'Efficiency savings' = creating danger on the roads

The photograph below shows Milton Road E17 looking down towards Hoe Street. All traffic MUST turn right at the junction in the foreground, which is where Browns Road begins. Beyond this junction the remaining length of Milton Road is NO ENTRY. But would any road user know it? There are no carriageway markings at all. And where are the NO ENTRY signs? See below for the answer and for an illustration of how the Council's 'efficiency savings' create road danger.








































Yes, there it is (below). A solitary NO ENTRY sign, easily hidden when a van or truck is parked (quite legally) in front of it. The Council decided to save money on quiet residential streets by only using one NO ENTRY sign instead of two. It also saves money on white paint by not painting NO ENTRY on the road surface. And the result is that some road users may quite inadvertently end up going down a one-way road the wrong way through no fault of their own. Anyone involved in a head-on smash in this situation would, I suspect, have a good case against this Council for negligence. But until someone gets killed and the Council gets denounced by a Coroner, I expect these potentially lethal 'efficiency savings' will continue to be made. After all, I've blogged about this sort of thing on Beulah Road

‘Shared use’

'Shared use' for pedestrians (on the left) and cyclists (on the right) on Forest Road E17. The markings have almost completely disappeared. And then there's total obstruction of the cycle lane. Another award-winning facility on the London Cycle Network!

Rejoice! Over an eight year period cycle counts taken by the London Borough of Waltham Forest “show overall an 83% increase in cycling”. (A statistic like this raises the question of what is being measured and how it should be interpreted – but I will leave these weighty matters for another day.)

On Forest Road – a major cycling route between Walthamstow and Tottenham – the figures show a rise from 183 cyclists 7 am – 7 pm (1998) to 399 (2002), down to 376 (2006). A surge in cycling, followed by a decline. One possible explanation (among many) is that having installed cycle facilities that won an award from the London Cycling Campaign, the Council then proceeded to neglect the maintenance of them.

As things stand, parts of the route are now in gross violation of the recommended TfL London Cycling design standards. For example the absolute minimum recommended for “Cycle lanes, cycle tracks and other cycle facilities” is 1.5m. And for “Widths of shared paths: The recommended width for a shared use path is 3.0m with a minimum width of 2.0m, plus an additional 0.5m for each side of the track that is bounded (e.g. by a wall, railings, fence or hedge).” (Source - TfL PDF format)

But the London Borough of Waltham Forest doesn’t bother adhering to trifles like design standards, national guidelines or even statutory legislation on public rights of way. Its contempt for them matches its indifference to the proper protection and maintenance of the cycling and walking environment.

These photographs all show a short section of the award winning Forest Road cycle facility, complete with weeds, broken Heineken bottle, obstruction and obliterated markings.

Cann Hall Road E11: A Study in Failure

Cann Hall Road E11 - a perfect example of what is wrong with walking and cycling policy in this Borough, and why the motorist is still the privileged number one figure in the transport hierarchy.

Let's begin with the mountain of squalor by the junction with Leytonstone Road.




















Wheely bins kept permanently on the footway (they shouldn't be but they are, all over the Borough). Flytipping which hasn't been promptly dealt with. And notice the speed cushions: the classically stupid 'three in a row' design which encourages drivers to steer their vehicles into the centre of the carriageway. This is not traffic calming but traffic agitation, and it actually worsens conditions for cycling, because it encourages drivers in the opposite carriageway to move over on to the cyclist's side of the road. Madness. These rubber speed cushions need tearing up and some better alternative found for slowing traffic.

Why speed cushions? Well, it's a long straight road and the Council decided to encourage speeding by moving parked cars on to the pavement. As you can see in the photo below this was done without any consideration of the location of street furniture or the requirements of footway users with a mobility handicap.

a blind person using a long cane or with an assistance dog needs 1100mm. A visually impaired person who is being guided needs a width of 1200mm. A wheelchair user and an ambulant person side-by-side need 1500mm width. Unobstructed height above a pedestrian way is also important, especially for visually impaired people. Generally, this should be a minimum of 2300mm

(source)

Well, the blind, the visually impaired and wheelchair users had better avoid Cann Hall Road, because the London Borough of Waltham Forest believes that pavements are for car parking, not for them - as you can see from the photo below, where this legally parked car leaves less than a metre space.





















As for cyclists... Cann Hall Road is a terrifying road for cycling on. These small cheap rubber speed cushions don't slow the determined speeder and the chicanes create dangerous pinch points which bring cyclists into head-on conflict with vehicles approaching on the cyclist's side of the road. (It would be very interesting to have a cycling count taken on this road.)

Now it's true that the pinch points have side access lanes for cyclists. However, to be functional they need at least five metres of unoccupied carriageway either side, protected by 'no waiting at any time' double yellow lines. Whoever designed these cycle facilities for LBWF had their work cancelled by someone's else's decision to prioritise pavement parking. Try cycling through the side access lane here, for example. You can just do it because the 4X4 hasn't parked to the end of the footway exemption markings. But would you want to? As you emerge and pull out to pass the 4X4 you risk being hit by a vehicle speeding through the pinch point. (Drivers accelerate to get through them in order to beat oncoming vehicles.)




















Elsewhere (see below) it's a different story. You simply can't access the cycle facility even if you wanted to.

And that's Cann Hall Road - where the parked 4X4 and the speeding driver take priority over the pedestrian, the fooway user with a mobility handicap, and the cyclist.

Signs of the times

"Where at all possible, temporary signs for motorists should be placed on the footway, where they will cause maximum inconvenience for footway users with a mobility handicap."



















Above: Endlebury Road E4
Below: Church Hill Road E17

Way ahead barred

As far as I'm aware, it is unlawful to block footways with scaffolding which uses diagonal crossbars. Rosebank Road E17, by the junction with Boundary Road.

Footnote to Notes on a Scandal

Ironically the squalor on this public right of way opposite the Town Hall is now a little bit worse than it was when I posted photographs of it last Thursday. And going past late on Saturday night I noticed that not a single one of the lighting columns on this footpath is working. This not only deters pedestrians from using it after dark, but makes it the perfect place for an attacker to grab someone walking past on Forest Road, drag them into this pit of darkness and assault them.

How the London Cycling Campaign and Living Streets fail London’s cyclists and pedestrians

I have been reading a fascinating report. Not quite as compelling as a John le Carré thriller perhaps, but very interesting for a London cyclist and pedestrian. I refer to the London Assembly Transport Committee ‘Parking enforcement in London: A Transport Committee investigation into the enforcement of parking controls in London’ (June 2005) You can read the full document (PDF format) here.

Parking controls have an important role to play in improving the lot of cyclists and pedestrians. Effective enforcement of Advanced Stop Lines would make a big difference. But at present, as far as I’m aware, it’s outside the remit of a London local authority’s power. Transferring enforcement from the police (who couldn't care less about it) to local authorities (who would be interested in enforcement because of the revenue it would generate) would represent an enormous improvement in conditions for cyclists at major junctions with ASLs.

Another difficulty for cyclists is the absence of London-wide standards on such matters as when it is appropriate for cycling facilities to be protected by double yellow line 'no waiting at any time' restrictions. After all, if you are going to provide cycle lane access on streets which are closed off at one end to motor vehicles, there is no point in providing such access without permanent parking restrictions. But this, absurdly, is what Waltham Forest does (as I shall illustrate in a future post).

Similarly, the criteria for footway parking exemptions need tightening to stop local authorities like Waltham Forest stealing pavement space for the benefit of 4X4s. The great loophole in the 1985 Greater London footway parking ban legislation is that it set no precise conditions for exemptions. The result is that for the past 23 years local authorities like Waltham Forest have cynically used the legislation to create pavement parking on streets which previously had none. For almost a quarter of a century pedestrians have lacked even the most rudimentary protection against pavement hungry councils like Waltham Forest (where, in that time, the proportion of households owning three or more cars has exploded).

The extension of parking controls to include local authority enforcement against drivers who wait on the yellow hatched lines at junctions is welcome, but it only covers drivers going from one side of a junction to the far side, not drivers who wait in the middle to turn right. The problem with this last form of impatience is that when these drivers are finally able to turn they invariably cut across pedestrian lights at green. Lobbying could have ensured that enforcement against stationary traffic on hatched lines was comprehensive not partial.

The London Assembly has considerable power to shape a wide variety of parking controls and standards of enforcement and lobbying on behalf of cyclists and pedestrians is essential.

The Committee carried out widespread consultation before it produced its report. Many organisations responded, including non-London-based petrolhead outfits like the self-styled ‘Association of British Drivers’.

That the report is dominated by consideration of the ‘needs’ of the driver, not the cyclist or pedestrian, is revealed in these sections, which refer to parking policies:

2.2 These policies must take into account the different requirements of all stakeholders involved. These include: • The motorists who park; • The motorists who wish to drive through the area being enforced; • The retailers who rely on motorists for their business and probably park themselves; • Other businesses who require parking for their employees and visitors; • Residents. 2.3 Each of these stakeholders will have different ideas of what is ‘good’ enforcement. The retailer will want to maximise parking for his customers but will not want them to receive PCNs, the resident wants to ensure that spaces are reserved for them and the through-driver does not want to be delayed by unlawful and obstructive parking.

See what I mean? 'Residents' are defined solely as people with cars, who want to park close to their homes. Residents who don’t own cars and who walk, cycle or use public transport are not ‘stakeholders’.

However the reasons for this are revealed later in the report (6.1):

Other road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists groups were written to for their views on parking enforcement. No evidence was received from the first two groups, however three submissions were received from the motorcyclist (powered two wheeler – PTW) lobby.

And there you have it. Neither of the two leading organisations which represent London’s cyclists and pedestrians could be bothered to send in a submission. Some 400 members of the public submitted their views on parking controls to the Committee, but the London Cycling Campaign couldn’t be bothered, and neither could Living Streets. And with organisations like these purporting to represent the interests of those of us who cycle and walk, is it any wonder we are treated like crap?