Clear improvement in the capital’s transport

In recent times I have noticed there is something missing from the view of London that I get from my morning jog up Parliament Hill in north London’s Hampstead Heath.

In recent times I have noticed there is something missing from the view of London that I get from my morning jog up Parliament Hill in north London’s Hampstead Heath. I have been doing this two or three times per week for twenty years and I remember how shocked I was when I first noticed the yellow miasma above the magnificent sight of St Paul’s Cathedral nestled in among the skyscrapers of the City, a view protected by special legislation.

The ghastly cloud overhanging the capital was an almost permanent feature and now it is gone. There is clear sky and on a good day the view extends to the downs on the other side of London. While legislation mandating cleaner cars is part of the reason for the disappearance of pollution, a major part of this achievement is down to the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who pushed through the legislation to create an ultra low emission zone in central London and then extend it to the suburbs. This built upon the congestion charge introduced by Ken Livingstone as far back as 2003.

This caused a furore with protestors destroying cameras and Tory politicians taking a strong anti-Ulez stance. But the fuss soon died down and neither the congestion charge, which has just been raised, and ULEZ are hardly ever mentioned by those opponents and nor do they have the good grace to admit they were wrong.

These measures are part of a much wider agenda that has been adopted by Sadiq since he took over from Boris Johnson in 2016, which is to try to shift people in the capital away from using their cars and towards more sustainable modes. But it is always an uphill struggle. Look at the fact it took nearly half a century to turn Crossrail from sketches on a drawing board into a functioning Elizabeth Line. Nobody now thinks of the £19bn cost as a burden on taxpayers or a waste of money. With 800,000 users on a good day, it has become an integral part of London’s infrastructure. So has the London Overground, which turned a few underused and disused railways into an important addition to the capital’s railway system, utterly transforming areas its serves such as Hackney and Peckham.

The congestion charge, ULEZ, the Elizabeth Line and the Overground would never have happened without the creation, by the Labour government at the turn of the century, led by Tony Blair. Shockingly, in an act of spite, Margaret Thatcher had abolished the Greater London Council, leaving Europe’s largest city without a government structure, uniquely of a city that size in the Western world.

Cleverly the Labour government used the return of a London government to take in various transport undertakings and this story has been well told in a very comprehensive and well-argued book, Every Journey Matters, published late last year by Sam Mullins, the director of the London Transport Museum. The new Greater London Authority in fact was given far greater powers and scope to make changes than the previous GLC. It was a great irony that Mrs Thatcher’s great centralising move that meant Whitehall took over London government eventually led to London politicians having far greater powers than any of their predecessors.

And they have used them to create the all-powerful Transport for London, which has adopted a remit to keep on improving public transport. Indeed, the current mayor is seeking to expand the London Overground railway network which is under his control by taking on the services out of Moorgate, and offers a higher level of service as all stations are staffed all the time trains are operating. To be fair, although Boris Johnson cut back on the scope of the congestion charge, he was very actively pro-public transport and was responsible for the renaissance of cycling in the capital.

Now however, these gains could be under threat as cross party consensus that good public transport is essential for London’s economy is threatened by the rise of Reform. According to current polls, Reform could win some of the London boroughs which at times are the vehicle through which these pro-public transport policies are brought to fruition. While Reform has no transport policies yet, you can be sure they will be pro-car and anti-public transport. Having boroughs which are actively against sustainable measures could hinder progress. Worse, the London mayoral election is only two years away and though Reform is unlikely to win, the fear it might do so may lead other parties to refrain from putting forward progressive policies. Just look how terrified Labour got over ULEZ when it failed to win the Uxbridge by-electionin 2023. Sadiq, though, stood firm and his – and our - reward has been the disappearance of the yellow cloud over London. Let’s hope that enough people understand the gains made on transport in the past couple of decades to ensure that they are not threatened.

The long unnecessary Museum walk

There is a mystery at the National Railway Museum which I have failed to crack: why are they making visitors walk an extra half a mile from the station round the site on a windy through wasteland rather than opening up a gate that would allow far easier access. The museum is being expanded and the surrounding land redeveloped, and a temporary path has been created that involves a long detour around the site before people can get in at the far end of Station Hall. But rather than fencing off this whole site, which requires a very unpleasant – and for disabled people or those with limited mobililty very tough – walk, the museum could easily open up a gate cutting out at least half that walk.
A few months ago on a visit I asked why this was not happening and was told that the council did not want people to cross the cycle path around the site. Although this was told to me by several staff members, they had been misinformed and this turns out to be untrue. The councillor in charge of transport at York Council was, in fact, angry that this story had been put about by management.

So I approached the NRM management to ask why they were forcing people round a long way. Andrew McClean, who I know from my days on the advisory board, agreed to a Zoom call but it turned out to be very unsatisfactory 20 minutes of bluster. McClean tried to argue that it was not a significant walk and was only a quarter of a mile, that other attractions in York required equally long walks and that it was only for two years. H suggested it was a very big project and this was the only alternative to closing it for the whole period of redevelopment. Apparently, the planning consent prevented the museum from allowing access across the cycle path – though I pointed out it could be on the other side of the path, away from the fence - and it was all down to the planning rules and the fire regulations. When I asked if the NTM had tried to make life easier for its visitors by opening a gate, he merely said ‘we are in discussion all the time’.

I love the railway museum and respect its staff. But this was bluster from a publicly funded body that does not seem to be doing its best for its visitors. I hope that will change.

Thanks for your support