According to The Times Red Ken - Mayor of London - has said that areas threatened with flooding will be called Clarkson zones, because he blames Jeremy Clarkson for global warming and the possible “destruction of life on earth”. Nutter. Jeremy Clarkson hosts the most popular show on BBC2 (and Prime TV in NZ), "Top Gear". Top Gear is fun because cars are fun, they are enjoyable to drive and there are millions who agree - because personal transport is pleasurable.
.
Now free market me believes the only problem is that roads are run by politicians, central and local government - who administer roads for political purposes, not according to the demands of users or the costs. In some cases roads are overcharged, in others undercharged, so in some places roads are too good, others they are inadequate - pristine empty roads and congested roads - it's central planning gone mad. I support his congestion charging zone, though not the extension - and generally support road pricing, as long as it is efficient.
.
You see I am neutral on whether people should drive or not, it is their choice as long as they don't expect anyone else to subsidise them and take responsibility for their actions - but Red Ken hates cars – he doesn’t own one or even drive. He blames London’s traffic problems on cars, ignoring that London has only around 9% of its land area covered by roads, unlike the average of most cities of 25%. Greenies would celebrate that, but it adds enormously to the cost of transport - and the burden on the economy, environment and people's health. It is no pleasure walking extensively on many London streets because of it - buses get caught in it too - the famous Kings Road in Chelsea was often quicker to walk than to drive or catch buses down. However, without decent highways traffic is funneled down local 2 lane streets.
.
Of course, the fact Ken uses London citizens' council tax to pay for buses to run, empty or not, doesn’t help either. The Strand is full day in day out of nearly empty buses clogging up the lanes – bus subsidies promote bus companies running services regardless of demand. Ken’s policy of free bus rides for under 16yos also encourages them to bus instead of walking – hardly environmentally or health friendly (or passenger friendly).
.
London would reduce emissions if a network of toll highways was built as originally planned (planned to be free, but tolls would ensure demand was reflected with user pays), completing the inner circular highways, even if tunnelled to avoid impact on the local environment. The tolls would restrain growth and the highways would remove cars from local streets, speeding up bus travel and reducing health impacts – but don’t expect Transport for London or Ken to support that – roads are evil after all. Far better to have pedestrians and cyclists choking with exhaust fumes from buses, trucks, cabs and cars.
.
Don’t say people should catch public transport, only 13% of peak commuting to central London is by car, it would be difficult to increase the public transport share much more. London public transport is excellent, although at peak times is at crush capacity (and it isn't efficient to provide more capacity). Most motoring in London is suburb to suburb, where it takes far longer to bus than to drive (a bus takes a more circuitous route and stops a lot after all) and these orbital movements will continue to grow. London has one of the worst roading networks of any major city in the world – it simply needs to let the private sector provide, and to let it toll freely to pay for it.
.
Of course, the fact Ken uses London citizens' council tax to pay for buses to run, empty or not, doesn’t help either. The Strand is full day in day out of nearly empty buses clogging up the lanes – bus subsidies promote bus companies running services regardless of demand. Ken’s policy of free bus rides for under 16yos also encourages them to bus instead of walking – hardly environmentally or health friendly (or passenger friendly).
.
London would reduce emissions if a network of toll highways was built as originally planned (planned to be free, but tolls would ensure demand was reflected with user pays), completing the inner circular highways, even if tunnelled to avoid impact on the local environment. The tolls would restrain growth and the highways would remove cars from local streets, speeding up bus travel and reducing health impacts – but don’t expect Transport for London or Ken to support that – roads are evil after all. Far better to have pedestrians and cyclists choking with exhaust fumes from buses, trucks, cabs and cars.
.
Don’t say people should catch public transport, only 13% of peak commuting to central London is by car, it would be difficult to increase the public transport share much more. London public transport is excellent, although at peak times is at crush capacity (and it isn't efficient to provide more capacity). Most motoring in London is suburb to suburb, where it takes far longer to bus than to drive (a bus takes a more circuitous route and stops a lot after all) and these orbital movements will continue to grow. London has one of the worst roading networks of any major city in the world – it simply needs to let the private sector provide, and to let it toll freely to pay for it.
