One of the ‘architects of Ulez’ and a supporter of 20mph zones has been appointed as the new Transport Secretary after Louise Haigh’s resignation. The Telegraph has the story.
Heidi Alexander, the MP for Swindon South, had previously served as Deputy Mayor of London for Transport. During her tenure, from 2018 to 2021, she oversaw the introduction and expansion of Ulez and the rollout of 20mph zones in the capital.
At the time, she said it was “totally right” that Ulez was expanded to include the North and South Circular roads, and spoke in favour of a subsequent expansion across all of London last year.
Her appointment raises fears that similar plans could become national policy. Speaking when she was selected as Labour’s candidate in Swindon South, a Conservative Party spokesman described her as “one of the architects of the much-hated Ulez tax scheme” who could soon “have significant sway in shaping Labour’s national policy in office”.
Under Ulez, drivers of cars made before 2016 are charged £12.50 a day to drive inside the M25. Originally introduced in central London only, the charging zone was expanded to the whole of Greater London by the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, last summer.
Since that expansion, drivers have been hit with £322 million in fines, while Bromley council found there was “no overall lowering in pollution” despite the zone being extended across the borough.
Ms. Alexander was appointed as Minister of State for Courts by Sir Keir Starmer in July.
As Courts Minister, she would have been closely involved in the Government’s response to the quashing of 75,000 train ticket prosecutions after the Chief Magistrate ruled that they were unlawful earlier this year.
She has also previously spoken out about wanting to see a reduction in the numbers of people using cars.
In March 2020, she told the London Assembly: “We have set out that we want to see a fundamental shift in how Londoners move around the city, reducing dependency on the car.
“If we are going to hit our target of 80% of journeys being made by people walking, cycling or using public transport by 2041, we need to see three million fewer daily car journeys taking place.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
And they picked one straight out of central casting. They like the bright and breezy look when they’re dealing with these matters. Some sort of neoliberal uber-female. She cares, she nurtures, she understands, and so when she coes to shaft you it won’t feel quite so bad because mamma knows best. There are indeed many arguments for public transport, even if you consider efficiency alone but this is not what these people are about.
Kind of like Merkel and Sturgeon you mean?
Your target, luv, not ours.
Conservatives often mention the tragedy of the commons. I agree in terms of public transport. In other countries people happily go to work on the bus or go to another town on the train. In England for one thing if you sit down on a bus or train you have to feel the seat first just in case someone has pissed or shit on it. And then the sort of people that you are surrounded by. I am a healthy male in the prime of life. A pensioner or a woman on her own isn’t going to feel comfortable on public transport because of the potentially violent scumbags. There is no effort to reduce the number of scumbags every effort has been made to increase it. Theodore Dalrymple said that the most noticeable difference between England and France is that in France about a third of the population are living in scummy slum conditions whereas in England it is more like two thirds.
I don’t mind public transport, spent 20 years carless, but I have come to love being able to drive to places because I am not reliant on anyone else for it – once I have a car, all I need is to know that roads are occasionally maintained and someone will sell me petrol. I cannot be affected by strike action, staff sickness, state edicts, general transport provider uselessness, monopoly pricing. Independence.
I suppose the main argument against driving is the inefficiency of having a vehicle that is usually parked up for 23 hours a day and used seldomnly. In cities this puts a big strain on real estate because of the sheer space of garages when the room could perhaps be better allocated. You might give your dog a kennel in your garden but the kennel for your car is far bigger. But of course there is nothing like knowing that at 5am in the morning you could just depart in your car and arrive anywhere you want. We seem to have a wish to avoid our fellow countrymen. In the more naive countries people on long distance journeys people might strike up conversations. And you could well and truly feel that the joy is in the travelling not the destination. I remember getting a third class rail ticket in Bulgaria and I don’t speak the languuage but we had a strong sense of humanity on that journey.
I sometimes enjoy public transport. But I like the option of driving. Since “covid”, I have become more inclined to avoid other people.
Yes driving is “inefficient” but most people in the rich world have all sorts of aspects of their lifestyle that are indulgent. Driving is just another one of those.
Outside of big cities, driving still beats other options hands-down for many journeys.
We all suffer from that malaise and the practical realities. I agree if for example you have to get someone to a hospital appointment you really can’t trust public transport. I am the same of course a well-funded highly efficient system of public transport would be great. It is not possible given the constraints that we are living within. A five minute walk off the mall into the ghetto tells you that they are experiencing the same torture as us. The whole mechanisms have been set up for forty years to say public bad private good. An American influence and you can visit Washington DC and see just how poor and neglected their services are. This configuration of economic affairs has always meant our destruction.
I have a family member who is a volunteer driver for a local charity which exists to take people to and from hospital, GP, optician’s appointments etc as well as cancer treatments and such like. A fair few are unable to make even a small donation towards it so couldn’t possibly afford taxis. How are they supposed to get there?
I am sure more people would use mass transit if it weren’t so unreliable, unfit for purpose and ruinously expensive.
It would make sense if all motoring-related penalties were ringfenced in order to subsidise much better mass transit, but this isn’t the case.
We are going to Edinburgh tomorrow, but instead of going by bus and train, we will drive there in our 2016 diesel Audi and use the park and ride, because the return train fare is at least 3 times more than the cost of the diesel the car will use.
I’d rather we took the train as it would deposit us in the city centre without any changes, but it’s just not economical, and there is little chance of seats for my family and I.
Until that problem and a million like it all over the UK are solved we are where we are.
Not everyone lives in a city
Yes independence, something I really value. As the song goes “You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone”
Sadly Joni probably supports 20mph zones
Just when you think we’ve got to the bottom of the barrel…
…another clueless barrel of lard appears..?
Past my house runs a 20mph street. Cars, vans and particularly motor bikes regularly roar past at more than 40mph. So what good is a 20mph policy if no one adheres to it and it isn’t enforced? Instead of millions of road bumps and 20 mph zones why not just have speed cameras? That would catch all the speeders, bring in some money and let the good drivers drive on a smooth road instead bumping over these silly lumps. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think there should be 20 mph zones except in front of schools etc. But if this 20mph nonsense is rolled out all over the country I suspect the motor bikes will still be roaring along at 40 mph. What actually goes through the minds of these dimwits and their absurd policies?
Years ago, there used to be a DfT standard that recommended that 20 mph limits should only be used if the road layout supported it, such as by designing with narrow sections (pinch points, e.g.), humps and so on, and avoiding their use on long straight sections. Often used by developers of new housing estates. The term “traffic calming” was used in connection with it.
You are talking about 20mph Zones.
They made our neighborhood 20mph – no idea why or who supported it. Most people including the residents ignore it – quite correctly in general as most of the roads are perfectly safe at 30. Lots of humps and stupid signs. The humps are the ones you can straddle so in general they just lead to a sub-optimal use of the available road space.
They should concentrate on things like the brightness of car lights these days, you know those zenon bright white lights. 4X4s are the worst because of the elevated position of those vehicles, and when going over a hump you get blinded. I have good vision but wonder what the elderly go through passing lights that bright.
It’s not pleasant hence I try not to drive at night except very locally.
They have minds?
The only powers politicians really have are to legislate and to declare war, so perhaps this is why they do little else…
To solve what problem? Oh yes… safety. If you are hit by a vehicle travelling at 20mph you will be no less dead than if it were travelling at 30mph.
Don’t believe me? Stand back from a solid wall about 30 to 40 feet, then run full tilt head first into it.
Engines are designed to burn most efficiently at higher speeds, so 20mph means more CO2 and other gas by-products of combustion and more fuel use.
We seem to have a hierarchy of manufactured problems to solve which switch place of precedence according to the control-freakery being promoted.
Surrey reduced the speed limit – possibly illegally – on my road from 40 to 30 but nothing has changed much other than the signs.
When it comes to 20mph there are Zones and there are Limits. A 20mph zone, of which I have done a few must have traffic calming to make it self enforcing and this usually means humps or if it is a bus route cushions.
Bear in mind that most of us were supposed to be dead by now. I know that’s what they wanted. We aren’t dead yet and so we deal with prats like these as if it is swatting flies. But I am still upset that they assumed my death to be a certainty. They really do assume that on a practical level. You are either dead or too much of a stupid prat to ever answer back. Like Leonard Cohen said, I’m as stubborn as the garbage bags which time cannot decay, I’m junk but I’m still holding up this little wild bouquet.
Another loony woman – looks like she could do with a bit of walking/cycling herself. But probably not – way too important and she’s got a government car no doubt
The three Fs – Fat – Fecund – Forty.
Do you know who they remind me of? The Russian leaders who would set targets which were unachievable and which drove citizens to resort to imaginative but useless solutions to achieve the target, One of these was the village that produced extremely large but useless screws/bolts such that they could hit the tonnage target.
Anti-car measures have been National policy since Labour nationalised the transport system which then of course became the victim of typical State monopoly mis-management, underinvestment through lack of access to private capital and hæmorrhaging money.
The need to “drive” people onto public transport – rail and bus – to get revenue using everyone’s favourite excuse “saving the environment”, was by generally pushing up the cost of motoring via high motor fuel taxes and vehicle regulation, making driving less convenient and more time consuming with road restrictions, parking restrictions and high tariffs, inadequate development of the road infrastructure, traffic jams, and massive taxpayer subsidies to rail (still despite faux-privatisation) and bus.
We are just in the end-run forcing people yo abandon vehicles they can afford for ones they cannot, abandon vehicles that allow free mobility for ones that limit mobility, and make roads increasingly inaccessible.
It’s what everyone has been voting for since 1945.
A good indication of the low level of journalism at the Telegraph – Under Ulez, drivers of cars made before 2016 are charged £12.50 a day to drive inside the M25.
No – it is in all the Greater London Boroughs and not the parts of the counties that are inside the M25.
My 2004 vintage petrol Skoda is apparently ULEZ exempt. Not sure where the 2016 date comes from. My car is 12 years older than that.
Nutter – mind you, you have to be a nutter to be in this government.
15 minute cities at 20 mph means 4 miles
Aah, London public transport. That mode of travel whereby one risks theft or sexual assault, where other people’s phone conversations intrude on any peace and quiet which has probably already been ruined by some scowling youth’s determination to share his drill ‘music’. Let’s not start with the smell of takeaway food and body odour and the less said about the punctuality and reliability the better.
I’d rather spend an hour in my small, clean and private car crawling through Kaiser Khan’s temporary traffic lights than one minute on his hideous public transport. I don’t mind hiring the electric bikes but unfortunately I often find them flat in tyre or battery or the phone snatchers have got to them first to ply their lucrative trade.