Highbury on Foot

Time for a new hashtag?

2012-02-25T11:21:00.000Z

The #cyclesafe hashtag has generated a bit of Twitter discussion about the need for #walksafe as well as #cyclesafe. Carlton Reid has suggested that #peoplesafe might get more long term traction than either #walksafe or #cyclesafe and Joe Dunkley suggested yesterday that we need "Cities Fit For People", which is of course exactly what we all need.

Cities Fit For People?

2012-02-25T11:05:00.000Z

The Times campaign for Cities Fit For Cycling has been admirable in its dogged determination to galvanise debate about safety on our roads following the horrific collision suffered by their reporter Mary Bowers. The London cycling community led in particular by Danny Williams of Cyclists in the City and Mark Ames of i-bike London have brilliantly helped the Times take that debate all the way to parliament.

Last year sixteen cyclists and seventy seven pedestrians lost their lives on London's roads, but if you ask most Londoners they assume that many more people lose their lives cycling than walking. This is probably because most people don't identify specifically as pedestrians. There's no gear to buy for urban utility walking, no shops to act as hubs for engagement around walking issues and people don't tend to think of walking as transport. Cycling by contrast has many tribes and generates inspiring levels of enthusiasm for change.

In the last week, two pedestrians have suffered terrible deaths in collision with Heavy Goods Vehicles while crossing the road in London. On 21st February the Walthamstow Guardian carried the headline "Elderly woman killed by lorry" and just a few days earlier on 17th February the Surrey Comet carried the unbearable headline "Man decapitated after being run over by a lorry" following a crash in Tooting. These two deaths merited no national coverage despite the death of a passenger on a coach crash being national headline news for a couple of days and despite the intense focus on road danger in London generated by the Times Campaign.

The excellent See Me Save Me Campaign, dedicated to reducing lorry danger and saving lives, run by Roadpeace presents worrying statistics showing that over sixty-fives are particularly vulnerable in collisions. "One in eight pedestrians hit by a lorry died, and the figure rises to one in four for those over sixty five who account for almost half (46%) of pedestrian deaths." Further, "Pedestrian deaths mainly occur at junctions (74%)." This suggests there are two issues requiring urgent examination:

Why are so many older people being killed when crossing the road?
Why are so many people on foot killed at junctions?

And a series of junction related queries to be answered:

How many pedestrian deaths were on green man crossings?
Is there a correlation between the length of "solid" green man times and pedestrian deaths?
Did vehicles involved move forward on flashing amber?
How many of the collisions involved lorries?
Of the lorries involved, were they fitted with front and side sensors, sideguards and mirrors?

The Times eight point manifesto has much in it to improve the safety of people on foot as well as those on bikes, particularly in terms of blind spot issues, the need for mirrors, sensors and side guards. We just need our MPs and those running our local authorities to be made aware that there's an issue around walking safety too.

The call for 20mph should be beefed up though. The deaths are happening at junctions on main roads not on quiet residential roads. While I'm delighted that 20mph is gaining traction in residential areas, what people in cities need is 20 mph limits on all roads where "people live, work and shop". Holloway Road near me in Islington may be the A1 going all the way to Edinburgh but it is also a road where many people live, work and shop with a tragic history of road deaths. Most thinking people understand that urban journey times are controlled by through-put at junctions and not by the speed at which the ground is covered between traffic lights. A default 20mph urban speed limit could be implemented quickly at relatively low cost and would immediately reduce the severity of any collisions.

We need to show politicians they can change some things quickly. Local authorities could ensure that all planning permission comes with a condition that all construction vehicles are signed up with the Freight Operator Recognition System (FORS) or an equivalent and put rigorous checks in place to ensure compliance. Any HGV on the road in the service of a local authority should be compliant with FORS or similar and driver training on pedestrian and cyclist awareness mandatory. In any urban area where there is a large construction project, there should be regular changing places training aimed at both pedestrians and cyclists. These measures will cost peanuts compared with the huge infrastructure investment that is also being called for. It is more about raising awareness of the danger posed by very big lorries and introducing reasonable measures to mitigate the risk. There is no reason to delay.

Enough is enough?

2012-01-10T15:22:00.000Z

Once again, last night cyclists and pedestrians descended on Kings Cross to express their anger and sadness at the terrible death toll on London's roads and to send a message to the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) that we need streets designed for movement of people on foot and on bikes, not just those in vehicles. The event was organised by Bikesalive who claim that "polite meetings and symbolic action have had no effect" and the time has come to say enough is enough with peaceful direct action to close the gyratory for an hour a week until TfL start to design our streets for people flow not vehicle flow.

Green mayoral candidate, Jenny Jones lead the way on her bike followed by hundreds of cyclists and pedestrians filling the streets around the traffic dominated gyratory with noisy calls of "where's Boris?".

There were many pedestrians amongst the cyclists and plenty of people who were clearly not "transport geeks", just Londoners infuriated by the way our streets are managed and prepared to come along to show they care. One woman passing through Kings Cross on her bike who hadn't known about the demo in advance, joined in saying she was "so glad the demo was happening - I nearly get killed here every day".

The policing was exemplary. Officers were sensitive to the strength of feeling about road death and injury. They coped admirably with the lack of leaders, enabled the demo to take place and kept people safe.

As Jenny Jones said in her blog "road deaths and injuries are still too often seen as unavoidable in a modern society", clearly this has to change. It is absolutely not acceptable that so many families should pay such a high price for travelling on London's roads. I'll be there next week and hope others will too.

Pay as You Go Driving - the time is right

2011-12-19T01:35:00.000Z

Last month while much of London's media were taking a look at Boris' election bus, Darren Johnson AM was hosting a launch of a report he'd commissioned from Professor John Whitelegg and Phil Goodwin: Pay as you go: managing traffic impacts in a world-class city.

John Whitelegg opened by outlining some key issues: congestion, damage to the economy and air pollution that London has to address to achieve a better future as a world-class, healthy and socially-just city. The prognosis is pretty stark. London is the most congested city in the UK and in Europe with traffic delay costing £1.58 billion annually. According to Transport for London (TfL) estimates, £17 is lost for every hour of traffic delay with estimated costs ranging from £2-4 billion per annum and the wider costs on tourism and business logistics unquantified. London is slipping down the league of good places to live as other cities make themselves more attractive by cleaning up their air and tackling congestion.

Atkins reported in 2008, that the economic cost of congestion in London was £9 billion in 2005 and will be £20 billion by 2025. So why do drivers in Hamburg, Munich and Frankfurt waste less time in traffic than London drivers? London needs to be as good a place to live as Frankfurt, otherwise Frankfurt will take over as the financial centre.

Clearly more than 4000 deaths per annum due to air pollution is unacceptable, in 1952 when 4000 died in the Great Smog, politicians took action and in 1956 the Clean Air Act was introduced. In 2008 4000 deaths were attributable to air pollution and no one has acted. London is grade "F" for air pollution, with cities like Berlin, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Vienna and Zurich scoring significantly better.

Whitelegg reckons that we should learn from the existing congestion charge, scale it up to include the whole Greater London area, make it more high tech, increase the revenue ratio, deal with future growth in population and improve our economy, making London the world's best city. Wryly he suggested the existing congestion charge is too high, with much too much spent on the system. I sat there imagining the headlines "Greens commission report stating congestion charge too high - shock", but following through the case, he clearly has a point.

The current congestion charge is successful, but covers too small an area. If London's Mayor expects growth, the impacts of congestion and air pollution cannot be ignored. A Pay as you Drive system would give drivers the opportunity to change their behaviour to take advantage of traveling at cheaper times of day or on cheaper roads. There have been many reports on road pricing over the years, all have concluded that pay as you Drive would work. In 1964 Ruben Smeed thought Pay as You Drive would be best, but the technology just wasn't available to implement it. It was also the preferred choice of Eddington in a report in 2006.

The design criteria have not yet been specified, but Whitelegg was convincing in his description of a system piggy-backing on existing schemes, following interrogation of technical and ICT programmes elsewhere. His vision is of a system that charges by the kilometre, by the length of street travelled and by time of day providing both relief from congestion and an improvement in air quality. Key issues to be addressed would be guarantees of privacy and the protection of the interests of low-income groups, women, key workers, small businesses, shops and newsagents. There'd also need to be a clearly articulated walking, cycling, public transport and car-sharing strategy to deliver an increase in each of these modes. If these are all addressed then Pay as you Drive offers the holy grail of benefits to the economy, benefits to health and a reduction in carbon emissions.

The social justice case is clear. Low income groups use buses, have low levels of car ownership, yet are five times more likely to be killed on the roads than their wealthier neighbours. By reducing traffic volume and speed low income groups will be helped. He also showed the diagram from the Living Streets report Driven to Excess by Josh Hart showing a direct correlation between increased traffic levels and less social interaction between neighbours.

There is also a very strong revenue case for pay as you go driving. The current congestion charge has generated £2.182 billion in eight years. A London-wide pay as you go system could generate £1billion per annum to invest in public transport and walking and cycling projects.

Whitelegg concluded by saying that the time is right to address the economic damage caused by current levels of congestion and pollution to make London into a world-class city. It can be done through a pay as you go system. There are no other viable options on the table - all Londoners would benefit and he could not think of any group who would not benefit. He called on Darren Johnson to build both a political debate and a consensus for pay as you go driving in the capital.

The report has been peer reviewed by Phil Goodwin and Chris Nash as Whitelegg wrote it. Phil Goodwin spoke briefly and asked "Why now?" There is "always a reason why NOT now". He said there have been several reports into road pricing over the last fifty years, at least one per decade and described it as "the only policy instrument available that would pay for itself". All the road-pricing reports have said that road-pricing is do-able and do-able fairly. The political response has always been, "that sounds great for ten years time". Ten years in political speak is "not in this administration and not in the next one - so I don't need to deal with it now". Goodwin's message was that we have to make this an issue for NOW.

Eleanor Besley from Sustrans raised the idea of highway space allocation with one third for walking and cycling, one third for public transport and one third for cars and lorries. She also said that other countries fully enforce low speed limits specifically to encourage walking and cycling.

John Stuart an airport campaigner, felt that by tackling congestion with pay as you go driving, we'd obviate the need for airport expansion. He also felt that noise should be added to the case in relation to impacts on health from congestion. In his response, Whitelegg quoted Kushman and Wakefield on the relative economic performance of cities. London is not doing well and others are streaking ahead. He said we can choose not to charge for the economic costs of congestion (rising obesity, poor air quality etc) but if we choose not to charge, those costs don't disappear, they have to be met from elsewhere.

Gordon Telling from the Frieight Transport Association said he had "no philosophical difference with pay-as-you-go". He wanted to know if charges would be universal or differentiated and suggested that huge savings could be made using out of hours deliveries along with reductions in congestion and pollution. The 1984 lorry ban case was made on noise grounds, but deliveries between 1.00 am and 4.00 am could engender huge savings via logistics: in Germany logistics solutions have reduced lorry miles by 60%.

A questioner from London Travel Watch said that public acceptability was the elephant in the room. He went on to say "I'm signed up to this but good luck to you Greens". He then cited the "shocking" recent campaign against Westminster parking charges by the Evening Standard. Whitelegg suggested that aspirations and policy objectives for world-class city status should be clearly demonstrated, the options available inspected to clarify the case that the benefits are not deliverable without pay-as you-go driving. If it doesn't happen London will suffer.

Sian Berry from the Campaign for Better Transport asked if pay-as-you-go is compatible with the existing cordon-based Low Emissions Zones. Whitelegg said there was fundamental compatibility in that higher emitting vehicles would pay higher rates per km travelled. Pay-as you-go would replace the existing LEZ and would eliminate the issue of "grumpy residents finding themselves on the wrong side of a line on a map". The flexibility of the pay-as-you-go system allows people to choose how to avoid the charge - a nudge towards different behaviour and an awareness that "my car is not the only option".

Sian Berry also asked about using a cost benefit analysis (CBA) approach to making the case for pay-as-you-go. Phil Goodwin descibed the awkwardness of using CBA on road-pricing - it makes money and so the numbers look odd. He felt that a cost benefit analysis from the driver's perspective would show benefit. On the politics of pricing, he said it is an illusion that "all you need is consensus". rather he thought that stages are required for incremental implementation. At each stage theoretical benefit should be converted to local advantage so people are clear that many more benefit than lose.

John Whitelegg's last report for the Green Assembly members was into the viability of a cable car instead of a new fixed river crossing and that has already made its way from the drawing board to reality - due for completion shortly. If this latest report can make it into the real world so quickly, there may be hope yet that London can compete with other European cities for liveability.

Congratulations are due to Darren Johnson for commissioning this report and for realising that there is a constructive and achievable solution to the problems grappled with daily by Londoners. Let's hope that politicians from other parties show as much imagination and have the courage to acknowledge the multiple problems that our car dependent travel culture entail.

What price patience? Why I'll be joining the Vigil at Kings Cross on Tuesday.

2011-12-17T23:09:00.000Z

For those of us campaigning for more people-friendly streets, this year and particularly the last few weeks have been desperately sad. It has felt as if news of deaths and serious injuries involving both pedestrians and cyclists has come horribly frequently with families and communities mourning the sudden loss of family or friends.

Shortly after the death of Deep Lee at Kings Cross I received an email from someone I've worked with closely on local voluntary projects over the last two years. The email was brief and simply stated that her father, Leslie Michaelson, was killed at Kings Cross in May 1997, 14 years ago: knocked off his bike by a lorry at the junction where Deep Lee recently lost her life.

This information was shocking on many levels. Firstly that my friend had lost her father in such a tragic and sudden manner, but also that nothing has been changed at the junction in the intervening years. Leslie Michaelson's death was just 14 years ago but is outside the 10 year statistics used by the authorities who manage our streets and so is effectively invisible. This makes the choice of Kings Cross for a vigil on Tuesday night particularly poignant and emphasises the need for us to learn from each of these tragic deaths.

Vehicles filter to one lane as they pass through the junction at Kings Cross.

Two common factors in collisions resulting in death or serious injury are junction design and heavy goods vehicles with poor visibility around their high cabins, leaving people on foot and on bikes very vulnerable. We need to address both issues urgently. Jenny Jones has written to the Mayor about Kings Cross asking that northbound vehicles travelling along Grays Inn Rd filter to one lane before arriving at the junction, rather than as they pass through it. This would mean that there would be space at the junction to create a safe place for people to cycle and there would be less jostling for a position on the road. However at a public meeting last week in Camden, Transport for London officials are reported to have told Deep Lee's boyfriend that a cycle lane could not be introduced at the junction because it would "cause considerable queues". This suggests that our collective priorities are strangely skewed. What price patience?

We have to work together to achieve fundamental change for London's roads. This means learning the lessons from every death, reallocating road space for cycling, slowing all vehicle speeds, allowing sufficient time for people to cross roads, taking action to ensure that lorries are driven to the highest standards and that drivers receive appropriate training and support to help them drive through the capital with care. If we are going to achieve this, we have to work with Transport for London, with freight operators and with each other, whether we drive, walk or cycle on London's streets. We owe this to the people who have lost their lives. The time for anger and blame must pass, we need urgent collaboration to address the systemic failure on London's roads.

This is is why I will be at Kings Cross on Tuesday evening at 6.00 and why I hope that many people will join us.

Air Pollution - Let's not "dilly-dally"

2011-11-22T17:42:00.001Z

Parents from Canonbury School with Jenny Jones campaigning for clean air

Yesterday I attended a Camden and Islington Air Quality Summit at Camden Town Hall. The Council Chamber was packed to hear what health, transport and air quality experts had to say. It was good to see Councillor West Leader of Islington Council, who has recently been persuaded of the serious impacts of transport on the health of residents but a pity she was unable to stay for all the presentations as there is much for Islington Council to do.

We learnt that London air is polluted with emissions from vehicle exhausts and from minute particles from tyre and brake disk wear. On average, the lives of Londoners are being shortened by 11.5 years because of air pollution, streets like the Euston Road are breaking European and World Health Organisation limits many times over and more than 4,000 people are dying in the capital each year because of poor air quality.

Worryingly, children are the worst affected. They breath in twice as much pollution as adults because their mouths are closer to the level of vehicle exhaust pipes where concentrations of pollutants are highest. Children also suck in more polluted air than adults because their energy levels are higher, their lungs are bigger in relation to their bodies than adults and their lungs are not fully developed. Professor Frank Kelly, Director of the Environmental Research Group at Kings College, was stark in his description of a generation of children living near busy roads who will reach adulthood without ever developing full lung function. This is disproportionately the case for children of lower income and ethnic minority families.

Professor Kelly was very clear that there is a solution. "We simply have to remove the source of the pollution" and went on "the more we dilly-dally on this, the more people will suffer respiratory problems".

The presentation from Isabel Dedring, Deputy Mayor for Transport, made clear that Boris and Transport for London are "dilly dallying". Having just seen images of diesel particulates embedded in a child's lung, the Mayor's programme of sticking pollution to the ground near the air pollution monitors on Euston Road appeared utterly inadequate. The lack of ambition in tackling this serious health emergency is shocking and tragic in equal measure and was brilliantly illustrated by the TfL projections that even by 2050 we will not be breathing clean air. As Professor Kelly made clear, there is a solution. We just need "to remove the source of the pollution" and that must mean fewer and cleaner cars on our roads.

Why are we so sanguine about this serious health risk? Many of us know children with asthma and others suffering lung or cardio vascular diseases and yet we continue to allow pollution creating vehicles to drive unimpeded through built up areas where many people will breath in the poisonous air. The scale of damage to health from air pollution puts the dangers of alcohol, smoking, drugs and road traffic collisions in the shade. There seems to be a collective lack of outrage and a paucity of imagination: We just need "to remove the source of the pollution". London could be so much better if only we dared to imagine a city with fewer vehicles, cleaner air and a more walkable and cycle-able, people-friendly street environment.

Air Quality Monitoring in Highbury

2011-11-19T22:17:00.001Z

This is a picture story of the very long day Andrew Myer (Islington Green Party), Louise Francis (Mapping for Change) and I spent installing diffusion tubes and wiping windows all over Highbury. I don't have pictures for every grid square, but have included as many as I have available. There are 28 grid squares covering the area along and either side of the A1201 from St Paul's Rd to Finsbury Park (Highbury Grove, Highbury Park, Blackstock Rd). This road is typical of many Islington main roads.

The diffusion tubes were measuring Nitrogen Dioxide levels and the window wipes were analysed to provide information about heavy metals in dust. Islington Greens provided the local knowledge to assist with locations for tubes and Mapping for Change provided the scientific know how, access to labs and most importantly the results.

Air pollution is difficult to measure because of the wide range of variables that may have to be considered when trying to be clear about what is required as an outcome.

However it is equally something that concerns ordinary people, especially when they live in an area they consider to be polluted.

Many people are rightly worried about London’s air. But air pollution can be hard to measure, and most air quality monitoring carried out by local councils relies on measurements from a few fixed measuring points. These often fail to reflect the ways in which air quality varies across small distances. There are many factors that affect our air, which makes the need for better measurement even more important.

Mapping for Change is a social enterprise which is jointly owned by University College London (UCL) and the charity, London 21. It is giving communities the resources and support to monitor local environmental conditions as part of a new research project based at UCL. The data we gathered in Highbury will help create a clearer picture of air quality at the very local level. This will inform us all and help encourage the Mayor and Islington Council to take effective measures to improve the quality of our environment.

The aim of the activity is to collect baseline information about air quality, with the hope that ongoing monitoring will follow these preliminary activities. It is also hoped that these activities will lead to an increase in public awareness and understanding of the health impacts of air pollution and will help us to mitigate those impacts and adapt to reduce them.

If you'd like to find out more, do come to our public meeting on Monday 28th November from 7.00pm - 8.15pm at Highbury Grove School. We'll be sharing the Highbury results and discussing how to reduce air pollution in Highbury and elsewhere.

Grid 22 Oasis Cafe - the first to go up. Start of a very long day. Began at 10.30am and finished by torchlight at 8.30pm, having walked the length and breadth of Highbury.

Grid 24 Outside 13 Baalbec Rd.

Grid 24 Highbury Grove School had to remember which corner we wiped.

Grid 24 outside Highbury Grove School.

Grid 25 Back of Highbury Grove School, Highbury New Park.

Grid 23 Aberdeen Lane

Grid 20 Window wiping at Raymond's Newsagent, H.ighbury Barn.

Grid 20 The wipe

Grid 20 Highbury Barn attaching diffusion tube

Grid 20 Attaching diffusion tube by Highbury Barn Square

Grid 18 Caroline's window

Grid 18 set back from main road at ankle height.

Grid 18 Tube set at child height, right by main road, hidden by undergrowth. This tube had a very high reading.

Grid 19 Outside Highbury Grange Doctor's Surgery.

Grid 15 Window Wiping bus shelter by Mount Anvil development on National Children's home site.

Grid 15 We were wiping the back of the bus shelter away from the road side, but still picked up loads of particles.

Grid 15 For context - lots of large lorries delivering and idling engines.

Grid 16 Northolme Rd opposite no 6

Grid 12 Window wiping at Cinnamon Village Cafe.

Grid 13 Lamp post to left of church gate where Highbury Quadrant splits in two at roundabout.

Diffusion tube in situ.

Grid 10 Lamp column between 12 and 14 Herrick Rd.

Grid 6 Corner of Brownswood and Willberforce Roads.

Grid 2 Junction Blackstock Rd and Somerfield Rd. A window at waist height.

Grid 2 The wipe was dirtiest of all that day.

Grid 1 Cafe Venezia at junction of Rock St and St Thomas' Rd, opposite Finsbury Park Mosque.

Grid 1 Diffusion tube on lampost outside Cafe Venezia at junction of Rock St and St Thomas' Rd, opposite Finsbury Park Mosque.

Fence used as community noticeboard in Grid 4.

Grid 4 (?) outside 6 - 8 Plimsoll Rd

Grid 5 Outside Ambler School

Grid 9 window wiping at 164 BlackStock Rd, Prime Car Service.

Grid 9 Diffusion tube on lamp column outside 164 BlackStock Rd, Prime Car Service.

Grid 9 Outside Elizabeth House, Hurlock St

Grid 8 Near Gillespie School opposite no 52.

Grid 7 St Thomas' Church

Grid 11 Parking pole outside the gym in the old Arsenal stadium building.

A City of 20 - not just a dream?

2011-11-16T22:45:00.001Z

Caroline Russell, Jenny Jones & Katie Dawson

The long awaited response to the Scrutiny on the borough-wide 20mph Limits is due to go to the Islington Council Executive on 24th November. The documents have just been published online. Councillor Paul Convery has produced a report, sensibly ignoring the usual protestations from the police about un-enforceability and recommending "approval of the inclusion of the Borough Principal and Strategic Road Network under Islington's control into the Borough Wide 20mph scheme where funding is available, subject to consideration of objections in relation to the legal Traffic Management Orders." This is potentially game-changing for Islington.

Countless residents, transport campaigners and local politicians have been campaigning for more "people-friendly" streets in Islington for many years. The objective has been to get 20mph limits on to our main roads where the majority of collisions occur and where large numbers of people live, work and shop. In a borough where the majority of residents have no access to a car and where many of those that do have cars choose to use them infrequently, it seems extraordinary that we tolerate such a polluted and vehicle dominated street environment.

Having been a stakeholder member of the 20mph Borough Board that oversaw the implementation of the 20mph limits on all Islington's residential roads, I was disappointed when Labour took power in May 2010 and seemed to be undoing much of the council's excellent work developing sustainable transport and nurturing alternatives to car travel. If this latest report heralds a change in direction on transport from our Labour Council, then that is to be warmly welcomed.

No one would claim that 20mph limits can solve all the problems on our car-dominated street network, but they set an agenda and an expectation that vulnerable road-users may be present. There's a long way to go with shifting the behaviour of people behind the wheel, people on bikes and people on pavements. We all have a part to play in sharing our streets and learning to value them as precious public space. But for now, campaigners from Islington Living Streets, Islington Cyclists Action Group, Islington Green Party and the many residents who have signed our petitions should shout hurrah and thank Councillor Convery for doing the right thing.

Another world is possible

2011-10-31T11:46:00.001Z

The campers’ banners in Finsbury Square and in other cities around the world remind us, in case we need reminding, that for too many people unfettered capitalism simply isn’t working ("Occupy Finsbury Square - Night at the protest camp" Tribune 28th October and "We'll stay as long as it takes, say Finsbury Square protesters" Gazette 27th October). Too many decisions in the UK are made to help somebody make more money rather than to benefit the country or the community. The UK Uncut campaign points out that the current government cuts will undermine a generation to pay for the irresponsibility and tax-dodging of the very rich, and, as it happens, that campaign started life in Islington’s St Mary’s ward, where there will be a by-election next week. Islington Green Party would urge St Mary’s voters, before they put an X in the box, to think about which parties would rather cosy up to big business than regulate it or which think economics should be made to work for people rather than the other way round. The campers’ banners also say “Another world is possible”. The Green Party would agree!

Kings Cross

2011-10-27T20:58:00.001+01:00

For all of us in London who campaign on behalf of pedestrians and cyclists for more people friendly streets, yesterday evening's ghost bike placing in Kings Cross for Deep Lee (Min Joo Lee) was a poignant and sad reminder of the fragility of life and the unacceptable price that can be paid for cycling to work or crossing the road.

Many of us crowded on the traffic island surrounded by vehicles last night had taken part in the 2007 Kings Cross street audit resulting in a report to Transport for London (TfL) in 2008, which was only made public after it was FOI'd by local campaigner, Wil Perrin. It appears TfL were sitting on it - perhaps loathe to impede the flow of the huge number of construction lorries that thunder through Kings Cross daily.

The problems at Kings Cross are visible in minutes of standing at the junction:

Vehicles from Grays Inn Rd heading to York Way filter from two lanes to one lane as they pass through the junction where Deep Lee died. The lane changing should happen further back down Grays Inn Rd to eliminate jostling at the junction and to leave clear space for bikes.

Vehicles turning from Euston Rd into York Way hoot aggressively to get past huge numbers of pedestrians spilling off the pavements waiting to cross. The frequency of the green man phase should be increased to disperse pedestrians more efficiently. It is not acceptable to have such delay for pedestrians especially when they risk falling into the path of huge vehicles as pavements become congested.

Cyclists currently have no option but to "weave" through the traffic to reach an appropriate lane to travel through the junction. By reducing the number of lanes well before the junction, space can be found for cyclists to travel in safety. An advanced stop line (ASL) is no use to cyclists if it is inaccessible.

Jenny Jones has written to Boris twice asking him to join her to look at the road layout at Kings Cross. He has refused and appears to think that there is nothing to suggest that the likelihood of collision at the Kings Cross junction is higher than anywhere else in London. I beg to differ. Addressing the three suggestions outlined above would make an immediate difference to all the people passing through the area around Kings Cross, making it fit for purpose to welcome visitors to London emerging from St Pancras.

At last - Islington Labour support people-friendly streets?

2011-10-26T12:56:00.000+01:00

I was delighted to see Councillor Convery speaking out against the Mayor's "brutal pro-traffic agenda" (Wake up call over death-trap roads Tribune Oct 21st). In particular his support for people taking priority, slowing down vehicular traffic, widening pavements, extending crossing times and creating cycle safety zones.

After ten years of steady decrease, the last two years have seen a tragic rise in the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on Islington's roads. Whether this is due to cuts in road safety budgets, the Mayor's traffic flow smoothing agenda or a perception of a war on the motorist remains unclear. What is critical is that we take action immediately to reverse this unacceptable trend.

Islington Council and Transport for London should consider an immediate speed limit reduction to 20mph on all their main roads where people live work and shop. This would reduce the severity of any collisions, traffic noise and pollution. The police have a part to play too. The Borough Commander has stated that he puts no resource into policing traffic infringements. Inconsiderate behaviour while driving (speeding, texting at the wheel and ignoring zebra crossings) creates unacceptable danger to people on foot and on bikes and should be taken more seriously.

There are some excellent examples of street improvements in Islington: We are the only borough in London with 20mph limits on all our residential side roads; Upper Street at the Angel has been transformed recently into a pedestrian friendly place where it is easy for people to cross the road and where despite less road space for vehicles, the traffic is flowing smoothly because there is no lane changing.

Valuing our streets as precious public space, by prioritising people over vehicles when designing them would help reduce the awful death toll and make Islington an even better place to live.

I look forward to Councillor Convery's support for reduced speeds on main roads, installation of more zebra crossings and pavement widening.

Sharing the Towpath - perhaps we all need to walk?

2011-10-26T12:49:00.000+01:00

In a borough with very few parks and not much green space, the Regent's Canal towpath provides a precious, green lung running though Islington. The towpath is far from ideal as a shared space - it's too narrow and has a body of open water running alongside, so it is hardly surprising that relations between pedestrians and cyclists are, to say the least, somewhat strained, with many residents calling for an outright ban on towpath cycling.

British Waterways Board (BWB) have run an excellent Two Tings programme since 1987. This has attempted to foster understanding and considerate behaviour between people on bikes and those on foot. It has been widely supported by members of the community, Councillor Martin Klute and local organisations : Islington Cyclists Action Group, Friends of Regent's Canal, and Islington Living Streets.

The latest intervention by BWB was the recent installation of speed humps, which has received a major thumbs down from pedestrians and cyclists alike as covered in the Tribune last Friday Bumpy start for speed humps as Regent's Canal towpath cyclists give them a miss. The speed humps fail to deter cyclists from travelling too fast and perhaps more significantly, present a serious obstacle to those with mobility impairment. Among pedestrians there is a significant number of vulnerable people, or those caring for the vulnerable: the young, the old, those with hearing, sight or mobility impairment; few cyclists can be so described.

As Chair of Islington Living Streets, I've ensured we've joined the debate and supported Two Tings, while refusing to see this as a polarised "us and them" situation between pedestrians and cyclists. Recently, the Islington Living Streets Committee has realised that many pedestrians have effectively been excluded by the overall volumes of cyclists on the towpath and this we anticipate will get worse. Whether or not this is because of the poor behaviour of a minority of cyclists is not altogether clear, but as an organisation representing those on foot we feel we should try to seek alternative solutions.

This prompted my recent letter to the Tribune Regent's Canal towpath cyclists need an on-road route that's safe, which suggested that people who are cycling either dismount and push their bikes through the narrow Islington section of the towpath or take an alternative on-road route. For what is in effect a ban on cycling - not cyclists - to be perceived as fair, the on-road provision has to be safe, high quality cycle infrastructure that is a pleasure to use. Whether anything like this (and the consensus to make it happen) is achievable remains to be seen. I'm heartened by the response of BWB who've called a meeting next week. Hopefully we can get rid of the unwelcome humps and find a way for all residents whatever their age or mobility to enjoy the peace and tranquility of a walk along the towpath.

"The norm" - thoughts on International Car Free Day

2011-09-23T00:03:00.000+01:00

Up and off early today to join Climaterush at their demo on Blackfriars Bridge to tell Transport for London (TfL) that "as long as cars are valued above cyclists and pedestrians, neither our streets, nor our lungs will be safe".

With my bike *dressed* for the occasion (see photo), I set off through dense, rush hour traffic to meet up with some of the people who care most about the state of London's streets. International car-free day - in our dreams.

We set off north across the bridge, looping back south and continuing on to the Palestra Building - TfL's head quarters, where we heard speeches from Lib Dem, Labour and Green politicians. Green Assembly Member, Darren Johnson's declaration that "20mph should be the norm" raised a great cheer. Shortly afterwards the very concerned and incredibly well-behaved crowd headed off to work, leaving huge numbers of police standing around - what on earth were they expecting?

The journey back to Islington demonstrated all that is wrong with our streets: congested pavements, dense traffic on the roads and very large vehicles moving terrifyingly fast in narrow streets. Last week 3 pedestrians were seriously injured in Islington. An elderly man at Archway while crossing at the gyratory and two women in separate incidents crossing Seven Sisters Rd. Something is very wrong when this scale of collision and injury is considered "the norm". Surely it should be "the norm" that people can cross the road on foot in safety in London?

Last week I was called by the Islington Gazette to comment on information that more than 30 Islington drivers have been given special dispensation by the courts to continue driving despite having accumulated more than 12 points on their licence, which should trigger automatic disqualification. It must be very disheartening for the Police, who have very little resource for tackling traffic offences, to find that even the most reckless drivers are being let off disqualification by the courts.

Our streets feel like brutal contested space. Until we think of ourselves as people travelling by various modes as opposed to self defining ourselves by transport mode (pedestrian, cyclist or driver) and until TfL start managing our streets for people travelling and not just for vehicles moving, I fear that "the norm" will continue to involve an unacceptable level of death and injury.

Road danger- not just about lollipop ladies

2011-02-15T23:03:00.003Z

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

2011-02-09T23:17:00.011Z

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

2011-02-07T23:05:00.003Z

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

2011-02-05T20:22:00.000Z

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?

2011-02-03T16:32:00.000Z

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.