Tag: redbridge

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.

The last post

This is our last post.  The deadline for responding to the survey is the 5th January.  Here is the link to the survey

Sustainable Transport Strategy Survey | Let’s Talk Redbridge

You can also make a bespoke response by sending an email to sts@redbridge.gov.uk

This post sets out our thoughts on the 4 questions in the survey that allow free text answers.  If you plan to respond to the consultation using the survey form and you are inclined to agree with us, feel free to cut and paste – but change we to I. 

Redbridge Cycling Campaign and London Cycling Campaign will both submit bespoke responses. 

So, here’s what we think …

7. Please tell us about any other things you face frequently on your journeys in or through the borough that you wish to tell us about.

Please also remember to use the map at the bottom of the main page to pinpoint specific things to us.

To date the borough has made very limited and disjointed provision for cyclists.  Almost every journey involves passing through difficult junctions and cycling along roads without the required degree of protection.  Close passing, being chased down between speed humps, cars parked in cycle lanes and speeding vehicles are features of almost every journey. 

11. Please tell us about any your thoughts on the potential challenges and priorities of the Sustainable Transport Strategy that you wish to tell us about.

The council’s assessment of what will happen to traffic if it does nothing looks sound and realistic.  Doing nothing is not an option.  We agree that street priorities need rebalancing.  We agree that the best way to rebalance priorities is by analysing the borough’s road network using the proposed movement and place framework and the hierarchy of road users.  This should provide a clear picture of what needs to be done.

We think that there are three significant risks to the successful implementation of the strategy that are within the control of the council.  First is a lack of political will.  It is not enough for the relevant cabinet lead member to be committed to the strategy; the commitment must start at the top with the leader themselves.  Without the commitment of the leader of the Council it is very likely that the plan will not be made a priority and so will not receive the resources that it needs.  Next there is the risk that commitment to the plan is not communicated to officers and that councillors are too prepared to listen to reasons why things can be done.  Finally, there is the risk that there are not enough officers employed to carry out the work and/or those that are employed lack the skills, knowledge and understanding needed to bring to life to concept of a network of cycle safe streets through well designed schemes and to be able to write bids to secure the funding the schemes need.  If any or all of these risks occur, then funding will go to other Boroughs and the strategy will fail. 

16. Please explain why, if any of the key goals do not meet your needs or if you want to tell us about any other actions you want us to include?

Please also see our long list of actions for the strategy that provide a more comprehensive list of actions per theme, see link.

We have no comments to make here. 

17. Do you have any other comments about the draft Sustainable Transport Strategy?

The Sustainable Transport Strategy has plenty of excellent stated ambitions, but the detailed plans aren’t anywhere near bold enough to achieve them.  The proposed cycle network included in the plan is simply inadequate: it lacks coherence and connectivity.  The proposed network should comprise

  1. Commuter routes through the borough towards Central London.  Where these routes follow busier roads, road space must be re-allocated to provide protected cycle tracks so that cyclists feel safe
  2. Routes connecting the borough’s town centres.  Where the routes must use busier roads, road space must be re-allocated to provide protected cycle tracks so that cyclists feel safe. 
  3. Quiet cycle streets that let residents travel safely by bicycle and on foot to the borough’s railway and underground stations and schools.  These streets will be characterised by features that restrict motor vehicle access and reduce motor vehicle speed.  
  4. Quiet cycle streets that let residents travel safely by bicycle and on foot to the Borough’s high streets and town centres. These streets will be characterised by features that restrict motor vehicle access and reduce motor vehicle speed. 

For reference an indicative map showing such a network can be found in a post on the Redbridge Cycling Campaign website in a post headed ‘To boldly go ‘ dated 5th December

Imagine all the traffic moving in harmony…

Let’s imagine it’s 2032 and that Redbridge’s Sustainable Transport Strategy is a success.  What might a newspaper article reporting the success say? 

The Ilford Courier

1st April 2032

By Mikael Moreno

On yer bike, Redbridge’s Sustainable Transport Strategy has a tailwind behind it. 

Following a consultation Redbridge Council launched its Sustainable Transport Strategy (STS) in early 2025.  The premise was hard-headed: unless something was done, by 2041 if not sooner, Redbridge would grind to a halt.  Now, in 2032, the strategy is on course and Redbridge is still moving, so how and why has Redbridge made such good progress?

During the 2024 consultation many of those responding highlighted what they saw as the mismatch between what Redbridge said it wanted to achieve and what it planned to do.  

By 2028 Redbridge wasn’t seeing the hoped for switch to cycling and walking.  Neither traffic volumes nor traffic speeds were reducing, and residents were telling the Council that they still did not feel confident cycling around the Borough.  The Council also identified two new problems.  More and more SUVs could negotiate speed humps at speeds close to 30mph, rendering the humps ineffective, and navigation apps were routing drivers along unsuitable residential roads to avoid junctions and traffic lights on more major roads.  If anything, the traffic situation was getting worse rather than better.  

At the same time, hopes were fading that residents would choose to use buses rather than their cars, not least because the buses were stuck in traffic and the road network couldn’t accommodate more, new, bus lanes. And the rail and tube networks were running at full capacity and extending these networks was beyond anything the Council could do.

So, what to do?  Brompton Verdi, the Cabinet Member for Transport told me, ‘We realised that creating a shift to cycling was the only way to stop Redbridge coming to a halt and that we need to change our strategy if we were going to achieve this’  The council decided to put more emphasis on creating the conditions residents needed if they were to get on their bikes.  Verdi went on to tell me ‘We prioritized routes into our town centres, schools and the like, because this is where we felt we could have the biggest and quickest impact and because it built on our successful Schools Streets programme’.  And because Redbridge is a compact Borough, separate routes to two adjacent town centres could often be combined to form a route connecting the town centres.  ‘We knew that most of these routes could not be along segregated or protected cycle tracks and that cyclists would need to use the carriageway.  So, the carriageway needed to be made safe for them to do this’, Verdi said. The Council started to introduce road closures, either by putting in physical barriers through which bicycles but not motor vehicles could pass (modal filters) or by using. cameras.  Of course, by 2028 this was not rocket science, plenty of London boroughs had already done this quite successfully. 

Verdi told me that ‘we went about this in a planned and not an ad hoc way.  ‘We asked our Highways staff to install the closures necessary to allow residents to get into our town centres, stations, schools and leisure facilities along safe quiet cycling routes.  We told them that they were not to leave gaps in the routes because it was too difficult – which usually meant Highways thought car drivers would be put to too much inconvenience.  We reminded Highways staff that the council was committed to reallocating road space in favour of cyclists as a precursor of encouraging more cycling and that they had to find solutions.  We knew that very few of our Highways staff were cyclists and that this was a weakness.  To compensate we told Highways that they were to involve local cycling groups and bicycle riding residents at an early stage in the design work to make sure we got it right.   And 9 times out of 10 they did’.

‘What we did wasn’t always popular with everyone – especially in the beginning – but opposition often seemed to evaporate, and we felt we had a mandate to proceed – we had consulted widely on the strategy and the Council had a large majority.  If residents hadn’t liked what we are doing, they could have voted us out’. 

As the Council rolled out its cycling streets it saw journeys made by bicycle start to increase. ‘This gave us the confidence to continue and to be more ambitious – it was clear to us that there were plenty of residents who were happy to cycle if the conditions were right.  The Council also noticed that residents of the areas covered by quiet cycling streets started to report feeling safer’.

When the Council investigated it found that the presence of cyclists made the streets feel less empty and deserted.  It turned out that those engaged in street crime and antisocial behaviour were more bothered by being happened upon by a cyclist than being passed by a car driver.  So this helped the Council make progress towards another of its targets which was to making its streets safer for female residents.  

Success breeds success.  The success of the cycling streets meant the Council was able to bid successfully for more and bigger schemes. 

Let’s give the last word to Brompton Verdi. ‘We were right to change tack in 2028 and to focus on cycling.  And I think those who said we weren’t trying to do enough were right.  We’re now well on the way to meeting the aspirations we set out in our Draft Strategy and, in 2032, Redbridge is still moving. 

‘To boldly go …’.

The Council’s draft Sustainable Transport Strategy covers the years 2024 to 2041.  That’s a long time – 17 years in fact. 

A plan of a similar length ending today would have kicked off in 2007.  For those interested Amy Winehouse’s Back to Black was the year’s biggest selling CD, Alberto Contador won the Tour de France and Gordon Brown was the Prime Minister.  Feels like another country …

More to the point, cycle infrastructure – in London at least – had yet to be invented.  Hard to believe?  Well, here’s a timeline. 

2010    The first two cycle superhighways (CS3 and CS7) were opened.

2015    Walthamstow created its first Low Traffic Neighbourhood. 

2016    Cycle Superhighway 1 was opened.

2023    20 mph speed limits were introduced on 17 miles (28km) of red routes in Camden, Islington, Hackney, Haringey and Tower Hamlets.

So, any strategy that extends over 17 years should be ambitious. 

We don’t think the Council’s strategy is ambitious enough.  As an example, we’ll focus on its proposed cycle network.  Here’s what the Council is proposing. 

You can see that the Council is not proposing to add very much to what we already have.  In fact, the Council seems to be planning to add just 50km to the existing network by 2041 – that’s an average of just 3km per year.  It’s not going to make a difference. 

Here’s what we think the map should look more like:

It’s only a network built along these lines – incorporating quiet streets, protected and segregated cycle tracks – that will allow residents to choose cycling as a means to go about their daily lives. 

So, when we respond to the consultation, we need to make this point loud and clear.