| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Ideas so far | |
| Posted by: | Paul Corcoran | |
| Date/Time: | 06/06/19 08:36:00 |
| I'm not sure a Corbyn government would necessarily be the answer to the problems particularly in the short term. Even assuming it was to operate with a degree of economic competence and retain the confidence of international financial markets thus avoiding a crippling rise in borrowing costs, transport is not going to be top of the spending priorities particularly in London. A Labour government will bend over backwards to avoid being seen as representing a London-based liberal elite even though most of the main offices of state will be held by MPs within ten miles of each other. They would 'end' austerity by delivering on promises to increase public sector pay which, in so far as some of this will go to workers in the transport sector, could be represented as investment but will not deliver more services. The reality of governing a heavily indebted United Kingdom will soon becoming apparent with the escalating cost of the NHS and social care limiting what can be spent elsewhere. Transport in London is already effectively run by Labour although in a different tradition of the party to Corbyn. Sadiq Khan has resisted attempts to run the service for the benefits of the providers rather than the users by limiting pay rises and stopping the steady escalation of fares. Funding transport by increasing fares is one of the most regressive ways you can do this. The problem is that a number of unpredicted events have made the financial shortfalls that are inevitable with this policy more acute. The delay in delivering Crossrail and the fall in the usage of the tube have put us in a position where there isn't the money to repair Hammersmith Bridge. Going back to the points made in the original post I think the argument is well made that we are heading to a situation in which our local road network will grind to a halt over the next three years. It will ultimately be mitigated by the extension of the ULEZ reducing the number of cars but that may not happen and may be too late. Therefore given zero extra budget overall and the requirement to make improvements in the short term the options are very limited. The following would be a few suggestions: 1) Reverse the reduction of bus provision in the Chiswick area by transferring capacity from somewhere else 2) Put out a tender for the repair of Hammersmith Bridge funded by an autopay toll with a requirement that the bridge reopens as soon as possible to traffic other than buses and lorries with the feasibility of them being allowed back on to be considered later 3) Reorientate the funding of cycling schemes back to encouraging modal shift rather than leisure cycling. While it is laudable to encourage more people to cycle at the weekend for health and fitness with our road capacity scarce what we should be trying to do is getting more people commuting by bike and not by car. The priorities need to change and we shouldn't fund schemes in this area that increase journey times. TfL should abandon the 'great leap forward' type projects which are over-ambitious and don't deliver significant net benefits to cyclists. Instead they should get local authorities to bid for 'quick win' improvements which have the primary aim of increasing modal shift. 4) The operating hours of the Piccadilly line at Turnham Green could be increased marginally 5) Priority should be given to the redevelopment of Chiswick Tower to fund a second exit at Gunnersbury station. 6) Freedom pass provision should be made more restrictive 7) Money from parking fines collected by Council should be properly accounted for with a statement each year of what it has been spent on and which specific transport projects were funded. Funding of CPZ extensions from this source should not be allowed. |