Category Archives: Road Network

Hackney Closing Roads Without Consultation

Posted on by
Reply

The London Borough of Hackney is closing a number of roads using Experimental Traffic Orders (ETOs). These do not require any consultation before being put into effect; you can only comment later. The roads affected immediately are Ashenden Road, Gore Road, Meeson Street, Ufton Road and Barnabas Road.

Councillor Jon Burke is the Cabinet Member on the Council responsible for these moves. When I complained on Twitter about these closures and the lack of consultation, he responded “We consult local residents, not the rat-runners”. Clearly Councillor Burke has no clear idea on how democracy should work. Calling people who use vehicles “rats” is abusive and it is wrong to ignore the general public but just listen to a few people. And in reality most of the people using these roads will be local residents.

This unfortunately is the kind of thing that is happening of late in some London boroughs (Lewisham is another example), where the Covid-19 epidemic is being used as an excuse to close roads. Local democracy is being undermined by claims of expediency. Road closures do not help with social distancing. They also create more traffic congestion and longer journey times. It’s basically just an excuse to pander to the wishes of cyclists as these are closures using “modal filters” that still allow cyclists. We believe that all roads should be shared by different users, not closed to vehicle traffic.

The danger is that Experimental Traffic Orders can easily be turned into Permanent ones. We are generally opposed to road closures as they damage the road network. We have submitted objections to these closures which you can also do by sending an email to streetscene.consultations@hackney.gov.uk – quote Traffic Order Numbers TT1420 and TT1421.

Note that all Traffic Orders need to be published in The Gazette (see https://www.thegazette.co.uk/ ) where all official notices appear. To search for notices from any London Borough use the search function to search for the boroughs name, e.g. “London Borough of Hackney”).

You could also send comments to Jon Burke. His email address is Jon.Burke@Hackney.gov.uk and his Twitter account is @jonburkeUK .

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Update on Lewisham and Other Boroughs Covid-19 Transport Responses

Posted on by
Reply

As in many other London boroughs, Lewisham Council have developed a Covid-19 Transport Plan which is in response to the epidemic where social distancing is required. This involves widening pavements, providing more cycle lanes and possibly road closures, much to the anger of local residents. More details are now available in a report to Councillors (see Reference 1 below). I’ll summarise some of the key points:

  1. It includes proposals to create more pedestrian space, quieter residential streets (I think they mean without traffic), safer space for pedestrians/cyclists (i.e. more and wider cycle lanes and wider pavements) and creating safer space outside schools (i.e. road closures called “School Streets”).
  2. Council officers will be given “delegated powers” to create the necessary traffic orders, parking suspensions, temporary barriers and other infrastructure with enforcement via camera technology.

In other words, council officers will be able to implement the kinds of proposals previously put forward in the “Safer Neighbourhoods” proposals without further public consultation or even input from Councillors. The Council has gained additional powers to do these things under new Statutory Guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps) – see Reference 2. Effectively the new Guidance drives a coach and horses through local democracy and enables Councils to do what they want without any restraint or input from local residents.

The Council’s initial proposals include restricting parking on such roads as Deptford High Street, Luxmore Gardens, Coulgate Street and Hither Green Lane (see report for full list). These proposals are not unreasonable in some of these roads.

They also propose as a second project to introduce “modal filters” to create quieter and safer roads. This is just a euphemism for closing roads to all traffic except cyclists which has been so vigorously opposed by many residents. There are also proposals for School Streets. They propose to use Temporary Traffic Regulation Notices followed by Temporary Traffic Orders. We believe this is a misuse of the regulations as we have said before and made plain in a letter to the Council.

The closure of roads using the epidemic as an excuse makes no sense. Closing roads does not help social distancing. It just favours one category of road users over another. And it is clear that there is the intention to make these closures permanent in due course. The proposals also ignore the requirement to take into account the needs of the elderly and disabled under the Equalities Act.

In regards to “public engagement” the Council has set up a web site called Commonplace – see https://lewishamcovidtransport.commonplace.is/ where more details will be provided. Some is already there, although it seems to be a work in progress at the time of writing. You can potentially add your comments, or suggest additional locations.

Will the Council have the money to implement these proposals? This is doubtful. This is what Councillor Sophie McGeevor said in a recent tweet (‪@SophieMcGeevor): “You know that £250 million investment in walking and cycling that the government have been going on about? Well London boroughs will each only get £100k of that. That would only cover about 20% of our initial COVID-19 transport proposals in Lewisham”.

Let us hope that this will stop them from doing the road closures and just stick to the sensible parking restrictions.

But make sure you send any comments to Sophie McGeevor who is responsible for these plans – her email address is CllrSophie.McGeevor@lewisham.gov.uk

Note that a number of London boroughs have already drawn up plans and submitted proposals for funding under the Covid-19 banner, and some money has already been granted. Bromley’s proposals were covered in a previous blog post.

Streetspace and School Streets Guidance

TfL has also published guidance on how boroughs should implement their “Streetspace” proposals – see Reference 3 below. And they have also published guidance for “School Streets” which are being implemented by many boroughs – see Reference 4 below.

School Street Sign

See photo above of a sign that can be used to enforce School Streets.

Reference 1: Lewisham Council Report – Implementation of Temporary Measures…. (see item 3) https://tinyurl.com/y7ojhtxw

Reference 2: Government Funding for Cycling/Walking and new Statutory Guidance: https://tinyurl.com/y9yry8wz

Reference 3: TfL Streetspace Guidance: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-interim-borough-guidance-main-doc.pdf

Reference 4: TfL School Streets Guidance: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/appendix-8-supplementary-guidance-on-school-streets.pdf

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Bromley – Funding Submission for Highway Measures

Posted on by
Reply

ChislehurstHighSt1Anyone with an interest in the activities of the local London Boroughs as regards highways measures will know that a revolution is taking place for two reasons: 1) The Mayor and TfL have run out of money so funding by Tfl for previously approved highways schemes has been stopped; and 2) the Covid-19 epidemic has prompted the Government to ask local councillors to bring in measures to promote “social distancing” and encourage walking/cycling to relieve pressure on public transport and roads. Some money is available in grants for such measures but they have to be bid for and soon in a competition that will be judged on merit.

Bromley Council have published what they may submit in a document that explains the process – see https://cds.bromley.gov.uk/documents/s50082088/ES20029.pdf

Many of the proposed measures may be temporary, but some might be made permanent. Plans for “Healthy Neighbourhood” or “Mini-Holland” schemes which include road closures may have lost previous funding, but they might still be snuck in using the new funding measures. It is therefore important if you live in London to keep an eye on what your local borough is proposing because there will otherwise be minimal public consultation. The proposals are considered urgent now because of the epidemic and decisions may simply be delegated to council staff to push them through quickly.

However, I have submitted the following comments to some of the relevant Bromley Councillors and officers (I may try and cover some other boroughs later but it really needs someone with local knowledge of the roads to make suggestions and comments – with 32 London borough I cannot personally cover all of them):

Bromley Funding Submission for Highway Measures

Dear Councillor Harmer,

Here are some comments that you requested on the published “Funding Submission for Highway Measures to Support Social Distancing….”. As you may know, I have taken a strong interest in traffic and transport issues in Bromley for the last 20 years.

Being someone who is considered a particularly “vulnerable” person from the Covid-19 epidemic being a transplant patient, I have a strong interest in ensuring that roads and pavements provide adequate social distancing capabilities. However I also have a strong interest in ensuring that vehicle users are not unreasonably prejudiced by such measures in  London, particularly as the use of cars rather than public transport can be an invaluable resource to the elderly and disabled, of which there are very many in the borough.

In general most of the proposals being put forward for funding seem quite reasonable, so I will only comment on those worth highlighting and where I have particular knowledge:

Temporary measures in locations where walking and cycling schemes have been previously supported by members.

BROMLEY TOWN – Glassmill Lane. I note the proposal to “filter”, i.e. close, the road to southbound traffic with the introduction of a cycle lane. This road is used by a lot of traffic headed from Bickley or Chislehurst to Beckenham (you indicate 15,000 vehicle movements). The reason for this is because the alternative routes, particularly Beckenham Lane where traffic queues up to Shortlands Station for much of the day, are not very viable.

Although the volume of traffic may be temporarily lower, it is clearly likely that any such change would be made permanent. There are also a considerable number of properties to the east of Glassmill Lane (between Mill Lane and Bromley Gardens) who would be severely inconvenienced by this closure. I suggest if nothing else that they be consulted before this is done, irrespective of the urgency of these proposals.

I can well understand this proposal is being considered because the tight bends at the top of Glassmill Lane and the narrow carriageway at that point are clearly dangerous, and not just to cyclists. However, I would suggest that a closure northbound rather than southbound would be better. Traffic travelling from Beckenham eastwards has good alternative routes so would not normally use Glassmill Lane.

CHISLEHURST: Add a refuge at the bottom of Old Hill. I am very supportive of this proposal.

COPERS COPE: A regards the proposed temporary closure of Park Road, I suggest the local residents should be consulted before any such measure is undertaken. We are opposed to road closures unless there are very good reasons to do so.

As regards the suggestion that Temporary Traffic Orders (TTOs) might be used to put in measures such as road closures, they are intended for the use in emergencies and it would be a misuse of the legislation that permits road closures by councils. The latest Government Guidance does not change the wording of the Act that covers such capabilities. TTOs should only be used for such things as emergency road repairs and should be temporary as the name implies. To use them for measures to improve social distancing may be justified temporarily, but that does not support the closure of Park Road, nor the closure of Glassmill Lane mentioned above.

SHORTLAND: Durham Road – Valley Road. It is not at all clear what is being proposed here, and by “filter” I presume a road closure is being proposed. Could you ask whoever writes these documents to stop using a euphemism. A road closure to everyone but cyclists is a closure. What are the alternative routes that might be used around such a closure? Again local residents need to be consulted first. The Covid-19 epidemic should not be used as an excuse to close roads without prior public consultation.

Town Centre Distancing Hotspots.

BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE: I would support the pedestrianization of East Street. As regards keep left and lane signage for pedestrians, I really doubt that this will be adhered to and could be expensive to implement.

ORPINGTON: We would oppose any suggestion of restricting the High Street to buses, cyclists and servicing vehicles only. I doubt any vehicle users who know the area would use this road as a through route, so the vehicles are mainly dropping off and picking up pedestrians. However, some of the parking on this road could usefully be removed.

CHISLEHURST TOWN CENTRE (see photo above).  I completely agree with changing the parking to be parallel with the road between Willow Grove and Prince Imperial Road entirely. Indeed I have supported this ever since I was involved with the Chislehurst Society. This should be made a permanent change. This would provide a wider pavement, possibly even a cycle lane, and smooth traffic flows.

Temporary Measures for Schools in the Borough.

CHISLEHURST: Chislehurst CE Primary – closure of School Road at Royal Parade. A closure at the end of School Road (at the junction with Royal Parade) would effectively mean the closure of Church Row and hence require all north/south traffic to use Church Lane instead. This would put more pressure on Royal Parade which already has stationary traffic for most of the day, on Bull Lane and Manor Park Road. I would suggest alternative closure points would be better, including making Church Row one-way southbound which has long been proposed and would enable wider pavements to be introduced. In summary, I think any changes in these roads would be problematic without a lot more consideration and estimates of the impact on traffic queues. The closure of School Road might be welcomed by the School, but local residents over a wide area might be adversely affected.

Temporary Measures in locations where walking and cycling schemes were being developed.

CHISLEHURST: Improving the footpath between Belmont Lane/Edgebury and Kemnal Road. As a former resident of Belmont Lane, I wholeheartedly support this, although it’s not a “short-cut” that takes you anywhere of interest. However the last time I walked it, it was barely passable on foot and in winter gets very deep in mud and slippery at the Northern end. It would be a useful improvement but far from essential.

I hope you will consider the above comments before deciding where any money that is available might be spent.

Yours sincerely

Roger Lawson

<END LETTER>

P.S. Apparently the intention is to make Glassmill Lane, Queensmead Road and Station Road one-way along the whole length thus enabling one phase of the traffic lights at the Shortlands Station junction to be closed, thus improving traffic flow on Beckenham Lane. But it would create major inconvenience for many local residents forcing them onto Beckenham Lane via a circular route.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

More Taxes on Car Drivers, and Londoners in General

Posted on by
Reply

I covered the TfL bail-out deal that Sadiq Khan agreed with the Government in a previous blog post. As usual the Mayor blames the Government. So he says today: “The Government is, in effect, making ordinary Londoners pay the cost for doing the right thing on Covid-19”. He also said: “This deal is a sticking plaster. The old model for funding public transport in London simply does not work in this new reality – fares income will not cover the cost of running services while so few people can safely use public transport. Over the next few months we will have to negotiate a new funding model with Government – which will involve either permanent funding from Government or giving London more control over key taxes so we can pay for it ourselves – or a combination of both”. Yes it looks like the Mayor wants to take more from you in taxes!

See the link to the full announcement below.

To help raise more revenue, the Congestion Charge and ULEZ taxes are being immediately reinstated and the Congestion Charge is to go up a whopping 30% from the 22nd June and the times will be extended to between 07:00 and 22:00, seven days a week. It is suggested this might be a temporary change, but don’t bet on it!

In addition there will be road closures and Heidi Alexander has said “One of the world’s largest car free zones will be created in central London as part of our response to Covid-19”.

This is what Black-cab driver and general secretary of the London Taxi Drivers’ Association (LTDA) Steve McNamara said to the BBC: “ It’s an absolute disgrace –  no one had been consulted about plans to change the use of some roads. Usually you have to consult with the public and businesses – they are using a health emergency to get around the laws to consult people before you do these things. London will grind to a halt even with reduced people. It’s a land grab to exclude Londoners from their roads and to widen pavements for more cycling”.

We certainly agree with those comments and we have pointed out that the Covid-19 epidemic is being used to introduce an agenda that penalises private travel and reduces your freedom.

But it’s not just vehicle users who are going to be penalised. The BBC has said this about the Freedom Pass: “Under the new conditions, children will no longer have free travel across London and restrictions on travel passes for people with a disability or over the age of 60 will also be imposed during peak hours”, although no formal announcement has yet to be made. The Freedom Pass might have been overdue for reform but the Mayor will no doubt blame this on the Government also rather than his own financial mismanagement.

Roger Lawson

Mayor’s Announcement: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/statement-from-the-mayor-of-london-regarding-tfl

You can see more details of the proposals from TfL to change London here:  https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/streetspace-for-london

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Sadiq Khan and TfL Bailed Out

Posted on by
Reply

Blackfriars Bridge at Lunch TimeAfter threatening the Government that TfL would have to make deep cuts to public transport in London unless they came up with some money by the close of yesterday, they did agree a bail-out. But with some conditions attached.

The Government has agreed to provide TfL with £1.5 billion in grants and loans to enable TfL to continue operating for at least a few months. With most of TfL’s income coming from bus and underground fares, the collapse in usage as people avoid public transport in the virus pandemic has resulted in massive losses at TfL which are still continuing. In addition the Mayor’s previous decisions to suspend increases in public transport fares, which he made to ensure election, have been enormously damaging to TfL finances and meant they were already budgeting massive deficits even before the epidemic hit.

The suspension of the Congestion Charge and ULEZ has also not helped, plus the fact that you can avoid paying bus fares by entering through the central door as is now required. Even TfL’s advertising revenue has fallen as advertisers’ budgets have fallen and they won’t pay when far few people are using public transport. With social distancing required, even the capacity of buses and the underground will be severely restricted for some time, even if people can be persuaded to use it.

The details of the agreed deal have not yet been disclosed, but the BBC reported that it includes a commitment to raise public transport fares by inflation plus 1%, two seats on the TfL board and a complete review of its finances. TfL has also committed to run a full service when previously they were cutting to 75%.

Mr Khan as usual blamed the Government rather than his own financial incompetence. This is what the BBC reported as being said by someone in the Mayor’s office: “They have forced ordinary Londoners to pay a very heavy price for doing the right thing on Covid-19 by hiking TfL fares, temporarily suspending the Freedom Pass at busy times and loading TfL with debt that Londoners will pay for in the long run”.

Grant Shapps, Transport Secretary, said it was wrong for the rest of the country to be bailing out Londoners but in fact Londoners who never use public transport will be paying a lot of the bill anyway via the Mayoral Council Tax Precept and in other ways.

What should the Mayor have done instead of running up a large deficit, and what should he do now?

Clearly many TfL projects have been very expensive. Building cycle superhighways has not come cheap and schemes such as Crossrail have very marginal cost/benefit ratios. The Mayor’s office and TfL management costs have also grown as the Mayor built an empire at taxpayer’s expense. It seems likely that a number of projects such as to expand the underground network will now have to be cancelled. Subsidies to bus operations which have been running at about £1 billion per annum could never be justified except by the desire of the Mayor to win popularity and elections.

The Mayor and TfL have actually cut their bus income by introducing road schemes that slowed traffic including buses, thus cutting bus ridership. You cannot solve these problems by simply encouraging cycling. The average distance travelled by a London commuter is 13 miles per day with many travelling much longer distances. That makes it impractical for many people to cycle even if they had an inclination to do so. The danger of cycling puts many people off using it for long journeys. Department for Transport (DfT) figures show that there are 1,139 serious injuries and 29 deaths for every million miles cycled, while for car drivers the figures are only 27 and 2 respectively.

The Mayor and central Government should face up to realities and work on the following:

  1. Free up the road network to enable more commuting via cars/taxis and improve bus services. Stop reducing road space.
  2. Provide more parking facilities at low cost.
  3. Encourage more tele-commuting by investing in broadband services and support.
  4. Encourage businesses to relocate out of congested central London into the London suburbs and elsewhere.
  5. Retail facilities and hotels/restaurants should be relocated similarly.
  6. We should move away from the concentration of businesses and facilities in central London to have a wider distribution so we are not reliant on public transport so much.
  7. Bus and underground services should pay for themselves. Handouts for political reasons (such as the Freedom Pass) should be severely restricted to those who really do need travel support, i.e. those who cannot afford to pay.
  8. The ULEZ and Congestion Charge should be scrapped as they don’t really provide a sensible return on the investment and operating costs. They are simply a financial burden on Londoners with very little benefit.

All it needs is strong and wise leadership from the Mayor of London to get Londoners through the current crisis, but will we get it? It seems unlikely from the current Mayor.

All that is likely to happen is that the TfL deficit will continue to grow after this short-term bail-out unless someone really gets to grips with the underlying financial problems.

P.S. Government announcement here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-grants-transport-for-london-funding-package?   They apparently still think the problems can be solved by encouraging cycling.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

 

 

More on Shapps Announcements

Posted on by
Reply

I covered the announcement of the Governments Covid-19 Transport Strategy in a previous blog post. Here are some further comments:

On the 9th May Grant Shapps, Transport Secretary, said that only 10% of former public transport capacity will be available in some locations if social distancing is to be maintained. It seems likely that will be so for many months even if people are permitted to go back to work. This will clearly cause major problems in London where almost all commuters use public transport such as trains, the underground and buses.

After the Prime Minister spoke on the 10th May, Mr Shapps issued this tweet: “Speaking this evening the PM was clear – if you’re going back to work in a job that cannot be done from home, please avoid public transport if possible. Go by car, or even better, cycle or walk. To help, we’ve announced more than £2bn in the biggest ever boost to cycling and walking”.

An example of how problematic London transport has become is a report in the Times that says Transport for London (TfL) has asked the Government for £2 billion. To quote: “TfL is down to its last £1bn, which is being burnt at a rate of £21m a day — leaving it less than two months from emptying its coffers and illustrating the intense pressure on local authority finances”. The article suggests the Government will attach some strings to any funding.

Mr Shapps was clearly right to point out the public transport capacity problem, but his apparent remedy to get everyone walking and cycling makes little sense. It is a typical view of politicians who can afford to live in central London. But for the vast majority of London commuters who travel many miles to get to work, it’s simply impractical even if they are keen cyclists.

Mr Shapps also justified his proposals by saying the epidemic is a great health opportunity to encourage active travel with the objective to double cycling by 2025. He also proposes to implement at least one “zero emission” city, and argues that one of the few positives will be improved air quality. He actually said there are “more than 20,000 extra deaths a year attributed to NO2 emissions”.

This figure is nonsense. It repeats the past allegation of 40,000 deaths from air pollution in the UK which has been shown to be simply wrong and a corruption of statistical evidence. In reality, there may be a few months shortening of life expectancy from all air pollution sources, a lot of which cannot be removed such as natural sources. But the figure is essentially uncertain and it is clear there are no deaths directly attributable to pollution. To specifically indicate NO2, which mainly comes from transport, as being the problem is also wrong when the Government advisory body COMEAP could not even agree that NO2 contributed to the negative impact on health of air pollution from particulates.

Mr Shapps clearly knows little about air pollution and its impact on health but is using his ignorance to put a positive spin on his actions in response to the transport crisis.

Just to show how there is no direct correlation between traffic levels and air pollution, this is what the London Air Quality Network (LAQN) recently reported: “Levels of the pollutant nitrogen dioxide (NO2) has reduced significantly during lockdown, research from King’s College London has found. Concentrations of NO2 have lowered as much as 55% due to less road traffic. However, levels of PM10 and PM2.5 were higher after lockdown than at any other time in 2020, due to easterly winds and pollutants from northern Europe”. The reduction in NO2 is perhaps not surprising when measurements by the LAQN are often taken at the roadside so will be heavily influenced by adjacent traffic. But as particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) are of much greater health concern you can see that Mr Shapps’ spin on the air pollution issue is somewhat misleading. Other UK cities have also shown no direct correlation between traffic reduction from the epidemic and air pollution – at least to date.

The air pollution problem is much more complex than can be solved by encouraging walking and cycling alone.

Notes for Editors

(1) £2 billion package to create new era for walking and cycling: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2-billion-package-to-create-new-era-for-cycling-and-walking

(2) How London got rid of private cars – and grew more congested than ever:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/how-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-congested-than-ever

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Shapps Transport Announcements – More Removal of Road Space

Posted on by
Reply

I mentioned in a previous blog post how the Covid-19 epidemic is being used as an excuse to close roads and implement other measures that prejudice vehicle drivers – for example by removing road space for cycle lanes. Yesterday Grant Shapps, Transport Secretary, announced a whole raft of national measures that will fund such plans and give local authorities powers to implement them.

You can read the details here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2-billion-package-to-create-new-era-for-cycling-and-walking . Up to £2 billion of funding will be provided by the Government to support local schemes.

I and many of our supporters consider these proposals totally unreasonable and unacceptable and I have written to my local Member of Parliament, Bob Neill, accordingly – see below. Readers are invited to copy the text, add your own personal comments, and send it to your own MP (you can find their contact details by going here: https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP  – don’t forget to add your postal address so they know you are one of their constituents).

Letter text:

Dear Bob,

I have seen and read the announcement made by Grant Shapps on 9/5/2020 entitled “£2 billion package to create new era for cycling and walking”. I acknowledge that there are particular problems created by the Covid-19 epidemic that will impact transport, particularly in London where public transport use is very high. But the epidemic is likely to be a short-term problem whereas it is clear that these measures are intended to herald a long-term change in how we travel.

But the measures proposed are simply irrational and will worsen many of the existing traffic problems that we have. Removing road space to add more cycle lanes, close roads to traffic and widen pavements will actually create more traffic congestion when people should be encouraged to use vehicles where they run no risk of personal contact and virus infection.

By the time such measures can be implemented, the epidemic may well be over but the cycling enthusiasts will not support any reversion to the status quo. The total capacity of roads to transport people and goods is not improved by such measures, just the exact opposite.

Promoting cycling does not in reality enable better “social distancing”, as we have seen in the last few weeks where groups of cyclists often ride close together. I also note that the Government is to support the use of e-scooters and it suggests they may be used on our roads in June when the public consultation on their use has not even concluded. This is jumping the gun on what might be a very negative change in road safety terms.

I am also very concerned about the new Statutory Guidance under the Traffic Management Act which will enable local councils to introduce measures with minimal public consultation and at great speed. We have already seen how Lewisham Council is trying to introduce road closures (a.k.a. “Modal Filters”) with no public consultation whatsoever using Temporary Traffic Orders, despite very strong local opposition. Although Traffic Orders still have to be published, the lack of local newspapers nowadays and local councils’ inability in many cases to provide clear ways for the public to find out what is proposed and comment on it, is undermining democracy. For example, Lewisham Council consistently does not respond to questions on proposed schemes.

The regulations really need to be strengthened to stop councils rushing in measures without proper consideration and with minimal public consultation.

I would suggest that you need to ask Mr Shapps to reconsider his proposals so that unreasonable measures are not pushed through with minimal consideration and public consultation. Encouraging cycling and walking may be meritorious in some ways but there are many people, such as the elderly or disabled, who will never take up cycling and cannot walk very far. The announced proposals effectively try to dictate how people should travel which should not happen in a democracy.

There are many other ways that the Government could have considered to tackle the problem of public transport use in the current epidemic – such as supporting home working (“tele-commuting”), relocation of businesses from congested areas to others, improving the road network, the provision of more parking, and many others. The existing proposals are a very one-sided approach to meeting the known transport problems and will incur great costs with very limited impact.

Please discourage the Government from going down their chosen path.

Roger Lawson.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Using the Covid-19 Epidemic as an Excuse for Road Closures

Posted on by
Reply

Lewisham Covid-19 image

Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, has issued a press release that spells out how the Covid-19 epidemic is going to be used to enable a “Transformation of London’s roads” via a “Streetspace” plan. It will mean giving space to new cycle lanes for example and more space for walking, effectively taking away road space for other users. See the press release below for more details.

This will include new temporary cycle lanes on Euston Road and on Park Lane, two of the main thoroughfares for traffic in London. TfL claims these changes are need to cope with a ten-fold increase in cycling and a five-fold increase in cycling as people avoid using public transport, but these estimates are surely simply incredible. In addition it says these changes may be made permanent.

Another example of using the epidemic as an excuse for measures that discriminate against vehicle users and which will cause even more traffic congestion is that from Lewisham Council. They have previously proposed a “Healthy Neighhourhoods” scheme which included many road closures. It has been strongly opposed by residents in Lee Green and other wards.

Now the Council has published on their web site a Covid-19 Transport Plan  (see https://lewishamcovidtransport.commonplace.is/about ). It explains how they plan to prioritise walking and cycling in the borough during the epidemic. But it just looks like the Healthy Neighbourhoods scheme under a different name. See image above for how “Modal Filters” will be used to stop traffic, i.e. close roads.

They plan to implement these proposals via the use of Temporary Traffic Orders (TTOs) rather than Experimental Traffic Orders (ETOs). But this is a misuse of the legislation that permits road closures by councils. TTOs should only be used for such things as emergency road repairs and should be temporary as the name implies. But the Council proposes turning them into ETOs without consultation in due course, and subsequently making them permanent.

We have written to the Council pointing out this misuse of the legislation (see reference 2 below).

Readers who live in London should write to their local Member of Parliament asking them to stop such measures. I would suggest writing to the Mayor of London or the Mayor of Lewisham, but both are very unaccountable to the public and Sadiq Khan can simply ignore any objections.

Note that there is a lot of discussion on social media of these proposals. It would help to counter the activities of cyclist and other pressure groups if you get involved in those media.

Join us in spreading the word about the opposition to irrational transport policies that favour pampered cyclists and prejudice vehicle users.

Reference 1: Mayor’s Press Release: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayors-bold-plan-will-overhaul-capitals-streets

Reference 2: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Section 14: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14

Our Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

And a Facebook page dedicated to opposition to Sadiq Khan’s transport strategy here: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstMTS/

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Radical TfL Plan to Remove Road Space from Drivers

Posted on by
Reply

When the coronavirus epidemic is over, will transport and traffic in London return to normal? Not if Cycling Commissioner Will Norman of Transport for London has his way.

In an article published by Bikebiz (see link below) he says that TfL is working on a radical solution – a Streetspace Plan. That might include converting general traffic lanes and parking spaces to cycle lanes and installing wider footpaths. Some roads may be restricted to buses and cycles only at certain times of day.

This is not just about providing more distancing space for pedestrians temporarily during the epidemic. It is clearly focussed on what happens after restrictions are lifted with the objective of making permanent changes to the allocation of road space.

In other words, it’s just another attack on the use of motor vehicles led by a cycling enthusiast. There is no justification for such measures and there is no public information available, nor any apparent public consultation proposed.

This is yet another damaging attack on the road network coming out of the Mayor of London’s office. Make sure you oppose it!

Bikebiz article: https://www.bikebiz.com/mayors-streetspace-plan-could-see-cycling-increased-tenfold-post-lockdown/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

More Comments on Hammersmith and Fulham Road Closure Scheme

Posted on by
1

Here are some more comments on the proposed road closures in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham which we covered in a previous article (see https://tinyurl.com/scxyymu ). A local resident had this to say:

LBHF plans to send workers, who should be at home, to build a new traffic scheme when there are no cars on the road!

There is a saying about good times to bury bad news – it refers to the cynical timing of announcements by people wanting to take action that will be embarrassing or unpopular and doing so when journalists and others are least likely to notice. Of course, at a time when we are all preoccupied with COVID-19 and when the roads are empty, we are not likely to notice a new traffic scheme! However, this is the moment the council chooses to introduce one, when it should be focussing all its efforts on tackling the COVID-19 crisis.

With that in mind, please have a look at this from the council: https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/share-your-views-sw6-traffic-reduction-plans . It is a proposed new traffic scheme that takes selfishness and NIMBYism to new lows. (NIMBY stands for not in my back yard.) The title of the page says “Share your views – SW6 traffic reduction plans” but I cannot see anywhere on the page giving a link to share your views! That, in itself, looks to me like a ruse not to get any public feedback but to be able to claim it asked for it! Furthermore, was there a consultation? If so, I didn’t see it and I would have thought that as a LBHF resident, I should be consulted. In my books, such practice is manipulative and deceitful.

However, I have not yet explained what the plans are. In brief, the idea is to install number plate recognition cameras and traffic measures on the roads leading between Wandsworth Bridge and the New Kings Road, and to fine road users if they use any other route than Wandsworth Bridge Road. Since Wandsworth Bridge Road is (outside COVID-19 lockdown restrictions) normally very busy this will inevitably gridlock it even more than it is usually and, no doubt, will result in increased takings in traffic fines at the notorious yellow box junctions close to where the New Kings Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road meet. And if you have a doubt about that motivation, ask yourself why the article itself says: “92 per cent of traffic fines (PCNs) issued at the Bagleys Lane/New Kings Road junction were to vehicles registered outside of the borough.”

This traffic scheme has unusual rules. In addition to allowing emergency and other public service vehicles to use the side streets; it also allows local residents to do so and it is explained as a “traffic reduction plan” based on the premise that it will reduce traffic in the side roads because much of it is from non-residents. No doubt the council thinks it is a great wheeze, as they can issue fines, fill their coffers and the residents will like it; but it is evidently ill thought through, prejudiced and likely to be massively congesting once we are allowed again to leave our houses. For example, what happens to customers for shops in Wandsworth Bridge Road who come from outside the area? How will they avoid having their number plates read and receiving penalty charge notices if they try to park in the side streets?!

Apparently, there is a scheme for visitors but how will that work and how much bureaucracy will be involved? Also, how would it be for society if every borough behaved in the same way, forcing all non-local traffic onto a few highly congested roads and issuing fines for diverting? Of course, it would bring chaos and gridlock.

What we are seeing on London’s roads is a vicious circle of increased congestion that has a clear pattern, but people don’t really notice or understand it. It works like this: TfL or the local council introduces new measures that have the effect of slowing or jamming traffic on the main arteries; examples are new traffic lights, widened pavements, new cycle tracks, etc. In response, traffic seeks alternative routes through residential streets. That is met by resident complaints and councils introducing measures to reduce through traffic in the back streets, with the effect that congestion further increases. Local residents are disproportionately inconvenienced because they are the biggest users of the back streets. Because traffic speeds are falling and congestion is worsening, road users mistakenly believe that the problem is caused by increased traffic but that is wrong. The problem is caused by these counterproductive traffic management measures.

The proof of this hypothesis is that vehicle usage on London’s roads has been falling consistently since the turn of the century and with less traffic on the roads, it should flow faster not slower! If, like me, you think LBHF’s traffic camera scheme around Wandsworth Bridge Road is cynical, anti-social and congesting, I encourage you to pass the word on to your friends and family and to email your local councillors, your MP, Greg Hands or Andy Slaughter, to object. The main councillor responsible for traffic is Wesley Harcourt and the leader of the council is Stephen Cowan. Here are their email addresses: Cllr Harcourt Wesley: H&F wesley.harcourt@lbhf.gov.uk  Cllr Cowan Stephen: H&F’ stephen.cowan@lbhf.gov.uk  Greg Hands mail@greghands.com  Andy Slaughter MP andy@andyslaughter.com

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_Lhondon

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.