Latest news with #taxpayermoney
Times
3 days ago
- Automotive
- Times
How the shift to electric cars is being tripped up by health and safety
Some £25 million of taxpayer money is available to help those without driveways charge an electric vehicle from their home, but some local authorities are blocking funding requests on health and safety grounds over concerns that hidden charging cables are a trip hazard. Being able to charge a vehicle at home can be make or break for drivers wanting to go electric. Home charging can cost as little as 6p per kilowatt-hour (kWh) — almost nine times less than public chargers, which cost about 52p/kWh on average. Charging at home is easy if you have a driveway or garage. Those without would have to run a cable from their property to the street, which can obstruct the pavement — an offence under the Highways Act. A number of companies argue a better option is to dig shallow channels into the pavement to run the cable through, which is topped off with a flat lid that sits flush to the ground and typically costs about £1,000. Residents first need planning permission and a street works licence from their local council, and sometimes have to pay an ongoing annual maintenance or licence fee to the council or company. Advocates argue that gullies are safer than loose hanging cables, which can obstruct the pavement. About 35 per cent of households in the UK, and 56 per cent in London, do not have off-street parking according to the RAC Foundation, a think tank. These households must rely on expensive public chargers. Fully charging a Renault Zoe with a 52kWh battery would cost £3.12 at home at 6p/kWh, and £27.04 on a public charger at 52p/kWh, according to ZapMap, a site that compiles information about public charging spots. In a survey of 5,000 drivers by the energy supplier Eon Next, 59 per cent said the cost of going electric was the biggest barrier to making the switch, and 28 per cent cited the lack of public charging infrastructure. Michael Goulden, the cofounder of Kerbo Charge, which has installed about 1,000 gullies across 30 council areas since January 2023, said: 'People repeatedly tell us that home charging is the only way to make the numbers work. Electric cars are more expensive to lease, but they can make it work as the running cost is cheaper than petrol. But only if they can charge from home.' • Can you still save money with an electric car? Drivers can apply for a £350 grant towards the cost of buying a home charger (which typically costs £800 to £1,200) if it is installed alongside some kind of 'cross-pavement solution'. Last month the government also opened a £25 million fund for councils, incentivising them to allow cables 'to run safely beneath pavements'. Some councils including Bromley, Enfield, Lancashire and Suffolk have either trialled or fully approved cross-pavement charging. But other local authorities, despite touting their net-zero credentials, have rebuffed residents' calls to trial them. Lewisham borough council in southeast London told one resident who was keen on trialling a company called Charge Gully that it posed 'an electric and tripping safety hazard'. The council also said in the email in December, seen by The Sunday Times, that gullies raised issues of liability for maintenance or in the case of an accident, and created 'potential access issues for utility companies'. Goulden said there were about 150 residents in Lewisham on his company's waiting list, all unable to install a charging gully because of the council's stance. He said the council had refused to meet the company. He said: 'In London nearly 60 per cent of households have no driveway, and it has the highest level of electric car adoption, so those two together make it the highest priority area to make cross-pavement charging available.' Lewisham council said on its website that it was among the first local authorities to 'declare a climate emergency' in 2019. In its 2024 climate action plan it said its ambition was 'to make Lewisham a place where low-carbon travel is the easy choice'. • Fix our woeful rollout of EV charging to rescue our car industry Lewisham council said there were still concerns about the long-term safety and practicality of cross-pavement charging, including risks to people with mobility challenges, and potential electric shock hazards. It added: 'Even when installed correctly, these mechanisms can degrade over time or be misused, creating hazards homeowners or the council could be held responsible for.' The Sunday Times understands at least 11 councils in London are blocking requests for cross-pavement chargers, as well as Birmingham city council and Oldham borough council in Greater Manchester. Birmingham council, which said 30 per cent of its residential properties have no access to off-street parking, 'does not licence or permit the use of trailing cables on the highway' because it deems them to be a tripping hazard. Installers including Charge Gully and Kerbo Charge have insisted that the lids of their gullies fit flush to the pavement and require little maintenance. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts Goulden said residents would also be liable for any accident involving a cable. 'It's no different to if someone's using a lamppost charger where there's a trailing cable, so there's precedent for that. 'Most car insurers now include cable trip cover provided someone's taken reasonable care. But the whole point of this is that it removes trip hazards. You can walk around a city and see people trailing free-hanging cables along the pavement. A gully would rectify that.' Edward Baker lives in Greenwich, southeast London, and is keen to make the switch to electric. But he has no driveway and there is only one public charger within a 20-minute walk of his house, so the only feasible option for him to afford an electric car would be to install a cross-pavement charger. Baker, 47, has spent almost two years trying to persuade Greenwich council to let him trial a pavement charging channel, installed by Charge Gully using a technique approved by other councils. Charge Gully promises not to compromise pedestrian access, but Baker's efforts have been rebuffed. • Can't charge an electric car at home? Then petrol may be cheaper He said: 'About half of residents here live in terraced houses, so all of them are disadvantaged. It's about five times more expensive to charge on public networks than at home. It feels like this would reduce pressure on government budgets because we would be paying for the gullies ourselves.' The Royal Borough of Greenwich also declared a climate emergency in June 2019, and has 'set an ambitious target to reach net-zero carbon emissions 20 years ahead of the national target of 2030'. It did not respond to a request for comment. Ben Hopkinson from the Centre for Policy Studies, a right-leaning think tank, said: 'Enabling easy access to home charging is one of the biggest barriers to the uptake of electric vehicles. Yet this is another example of the planning system making commonsense solutions more difficult. 'Councils that have made climate emergency pledges should be keen to approve these kerb installations instead of blocking them.' This year the Department for Transport said it was looking at how installing cross-pavement chargers could be made easier. It said: 'We are committed to delivering the charging infrastructure the country needs to drive the switch to electric vehicles.' Has a council blocked your attempts to charge an electric car? Let us know in the comments
BreakingNews.ie
23-07-2025
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
Michael O'Leary criticised for ‘drive-by commentary' on Dublin metro
Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary has been criticised for his 'insulting' comments on a metro for Dublin, which he called a 'waste' of taxpayer money. The 18.8km rail line, most of which will be underground, is to run from north of Swords to Charlemont in the south of Dublin city centre. Advertisement Various metro projects for the capital have been proposed in recent decades, but none have proceeded to the building stage. On Tuesday, the Government announced that the MetroLink project would get a €2 billion boost in funding as part of the national development plan, in what Taoiseach Micheál Martin said was 'a very definitive commitment to the metro'. While Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe indicated the latest estimated cost for the MetroLink was €11 billion, Mr O'Leary claimed it would cost €20 billion, 'so about a billion a kilometre'. 'Dublin Airport doesn't need it, Dublin Airport passengers won't use it – they're already well-served by buses,' he told RTÉ Radio on Wednesday, while claiming that less than a third of the airport's passengers use buses. Advertisement He said that while the tube in London runs from Heathrow and through 'all of London', the Metro will only serve a section of Dublin city's residents – around 100,000 people, he claimed. 'Here's the madness of this. This thing is going to start at Stephen's Green in the morning. If you want to get to our first wave of departures, which leave at about 6.30 in the morning, you need to be at the airport at 5.30am. 'Are you seriously going to drive into the centre of Stephen's Green, where there's no car parking, to get this metro to get to Dublin Airport for 5.30 in the morning? No, you're not. 'Let me give you the alternative scenario: for €100 million, this year we could buy 400 buses, and 400 buses would provide exactly the same capacity as this metro from Dublin Airport, in through Ballymun, in through Drumcondra, on bus lanes that already exist.' Advertisement He claimed the plan had not been properly costed and hit out at the Government's handling of public finances. 'This Government wasted €330,000 on a bike shed, imagine what they do with an 18-kilometre underground train from an airport?' Micheál Martin announced two billion euro funding for the metro project (Phil Noble/PA) He also criticised comments by Mr Martin, who said the Irish capital will not be sustainable without a metro. 'Does he not understand that the buses actually will all be electrified by the end of this decade, which will actually be greener than light rail?' Advertisement Labour TD Duncan Smith said Mr O'Leary's criticisms of public infrastructure were as sure 'as night follows day'. 'Dubliners are stuck in daily gridlock. MetroLink is their best chance at affordable, reliable transport that serves communities, not corporate profits. 'As a consistent advocate for MetroLink in Swords, I find it insulting to hear this kind of drive-by commentary from someone who clearly doesn't rely on public transport to get to work. 'Dublin deserves better than a transport plan from a billionaire whose only experience with buses is when he is pretending to be one.' Advertisement When asked about his endorsement of Enterprise Minister Peter Burke and junior minister Robert Troy during the general election campaign, Mr O'Leary claimed 'they're not in government' and criticised Mr Martin again. 'I endorsed Peter Burke, who actually topped the poll despite the criticism. I also endorsed Robert Troy – and they're not the government.'
Fox News
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Tim Walz blasted for costing Minnesota taxpayers $430K in legal prep ahead of Hill hearing
Republican state lawmakers in Minnesota have not held back with criticism after news Gov. Tim Walz spent $430,000 in taxpayer money to prepare for a House congressional hearing probing blue state governors on their "sanctuary city" policies. Invoices obtained by the Star Tribune of Minnesota uncovered that Walz's office contracted with high-powered global law firm K&L Gates to prepare for the governor's mid-June hearing in front of the GOP-controlled House Oversight Committee, which included questions about his and other blue state governors' "sanctuary city" policies. In May alone, Walz incurred legal fees of around $232,000, according to invoices the Star Tribune obtained. This balanced out to a rate of about $516 per hour, the local outlet noted. In total, according to the Star Tribune, K&L Gates worked with Walz's office from April 10 until the June 12 hearing, costing taxpayers $430,000 for the legal preparation. Minnesota GOP Rep. Jim Nash, one of two Republicans on the state's Legislative Advisory Commission, questioned why Walz felt compelled to get outside counsel rather than work with the state's attorneys and public relations specialists. "A half a million dollars of taxpayer money to prepare the governor to go to his old stomping grounds seems exorbitant, particularly since the AG for the state of Minnesota was in Congress with Walz at the same time, and the two of them certainly could have figured out how to do what they were needing to do," he said. Nash added that he intends to dig deeper into scrutinizing the invoices obtained by the Star Tribune. Republican Minnesota state Rep. Harry Niska noted there "appears to be no legitimate legal interest in the state racking up nearly half-a-million dollars in what amounts to PR consulting." "Tim Walz spent 12 years in Congress — he knows those hearing rooms inside and out, and he certainly knows how to conduct himself in that type of setting. So, why did the governor feel the need to spend $430,000 of taxpayer money on a private firm to 'prepare' for this hearing?" Niska asked. "To be clear, there appears to be no legitimate legal interest of the state in racking up nearly half a million dollars in what amounts to PR consulting as he tries to lay the groundwork for a presidential campaign that's going absolutely nowhere. It is unconscionable to make hardworking Minnesota taxpayers pay for the governor's personal national political aspirations." In response to the criticism over Walz's decision to contract with K&L Gates, both the governor and his team sidestepped offering an explanation. Instead, they suggested the blame fell at the feet of Republicans for holding a hearing that served no other purpose than to "grandstand," according to the Star Tribune. Teddy Tschann, a Walz spokesperson, described the hearing as a "planned political stunt on the taxpayer dime," the Star Tribune reported. "They were too busy performing for the cameras to even feign interest in hearing from Gov. Walz about Minnesota's balanced approach to immigration," Tschann added. "What's most frustrating is that Tom Emmer and Pete Stauber planned this spectacle knowing what it would cost and went through with it anyway." When asked directly about the legal bill, Walz told reporters the GOP-led hearing was "not where I wanted to spend money. It's not where I wanted to spend my time, and it certainly proved that there was nothing there other than using it as grandstanding." While the hefty legal bill has garnered Walz backlash this week, it wouldn't be the first time a governor has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal advice. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu said earlier this year after attending a hearing in the nation's capital she expected to pay around $650,000 to the law firm that helped her prepare. The City of Denver also forked over $250,000 for outside legal counsel earlier this year to prepare the city's mayor, Mike Johnston, for a congressional hearing. Fox News Digital reached out to Walz's office and K&L Gates for comment but did not receive a response from either.
Yahoo
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Most Americans Think Trump's Parade Is a Huge Waste of Money
Six in 10 Americans don't think that a $45 million military parade on President Donald Trump's birthday is a good use of taxpayer money, according to an Associated Press poll. The extravaganza, which will feature as many as 25 tanks rolling through the streets of Washington, D.C., is slated for June 14—the day Trump turns 79. The parade is billed as a 250th-anniversary celebration of the U.S. Army's founding. Just 40 percent of Americans polled by the AP approved of the lavish celebration, while 29 percent disapproved and the rest were neutral. Along political lines, only 20 percent of Democrats approved, in contrast with 67 percent of Republicans. When it came to the price tag, 80 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of Independents did not think it was worthwhile spending. Republicans were of a different mind—nearly two thirds signed off on the hefty bill. The parade will feature approximately 8,000 soldiers marching alongside the tanks. Its cost includes a new paint job for the tanks and repairing D.C. roads not equipped to bear their weight. On Tuesday, Trump offered a bizarre justification for the parade: without the military, Americans would have lost WWII and would now be speaking German or Japanese. 'If it weren't for us, you would be speaking German right now, ok?' he told reporters in the Oval Office. 'You might be speaking Japanese, too. You might be speaking a combination of both.' 'It's gonna be an amazing day,' Trump added. 'We'll have tanks, we'll have planes, we'll have all sorts of things. I think it's gonna be great.' Despite the president's enthusiasm, not many of his Republican colleagues are planning to attend. Out of 50 surveyed by Politico, just seven said they would go—including, of course, Trump diehard Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. The army anticipates that 200,000 people will attend.
