Written by Andrew Seager, Co-ordinator of Redbridge Cycling Campaign of behalf of Redbridge Cycling Campaign

The current position

I and another member of Redbridge Cycling Campaign (RCC) rode around the Oakdale area during the rush hour and school run on 8th September 2021. We saw very few cyclists, but a lot of through traffic, mostly cars with just one occupant. It was not a nice environment for cycling and, I think, many potential cyclists would see the area’s roads as hostile and choose not to make journey’s by cycle.

The effective width of the carriageways (once the space occupied by parked cars had been discounted) were sometimes less than 2m and most often were no more than 3m. We were subject to close overtaking and, where the carriageway was around 2m in width, cars tailgated us, impatient to push past.

Many of the roads are one way with clear lines of sight. Save for a few speed pillows (on Mulberry Road) that motorists could drive over with a wheel either side and which therefore wre doing little to reduce speed (but which did leave cyclists vulnerable to being hit or forced into the kerb by swerving cars) there was nothing by way of road design to deter rat running motorists from seeing 30mph as a target speed.

Where the speed limit was 20mph there was no enforcement nor had these carriageways been redesigned to make 20mph the safe speed limit or to indicate that the highway was for cars, cyclists and pedestrians. There are no speed humps, speed tables, road blocks, modal filters or chicanes.

We saw that Oakdale Road was, in effect, a drivethru for parents in cars dropping off their children. This forced all the other parents- off which there were many – who had walked their children to school onto the narrow pavements. This is an inequitable arrangement that sacrificed the amenity of the many for the convenience of the few (those driving their children to school).

The proposal

The Our Streets scheme in Oakdale aims to address the traffic issues in Oakdale, by ‘reducing through traffic and creating safer, quieter, and more attractive streets’.

The Sustrans website describes a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) as: ‘a scheme where motor vehicle traffic in residential streets is greatly reduced. This is done by minimising the amount of traffic that comes from vehicles using the streets to get to another destination. This is often referred to as ‘through-traffic’ or ‘rat-running’.

So the desired outcomes of the Oakdale scheme are pretty much the same as those for a Low Traffic Neighbourhood. There are many examples of successful LTNs in London that the London Borough of Redbridge (LBR) could learn from, but this scheme does not seem to model itself on them. Although the scheme has a number of the ingredients of an LTN they have not been combined in a way that will achieve the hoped for results and will not encourage more active travel. And several key features were missing.

Comments applying to the scheme as a whole

If the aim of the scheme is to reduce traffic and create safer quieter and more attractive streets then the scheme must prevent through motor traffic whilst enabling residents to drive into and out from the area in which they live. This can be achieved by entry/exit restrictions to and from the boundary roads, one-way streets that return traffic back to the area’s boundary roads – so that the one-way streets do not go anywhere but simply provide resident access. The proposals for Oakdale do not achieve this. This is a pity because a scheme that eliminates through traffic and which makes most streets calm and quiet would see cycling journeys increase and would help George Lane be a thriving destination and local shopping centre.

Whilst the scheme will see an increase in the number of one-way streets it does not eliminate through traffic. One-way streets in residential areas where the road network allows through traffic signal to motorists the prioritisation of the car and through traffic: it becomes a scheme to manage through traffic rather than to remove it. Any short term success such a scheme might have will, within months, be lost as released suppressed demand leads to an increase in through traffic volumes – essentially the same phenomena as that describe in the consultation Q&A.

In the absence of cameras or road designs that make travelling at more than 20 mph feel too fast, motorists, because they do not have to worry about cars coming the other way, will drive faster. Rat running motorists do not have the connection with the residents of the roads they are using as a through route – they have a disconnect with the area, they do not think ‘that pedestrian /cyclist lives two doors down from me’ and so feel little compunction to reduce their speed below the allowed maximum which instead they will see as a target speed.

As previously mentioned the effective carriageway widths of these roads make them hostile to cyclists. The scheme does not change this. This would matter less if thought had been given to providing a number of safe cycle routes through the area so that short journeys, for example to Oakdale School or the shops on George Lane, could be made by bike.

Finally, provision for pedestrians has not been improved by, for example, the introduction of speed tables at junctions.

Specific Comments

Restricted vehicle access Pultney Road

We can understand the thinking behind the proposal and can see that the introduction of a one-way barrier coupled with the closure of Cowslip Lane might well reduce through traffic moving north to south and south to north. Whether residents of the lower part of the Oakdale triangle will feel confident to cycle is another matter. Most short trips will involve entering George Lane and Oakdale’s one-way system. This is not a cycle friendly system and will deter potential cyclists. The proposal is likely to fail in its aim to encourage residents to choose cycling for short trips.

One way system on Granville Road and Albert Road

Local Transport Note 1/20 (LTN1/20) states

6.4.23 Contraflow cycle lanes should normally be mandatory, although an advisory lane may be considered where the speed limit is 20mph and the motor traffic flow is 1,000 PCU per day or less. The entrance to the street for cyclists in the contraflow direction should always be protected by an island to give protection against turning vehicles (see Figure 6.25) where traffic speed and flow is higher (p64)

And

‘Not only must cycle infrastructure be safe, it should also be perceived to be safe so that more people feel able to cycle’ (p8).

The proposals for Granville Road and Albert Road do not appear to comply with this guidance and will not feel safe to cyclist. If this is the case and there is an accident then LBR will be in a position that it would find hard to defend.

One-way system on George Lane and Victoria Road

The aim of this proposal seems to be to reduce congestion and traffic volumes. But it is very hard to see how this will happen: anything that is good for buses (other than their own lanes) will be good for cars. . George Lane, Daisy Lane and Victoria Road provide a through route east/west through Oakdale. If there is already congestion it is because motorists are using
this route. Even if the proposed measures improved things in the short term they will not in the medium and long term. Supressed demand coupled with car navigation systems that can immediately identify a reduction in congestion and re-route accordingly will quickly see new journeys being made through Oakdale: congestion will return and traffic volumes will
increase.

Overall, this is a scheme that tries to have its cake and eat it to: to continue to allow through traffic whilst hoping to achieve the benefits of an LTN. It cannot be done.

Things to consider if the scheme is re-though

Schemes that have successfully reduced traffic volumes typically have restrictions on the road entrances to and exits from the area, road blocks/closures, modal filters, and, to reduce speed and make things safer for pedestrians and cyclists, full width sinusoidal speed humps and speed tables at junctions used by pedestrians. These could all be used in the Oakdale area.

Create cycle routes that are safe and are perceived to be safe through Oakdale, so that residents can make the sort trips to the shops in George Lane and Oakdale School. For example officers might want to consider creating a cycle route along Pultney Road (which may need further filters to fully restrict its use to its residents thereby achieving traffic levels that will make residents feel confident to cycle) with a suitable crossing of George Lane into Cowslip Road, then along Station Passage and then, with another suitable crossing and by installing lightly segregated cycles lanes along the Viaduct on to the shops on the northern
section of George Lane.

Introduce an are wide 20mph speed limit coupled with physical measures to ensure motorists stick to this limit. At present Oakdale’s roads have speed limits of either 20mph or 30mph but, given its residential character, all the roads should have a 20mph speed limit. However given the problem of speeding this will mean making changes to the carriageways
and perhaps installing cameras.

Consider a ‘bus gate’ on George Lane to retain bus access with a camera to stop motorists using it as a through route.

Do something about the junction of Daisy Road, Cowslip Road and Victoria Road. This is very busy but is used by pedestrians on their way to and from Oakdale School. Perhaps the closure of Cowslip Road will reduce traffic volumes but we observed many vehicles driving down Daisy Road and into Victoria Road – which will still be possible. At the same time it seems that for many parents and pupils, this junction is on their route to school. Could the scheme not include a speed table or similar to make things easier for pedestrians?

Implement the school street proposal.