• James introduced Richard Bourn, who for the last five years has been London Coordinator of Transport 2000 ( see ). Previously, he was with the Council for the Protection of Rural England and, before that, was one of the main movers behind the Camden Transport Forum.

• Richard first of all mentioned the aspects of the Mayor’s transport policies which Transport 2000 supports. The Congestion Charge and bus improvement schemes have been a good thing. Efforts to promote walking and cycling have been OK, but more money should be devoted to them. Travel Demand Management (TDM), which includes school travel plans, has been developing, and will move on in due course to workplace and community travel plans. (Ben Plowden, formerly of the Pedestrians Association, is now in charge of TDM.)

• Richard then moved onto consider some of the things wrong with the Mayor’s strategy. First of all, very little is being done to push progressive transport in outer London. Secondly, the Mayor is still planning for overall travel growth (albeit at a reduced rate). Thirdly, and related to this, there are a number of big road building programmes in the pipeline, especially in east London (‘Thames Gateway’), e.g. a new six lane bridge over the Thames. There are also a number of big developments which include massive car parking provision, e.g. 10,000 at Stratford City. Fourthly, the important theme of accessibility is too narrowly restricted to the issue of disabled access to buildings and public transport, when it should mean much more as well. Finally, the Mayor is at best indifferent to the importance of reducing the need to travel.

• So what’s driving the Mayor’s transport strategy? There are three main factors: (i) the existing capacity constraints on the transport networks; (ii) the projected growth in London’s population and economy – by 2025 there are expected to be an extra one million people living in London (mainly on the periphery, esp. the ‘Thames Gateway’) and an extra one million people working in London (mainly in central London); (iii) the need to do something about climate change – the target is for a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2025.

• Transport for London has a new strategy document which describes the aim to reduce car use from 40% of journeys to 30% by 2025, and increase cycling from 1% to 5%.

• There are a number of big public transport schemes being planned, such as Crossrail, the new Thameslink, expanded DLR, an orbital railway line (continuing the North London Line) and tram schemes.

• Richard returned to the issue of minimizing the need to travel. How would this work? Well, Richard argued that the existing nature of most of inner London displayed the required characteristics – people don’t have to make long journeys, and often use public transport and their feet when they do travel (the ‘modal split’ for journeys in inner London is 25% car, 56% public transport and 17% walking/cycling).

• As to Camden, Richard stressed the importance of the Cross River tram scheme, which he sees as an enormous opportunity to ensure road space reallocation and public realm improvements. He was also very keen to see 20 mph speed limit made the default for the borough (as it nearly is now in Islington).

• There then followed questions from the floor. Dudley asked about road charging and how this would be implemented throughout London. Richard suggested that it would probably not take the form of an expansion of the existing Congestion Charge scheme, but rather use ‘tag and beacon’ technology, whereby each vehicle would have a electronic tag.

• Blake wondered whether King’s Cross should not also feature in Richard’s list of worryingly car-centred developments. Richard said that the King’s Cross car parking / units ratio was in fact quite low, but that as Camden was the leader in car-free development it should perhaps have done more to reduce the ratio here. (Apparently it is lower in the Islington section.) It may be possible to get some changes in this direction as a result of the judicial review process.

• Stefano questioned the effectiveness of ‘TDM’, given our experience with school travel plans being used by car driving parents to facilitate their travel plans, and not promoting walking/cycling. Richard asked Stefano to provide details of the problems we have encountered which Richard can then take up with Transport for London.

• Richard’s enthusiasm for trams prompted some contrary views, in response to which he insisted that although expensive, they were much more fuel-efficient than the alternatives (and there are in any case less expensive, ‘light-tram’, versions) and that they work well elsewhere. Not everyone was convinced!

• Finally, Richard was asked to confirm which of the long list of public transport plans he mentioned were actually going ahead. Most of the work in east London will happen, but others are still up in the air, particularly Crossrail (even though the London Borough of Camden is still intending to shut down St Giles Circus next year to get started on it!). An Enabling Bill is currently in the Houses of Parliament to allow Crossrail to start, but there is still no funding for it.

• Richard was then thanked for his very informative talk whereupon the meeting ended.