Categories
Ex-Mayor Livingstone

Mayor’s buses not so green – check the facts

The Mayor published his London Climate Change Action Plan yesterday. It is all cheerily endorsed by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Green Party. It is mostly outside the Mayor’s competence too if he was honest.

There are some things the Mayor can control and he really should focus on these. The funniest graph in his document was this one:

Buses are pretty carbon hungry then

It seems if you jump in your car you often do so with other people, so average car occupancy in London is 1.6. This results in cars only pushing out 110 g/passenger kilometre compared to buses which push out only slightly less, 80 g/passenger kilometre. The figures show that cars are 37.5% worse than buses. The document points out that if there weren’t 1.6 people in each car then car emissions would be 60% higher. Yes, but they aren’t. The report does not point out in the same way that bus occupancy is 15 so if there was only one person in each bus then bus emissions would be 1400% higher.

Of course the Mayor is relying on journalists to only read the management summary of his document so the Evening Standard yesterday repeated this factoid from the management summary:

For the average Londoner, switching from driving to work to taking the bus will save 0.6 tonnes of carbon per year; taking up cycling instead would increase these savings to 1.1 tonnes.

This carefully phrased sentence inflates the carbon impact of cars by 60% above actual, delivered performance today by ignoring the extra 0.6 person in each car. When I saw the figure in the Evening Standard my first thought was that London’s buses are so empty that they are only 0.6 tonnes better than a car. The reality is that they are only 0.3 tonnes better. The Mayor is saying travel on my dirty, vandalised, wildly driven, inconvenient, stand-out-in-the-rain-waiting-at-a-bus-stop buses and save the planet.

One thing the Mayor can actually really do is to look at bus engine efficiency and occupancy. His action plan does not spell out what he will do to improve bus engines. His action plan does not spell out what he will do to improve London Buses’ low bus occupancy of 15, ie the average bus only has 15 people on it. Although the Mayor has no powers in this area the action plan does call for “support of car sharing to increase passenger occupancy”. The Mayor just wants to push out hot air rather than stick to what he can actually do.

Categories
Ex-Mayor Livingstone

Livingstone’s monument

According to the Sunday Times this morning our London Mayor, like our Prime Minister, is anxious about his legacy.

Apparently he is considering 6 monuments at the major entrances to London so that people know they have arrived. These would be situated where motorways hit the boundary of Greater London. Funny how our anti-car mayor wants to give motorists an eyeful.

PalestraThe whole thing is being driven by the Mayor’s mini-quango Design for London, who come complete with their own website, their own brochure, etc, etc. They are based with the London Development Agency in the swish new Palestra building right. OK for some.

Since he has been mayor Livingstone has spent £100,000s of public money to play around with questionable pieces of public art on the Fourth Plinth at Trafalgar Square. Again it has its own website, etc, yawn, waste. We are due to have something new in spring of this year.

You may remember the Mayor saying in 2000 about the two generals, Napier and Havelock, whose statues adorn two of the remaining three plinths:

I think that the people on the plinths in the main square in our capital city should be identifiable to the generality of the population. I have not a clue who two of the generals there are or what they did.

I imagine that not one person in 10,000 going through Trafalgar Square knows any details about the lives of those two generals. It might be that it is time to look at moving them and having figures on those plinths that ordinary Londoners would know.

What the Mayor probably does not get is that these two statues, like Nelson’s column itself, were paid for by public subscription. In other words the 19th century public had a choice and they voted with their wallets. Indeed it is said that by far the largest number of subscribers for Napier’s bronze were private soldiers.

If Livingstone wants his monuments he should test whether Londoners’ admiration for him runs to actually putting their hands in their pockets rather than the usual situation which is the mayor putting his hand in their pockets.

Categories
Ealing and Northfield

Ealing improves CPA rating

The Audit Commission published its CPA ratings this morning – the key benchmark against which councils are measured. The new administration is more worried about what local people feel rather than what government inspectors want but it is good news all the same to see an improvement in our ratings. The council retains its 3 star rating but its “direction of travel” has moved from “improving adequately” to “improving well”.

Follow link for Ealing’s results.

Categories
Uncategorized

There is more to it than English

Our council chief exec, Darra Singh, is leading the Government’s Commission on Integration and Cohesion. They have produced an interim report today and the press attention has been on statements made about English language competence, see comments from the Independent, the Sun and the BBC. It is not surprising really as the Commission’s own press release was titled: “Not speaking English is the single biggest barrier to successful integration”. The Sun’s typically charmless take on this was: “Talk our lingo or stay out”.

In his speech today Darra said:

The third – and possibly the largest – barrier we have seen so far is not speaking English.

We asked people in our opinion polling what they thought the key barriers to being English were. Only 5 per cent said that they couldn’t see any barriers at all. We wondered for the others if one of those barriers might be people’s faith – that in some sense, you have to be Christian to be English. But only 4 per cent of people thought that was the case. So we looked at what people thought was the biggest barrier. And overwhelmingly, it was speaking English.

Now, I do think that the issue of language is potentially contentious. However, it is an issue that demands a public debate. 60 per cent of people thought that not speaking English was a barrier to making a real contribution to this country.

That finding has to influence all of our thinking from now on.

I am glad the issue has been raised but what were the first two points if English was the third? The first point is deprivation. The report is insightful in pointing out that deprivation is a “white” issue as well as an ethnic minority issue. Although the majority of immigrants live in deprived areas the majority of the deprived are white which leads to the second point. The Commission calls it “competition for shared resources”. This is the issue that BNP has been making its own, ie immigrants are getting your council houses, jobs, etc.

The Commission’s work so far seems pretty clear sighted. Darra is to be congratulated on his work to-date.

Darra was interviewed on the Radio Today programme so if you have the technology you can listen here.

Categories
Ealing and Northfield Policing

Ealing to get 50 additional PCSOs

EalingToday the council has announced that an additional 50 Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) will be hired in Ealing subject to an agreement between Ealing Council and the Metropolitan Police Service being finalised, see press release.

Apparently, the council is finalising the details of a £2 million investment programme over two years to fund the extra PCSOs. The 50 officers will start work across the borough from May.

Council Leader Jason Stacey says:

This is a ground-breaking new initiative for Ealing as funding for the new PCSOs is coming from the council. It will be a significant boost to the resources that go into reducing crime and tackling anti-social behaviour and envirocrime. This will help us deliver one of our key priorities which is safer communities.

Categories
Ex-Mayor Livingstone Road pricing

Changing minds – Part 2

Today the BBC London News team has updated their webpage titled “Where has the money gone?” which talks about the Congestion Charge and its benefits.

The misleading opening line remains:

When the congestion charge was introduced in 2003 TFL estimated it would raise £130 million a year and lower sufficient fuel emissions to make London a more pleasant environment.

It seems strange to repeat an estimate from the start of the scheme when actual (much worse) figures are available in TfL’s statement of accounts published since then.

Further down the piece the bald fact: “Last year £122 million was raised” has been qualified thus: “Last year, TfL claims £122 million was raised”.

In addition BBC London News have added some balancing comments from me:

Conservative councillor Phil Taylor challenge’s TfL’s assertion that congestion charging is generating substantial surpluses. He says: “TfL’s own statement of accounts show that the cumulative surplus generated from the start of the scheme until the end of the last financial year was only £189.7 million.

“This amount has barely covered the original scheme’s set up costs of £161.7 million. Pretty much all of the £677.4 million collected in the first three and a bit years of operation of the scheme has been spent on out of control set up and running costs.”

The message that the Congestion Charge has been a financial disaster is getting out there.

Categories
Ex-Mayor Livingstone Road pricing

Changing minds

Reading Simon Jenkins in the Sunday Times today I was pleased to find that he has modified his views about the London Congestion Charge. He said:

This week he [the London Mayor] extends his West End congestion charge deep into Tory Kensington and Chelsea and plans to up the daily rate to £25 for gas-guzzlers. While he has paid lip service to “consultation”, he has disregarded virulent opposition and gone ahead anyway. London’s congestion charge may have had a modest impact on congestion (chaotic road repairs render statistics meaningless) and has proved an expensive way of collecting taxes, but some version of it is being studied by every major world city. In some shape or form it is here for keeps.

Back in December (ST 3rd December) commenting on Sir Rod Eddington’s Treasury transport review Jenkins said:

As always, the crucial innovation came from local government, in this case London. Breaking every promise about the congestion charge, Ken Livingstone is turning the levy into a flexible charge that can be aimed at gas-guzzlers and articulated lorries. Whitehall has been forced to admit it has worked. Eddington calculates that some £24 billion in revenue is available from this source, which can only be levied by local government. Here is scope for a revolution in local finance. An idea’s time has come.

Effectively he not only endorsed the London CC but even implied it might lead to a revolution in local government finance.

Why the change in tone you ask? Instead of golden goose suddenly the Congestion Charge is “an expensive way of collecting taxes”. Could it be that he got an e-mail from yours truly pointing out the real economics of the Congestion Charge? In December he acknowledged my e-mail saying:

Many thanks for your e-mail and your most pertinent remarks about the congestion charge. My point is merely that such charges can reduce mobility, as in my experience they have done. I was in favour of a supplementary licence system rather than anything that has to do with a computer!

It seems Jenkins thinks that the Congestion Charge is OK even if it generates no surplus but at least he is prepared to accept the facts and has modified his opinions and what he writes accordingly.

You might think from my coverage of the London Congestion Charge and the road pricing petition that I am violently against all forms of road pricing. Funnily enough I am not.

My real problem with the Congestion Charge is that it has been so badly run that TfL can take £8 a day off you and just waste it. If the CC or any other road pricing scheme produced significant net revenue that could be used to improve public transport, reduce fares or reduce taxes then I could be convinced. One problem with public transport is that often, like with the CC, costs are allowed to get totally out of control. If you look at TfL’s last Statement of Accounts you will find that last year its costs exceeded its income by £2.0 billion. Until these public bodies get smarter with cash they simply can’t be trusted to take more on.

Categories
Ex-Mayor Livingstone Public sector waste Road pricing

The Congestion Charge has all been wasted

Today is the London Congestion Charge’s 4th birthday. The Conservative Home website has published an article from me that shows how pretty much all of the £927 million collected over the four years has been wasted on out of control costs.

Categories
Tram

Tram bill hits £30 million

Croydon TramlinkEaling Times is reporting today that the latest tally of spending on the West London Tram by the Mayor has reached £29.8 million despite all three boroughs on its route and local people being against.

They quote our local London Assembly Member, Richard Barnes who represents Ealing and Hillingdon, as saying:

“The sheer cost of this scheme is staggering and it’s now clear that because he has wasted so much money on the project the Mayor feels he cannot back out, despite the lack of support from West London. Livingstone should bite the bullet, cut his losses now and listen to local objections before any further money is squandered on a scheme West London doesn’t want.”

Quite right Richard.

Categories
Road pricing

Road pricing petition passes 1.5 million mark

Checking Peter Roberts’ petition to scrap plans to introduce road pricing this morning I find that it has just passed the 1.5 million mark. At 8:18 this morning it stood at 1,501,634.

The petition has been propelled by extensive coverage across radio, newspapers and blogs. There are some people that try to write off 1.5 million people going through a pretty long process as a few people clicking on a website. For instance, Peter Riddell in the Times on Tuesday:

It is obviously significant that more than 1.5 million people marched against the Iraq war four years ago and almost 1.2 million have signed the petition against the planned vehicle tracking and road-pricing policy. It shows that a large number of people care and, in the case of the petition, how effective the motoring lobby is.

The numbers reflect particular interests. By definition, they cannot represent the broader public interest. These protests are populist, not democratic: only some people are being heard. Government and Parliament exist to reconcile divergent interests. When the Government rejects them, however, it appears to be ignoring the popular will; witness the alliance of The Mail on Sunday proclaiming “How many people have to sign a petition before this Government takes notice?” and Henry Porter in The Observer giving warning of “road rage like never before” if the Government snubs the petition.

Perhaps Riddell should have a look at another petition on the Number 10 e-petitions site. It read “Don’t Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy” and has garnered 1,835 signatures. Perhaps Riddell should work out which bit of no he doesn’t understand.

Peter Roberts (copied from Telegraph)Peter Roberts’ petition to scrap plans to introduce road pricing reads as follows:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy.

Get clicking and signing if you want to avoid paying another tax and having your movements traced by the state.