The situation, however, is being made worse by the preparation for entry into the EU on July1. The Croatian system is tiny, just 2,000km yet the EU ideology of separation of track and infrastructure is being applied. There is too, a freight company. So this small railway is forced to create the crazy bureaucracy that comes with separation. As a result, according to the trade unions, proposed redundancies of personnel cannot be carried out in a systematic way on the whole network. Therefore experienced people are being made redundant by  one of these new companies, but then taken back on by another one. Or their skills are wasted because they cannot transfer and it is too expensive for them to be taken back on.

Then there is the bvizarre situation of international trains. Two thirds of Croatia’s international trains have been cut, leaving just 21 daily. And remember Croatia is tiny and therfore ‘international’  may mean just a couple of hundred miles. Belgrade, which is 227 miles from Zagreb and still with a lot of links given it was in the same country until the Yugoslav wars twenty years ago, now has just one daily train. The reason for the cuts is the inability of the various railway organisations to agree on how costs should be allocated, and the difficulty of subsidising  these services. The EU rules have made these trains less viable as the railway companies have separated out their costs, and are allocating as many as possible to these international trains in the hope that other countries will pay them.

So the net result of EU interference is precisely the opposite to what it was supposed to be set up to do, improve international relations and cross border trade and passenger flow. I have always been against the Euro but in favour of the European Union. However, this type of imposition of a neo-liberal agenda on the railways does make me hesitate about what we should do about the EU. Clearly, the Eurocrats still have a naive federalist agenda that they are trying to impose and they need to be stopped.

 I met Marko Gregovic, one of the founders of Za Grad, the newest political party in Croatia which is campaigning in the mayoral elections that are being held this weekend on precisely the same sort of uses that are at the heart of my campaign in London. That is why he contacted me when he found out I was speaking at a conference here, and we spent a couple of hours walking round the city.

 On the plus side, there is not only the fantastically successful central area which has more cafes than anywhere I have ever been, all flourishing and, because there is so much competition, relatively cheap for those sort of places. There is, too, a great tram network mostly with new trams built in Zagreb to create jobs her (Croatia is joining the EU on July 1 and may find it more difficult to do such deals in future!)

 However, on the negative side, Zagreb is blessed with a series of cycle lanes that make even those in London seem like a haven of safety. They are narrow, often run on pavements – sometime bisecting cafes – and not continuous, with cyclists supposedly having to dismount at traffic lights. They have been done on the cheap and, as often happens in London, they simply come to an end where there are difficult places to allocate space to them.

 As for the trams, they are very expensive – about £1 50 for a single ticket in an economy that is far poorer than ours – having had fares doubled recently. People have been deterred from using them especially as parking is cheaper in many instances. The bus network is very thin as the trams are so extensive.

 Marko and his colleagues have taken the city by storm, attracting widespread interest in their ideas such as creating a proper cycle network and widening the town centre pedestrianised area. However the populist longstanding mayor the aptly name Milan Bandić has allowed the construction of a vast underground car park in the town centre and allowed it to be privatised which has affected revenue on the town’s own car parks.

 At present roads are so dangerous that cyclists, of whom there are many, tend to use the pavements which in the nice sunny weather are full of pedestrians who, on the whole, seemed tolerant of the two wheelers. But it is obvious there is great demand for better facilities which would benefit all.

 One exciting part of Za Grad’s activity is that they have asked for suggestions to their website and have received 280 so far. This is not just a consultation exercise but a radical way of creating policy. The idea is that if the scheme is viable and can be paid for, then it will end up being adopted by the party in its manifesto. Za Grad has caused quite a stir since being created just three months ago, accumulating more Facebook friends than all the other parties put together and spreading their message through old fashioned leaflets that demand cheaper public transport and better use of empty public buildings. They are even hoping to get some councillors elected at Sunday’s elections.

The lesson from all this is that urban problems in cities as diverse as Zagreb – with its tiny 800,000 population – and London have many of the same roots: a failure of politicians to tackle the deep seated problems – having contradictory policies such as expensive public transport while saying they want to reduce car use – and to address the difficulties created by the unrestricted use of cars.

The reasons are all to obvious to restated but clearly it would help combat obesity, encourage children to cycle to school – which is something surveys show they want to do – and give them  a skill that almost anyone can learn. The initiative has come from the association of Bikeability schemes which has emerged since  Cycling England was abolished. I was on the board of Cycling England when Bikeablity, which was a way of revamping the old Cycling Proficiency schemes, was revamped and it is great that Bikeability has been retained by the government. Let’s hope they win this particular battle, too.

The letter is at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10013565/Cycling-should-be-included-in-the-National-Curriculum.html#disqus_thread

The core of the plans are:

- A 15 mile long Crossrail for bikes from west to the east London, including a section on Westway
- A re-think of the Junction Review to focus on getting fewer junctions right, rather than lots of junctions half-right
- A bike grid of safe routes in central London to get round the problem of superhighways that just stopped when they reached zone 1
- A network of quietways, to upgrade routes on borough roads
- A series of Mini-Hollands – big investment in cycling in some outer London boroughs, rather than lots of boroughs sharing small amounts of cash

The basic ideas address many of the previous failings, such as the lack of safe cycling facilities in central London, and there is an acceptance that the existing superhighways were not built to sufficiently good standards.

Much of the plan is, of course, aspirational and very little is ‘shovel-ready’. There needs to be a sense of urgency to ensure that the recent growth in cycling continues. The plan also needs to be accompanied by soft measures, such as cycle training schemes, not just for youngsters, and training for councillors and officials on the benefits of cycling.

There are of course a lot of details to sort out and two fundamental issues remain. First, the plan envisages relaunching the concept of the London Cycle network which was basically sound but which foundered on the lack of cooperation from the boroughs. That was because in the early days of the mayoralty, Ken Livingstone did not create a sufficiently robust section within TfL to administer the scheme. That mistake must not be repeated. Rather than bringing in a third party, such as Sustrans, great as they are, there needs to be a cycling section within TfL headed by a senior person with executive powers and crucially able to force or induce the boroughs into action thanks to their hold over the purse strings: ‘You do this to improve cycling or you get no money for transport’ – that sort of thing. It will not be easy.  This plan will impose  huge costs on the boroughs, both in terms of building infrastructure and managing the process. Apparently, Andrew Gilligan, the mayor’s new London cycling, has been touring round the boroughs persuading them to come on board and has been successful, at least in word if not deed but it is going to be tough keeping them on side.

However, despite these caveats, it is impossible not to commend Boris Johnson and Andrew Gilligan, his newly appointed cycling guru, on this plan.But now the hard work will start in persuading Londoners that this is good for all of them, not just cyclists, and on ensuring the boroughs do their bit.

Secondly, there needs to be sustained financial support — big numbers are being bandied about such as £913m over ten years, but we need to be assured that long term funding is available.

As Mark Ferguson argues coherently on Labourlist http://labourlist.org/2013/03/in-the-future-only-emotionless-flawless-bloodless-automatons-will-become-mps/  this will undoubtedly put anyone whose past is not snow white – is there anyone? – from standing for office. As I have thrown my hat into the ring, I have wondered what might be picked up. I am sure I have written things that, out of context, might read badly out of context. I am sure that I have angered a few important people who might have it in for me. I do remember I have even been critical of Private Eye, a truly dangerous position.

It is impossible to predict what they may dig up and how that will play. The only solace is that if these attacks start happening, I realise it will be a recognition of my strength and not weakness.

Second, London is a fab place to live. Yes, Zurich may have nearby skiing, but god it’s a borrowing place with none of the attractions of a world city like London. As for New York, they would need work permits and the like, which the US authorities may not give them. And in any case, who wants to disrupt their families for the sake of a few hundred thousand when you are earning over a million anyway.

Boris, of course, has no locus to determine bankers’ bonuses but his outspoken tirade against the proposed EU rules is damaging to Londoners’ interests in one key respect. These bonuses are one reason why London house prices keep on soaring which actually is deeply damaging to those Londoners who are seeking to get on the housing ladder. It is those ordinary working people that Boris should be paying attention to, not the superrich bankers who will do OK whatever happens. Without those bonuses, it may well be that some of the housing bubble will burst which in the long term would be good news for ordinary  Londoners

Far from being a meaningful plan, his idea for 2020 has no staff working on it and there are no details about practicalities and, indeed, whether it is legal. This is typical Boris, making an announcement without any intention of backing it up. As usual, the questions is – ‘where’s the beef’? Or even the horsemeat.

Talk of low emission vehicles and the like is all very well, but does nothing for air quality now. Instead, we need a concerted policy to reduce car use in central London which was started by Ken with the congestion zone.  See my website for ideas, Boris.

It has been done entirely to assuage possible sanctions from Europe and since he has no intention of standing in the 2016 election, the work will have to be carried out by his successor.

I am not surprised that the Evening Standard covered the announcement so positively but Assembly members have not been sharp enough in exposing this con.

However, this is just naked attention seeking. Urban  foxes may injure half a dozen or so people a year (possibly less) but dogs are responsible for 6,000 hospitalisations annually. The fox issue is therefore trivial. Yes, people should perhaps be a bit careful about leaving windows open if there are lots in their garden but a cull, as a sensible Bromley councillor said on TV last night, would be very hard and expensive, and probably do very little for overall numbers in the medium term.

The risk from foxes compared with danger from dogs is rather like that pedestrians face from cyclists compared with motorists – the overall numbers are trivial but the issue gets far more publicity than the real risk merits. The supposed risk for cyclists from bendy buses was another time when Boris exploited risk to a political end.

The trouble with politicians like Boris is that they play on fears that statistically are insignificant, and when they end up in power, they take decisions on that basis. Consequently,  we end up with ludicrous legislation like the Dangerous Dogs Act or the fact that billions are now spent unnecessarily on school security because of one or two highly publicised incidents.  Boris is a serial offender in this regard. Note, too, that Boris has no powers in relation to pest control and, indeed, his support for constant council expenditure cutbacks means that the boroughs have less money to spend on it.

Indeed, to some extent, this has happened in central London. There is now quite often such a mass of cyclists that the traffic has to slow down and the whole environment is consequently improved. As Philip put it, ask people what they want from their streets and they will all say the same thing: less traffic, fewer cars, greater safety, the ability to walk to amenities and so on. It’s not rocket science. In fact, so little about what is needed to improve our cities is known already and is not in any way innovative. It just needs strategy, long term planning and, above all, political will.

Indeed, the very lacklustre nature of the mayoral campaign, on both sides, played into Johnson’s hands. He had no new policies to offer, merely arguing for more of the same within an austerity context. There would be a bit more of everything – roads, tube trains, bridges etc – but there was no overall plan or context. Ken, too, had somewhat run out of steam and was not able to inspire sufficient support to overcome the media attention on his mistakes, most notably on what was perceived to be a couple of anti-Semitic remarks and his tax affairs. No real effort was made to scrutinise Johnson’s record as journalists seemed unwilling to dig behind the dumb blond image.

During the campaign, I was so struck by the lack of any inspiration for either side that I wrote a piece in the Evening Standard decrying the lacklustre nature of both sides’ efforts. In response, a text published on the letters page suggested that I should stand for mayor. At first I did not take the idea seriously, but then decided to consult various people inside and outside the Labour party, and was surprised at the universally favourable response to my candidacy. So a couple of months ago, I threw my hat into the ring with a brief article in The Times and a website and am now going round London speaking at various party and political events.

My main impetus is, of course, transport which is the area over which the mayor has most influence. I have written about transport for 20 years and I can see that Britain is lagging behind in terms of how they organise their roads and public transport. Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Paris and even New York are all adopting radical ideas to shift the impetus of transport policy away from a slavish respect for the private car. In Britain, we still seem stuck with the notion that the motor car is an effective way of getting around cities. Any criticism of that idea is immediately seen as being a vote loser because of fear about the car lobby.

Yet, Ken Livingstone began to show the way. He challenged that notion with the introduction of the congestion charge, which was a truly radical and innovative policy, and has actually been very successful and widely accepted. However, he failed to follow that up in way that would have transformed the centre of London into a much more liveable and attractive place. For example, where else, in the world, would the city’s main shopping street be a bus park and the square that houses its Parliament be a roundabout with an inaccessible lawn in the middle? For his part, Johnson is stuck with the notion that nothing must be done to slow down the traffic or reduce space allocated to the car.

The Olympics showed in many ways that radical action to favour pedestrians and cyclists in relation to motorists was not only possible but popular. This is not an anti-car message. Weaning motorists who have alternatives out of their cars will ensure that those who must drive have more space.

It is, though, not all about transport, even though that is the area over which the mayor has most influence. He does, too, now have hundreds of millions of pounds of money to allocate to the boroughs for housing and, of course, he has an oversight role over the Metropolitan Police.

There is much scope for a Labour mayor to achieve radical change in these areas. On housing, as someone who worked for Shelter a long time ago, I feel passionately that tenants have been let down. Now, the mayor has recently been given powers over the provision of much of the capital’s social housing. However, the money is being wasted on what is called ‘affordable’ housing which, given that it is defined as 80 per cent of market rent, is nothing of the sort. As Ed Balls has recognised, there is no substitute for genuine social housing and we need to build lots more of it. While the mayor is currently on the wrong track, these extra powers represent a great opportunity for a Labour mayor.

It has been an annus hornbillis for the Metropolitan Police with the furore over the hacking scandal and its heavy handed response to demonstrations, just to name a couple of failings among many. As mayor, I would try to redefine that relationship by separating the Met’s London and national roles, in an effort to make the force more accountable.

London deserves better than having a mayor who only sees the job as a stepping stone to greater things and who is ignorant of the main concerns of Londoners.