Phil Goodwin

Emeritus Prof of Transport Policy, Ex @CTS_UCL, @TSUOxford, @CTS_UWE. Born 311 ppm.

[Phil Goodwin @Phil_Goodwin99]

5/5. Fourth Axiom: A future without road pricing presents serious problems which are not easier to solve than the problems of implementing it.

[Phil Goodwin @Phil_Goodwin99]

1/5 Here is a free-to-view Tapas link to my 60 years history of what happened to the Smeed Report on Road Pricing, published in the latest issue of @LTT
https://t.co/unEybMDjCV .
After a review of key policy developments since 1964 I suggest 4 draft Axioms;

[Phil Goodwin @Phil_Goodwin99]

4/5. Third Axiom: Road pricing is possible, and likely. Logically we should therefore meanwhile include ‘a future with road pricing’ as a key possible scenario in re-appraising current and inherited major projects and policies.

[Transport Action Network @TransportActio2]

Cancel new roads to boost growth: our submission to @LouHaigh’s infrastructure review as to why cancelling £15bn or more of new roads would help grow the economy and support Labour’s five missions

https://t.co/LVmWxYZRjY

[Transport Action Network @TransportActio2]

Anyone concerned at the continuation of the Tory's roads programme and wants it cancelled should write to @LouHaigh post haste

We've made it easy to do: https://t.co/J7nucZ2c8S

Savings should be split 3 ways: to reduce the deficit, fill potholes & for better public transport

[Transport Action Network @TransportActio2]

"Private funding does not turn a bad scheme into a good one, and the case for this one [Lower Thames Crossing] did not stack up"

Excellent letter from Professor @Phil_Goodwin99 in the Financial Times today about his knowledge of this scheme

https://t.co/OrvQXZLUhE

[CHAIRRDRF @CHAIRRDRF]

Glad there are lots of reposts for this 🧵from @adamtranter on how we could and should be building a "strategic network" of off-carriageway cycle paths.

I do hope @LouHaigh and her officers in @transportgovuk read it, especially bit about Professor Metz.

[20's Plenty for Us @20splentyforus]

THE DEFAULT 20MPH LIMIT FOR BUILT-UP ROADS IN WALES IS STAYING.
There are no plans to change it. The new updated guidance, just like previous guidance, allows authorities to except individual roads using a TRO if evidentially justified. https://t.co/1X9smgsRkC

[Adam Tranter @adamtranter]

When we build bigger roads, we get more traffic. Congestion briefly gets better, then the same, then worse. £Billions is spent in the process.

Instead of dualling roads, what if we used the space for active travel instead? Here’s a thread on why it should happen.🧵

[Phil Goodwin @Phil_Goodwin99]

@Chisholm4Trail Ok, understood. Thanks

[Phil Goodwin @Phil_Goodwin99]

Not sure now whether this reaches my network? (or if you're still here). If any followers or followed who see this want to contact or follow me on LinkedIn I'll be pleased to continue.

[Transport Action Network @TransportActio2]

"Just because this smart motorway has been debated for years is no reason to bulldoze it through - especially when it stems from out-of-date thinking, has little strategic value and is not fit for purpose"
Our director on the Lower Thames Crossing - letter in @thetimes today

[Phil Goodwin @Phil_Goodwin99]

What can the new Government do about the inherited divisive road programme and traffic debate? An independent review of the whole programme, that's what. A sort of Truth & Reconciliation commission. Details in my new @LTTmagazine article, free to view at https://t.co/jjBD82Ztsp

[Phil Goodwin @Phil_Goodwin99]

I think the way we model freight traffic in road scheme appraisal is deeply flawed, inconsistent with modern logistics and empirical evidence, but solvable. Here is my review and research proposal on how to solve that, in @LTTmagazine and free to view on https://t.co/YyUbN58h3x

[Phil Goodwin @Phil_Goodwin99]

I think the way we model freight traffic in road scheme appraisal is deeply flawed, inconsistent with modern logistics and empirical evidence, but solvable. Here is my review and research proposal on how to solve that, in @LTTmagazine and free to view on https://t.co/YyUbN58h3x

[Phil Goodwin @Phil_Goodwin99]

@ParadiseOxford @LTTmagazine Yes, a fair point. The tonne-km would be better for carbon, though vehicle-km (or even better pcu-km) would be better for traffic.

[Phil Goodwin @Phil_Goodwin99]

The highly questionable, very expensive Lower Thames Crossing - Part 2 of my @LTTmagazine analysis now free to view at https://t.co/tPbyc9SsRW. This deals with detailed junction disputes, Agglomeration (the deus ex machina to save appraisal), Carbon, et al. Part 1 still there.

[CHAIRRDRF @CHAIRRDRF]

Well worth a read of the current @TransportXtra (or LTT as oldies know it):
You get two detailed critiques of individual road building justifications from Profs Metz and @Phil_Goodwin99, a description of an alternative to predict-and-provide planning from Prof @GlennLyons2 +
1./