What the papers said… Labour’s pains over lack of gains

Deniz Huseyin considers the Opposition’s position

A new direction of travel

Prime Minister orders review of local traffic neighbourhoods

Rishi Sunak says he has ordered the Department for Transport (DfT) to review how low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) are working, but it is not clear whether the government could make councils alter or scrap existing schemes. Earlier this summer, transport secretary Mark Harper announced that the government was stopping the funding of new LTNs in England, with Active Travel England instructed not to help local councils introduce them.

There is speculation that the failure of the DfT to release the long-delayed guidance to local authorities on preparing their next Local Transport Plans may reflect the government’s concern not to be seen to endorse “anti-car” policies.

It is estimated that around 200 LTNs were installed over a twoyear period starting in the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, with about 50 since scrapped due to local opposition. They have been the subject of strong resistance by some people associating them with the establishment of 15-minute neighbourhoods as a measure to limit freedom of movement through restrictive measures such as barriers, bollards and planters, as well as CCTV.

In his Sunday Telegraph interview, Sunak said: “The vast majority of people in the country use their cars to get around and are dependent on cars. I just want to make sure people know that I’m on their side in supporting them to use their cars to do all the things that matter to them.”

Shadow transport secretary, Louise Haigh, accused the Conservatives of “pure hypocrisy” for accelerating and funding LTNs before denouncing the policy. Haigh said that road safety measures were often demanded by local communities so the decisions must be properly consulted on and made by them.

The Local Government Association (LGA) said the LTN review was “unnecessary” and councils are best placed to make decisions with their communities. It said councils need long-term certainty over funding if they are to help meet the government’s own target of 50% of urban journeys being walked, wheeled or cycled by 2030.

Labour Leader Kier Starmer has blamed the imminent expansion of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) for his party’s failure to win the Uxbridge and South Ruislip byelection. He urged Sadiq Khan, London’s Labour mayor, to “reflect” on his decision to extend the zone from the north and south circular roads to cover all London boroughs on 29 August.

The byelection followed Boris Johnson’s resignation as MP in June after a Commons investigation into whether he misled Parliament over ‘Partygate’. The successful Tory candidate Steve Tuckwell managed to retain the seat by a narrow margin, significantly down on the 7,210 majority that Johnson won the seat in the 2019 General Election. Pre-election leaflets from Tuckwell portrayed himself as the “anti-ULEZ candidate”.

After the election result, Starmer said: “ULEZ was the reason we didn’t win. We know that. We heard that on the doors. And we’ve all got to reflect on that, including the mayor.”

But, after the election result, Sadiq Khan stood by his decision to extend the daily £12.50 charge on cars that do not meet emission standards. He said his decision to expand ULEZ was “difficult” but he could not stand by and do nothing when around 4,000 Londoners die prematurely each year due to air pollution.

A spokesperson for the mayor said: “Children are growing up with stunted lungs and thousands of people in our city are developing life-changing illnesses, such as cancer, lung disease, dementia and asthma.”

According to Transport for London, 90% of cars driving in outer London are compliant and will not have to pay the charge. “For anyone who is affected, help is available including thousands of pounds for people on low incomes, charities, small businesses, disabled Londoners and anyone in receipt of child benefit,” said the spokesperson. The spokesperson said the mayor would consider “any new ideas for ways to mitigate the impact of expanding the ULEZ” while still tackling air quality and the climate crisis. “He has listened to Londoners throughout this process and continues to do so – and he has already made a number of changes to expand the scrappage eligibility scheme, from the end of this month.”

On 4 August eligibility for the vehicle scrappage scheme was extended to all of London ahead of the expansion ULEZ. Khan announced all Londoners with a non-compliant car can access up to £2,000 to replace their vehicle. Additional support will also be given to small businesses, charities and those with disabilities. Previously only those entitled to means tested benefits could claim money.

Leo Murray, co-director of climate charity Possible, said: “We can’t let basic public health policy be turned into a political football between the two main parties. Polling shows that a majority of Londoners back the ULEZ, and 75% of people in the outer London boroughs opposing ULEZ expansion. There used to be more consensus on this common sense issue. It was former Uxbridge MP Boris Johnson himself who first unfurled ULEZ with fanfare in 2015 when he was Mayor, and the independent Ken Livingstone who brought in the original congestion charge. There’s a way through this where everyone wins. With a fully funded scrappage scheme and investment in cheap, reliable public transport, we can make sure nobody is left behind in the transition to cleaner cities. That means the government of the day must support mayors and councils to clean up our toxic air.” lans to introduce a workplace parking levy in Bristol have been dropped due to the impact of the rising cost of living. The city’s mayor said now was not the time to impose extra costs on teachers, nurses, and other Bristolians when parking at schools, hospitals and other workplaces. Mayor of Bristol Marvin Rees said: “With high inflation during a national cost-of-living crisis, now is not the time to create more costs for people.”

Rees said that in recent years there have been significant changes in working patterns in the light of both the pandemic and the introduction of a Clean Air Zone in 2021. Rees also cites the lack of progress on introducing a proposed underground transit system in the city as a reason for not introducing the charge.

A workplace parking levy (WPL) charges businesses for employees parking at work in a bid to encourage commuters to use public transport and cut congestion and pollution. Bristol has become the second city to have abandoned a proposed WPL project in the light of economic problems –Leicester having dropped its interest in a scheme in November last year.

The proposal

The council commissioned the report in 2021 at a cost of £30,000 as a potential option for funding upgrades to the city’s public transport network. The mayor said the feasibility study did not take account of the changing nature of travel in the city. In a blog post called ‘Parking up the wrong tree’, the mayor wrote: “A study was done into the idea of a workplace parking levy, which is lacking any modelling incorporating those major factors for its potential effectiveness. It remains incomplete and with the current stalling of the funding and ambition to take a mass transit system forward we have no plans to introduce this charge.”

The feasibility study was produced for Bristol by Nottingham City Council, a local authority which launched the UK’s first, and so far only, WPL scheme under the Transport Act 2000.

The Nottingham City Council study suggested that a levy in Bristol could raise millions of pounds every year to invest in the city’s public transport. According to the report, it would likely apply to about 9,000 parking spaces at workplaces in Bristol city centre. The report stated: “Bristol City Council is well-positioned to progress with the development of a workplace parking levy,” the report said. “The drive, vision and ambition of Bristol City Council is exciting and will clearly lead to a high-quality, sustainable transport system in Bristol.”

Freedom of Information

Bristol City Council only published the feasibility study report on 7 August after being ordered to by a tribunal. The council had been contesting a Freedom of Information (FOI) request made by Green Party councillor Ed Plowden asking for the report to be published. The FOI request was repeatedly