Bureaucracy Gone Mad

Allowing cyclists on some of the streets off Mill Road to cycle both ways on roads that are one-way for drivers is a controversial issue. Personally, I think there is a huge benefit to cyclists in speeding up journeys like this with little or no increased risk or invconvenience to other road users, so I support the changes recently introduced to allow two way cycling. What is indefensible however is the way the Government Department of Transport insists on very specific forms of signage to allow this, which actually cause problems because they won't allow a simple arrangement that makes it very clear that the roads are only one-way for cars. The following is a good suggestion for how two-way cycling should be allowed:

But some bureaucrats sitting in an office in London don't like this, and according to the police, this is causing problems with some motorists ignoring the no motor vehicles signs (the "flying motorbike" sign) that have just replaced the no entry signs to implement the new policy of allowing two way cycling. I thought I would ask why...

To: Traffic Signs dept, Department for Transport
Dear Sir,
Here in Cambridge cycling is a significant form of local transport, that makes a huge contribution to reducing congestion and promoting sustainable travel, so as a local Councillor I am keen to promotecycling as much as possible.
One way of doing this is to permit cyclists to cycle both ways down a street that is one-way for other traffic. A very simple way of permitting this would be a form of signage that makes it clear that aroad is no entry for vehicles except cyclists, along with some simple road markings at the entrance to the road. (See attached picture).
However, I understand that due to Department for Transport rules, this form of signage is not permitted, and either a less clear form of signage or over-engineered street works are required to make such asimple change. (perhttp://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/cyclefacilities/contraflowcycling?page=3#a1004)
Contrary to the comment in the guidance ("At the sites monitored by TRL, compliance with this sign was found to be good."), I would like to provide feedback on how replacing no entry signs with no motor vehicles signs (per figure 2 on the guidance page linked above) is working in practice on several roads in Cambridge with signage recently changed. The police have reported to local Councillors that this has resulted in numerous car drivers believing that the roads inquestion are no longer no-entry for them, resulting in cars travelling in an unexpected direction on the roads in question, and requiring an additional police presence.
Therefore, could you please let me know:
Is the form of signage proposed in the attached diagram actually prohibited? (i.e. is the 'guidance' mandatory)
If it is not permitted, why is this?
Can this form of signage please be permitted?
If no, what form of legislation or edict from an elected person/minister etc would be required to make such signage permitted?

UPDATE: I should point out that Cambridge Cycling Campaign have been campaigning on this issue for a while, and have a much better explanation of the problem here.

New Cycle Route on the Agenda

One of my election pledges was to campaign for a new cycle route in Coleridge between Ashbury Close and Golding Road. This has now been put in progress, and I've had this back from the Council:

"This has now been put on the register for new schemes as part of the city's Environmental Improvements Programme which includes the budget for minor cycle schemes. Unfortunately there is a large backlog of work so it may be some time before any work is undertaken through this programme. It may be that we can progress minor schemes such as this sooner if (but hopefully when) new engineers are appointed as part of the Cycling Demonstration Town award."

There is still some way to go, and there needs to be local consultation nearer the time, but when I discussed this proposal with neighbouring residents during the local election campaing, the general response was very positive! I think this new route could be a real help for cyclists in Coleridge and from other parts of Cambridge.

Congestion Charge Rethink - Time for some Lib Dem honesty?

As has been reported in the Cambridge Evening News, the result of the Conservative County Councillors group meeting last Friday is a rethink on congestion charge plans. Whilst they have not ruled out congestion charging immediately (by far my preferred option!), they are going back to the drawing board and setting up a commission including the district Councils and various other interests in the local economy to look at what transport infrastructure Cambridgeshire needs going forwards - this commission will gather evidence and then advise the County Councillors, who will then take the final decisions. I understand this new policy will be debated and approved at the next County Council cabinet meeting/full Council meetings.

I hope this new approach can start by identifying the serious investment that is needed in all types of transport, and will result in the County asking the government for this investment without any strings attached. It will also give time for more public reaction to the Manchester congestion charge proposals, that have already seen one high supporter of congestion charging lose his Council seat, getting trounced into third place.

It is also time for the Lib Dems to come clean about their plans for transport in Cambridge. Surprise, surprise, their first reaction to the news was to condemn the County Council's plans, but yet again they won't tell us what they would do instead. Its not surprising, because as a party the Liberal Democrats are actually in favour of a form of road pricing like congestion charging - and locally have said: "The Liberal Democrats recognise that a transport strategy which includes substantial improvements to public transport and some form of road pricing is essential". Yet you wouldn't think that from any of their literature distributed in the last local elections - when you will just have read about how opposed they were to the County Councils congestion charging plans. Nobody reading their literature would have guessed that the Lib Dems were only disagreeing with the detail of the congestion charging plans, and are actually in favour in principle. This is a disgraceful abuse of the electorate in Cambridge - as the debate continues, its time for the Lib Dems to come clean and be open about their support for road pricing in Cambridge.

Big Brother is generally well behaved

Many thanks to City Council officers for their prompt response to my query yesterday about the City Council's use of surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

In summary, the City Council has used its surveillance powers 15 times in the last 2 years, all using CCTV. 3 times City Centre CCTV was used to count the number of street beggars, in the remainder covert CCTV was used to monitor anti-social behaviour, criminal damage, fly-tipping and racial abuse.

The use of these powers is carefully controlled by a detailed policy, and must be approved by specific senior officers.

The powers were used on a limited (small) number of occasions, only involved CCTV, and targeted specific problems rather than more speculative 'fishing expeditions'. This all seems reasonable - indeed in the past it has been frustrating that the Council hasn't been able to use covert CCTV to catch those responsible when, for example, a particular wall has been repeatedly targeted by graffiti vandals.

To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, there appears to be a genuine commitment to ensure the many surveillance powers the Council has are not abused, and overall I think this response is encouraging.

Mill Road Tesco Moves Closer

Tesco are moving closer to opening a new store on Mill Road. They have submitted an application (ref 08/0794/FUL) for installing refrigeration and plant to the existing building, saying:

"Following refusal for the proposed small single storey rear extension, Tesco now propose to use the existing Class A1 floorspace at the site as their Express store format. To facilitate the efficient and effective use of the site it is necessary to install a small amount of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment"

Without wishing to prejudge the outcome of this application, I think it is fair to say they believe they have more chance of getting this minor application through planning than winning the battle for an extension with the planning inspector, and are looking to open a store as soon as possible even in the smaller existing building...

City should learn from County on Scrutiny

Conservative controlled Cambridgeshire County Council scrutiny process has been recognised as an example of best practice in a national awards scheme judged by an independent panel of judges. The award scheme – launched by The Centre for Public Scrutiny – celebrates the achievements of local authorities for the way they hold decision makers to account – Cambridgeshire picked up the top award in the financial scrutiny category.

County Councillors Lister Wilson, who chairs the Council’s Scrutiny Management Group and Councillor Michael Williamson, who chairs the authority’s Corporate Services Scrutiny Committee, travelled to London to be presented with the award.Councillor Wilson, said: “This award is a fitting recognition for the way scrutiny works in Cambridgeshire and how we involve members of all the political groups in monitoring and informing the decision making processes of the County Council.”

If only the City Council could take note. Decision making in local Councils changed dramatically after the Local Government Act 2000, with decision by committee being replaced with decision by Executive Councillor, with decisions scrutinised by scrutiny committees. In the County, this process is working well - opposition Councillors can chair the scrutiny committees which really can hold Executive Councillors to account. In the City, the scrutiny committees are chaired by the ruling Liberal Democrats, 'backbench' Lib Dems are apparantly told which way to vote in the committees regardless of whether or not they agree with a proposal, and the whole thing frequently appears to be a pointless rubber stamping exercise. Its no wonder the City scrutiny arrangements were derided by Lib Dems on the County - the City could be doing much better.

Is Big Brother Watching You?

I have previously raised my concerns about the abuse by Councils of the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act 2000, a legislation giving Councils surveillance powers designed for combating terrorism and serious crime, then using these powers to police minor infringements.

In view of a letter sent today to Councils from Sir Simon Milton of the Local Government Association urging that these powers aren't abused in future, I am keen to ensure the City Council is behaving responsibly and have written to the Council to ask:

How many times Cambridge City Council has used its surveillance powers under this act?

What form(s) of surveillance were undertaken?

For what purposes?

Who in the Council authorises such surveillance?

Does the Council have a policy on when officers may or may not use its powers under this act?