Category Archives: Road Network

Bank Junction Closure

Posted on by
Reply

As first reported back in December 2015, the City of London Corporation are proceeding with a plan to close Bank junction to all but buses and cyclists. Black cab drivers are incensed by this proposal and ran several demonstration at that junction and near the Houses of Parliament last week. This caused widespread traffic chaos.

According to a report by the City of London Corporation, the benefit will be a significant reduction in casualties (often pedestrians and cyclists) around the junction, and average traffic journey times will be neutral or slightly positive. It will also improve bus services based on the modelling done.

All general traffic will be banned from 7.00 am to 7.00 pm from travelling through the junction, which is one of the key parts of the road network in the City of London. Although much traffic already avoids it because it is very heavily congested, it will certainly cause a lot of difficulties for taxi drivers. Diverting traffic will surely make other alternative routes busier.

The scheme will start in April, and last for 18 months on an experimental basis but such schemes tend to become permanent. The Corporation’s report says “The experimental scheme will not solve all safety aspects at Bank, but will make a significant difference without the need for infrastructure changes, which will take more time to plan and deliver”.

What’s the cost of this project? It is budgeted to be £792,000. More information is present here: https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/transport-and-streets/traffic-management/Pages/Bank.aspx

Comment: One of the key sources of congestion at Bank are in fact buses of which there are many and who move slowly. The configuration of the junction and the narrow pavements (insufficient for the number of people exiting Bank underground) are major problems and a cause of the poor accident record. So one cannot dispute that some measures needed to be taken to tackle these problems.

However there were other alternatives, such as simplifying the junction, or allowing entry only from certain directions that would have surely helped. Closing this key junction to traffic will be similar to the redesign of other key junctions in central London such as Trafalgar Square and Aldgate which has contributed so much to reduced journey times in central London.

Taxi driver David Morris was quoted in the Financial Times as saying “We are part of the London public transport system and yet we will be denied access”. He suggested there would be horrendous gridlock as a result and questioned where all the traffic will go. One cannot but be sympathetic to his views because this looks like another step that will reduce the capacity of the road network of London. One cannot continue to remove road space and expect congestion to do anything but get worse.

If you wish to object to these plans, I suggest you write to Gillian Howard, at City of London Corporation, Guildhall, PO Box 270, London EC2P 2EJ. Or send an email to bankarea@cityoflondon.gov.uk . There does not appear to be any formal consultation process as yet and given the timescale for implementation it would seem they are not going to bother with one.

Roger Lawson

Croydon Proceeds with 20 Mph Zones

Posted on by
1

The London Borough of Croydon are pushing ahead with imposing wide-area 20 mph speed limits on the whole of the borough. There are two regions already committed to implementation after public consultations, with three more to go.

On the public consultation on the last region, the North-East, they only got a narrow margin of support in response to the question “Do you support the proposal to lower the speed limit to 20 mph for residential roads shown in the plan”. There were 50.5% responses which said “Yes” versus 47.1% who said “No”. Only responses from residents within the region were accepted though so all visitors and other road users from other parts of the borough or outside the borough were ignored.

We put some effort into raising awareness of the public consultation which at least meant they got over 3,100 responses.

But for the remaining three areas, the Council have decided to do away with a wide public consultation despite previously having agreed that would be the process and will only perform a “Statutory Consultation” as required by law. In other words, they will advertise the proposal and await responses. They will then consider them and like all such consultations, they can they ignore the result if they don’t like what is submitted.

Now everyone who knows Croydon will be aware that the three remaining parts of the borough are more rural in character than the first two. So it was very likely that they would have voted the other way and opposed a wide area 20 mph limit.

It would therefore appear that after only narrowly winning the votes of residents in previous consultations (and in fact rigging the results in the first area as we previously reported), they have given up on proper public consultations because they feared losing the vote.

That is what happens when dogmatic politicians take control of a Council and decide they know best, as is clearly the case in Croydon. Their idea of democracy is surely very different to most people’s. The Statutory Consultation will run from the 18 January 2017 till 15 February 2017. We will provide more information on it when known.

Roger Lawson

Traffic in the City of London, and Beech Street

Posted on by
Reply

The City of London Corporation has recently published a report entitled “Traffic in the City of London”. It acknowledges that “certain major infrastructure project such as Crossrail and the Cycle Superhighway” along with new building development have increased demand on the highway network. As a result traffic congestion in some parts of the City has increased.

Their solutions include “reducing the amount of traffic in the City to a level our community finds acceptable”, making representations for London wide policy change (e.g. changes to the Congestion Charge, which would include higher charges and wider geographic coverage) and reducing goods vehicle movements. They also propose to “actively discourage vehicle movements”.

In addition they suggest bridge tolls over all the Thames bridges using ANPR technology as on the Dartford Crossing to reduce traffic volumes and more active management by TfL of traffic signals to reduce traffic into the City.

Zero Emission Vehicles Only and Beech Street

They also suggest a ban of all vehicles in the City other than zero emission ones and have already firmed up proposals to do that for Beech Street, or close it completely to through traffic. Beech Street runs underneath the Barbican and is heavily used as a cross-city route.

The City Corporation’s report is well worth reading and is a good example of the anti road transport mentality that is now so prevalent.

Roger Lawson

Heathrow Airport and Environmental Pollution

Posted on by
Reply

The Government has backed the construction of a third runway at Heathrow despite widespread objections on environmental grounds. Zac Goldsmith, who stood for the job of London Mayor, has resigned as an MP as a result. Both he and elected Mayor Sadiq Khan opposed that development.

It will bring major challenges to the road network because the new runway will have to run over the M25. So that will likely have to be moved into a tunnel. In addition the western side of the M25 is one of the most congested parts of the UK road network already and the extra traffic generated by Heathrow expansion will make that even worse. So widening of both the M25 and M4 is probably required. The costs of those improvement could be over £3 billion and it could take over 6 years to implement with no doubt a lot of traffic disruption while it is being built.

In addition the extra aircraft movements and more traffic will have negative environmental impacts in both air pollution and noise.

Comment: this is surely one of the worse decisions ever made by a UK Government. There were a number of better alternatives for airport expansion, including the encouragement of the use of other regional airports. Why does the whole country find it necessary to travel through Heathrow when smaller airports are altogether easier to use?

Roger Lawson

TfL’s Damaging Proposals for Cycle Superhighway 11

Posted on by
Reply

Transport for London (TfL) are proposing to install a new Cycle Superhighway in London, with dedicated cycle lanes linking Swiss Cottage to the edge of the West End at the northern end of Regent Street.

To facilitate this scheme, dubbed CS11, they also plan to make dramatic changes to arterial through routes and surrounding roads in the NW3 and NW8 areas. The main proposals are to replace the one-way gyratory system around Swiss Cottage with two-way streets; close off the northern end of Avenue Road to all traffic except buses; close the rest of Avenue Road – a main route into central London – to traffic for 20 out of 24 hours a day; and close four out of the eight gates to the Outer Circle of Regent’s park, also for 20 out of 24 hours a day.  Dedicated cycle lanes will be installed over this route, further squeezing traffic onto less road space.

Accompanying this, and evidently in some misguided attempt to aid the flow of traffic in this new layout, TfL are planning to ban various right and left turns off Finchley Road in its approach to Swiss Cottage, making it extremely difficult to reach neighbourhoods such as Belsize Park by car.

Into this mix comes central government’s long term plans for the construction of HS2, the new high speed rail link to the midlands and north of England, which include the building of a railway tunnel under Adelaide Road (another road leading into Swiss Cottage), and of two massive ventilation shafts – one in Adelaide Road and the other one near Fairfax Road, also in the Swiss Cottage area.

In a nutshell, these two unconnected projects will inevitably clash with, and intrude on each other, resulting in massive disruption, traffic congestion, increased air pollution, and absolute hell for local residents – for up to sixteen years, the timescale for completing the HS2 works. On its own, if CS11 in its proposed form goes ahead this will be bad enough.  However, combined with the estimated hundreds of HS2 lorries that are expected to be using the roads in this area every day, the mind boggles as to the impact this will have.  TfL’s response to this is that they don’t think it will be a major problem.

Needless to say, the CS11 plans have been met with fierce opposition from residents and road users. A consultation resulted in a 60% approval, but it was later revealed that TfL had canvassed every single cycling club in Greater London, including many south of the river in areas nowhere near the affected area, to take part in the consultation.

However, various protest groups have been formed to try and persuade TfL to either moderate their plans or abandon them altogether, with petitions organised and approaches made to MPs and officers of TfL and Westminster and Camden councils. No final decision has yet been made.  Westminster Council are opposed to the CS11 proposals, and Camden council partly opposed.  Putting off CS11 until later is not an option because of the sixteen-year timescale of the HS2 works.

In the meantime, rumour has it that TfL will now scrap the plan to close the four gates to the Outer Circle. The cycling fraternity will not be happy.  Anyone driving around the Outer Circle these days knows that this road has almost been hijacked to be used as a training circuit for two-wheeled enthusiasts.  Supporters of CS11 have called the Outer Circle a dangerous rat run, which is complete nonsense.  It is only subject to light traffic, and most of any danger that might exist comes from mobs of cyclists crowding out other vehicles.

Anyone with an interest in this matter can look up the CS11 plans on the TfL website, and the main protest website, www.cs11.london . Please give the latter your support.

Danny Michelson

 

The Garden Bridge – Surely a Vanity Project?

Posted on by
Reply

Most Londoners will have heard about the proposed “Garden Bridge”, even if the rest of the country has not. But I have not commented on it before. This would be primarily a pedestrian bridge between Waterloo and Blackfriars Bridge (near the Temple to the South Bank). As its name suggests, it would be planted with trees and wild flowers. It would not be publicly owned but be owned by a private limited company (registered as a charity) and may support buildings. It is also likely be closed some days of the year for private events to help pay for it. Note that not even cyclists will be able to use the bridge without dismounting.

What is the cost of this project and who is paying? The latest estimate seems to be about £185 million when it was originally £60m. A lot of the cash is coming from private donations, but £60m has been granted by the Department for Transport and Transport for London (i.e. taxpayers money). Indeed a lot of that money has already been spent on design work, even though the project may not go ahead. The cost of maintenance of the bridge is also of concern, and who will pay for it if it does not prove viable (it might well fall back on public funds in that case).

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is reviewing the project and the National Audit Office has previously criticised the financial justification for the bridge.

Perhaps the best demolition of this project was written by Giles Fraser in the normally tree loving pages of the Guardian. He said: “Garlic bread? Cheese cake? Some combos just sound wrong, according to the famous skit from the Bolton comedian Peter Kay. So we can assume that he would happily expose the vainglorious stupidity involved in combining a garden and a bridge. Still, he may not have to, for Mervyn Davies, chair of the Garden Bridge Trust, did a pretty good job in the Times this week, arguing that the building of a green-topped concrete bridge over the Thames, from the South Bank to Temple tube, would constitute a much needed economic boost to ‘areas in need of regeneration’. Would that be the Royal Courts of Justice and all those poverty-stricken barristers’ chambers? Or the National Theatre? Waterloo station? Or the South Bank, with IBM and ITV?”

My comments: I can certainly think of lots of better things to spend £185 million on (and that’s assuming the cost does not escalate further as such projects tend to do). According to the BBC, Boris Johnson became a strong supporter after being lobbied by Ms Lumley who has known him since childhood. But surely this is just another of Boris’s vanity projects like the Emirates Cable Car, and his promotion of cycling, with any measurement of the cost effectiveness of the project being left out.

If someone could advise me what the cost per pedestrian trip will be over say the next ten years, taking into account the capital and maintenance costs I would be interested. I was unable to find any such information.

But I am pretty certain that those who live outside the metropolis, and even those of us who might very occasionally use this bridge, could find lots of better uses for the money. Perhaps there should be a user toll to pay for it like that proposed for the Silvertown Tunnel?

Roger Lawson

Mayor Supports More River Crossings

Posted on by
Reply

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has committed to building more Thames River Crossings in a press release on the 4th October. These are to be “greener” and more “public transport focussed” he says.

It includes plans for a new pedestrian and cycle bridge linking Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf but the Silvertown Tunnel to relieve congestion at the Blackwall Tunnel will go ahead and a bus shuttle service for cyclists will be included in that.

He is also proposing to take forward an extension of the Docklands Light Railway from Gallions Reach to Thamesmead but there is no mention of a ferry or bridge for vehicles at that location as previously discussed. He has asked TfL to look at a new ferry between Canary Wharf and North Greenwich but there is also no mention of a replacement for the Woolwich Ferry where the ferries in use are nearing the end of their useful lives.

The new Silvertown Tunnel and the existing Blackwall Tunnel would be charged to pay for the construction of the former. Suggested figure is £2.50 per trip and there is a public inquiry being undertaken into the proposals of course.

Comment: This looks like a typical political compromise where Mr Khan is promoting his green credentials while at least pushing ahead with the urgently required new Silvertown Tunnel. But he has ducked some of the issues about the need for other crossings or a long term road structure plan. As Green Party London Assembly Member Caroline Russell has said, the measures appear to be “tokenistic”, i.e. it’s a political fudge to try and please eveyone.

Roger Lawson

Cable Street Road Closures

Posted on by
Reply

In addition to the closures of Shorter Street and Tower Bridge mentioned in a previous article, there are proposals afoot to close some roads around Cable Street which is not far away.

Cable Street (famous for the defeat of English fascists in the East End before the Second World War which was recently commemorated on its 80th anniversary) is a road that runs east-west parallel to The Highway. It was remodelled to accept part of the East-West Cycle Superhighway, but clearly the design was done in a rush and it contains lots of defects. The result is conflicts among cyclists (both going at high speed in two directions on a narrow strip of blue coloured tarmac), conflicts between vehicles and cyclists and between pedestrians and cyclists. It could therefore certainly do with improving, but the proposals, include several road closures effectively making the area very difficult for any through traffic or even for local residents.

This is what I have said to Tower Hamlets Council on this matter (Tom Rawlings is the Project Manager):

  1. We represent private car users nationally and I am personally responsible for the London area. I only recently learned about these proposals and I even had to issue a Freedom of Information Act request to find out the details as there was nothing publicly available on your web site and I could not get an answer by telephoning either. So please ensure that we are on the consultation list for any future public consultations on this matter.
  2. Please also note our objections to these proposals, which I explain in more detail below.
  3. The consultation leaflet you issued in March is grossly biased. It refers to “rat-running” when that is an emotive and unreasonable term to use. Roads are there to be used by anyone and a lot of the traffic is clearly either local residents or vehicles serving local residents or businesses. Some of them may have turned off the Highway but they might be doing that simply to access locations further north than where the Highway would take them. The note suggests that 76% of the road users are “non-essential” through traffic but that might apply to almost any road. Roads are meant to take vehicles from one location to another.
  4. The results of the consultation as reported in the “Briefing Note” are exceedingly biased. The pie chart showing the numbers against include the automated responses from “The Wheelers” and “LCC” (counting 176 in total), but completely ignores the 700 signatures you received on an objecting petition. Why?
  5. Please advise who organised the aforementioned petition and their contact details. 
  6. As regards the proposals themselves (and I am reasonably familiar with Cable Street as I use it occasionally), I have the following comments:  
  7. The design of the Cycle Superhighway along that stretch of road was poorly done and clearly was rushed through to ensure rapid completion of that stretch. There are numerous defects that almost ensure conflicts among cyclists, or between motor vehicles and cyclists, or between pedestrians and cyclists. Any new design should try to rectify those faults without removing vehicular traffic which is essential not just to local residents.  
  8. I will not attempt to define all the problems with the existing or new proposals, but it is clear from the responses you have already received that the proposed design does not even satisfy the views of many cyclists.
  9. I think it is most unfortunate that you appear to have consulted closely on the new design with cyclists representative groups without doing the same with vehicle users. I request that we be so consulted and I suggest you should do the same for taxi drivers, the police, ambulance services, fire service, the Freight Transport Association, etc. Transport for London (TfL) could no doubt give you a list of relevant consultees if you do not have one.

Anyone who uses the roads in the area of Cable Street should contact me, or write to Mr Rawlings at Tower Hamlets Council with your objections.

Roger Lawson

Tower Bridge Closure and Shorter Street Closure

Posted on by
Reply

Anyone who drives around London will have realised that Tower Bridge has been closed for 3 months for substantial repairs. The traffic chaos on the first few days of closure has been enormous. Clearly an area to avoid for the present.

The unreasonable and unnecessary closure of Shorter Street which is nearby in the City of London has been covered in previous articles. It was done as part of the East-West Cycle Superhighway works and is now open only to buses.

At a meeting with Transport for London (TfL) it was suggested an alternative route from The Minories to Tower Hill for those vehicles who wanted to go west was to go via Royal Mint Street, Dock Street and East Smithfield. However an an examination of that route shows that it is likely that delays of over 8 minutes would result. See photograph below of the queuing traffic on Dock Street (and that was before the closure of Tower Bridge which will create even more difficulties).

Roger Lawson

Dock Street 2016-09-14 13-15.JPG

London Councils and TfL Make Millions from Yellow Box Junctions

Posted on by
Reply

The BBC have been investigating the revenue that London councils make from fines on drivers who infringe yellow box junctions. The use of cameras to enforce these junctions has caused the figures to grow rapidly. For example one junction in Fulham has earned the council £2.4m in PCNs in 18 months.

The London Councils with the top income from this source are Hammersmith & Fulham with £2.1m and Waltham Forest with £1.7m in a year. Kingston, Hounslow and Barnet are also high but Transport for London control some junctions and they made £884,891 from Homerton High Street/Fire Station alone. More information was provided by the BBC in the BBC London Inside Out programme, no doubt available from i-Player. It showed how some junctions create enormous driver frustration, and road rage, because it simply is not possible to avoid infringement at some (particularly where no traffic lights are present), or it is easy to accidentally infringe.

Comment: This is a pernicious fund raising system (yet another such scheme in addition to those covered in our last newsletter). Some years ago there was a study done of the benefits of box junction enforcement and in fact it showed that traffic flows were reduced as drivers were hesitant to enter.

There are clearly also some junctions where the traffic has particular problems because of the design of the junction or because of traffic lights before or after the junction. If in doubt whether your case merited a fine, you should go to appeal – as this writer has done more than once successfully because as a normally law abiding driver I do not appreciate being issued with a fine. But regrettably many people simply pay up.

The rule about box junctions is simple. You should not enter it unless your exit is clear. But as one commentator said, if there is a lot of infringement then the council concerned should look at the design. Unfortunately they have no incentive to do this and no overriding authority that can instruct them to behave more appropriately.

Roger Lawson