Howbury Lane & Bridge Road
HOWBURY LANE PRIORITY GIVE WAY SCHEME &
BRIDGE ROAD / NORTHEND ROAD ROUNDABOUT
When the local authority publicised its plans to implement a priority give-way scheme in Howbury Lane, many people felt this was a complete and unnecessary waste of money. Coupled with the fact that we had been asking Bexley Council to provide a roundabout at the junction of Bridge Road and Northend Road, and even with all the benefits to the residents of Slade Green that that would bring (including a significantly high percentage reduction in traffic flow along Howbury Lane), the Council still denied our request, many people were not very happy that they then saw fit to spend money on something as useless as the priority give-way scheme in Howbury Lane. You can read what was said in the listed correspondence. Needless to say, as said, the scheme in Howbury Lane still went ahead and we still have no roundabout at the top of Bridge Road. Bexley Council later said they would have to do a detailed study to know whether a roundabout would be a good idea, but they currently have other priorities and so don't have the time. That's funny! Why don't they just listen to us and ask the people of Slade Green whether it's a good idea or not? Well, that's our wonderful local authority, Listening To You! - Working For You!
Correspondence with Bexley Council over wasting money on yet another useless traffic scheme
when we had been denied a vital roundabout on the main access route into Slade Green.
Pointing out to Bexley Council the negative aspects of the priority give way scheme they were
proposing for this location and requesting a more suitable and popular alternative.
RE: TRAFFIC CALMING PROPOSED FOR HOWBURY LANE, SLADE GREEN
14/08/02
Dear Mr Palmer,
We are writing to complain about the introduction of the proposed traffic calming measures, in Howbury Lane, Slade Green. We are not in favour of road humps or kerbstone appendages and we are not in favour of designating resource on this type of scheme. We do not object to clearly marked speed cameras and to speed camera warning signs, which serve an equivalent purpose, but without all of the negative factors. We find that speed humps are uncomfortable, dangerous to injured persons in the ambulance, damaging to emergency vehicles, such as fire engines, and cause additional wear and tear to vehicles. They also cause more pollution and are not uniform in the effect they have on different vehicles. Some vehicles can still travel quite quickly over speed humps, other vehicles, especially emergency vehicles and those laden with goods, have to slow to five miles an hour or so to be able to cross them safely. We also find that there is nothing positive that can be said about traffic calming measures in the form of intrusive kerbstones and other sprouting appendages that jut into the road. Kerbstone appendages are, in the least, an inconvenience and waste of money and, at worst, a positive hazard and danger to unsuspecting motorists. They too result in more congestion and pollution, and more wear and tear on vehicles. They hold people up unnecessarily, forcing them to stop, when the only necessary objective is to get people to slow down. We feel, therefore, that these kinds of measures are not appropriate for what is a prime access route into Slade Green.
Where there are speeding issues to be dealt with, as an alternative to road humps and kerbstone appendages, we would prefer the implementation of more speed camera signs and speed camera systems. Rather than designating resources on measures that make the quality of the roads worse, we would like to see money invested in the development of a modern computerised camera system, which will link a person's vehicle registration number with any number of offences and issue warnings or penalties to suit. These cameras can be deployed, with sufficient warning, in any areas where speeding is an issue. Once the system has been developed, the cost of implementing it will be minimal, thereby solving all problems relating to speeding vehicles without the discomfort and negative factors associated with road humps and kerbstone appendages. Until this system can be brought into being, we feel the standard GATSO speed camera, or speed camera enforcement signs should be implemented. This will mean that the rest of the innocent and ordinary motoring public will not have to put up with the discomfort and inconvenience of being made to suffer such obstacles and carbuncles on the road surface. It will also help alleviate pollution, as well as additional vehicle wear and tear and will ensure that emergency vehicles can get where they need to be quickly and unimpeded. We would also like to suggest the use of more footway safety barrier fencing where there is an issue of traffic being a danger to children, or a danger of children running into the road. The government and the local authorities have spent a great deal of public money on schemes that are less than popular in recent years. This is something that we feel needs to change. We are aware of, and in agreement with, the objectives, but find many of the methods currently implemented, disagreeable and unpopular. We, therefore, look forward to your favourable response with regard to this particular issue and would request, if anything, the implementation of a speed camera system in Howbury Lane and not the scheme that is currently proposed. We would prefer the same for any area that is in need of traffic calming, speed camera signs and systems, and safety barrier fencing, not physical remodelling. Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
D.J. Tarrant
A follow up letter posing a number of questions about the proposed scheme and pointing out to the Council that
nobody I have spoken to who has viewed this proposal so far, has had a good word to say about it.
RE: TRAFFIC CALMNG PROPOSED FOR HOWBURY LANE, SLADE GREEN
18/08/02
Dear Mr Palmer,
In further to our first letter dated 14/08/02, regarding the proposals for the implementation of the traffic calming measures in Howbury Lane, and for the sake of our records, could you please provide the following information?
- Who requested the proposed traffic calming measures in Howbury Lane?
- Who authorised its implementation?
- On what grounds was the implementation authorised?
- How many local residents in Slade Green have been consulted with regard to its implementation?
- What percentage of residents consulted are in agreement with the implementation of this scheme?
- Have there been any accidents on this stretch of road to justify the need for such a scheme?
- If there have been any accidents, approximately how many have there been over the past five years?
- Have there been any fatalities as a result of any accidents?
People that I have personally spoken to in Slade Green were all unaware of the proposal for this scheme. Nobody I have spoken to so far, with reference to this proposal, thinks that it is a good idea. It is important that local authorities maintain respect in the eyes of the public. This will not be the case if local authorities continue to implement schemes that are unpopular whilst ignoring schemes that people would like to see and that would be of obvious benefit. Last year we requested the implementation of a roundabout at the junction of Bridge Road and Northend Road. Apart from the fact that our first letter was not acknowledged, or analysed, and we had to write in again recently, when we did receive a reply it was a poorly evaluated, flippant and dismissive response. As was pointed out in the first letter, providing such a scheme would yield many benefits, one of which would be to alleviate much of the traffic in Howbury Lane and Whitehall Lane, an obvious benefit to residents who live there. As Howbury Lane and Whitehall Lane were not designed to be main access routes, and are strictly residential roads, we are arguing that a more positive and useful way of spending this money would be to spend it on the Bridge Road / Northend Road roundabout, as requested and as outlined in our correspondence, and would point out that this is something that would be agreeable, and of benefit, to all residents. We look forward to hearing from you with regard to the information requested above, and in the mean time, hope that you can give the content of this and the previous letter some serious consideration. Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
D.J. Tarrant
A reply from Bexley Council explaining that this priority give way scheme was being funded by the private developer behind the
Optima Park development and that there is insufficient justification for the Bridge Road roundabout.
Dear Sir/Madam
HOWBURY LANE - TRAFFIC CALMING
Thank you for your recent letters about the proposed traffic calming in Howbury Lane.
I will start by answering your specific questions as numbered in your letter dated 18/08/02.
- The traffic calming was proposed by the developer of the Optima Park site as part of the junction improvements on Thames Road.
- The proposals were approved by the former Traffic and Transport Sub-Committee on 3 February 2000.
- The traffic calming was proposed as part of the junction improvements because of poor forward visibility under the railway bridge.
- All the properties in Howbury Lane, 75 in total, were consulted.
- 17 people responded and only one of these did not support the scheme.
- My latest records show there have been five personal injury accidents in Howbury Lane during the last three years but these are not the justification for the scheme.
- I do not have the five-year accident records readily available.
- There have been no fatalities during the last three years.
I hope the following addresses the more general comments you have made.
No road humps are proposed, just three priority give-ways with cycle by-pass lanes, as shown on the attached plan.
The scheme is completely funded by the private developer, as part of the Optima Park development.
Since 17 April 2002, speed and red light cameras in London are managed by the London Safety Camera Partnership (LSCP). The establishment of the Partnership was a Government requirement. The Partnership had to meet strict criteria set by the Government about the location and use of cameras before being allowed to join the national initiative enabling it to use some of the revenue from speeding fines to re-invest into enforcing existing speed limits. The LSCP's core partners are Transport for London, the Association of London Government (representing the London Boroughs), the Metropolitan and City Police and the Greater London Magistrates Court Authority. The National Health Service is considered to be a key stakeholder and will help the Partnership by distributing publicity materials throughout London. As far as the London Boroughs are concerned, the LSCP is now responsible for deciding where new camera sites should be located and for operating existing and new sites. Boroughs will have little influence in future over where and when safety cameras are used.
The accident record for Howbury Lane does not meet the new criteria. In fact very few roads in the Borough do. Traffic calming will therefore, continue to be the primary engineering solution to speeding problems in Bexley. The most appropriate type of traffic calming will be developed for the particular site conditions in each case.
Road humps and other traffic calming measures are unpopular with some drivers but are usually well supported by residents in roads where they are proposed. In the absence of more effective measures we will continue to propose traffic calming to encourage inconsiderate drivers to slow down in roads where such schemes are justified, usually to address unacceptable accident problems.
Footway safety barriers (or pedestrian guardrail) are provided where considered necessary as part of our traffic schemes. However, they are not as popular as they used to be because they are considered a hindrance to pedestrians in some locations. We are, therefore, careful to use guardrail appropriately where it is necessary to segregate pedestrians and traffic, perhaps as you mention, where children might run into the road.
Your suggestion for the Bridge Road junction with Northend Road would need a great deal of justification for the high cost of a major roundabout and the landtake involved. As such a junction would almost certainly increase congestion and accidents on the main route, it is not something I would recommend at this time.
Yours faithfully
SPENCER PALMER
Assistant Group Engineer (Traffic)
Pointing out that it would be more productive and beneficial to residents on Slade Green
to spend this money on the Bridge Road / Northend Road Roundabout scheme.
RE: HOWBURY LANE TRAFFIC CALMING & BRIDGE ROAD ROUNDABOUT
26/09/02
Dear Mr Palmer,
Thank you for your letter dated 22/08/02, in reply to our letter 18/08/02. Thank you, also, for addressing the points as raised in that letter. I do note that you mention an attached plan in your letter, which I was unable to find enclosed. I wonder if you would be so kind as to forward another copy, as perhaps the inclusion of it was overlooked.
I would like to say that if only 17 residents responded and 16 were in favour, it is possible, still, that the majority of people would rather not be dogged by such a scheme. It is also worth considering that the residents that live along Howbury Lane, of which less than a quarter bothered to respond, represent just a fraction of the residents that would ultimately be affected by this scheme. There are thousands of people living in Slade Green, who currently have the poor choice of driving 'all around the houses' along a road not designed to be a major access route, where one is already frequently forced to stop and give way, or travelling precisely one mile out of their way along the dual carriage way to the roundabout at Larner Road and all the way back. What are their opinions, I wonder? I also wonder that if the residents of Howbury Lane were canvassed, how many would support a scheme for a roundabout at the junction of Bridge Road and Northend Road, especially if it was explained to them that such a scheme would result in a serious and considerable reduction in traffic along Howbury Lane? A situation one would think they would welcome.
With regard to forward visibility under the bridge in Howbury Lane, it is difficult to see what the problem is, unless you are trying to see to and from Thames Road, but then surely one doesn't expect to be able to see around corners?
We reiterate that many people are not in favour of schemes that impair the quality of the roads, and would prefer it if the local authorities employed other ways of achieving the desired objective. There are a lot of disadvantages to road humps and kerbstone appendages and many people regard it as sad that the local authorities are choosing to spend so much money on schemes that seriously degrade the quality of our roads and spoil the quality of motoring. These types of scheme, in our opinion, are an archaic measure and a knee-jerk reaction to the problem of minority speeding vehicles. One wouldn't object quite as much perhaps if they were cheap, but they are not. In fact there is nothing positive that you can say about them at all, except for the fact that they are low maintenance. But, given the disadvantages, we feel that this is not enough to validate the 'full-steam-ahead' approach of the various local authorities and will continue to express our disapproval of the designation of resources in these areas when other essentials are suffering.
With regard to the implementation of a roundabout at the junction of Bridge Road and Northend Road, it is hard to see how such a scheme would add any degree of congestion. There would not be enough traffic continuously pouring in or out of Slade Green for long enough to cause congestion. As we are talking roundabout and not controlled traffic lighting, at the most, vehicles will be forced to slow and give way. This we regard as not being too detrimental as it will have an additional traffic calming effect on vehicles travelling along Northend Road. Can you explain as to why it is that the roundabout at Larner Road works perfectly satisfactorily and does not cause problems, and yet you feel that a roundabout at Bridge Road would? I look forward to hearing from you and receiving the plan that you refer to. Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
D.J. Tarrant
Bexley Council state that they would have to do a detailed study to know if the Bridge Road / Northend Road
Roundabout scheme would be a good idea, but currently have other priorities.
Dear Mr Tarrant
HOWBURY LANE TRAFFIC CALMING & BRIDGE ROAD
Thank you for your recent letter dated 26 September 2002 and your further comments about traffic calming methods in the Borough.
I am very sorry that you didn't get the plan I promised and enclose a copy for you this time.
With regard to a roundabout at Bridge Road's junction with Northend Road, I appreciate your point about the Larner Road roundabout. That particular junction does suffer less congestion than others along the route but this is likely to be related to the lower traffic flows from the side roads. The only way to have a real idea of how a roundabout would work at Bridge Road, would be to carry out a detailed study. However, the Council has other priorities at this time, so there is currently no funding or plans for such a study.
I am sorry I cannot be more positive on this matter but hope I have been helpful.
Yours sincerely
SPENCER PALMER
Assistant Group Engineer (Traffic)
Pointing out to Bexley Council that this scheme would be seen by the majority of people as yet another unnecessary waste of money that could be better spent on things of genuine importance.
RE: HOWBURY LANE TRAFFIC CALMING & BRIDGE ROAD ROUNDABOUT
26/11/02
Dear Mr Palmer,
Thank you for your letter dated 09/10/02, in reply to our letter dated 18/08/02 and thank you for the enclosed plan detailing the scheme proposed for Howbury Lane.
Having examined the proposal outlined in the plan, I would have to say that I feel that a scheme of this nature would not be well received by the majority of residents in Slade Green, who already have enough trouble getting in and out of Slade Green as it is. Speaking on behalf of the average resident, I can say without any doubt that this scheme will only be seen to be yet another instance of where money is being wasted on something that the majority of people do not want when it could otherwise be constructively spent in areas of genuine importance and usefulness. People do not like to be held up unnecessarily, and we do not like the additional pollution, or the inconvenience, that results from this type of scheme. We therefore feel that this idea should be abandoned in favour of more worthwhile causes.
There is already a lot of public concern over the management of society's infrastructure and facilities and especially the management of traffic schemes and systems. Many of the schemes and actions undertaken by our local authorities and bodies, such as T.F.L., can, at best, be seen to be an unnecessary waste of public resource and, at worse, a gross and negligent abuse of the trust placed in these authorities, by the general public, to do a respectable and admirable job with the resources available. It is not good that various authorities fritter money away on schemes that often just incur the disrespect of the people ultimately footing the bill. It is also not fair that people are being deprived in other vital areas, whilst public funds are allocated on things that the majority of people would consider low priority, unnecessary, unwanted and often positively a pain in the backside.
Transport for London are currently projecting a debt of £800 million for next year. T.F.L. have recently screwed up one of the best stretches of A-road in the country. They have installed unwanted bus lanes and screwed up traffic signal sequencing and phasing, all of which have contributed to more congestion. They have then implemented congestion charging that many people do not want whilst at the same time ignoring other more practical and more popular measures. After all of this, T.F.L. now want the Government, and ultimately the tax-payer, to bail them out of their £800 million debt. If the Government will not pay the whole deficit, they want to put up council tax charges to cover the rest. This is wholly unacceptable to the average person in the street, many of whom struggle to make ends meet as it is. Although people express their concern and discontentment the message is being ignored. Will it take a public revolution before the penny drops, or do we just have to go on excepting what is purely wasteful and incompetent management in the eyes of so many people? We do not want to see Bexley Council going down the same road and would like to see concentration of funding on areas that are in agreement with the majority public consensus, however, when we see this kind of scheme being proposed and other good ideas being ignored it seems as though that is exactly what is happening.
With regard to the implementation of a roundabout at the junction of Bridge Road and Northend Road, I will forward a separate letter and will be enclosing copies of previous correspondence, shortly. Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
D.J. Tarrant
RE: TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES IN HOWBURY LANE
14/01/03
Dear Mr Palmer,
We are writing to complain about the implementation of new traffic calming measures in Howbury Lane, Slade Green. As you know we have already expressed our discontent at the proposal of this scheme and now that it has been implemented, find again, nothing positive can be said about it. Again, bearing in mind the implementation of this scheme has caused a lot of inconvenience to people trying to get in and out of Slade Green, it has achieved nothing positive and nothing to justify its introduction or expense. In fact, people we have surveyed consider it to be a completely farcical and hazardous also. I have also, since the introduction of this scheme, noted vehicles travelling even faster along this stretch of road, now of course on the wrong side of the road, in order to try and clear the obstacles before the appearance of any oncoming vehicles. This is presumably completely at odds with the original objective of such a scheme, underlining the fact that a scheme of this nature is completely inappropriate and not only unnecessary but retrogressive in many areas.
As we have already said, these types of scheme are highly unpopular with the general public. In fact, they are a complete nuisance as far as many people are concerned. They also have an inherent element of hazard for the motorist. Causing traffic to stop and start unnecessarily creates more noise, more pollution and more wear and tear on vehicles and this scheme is also contributing to more congestion at times of high traffic density. Again, we say, the various authorities are acting irresponsibly by allowing the introduction of such schemes when there are superior and highly preferable alternatives available which achieve the necessary result without all of the disadvantages and discomfort. The desired objective is to slow people down, not to make them stop and start unnecessarily. Where there is a need to slow traffic down we are happy with clearly marked speed camera systems, anything else has too many disadvantages.
I also think that the implementation of this scheme, and the fact that it was felt necessary underlines what we have been saying to the Traffic Planning department for the last few years regarding justification for a roundabout at the top of Bridge Road and effectively doubles the urgency for such a scheme. Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
D.J. Tarrant
Yet another ridiculous and pathetic waste of money and another pointless and useless,
noise and emission polluting, impotent, pain in the backside traffic scheme.
HOWBURY LANE PRIORITY GIVEWAY SCHEME & BRIDGE ROAD ROUNDABOUT
As we can see, this scheme still went ahead and we still have no roundabout at the junction of Bridge Road and Northend Road, even though such a roundabout scheme would reduce traffic flow along the strictly residential roads of Howbury Lane and Whitehall Lane by more than fifty percent. Such a reduction in traffic flow would obviously be of great benefit to the residents of Howbury Lane and Whitehall Lane as well as being of great benefit to all people living and working in Slade Green. However, this does not seem to compute with the local authority, despite going to great lengths to explain all the advantages in simple terms.
There are no real advantages to this type of scheme and the disadvantages are substantial. They either force traffic to stop unnecessarily when vehicles are oncoming, so adding to noise and emissions pollution and vehicle wear and tear, or allow people to speed on through when there are no oncoming vehicles also encouring people to try and jump the obstacle playing 'chicken' with other oncoming vehicles.
Below is an extract from the page on current traffic calming policy pertaining to priority give-way schemes.
DISADVANTAGES OF PRIORITY GIVE-WAY SCHEMES
AND KERBSTONE APPENDAGES
- Cause vehicles to stop unnecessarily when the only necessary objective is to slow vehicles down
- Cause more congestion because they are a bottleneck
- Cause more pollution through vehicles having to stop and start
- Cause more noise through vehicles having to stop and start
- Cause more wear and tear through vehicles unnecessarily having to stop and start
- Are viewed as a positive nuisance and a complete waste of public money by the majority of people
- Encourage vehicles to speed in an attempt to clear the obstacles before another vehicle appears
- Are a positive hazard and danger to unsuspecting motorists in certain instances and have even resulted in death and injury
- Do not achieve the prime objective of limiting the speed of a vehicle, as they either force a vehicle to stop altogether or encourage it to speed on through even faster