One of the areas hit by road closures by Croydon Council is the Triangle area of Crystal Palace. The roads Sylvan Hill, Stambourne Way and Fox Hill have been closed using the typical “emergency” measures seen elsewhere. But the problem is that this has caused traffic to divert onto roads in the adjacent borough of Bromley.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) are being promoted by local councils and central government and are actually being implemented in many locations around the country. Typically they are called “Healthy Neighbourhoods”, “Healthy Streets”, “Mini-Hollands” or other fine sounding names when in reality they usually consist of mainly road closures (“modal filters”, “school streets”, etc) that obstruct the use of roads. The object is stated to get us all to use “active travel” modes such as walking or cycling so that we live longer. But do they really do so? And what are the disadvantages?
These schemes are currently now being implemented using Temporary Traffic Orders using the claim that the Covid-19 epidemic justifies emergency measures to enhance social distancing without any advance public consultation whatsoever. But they have aroused very strong opposition in several London boroughs once people have seen the result. See Ref.2 below for a list of some of them in London).
It is frequently claimed that traffic “evaporates” once these schemes are installed, but is that true? A recently published academic study (see Ref.1 below) of three mini-Holland schemes in outer London gives a very different picture however.
The three boroughs studied were Enfield, Waltham Forest and Kingston. They selected over 3,000 people at random and gave them a survey of their travel behaviour with a follow up later to see the changes (although there was a high drop-out rate). There was a particular focus on their use of cycling.
Based on reports of past-week cycling, the authors suggest there was a trend towards higher cycling levels in the mini-Holland areas than the non mini-Holland areas. But this effect was not statistically significant (i.e. may not be true). Bearing in mind that these are self-reported numbers in addition which are likely to be biased, the claimed effect is likely to be a mirage.
The report also says “There was generally little or no evidence of differences by mini-Holland status in the proportion of individuals doing ‘any walking’ or ‘any active travel’ in the past week”. In reality therefore the mini-Holland schemes have had no impact on active travel use.
On car use the report says: “For past-week car use, there was a non-significant trend for those living in mini-Holland boroughs to be less likely to report any past-week car use than those living in non mini-Holland areas. Time spent driving in a car in the past week showed no consistent pattern in the results, and no evidence of a difference in any contrast [sic]”. In other words, car use had not changed.
At the follow up survey, in those living in mini-Holland areas there was an increase in the proportion saying that there was “too much” support for investment in cycling (from 27% to 33%). These differences were highly significant which shows the population were not convinced of the merits of the programme.
The report’s authors make some positive comments about the effect of the mini-Holland interventions but their conclusions are hardly consistent with the data they report.
In reality there is no substantial movement that is statistically significant into active travel modes, and car use continues at the same level.
Emergency Service Access
One of the complaints from those living in LTNs is the impact on emergency services access (ambulances, police cars, fire engines). The College of Paramedics has warned how lives could be put at risk and emergency response times increased as road closures, cycle lanes and one-way systems cause problems for ambulances and delay response times.
Richard Webber, a College Spokesperson, recently said “Previous traffic calming measures have caused delays for emergency vehicles. So now we are particularly concerned new measures are being rushed in without proper consideration and there will be a risk of further delays for ambulances and other emergency responders. For someone not breathing or having a heart attack, stroke or allergic reaction this risks causing significant harm. We would urge councils as they implement these new measures to give proper consideration to access for emergency vehicles and ensure they are not delayed reaching the scene of an emergency.
We fully support and understand the need to improve routes to protect cyclists and pedestrians, particularly while there is a reduction in the use of public transport following the Covid-19 epidemic. However, the designs must take into account fully whether an emergency vehicle – whether ambulance police or fire – can gain access in a hurry, rather than making it difficult to do so.”
But in reality little account is being taken of emergency service access. For example in Lewisham there are numerous reports of ambulances and police cars being blocked. They are supposed to have keys to open locks on the bollards on some roads, but they do not. Even if they do have keys, significant delays are caused.
Photo below shows an ambulance with blue flashing lights being blocked in Manor Lane Terrace Lewisham.
In summary, there is no evidence that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods produce any significant benefits while there is clear evidence that they delay emergency service vehicles. Residents also report massively extended journey times and increased air pollution on major routes as traffic is diverted onto them.
We suggest that encouraging active travel may be a good thing, but there are better ways to do it than just closing roads. Closing roads simply does not work to encourage active travel and the extreme versions of LTNs implemented in boroughs such as Waltham Forest and Lewisham will never get general public support.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Transport for London (TfL) have launched an initiative called “Streetspace” – see Reference 1 below. To quote they are: “creating more space for people to safely walk or cycle as our city emerges from the coronavirus lockdown. Temporary cycle lanes and wider pavements are among the changes we’re making as part of Streetspace for London”. In reality this means less space for road traffic and in addition it includes creating car-free zones and low traffic neighbourhoods by introducing road closures as we have seen in many London boroughs recently. This is a natural consequence of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (see https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/against-mts.htm ) which we have consistently opposed since it was adopted. But the Covid-19 epidemic has been used as an excuse to sneak these damaging changes in without any public consultation.
TfL and the London Borough of Lewisham have just announced a scheme as part of the Streetspace progamme that covers the A21 between Catford and Lewisham. It includes:
See map above for the details. For example a right turn from Courthill Road onto the A21 is banned. These changes could make life very awkward for some people. It is suggested that they are only temporary but you can expect them to made permanent unless enough people object.
Note that although this is a TfL Programme (and financed by them even though they are supposed to be short of money), it has clearly been supported by Lewisham Council.
Go to Reference 2 below for more details and for how to object. Or simply send your comments to: streetspacelondon@tfl.gov.uk
Similar changes are happening all over London under the Streetspace programme and are likely to increase traffic congestion as we are already seeing from such schemes in Lewisham (see Ref. 3) and other boroughs. Make sure you tell your local councillors and MP what you think about them.
But the lack of any proper public consultations on these schemes is totally undemocratic and is undermining public respect for politicians (including the Mayor of London) who are pushing these schemes through.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Magazine Private Eye covered the road closures in Lewisham in its latest edition, under the headline “Load of Bollards”. Here’s some of what the article said:
“Anger is growing in London over the current craze for ‘low traffic neighbourhood’ (LTN) schemes which seek to reduce the number of vehicles in residential streets through the use of bollards, planters, ‘pinch’ gates etc. But traffic is like water – block it off in one place and it will find the easiest alternative route.
In the borough of Lewisham, the Lee Green LTN displaces traffic from wealthier east Hither Green to the less affluent, more racially diverse west side. Several formerly quiet west Hither Green residential streets now endure more air pollution and congestion.
Clean-air campaigner Rosamund Kissi-Debrah describes the scheme as ‘a slap in the face’. In 2013 her nine-year-old daughter Ella died of an asthma attack thought to be linked to an air pollution “hot spot” near her west Hither Green home. Ms Kissi-Debrah told the local News Shopper. ‘It’s environmental racism… I don’t just campaign for my children, 1 campaign for all children. But some are more equal than others’”.
Lewisham Supporters News:
This is what we have sent to our campaign contacts on the latest news on Lewisham:
We have submitted the Change.org petition signatures (over 3,500) and all the comments received to date to the Mayor, other Councillors and Lewisham Council staff. So far all we have received is an acknowledgement from the Mayor’s Secretary. Clearly the views of those opposed are being ignored as has been evident from when these “Healthy Neighbourhood” proposals were first put forward in Lewisham.
The latest news from Lewisham Council is that cameras are being installed at four modal filter locations in Dermody Road, Manor Lane, Manor Park and Ennersdale Road. It will be a £130 fine for infringers of the road closures.
Coulgate Street, near Brockley Station, is now being closed to through traffic from 8am until 10pm each day allegedly “to help create safe space for social distancing and to support the economic recovery of local businesses as shops, cafes and other businesses reopen”.
The Council has complained about the amount of vandalism of the planters and bollards they installed. We do not condone illegal acts but is this any different to the “direct action” of Extinction Rebellion and BLM to close roads, to vandalise statues and other illegal acts? It just shows the strength of local opposition to the road closures. Direct action is only taken by those who feel their political representatives are ignoring them.
Comments Received:
We certainly have no objections to encouraging people to follow a healthy lifestyle, i.e. by getting some exercise by walking and cycling. This writer tries to do so every day. But closing roads is creating enormous inconvenience to many people. Here are a few recent comments received in the last 24 hours:
“Blocking roads will highly affect driving time, produce more congestion and make the journeys impossible but not reduce the pollution. Just wonder what would be those idiots next move. The best would be out of council”.
“I live in the area and recently tried to get from Blackheath Hill through Lewisham, all the diversions caused me to have to go back on myself detouring through New Cross, Through Brockley and Forest hill to get to Downham. It was a complete disgrace, we couldn’t understand why every single road was blocked or closed. It took us nearly 2 hours to get from Blackheath Hill to Downham that day as traffic was everywhere. What fantastic planning and a complete farce!!! Please help me to raise my objections. I see no reason to pay my council Tax, if Lewisham Council won’t do anything to help me. We are going to move away from Lewisham now anyway, I will be giving them nothing from now on, useless bunch of Twats!!”
“As you acknowledged, there was insufficient local consultation and a questionable use of the new Coronavirus legislation to push through these road closures. In addition, as a resident outside the road closure streets and very close to the South Circular, this has proven to be extremely disadvantageous. We have increased journey times, increased air pollution but also no longer have the option to enjoy the local benefits on the other side of the train tracks without a fourty minute round trip walking which, especially with a child under two and two full time jobs to manage, is not always an option. I would also add that Lewisham Council should have taken a more holistic approach to greening the community and improving sustainability in the long-term. The lack of traffic impact modelling of the road closures, the lack of analysis of effective behavioural change, and also the lack of implementing other measures which would better support social distancing (which I agree is spurious) or greening Lewisham compared to road closures; this could have been included”
“I would like to object to all these road closures that Lewisham are doing. It is total stupidity. Would they like to drive their car in all this carnage.”
“I 100% object to this, I am disabled and unable to walk or cycle. I don’t want to spend hours in traffic”.
“For us it means we are now completely cut off, by car, from the area in which we live. Our only exit out is on to the Lee High Road. We are also cut off from the borough in which we live, unless we drive round to central Lewisham or drive through Lee Green, the south circular and Catford. And come back the same way. We will not be doing these journeys by cycle or walking”.
“Very interested in objecting to this. I am disabled, rely on my car and can’t use public transport because of anxiety and panic attacks”.
“Yes these closures are an outrage. A separate East Berlin – style mini-state has been created. The Covid reason is utter BS. They are in fact spreading Covid since people are stuck in buses and works vans for longer as they held up by increased traffic on surrounding roads. As for the closed off roads being described as “residential” – the A205 is residential, the A20 is residential and so on. Are their residents of a lower order and thus more “pollutable” maybe? I have actually accused the Council of being racist in this respect”.
“We have been affected enormously. A 1 minute drive now takes over 40mins to get home. When schools start in Sept our child will also be heavily affected”.
“Road closures and ULEZ extension charges are punitive let alone in the middle of a pandemic – this will affect small business owners and tradesmen, people who can’t cycle or who are not fit enough to cycle huge distances, we already have a terrible bus service and I don’t want to catch COVID 19 on it and how do we get our shopping home? Typical left-wing council why would I be surprised? Anti business and free movement and pro indoctrination is their agenda. Appalling, as a tax payer and business owner I am disgusted by the arbitrary and arrogant attitude of this council who can’t even manage to take up the weeds from our streets, who replace paving stones with poorly laid tarmac, who cannot deal with rodent infestations which abound in our filthy streets, now this – they are pathetic!!!!!!”
Legal Action:
We have consulted solicitors over possible legal action, at considerable expense, but it is not an easy or straightforward case to pursue. It will require a judicial review which is a costly and lengthy legal process. More information will follow on this and possible fund raising to finance it.
What the Council Should Have Done:
Everyone would like less traffic and it is certainly the case that in areas of Lewisham and in particular roads there are problems because the roads were not designed for the volume of traffic that now uses them.
A typical example is the South Circular, a major road that has not been significantly improved for many years. This is basically a historic failure by Transport for London, the Mayor London and local boroughs to develop a sensible plan to improve the road network in South London. Road closures in Lewisham are actually pushing more traffic onto the South Circular, worsening the already bad air pollution. This is not wise when this is actually a residential road.
But even local roads such as Upwood Road in Lee Green have suffered from increased traffic and excessive parking effectively making it a one lane road and hence conflicts between drivers are common and cycling on the road may be discouraged. This problem could be solved quite easily rather than imposing a road closure which fails to recognise the needs of residents and by those attending the adjacent Colfe’s school.
Installing modal filters is a cheap and nasty solution that should not have been considered, even on a temporary basis. Using the Covid-19 epidemic as an excuse makes no sense either. The Council should have looked at the local issues and developed appropriate measures that would not inconvenience a large proportion of the population.
There are better solutions available! But will the Council listen?
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The Daily Telegraph covered the alleged “culture war” caused by road closures in Islington today. The article said: “The leader of Islington council, Richard Watts, hit back at suggestions that the road closure plans were ‘anti-working class’, writing on Twitter: ‘Car ownership in inner-London is linked to income. The richer you are, the more likely you are to own a car. The truth is we’re stopping affluent people polluting working class communities’.
Eliska Finlay, who lives in Crystal Palace, where further demonstrations have been taking place, claimed that the changes have led to a ‘culture war. People are being singled out and targeted for having cars’, the 45-year-old mother of two said”.
It’s certainly true that most of the local councils that are closing roads, as opposed to just putting in over Covid-19 measures such as widening pavements and installing cycle lanes, are left-wing, Labour dominated councils.
Are Labour councillors attacking wealthy car owners indirectly by closing roads? Perhaps but in reality they are often attacking their own electorate because it’s not just the wealthy who drive vehicles. In Lewisham for instance it’s about 50% of households who own a car and if you walk the streets of Lewisham as I have done, you won’t find many expensive vehicles. Road closures attack workers such as plumbers plus other service occupations, and social service workers who need vehicles to quickly get around the people they help. They also attack delivery drivers who deliver the goods we need, often to people undertaking self-isolation at present.
Richard Watts is surely just rationalising a view that all vehicles should be banned and turning Islington into a ghetto of poor people and the healthy young who can cycle because even the middle classes won’t want to live there as vehicles are so essential for so many purposes. That’s unless you want to be restricted to short walking and cycling distances or using public transport and have no incapacities.
If you actually look at air quality in Islington, the minor roads only contribute 6% of NOX emissions, whereas 20% comes from gas boilers. Buses and coaches also contribute 38% whereas cars only contribute 28% (source: Islington Air Quality Strategy 2019-2023). One could argue that it is the public transport users who are polluting the most!
We surely need to have less divisive politics which can cope with the needs and preferences of more than just one segment of the population.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
We also now have over 3,300 signatures to our petition against the closures including many comments which you can see here: http://chng.it/ft4KcrVM
We will be sending all the comments and signatures to Lewisham Councillors and staff in the next few days.
Do make sure you add your own comments to the Lewisham Commonplace web site here: https://lewishamcovidresidentialstreets.commonplace.is/ and “like” the comments of others you support. Click on the top right to see the list of roads on which you can add comments. Note that posts on this web site may be used by the council to claim support for their road closures when unfortunately it is clear that repetitive posts by the same people are being added to try and crowd out opposition. It is therefore very important that you record your opposition to the road closures there and give your reasons why.
We are delivering the leaflet you may have seen to wider areas of Lewisham in the next few days – it has received the highest response rate of any campaign leaflet we have delivered in the last ten years. Meanwhile opposition grows to road closures in the rest of London. But you do need to tell your own councillors what you think about what is happening. It would also help to tell your London Assembly Member and your local Member of Parliament.
Opposition to closures in Islington is particularly active and there have been several public demonstrations against them in Islington. A group is raising funds to pay for campaign literature – see https://www.gofundme.com/f/ludicrous-road-closures
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The Prime Minister has announced a “£2 billion cycling and walking revolution” – see Reference 1 below for the Government’s press release. There is also a consultation launched on changes to the Highway Code – see Reference 2. I will comment on some of the implications for London and give my personal comments on the Highway Code changes.
The £2 billion might sound a lot of money but spread over some years it might not be a great deal. It includes the provision of new “protected” cycle routes. If they were segregated from other road traffic that might make much sense to avoid conflict but the danger is that it will just mean more cycle lanes taking away road space with fairly disastrous results for traffic congestion as seen in London.
Boris Johnson’s press release suggests that getting people to cycle and walk will enable them to lose weight and get fitter thereby generally improving their health. The only problem with this is that, as anyone who has tried to lose weight knows, you have to do an awful lot of exercise to lose much weight. In reality the only way to significantly lose weight is to eat fewer calories and drink less alcohol. Exercise can only contribute in a minor way, not that I would discourage you from taking it.
For the elderly taking up cycling can be positively dangerous. My brother-in-law just fell off a bike in Italy and hurt his shoulder which was already damaged, and he is an experienced cyclist. But if you really want to take up cycling the Government is to provide cycle training, vouchers to fix your old bike, or possibly assistance to buy a new electric one (details not yet clear).
The Government is to encourage “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” that might include road closures like we have seen in Lewisham and other London boroughs, much to the disgust of many residents. The result has been more traffic congestion, not less, and there has been no public consultation before putting in the measures using the epidemic as an excuse. It’s good to see that the Government says that includes “consulting on communities’ right to close side streets” – I look forward to such consultations! I trust they will be made retrospective.
All this enthusiasm for cycling is of course driven by the fine weather, and the fact that sporting facilities such as gyms have been closed. People may continue to avoid the latter, hence all the weekend cyclists. In London commuters have also been avoiding public transport so cycling has been seen to be a viable alternative to avoid the risk of infection. And it’s cheaper than using public transport unless you have a concessionary fare.
But cyclists are still a minority of traffic on London’s roads (about 2% according to the last reported data from 2018). See Reference 3 below for the trends in traffic data. Will the Government really turn the UK into the cycling capital of the world? I doubt it. It might be popular for young males, but will it ever be for the elderly and never for the disabled or sick surely (of which there are an enormous number in London – actually 21% of adults).
The convenience of a vehicle for transporting people (such as family members) and goods over short and long distances, in all weathers and safely just cannot be beaten. Those who can afford a vehicle and have space to park it usually learn to drive and buy a vehicle sooner or later. It opens up many new leisure and work opportunities and gives you access to a much wider geographic area that may simply be impractical to access via public transport in a sensible timeframe.
Highway Code Changes
The proposed changes, to which you can respond in a public consultation, are not all bad in my opinion (see the link below). But there are some issues I note:
– It introduces a “hierarchy of road users”. I always thought all people who use the roads should be treated equally as in essence all people have the same rights and responsibilities in a free society. They should also share the roads irrespective of their chosen transport modes. To give more obligations and responsibilities to any one class of road user is wrong.
– There is a change that does not dissuade cyclists from overtaking vehicles on the left. That is a dangerous manoeuvre on crowded London roads as cyclists may be in a blind spot on some vehicles.
– They are also proposing to introduce specific passing distances for cyclists which will cause unnecessary difficulties on many narrow London roads. More flexible rules should be set rather than fixed limits. They also encourage cyclists to ride in the centre of a lane which will delay/obstruct other traffic and cause needless annoyance, and they encourage cyclists to ride 2-abreast also.
– They also encourage the use of the “Dutch Reach” when opening a car door. This is really only practical in small vehicles and for those people who can turn their head through 180 degrees – many elderly people cannot. It’s actually safer to look in a door mounted wing mirror when a wider view of traffic approaching from behind can be seen (including cyclists).
In summary, many of the changes favour pedestrians and cyclists and might improve their safety, but those for cyclists are often irrational and unnecessary. They will be particularly problematic in London where the behaviour of cyclists is often quite appallingly bad. There is more helpful guidance for cyclists in the new Code, but will they actually read it? They unfortunately have no obligation to do so and many clearly have historically not done so. At least vehicle owners have to pass a test to ensure they know it.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Lewisham: The opposition to road closures in Lewisham grows daily with more people responding to our leaflet drop and more people signing the petition against them. We now have 2,700 signatures to this petition: http://chng.it/ft4KcrVM . Please sign it if you have not done so already.
We sent out an update to our Lewisham campaign contacts today and this is some of what it said (you can register to follow the campaign on this page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/lewisham.htm ):
We have received numerous complaints about much longer journey times (sometimes over an hour added to a local trip). Residents are the biggest source of complaints by far, not people from outside travelling through the area. We will publish some of them soon.
A few people support the road closures, but most do not. The Council has done a great job of setting one group of residents against another instead of trying to resolve past complaints about traffic congestion, speeding traffic and air pollution. The road closures have made traffic congestion worse and air pollution probably worse also as people spend longer in queues of traffic on the major roads.
Legal Action
We have been consulting solicitors on whether a legal challenge can be mounted against the use of Temporary Traffic Orders to close roads. We believe this is a misuse of the relevant legislation and associated regulations. The needs of the elderly and disabled have also been ignored which is probably a breach of the Equalities Act. The lack of proper and full public consultation before the closures were implemented may also be illegal and is certainly obnoxious.
Note that if we proceed with legal action then we will probably need to raise funds to cover the legal costs. Such actions would almost certainly need to be taken in the High Court and hence are expensive. We will advise further on that at a later date. In the meantime it’s worth pointing out that we have already incurred considerable costs on the Lewisham campaign which have been paid for by our supporters. If you wish to help us then please make a donation here: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/donate.htm
Note that we are extending the area in Lewisham that we covered with our leaflet drop. This will incur considerable extra cost.
Why we are Fighting The Lewisham Campaign
Some respondents to our Lewisham leaflet questioned our motives in undertaking this campaign in Lewisham and suggested we are solely supporting those who drive through the area rather than local residents. This is false.
We are a national organisation that promotes and defends the interests of motorists everywhere they may be. We are not against helping people to cycle or walk, or opposed to improving the environment or reducing air pollution. But we do believe in a rational approach to such issues that does not unreasonably prejudice those who need to use vehicles.
We support local residents against unreasonable impositions by Councils but we also wish to see the road network maintained as a functioning system, and improved where possible, for the good of everyone. Not all people can use public transport for all journeys, or can walk or cycle everywhere. A functioning road system is essential also for goods deliveries, for buses and for emergency service vehicle access.
We got extensive press coverage on our campaign in Lewisham and if we can obtain a legal judgement on the issues this would set a wider precedent. We will continue to fight this campaign until councillors see reason and withdraw the road closures.
Islington: There was a large public demonstration by Islington residents against the road closures in the borough last week. This was outside Islington Town Hall and another is planned for this week. It’s good to see such opposition. A photograph posted on Twitter by AutomaticDog is shown below.
Hammersmith & Fulham: Complaints about the road closures in South Fulham have caused the Council to drop them. But they are replaced by a scheme whereby cameras are used to stop vehicles other than those registered in the area from entering. See https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/articles/news/2020/07/pioneering-new-sw6-traffic-reduction-scheme-launch-20-july . We are opposed to such schemes because it causes problems for visitors and for delivery drivers. It is also administratively complex and undermines the general principle that all roads should be open to everyone as everyone pays for them.
This is what local M.P. Greg Hands had to say about it: “This scheme is clearly designed to be a revenue raiser by Labour run Hammersmith and Fulham Council. On top of the existing million-pound moneybox junction, this scheme will hammer residents, visitors and essential deliveries hard, in addition to increasing traffic on the already congested Wandsworth Bridge Road.
There has been minimal consultation with residents, and Fulham has not reacted well to this money grab by greedy Labour councillors. The Council need to shelve its hastily conceived scheme and consult and involve residents. Traffic in Fulham is a problem, but this is not the solution.”
TfL Needs Billions of Pounds
Transport for London (TfL) is seeking another bail-out in addition to the £1.6 billion already supplied by the Government due to the impact of the Covid-19 epidemic on revenues. They are now seeking another £3.5 billion.
Apart from the epidemic impact, an additional problem has been the further delay in the completion of Crossrail. It was supposed to open next summer but any new date is unknown. This was budgeted to add significantly to TfL’s revenue.
The Government is undertaking a review of TfL’s financing but Sadiq Khan responded by appointing his own “independent” panel to examine long-term funding.
These were my comments on Twitter: “What’s another few billion pounds to keep Sadiq Khan in power? But it would be cheaper to sack him and most of TfL”. Tory Mayoral Candidate Shaun Bailey said this: “Sadiq Khan wants another TfL bailout. He’s blaming coronavirus again. But the virus didn’t cause 4 years of negligence. £5bn lost on Crossrail delays, £640m on subsidising tourist travel, £56m a year on TfL staff earning £100k+ and Record levels of debt”. That’s a good summary. You can read what we said about the ludicrous finances of TfL in January (i.e. before the epidemic) here: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2020/01/17/tfl-business-plan-and-budget-for-the-next-5-years-more-of-the-same/
But TfL still have the funds to finance road closures in boroughs all over London!
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
All over London boroughs are closing roads using the Covid-19 epidemic as a spurious excuse. Road closures do not help social distancing, rather the opposite. Councillors in many boroughs are pursuing their own agenda to remove all vehicles using Temporary Traffic Orders which are likely to be made permanent in due course unless you oppose them.
The following is a note you can send to your local Councillors to make sure they understand your views on the issue (their contact details are usually available on the Council’s web site):
Dear Councillor,
In the current Covid-19 Epidemic, the Government is encouraging local Councils to introduce measures to temporarily:
a) Provide more social distancing for pedestrians – for example by widening pavements.
b) Encourage the use of active transport modes such as cycling or walking so as to relieve the pressure on public transport where there will be limited capacity in the short term and to encourage people to use other forms of transport than cars where increased use might lead to congestion.
That includes new Statutory Guidance under the Traffic Management Act 2004. The suggestion is that Temporary Traffic Orders might be used to implement such measures, where such Orders are required.
I have no objection to ensuring that pavements are sufficiently wide to avoid close contact, the possible suspension of parking bays to enable wider pavements and some provision of cycle lanes on a temporary basis so long as road space is not permanently removed. However, there is a suggestion that road closures might also be considered.
Closing roads (e.g. by the use of “modal filters” or “school streets” involving timed closures) provides absolutely no benefit in terms of social distancing and should therefore not be considered unless there are very good reasons to do so. Neither do they encourage cycling as roads can always be shared between cyclists and other road users.
In addition road closures delay emergency service vehicles who have to take longer routes or can get delayed by extra traffic congestion on main roads. When ambulances are delayed, seconds can count in keeping people alive.
Could you please therefore ensure that our local council does not close roads, even temporarily, in response to the Covid-19 epidemic. It is extremely important that the road network is maintained in a fit state and no artificial restraints are placed on it. Road closures can very rarely be justified even in normal times and it is particularly important at present not to create longer journey times and more traffic congestion.
It is also important to bear in mind that many disabled and elderly people rely on their motor vehicles and they will certainly not be capable or willing to cycle or walk instead. Regrettably the Government seems to have ignored a substantial section of the population in some of their advice but there is no good reason why you need to go to such extremes.
Please consider my comments above and advise your policy on this issue.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The opposition to “temporary” road closures in London grows daily. These are being put in by a number of London boroughs, using the Covid-19 epidemic as an excuse. The argument is that road closures help with social distancing but it is very unclear how. Widening pavements and cycle lanes may assist but road closures do not – they just divert traffic onto other roads thereby creating more congestion, or encourage people to use public transport where the risks of infection are very high.
Gridlock is happening all over the place as normal routes used by delivery drivers, social care workers and those elderly and disabled who need to use a car or taxis find the roads blocked. It’s clearly the intention to make these measures permanent in due course in many boroughs, driven by those ideologically opposed to the use of vehicles of all kinds.
You can join the opposition to the closures by signing all the relevant petitions some of which are given below – there may be others in your local area if you search for them.
Hammersmith & Fulham: Local M.P. Greg Hands in Hammersmith & Fulham has created a petition calling on LBHF to cancel its SW6 traffic scheme. See: https://www.greghands.com/campaigns/SW6petition
There are also road closures taking place in these London boroughs: Tower Hamlets and Kingston. If you live or work in those boroughs, why not create your own petition against them? It’s very easy to do so on Change.org.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
