Tag: redbridge

Wanstead Area Road Safety Zone and Lake House Rat Running Reduction Proposal

Full details are in the post below, but here are the headlines:

  • There’s a lot to like and the proposals deserve our support.

From a cyclists point of view we think the schemes could be improved by

  • Replacing not some but all the traffic islands along Aldersbrook Road with zebra crossings on raised tables.
  • Extending the restricted access hours on the Lake House estate to minimize motor vehicle traffic during the school run – to make it a school cycle.
  • Making Woodlands Avenue a school street – like Harpenden Road. 
  • Replacing the speed cushions on St Marys Avenue with full width speed humps.
  • Introducing a rat running reduction scheme on the Warren Estate to stop traffic using the estate’s roads as a cut through from the A12 to Blake Hall Road. 
  • Installing tiger crossings (cyclists and pedestrians) on each of the roads that enter the mini roundabouts at the junction of Aldersbrook Road, Centre Road, Lake House Road and Blae Hall Road.  One is going in on Aldersbrook Road so why not on the others?

Wanstead Area Road Safety Zone

Redbridge council is consulting on:

  • a proposal to introduce a rat running reduction scheme in the Lake House estate area.

And

  • a proposal to introduce a 20mph zone in the Wanstead area, covering the area south of the A12 and west of the A406 up to the Borough boundaries with Waltham Forest and Newham. 

You can find the details here:

Lake House Rat Running Reduction Proposal | Let’s Talk Redbridge

Wanstead Area Road Safety Zone | Let’s Talk Redbridge

The closing dates for the consultations are 5th June 2025.

These are road safety schemes – they are intended to reduce deaths and injuries caused by road traffic accidents – rather than schemes designed to promote cycling and walking.  But these schemes do effect cyclists and, if well designed, they can make cycling and walking more attractive options for more people.  What you are reading now are our views on the schemes from a cyclist’s point of view.  Other points of view are available.   …

We have had a first look at the proposals and there’s a lot to like.  This post sets out our first thoughts.  As we think about the schemes more it’s quite likely that we will refine our thoughts and want to add some further comments.  If we do, we will post an update on our website. 

So, if you haven’t already responded to the surveys you might want to hold off doing so until nearer to the closing date.  If you have already responded (well done) and you want to add anything in the light of what we have written, you can email your additional comments to traffic.schemes@redbridge.gov.uk. 

Please feel free to use any of our comments in your response.  

Before we look at the specific schemes in detail here are a few general remarks.

  1. The areas covered by the proposals are almost all residential and so a speed limit of 20 mph is entirely sensible. The arguments sometimes used against 20 mph zones (which we don’t buy) that slowing down traffic across entire areas can clog up roads, delay journeys and hit productivity, especially for trades people and small businesses, won’t apply. 
  2. There’s no doubt that cyclists and pedestrians will welcome slower speeds.  Cyclists will feel safer on the effected roads.  If a cyclist is in a collision with a motor vehicle going at 20 mph, they are less likely to be killed or seriously injured than if the vehicle is travelling at 30 mph. 
  3. Transport for London have just published the findings of an extensive study of more than 150 20mph schemes implemented during this period 1989 to 2013.  The study found:
  4. That introduction of 20mph schemes led to a 40 per cent reduction in fatalities, falling from 15 to just nine, compared to a background trend of seven per cent fewer deaths across all borough roads. 
  5. Child safety improved dramatically with a 75 per cent reduction in children killed and a 50 per cent reduction in child casualties.
  6. A 35 per cent reduction in collisions and a 36 per cent reduction in casualties on roads with 20mph limits. 

It’s really what you would expect. 

  • The seven pinch points at the traffic islands along Aldersbrook Road have long been a source of complaint amongst local cyclists.  The cycle tracks end at the traffic islands where motor vehicles must move in towards the kerb and into the path of cyclists.  Many a regular user of the cycle tracks will tell you how they have nearly been knocked off by cars swerving towards the kerb.  Redbridge Cycling Campaign and individual cyclists have lobbied council officers and local councillors to do something about them and so, the proposal to remove two of them is welcome.  But that still leaves five. 

We can understand the problems of removing the two islands with speed cameras on them but why not replace the other three with zebra crossings?  This would help pedestrians and it would make cyclists using the tracks along Aldersbrook Road feel safer.  Why is this important?  Because it is only when potential cyclists feel safe that they get on their bikes and become cyclists.  And current cyclists coming from the Manor Park direction (for example from the Railway Station) could also use the zebra crossings to exit from Aldersbrook Road into the turnings of the Aldersbrook Estate – now it’s a difficult manoeuvre.  So, we think more zebra crossings will be a win all round. 

  • We are pleased to see that the Council plans to instal sinusoidal speeds humps – these are the most comfortable design for cyclists. 

We will be supporting these schemes.  Could they be improved upon to support the Council’s ambitions to see more people on bikes?  Yes, and here’s how …

Lake House Rat Running Reduction Proposal

The proposal to introduce a No Entry Except for Access Restriction between 7 and 10am and 4 and 7pm is welcome but:

  • The success of last April’s Aldersbrook Bicibus event (parents and children riding to Aldersbrook School) proved that parents and children from the Lake House Estate want to get to school by bike.  The timed no entry restriction will help create quiet roads on the estate that will be suitable for these parents and children to cycle – especially in the morning.  If the afternoon timed restriction started at 2.30 or 3 pm then this would be better, removing the risk that parents and their children might meet early bird rat runners. 
  • It’s hard to see why the restriction is not permanent: if rat running isn’t a problem between 10 am and 4 pm there is no harm in the restriction being in place because hardly anyone is nipping through the estate – and those few shouldn’t be because the main roads are OK. 

Of course, the problem is that parents cycling from Lake House to Aldersbrook School then must cycle down Woodlands Avenue.  This is not a cycle friendly street, but we think that there is a solution – more on that below.

Wanstead Area Road Safety Zone (South-West Area)

Replacing the traffic island at the junction of Queenswood Gardens and Aldersbrook Road with a zebra crossing is a good idea.  It will provide better pedestrian access to the bus stop on the opposite side of the road, and we expect it will be welcomed by pedestrians. 

As we mentioned above, Woodlands Avenue, despite having (fierce) speeds humps is not cycle friendly.  With cars parked on either side of the road the effective carriageway is narrow and motor vehicles push past cyclists.  The Avenue is also a rat run: motor vehicles travelling in the direction of Wanstead use Park Road and Woodlands Avenue to avoid the mini roundabouts.  We think there is a solution: make Woodlands Road a school street with, in the hours of the school run, restricted access.  This would mean installing cameras at either end of the road facing onto Park Road and Blake Hall Road.  Motor vehicles trying to turn into Woodlands Avenue would be ticketed.  Because the cameras face outwards, residents driving out of Woodlands Avenue go undetected, so they are fine.  Residents can apply for an exemption so that they can drive into Woodlands Avenue during the restricted hours. 

Wanstead Area Road Safety Zone (South-East Area)

Once again, replacing the traffic island at the junction of Empress Avenue and Aldersbrook Road with a zebra crossing is a good idea.  It will help cyclists by removing one of the dangerous pinch points on Aldersbrook Road. 

Motor vehicles do speed along Wanstead Park Avenue and so speed reduction measures are appropriate. 

Wanstead Area Road Safety Zone (North Area)

There is a rat run through this area from the A12 along Redbridge Lane West, Langley Drive and Overton Road to Blake Hall Road.  The council, rightly, thinks the Lake House estate needs a rat running reduction scheme.  So surely the residents of this area deserve on too?  And, of course, Wanstead High School is on the rat run. 

St. Marys Avenue links Wanstead High Street to St. Mary’s Church and Wanstead Cricket, Golf and Tennis Clubs.  It should be a cycle friendly road – one you can cycle along with your children as they go to their cricket, golf or tennis lessons – or to church!  But it isn’t. 

Many motor vehicles can straddle the speed pillows and so can, and do, disregard the speed limit.  This puts off potential cyclists: parents will be driving their children to cricket etc. instead of cycling with them.  The position of the pillows in relation to the kerb means that motor vehicles swerving into cyclists’ line of travel.  If speed humps are right for all the other roads in the area, then surely, they are right for St Marys Avenue too.  So, we think the pillows should be replaced by humps. 

Can the scheme include improving the pedestrian crossing outside Wanstead House?

We’re on the road to somewhere – getting things fixed

One of our members, Chris Elliott, writes …

Everyone who cycles comes across things they want fixed on the road.  Often, they are bits of road surface that wouldn’t bother motorists, either because they don’t feel them because of their suspension, or because they are on a part of the road where they tend to affect cyclists more.  So, what can you do about it?  (Other than waiting for the whole stretch of road to be resurfaced.)  The simple answer is that you report it to the Council.  There are two ways. You can either use the council’s own web site, or do it via an app.

To report it via the web site, go to: https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/

Click on the ‘Report It’ button: https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/report-it/

From the options menu, click on ‘Streets and Highways’.  (You will also see a button for reporting it via the Love Clean Streets app, but we’ll come back to that.)

The page you get to has three boxes, each with a menu of choices.  The one you want will probably be ‘Problem on the road’.  You can only choose from the given options, and in most cases that will probably be ‘Pothole’.  But that isn’t ideal if what you want to report doesn’t really fit that category – for example, a badly filled trench acting like an unofficial and really harsh speed hump. 

If you select ‘Pothole’, you’ll then go to a page where you can locate the problem by putting in an address, letting the site automatically detect your location, or marking the location on a map.  Once you’ve done this, you can provide additional information on the issue, for example the size and depth of the pothole.  You can also upload pictures.  Then you fill in your details and submit the report.  I’ve used this system to get a road surface problem fixed and it worked, although it did feel like I was having to take something designed to report specific issues, and make it do something it wasn’t designed to do.  So, let’s look at the alternative.

If you go back to the ‘Report It’ page, at the bottom right of the options you’ll see a box with ‘Report it on the Love Clean Streets app’.  Redbridge are one of only a handful of London councils that don’t use the app FixMyStreet (https://www.fixmystreet.com/).  Why?  No idea.  But it seems that recently Redbridge has adopted lovecleanstreets: https://lovecleanstreets.info/.

If you select this option, you’ll go to a screen where you can download the app, set Redbridge as the home authority, then take a photo, pick the category it comes under, and submit the report.  There’s more about how it works on https://lovecleanstreets.info/how-it-works.  I haven’t tried it myself yet, and it is designed for on-the-spot reporting, so isn’t ideal for cycling issues unless you’re prepared to stop and snap or go back later.

Whichever option you choose, my advice would be to use any opportunity to emphasise why what you are reporting is a particular problem for cyclists.  A pothole may seem insignificant to a motorist, but the line you need to take as a cyclist may mean you hit it every time you ride that stretch of road.

Now, pick your biggest problem and give Redbridge the opportunity to fix it for you!

Claybury Park Gates – it’s back to square one

In June 2024 the Council took the decision to partially remove the cycle barriers at the entrances to Claybury Park on Roding Lane and Acle Close.  That got a Hooray from RCC.  The decision meant that more (but not all) cycles could get access to the park and could use the cycle track through the park.  As you can see the track is recorded as part of the Borough’s existing cycle network (see below). 

Well, the improved access didn’t’ last long …

The Council has now re-instated the barriers, effectively restricting access to just those cyclists who ride one of these (straight handlebars/gravel bike bars allowed if they are not too wide). 

We are not best pleased …

We have made a freedom of information request to the council to find out what is behind the decision.  Once we receive a reply, we will take the matter up with the relevant person(s).  At that point we may also ask for your help by writing to councillors or by signing a petition. 

Here’s the text:

In June 2024 the Council took the decision to partially remove the cycle barriers at the entrances to Claybury Park on Roding Lane and Acle Close.  The Council has now reversed this decision, re-instating the barriers. 

Local Transport Note 1/20 paragraph 1.4.2 defines a cycle as follows:

‘For the purpose of this document, the term cycle refers to the full range of vehicles shown in Figure 5.2 in Chapter 5 and described in the accompanying text, including hand-cranked cycles and cycles that conform to the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983 (as amended)’.

The council’s decision to re-instate the cycle barriers means that most types of cycles, as defined in LTN 1/20, will no longer be able to gain access to the park or only with considerable difficulty.  Those adversely affected by this decision include those riding

  • cycles with child seats (parents and children),
  • cycles with tag-along trailers (parents and children)
  • cycles with buggies (parents and children)
  • hand powered cycles (people with disabilities)
  • tricycles (people with issues balancing, for example people who have suffered strokes or who have multiple sclerosis)
  • tandems (where the rear rider for some reason is unable to ride a solo bike)

Under the Freedom of Information Act and in relation to the Council’s decision to re-instate the cycle barriers at the gates to Claybury Park on Acle Close and Roding Lane I request the following information.

  1. The position of the officer(s) or councillor(s) who took the decision to reinstate the cycle barriers. 
  2. A copy of any summary report or report setting out the case for re-instating the cycle barriers considered by those who took the decision.
  3. What criteria were used to assess the impact of the partial removal of the cycle barriers? If none please say so. 
  4. If criteria were used, please provide the document containing the assessment against these criteria of the impact of partially removing the cycle barriers .
  5. The minutes or notes of any meetings held to consider reinstating the cycle barriers.  If none please say so. 
  6. The total number of instances of anti-social behaviour in Claybury Park reported to the Council in the period 1st June 2024 to 31st January 2025.
  7. The number of instances of anti-social behaviour in Claybury Park reported to the Council involving cyclists in the period 1st June 2024 to 31st January 2025. 
  8. The number of instances of anti-social behaviour in Claybury Park reported to the Council involving motor cyclists in the period 1st June 2024 to 31st January 2025. 
  9. For the period 1st June 2024 to 31st January 2025, any documents, emails or other communications that refer to any proposals or actions that council officers or others considered taking or took to reduce anti-social behaviour in the park prior to the decision to re-instate the cycle barriers.  If none please say so. 
  10. All data collected by Council Officers or others that was considered by those making the decision.  If none please say so. 
  11. A copy of any access audit carried out by council officers or others or the findings from an Equalities Impact Assessment on the impact of a decision to reinstate the cycle barriers on those cyclists who would no longer be able to access the park or only with considerable difficulty and in particular cyclists with disabilities.  If no access audit or Equalities Impact Assessment was carried out, please say so. 
  12. For the period 1st June 2024 to 31st January 2025, all emails or documents written by council officers, council members or others that discuss or refer to the implications of re-instating the cycle barriers on those who ride cycles that will no longer be able to access the park or only with considerable difficulty.