This article was kindly sent in by Councillor Marc Francis (Bow East)
The “Liveable Streets” proposals to restrict access to some roads in Bow through is proving as polarising as the EU referendum. And like Brexit it divides friends, neighbours and even families! We have another petition against them at the Full Council meeting coming up on Wednesday and so I think it is important to let Bow residents know where I stand on it as one of your local councillors.
Like most people, I want to reduce the amount of pollution in our air – for our own sake, for the sake of future generations and for the sake of the whole planet. Reducing the number of car journeys is one of the most effective ways to do that. Tower Hamlets’ location means it is inevitable many vehicles needing to access central London will drive through. However, for nearly half a century now tens of thousands of drivers each day have used our residential neighbourhoods as a short-cut instead of using Transport for London’s main thoroughfares – the A12 and A13. North Bow is one of those neighbourhoods that suffers the brunt of this, with commuters coming off at the Old Ford junction and rat-running either along Tredegar Road, St Stephen’s Road and Roman Road, or Parnell Road and Old Ford Road every morning. And they head back that way in the evening too.
So I fully support decisive action to stop this rat-running. That’s why, as Labour Party candidates at the last local elections, we stood on this manifesto promise:
“Tower Hamlets has many main arterial roads going through it, serving the strategic Transport for London road network. Through-traffic should by and large stick to these main roads but many of our residential neighbourhoods have seen huge increases in rat-running traffic, making them more dangerous, noisy and polluted. We will create low traffic neighbourhoods, keeping through-traffic to main roads, in any residential area where residents want them, with an ambition to have started on at least half by 2022.”
Somehow or other though, this laudable and unifying proposal has morphed into something much more extreme and divisive. As well as stopping that rat-running commuter traffic, our Mayor and Cabinet have agreed to the implementation of a timed “bus gate” at the junction of Roman Road and St Stephen’s Road and the closure of the “skew bridge” section of Old Ford Road. Anyone driving through the gate in the morning or late-afternoon and early-evening will be fined, including our own residents too.
Bizarrely this will force my own constituents who need to go west to start by driving east before joining traffic jams on Bow Road or Victoria Park Road – adding 20-30 minutes to each journey and increasing pollution. And the skew bridge closure will force more traffic on to Roman Road when the bus gate isn’t in operation. Most Roman Road business seem to be opposed too. There’s nothing in that manifesto statement above about introducing bus gates to block our own residents’ movements. In fact, given how live an issue this was in the run-up to the 2018 local elections, you could go further and say we were implying we wouldn’t go that far.
I’ve been listening over several months now to residents’ descriptions of the car journeys they make now that they wouldn’t be able to do if the bus gate comes into effect. Journeys to work. Journeys to drop kids at school on the other side of the Borough. Journeys to take elderly relatives to healthcare appointments. Almost all of them seem to have much more difficult public transport alternatives. I really don’t think it is right for the council to impose convoluted detours around east London to make these journeys unless we have an electoral mandate to do so.
Supporters of these restrictions and the physical barriers on Coborn Road and Old Ford Road claim there is public support for it. And the consultation last summer certainly resulted in a significant majority of respondents supporting the proposals. But a significant minority did not. And this was never billed as a referendum. If it was, it should have been conducted independently. Worryingly, we also saw significant under-representation from some parts of our diverse local community in the responses. A “Town Hall-style meeting” the Mayor promised us last November to remedy this democratic deficit proved to be nothing of the sort when it finally took place last week.
Despite this the Mayor seems intent on pressing ahead. We have seen similar situations with restrictions elsewhere in the Borough. This has provoked real anger amongst many residents. And the uncomfortable truth is that our community seems to be split on socio-demographic lines. From the dozens of emails, phone calls and conversations I’ve had so far, those in favour are generally middle-class. And those opposed are generally working-class and long-standing residents. This polarisation should worry all of us who call Tower Hamlets our home.
Given this I think it is time for the Mayor and Cabinet to compromise and allow a resident exemption from the bus gate restriction. That’s what has been done successfully in Hammersmith & Fulham. They don’t need to block Old Ford Road either. Other measures can reduce speeds and improve safety there. I know this won’t be enough for some people, but it will still ensure thousands of rat-running commuter cars and vans are stopped from driving through North Bow each day. And that will significantly reduce air pollution locally. If it doesn’t, let’s see the evidence and look at more radical solutions. But let’s take this a step at a time and carry the whole community along with us.
Councillor Marc Francis (Bow East)
Absolutely agree. We’ve had two years of consultation for God’s sake, let’s actually get on have a go at something. The Mayor’s already undertaken to review and adjust as time goes on. Marc’s proposals are likely to achieve very little in the grand scheme of things, and at great financial cost.
All the money being spent on consultation and temporary closures wy not just shut old ford exit on a12 make it residents and buses just one camera and one barrier. And make it queen Elizabeth park only easy saving millions and collecting fines for council.
Dear Marc,
Thank you for listening to all constituents, it is appreciated and will be remembered. I’ve never contacted the Mayor or a councillor in my life but I am so concerned about these proposed changes. I’m profoundly deaf (bilaterally) and suffer with an associated disorder that effects my mobility. Even so, I feel I am very unlikely to qualify for a blue disabled badge from LBTH. I fear going out alone not just due to the communication difficulties I have but as I have also been knocked over by a cyclist in the past that I didn’t hear approach me from behind. I’m not anti-cyclist at all but I am increasingly feeling I cannot comfortably walk a lot of places within my own neighbourhood without great anxiety, not just due to my mobilising but also the fear I have in not hearing cyclists approach. The parks and canal towpaths are no-go’s for me as it is as I cannot hear the ringing of bell etc…please help stop making the road outside my house another cycle throughway. I appreciate my health afflictions are “my problem” and I’m not expecting anything to change just for my benefit but I would appreciate very much if I could be considered too? As so far I feel the consultation process has been skewed to suit the pro-cyclist lobby, which doesn’t seem to reflect the majority of responses I’m hearing from our community. I don’t even drive or own a car but I am dependant on people assisting me to the shops or hospital appointments. I’m also concerned the effect this will have on people being willing to visit me too if its made difficult accessing me in the borough, even with a resident permit permission through the bus gate. I just want a fairer consultation where all our voices are considered. The official responses so far from LBTH doesn’t seem to at all reflect the majority of residents feelings in Tower Hamlets, just the middle classes who have moved here.
There is a huge amount of issue with privilege in this debate which has made individuals feeling really resentful. This has just led myself feeling enormously stressed and upset – the mixed messaging from Chris Harrison and others just made this a lot worse. We were told that all voices would be heard. That absolutely has not happened the so called “town hall meeting” that the mayor did was so bad. Some of the dithering and zero clarity really led to division in our community. That questions were asked how to ‘educate’ people who oppose but not ask a question from a worker who has lived in Bow all there life was wrong. The boundary of the proposals is 3 miles more than double the boundary of the Wapping Bus Gate (1.5 miles). It is a radical proposal for any LTN in Tower Hamlets and has caused so much controversy for ordinary residents who just want to get on with their lives and need a car for necessary things. It is much more controversial than the one in Wapping as it divides two communities but the Mayor doesn’t want to know. It doesn’t make sense for workers who have to travel everyday to now be put in rush hour traffic every mornings and evenings and the ideas that everyone has come up with has caused such animosity in our communities. I genuinely thought the Mayor would take a reasoned approach on this when he was looking at exemptions, but this has not happened causing a huge division and catered to the campaigns and not the needs of community.
Marc, with respect it is perfectly clear your thinking comes only from the perspective of motorists. Leaving Skew Bridge open would do nothing to address the fact it is not fit for pedestrian use, and would mean absolutely no provision for cyclists across the entire scheme, which I’m sure you would agree would be unfair. Skew Bridge indeed only has room for safe(ish) manoeuvre one way at a time, but a one-way traffic light system would leave permanent queues of cars on residential streets backed up to Grove Rd roundabout and beyond, and to Fairfield Rd and onto St Stephen’s in the opposite direction – this just isn’t a serious proposition which you obviously haven’t even begun to think through. As ever, it is easy to glibly caveat everything with ‘of course I want to save the planet as much as the next person’ and criticise detailed schemes that have been consulted upon and devised with residents and businesses for over two years – but coming up with workable, serious alternatives that have material effects upon an area are quite another thing.
A hundred or a thousand or a hundred thousand vehicles banned from using a ‘rat-run’ and forced to use other streets will not cure pollution. It’s still the same number of vehicles, just that now they are being concentrated so pollution at (A) might be very very slightly reduced but at (B) will be markedly increased because of stagnant congestion and that stuff called breeze or wind will move the contagion back to where Cllr Francis is trying to eradicate it. This is a communal problem created by the social need for transportation and movement and will not be resolved until the the social need is resolved. The answer? I don’t pretend to know, but I know what it ain’t.
Wow, lots of comments to wake up to! Thanks for the support from some. Thanks also for the tough questions from others. Dialogue is how we move things forward. Hopefully, my answers might help build consensus
Matt, John, Iain, Abz – I agree with Carl that the best place for a bus gate is at the Fairfield Road / Tredegar Road junction and I argued for that for months to colleagues and the consultants. Frustratingly, the shambolic trial in summer 2019 put everyone off that location. My piece didn’t argue for no change on Old Ford Road – airily or otherwise! If the bus gate is at Roman and St Stephen’s, we can put one in on Old Ford Road too. Residents and local businesses would be exempted from both. Skew bridge really should be one-way at a time anyway. Maybe traffic lights. Officers should definitely enforce the existing weight restriction. End result: certainly nowhere close to the 27,000 you suggest. LBTH Parking Services already has most residents’ and local business vehicle registrations. If Hammersmith & Fulham can do it, I don’t see why Tower Hamlets can’t.
One question back to you if I may? Do you accept that these plans are causing a really worrying division within our community here in Bow and the wider East End?
Skew bridge wasn’t the scheme though was it.
What you are saying is like judging a film by the trailers before it. You haven’t seen the main feature.
Totally agree. Implement and then adjust as necessary
Jane, The Burdett Road cycle changes are TfL not the council. The Burdett bus stop reconfiguration is seen as a disaster by pretty much all sides.
Mile End Park and the canal towpath are leisure cycle routes, not for commuting. There is an ongoing campaign to shift cyclists from the towpath to roads.
“Self-entitled” is applicable to many car drivers too.
Supermarket-style systems are prone to vandalism, cost lots to maintain and administration
John
It was in the manifesto (as the article itself says) and the council were democratically elected. In Bow, more respondents were in favour of the scheme than against and we’re in favour of stronger measures than those going ahead. Most of us hopefully understand the survey isn’t a referendum, as too are petitions.
Again it boils down to fear of supporting giving the scheme a fair go because it might be the case that residents prefer or benefit from the change. It’s a missed opportunity to be bold and ‘push the green agenda’ from a strong start.
16,452 cars daily, don’t believe that for one second but heh can’t argue with the facts right? Please!
Utter hypocrisy the same people spouting about doing this for the sake of our health only has to look at the volume of people pounding the streets (Globe road, Roman Road., Old Ford Road) and in Victoria park on the weekend in the midst of a pandemic with no social distancing in sight.. all exercising with one other person..eye roll much
Matt,
– you’re not a parent
– you’re not a senior
– you’re not disabled
– you probably don’t even own a car!
Yet you presume to know what is best for these groups?
And, you clearly have no concept of how public transport is not accessible to many.
You’ve ignored genuine concerns from neighbours for months and pushed for an aggressive scheme. It’s time for a balanced approach. Residents should have access.
This whole scheme is yet another sop to the self entitled, mainly male, cyclists. Look at Burdett Road where the bus lane has been removed inconveniencing bus users – mainly women, meanwhile the cycle lane is hardly used because there are 2 routes already for cyclists, through the park and along the canal. And even then you can barely walk along a pavement without being nearly mown down by a cyclist.
Where’s the equality impact statement on these measures? Why was the consultant -someone called Harrison- behaving like a Council Officer at the last meeting? Why was everyone in favour of the measures? The whole thing has a really bad feel about it and should be scrapped.
Electronic entry systems are used in supermarket car parks, these would be a far better solution.
Matt
You say “That’s what we’re fighting for – less traffic, less pollution, less noise, less traffic danger. Please don’t impute the motives of people trying so hard to make the area safer and healthier for everyone as simply “middle class people who want to increase the value of their properties” – that’s not becoming of you or this debate.” But thats what is happening whether you like it or not, Govt schemes to link local pollution to house sale data proves this also, the large numbers of Social housing on Main rds that vastly outnumber Private housing also plays into this. And remember its poorer people that rely on daily use of cars for income and life enhancement. So however you may want to paint it down here looking up we see it for exactly what it is. your climate conscience now you have the education and money because you father and his raped the worlds resources is being played on the fiddle of the backs of the most vulnerable as always has happened in capitalism. its not on, its not right, its not going to wash. Make the rich pay and suffer the most leave the workers alone and let them climb.
Was not in the manifesto, is not democratic, affects the most vulnerable adversely, Is a bad scheme that increases pollution, divides community on social and economical grounds, puts back the green agenda years, is a total farce. I hope that gives you the reasons why….
The closure of Skew bridge was a disaster. There must be riots if necessary to stop this vandalism of the East End road system.
@Peter,
The Skew Bridge closure was the Skew Bridge closure.
What is proposed now is an area-wide scheme. The whole idea of the bus gate on Roman Road is to prevent through traffic simply being displaced from Old Ford onto Roman, as it indeed was during the Skew Bridge closure. We have to tackle the area as a whole.
That’s why the council’s decision to make the bus gate only part-time is so puzzling. It risks clogging up ‘Roman Road West’ with through traffic during the periods the bus gate is not in operation. It’s self-defeating. We can only hope that the bus gate becomes 24/7 once it has been implemented in its part-time guise and people see the improvements it brings.
Rejecting the proposal that’s been painstakingly developed over 18 months, Marc Francis airily says “Other measures can reduce speeds and improve safety.” Well I’d love to hear what they are. He says the proposals are “extreme”, yet low traffic neighbourhoods are commonplace, and have been working successfully for decades, not just in London but around Europe. The rhetoric has become extreme, but the proposals are absolutely mainstream.
And Peter, you ask rather dramatically “Is it really fair, reasonable and wise to suffocate part of the community to enhance the quality of life for a few?” Actually, 90% of residents live on residential, rather than main/boundary roads. Traffic on the main Bow Road, the mayor was saying the other day, has actually *fallen* in recent years, as long-distance drivers are slavishly following their satnavs to shave off a few hundred yards by cutting through our neighbourhood. It’s a dual carriageway, much better suited for carrying large volumes of traffic than our narrow residential streets, with properties generally set back from the road, and with frequent crossing points.
You complain about delays to buses and emergency services, as if that hasn’t been happening day-in day-out in cities across the UK and the developed world for decades! Not because of pesky LTN schemes but because buses and ambulances are stuck in traffic jams full of cars. Increasingly so. Well we’re finally trying to do something different in Tower Hamlets – making transport options other than cars more attractive, so that buses and emergency vehicles have less traffic to battle. Well done to the council for giving it a go. It’s worked in other cities in Europe – it can and will work here.
And coming back to your word “suffocate”, look at Waltham Forest where they implemented a similar LTN scheme a few years ago. Nitrogen Dioxide pollution is massively down across the whole area. That’s many thousands fewer households exposed to poisonous air. Yes, traffic levels were up a few percent on boundary roads, soon after implementation, but these things settle down after a while. And very soon after completion, traffic *overall*, taking the boundary roads and the ‘filtered’ roads together, was DOWN significantly. Down. Lower.
That’s what we’re fighting for – less traffic, less pollution, less noise, less traffic danger. Please don’t impute the motives of people trying so hard to make the area safer and healthier for everyone as simply “middle class people who want to increase the value of their properties” – that’s not becoming of you or this debate.
Never truer words spoken!
What I don’t really understand is the concluding two sentences. Why the reluctance to go bold with the first iteration if the measures are, as Clr Francis notes, potentially changeable?
Why not start with a full scheme amid these covid times where people shouldn’t be out, give the measures and sat navs time to adjust, and then reflect and potentially introduce exemptions for the carers or workers or residents?
The majority of residents are pro doing something to solve the noise, pollution and dangerous driving that goes on (by all drivers, not just commuters). Why miss the chance to actually try something that might work?