TRANSPORT AND MOBILITY
Transport is the area in which the Mayor’s power is least ambiguous. Transport for London is under mayoral control and almost everything in this chapter is therefore green. It is also where an instinct for building things, running them efficiently and holding contractors to account makes the most immediate difference.
4.1 Two tunnels under the Thames
The problem
East of Tower Bridge, London has almost no road crossings of its river. West of Hammersmith the position is little better. The consequence is structural: traffic with no business in central London is funnelled through it, and communities on both banks endure congestion generated by journeys that begin and end nowhere near them.
This has been recognised as a failure of London’s road network for over fifty years. Successive administrations have commissioned studies, published options and flinched. The Silvertown Tunnel, a single crossing of approximately 1.4 kilometres, took roughly fifteen years from proposal to opening. That is the record this city has to improve upon, and it is not a high bar.
The commitment
- Two new dual carriageway tunnels beneath the Thames, one to the west of London and one to the east, each carrying four lanes of traffic.Route selection, full design, environmental assessment and the consenting process delivered within the first term. Indicative development cost: one hundred and eighty million pounds.
- A published river crossing strategy for London within the first year, covering every crossing between Kew and the estuary and the order in which they will be built.Indicative cost: four million pounds.
- Construction of both tunnels funded and begun.Requires a settlement with government and a Development Consent Order. Indicative construction cost: provisionally eight to twelve billion pounds. A Mayor with a credible plan is best placed to secure that settlement from the Treasury.
Reconciling the tunnels with the Clean Air Programme
The obvious objection is that a manifesto cannot credibly promise cleaner air and four new lanes of road capacity in the same document. This deserves a direct answer rather than a slogan, and it is why this section sits immediately after the air quality chapter rather than elsewhere.
Induced demand is real and well evidenced. New road capacity built into a congested network without conditions generates additional traffic that partially or wholly erodes the benefit. Any honest proponent of new road infrastructure has to engage with that rather than wave it away.
The engagement is as follows. These crossings are not new radial capacity into central London, which is where induced demand effects are strongest and where London’s air is worst. They are orbital capacity at the periphery, designed to remove cross-river journeys from a network that currently forces them through the middle of the city. The traffic they carry largely exists already; it is taking a longer and dirtier route.
Four conditions will be attached to both schemes. They are binding commitments, not aspirations:
- Neither scheme proceeds unless third-party modelling demonstrates a net reduction in vehicle kilometres and in roadside emissions across the affected boroughs. That modelling will be published in full, including findings adverse to the scheme.
- Both crossings carry dedicated public transport provision from the day they open, not as a deferred later phase.
- Both are paired with the freight consolidation programme, so that heavy goods movement is concentrated on the orbital route and removed from residential roads.
- Demand management is designed in from the outset rather than retrofitted, with the mechanism published as part of the consent application.
If the modelling does not support the schemes, they do not proceed. I would rather publish that finding and abandon a flagship commitment than build something that makes London’s air worse while claiming otherwise.
4.2 Bridges
London’s river bridges are a public disgrace. Hammersmith Bridge has been closed or restricted for years, at a cost in inspection, temporary works and diverted journeys that has never been publicly aggregated. Others are being sustained by regimes whose cost is disclosed nowhere in a form any Londoner could find.
- Every London bridge surveyed and its true condition and whole-life cost published.So that Londoners can see which crossings are being kept alive at unjustifiable expense. Indicative cost: eight million pounds.
- Hammersmith Bridge fully restored, funded and delivered to a firm published date.Indicative capital contribution: provisionally two hundred and fifty million pounds.
- Permanent solutions for the decaying crossings at Albert, Broadmead Road and Vauxhall, including wide under-river tunnels where a bridge cannot be justified.Indicative capital: six hundred million pounds.
- An end to the endless patching of failing bridges. Where a crossing cannot be economically repaired, it will be replaced.Policy position applied through TfL and the London Plan.
- Bridges beyond economic repair demolished and rebuilt as landmark structures, designed by open international competition and built to last two hundred years.Most of London’s river bridges are listed. Demolition consent rests with Historic England and the Secretary of State. Indicative capital: four hundred to seven hundred million pounds per crossing.
On this last point the argument will be made openly and Londoners can judge it. A bridge closed for years, costing millions annually to keep standing and requiring the same in perpetuity, is not heritage. It is a monument to indecision. This city built the bridges it needed in the nineteenth century and it can build the bridges it needs in the twenty-first.
4.3 The Underground and the network
- Sliding platform-edge doors installed across the London Underground, delivered in phases.Beginning with sub-surface lines where installation is most straightforward. Indicative capital: provisionally one point two billion pounds.
- An accelerated programme of step-free access at every Tube station, prioritised by borough accessibility rather than passenger volume.Indicative capital: two hundred million pounds within the term.
- Night Tube and night bus reliability restored, for the Londoners who work outside nine to five.Indicative cost: forty-five million pounds annually.
- Mobile signal and connectivity completed across the entire Underground network.Delivered under the existing operator concession at no net cost to the fare payer.
- Free travel on the entire TfL network for London’s essential workers.The Mayor chairs TfL and sets fares directly, so this is delivered without anyone’s permission. Free travel on the Underground, buses, DLR, Overground, Elizabeth line and trams for the nurses, care workers, teachers, police and fire staff, transport workers and other essential workers who keep London running, verified through a registered essential worker travel pass. Indicative cost: funded through the efficiency and budget-stability measures set out below rather than through higher fares on everyone else.
4.4 Buses, taxis and the roads
- Bus routes redirected away from high street congestion, and the return of the hop-on hop-off bus.Indicative cost: twenty-five million pounds annually.
- Flat fares from Heathrow to central London for all licensed taxis.TfL sets taxi tariffs directly. Regulatory, no cost.
- All private hire and app drivers held to a proper standard of London knowledge.TfL is the licensing authority. Regulatory, no cost.
- 20mph zones returned to 30mph across the TfL road network.Applies to the TfL Road Network only; borough roads remain a matter for boroughs. Indicative cost: eight million pounds.
- Strict bidding guidelines for all contracting and road works, with lane rental and permit conditions enforced.Net saving to TfL.
4.5 A TfL budget that stops the endless rise in fares
We cannot keep balancing the transport network on the backs of fare payers. Fares rise every year because TfL is funded in a way that forces it to. The Mayor sets fares and proposes the budget, and the way that budget is structured is itself within the Mayor’s power to change. Three reforms end the cycle of annual fare increases and give TfL the stable, long-horizon funding it needs to make major improvements rather than quick fixes.
- A new TfL funding settlement secured every Parliamentary session, replacing the year-to-year begging bowl.A long-term transport settlement is agreed with the Treasury, not renewed annually. A Mayor working constructively with government is best placed to win it. Amber because the settlement is granted by government, but it is a campaign I will lead from the first month.
- A ten-year rolling capital plan for TfL, so it can spend against a decade of certainty from the outset.The Mayor sets TfL’s strategy and business plan. A ten-year rolling plan, extended by a year each year, means TfL is never planning against a single year’s money. It can commit to major works from the get-go instead of deferring them, and it removes the annual pressure that pushes fares up.
- The uplift in land value around renovated and new stations captured to fund transport, not left to accrue elsewhere.When a station is built or renovated, land and property within roughly a mile — as seen around Battersea — rises sharply in value. That uplift will be reflected in the council tax precept and, where the powers allow, in land value capture arrangements in the improved area. The revenue is directed back into TfL, which allows it to secure larger, low-interest, long-term loans for major and lasting improvements rather than short-term fixes. Delivered through the GLA precept, developer contributions and mayoral land value capture powers.
4.6 Cycling, e-scooters and the rules of the road
London’s roads have acquired a category of vehicle that is fast, silent, frequently illegal and effectively unenforced. Illegally modified e-bikes exceeding the 250 watt and 15.5 mile per hour limits are, in law, motor vehicles requiring registration, insurance and a licence. Private e-scooters are unlawful on any public road or pavement. Both are ridden in their thousands daily. Pedestrians, particularly elderly, blind and disabled Londoners, have paid the price.
The powers to deal with this already exist. They are not being used. That is a choice, and it is one I will reverse in the first fortnight.
- An end to pavement cycling, enforced by a dedicated and funded police effort.Cycling on the footway has been an offence since the Highways Act 1835 and fixed penalty notices already exist. A commitment to enforce, not to legislate. Indicative cost: six million pounds annually.
- Police empowered and resourced to seize any vehicle — including bikes and e-scooters — ridden in breach of the rules of the road.Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 already provides the power to seize vehicles used unlawfully, and it extends to illegally modified e-bikes and e-scooters. What limits its use is storage and disposal capacity, which the Mayor funds. The police will have the resources to seize offending vehicles, not merely the theoretical power to. Indicative cost: four million pounds annually.
- Strict licensing conditions on every rental bike and e-scooter operator, requiring that every bike and e-scooter is properly docked in a designated bay, with identification, speed capping and geofencing.TfL licenses these schemes and can impose conditions directly. Mandatory docking ends the abandonment of bikes and scooters across pavements and junctions: a vehicle that is not returned to a designated bay is not a completed hire, enforced through geofencing. Regulatory, no cost.
- Licence plates and registration for all bikes and e-scooters.Vehicle registration is a DVLA function under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. A London feasibility study will be commissioned, identification mandated on rental fleets immediately through TfL licensing, and the national case led from London.
- A proportionate and fair road tax paid by all road vehicles, including bicycles and e-scooters.Every vehicle that uses the road should make a proportionate and fair contribution to the cost of it, and that principle applies to bicycles and e-scooters as it does to cars and vans. Vehicle Excise Duty is set by the Treasury, so the scheme itself needs government, and I will press the case honestly — noting that VED is currently emissions-based and that electric cars pay nothing either. Within London, the charge will be introduced on rental bike and e-scooter fleets immediately through TfL licensing, and the national case for a proportionate levy on all cycles and e-scooters will be led from London.
- The Highway Code applied to cyclists in full — including Rule 64, no cycling on the pavement — with fixed penalties mandatory rather than discretionary.Rules 59 to 82 already apply to cyclists and penalties already exist. Rule 64 — that cyclists must not ride on a pavement — will be enforced properly. Fines will no longer be treated as discretionary; where the police fund and direct enforcement, penalty notices will be issued as a matter of course rather than waved through. Enforcement begins immediately. Extending the statutory penalty range requires the Department for Transport, and that case will be pressed.
- Consistent speed limits across every London borough.Delivered through the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, funding conditions and negotiation with boroughs.