Forum Topic

Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money wasted on 'active travel' schemes, says watchdog

I’m sure we’re all interested in liar-Lambert’s musings on the future of car ownership – a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy given that his deeply unpopular policies of closing roads and taking parking spaces will surely force some people to give up their cars. We’ve all seen in the last few of weeks how the combination of road works on Windmill Road and the A4 have caused gridlock in the whole of Brentford and this was made 100 times worse by the unnecessary LTN road closures. We’ve all experienced more congested, dangerous and polluted roads and longer journey times – all created deliberately by a council who have no interest in supporting the needs of the majority of its constituents. Interestingly there has been a report published by the National Audit Office that confirms what we all knew – that the LTN schemes were a massive waste of taxpayer money that have achieved precisely NOTHING. There’s a link to the article below but, in summary:“Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash has potentially been wasted on ‘active travel’ schemes such as controversial low-traffic neighbourhoods, according to a report.”“Despite an estimated £3.3billion being spent on delivering such measures between 2016 and 2021, cycling and walking rates fell over that period, the National Audit Office study found.”“It said many were imposed on residents without proper consultation and poorly planned ones have subsequently been scrapped.”Could we hope that LBH will see sense and roll back these horrible schemes? Could individual councillors be surcharged to recover some of the money that has been wasted? We live in hope.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12167319/Ministers-wasted-billions-pounds-taxpayers-money-LTNs-says-watchdog.html

Graham Thorpe ● 685d24 Comments

It’s called predictive text and it doesn’t always get corrected when changed, which is what happened there. Obviously it’s taken you three weeks to notice.The point is Lambert posts a weekly blog that is not fact checked or balanced with any other political viewpoint. He isn’t in possession of any great wisdom or superpower by virtue of being a Labour councillor. He doesn’t seem capable of noticing quite a lot of what goes on around him if it diverges from his dogmatic world view.Just because he’s your chum doesn’t make him right about everything.

Simon Hayes ● 653d

The aggression is getting incoherent, "think it ensues them". Just bash out another angry post and who cares if it makes sense? "enthuses"? Probably meant "imbues" but not very close. I like unusual words such as imbues but never use them unless I know how to accurately.

Eric Baker ● 654d

Why? Because I call out lambert’s inconsistency and outright untruths? Your blind W Orion to him is weird.The really strange people are those who join political parties and think it ensues them with some special wisdom to pass on to the rest of us.

Simon Hayes ● 673d

'A very strange man indeed.' - Yup, that's you, that is!

Anne England ● 673d

What, that you can’t be honest? The A4 cycle lane does link up a lot of places, though obviously not to the satisfaction of yourself or the LCC. There are things called roads that cyclists can and do use, publicly funded too.What a strange man you are. Hilarious that you think people should give up their cars to save money, when economic circumstances would do that anyway, regardless of moralising from overweight numpties. Strange that you don’t get rid of your own car, and drive it when it suits you. Most people would brand you a hypocrite if you continuously condemn others for doing just that.A very strange man indeed.

Simon Hayes ● 673d

Thanks. You just confirmed my point for me.

Guy Lambert ● 673d

Raymond - note the inverted commas. When I used the word "perverted" it was clearly nothing directed at you - it was a direct quote of a word you used to describe opponent of your views. No invective there, no pots nor kettles. I am quite sure you are in no way perverted! But nor are the people you accused.

Eric Baker ● 674d

Ooh, can’t resist engaging when you get called out on your ‘facts’. I bother because you simply make stuff up and ignore any opinion contradictory to your own.Here’s a post you wrote some years back, where you call the A4 cycle lane a red herring and ‘bereft of cyclists because it doesn’t link with where people want to go’. Perhaps you really don’t believe anything you say, in which case why would anyone else? Re:Re:Re:Re:Is deferring CS9 till after the election a bit of an avoidance? Posted by: Guy LambertDate/Time: 17/01/18 22:23:00The A4 cycleway between here and Hounslow is OK bar the Ealing Road and Syon Lane junctions. Of course it could be improved and TfL are proposing to do that (but in a manner that does not address the real problems IMO - I have written to tell them so, as I believe have Hounslow Cycling)But it is completely irrelevant to the hundreds of cyclists that use Brentford High Street, Kew Bridge Road and Chiswick High Road daily. They are going from Hounslow or Isleworth or Brentford to Chiswick or Hammersmith or Kensington or the city centre.The A4, for all it's cycling infrastructure, is practically bereft of cyclists between Hounslow and Hammersmith because it doesn't link where people want to go. It would be lovely to have the cycle lanes upgraded but it would tempt nobody off Brentford High St, CHR etc: it's a complete red herring.About the one thing I would applaud Boris Johnson for is starting off the CS schemes (including this one!)And yes, it will be (if built) for cyclists of all political parties, ages, colours and creeds

Simon Hayes ● 674d

Making it up again, Why do you bother?

Guy Lambert ● 674d

Ah, percentages. The last refuge of desperate statistics. 95 percent of not very many is....not very many.Is this the same Guy Lambert who not long ago wailed that the A4 cycle lanes were useless because ‘they don’t go anywhere cyclists want to go’? Of course.I’m not sure anyone is convinced by any of your arguments. Your refusal to admit that Lime Bikes are always put back in the designated bays is rather scuppered b the huge number of fines given out for those very bikes not being properly parked.

Simon Hayes ● 674d

Jonathan, that comment about 'cyclists don't use them' is a complete myth. Have you been to CHR recently? Or to Boston Manor Road? Of course nobody use the cycle lane on Brentford High Street because it hasn't been built yet. On the A4, despite its inadequate stretches- it usually runs out wherever there is a dangerous junction - well over 95% of cyclists use the lane - I know because I counted them.

Guy Lambert ● 674d

i find it bizarre that one doesn't direct cyclists via the ltn roads, but, instead, further restrict traffic on the roads still open by building cycle lanes that few use.It doesn't surprise me that cyclists don't use them: they are strangely absent from Richmond Park when it's raining, yet try to claim it as their own when it is not.

Jonathan Portch ● 674d

Hi Eric - I've been away from my keyboard and have only just seen your message. I agree that we shouldn't get our information from only one source, and the media - right or left - will have an axe to grind. So let's stick to what we all know - the council's own consultation showed that there was overwhelming opposition to the LTN scheme - LBH went ahead anyway but have been completely unable to show any verifiable benefits from their changes after several years of operation - no benefits in air quality, journey times etc. or even any increase in cycling or walking. But we can all see the increased traffic jams - huge amounts of wasted time stuck on roads we didn't need to be on with engines running and air conditioning on full. My own journey home in the evening was directly down Ealing or Junction Road - now both these routes are cut off for me I have to use the car-park that is Windmill Road - I can only imagine how the air quality on that road has deteriorated. I concede that there were always traffic jams and the LTNs aren't always to blame, but they have been made the problem significantly worse. I reserve the right to expose dishonesty where I see it, and LBH and our own councilor are guilty of this. These people are supposed to represent us and the majority view - they have abandoned this responsibility to follow a narrow agenda that penalises the majority to benefit only a few. If you succeed in getting me removed from this forum, you would be playing into the hands of those who only want to allow one side of the narrative to be heard.

Graham Thorpe ● 678d

There are very, very few dirty old vehicles on the road in heavy daily use. Not even enough to make an impact.  Has been the case for a long time. Parked 'dirty old vehicles' pollute no more or less than new vehicles. That is zero. They are parked. So how are they polluting?The carbon footprint of a 20 year old petrol car, well maintained and low mileage is far lower than a ULEZ exempt 6 year old car. The longer a car lasts the less demand on raw materials.  The pollution and Carbon footprint is dumped somewhere else, but not eliminated.Cleaner vehicles have been evolving for decades. As no emissions data exists for vehicles of any type beyond 30 years. It is just assumed.However, old Diesels, which we all know were dirty, were actually not as toxic and later Diesels. This is because the particulates were mainly soot which was dense.Too dense to pass through skin and too dense to pass into the air so fell to the ground hence the dirt.Newer Diesel contains additives that are so fine that they can pass through skin and radian airborne. However that in the last 10 years once identified is amongst Zero.  ( That I might add is when a Labour Government among others actively encouraged a switch to 'cleaner diesel).I suggest you look up the detail of the contract for the cameras ( Order of which was placed long before any consultation took place ) and then the spec capability.  None of which has been made readily public. To call me "Perverted" is akin to the insults that you condemn being used at Cllr Lambert. Pot and Kettle spring to mind.It has nothing to do with my "Total Opposition" . I'm a lifelong Cyclist but it does not and cannot make me a living. Just like thousands of others.There are indeed good well intentioned councillors of all parties and independents dotted about.  Far too few.And what happens to most of them?  And if my view of that alone makes me Perverted, then so be it.

Raymond Havelock ● 681d

More lazy journalism there. The Sub-Standard has basically been a press release for years.Asthma is triggered by many factors, most of them genetic. But these ‘studies’ concentrate on cars as the cause, ignoring things like lifestyle (smoking and vaping, unsurprisingly, have a massive impact on respiratory problems) or even pet ownership. Animal fur is a major trigger.There are also varying degrees of asthma. Having medication doesn’t necessarily equate to being a chronic sufferer. Often it’s prescribed but isn’t used.

Simon Hayes ● 681d

I agree that facial recognition in public places should be carefully regulated - our government has yet to formulate any rules. But have you any source/evidence for its use on ULEZ cameras, Raymond? I can find none. And you do seem to have an extremely jaundiced view of anyone in politics. It doesn't match my long experience. It was a brave Tory councillor who saved my wife's nursery school in Richmond from abrupt closure decades ago (Windham Nursery is still going despite chronic underfunding) and I've met some very hard working and well intentioned LibDem and Labour councillors. Your "peverted" view of politicians might be due to your total opposition to any restrictions on driving and parking dirty old vehicles anywhere anytime? ULEZ is forecast to run at a loss before long as much cleaner vehicles replace dirty old ones and I cannot imagine anyone disputing the fact that ULEZ saves lives. See, for example, www.standard.co.uk/news/health/london-gps-most-asthma-cases-boroughs-ulez-toxic-air-pollution-b1087421.html

Eric Baker ● 681d

I don't read the Daily Mail at all.  but if you want to really read facts and figures then they can lie and mislead more effectively than Messrs Johnson, Blair and Co.Almost everything the BBC and News Media put out is Spoon Fed served on a plate.  Journalism is in just as bad a state as Politics.  Easy options every time.Fact is forcing people at cost to their livelihoods, well being, family life when we have a failing infrastructure from decades of political meddling by all parties is fundamentally wrong.Much is made of peoples rights, some of which are so vague that it makes a nonsense.Yet we are having UlEZ cameras that can see and record the movements of all of us and utilise facial recognition in a way that has never been discussed or explained to the tax paying public.A far  more reading way into intruding into peoples lives than just the smoke and mirrors of ULEZ or the environment.Yet not a word from all those who bang on about rights.And then we have the small group who wish to ban anyone who has a passion about what and whom may be behind such abuses of democracy.I have asked more than once for insults and personal nastiness to be curbed and to be civil.That I would hope also applies when trying to expose hypocrisy and so on.But it's simply naive to not be clear about what politicians really thing about their electorate or their own fellow members and quite shocking what is said and inferred.Which was and remains enough for me to never have any party political involvement.But I also feel is where the real problems lie. The kind of people Politics attracts has become so very perverted that even the most well intentioned get sucked into it's ways.

Raymond Havelock ● 681d

Everything was better in Brentford in the old days apparently. You’ve even said so yourself.

Simon Hayes ● 682d

Mr Eric Baker has been around for ages and is highly respected.I hope that Mr Hayes's blusterings are not causing a fall- off in participants using this Forum ... but it's pretty likely.This Forum used to be so splendid and popular 10-15 years ago. It's a shame.I have communicated with the Editor... but with to no avail.

Jim Lawes ● 682d

And who is Eric Baker? Magically appears from behind the sofa.

Simon Hayes ● 682d

Well researched, Bryan. We seem to have a Mr Thorpe who believes the Daily Mail and has joined Mr Hayes in breaching this forum's code of conduct: "treat each other with mutual respect". "Liar-Lambert" is a sad descent into playground quality abuse. Another banishment pending?

Eric Baker ● 682d

The NAO did NOT say money was "wasted" or that LTNs "achieved nothing" or "a massive waste" - those are deliberate truth-twistings by you and the liar-Mail. Like most stories in the liar-Mail, this one deserves to be taken not just with a pinch of salt, but with an entire sack of it.If you were interested in truth, you'd link not to the liar-Mail but to the original report: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/active-travel-in-england.pdfFor anyone who just wants to read the summary, it is here: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/active-travel-in-england-summary.pdf - you might like to note that nowhere does it contain the words waste, wasting or wasted. Yes, the report does say there have been poor-value schemes, patchy delivery, and that the DfT "has known too little about what has been achieved" and is unlikely to meet all its 2025 objectives. However, it also notes that many of the problems relate to schemes being delivered too quickly during the pandemic - and then in some cases being rolled back purely for political reasons, eg. "some active travel schemes were removed prematurely before they could be tested properly because they proved controversial."There's also positive conclusions, such as: "Delivery of active travel interventions works well when local authorities have good-quality information on which to base investment decisions, and there is good integration between transport and planning teams." The summary adds: "More [work] is required to ensure that there is a good understanding of why active travel is important to enable behaviour change and increase walking, wheeling and cycling."

Bryan Betts ● 682d

Well said; also bus lanes being closed for cyclists.

Chris Dakers ● 685d

... and yet the simple low cost things like spring out potholes, slippery surfaces and poor markings and signage which would make Cycling away from heavy mixed traffic goes completely unaddressed.The road delays for commerce ( which keeps even Cyclists in solvency ) is abysmal. Trying to fit a gallon can into a pint pot along Brentford High Street and Kew Bridge road has just led to gridlock and seriously affects Bus travel.All for what can only ever be a minority at the expense of just about every one else especially less able. And less able does not necessarily mean disabled.The A4 is deemed 'unsuitable' as a Cycling route.  This is the Same A4 that is suitable now for homes to be built.  The same A4 that is purpose built for industry and jobs. The Same A4 that is a trunk road that serves most of Hounslow boroughs districts in a short distance.  The same A4 that has a segregated Cycle way on both sides.  The same A4 that has been neglected and meddled with without pragmatic consideration for all users for a generation.But no. It's all about pandering to political desires over common sense and again as with so many things, when politics gets involved it all goes to pot.It all ends up third rate and flawed.And its the same whatever the party colours.

Raymond Havelock ● 685d