Archive for the ‘tfl’ Category

TfL “do not record” the time of car expense claims. Three questions for them.

October 21, 2011

The Evening Standard reports that Transport for London’s staff have made expense claims for over a million miles of journeys in their own cars since April 2008.

This includes some incredibly short trips – my favourite of those listed being Moorgate to Liverpool Street (about 300 metres).

Having seen the Freedom of Information responses (see below), I can reveal that other trips include Bank to Moorgate, Pimlico to Victoria and Baker Street to Marylebone. I’ve fallen over and travelled further than some of these.

Except if you’re TfL staff

The Standard article notes Transport for London’s defence that the journeys were “made at night when the Tube had stopped”.

Yet how they’re able to make this claim, I don’t know. When I asked TfL for the details of when specific trips were made, under Freedom of Information legislation, they responded that they “do not record” this information.

Insulated from London

Of the 1069 journeys of five miles or under that were claimed for in 2010/11, not a single one was cycled. (Correction 9.14am: Only 8 were cycled. Thanks to the beady-eyed Twitter user who pointed this out.) 

Is it any surprise that cyclists are dying on TfL’s dangerously designed streets? Can we realistically expect that an organisation so entrenched in car culture will actually try to sort this out?

These expense claims raise a number of questions:

  1. Why aren’t employees being encouraged to avoid using cars for short trips, as outlined in the Travel at Work Policy?
  2. Why aren’t TfL recording the times of trips made? And why is their Press Office then allowed to claim that journeys are made at night?
  3. Who is making expense claims for car trips of less than 1 mile in Central London? And who is signing them off?

Something is deeply wrong at the core of TfL. The organisation’s Chair, Boris Johnson, needs to get a grip on it.

For the main FOI response, including total miles travelled and cash paid in the last five years click here. For the spreadsheet of all 6000 trips made in the last year, click here.

Behind the stats: How TfL misled the London Assembly about Blackfriars

October 7, 2011

In September, Transport for London released a copy of a presentation they had submitted to the London Assembly about Blackfriars Bridge.

This contained some rather extraordinary claims, for example this projection (p3):

AM peak 2012 – pedestrians 58%, cyclists 6%, car occupants 14%

Given that there are currently more cyclists than car occupants, and cycling is increasing while driving is decreasing, the above is quite clearly wrong.

Thanks to the tenacity of London Assembly Member John Biggs (and his researchers), TfL has been forced to release an explanatory note, which shows the dubious assumptions that they have made in order to arrive at these figures.

TfL’s projection in their presentation:

There are a number of sins in the explanatory note (detail below). Here are some of my favourite:

  1. Citing a figure from the Department for Transport’s guidelines, but actually using a different figure.
  2. Extrapolating about what will happen at Blackfriars based on a survey about travel in the whole of London – when we have exact figures at Blackfriars going back to 1986.
  3. Using a dataset from JMP consultancy, rather than TfL’s own screenline counts, where the consultancy’s figures lend more support to TfL’s argument.
  4. Despite cycling increasing every year at Blackfriars since 1994, assuming that there will be no increase between 2010 and 2012.
  5. Similarly, despite people driving cars decreasing every year since 1996, assuming that this will not change between 2010 and 2012.

A projection based on correcting the clear errors in TfL’s methodology:

Pedestrians, cyclists and bus passengers increase. Car occupants decrease. Cyclists far outnumber car occupants.

Without pedestrians, this is what this looks like:

Cyclists 23%, car occupants 14%

Get the data behind this here.

I outline the errors and idiosyncrasies in TfL’s methodology that I have addressed below. TfL’s comments are in italics and mine are in bold.

Cars and LGVs

In 2007/08 there were 4033 car and LGV occupants.  This is based on JMP’S January 2007 counts and an occupancy rate per vehicle of 1.63. The occupancy value is from ‘Values of Time and Operating Costs’ (April 2009) TAG Unit 3.5.6, Department of Transport.

This is calculated by adding 1400 cars to 850 LGVs and multiplying by a 1.63 occupancy rate. However, the relevant occupancy rate from the DfT TAG figures cited by TfL is not 1.63 – this is the all week average for all cars. The average per km travelled figure between 7-10am for cars is 1.37, and for LGVs is 1.23.

Using the correct figures, the number of occupants is actually 2963.

For 2012 there are assumed to be 3750 [car and LGV] occupants.  This is based on modal share reported for 2007-2009 in Travel in London Report 3, where car and LGV numbers reduced by 7%.

Using the figures from a report about travel in the whole of London is an odd choice when we have exact year-on-year figures about car and LGV rates at Blackfriars back to 1986.

When we look at those figures, we see that cars have reduced by 7% over the last 2 years – so a reduction of 7% by 2012 would mean that they stayed constant between 2010 and 2012. This seems unlikely, given that car usage has decreased in every period since 1994. 7% is the smallest post-congestion charge 2 year reduction, so it seems conservative to use that for the change between 2010 and 2012.

LGVs increased 6% in the last 2 years, and stayed constant in the 2 years before that – so let’s assume a 3% increase next year.


In 2007/08 there were 259 HGV occupants.  This is based on JMP’S January 2007 counts and an occupancy rate per vehicle of 1.

Again an interesting choice of dataset – using the figures from a consultancy rather than TfL’s own screenline counts in the same year which show only 67 HGVs during rush hour.

There is nothing wrong with having two datasets, but it seems reasonable to use an average of the two for a total of 163 HGVs.


In 2007/08 there were 1173 cyclists.  This is based on JMP’S January 2007 cycle counts which have been uplifted by 17% to reflect seasonal differences in cycle numbers.

Once again this is lower than TfL’s own screenline data (1288 cyclists) but it’s not too different so let’s accept it.

In 2012 there are assumed to be 1666 cyclists.  Cycling numbers uplifted by 42%, based on modal share changes reported 2007-2009 in Travel in London Report 3.

Except once again TfL use a report for the whole of London when we have hourly data for this particular bridge for the last 25 years.

Cycling increased 40% between 2008 and 2010, so TfL are saying that it will not increase at all between 2010 and 2012 which seems highly unlikely. In four year period of 2006-2010, cycling over Blackfriars increased 100%. So once again let’s go for a reasonably conservative estimated 2008-2012 increase and say 65%.

Taxi Occupants

In 2007/08 there were 2254 occupants.  This is based on JMP’S January 2007 traffic counts and an occupancy rate of 1.8 based on TfL Strategy Guidelines.

Which guidelines? We know that 1/3rd of taxis in the City are empty between 7am and 10am. So this claim means that the average occupied taxi has 2.7 passengers. A figure this high demonstrates what we already suspected: that TfL are including the driver as an occupant.

This is simply incorrect. 1000 empty taxis add nothing – in fact it’s worse than that. Indeed some might argue you should count taxis with just the driver in as worth less than 0. But let’s not, and just subtract the driver for a figure of 0.8 people per taxi.

Pedestrians, bus passengers and motorcyclists

There aren’t enough other sources of data for pedestrians or bus passengers, so we have to accept those estimates. Motorcyclists seems about right.

I am astonished that Transport for London seem to be able to get away with this. Are they accountable to anyone? This is what I’ll be asking on Wednesday, 5.45pm at Blackfriars.

Blackfriars: Don’t let Boris Johnson’s TfL send cycling back to 2006

October 5, 2011

In the recent discussions about the proposed 80mph motorway speed limit, I was reminded on twitter of an article by Jeremy Clarkson, where he says,

“People go with the flow. We drive as fast as traffic conditions allow. We use public transport when it’s better than taking the car. We use an umbrella when it’s raining and wear a jumper when it’s chilly.”

Clarkson is right. I love driving – but I always cycle or use public transport to commute in London. It makes sense.

Expanding on Clarkson’s point (words I don’t write often) is that as well as people shifting between modes of transport, they also shift routes within those modes, according to what makes sense at the time.

This effect seems to be present if we look at cycling levels at Blackfriars Bridge over the last 10 years – and it shows just how harmful TfL’s changes will be if they go ahead.

Blackfriars in 2004 (image from LCC City of London)

The magnet effect

Blackfriars Bridge has seen a greater than threefold rise in cycle commuters since 2000. But this increase has not been constant.

Prior to 2006, cycling over Blackfriars changed at around the same rate that cycling increased overall on London’s main roads. Since 2006 the number of cyclists over Blackfriars has more than doubled – far outpacing the overall cycling rise.

Increase in rush hour cycling over Blackfriars compared with increase over London's main roads: since 2006, the popularity of Blackfriars has skyrocketed.

What is interesting is that we have not seen the same increase in cycling on the bridges which neighbour Blackfriars: Waterloo to the west and Southwark to the east.

In fact, rush hour cycling on both those bridges between 2006 and 2010 actually decreased – although cycling in London increased by around a third.

Cycling rates over three bridges, 7-10am northbound, 2000-2010. 100 = average in 2000 over all Central London bridges.

Why did commuters old and new (the total number of people crossing all three bridges still increased) suddenly choose Blackfriars over the other bridges?

I may be misinformed, but I don’t believe London’s office space all moved between 2006 and 2010.

What did change was the deaths of two cyclists in 2004 over Blackfriars Bridge. Transport for London resurfaced the road, adding a wide cycle lane.

Blackfriars post 2006 – resurfaced after the deaths of two cyclists with a wide, mandatory cycle lane, no longer between two lanes of traffic.

This wasn’t perfect – the northbound junction was still a problem – but a wide clear space, largely separate from the bus lane, suddenly made this route cyclable again, at least relative to the neighbouring bridges.

The lane won the London Cycle Campaign’s award for best cycle facility of the year in 2006.

The increase in cyclists supports the argument that cycle bloggers have been making for a long time: what really bikes on streets is not marketing (competition in public services has not yet led to each bridge advertising its individual benefits to prospective consumers) – it’s feeling safe.

Going backwards

Jenny Jones, the Green Party London Assembly Member said last week that London’s cycle revolution is losing momentum.

At Blackfriars, TfL’s plans to narrow the northern cycle lane, remove the advanced stop box and addition of an extra traffic lane, are all clear signs that we’re now moving backwards.

I don’t want cycling to return to 2006 levels at Blackfriars – or at Elephant and Castle, Finchley, Richmond, Vauxhall or anywhere else that Boris Johnson’s TfL is making regressive changes to London’s streets.

That’s why I’ll be at Blackfriars on Wednesday October 12th at 5.45pm, for a flashride to show the Mayor which direction London needs to be moving. See you there.

Get the data.

London is broken: why people keep taking to the streets at Blackfriars

September 20, 2011

Running the roads is an enormously expensive business. TfL’s Surface Transport division’s expenditure is forecast at £2.6bn this year.

Let’s put this in perspective for a second – this is twice the figure lost by rogue trader Kweku Aduboli, which last week plunged global investment bank UBS into a quarterly net loss.

While much of the press bemoaned last week’s fares rises in articles which might as well have been written by Ken Livingstone’s campaign team, Dave Hill deftly pointed out the actual issue: Transport for London needs cash.

Hill argues that this money should instead come from higher road pricing for car users – which there is plenty of evidence for. But let’s take a step back.

Where does all the money go?

Transport for London give the public some idea what happens to this money through Finance and Policy Committee meetings.

But how useful is this? Thursday’s meeting, for example, revealed that TfL had revised the estimated final cost of the Cycle Superhighways down from £145m to £105m.

Did someone tell them cyclists like downward inclines?

Why isn’t this news? Basically: because no one really knows what it means.

Can Transport for London really have just reduced the budget by £40m without bothering to consult beforehand, or tell anyone afterwards?  It looks like it – but astonishingly for a public body, they don’t have to say.

Open up TfL

Here’s the rub. Does the Mayor really have to choose between two politically horrible options to come up with capital, raising fares or charging car users – where the decision of a leader largely elected by the outer boroughs is preordained?

That depends if the roads really require the level of government subsidy that they currently receive.

Climate Rush, an organisation who protest primarily about climate change, are on Thursday holding a protest at Blackfriars where their first demand is “an open and democratic Transport for London”.

They cite when TfL ignored the London Assembly’s unanimous vote about Blackfriars Bridge as their watershed moment – but there are plenty more.

Why has Transport for London this month suddenly said it has to splash out an unbudgeted £60 million at Hammersmith Flyover to “address recently identified structural defects”?

Vanity project? Same budget as Boris’s Cable Car

Might such maintenance be required because of the high volumes of wear caused by motor traffic? Is it right that £60m of public funds is being used to restore the very conditions that doom us to perpetually pouring more money into a congested, destructive streetscape?

Why does London keep taking to the streets?

Londoners are not happy with the political choices that are being made on our streets – choices being made with our money.

Thursday will be the third mass protest against TfL at Blackfriars Bridge alone in the last four months – and I suspect that there will be more.

Transport for London are not accountable to the public, nor to our elected representatives, the London Assembly. Nor our MPs, nor our local councillors, nor anyone else we ever get to vote for – with one exception.

TfL are only accountable to the Mayor – and so, for those concerned with transport, protests sizable enough to make Boris take notice are the only form of political engagement left.

The Climate Rush protest is on Thursday September 22nd, meeting at 8am on the south side of Blackfriars Bridge.

Why have TfL cut £40m from the Cycle Superhighways budget?

September 16, 2011

To see the May 2011 budget where the estimated final cost of the final tranche of Cycle Superhighways is £142m, click here (p13). To see the September 2011 budget where the final cost is £106m, click here (p11).

The budget allocation in September 2010 was £145m.

What is going on at TfL?

Transport for London have this quarter decided to embark on a £5m project to “commence investigation” of rebuilding the A4 Hammersmith Flyover, minutes from Thursday’s Finance and Policy meeting reveal. This project was not in the March 2011 Business Plan, and no money has been set aside for it.

TfL estimate the final cost of this project will be £60m. They have so far found £100k from the funding stream for maintaining the road network. The remaining £59,900,000 “is unbudgeted and the funding sources are being explored”.


Cycle Superhighway 7: Do we need to spend less money on these?

Transport for London have also managed to award over-budget funding to a number of projects in the last quarter.

This includes the controversial Henley’s Corner scheme, which has ballooned in projected cost from £8m to £9m in the last three months.

Under budget

Impressively, despite all this, we are informed in the Q1 Operational and Financial Report that for this quarter TfL have actually come in under budget. How have they achieved this feat?

This is due to re-phasing of expenditure on Cycle Hire, Countdown II, Cycle Superhighways and Better Routes and Places schemes. (p11)

For those not steeped in TfL vernacular, Better Routes and Places is the current name for the directorate which funds the Biking Boroughs, cycling and walking Greenways and various walking events and streetscape improvements.

Steep drop

Just to confirm for anyone who is unsure about these numbers – and that included me because I couldn’t quite believe the amount of  money disappearing here – this really is happening and it’s reflected in a number of Transport for London’s documents.

In the Project Approvals list of May 2011, the Estimated Final Cost of the Tranche 2 Cycle Superhighway Routes was £142.4m. Now it is £105.7m.

What next? These are both down from the initially approved cost of £145m

The September 2011 Investment Programme Report final cost for the ten Cycle Superhighways as £105.7m (p41), down from September 2010 figure of £145m (p43).


These projects need the money that they have been allocated. In May 2011, the project to build the first two Cycle Superhighways was closed after spending £22.4m out of the £23m they had been given project authority for. A cut of similar proportions would have left Londoners with a £6m shortfall.

I am flabbergasted that TfL have almost silently made such deep cut, burying it in the driest of committee minutes, released on a Friday.

Cycle Superhighways are one of the Mayor’s flagship projects. I confess, I do not know how TfL expect to be able to deliver them with £40m less to spend. I wonder whether Boris does.

Blackfriars Bridge: what we can learn from radical feminism

September 6, 2011

A constant barrier faced by people arguing for change in conditions is the claim that the presence of those conditions is, in itself, evidence that the groups involved are in favour of their existence.

Perhaps my favourite, slightly pretentious example of this is the 17th Century political philosopher John Locke. One of the founders of liberalism, a staunch advocate of the social contract and fierce opponent of the arbitrary rule of monarchy, when discussing the role of women he has a pretty serious wobble:

She should be subject to her husband, as we see that generally the Laws of mankind and customs of nations leave ordered it so: and there is, I grant, a foundation in nature for it.

Locke is unable to overcome the conviction that women ought to be subjugated by men. His only justification for this being “natural” is that this is the behaviour that he has observed.

This continues into modern political debate. Attempts to strike a balance between economic productivity and the need for childcare are concluded with statements from media and policy outlets like:

Pay mothers to stay at home.

Why? This presumption that state should legislate in a gendered fashion based on the historical behaviour of one sex is underpinned by the assumption that actions in the past have been choices.

This view – that the actions of women are an approximate indicator of social vocation – is perhaps most succinctly rejected by Catherine MacKinnon:

Take your foot off our necks, then we will hear in what tongue women speak.

Blackfriars Bridge

In Transport for London’s presentation to the London Assembly about Blackfriars Bridge, published last week, they similarly use the argument that a situation currently exists as evidence that it ought to exist – even though what we see at Blackfriars has quite clearly been artificially created by the very body who refuses to change it, Transport for London.

The Assembly were presented with this pie chart as part of the justification for making cycling conditions worse (p3):

These figures are highly suspect – we know that actually, there are more bicycles than any other vehicle over Blackfriars Bridge into the City during the AM peak.

Note how in the above graph, TfL lump together car and LGV occupants to make that section larger than cyclists (both would otherwise be smaller).

They also assume inordinately high vehicle occupancy rates – on average more than 3 people per occupied taxi – leading to the ridiculous conclusion that more people commute over Blackfriars Bridge by taxi than by bike.

But none of this matters. Even if TfL’s data was correct: so what?

Are we to assume that a relatively low percentage of cyclists over Blackfriars Bridge is an argument for worsening conditions over the bridge?

The demand is there

Transport for London can perpetually produce presentations and press releases of modal share stats, layout drawings and planners’ projections of junctions where they squeeze cycle lanes and remove pedestrian crossings.

But they cannot keep trying to use the fact that people are not cycling in London as an excuse for making London’s roads more hostile to cyclists.

There is a demand for cycling in London on traffic-free routes. On Sunday, 55,000 people on London’s streets showed us that.

And yet TfL in Blackfriars and elsewhere are not just refusing to make streets better – they are actively making them worse. The reason that there aren’t more cyclists on the streets is because of how those streets are being designed.

An executive decision

This is not about TfL and the figures they plug into which modelling software – if the Mayor and TfL can persuade us that it is, then we will never have conditions for cycling in London that would get the tens of thousands of Sky Ride participants on London’s streets any other day of the year.

Sky Ride

Our streets for a day

This is a political situation where people do not have the freedom to use their streets in the way that they would like to. The way out is through a decision that the Mayor has to make.

Image problem

This is an irritating issue for Boris Johnson and TfL because they are aware that Blackfriars has the ability to undo the good work of the Sky Rides: the persistent focus on the day-to-day reality of cycling can harm both Boris and TfL.

Catherine MacKinnon argued that practices of inequality do not require that acts be intentionally discriminatory, “all that is required is that the status quo be maintained”.

Boris can opt to do this – keep building streets the way that they have been built, keep designing people out of London’s cities, keep telling us that this is “not atypical” of London. Or he can choose not to.

But as more people start to notice, and write about it and take to the streets, Boris will find it harder and harder to convince Londoners that he’s in favour of cycling, while continuing to design it out of the city he runs.

Freedom of Information: TfL gets nasty

August 24, 2011

Last week, I used the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to reveal that Boris Johnson had misinformed the London Assembly about the advice he had received from traffic planners.

The information was somewhat embarrassing, not just for Boris but also for senior Transport for London figures named in internal documents, such as Ben Plowden and Daniel Moylan.

I have now received an email informing me that TfL will not be providing me with any of the information on the various outstanding requests that I currently have.

This is surprising, as I have successfully received regular FOI responses from TfL since I started this blog.

Are they allowed to do this?

TfL’s legal team are now claiming that they are not obliged to provide me with any information if costs more than £450 in total to respond to the requests that I have submitted.

This is not actually what the legislation says. Costs of individual requests may only be aggregated if,

the two or more requests relate, to any extent, to the same or similar information.

What requests are they refusing?

The claim that my outstanding requests relate to the same or similar information seems far-fetched. I am currently waiting to hear back about a number of different things, including:

  • Transport for London’s usage of “grey fleet” and “support fleet” cars in London’s streets.
  • Pedestrian Countdown Equality Impact Assessments
  • A ‘Pedal Confusion Study’ commissioned by London Buses
  • Information on a project entitled ‘21st century traffic signals’
  • Details of the disbanding of TfL’s Cycling Centre of Excellence
  • The Vauxhall, Nine Elms & Battersea Planning Framework

These are “similar”, I suppose, to the extent that they all refer to TfL’s operations. But essentially any FOI requests made to TfL, or any public body, will have to refer to the activities that they carry out – this can’t be the test of whether information requested is similar.

I have emailed TfL asking them how they have arrived at the conclusion that the above requests constitute “the same or similar” information and will publish their response.

Why now?

Since starting this blog, I have put in a lot of FOI requests to TfL, allowing me to post in detail a range of topics such as freight regulations, the street design process and Pedestrian Countdown.

I don’t know why TfL have suddenly decided, a week after I exposed through FOI that claims made by Boris Johnson were not accurate, that they are not going to respond to my outstanding requests.


At the end of the day, the reasons do not really matter. This is about democratic accountability. As the Information Commissioner’s Office informs us, the public have the right to request any information held by public authorities.

That Transport for London is refusing to reveal information about the above topics, on frankly the most spurious of pretexts, leaves me wondering just one thing:

What is Transport for London trying to hide?

Click here to read the full text of TfL’s email to me.

What’s wrong with lane rental: it counts vehicles not people

August 22, 2011

The Department for Transport have today launched a 12-week consultation on a proposed “lane rental” scheme, where utilities companies would charged for digging up the road.

Transport for London will tomorrow begin their consultation on whether we should have this in London.

New design

When lane rental was piloted in Camden and Middlesborough in 2002-04, it was concluded that it had little effect on the amount of time companies spent digging up the roads. 

The scheme currently being proposed by the government is quite different to the previous one. The 2004 pilot applied one charge to all streets at all times. The scheme the government are currently proposing will only charge at times which cause the most disruption.

This, we are told, will provide an incentive for companies to carry out works at less inconvenient times.

Inconvenient for who?

This all sounds somewhat sensible. But where will this actually apply?

The streets where evidence shows that works in the highway cause the highest levels of disruption and thus require the greatest efforts to smooth traffic flow.

DfT Guidance to Local Authorities, p8.

This is a phrase straight out of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and demonstrates the extent to which TfL have influenced (or written) the national policy here. A google search for “smoothing traffic flow” on TfL’s website produces over 20,000 results:

On the Department for Transport website, three results.

What will lane rental look like?

The DfT guidance tells that “the detailed design of lane rental schemes is best determined at a local level”.

Fortunately for us, TfL have done exactly this. They have produced a map of the “most congested” areas in London.

TfL Network Operating Strategy p46

These Congestion Management Areas are where lane rental will apply – as explained to the Surface Transport Panel in May 2011.

And how is this measured? By counting delays on roads, to motor traffic. Doesn’t include pedestrians. Doesn’t include people on bicycles.

This means that – despite the fact that Blackfriars Bridge is actually a designated Congestion Management Area – the following will still be acceptable:

There are more bikes here than any other vehicle at rush hour - yet delays to bikes aren't counted by the TfL methodology (image from Cyclists in the City)

Closing a footpath rather than a “lane” will be encouraged under lane rental:

Year long works at Henley's Corner

If Transport for London want to prevent delay and disruption to journey times, great.

But once again they continue to define “disruption” and “delay” as only counting when it affects people in motor vehicles. This simply creates an incentive for people to use cars over other forms of transport – which apart from anything else will actually cause more delays.

The fact that TfL has managed to influence the national policy here is all the more concerning.

FOI: Transport for London start to react

August 19, 2011

In his memoirs, Tony Blair laments his government’s introduction of the Freedom of Information Act:

Freedom of Information. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it.

While Open Democracy campaigners have reproached Blair’s about-face as a sign he was corrupted by power, there may be some merit to his argument.

The civil service and much of the country was concerned with Blair’s “sofa government” – decisions being made without involving the Cabinet, after consulting with a largely unelected (and to most of the country unknown) inner circle.

It is not far-fetched to suggest that when the Freedom of Information Act came into force in 2005, it provided an incentive to continue with such an approach: discussions are informal, undocumented and unknowable by journos, bloggers and busybodies.

Whatever – it’s not my job to discuss the merits of the Act. On balance, I think it’s probably a good thing, but clearly it can encourage behaviour we might not want our decision-makers to be engaged in.

We can see this in Transport for London. Wading through the minutes of TfL’s Network Management Group from April 2011 (which I received through a Freedom of Information request) I came across this little tidbit:

Any Other Business

Greenwich FOI

Noted that an FOI requesting copies of all correspondence between DR and Greenwich had included NMG minutes.  Agreed that going forward minutes to be brief action points.  Action – SC

It seems Tony’s cronies aren’t the only ones trying to evade the prying eyes of the public.

As ever, you can download the full (dull) minutes here.

Mayor’s office: Boris “not advised” over 20mph report

August 19, 2011

Last Friday, we looked at Boris’ claim that:

“On the 20mph limit zone on the bridges, I’ll look at anything. I’m told, my advice is, from the traffic engineers that this would not be a good way forward.”

Transport for London revealed, in response to a Freedom of Information request, that no one had provided Boris with said advice.

Mayor’s office response

At that point, with a mind to not libelling the man, I was forced to assume that Boris had received this advice from elsewhere. It might not be traditional for the Mayor to keep off-the-books traffic engineers who provide convenient post-hoc justification to his policies, but I couldn’t see any other explanation.

The Mayor’s office has now responded to my Freedom of Information requests. I asked them for:

The job titles of any traffic engineers who advised the Mayor’s office that this report was not the best way forward.

And they have responded:

The Mayor’s office was not advised as to the findings of this report.

I think it is fair to say at this point that what the Mayor said was simply not true.

We know that Boris was given advice that 20mph over Blackfriars Bridge was not the best way forward.

Possibly he thought the Blackfriars Bridge advice referred to all bridges. Or possibly he just lied. Who knows?

Whether you infer confusion or calumny, neither provides an optimistic outlook for Londoners while Boris Johnson remains in charge of London’s transport decisions.

See the full response from the Mayor’s office here.