Road danger- not just about lollipop ladies

We tend to think of "road danger" in terms of road safety and collision prevention. Something that can be fixed with a just a few more lollipop people, a 20 mph speed limit and the judicious installation of a zebra crossing.  The statistics show that children living in poverty are more likely to be victims of road death than their middle class counterparts living in leafier streets, but the impact of traffic choked streets on public health & well-being is far broader than that.

The car domination of our towns and cities has caused an overall decrease in regular exercise.  Heavily trafficked streets are not pleasant places for pedestrians and not surprisingly people perceive them as dangerous and to be avoided if at all possible.  Ian Roberts argues in the Energy Glut, that part of the "success" of road safety measures is due to people getting out of the way of cars, so children no longer play out and journeys on foot have declined in both length and frequency.  As car use has escalated so have our waistlines, such that the average body mass index is creeping ever closer towards the obese.

The impact of vehicles on our health is not confined to exercise levels.  More seriously, the air that we breathe is being steadily poisoned by particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide.  Air pollution in London averages over twice the legal limits and Islington has the sixth worst air quality in London, causing 180 premature deaths each year.

Islington's Fairness Commission tonight focussed on health inequality.  After shocking statistics on differences in life expectancy and the extent of obesity, lung cancer and cardio-vascular disease in the borough, there was a heartfelt discussion about the multi-causal nature of disease, the need for interventions for lifestyle change and the difficulty of getting healthy messages across.  Buried in a long list of the required medium term population level changes was "physical activity", but while "the environment" was included as a wider determinant of health, no connection was made with the negative effects of our traffic dominated street-scape on health.  

Lack of physical activity is a key indicator for poor health outcomes, yet much of our streetscape is designed to discourage walking and cycling.  The grammar of guard rails, central barriers and traffic lights suggests streets are primarily designed for the optimisation of vehicular flow not people flow.  This acts as a disincentive to walking and cycling, two of the easiest ways to build physical activity into daily routines.  If the Councillors, health professionals, community groups and residents at tonight's meeting were to start talking to transport planners about reducing traffic density & making our streets more walkable, we might start to address health inequality and make Islington a better place to live.

Motivational messaging on recycling

Last November the Islington Gazette reported that the Council was going to introduce compulsory recycling.  Islington Green Party were delighted that the they were minimising rubbish sent to landfill but felt that a carrot not stick approach would be more successful - see my letter to the Gazette.

It looks as if the Council may have listened.  I arrived home this afternoon to find a motivational message attached to my food waste recycling box, thanking me for recycling and encouraging me to continue.  Praise where praise is due, well done Islington.

Islington gyratories - one on the way out - the rest should go

After years of consultation, much traffic modelling and many stakeholder meetings I'd understood that the Highbury Corner gyratory removal had been shelved.  So I was delighted to learn in this week's Islington Gazette that Transport for London (TfL) have just announced that they've set aside £2 million to "revamp the roundabout".

This is great news for Highbury, as it will mean a hugely upgraded public realm with transport interchanges between bus, rail and tube rationalised and pedestrians properly catered for.  I suspect that we may soon learn that cyclists have a blue painted, cycle super highway (Route 12 Muswell Hill to Angel) right through the middle.  The Superhighway had been going to take an expensive diversion down Liverpool Road until the gyratory removal at Highbury Corner went ahead.  In the current financial climate, wasteful and unnecessary expenditure on temporary arrangements would be completely unjustifiable.

Meanwhile Archway, blighted by a gyratory also has some money to spend on the streetscape.  Sadly not enough according to Council Officers to tackle the massive one-way system.  I spent the first half of this evening in an Archway stakeholder meeting looking at elaborate plans for Archway Close and Flowers Mews.  Sensibly, the community seemed to favour rationalisation of the parking, simple upgraded paving with a generous line of  trees over a rather seductive and elaborate system of screens, taut wires and planting.

Gyratory removal at the northern end of the Holloway Rd is still a very distant prospect - they've not even started the traffic modelling yet.  One glimmer of hope though - Transport planning officers talked us through their negotiations with TfL over introduction of a new pedestrian crossing from the soon-to-be-upgraded island to the tube.  While most of the options have been ruled out on the grounds of Boris' desire to "smooth the flow"of motorised traffic, one option is deemed "car-friendly" enough to undergo traffic modelling with a view to implementation.

Incremental change is helpful and hopefully the delivery of Cycle Super Highway Route 12 will act as a further lever for improvements.  I look forward to seeing how TfL arrange a blue painted cycle lane that safely negotiates the motorway-like chaos that is Archway roundabout.

Roamer Parking - Islington's latest Fairness scheme

If you live in Islington and especially if you drive a car, you are probably aware that the Council is tinkering with the parking regulations introducing measures that will encourage car use.   This will increase congestion, road danger and air pollution and risks reducing the reliability of buses.  You have until 11th February to let the Council know how you feel about it.  See StoptheRoamer for details of how to respond and read on to find out why you should.

The Islington Parking Policy  encourages modal shift to active travel modes and public transport which supports the majority of residents who have no access to a car. It is designed specifically for the Islington context, where “There is simply not enough road space to safely and efficiently accommodate everyone who wishes to park or drive in Islington today or in the future.” This means “that the council must make complex choices about the allocation and management of on-street parking space. In making these choices, the council has to balance the needs of some groups with others, or to take actions that some motorists do not support. The council aims to make things better for the majority of people whilst minimising inconvenience to others.” All very sensible - not anti-car but realistic about the impact of cars in a densely populated inner city borough and until recently fully supported by the Council.

Last year I contributed to a Sustainability Review Council Scrutiny on parking and implementation of parking policy as Chair of Islington Living Streets. The committee presented a report last March with 18 recommendations for measures to support local traders and make the implementation of parking policy more user friendly. The report was received by the Executive on 16th September 2010.

Rather than get on with implementing the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee, just one month later on 21st October 2010 another report went to the Executive proposing a raft of new measures designed to encourage short trips by car:  "Roamer Parking" allowing permit holders to park anywhere in the borough between 10.00 and 2.00 along with access to  "unlimited visitor parking vouchers". Both measures are in direct contradiction to the objectives of the Parking Policy although they are accompanied by an increase in parking permit prices in relation to CO2 emissions, which may in the long term encourage purchase of less polluting cars.

The Scrutiny Committee's list of 18 recommendations made no mention of the need for increased freedom to park or any issue with insufficient allowance of visitor vouchers and I've not found any report explaining where or when the need was identified. Indeed many residents see the Roamer and Voucher schemes as a sweetener to pacify motorists paying more for their permits.  Despite minimal information, apart from a letter to permit holders, there was a massive response resulting in the Executive (13th January 2012) introducing changes to the hours of the scheme and allowing a further period for comment for the community (ends 11th Feb).

The reasons for the Roamer and Voucher scheme seem to vary depending on who you talk to.  The Council report on 13th January suggests it "is intended to offer residents greater flexibility and freedom when travelling around the borough and to support local shops and businesses", while recognising "that the introduction of the scheme is not in full alignment with the council’s other green policies." If the Council want to support businesses they should upgrade the pedestrian environment, it is foot-fall not tyre-roll that delivers benefits for business (see TfL report "Town Centre Survey" July 2004 making the case for minimising car use to support the local economy).  

Intriguingly, the report to the Executive suggests that "the current parking zones prevent the most vulnerable people accessing the borough’s resources." and declares that "The Residents’ Roamer scheme will have a positive effect of improving mobility, independence and dignity to these vulnerable residents. The most vulnerable tend to be BME, older people and the very young." This is sharply contrasted by Council Leader Cllr Catherine West in a recent front page article in the Islington Tribune, where she suggests the scheme is aimed at those keen on using their car to take a great aunt for a capuccino at an Upper St cafe. Cllr West gives the impression that car travel is the only viable option for those with babies, small children and elderly aunts. 

I disagree that the scheme is the best way either to help carers to support the vulnerable or to support local businesses. If there is an issue with parking for carers, then that could be addressed with a specifically targeted scheme.   On the contrary, Roamer Parking appears to be aimed at the minority of residents who own cars (by definition not those living in poverty), granting them additional flexibility to use cars for local trips adding to the congestion and poor air quality on our streets. The "freedom to roam" the borough by car is only being extended to those in street properties with parking permits, those with cars living on Estates will have no such freedom  and I'm not too sure how that squares with Islington Council's Fairness agenda.

Why start?

Not really done much blogging before, but realise that it may help to keep campaigning links organised, serve as a press archive and provide a space for the occasional opinion on all things local, sustainable, transport and pedestrian related.