Boris Watch

Here’s an interesting transport decision that somehow escaped the notice of TfL’s press office, yet has nevertheless made it to that august journal, the News Shopper, which I read for the fatstock prices:

IN ANOTHER reversal of policy, new London Mayor Boris Johnson has agreed to restore the tidal flow arrangements to the Blackwall Tunnel.

The tidal flow allowed one lane of the southbound tunnel to be used for northbound traffic at peak times, to enable traffic heading into London to flow more easily.

This system had been in place for 30 years until it was axed in April last year.

Naturally this impacts solid Boris territory out Bexley and Bromley way, and thus the seat of transport committee new bug James Cleverly, who has got involved:

Bexley and Bromley London Assembly member James Cleverley [sic] said there were still legal and administrative problems to iron out.

He said: “The wheels are very much in motion and making this change is clearly a priority.”

The presentation of this is interesting - nasty old anti-car TfL (prop: K. Livingstone) are given the blame for it, apparently putting out an excuse about the police and safety, and now good old Boris is back the motorist is free again and the birds are singing, or possibly coughing, in the trees.  The reality is in the official documents at the time, and is rather different, although hardly totally flattering to TfL.

First off, let’s be clear what we’re talking about - the Blackwall Tunnel (complete with highly nutty blog) consists of two rather narrow bores each containing two lanes of road traffic.  From the south, the A102’s  three-lane northbound carriageway feeds into a two lane northbound tunnel, which obviously is a bottleneck.  Since 1978, therefore, one lane of the southbound tunnel was used as a northbound lane in the peaks to keep three lanes all the way and alleviate jams.  So far so obvious.

What happened goes like this:

• 2003 - during the Firemen’s Strike, tidal flow is suspended.  Evidently someone already thinks it requires the emergency services to be at higher state of readiness when operating.
• The Met Police, who have the responsibility for running the tidal flow scheme (note that according to TfL, the Met actually direct the traffic, so running the scheme is impossible without MPS agreement), start getting worried about people overtaking in the southbound tunnel.  The possibility for a high-speed head-on accident in a confined, hard-to-reach underwater space plus the ghastly 1999 Mont Blanc fire appear to have been behind this line of thinking, along with the economic cost of disruption should a tunnel be taken out of service after a bad accident or fire.
• May 2004 onwards - TfL commissions studies into tunnel safety.
• October 2005 - By this stage TfL has ‘concerns’ over tidal flow, according to the LA Transport Committee report.  Capita Symonds deliver a report.
• December 2005 - Mott McDonald commissioned to report into the effects of removing tidal flow.
• September 2006 - By now it’s a ‘real possibility’ - the Met Police has raised its concerns formerly to TfL.
• November 2006 - Capita Symonds are again on the line, advising immediate cessation.
• March 2007 - TfL propose ceasing tidal flow from 30th July 2007.  The MPS for some reason now declare they want it brought in much earlier, and obviously they have the power to do this unilaterally.
• 17th April 2007 - a motorcyclist is injured after an overtaking maneouvre in the southbound tunnel during tidal flow.  The MPS immediately stop tidal flow operation, permanently.
• 18th April 2007 - TfL release a press statement announcing the end of the scheme.  Obviously the horse has rather bolted by this stage.  Bexley council is not informed at all due to an oversight, and other councils are notified, but to the wrong people.
• April-May 2007 - Horrendous traffic jams build up owing to the lack of notice.  Eventually things settle down as people find alternative routes.
• 27th June 2007 - TfL Board meets, with this interesting snippet:

The Commissioner [Peter Hendy] said that the Mayor had asked TfL to see whether it would be possible to erect a barrier to separate the two lanes of alternate flowing traffic in the Blackwall Tunnel. The Commissioner confirmed that an engineering solution is not possible.

• July 2007 - LA Transport Committee, then chaired by the Conservatives’ Roger Evans, produces a reasonably fair and balanced report [PDF]

TfL comes in for criticism for lack of consultation and the responsibility split between MPS and TfL is flagged as unsatisfactory, but the basic safety reasoning is not contradicted, indeed it’s recognised that it’s a difficult decision and plenty of evidence was produced.  They also have an interesting comment on those who would link an apparent policing and safety decision to the Mayor’s supposed anti-car bias:

We also accept the assertions from TfL and the MPS that the decision was made purely on the grounds of safety.  Furthermore, we received no convincing evidence to support speculation that the cessation of the tidal flow was part of a deliberate plan to increase congestion and justify the extension of some form of road pricing.  TfL emphatically rejected such speculation in its evidence to the Committee.

So, what have we learned here?  Boris seeks to re-instate it, because a lot of his car-driving voters in places like Bexley (which was hopping mad about the original decision) want him to, in fact it’s on his transport priority list.  The Metropolitan Police presumably haven’t changed their mind on the safety aspects, so unless someone can demonstrate that London’s drivers have got better there’s an impasse here.  The Met will still be risk-averse and not remotely inclined to get sued for running a scheme any lawyer can demonstrate is considered terminally unsafe by TfL, the Met and numerous expensive transport consultants.  Let’s see how this plays out.

Tags: 2 Comments