Tag Archives: Road Closures

Turning Liveable Neighbourhoods into Unliveable Ones

Posted on by
Reply

Road Closed Sign

A number of London boroughs are introducing schemes that include road closures – for example the Mini-Holland schemes in Waltham Forest and the Healthy Neighbourhood schemes in Lewisham. These are being financed by Transport for London (TfL) so it’s worthwhile looking at where the ideas behind these schemes come from, apart from the general attacks on cars and private transport from the environmental fringe.

The TfL Liveable Neighbourhood Guidance document published by the Mayor of London and TfL in 2019 tells you a lot – see Reference 1 below: This is what it defines as a “liveable neighbourhood”: “A Liveable Neighbourhoods project will deliver attractive, healthy, accessible and safe neighbourhoods for people. Typically, this may involve changes to town centres and their surrounding residential areas to improve conditions for walking and cycling and reduce traffic dominance. This may include new pedestrian crossings, a network of good cycle routes, reduced parking provision, redesigned junctions, restrictions on motor traffic in town centres, high streets and residential streets, and wider improvements against each of the ten Healthy Streets Indicators” (page 5).

It also says on page 8: “Reducing the need to use cars is the cornerstone of the Mayor’s vision and will provide huge benefits for all Londoners. More walking and cycling can make everyone healthier. Older people and the very young, disabled people and those living on lower incomes are most likely to be affected by the problems associated with a car-dependent city, such as poor air quality and road danger. Therefore, reduced car use will make London fairer”.

Forcing people to walk or cycle more may make them healthier but it simply ignores the problems of the disabled and elderly, or the practicality of making some trips by public transport. It makes London unfairer not fairer.

These concepts are based on the policies in Sadiq Khan’s Transport Strategy of which we have been very critical as it ignores the wishes of the general public in London. They wish to choose how they travel, not have it dictated to them by bureaucrats in City Hall.

These same ideas have been reflected in the Transport Strategy and Local Implementation Plan (LIP) adopted by Lewisham Council in 2019 – see Reference 2 below:  This is what that document says on page 6: “Healthy Neighbourhoods: this programme will adopt the principles of the Liveable Neighbourhoods schemes, and apply them at smaller-scale local levels. It will incorporate ‘Healthy Schools’ principles and provide measures to encourage more active travel and traffic reduction through point closures, identifying and addressing issues of rat-running”. But road closures do not just stop “rat-running” which could otherwise be described as people using the least congested routes, but they inconvenience local residents from using the shortest routes also.

That document spells out that the Equality Act requires councils not to discriminate on the basis of age or ability, but when you look at the Equalities Impact Assessment done by Project Centre on the Lewisham LIP – see Reference 3 below – it simply suggests that older people can use public transport. As regards disabled people (representing 14.5% of Lewisham’s population) it suggests that they can be assisted to walk through “intelligent engineering” of streets. This is a gross trivialisation of the problems of the elderly and disabled and was clearly written by someone with no understanding of their problems. It concludes by saying that “The draft LIP does not adversely impact on any particular group and can reduce the barriers for all groups to accessing the transport system”. It is in reality a complete whitewash of the problems that will be created by the Lewisham LIP, the Healthy Neighbourhoods proposals and the street closures.

What public consultation has been done on these important issues? Certainly the LIP was put out to public consultation and a report subsequently produced in 2018. But it shows only 228 responses were received, and a lot of them were from cyclists, i.e. as is now common the results were probably distorted by cyclist pressure groups. The report covers a lot of issues and public responses but it summarises by saying “Few respondents oppose the LIP programmes”.

But the consultation did not spell out what the implications were and few people actually look at LIPs – we were certainly not consulted for example even though we are clearly a stakeholder, and the vast majority of the public would not have been aware of it and its implications.

So the Lewisham Healthy Neighbourhood proposals have been developed based on policies that have been put forward by TfL and subsequently approved by Councillors in the LIP but with minimal input from the public.

That’s how democracy works in the modern world, or does not work. Turning a liveable neighbourhood into an unliveable one for many people.

How do you stop such schemes from being proposed and supported by councillors? The simplest way is not to re-elect those councillors who believe that only the young and fit should be permitted to live in an area, and that cars should be banned. If they support the “Liveable Neighbourhood” concepts and Sadiq Khan’s ideas for the future of London then VOTE AGAINST THEM.

Note that the Freedom for Drivers Foundation does not back any one political party but when we see perverse and irrational policies advocated by the Mayor of London or local Councillors, we will oppose them. We suggest you do the same.

We support democracy but that is not what has been happening in Lewisham or Waltham Forest where anti-car groups have dictated the agenda and ignored the wishes of the public.

Note that local borough Councillors do not have to kowtow to the Mayor of London’s policies. They can oppose the irrational elements such as road closures that will create more congestion. Don’t let your local Councillors tell you it is all ordained – it is not.

Reference 1: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-liveable-neighbourhood-guidance.pdf

Reference 2: Lewisham LIP: https://tinyurl.com/sp563yq

Reference 3: LIP Equalities Impact Assessment: https://tinyurl.com/usjlw5n

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.

Road Closures in Lewisham and Waltham Forest

Posted on by
Reply

At the recent Lee Green Assembly public meeting in Lewisham where the proposed “Healthy Neighbourhoods” scheme was discussed it was suggested that similar schemes worked well in other London boroughs. That was despite a member of the public saying that there were definitely negative impacts in Walthamstow (London Borough of Waltham Forest). See our report on the meeting here: https://tinyurl.com/vgoo5jn

I can now report more on the Waltham Forest opposition to road closures having been in touch with the campaign against the “Mini Holland” proposals as they call them which has involved the closure of as many as 70 roads in the borough. The campaign is called “Waltham Forest Streets 4 All” and they have a web site where you can obtain more information and register your interest: https://wfstreets4all.wixsite.com – please register if you live in the area.

This email is being sent our contacts on the Lewisham campaign and also those on the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. The latter is what is driving these road closures with local schemes called “Healthy Neighbourhoods”, “Safer Neighbourhoods”, “Liveable Streets” or “Mini-Hollands”. There are similar proposals in Enfield, Tower Hamlets and Kingston and they may appear in other London boroughs as they are financed by Transport for London (TfL) with many millions of pounds of public money.

Their aim is typically to encourage more cycling and walking and they often have objectives to reduce road casualties and cut air pollution although there is no evidence that they have done either of the latter. Indeed in Waltham Forest it is suggested that air pollution has increased due to more traffic congestion on many roads as others have been closed.

The traffic does not disappear if roads are closed, or “evaporate” as it is euphemistically called. It just creates a lot of inconvenience and longer journey times for residents. It also creates problems for emergency services – it is alleged for example that people have died due to delays in ambulances reaching them in Waltham Forest. Police also are unable to pursue motorcycle or moped riders through the “modal filters” that are installed.

You can see the impact on traffic congestion in Waltham Forest in the photos below (courtesy of Paul Dogan):

Waltham Forest Congestion

Lewisham are copying Waltham Forest in that they propose to install the scheme in Lee Green using an Experimental Traffic Order that does not require prior public consultation which is definitely anti-democratic and a way to avoid opposition. Once installed at great expense, it is very unlikely that the road closures will ever be removed.

Lewisham Council have avoided so far answering questions put to them on the cost of the scheme, the expected benefits and a cost/benefit justification so we have submitted a Freedom of Information Act Request to obtain that and other information.

There are improvements that can be made to local roads to encourage walking and cycling, but just closing roads to stop vehicles is just plain silly in our view and we always oppose road closures. There is no evidence that stopping people from using vehicles results in “modal shift” with more walking and cycling. The figures in London have not changed significantly in recent years.

If readers of this email live in boroughs who are developing similar schemes and want assistance to oppose them, please contact us.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Lewisham Closing Roads for “Healthy Neighbourhoods”

Posted on by
Reply

The London Borough of Lewisham is proposing to close roads in a number of areas as part of a programme to reduce traffic and promote “healthy neighbourhoods”. There has been minimal public consultation on these proposals which would cause enormous inconvenience to local residents, visitors and delivery drivers apart from causing congestion on other roads.

The first area they plan to cover is Lewisham and Lee Green where road closures will be installed on a “trial” basis soon but other areas they propose to cover are East Sydenham, Telegraph Hill and Bellingham. See https://tinyurl.com/yy9t92gn for more background information. Such schemes are of course a part of the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy to get us all walking, cycling and using public transport and prejudicing those who wish to use motor vehicles of any kinds. We are likely to see similar proposals from other London boroughs – at least those of a similar complexion to Lewisham who are very much against all road vehicles.

More details of the proposals for Lewisham and Lee Green are present here: https://streetbuilder.io/lewishamandleegreen/site/proposals . Note the proposals to close Manor Lane, Manor Park and Upwood Road which would be particularly inconvenient. The latter would also affect residents who live in the Borough of Greenwich who have not been consulted.

Residents of these boroughs who are likely to be affected by these proposals should certainly contact their local councillors and there is a “public drop-in event” on the 6th February, 1-8pm, Good Sheppard Church Hall, Handen Road, SE12 8NR where you can tell council officers what you think about the plans. There are also email addresses you can send in objections to in the first link given above and there is a meeting in Lee Green on the 11th February – see details here:

http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/mgMeetingAttendance.aspx?ID=5740

We will be making objections to these plans but local residents need to do so also!

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

RideLondon Event – Should it Continue?

Posted on by
6

The RideLondon event, sponsored by Prudential, is a fun day for cyclists which has been running since 2013 and has created enormous inconvenience for residents and businesses in Surrey and in South West and Central London. Roads are closed or rolling road blocks used, particularly on the route taken by professional riders. The number of amateur riders also effectively generates gridlock on the roads involved.

Numerous people have objected in the past and a petition has been organised on Change.org to oppose the event. See https://www.change.org/p/surrey-county-council-stop-surrey-being-turned-into-a-cycle-track

Now Surrey County Council have woken up to the concerns expressed and are undertaking a public consultation on whether to continue with it. See https://www.surreysays.co.uk/deputy-ceo/survey-on-prudential-ridelondon-surrey/

Note that the event has involved deaths in the past, and not just to riders. In 2017 a pedestrian was struck by a cyclist and later died. The roads are not closed to pedestrians and even many of the amateur cyclists consider it to be a race.  We are opposed to all road closures for leisure or sporting events. They should be kept open for essential services and the general use of the public.

There is simply no justification for such road closures.

Make sure you respond to the Surrey Council Consultation!

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Press Release: Frivolous and Ideological Road Closures – The Latest Weapon in The War Against Drivers

Posted on by
Reply

Road Closed Sign

In a modern 24/7 society denying drivers the use of roads for spurious reasons is unacceptable.

We have become increasingly concerned about the trend in unnecessary day-long road closures for frivolous reasons such as Play Streets(1), Car Free Days(2) and 100-mile cycling event routes(3). Whilst these events tend to take place on a Sunday, this is a normal working day for many due to the likes of Sunday Trading laws, workers providing essential services and workers on-call. There is often little or no meaningful consultation. No group or individuals should be given the right to dictate how, when, where and if anyone else can travel. In addition, drivers now face illegal road blockages by ideologically and politically motivated protest groups who potentially fit the UK definition of terrorism (4).

We have a long tradition in the UK of brief, localised road closures in towns and cities for events such as Carnivals or Remembrance, but extensive, day-long road closures are now being used to attack vehicle use. The now postponed closure of the arterial A38 (M) Aston Expressway in Birmingham for Car Free Day on 22nd September is described as “hugely symbolic and ambitious” by anti-car zealots within Birmingham City Council (5). We need to remember what the roads are actually for and why it is vital that they aren’t unnecessarily obstructed. Roads are not a replacement for parks, gardens or the ballot box.”

For Londoners there are extensive road closures in central London (on roads controlled by TfL) and on some borough roads on the 22nd September – see https://tinyurl.com/yyfrvffy for details. This is a “car free” day as they describe it but buses will still allowed to run on some of the roads. We have received a number of complaints about these closures which create major difficulties for residents and those providing essential services.

Notes for Editors

(1) Close roads so children can play, cyclist Jason Kenny says:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49675073

(2) World Car Free Day 2019:
https://www.awarenessdays.com/awareness-days-calendar/world-car-free-day-2019/

(3) Mare and new-born foal die because vet stopped by bike ride closures:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mare-newborn-foal-die-because-15637103

(4) Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-terrorism-act-2006

(5) Birmingham City Council Statement regarding Car Free Day:
https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/news/article/473/statement_regarding_car_free_day

<ENDS>

Road Closures Halted Due to Public Pressure

Posted on by
Reply

Local Transport Today (LTT) have reported that two road closure schemes in London have been halted due to public objections.

In the Borough of Newham a trial closure of Browning Road Bridge to almost all vehicles except buses was halted after a demonstration by 80 local residents opposing the scheme. See this article in the Newham Recorder for more details: https://tinyurl.com/y64e63x4

This closure was part of the Liveable Neighbourhood policy implemented by the Council and funded by TfL. It was alleged that people were using the bridge as a “short-cut”. Only a very few local residents would be granted permits to use the bridge.

In Tower Hamlets a trial on Antill Road, Coburn Road and Tredegar Road of another “Liveable Neighbourhood” scheme was halted after a few days. A Tower Hamlets spokesperson told LTT that “There was a small minority of people vociferously objecting to the trial and some staff on site did feel intimidated by their actions”. Apparently taxi and PHV drivers were among the objectors.

Comment: Road closures can cause enormous difficulties to residents and disruption to the road network. They create congestion elsewhere and additional journey times. But these are part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy to deter and reduce vehicle use when most people do not support such policies.

It is good to see that just a few residents can stop such schemes being implemented by some local activism. Councillors and council staff frequently have an agenda that is very different to what most of the population want, and are being encouraged by the Mayor and TfL to bring in such schemes. But it just takes a bit of opposition to halt them.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

More Pedestrian Deaths Caused By or To Cyclists

Posted on by
2

The BBC have reported the death of a 73-year-old woman on Oxford Street after she was hit by a cyclist on Tuesday the 12th September. She suffered head injuries in the collision. A man was arrested at the scene.

The BBC also noted that a 67-year-old woman died on the 9th September after she was struck by a cyclist during July’s RideLondon event. RideLondon is a charity event that attracts as many as 100,000 riders and where many roads in London and Surrey are closed to traffic – which causes enormous problems to many residents.  We have objected to such events in the past. However, the roads are not of course closed to pedestrians while many of the cycle riders consider it a race even those in the “non-competitive” part of the event. It is alleged some are using the Strava App to record and compare times – I have previously commented on that use by cyclists in London. In fact all riders in RideLondon get their times to complete the event reported by the organisers which no doubt encourages the competitive spirit. In practice, it means that cyclists are racing on public roads.

There was also one death amongst the riders from medical problem this year, and two deaths in the previous year.

It is surely time these events were reconsidered and the general encouragement of “furious” cycling discouraged, whether in an organised event or otherwise.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Janet Street-Porter’s views on the Cycle Superhighways

Posted on by
Reply

Well known media personality Janet Street-Porter has given her views on the Cycle Superhighways in London in the Independent. She said “Sometimes it’s time to stand up and speak out, at the risk of causing offence and attracting sneers” – and she got the predictable response from the cycling lobby. She continued: “I’ve finally had enough of Boris Johnson – the man who has brought this wonderful city to its knees in the name of cycling” and “London has been turned into a gridlocked building site as roads are dug up and rebuilt to create Boris’s follies, a network of cycling superhighways”.

She argues that the extra congestion, and hence air pollution this has created has made even walking in London an unpleasant activity and she also complains that the young, the elderly or disabled may be unable to cycle. The article which also attacks cyclists as being subject to ridiculously few rules and that they frequently ride on pavements is well worth reading on the web. She concludes with the comment “If Boris becomes Prime Minister, God help us” which this writer cannot but agree with. He’s already lost my vote.

Zac Goldsmith’s views on cycling

Now it just so happens that I was able to ask a couple of questions of the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London who may take over from Boris at a recent husting meeting – Zac Goldsmith. I asked him what he was going to do to sort out the traffic congestion that Boris had created with the Cycle Superhighways, and whether he was a keen cyclist himself. In answer to the first question he said he would look at the issue when the works had been completed, and might consider mitigation measures if necessary. He avoided answering the second question altogether. An altogether weak response. I am afraid Mr Goldsmith comes across as a glib and slick politician but one who is not likely to win the election, particularly if he goes on in this manner.

Chris Boardman’s views on cycling

Olympic champion Chris Boardman was reported as saying in the Daily Telegraph that he does not ride a bike in London because it does not feel safe. He would prefer to walk. But he did argue that the Government should spend more money supporting cycling.

Shorter Street Closed

The latest destruction of road space caused by the Cycle Superhighway is the closure of Shorter Street near Tower Hill. This is a short bit of road that enables traffic coming down Mansell Street to the east to turn right so as to go west along Tower Hill and Lower Thames Street. It also enables vehicles parked in the Minories car park at Tower Hill to go to the west. They now have no practical route to do this as they can only go straight ahead (across Tower Bridge) or turn left towards The Highway. This writer did complain to TfL that this was nonsensical in the consultation on the proposals but it seems they have taken no notice.

Traffic Congestion Increased

An article by David Williams in the London Evening Standard recently reported that traffic congestion in London has been increasing. Apparently data from TomTom reveals that congestion is 14% worse in London than it was five years ago. But it need not be so – congestion in the rest of Europe over that period is 3% down, which surely demonstrates how damaging have been the policies of Boris Johnson. TomTom even reported that the “added delay” over free flowing traffic conditions rose by 37% in 2014 alone! One of the worse routes was the Embankment to Lower Thames Street for a reason you can no doubt guess – the Cycle Superhighway of course. But the new road design at the Elephant & Castle was another hot spot.

Roger Lawson

Road Closures in Hackney

Posted on by
Reply

Transport for London are consulting on numerous road closures in Hackney, allegedly related to the Cycle Superhighway 1 (CS1) but in reality more likely to be in response to demands from local residents to remove traffic from some roads. Of course it won’t remove the traffic but simply move it onto other more congested roads or onto other roads where residents are less vociferous, i.e. it will move the misery elsewhere. These are typical examples of how the road network in London is continually being degraded by road closures to the disadvantage of residents and visitors under pressure from minority local groups who hate motor vehicles. It will mean most circuitous routes need to be followed to reach many properties.

The roads affected are in the Broadwater Road area, Wordsworth Road area and the De Beauvoir Road area. This is an example of one of the new junctions restricting vehicle movements but not cyclists of course on Broadwater Road:

Broadwater Road_V4.1

You can make your objections by going to this web page for the Broadwater Road area here (where there are links to the other two consultations):

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/cs1-broadwater-road?cid=cs1-broadwater-road

Roger Lawson

Road Closures in Lambeth around Loughborough Junction

Posted on by
Reply

Lambeth Council have closed a number of roads around Loughborough Junction on an “experimental basis” for 6 months. That includes closures in Loughborough Road, Barrington Road, Calais Street, Padfield Road, Lilford Road and Gordon Grove. These closures are causing enormous difficulties for both local residents and those travelling within the borough. For example, Loughborough Road was used by 13,000 vehicles each day according to the council and those vehicles will now have to find alternative routes.

The aim of the scheme is to enable “public space improvements”. The council did consult local residents but only 633 people responded. Over 750 people signed a petition organised by Loughborough Estate Tenants and Residents Association against the closures. The Brixton Society have also called the consultation “fundamentally flawed” and neither anyone living outside the affected zone nor we were consulted – in other words a lot of the road users were ignored.

More information is present here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/housing/regeneration/loughborough-junction-what-you-need-to-know

Please send your objections to Barbara Poulter at bpoulter@lambeth.gov.uk

This is of course a typical example of the degradation of the road network in London of late, supported by councils such as Lambeth, and the Mayor, who take little notice of the impact these closures have on the day to day life of those who live or work in the area.

Postscript: there is a petition launched by local residents against these proposals – see here: https://www.change.org/p/lambeth-council-reverse-the-loughborough-junction-road-closures-now . Please sign it!

Roger Lawson