Friday, 17 February 2012

VIP Lanes: we'll take the low road and they'll take the VIP lanes

By Mike Wells

For security reasons there will be no commercial flights within 18 miles of the Olympic stadium for the duration of the Games. This will mean that VIPs and heads of state will not be able to use their preferred mode of transport - the helicopter - they will have to slum it with the rest of us on the roads.
Except they wont be slumming it. They will be traveling in their own VIP lanes, aka Games Lanes, which Transport for London expect to carry 1,000 vehicles per hour at peak times.

On roads with two or more lanes, the outside carriageway will be declared a Games Lane, for the sole use of members of the “Olympic Family”, and VIP sponsors, along which they will travel in some 4,000 cars shipped from Germany by “Greenest Olympics Ever” sponsor, BMW.

To avoid delays to VIPs ordinary drivers will not be permitted right turns across the Lanes. TfL were unable to comment on the length of detour right-turning drivers will have to make.
Inconvenience to the Olympic Family is also to be minimised by the “suspension” of 48 “signalized junctions”, closure of 50 side roads, closing of pedestrian crossings, and the daytime suspension of parking and loading along the Olympic Route Network. Electronic devices are to be located at traffic lights and fitted to the fleet of BMWs to ensure VIPs a green-light-journey.

INRIX, a company which specialises in traffic information, warns. “Londoners need to be prepared for a huge volume of traffic in the city that they are unlikely to have experienced previously.”

While red carpets and green lights are being rolled out to speed important folks between their 5 star hotels and Olympic venues, ordinary Londoners will suffer considerable inconvenience. Black cabs, mini cabs, bicycles, buses, and non “accredited” cars will be banned from the VIP Lanes. Infringement of the VIP space will carry a fine of £200.

Emergency vehicles will be allowed in the Lanes only when on an emergency. For ordinary Londoners simple tasks such as picking kids up from day care is likely to turn into a time consuming nightmare.
A comment in a report produced by the London Councils highlights some of the problems.
“Small businesses, in particular, may need support to cope with the additional demands of the Games. For many, it will be simply too expensive (to employ staff overnight) or too difficult (for perishable goods, or where there is a lack of storage space) to reschedule their deliveries. These businesses are often those that are run, or relied upon, by local residents.”

But the practical consequences of the Games Lanes are a lot less interesting than their social implications. While VIP culture may be woven into fabric of life in West London it is not so in the host boroughs of Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Waltham Forest. According to the organisation End Child Poverty, these boroughs have some of the highest levels of poverty in the UK.

Undercover journalists working Channel 4’s Dispatches revealed that various tour operators are selling £20,000 Olympic tickets, which include access to to the Games Lanes.

Dispatches also leaked conditions contained in the Host City Contract which states that the International Olympic Committee’s BMWs must be chauffeur driven. Their drivers must wear a hats, and the 5 ringed Olympic flag should take precedence over the national flag.

Considerable effort has been put into presenting the Olympic Project as a generous gift to the poor folks of East London, who, Olympic orgainisers claimed, would benefit from jobs, training, sporting facilities, and housing etc.

Since London won the bid these claims have have revealed themselves as largely hollow, and during a time of austerity the Olympics is looking more like an enormous waste of resources than a gift.
The claims of government, bankers, and business leaders that we should pay for their mistakes, loose our jobs, or take pay cuts, look less credible when money can be found to bail out bankers and pay for the construction of a £9billion Olympic venue used for only 17 days, while ostentatiously catering for VIPs.
The chauffeurs, the hats, the 5 star hotels, and the hierarchy of flags seem entirely consistent with the concept VIP lanes, and the values of our political masters. They will carry members of an elite social class, in luxury cars, on roads we are banned from using, between the best seats at venues we paid to build, and to and from the plush hotels we are paying for them to stay in.

Unlike other facets of the Olympic project, what is different about the Games Lanes is the difficulty of disguising them as somehow to the advantage of ordinary Londoners. As such, in comparison to other facets of London 2012, they are refreshingly authentic - no nonsense elitist privilege.

Within our culture the roads have always been an egalitarian space, open to a person on foot, on bicycle, or driving their Rolls Royce. We have all shared the cut and thrust of that space equally. The Games Lanes change this. They are the physical manifestation of class divide, and represent the injustice embedded in the Olympic project, and also in the current system of national and global economic mismanagement, which benefits a small minority. They are the enforced privatisation of public space for a favored minority.

In signing up to the Games Lanes our maladroit politicians demonstrate a stunning lack of social understanding and sensitivity, and may have painted themselves into a corner, as they can’t help but make a show of providing for, and protecting their own class, by putting huge numbers of boots on the ground. Current estimates of military, police and private security (G4S) stand at 49,000 personnel, who will outnumber athletes by more than 3 to 1.

With the possible exception of their chauffeurs, VIPs will be able to move from their luxury hotels in London’s West End without having to come into contact with local people. They will be seamlessly transported from one sanitised environment along a red carpet corridor, to another sanitised environment, their very own VIP area within the Olympic venue, which is entirely surrounded by a 5,000 volt electric fence. Rather then being "inclusive" as Olympic chiefs have claimed, the London Olympics stand as a template for class divide, the question is what message does this send to the rest of the population?

Reading the Riots, a report by the Guardian and the London School of Economics into the causes of the 2011 disturbances comments that ... “many of those involved said they felt like they were participating in explicitly anti-police riots. They cited ‘policing’ as the most significant cause of the riots”. The report continues ... “Rioters identified a range of political grievances, but at the heart of their complaints was a pervasive sense of injustice”. The Games Lanes, as a visible sign of an unequal society, can only consolidate perception of injustice.

The Guardian also give an account of a report seen by councilors in another host borough, Waltham Forest, which shows the security services have a broad list of Olympic suspects which include ...
"a high-level threat of AQ-inspired extremism from males aged between 20 and 38. The individuals of interest to the police are predominantly British-born second and third-generation migrants from south-east Asia.”

The report comments that ... "perceptions of inequality driven by relatively high deprivation levels, particularly within Pakistani communities", "experience of criminality due to high levels of crime and strong gang culture", and "possible radicalisation within family structures".

And ...

"'jihadi cool' possibly linked to macho gang culture".
According to the Guardian the report also ...

“acknowledges the growth of far-right extremism and admits there is ‘growing discontent on local benefits around the Olympics’".

But the more the host boroughs are “policed”, the more, the animosity which fueled the flames of the 2011 riots may be reignited. The Lanes, and the London Olympics in general, could easily become the focus of dissatisfaction and anger, to youths who live in the host boroughs and are subjected to over zealous policing by security personnel who’s remit of suspicion covers almost everyone but a wealthy minority.

The ballooning 2012 security operation will include the involvement of special forces, snipers in helicopters, , battleships on the Thames, drones in the skies, and the stock piling of rubber bullets. This doesn’t have a flavor of diplomacy and soft force, which would be more appropriate.

But it isn’t just youth who are disillusioned with the current political and economic status quo, ordinary folks with a sensitivity to inequality and injustice are disgruntled. The choice of sponsors for London 2012 reads like a who’s who of corporate criminals, especially Dow Chemical and BP, who’s involvement with the

Games has ruffled more than a few feathers. MPs’ expenses, and the daily litany of choices made in the sphere of public spending, which has recently seen the PM approving an extra £40million for the 2012 opening ceremony, clearly demonstrates the dissociated mindset of the ex-private school boys running the nation.

The 2012 Games are different to other Olympics. Sydney 2000 was before 9/11, Athens 2004 was not in a time of austerity, and Beijing 2008 was not in a “democracy”. London 2012 is taking place post 9/11, in a time of austerity, when inequality has never been as stark, in a brave new world of surveillance and securitisation. 2012 is a year in which the the world’s elite are feeling insecure due to uprisings and social unrest in numerous nations. That elite is coming to London, and they expect to be treated like kings and queens, with our roads turned over for their sole use, while whole populations are disillusioned and angry.

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

In midst of recession, Government new road building spend at highest for a decade

New road schemes on the increase
The government spent more money on new road schemes last year than in any other year over the last decade a new Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed.

Transport is responsible for around a quarter of EU greenhouse gas emissions making it the second biggest greenhouse gas emitting sector after energy. The UK says it is committed to reducing greenhouse gases in the battle to prevent out of control global warming. So why is the government spending more money on road expansion now than at any time in the last decade.  

The FOI request sent to the Department of Transport asked 'how much has been spent on new road schemes since the year 2000, divided into annual spend?' The results contradict the claims this government make that they are a party of the environment. The money spent in 2010/11 came to £981 million, almost £150 million more than the previous year, and more than any time over the last decade. The sum doesn't include Local Authority schemes but if they did, then an additional £193 million would need to be added to the overall amount taking the spend for last year to over £1.1 billion. This from a government whose claims of being the 'greenest government ever' look ever more ridiculous by the day. 

Most worrying of all is a trend which has seen new road spend rise massively in the second half of this decade, at a time when the message ought to be to drive less.

The FOI request shows the total spend on roads has increased by 100% over the last five years. From 2001/02 to 2005/06 the total spend on new schemes was just under £2 billion - then from 2006/07 to 2010/11 it doubled to £4 billion. 

Surely the government ought to be spending less on roads and more on cycling infrastructure if they want to properly deal with congestion. New capacity may in the short-term make journeys shorter, but in the long run, the roads soon fill up again. This has been known for some time. A landmark report by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA) called ‘Trunk roads and the generation of traffic’, HMSO, 1994, concluded that new roads generate new traffic growth.

A major independent study titled 'Beyond Transport Infrastructure' highlighted on the Campaign for Better Transport website, looked into the impact of the Newbury bypass and 2 other road schemes. The report showed that traffic levels predicted for 2010 in Newbury were already reached by 2003 – and that traffic had increased by almost 50% in that period. New development around the road was partially to blame for the increases.
Indeed, even by their own admission, the DfT admit congestion poses a very real long-term economic threat, which if left unchecked could 'cost the taxpayer an extra £22 billion in wasted time by 2025.'
The message this government appears to be sending out is: keep driving and we will build more roads to fit more of you in. Road traffic has increased in the last 15 years by 25% despite some efforts to get people onto bikes. A report by the European Cyclists Federation conducted a study on the cost effectiveness of modes of transport in the battle to reduce Transport carbon omissions and concluded if EU citizens were to cycle as much as the Danes in 2000, (an average of 2.6km a day), it would 'help the EU meet more than a quarter of the targeted emission reductions for the transport sector.' This government it  would seem has other priorities.


DfT spend on new road schemes by year (£m)

Highways Agency Schemes
2000/01
299
2001/02
424
2002/03
483
2003/04
235
2004/05
317
2005/06
483
2006/07
814
2007/08
759
2008/09
725
2009/10
733
2010/11
981

Friday, 6 January 2012

Government exposed as mouthpiece for pro-motorist lobby group over motorway speed limit consultation

Consultations are meant to be open processes where multiple experts submit their knowledge to an open-minded government department who will make a sensible policy decision based on all the facts. Or are they a way of showing us that the government is democratic when in fact they have already made up their minds.

 

In October 2011, Phillip Hammond announced the government’s intention to ‘consult on raising the national speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80 mph.’ The press release informed us of the economic benefits of faster journey times; technological improvements which make for out-of-date speed limits, and how thousands of habitual law-breaking drivers will no longer need to worry because the law will be changed for them.

I disagree but at least they have their own mind, or do they?

 

Back in December 2005, the Association of British Drivers (ABD) produced a press release titled ‘Forty Years on, Time for a Higher Speed Limit on Motorways.’ In it they informed us how they had ‘called on the government to increase the speed limit to 80 mph on most parts of the network.’ The article boasted of a ‘comprehensive study’ carried out by the ABD, which was submitted to the Department for Transport (Dft) earlier that year.

The ‘comprehensive’ study they were referring to was published on their website on the 28th of May 2005, six months before their press release.  The document detail is for the most part poorly researched, for which I have separate analysis. However, it is remarkable for the exact comparison one can make between their submission and the wording used by Phillip Hammond in his justifications. So obvious in fact, that upon reading there can only be one conclusion; the DfT are speaking on behalf of the ABD.

You be the judge.

To start with we have Philip Hammond letting us know how there has been ‘huge advances in safety and motoring technology.’ The ABD 2005 submission, which has since been touched up last year in time for a Road Safety Framework review states; ‘there have been significant improvements in…vehicle engineering.’

The following agreement continues on the subject of varying speed limits. The DfT tells us, ‘some stretches of motorway would be likely to retain a 70mph limit because of their engineering and environment.’  Quite right said the ABD in their final conclusions: ‘There will be certain locations…where retention of the existing speed limit would be appropriate.’

On the economy the free-thinking Mr Hammond declared: ‘Increasing the motorway speed limit to 80mph would generate economic benefits of hundreds of millions of pounds through shorter journey times.’ Couldn’t agree more say the ABD five years earlier: ‘Increasing the motorway speed limit would result in significant economic benefits from time savings’

And Finally.

‘We all know that many, many motorists who are otherwise law-abiding citizens routinely ignore the 70 miles per hour limit.’  
That’s our line say the ABD ‘… an increase in the UK motorway speed limit, or even its removal altogether would lead…to a substantial reduction in the proportion of drivers who habitually break the law.

I’ll leave you to work out who said what in that last one, but I’m not sure it actually matters, because on this issue at least, they are clearly one and the same.

As it turns out in more ways than one.

Not only is Mr Hammond reciting the words of the ABD before the consultation has even started, but the ABD has the dubious honour of having four Conservative MPs who act as their patrons. According to their website Steve Baker, Karl McCartney, David Morris,  Sammy Wilson and recently Westminster Conservative Cllr Glenys Roberts, who all make up the ABD’s existing patronage. No wonder then Phillip Hammond is so willing and able to speak on behalf of the motorist group.

Beware! They aren’t about to stop there. One of the recommendations at the bottom of the ABD’s submission reads: ‘After a period of time of acclimatisation to a higher speed limit, say three years, the possibility of raising it further or removing it altogether should be reviewed.’

Well there we go, we can expect an announcement from the DfT say in about three years informing us about how they think it will be a good idea to remove the speed limit altogether.