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)
The congestion charge operates successfully in the City of London with a resident’s exemption, which is on our border, why not have this system in Tower Hamlets?
Evidence shows this logic of the same number of vehicles being shifted on to other roads doesn’t hold. Some traffic evaporates.
Also, trunk roads can soak up extra traffic much more than a relatively narrow road like St Stephens.
@MC and @Jen
Nowhere at all am I claiming to speak on behalf of disabled people. I would not presume to. It would indeed be offensive if I had. But I haven’t – please don’t claim that I have.
Also, nowhere have I suggested that you, Jen, can simply hop onto a bike. Please don’t claim that I have.
My point is that there are also life-limiting consequences to unfettered driving in the borough. The council has to consider this too, not just people who drive.
The approach the council is taking allows everyone who currently drives to continue to do so, while taking steps to limit the effects of pollution in those with breathing difficulties, to limit the number of people killed and maimed by motor vehicles, and to limit the number of people suffering long term health issues through inactivity.
The council proposals also make it safer for people with mobility difficulties to cross the road by reducing traffic volumes, and provide continuous and wider pavements to give those relying on mobility scooters easier journeys. And for the disabled people who do cycle, and yes, some do, it will provide quieter and safer journeys.
@Matt I am disabled. I am profoundly deaf and have mobility issues but am not awarded the needed bureaucratic “points” to qualify for a blue badge in Tower Hamlets, I don’t have the energy to beg at assessments when my stacks of medical evidence from my consultants is not deemed sufficient just because I don’t “look” typically disabled. I also do not drive, but I am heavily dependant on my family and friends and their cars to assist me in taking me to the supermarket to help maintain what independence I have.
I find it offensive that you speak on my behalf as a disabled person. I cannot simply hop on a bike multiple times a week to the local shop – as much as I would love my body to allow me to.
As a side note I think the council would be very short sighted implementing this, how much do they make from permits, scratch cards, PCNs, parking metres? At a time when they have cut a lot of services (children’s centres, meals on wheels, adult learning disability services) you’d think they’d want to keep the revenue stream going. I live on a main road in Bow, its busy during rush hour (flowing traffic) for a maximum of 90 minutes tops. But I accept and appreciate that some people have to drive to their places of work, or drive as part of their jobs, to drop their children to schools on the other side of the borough, or to travel to care for people in similar situations as me.
By all means express your own opinion, but please do not speak on behalf of others.
@Matt,
Now you want to suggest blue badge access is the holy grail so you can again dismiss concerns. Well, for the third time, I have to ask you once again to stop assuming you can speak for a group of people you know nothing about.
Here are just some of the blue badge access difficulties:
– Mayor won’t give clarity on how many cars a blue badge holder can nominate. Sounds like just one so far but it’s not just one car they need to use is it? You’re the one quick to point out many disabled people don’t personally drive so what happens to those who rely on different friends, family members or taxis to drive them?
– What about those who don’t meet the stringent criteria for a blue badge but *are* impaired? What’s the impact of a longer journey on their health, social inclusion and general ability to participate in normal activities? You won’t have a clue but I do – it can be devastating for some particularly with post exertion malaise and pain that can last many days. It means an already hard and restricted life is made further disabled by the actions of a local council which is beyond outrageous and against the law for a Public body to do.
– What about those who can’t cope with being put through what is well known to often be a humiliating DWP assessment process to try to score the minimum 8 points just so the council can offer a blue badge?
– What about family who won’t visit or be able to help with care because of the longer journey times? Like a woman I met who told me she always goes to her mum on her way to work and on the way back to help look after her but won’t be able to if this scheme comes in?
Need I go on…?
Your contempt for the needs of others is palpable but once again stop presuming to speak on behalf of others you clearly know nothing about.
The issue in this is that it is middle class people making assumptions about working class people. It started from this toxic idea that no working class person or ‘poor person’ owns a car. It is simply not true and it has led to this division nor is the reality of normal life for individuals. It has led to real animosity and that individuals believe they can make fun out of other people’s situations and feel that they have the right to control what people can and can not do . The council know that closing Old Ford Road will be a mess for Roman Road and St Stephen’s Road it is there way of implementing a 24/7 bus gate and it is as sneaky as it is divisive. The Bus Gate will cause huge issue’s for people and it has led to huge animosity in this community.
I have to take issue with the line “some people have been pushing a 24/7 ban on Bow residents driving their cars” – who on earth has been saying that?
I’ve been following the Liveable Streets saga religiously since the start, and not once have I ever heard that suggested – not even from my most cycle-loving acquaintances in the tree-huggiest circles.
I’m calling it out because it’s an example of how some very mainstream plans to tame traffic, used successfully in cities across Europe, have been distorted through some sort of Chinese whispers process to seem extreme – and no wonder people get riled up about that.
In answer to your question: “Do you accept that these plans are causing a really worrying division within our community here in Bow and the wider East End?”
I think what’s at the root of the division is not the plans themselves, but the amount of traffic, pollution, and road danger that we’ve allowed over the decades to be imposed on all residents, whether they drive or not.
The council’s necessary attempt to ameliorate these issues has brought them out into the open, but they were always there.
A lot of the division is actually being stoked up by frankly ludicrous posturing about class war (not from you, Marc). Considering that the least wealthy residents in Bow do not have cars and yet suffer disproportionately from the pollution and road danger that they cause when given free rein, it’s a funny old world to see the council’s proposals framed as somehow an attack on the poorest in society.
You might think that would be the case, but it isn’t.
For example in the Waltham Forest scheme there was a small amount of displacement of motor traffic initially to boundary roads, but a significant overall drop of motor traffic across the whole area (that’s the boundary roads *and* the ‘filtered’ roads).
They saw a large reduction in the number of households exposed to maximum permitted levels of Nitrogen Dioxide. And a recent survey found only a tiny proportion of residents would take the traffic filters out.
I know the proposals from Tower Hamlets may seem counter-intuitive, but we know from other parts of London and Europe that they work, and that’s why they are right to push forward with them.
@MC
Once again, no disabled driver is being asked to give up driving. I don’t know how many other ways there are to say this. And blue badges will get disabled drivers through the bus gate at all times of day.
I didn’t mention any jams Marc, just the inevitable queues that will form behind a red light, which presumably is the entire purpose of the traffic lights you propose. Given that the lights would need to be installed further down on either side of the bridge, how many cars do you think you could you hold at a red light before they backed up onto Grove Rd roundabout, blocking Grove Rd North and South, and Old Ford Rd West? Maybe ten? Fewer with the usual lorries. Come on, it would be utter chaos. Again, no mention from you about pedestrians, residents and cyclists.
It is demonstrably untrue to say that this approach has not been drawn up with the local community and businesses – we all filled in the forms and attended the workshops! The plans have not been drawn up in the Town Hall, but by a specialist architectural and urban design consultancy, which unlike either of us, are experts. ‘Some people’ have not been pushing for a 24/7 ban on Bow residents driving their cars; Bow residents were consulted and asked for a 24/7 bus gate on a few residential roads and our local high street. In your piece you talk about polarisation, but now go on to inordinately claim that ‘some people have been pushing for a 24/7 ban on Bow residents driving their cars’. I find that careless hyperbole a little galling given this morning you asked whether people ‘accept that these plans are causing a really worrying division within our community’. Will you accept some responsibility then? The responses you have garnered are hardly surprising if that’s the sort of careless and biased language you use when disseminating the aims of the scheme as a local councillor. Anyway, some local businesses were concerned about deliveries through a 24/7 bus gate, and so residents’ wishes have been watered down to the shortest possible bus gate timings. Blue Badge holders will be given access. These plans are the compromise.
It’s not clear to me what you want. A referendum? Each resident to have a crack at drawing up their own designs for the area? If you want yet another meeting then arrange one, why scrap the proposals yet again? We’ve had endless consultation. Let’s get on with what a majority of residents have asked for and tweak them as necessary. Otherwise we’ll still be in this same position in two years time, and all the worse off for it.
Marc this is the leadership we need right now. The so called “town hall meeting” was an absolute farce. We were told we would “hear all voices” – that never happened.
Actually Tim, I have been thinking for a long time about these plans and a possible compromise. It’s taken longer than it should because some people have been pushing a 24/7 ban on Bow residents driving their cars, which needed to be rejected before sensible ideas could be seriously considered. If I was only taking the side of motorists I would say no to any restriction, which I have very clearly not done if you read what I’ve written.
The current approach has not been drawn up with the local community and businesses. It has been drawn up in the Town Hall with some good public engagement in person prior to the pandemic. However, as responses to the consultation came in and a firm proposal began to be drawn up in the Town Hall, we haven’t been able to take these back out to residents for further discussion before a final decision. I think that’s why the Mayor said he wanted a “town hall-style” meeting before reaching a decision. It’s just a shame we still haven’t had it.
On the point about skew bridge, I think lights would slow traffic down and also make it a less attractive route than Roman Road for all drivers, including locals. In my observation, drivers learn pretty quickly and so the jams you mention really aren’t likely. On the 2019 trial, some drivers were way too aggressive and frankly should have been arrested. But Tower Hamlets Council has to take the blame for imagining two guys from Rineys and a plastic barrier were what was needed to stop the traffic.
Really keen to hear more views ….
Matt, you’ve replied to me above on the wrong thread.
Anyway, in response to Matthew Antony Hewitt, who is one and the same as the Matt here, I say your comments have helpfully proven my point of why you shouldn’t speak on behalf of disabled people.
Not only is it highly inappropriate for you as a healthy person to say that disabled people can use a bus just fine, but you’ve also shown your lack of understanding of the difficulties with bus use in your reply.
Here are just some difficulties:
– Buses only allow one wheelchair or pram at a time which often means waiting for the next bus. Longer journeys increase pain and fatigue impacting daily functioning fir many days afterwards.
– Routes do not often always go where needed meaning convoluted journeys of more than one bus with the same negative impact on daily functioning.
– I personally cannot push my disabled child with my own health problems compounding and carry items so if we relied on buses we’d be highly limited what we can achieve when out.
In addition, TfL have recently announced bus services may be cut further to save money.
You make too many assumptions including how you say many disabled people don’t drive. Maybe, maybe not but how many rely on vehicle use? How many disabled people have to be harmed for the number to be significant for you?
Reality is, under the Equality Act and Public Sector Equality Duty, even if one person with protected characteristics has their lives negatively impacted by the council’s changes then the council have a responsibility to mitigate for that.
John, The Tredegar Road bus gate bottled up traffic in Bow East. Once it’s on the A12 it’s gone. We had a family staying with us on a rare visit with small children and a car full of stuff. On the day of the bus gate they left to go up the M11. Instead of being able to join Tredegar Road at the end of our street they had to go the opposite way, up St Stephen’s Road, west along the Roman, down Grove Road to Mile End, left to the Bow flyover, and left again up the A12. This should have taken 3 minutes. That bus gate created enormous amounts of pollution.
Totally agree Fred. But that is a TfL road and not within the borough’s powers to do.
I wish they had gone for the original Tredegar Road busgate, but the rather aggressive opposition to that has led us down this road
John
Totally agree Fred, but apparently that road isn’t within the council’s control as it is a TfL road.
I wish the busgate had been put in Tredegar Road as originally planned, but the quite aggressive behaviour from some when that was trialled (for a day!!!) put the stop to that and has led us down this road.
Tim is right. The proposal works as a whole not as isolated elements. With respect to Cllr Francis, at some stage you have to back a plan and not think you alone have the answer and the ‘best’ compromise. Bemoaning the fact that many motorists and taxi drives don’t like the current scheme doesn’t solve the problem that will divide our borough, city and country in the long term: environmental crisis and growing rates of pollution.
Yes I totally agree with you, let’s stop people from outer Boroughs using our roads as a rat run, and let the people of Bow who live in Bow enjoy our roads again and it will reduce so much traffic in the area. ?Thank you for making sense of the situation and bringing the community and classes together!
@MC:
The majority of people in Bow don’t own a car. I know that the majority of disabled people don’t drive. It might even be possible that the majority of parents in Bow don’t drive – I’m not sure whether these figures are collated. But in any case, nothing in the scheme prevents anyone from driving. It doesn’t prevent access by car to anyone’s property. John Biggs is not going to turn up in a few weeks and confiscate your car keys.
Buses in our area are actually perfectly accessible, with step free boarding. But in any case, the minority of disabled people that *do* drive will be able to go through the bus gate at any time of day, and be able to get to and park outside their properties just as they can now. As I think you must surely already know.