With the elections for the Mayor and Assembly Members only days away, perhaps now is not the best time to start thinking about the next time that we will cast our vote. But the local council elections in May 2014 are not actually that far away, and given how cycling is very much in the spotlight at the moment, with The Times’ ‘Cities fit for cycling’ campaign, the inspiring London Cycling Campaign ‘Love London, Go Dutch’ project and the excellent Sustrans Free Range Kids initiative all adding to the debate, now really is the time to give the cycling momentum a local perspective.

That is why I have written to all the elected councillors in the London Borough of Sutton to ask them to start thinking specifically about what could be done in their ward, in the streets where their constituents live, and in the neighbourhoods where their constituents go about their day-to-day lives, to enable people more readily to consider travel by foot or by bike for some of their journeys for some of the time. I would like the councillors to ensure that their constituents are aware of the current campaigns on safety issues for all road users, on why smarter travel can be better travel, and why putting independent and active travel back at the heart of childhood would be a good thing.

So whether our first choice is to drive, take the bus, whether we run, hop or saunter to catch the train, ride the bike or simply make time for walking, let’s hope that the journey towards the 2014 local elections will be an opportunity for everyone to engage in all the issues that could help Sutton become an even better place. And who knows, in the process, we may take some inspiration from The Netherlands as well. After all, when it comes to cycling, the Dutch certainly seem to know a thing or two!

The “Cycling towards 2014″ letter can be viewed by clicking here.

During September and October 2011 Sutton Council held a consultation asking people who live, work, shop or go to school in Worcester Park or North Cheam to let them know their issues and ideas for improvements in and around these district centres. It was an opportunity for people to express their views on the improvements that had already been completed earlier in the year in Worcester Park (close to the station in Central Road and Green Lane as part of the TfL funded ‘Streets for People’ project), and also to suggest and prioritise ideas for further enhancements elsewhere in Worcester Park and in North Cheam.

This preliminary consultation took place in order to identify the key issues, and the level of public support, for possible infrastructure improvements that could be implemented as part of the Worcester Park Integrated Transport Package. This integrated transport package is similar in many ways to the Wallington Integrated Transport Package (completed in June 2011), where the emphasis was on improving public space (e.g. paving, street lighting and seating), providing support for businesses, redeveloping vacant properties, and improving conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.

North Cheam: Cheam Common Road, south side, looking east. Pavement designed with emphasis on motorised-traffic. Access for vehicles is perhaps over-engineered suggesting that a low level of vehicular access is more important than is absolutely necessary.

North Cheam: London Road, east side, looking north. Although there has been a good intention to provide wide pavements in places, the space preserved for inanimate vehicles ultimately wins over.

North Cheam: London Road, east side, looking south. Some may say the pavement width is adequate, but, relative to the total space available, I tend to think there is room for improvement.

North Cheam: London Road, west side, looking north. Pavement, or car-park? Not entirely sure that I fancy spending too much time shopping here.

This location is to the south of the intersection with Cheam Common Road/Malden Road. In many ways the streetscape here looks much more appealing than it does to the north of the intersection, and this could be in part because space is more equitably shared. As the inset photo tries to show, there could be a better approach in how signs are mounted. In this case, for example, there appears to be a perfectly adequate lamppost to attach the "Red Route" sign to. Does it really need its own post?

New Malden: High Street, various locations. Car-park location signs. Sometimes spelling things out might help. Look guys, its only a 1-minute walk from the car-park to the shops!

New Malden parking payment displays. Clockwise from top-left: Blagdon Road multi-storey (90p per hour); High Street parking (60p per hour (maximum one-hour); Waitrose car-park (rear of High Street) free for customers spending £10 or more (otherwise £1 first hour); Malden centre car-park (£1.20 per hour). You pay your money (if applicable) and take your choice!

My trip to New Malden reminded me that it is not necessary to go too far from either North Cheam or Worcester Park to see a relatively good example of what can be done. Along the length of New Malden High Street, for example, the addition of an informal central reservation means that it is easier for people to cross the road. There is a bit more “give and take” between all the users of the street. De-cluttered pavements (of sufficient width relative to the carriageway) give a feeling that space is equitably apportioned between everyone, and this must help give the place a buzz and well-being factor during the day and into the evening.

New Malden: High Street, looking north. Space for people: An informal central reservation helps improve the street for people on foot with no detriment to other road users.

New Malden: High Street, west-side, looking north. Space for people: the continental look, almost a mini boulevard.

New Malden: High Street, west-side, looking north. Space for people: Everything here runs at a slower, more comfortable, pace. So with plenty of high-profile cycle parking, why not bike it?

Also, to a degree, it will depend on all of us who use these centres to ask ourselves what are we able to do to bring it about. In particular, it may depend on whether those who drive are prepared to consider the benefits that could result from just a little bit of change in their behaviour – so accept a 20 mph speed limit, and accept some changes to both parking location and cost (consider it as a community fund). Maybe instead of taking the car to town for every trip, consider taking the bus or just walk instead on occasion. Town centres will always benefit from the occasional make-over, of course. But they can also be enhanced by how we use them.

Clearly there are a lot of uncertainties in the equation of how Worcester Park and North Cheam can best be enhanced. But I certainly believe that both of these suburban shopping centres have great potential to become “destination places” in their own right. If we let them, that is.

Notes:

(1) All photos taken by the author. The North Cheam photos on Sunday 23 October 2011 (between about 3.30 and 5.30pm), and New Malden photos on Tuesday 25 October 2011 (between about 12.30 and 2pm). It is acknowledged that street vitality will look different on different days of the week (especially between Sunday and Monday) and at different times of day (afternoon and lunchtime).

(2) On 17 January 2012 the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, announced the winners in the Second Round of his Outer London Fund. This included confirmation that the LB of Sutton had been successful in their bid for North Cheam and Worcester Park.

Please note this is a large file (2.5 MB).

A comprehensive draft Heritage Character Appraisal document, outlining the background and historical context, along with spatial and character analysis, was published at the same time. The character analysis included many points that Sutton Living Streets were happy to endorse, including “…the area around the Station should be upgraded to improve the arrival experience to the town centre”, “the pedestrian footways along this stretch are narrow and can become congested”, and “..a reduction in street clutter is desirable…”.

Consequently, Sutton Living Streets produced a short response to the consultation, endorsing the character analysis and supporting the recommendation to designate the southern part of the High Street as a Conservation Area. The response is available from this link: SuttonHighStreetConservationArea_SuttonLivingStreetsResponse_v1_Feb2011.

The objectives of the scheme, which is to be funded by Transport for London and through developer contributions, include boosting the town’s attractiveness and improving pedestrian, cycle and bus access in and around the centre whilst improving traffic flow. Ultimately, the scheme’s success will be judged on how effectively it manages to lock-in the benefits secured through the Smarter Travel Sutton travel and behaviour change programme which, between 2007 and 2010, tested whether it would be possible to encourage residents and people who work in Sutton to choose to walk, cycle and use public transport more often, and their cars a little less. A six percentage point reduction in the mode share of car trips, and an encouraging 75 per cent increase in levels of cycling (albeit from a relatively low base), were reported

Sutton Living Streets fully support the schemes objectives. The plans should certainly transform Wallington, and make it more attractive for residents, visitors and shoppers. However, for all the objectives to be met the improvements do not appear to go far enough. For example, upgrades to a pedestrian route which links the main shopping street (Woodcote Road) with a nearby residential street (Shotfield) focus on the section between the car park and Woodcote Road. Little thought appears to have been given to enhancements to the remaining section that would be used by people arriving on foot or by bus rather than by car.

The full report is available to download from here: Improving Travel in Wallington: a response from Sutton Living Streets.

Sutton Living Streets supports all of the proposed streetscape improvements for High Street, Sutton (Crown Road to Angel Hill) as outlined in the London Borough of Sutton’s informal public consultation leaflet (Local Safety Scheme reference T3074). If implemented, the proposals should help achieve the primary objectives of reducing accidents in the area, making the road environment safer for pedestrians and cyclists, and reducing the speed of traffic accessing residential streets.

There are, nevertheless, certain reservations with some of the proposals as presented in the consultation. These generally relate to a concern that there could be an element of lost opportunity in the overall scheme, and that an even greater enhancement to the public realm could be achieved if the proposals were a little more robust. Additionally, it has been noted that several of the ideas put forward at the Community Street Audit in June 2009, and detailed in the London Borough of Sutton Community Safety Audit Report of the event, have not been adopted for the consultation stage. These include consultation options for a zebra crossing in Oakfield Road, an extension of the paved pavement across access points to car-parks and service roads, and a 20 mph speed limit.

Read the full response here:

ResponseToLocalSafetySchemePublicConsultation_September2009.

In July 2009, Sutton Living Streets produced a note outlying many of the issues raised during the audit. This document can be downloaded from the following link (4MB PDF):

CommunityStreetAudit_SuttonLivingStreets_July2009.

Jeremy Leach (Photo: Charlotte Gilhooly)

A presentation was given by Jeremy Leach of Southwark Living Streets, about what their group did and how they do it. Tips included starting summer meetings with a walkabout in an area of interest, invite local councillors to present on issues that they are working on, and to work at borough level (e.g. 20 mph speed limits), area level (e.g. particular project Windsor Castle), and local level (e.g. planting, greening, and splayed junctions). Getting to know how the council works, by starting with local councillors and working across political parties. It helps if a member of the group is also a member of the local party. Now is a good time to present ideas with an election due next year.

Jeremy (along with Josh Hart and Alastair Hanton) answered questions. Alastair gave the tip that when people attend meetings they should be given something to do, however small, in order to ensure they return could be to represent a geographical area just to give them a sense of doing something useful.  A delegate asked for more information on funding bids. Jeremy said that funding (for London boroughs) was through Local Implementation Plans, and Alastair added that a great way to get funding was to get those responsible for making the bid to walk around with the group.

Daniel Moylan (Photo: Charlotte Gilhooly)

Daniel Moylan, Conservative councillor and deputy leader Kensington and Chelsea, board member TfL

Daniel said there were three things he wanted to briefly talk about, (and apologised for them being London-centric): shared space, Boris and some suggestions for Living Streets

Daniel made it known that he is in favour of shared space. He began by saying that whoever you, whatever mode you use, there is a problem with excessive demand for the use of a limited resource (i.e. space and time). This can be rationalised by charging, but charging would not work for pedestrians and cyclists. Daniel argued that non-segregated, de-cluttered, shared space made a location more civilised and safer, because users would use it with caution, remain alert and travel more slowly. Daniel accepted that shared space is not currently popular with people who are partially sighted. One reason for this is that guide dogs are, under present arrangements, trained to stop at the kerbside. The changes made in Exhibition Road (Kensington and Chelsea) were carried out through working closely with the Guide Dogs for the Blind, but on completion there were still things not quite right and this proves that it is impossible to get 100% of all the requirements incorporated. The TaxPayers’ Alliance is a lobby group that doesn’t like the government spending tax payers’ money on anything and in particular they think spending money on streets is a waste. Daniel said that he would encourage Living Streets to think positively on shared space and to seek to engage with such lobbying groups and to ensure them that many of their anxieties can be dealt with.

As deputy chair of the TfL Board, Daniel now sees a lot of Boris. Boris is a lovely man, hard-working and committed and he knows he has been entrusted with a huge honour as Mayor of London. He’s a crazed cyclist and not a timid one, opting to cycle straight down the middle of the road! Meanwhile, Ben Webster is Transport Correspondent with The Times and a very good journalist. However, he likes to be first with a story and can jump the gun. It was his article, published in The Times on 11 March 2009, which suggested that TfL had plans to re-phase traffic lights that would result in pedestrians losing up to six seconds of the “green man” phase at traffic lights. Daniel made the assurance that all that TfL is trying to do is look at the “dead time” of the light sequence, i.e. that part of the sequence time that is not needed. This assessment is supported by a letter subsequently published in The Times on 14 March.

Finally Daniel went on to suggest what Living Streets should do next. Firstly, Living Streets should not get too overtly concerned about the initial safety issues associated with a new scheme, and question the reasoning behind safety standards and practice. Daniel suggested that local authorities are made up of timid people, who are scared of being sued. All that the safety experts tell you is how a particular proposal differs from the standard. But the standard may not be completely safe, for example cages at crossings. They are only safe if used properly, but not safe if, for example, cages are by-passed or jumped over. Secondly, the payments made from TfL to the boroughs from April 2010 will be in larger packages, and this should mean that it should be easier to complete big schemes with more flexibility for a whole scheme approach. The bids for the money are needed in the next couple of months, so now is the time to consider requirements.

Questions for Daniel then followed:

1. A delegate from the Campaign for Better Transport (Hackney) suggested that there was a need to limit cars and that re-phasing the traffic lights to improve the flow of traffic was contradictory to improving the lot of the pedestrian. Daniel replied that in the last 10 years the number of cars in London had reduced but there was the impression of increased congestion. His personal take is that motorists are reasonable people up to a point, but whenever any government is seen as anti-motorist that government will collapse. As a result, Kensington and Chelsea have never taken an anti-motorist stance but talk about the best use of space for everyone.
2. A delegate from Active Streets suggested that anything that sped up traffic was as the detriment of pedestrians. Daniel didn’t agree, saying that it depended on the type of road.
3. Someone asked Daniel to expand on what he had said regarding safety. Daniel said it was the fear of being sued that produced a “risk averse” culture. There is duty of care. K&C put a sum aside each year for such an eventuality as a form of self-insurance.
4. According to a social attitude survey, 75% of motorists are in favour of 20 mph speed limits. Compliance is higher when whole area is 20 mph (as in Portsmouth) as drivers more readily accept slower speeds elsewhere when they know their own street is 20 mph. What role should TfL have in relation to 20 mph speed limit? Daniel replied that TfL’s role is determined by transport strategy. A draft transport strategy is expected late April/early May, followed by public consultation in the autumn. TfL will not be telling the boroughs what they should do (like the last 8 years), but offer support and encouragement.

Tony Armstrong (Photo: Charlotte Gilhooly)

Tony Armstrong, Chief Executive Living Streets – new strategy and plans for years ahead

Tony began by saying that Living Streets existed to make walking safe and attractive, and then went on to give some reminders of what could detract from these ideals, including: subways; complicated and bewildering junctions (poor desire lines, often prioritised against people on foot); railings (as many are not there for safety but were installed before parking restrictions); pavement parking; lack of capacity (narrow pavement width with capacity traditionally provided for the motorist); the breakdown of communities (as highlighted by Professor Donald Appleyard in Liveable Streets, San Francisco (1981), and in a study by Joshua Hart, Bristol (2008)); and the obsession with street signs that can give too much information to the motorist.

Tony was generally supportive of the current policy climate including Manual for Streets, and sustainable transport initiatives.

Tony then highlighted some projects that have worked.

• In Walworth Road the pavements had been widened and de-cluttered. Not only did this make the road a more attractive place, but it had also resulted in better traffic flow and quicker, more reliable, bus journey times even though bus lanes had been taken out. So everyone was a winner!
• At Dagenham Heathway the central railing down the centre of the High Street, which had severely restricting permeability and made the street a shopping area of two halves, had been removed. The result: Heathway was now a destination place.

Tony gave an overview of Living Streets five-year strategy that would make walking the natural choice, put people first, and result in quality spaces for all. The strategy would be challenging, but positive (giving solutions and sharing best practice) and enabling (work with communities).

Firstly, the strategy should create the right policy environment by influencing national government on what happens to public spaces. Campaign packs would be put together to assist local groups, again highlighting best practice. Further research will be carried out, noting that it has been shown that ideas can work that at first would appear to be counter-intuitive (e.g. it has been shown that “naked streets” can produce safer roads). The organisation will communicate and listen to feedback and to develop a clear framework, noting that feedback had led to recent re-branding. There will be a new commitment to support local groups through the provision of campaign packs and contacts. Joshua Hart is a dedicated manager, and Alastair Hanton is chair of the new Policy and Campaigns group.

The second area was to demonstrate key impacts: Walk to School had been successful despite not much funding from the DfT, and Living Streets wants to expand this to secondary schools. Walking to Work would target 17-30 year olds and women, and it has been demonstrated (through working in 12 local authority areas in four years) that people were fitter for walking. The success of London projects, school projects and through community engagement would be highlighted.

The third area was enabling choice. One example was given whereby a bridge had been provided over a narrow canal in a residential area to link a key desire line and where previously people had only been able to cross through improvising with whatever was at hand! Another was working with local authorities to get the pavements widened (e.g. Long Acre in central London had also taken the pressure off the tube system). Training programmes would continue including course demonstrating that walking works for business.

Tony concluded by saying there were exciting times ahead. Living Streets time had come. There is clear strategy and more solutions. The organisation is well placed having doubled the number of staff in the last two years and achieved security of funding. They were committed to provide local groups with direct advice, with the key message from Tony being that we are all in it together. Tony mentioned that in future he would like to see conferences such as this every year.

Questions for Tony then followed:

1. A delegate from Chesterfield asked whether the presentation Tony had just given would be made available, as he would like to use it locally. Tony said yes certainly. Also campaign packs and leaflets were being produced. A whole new web site would be available in a few weeks with easy access to the campaign packs.
2. A representative from Hackney Living Streets said that many people, especially those less able-bodied, were concerned about cyclists on pavements and that this was a problem that was increasing. He added that many people were unhappy with the naked streets idea for this reason and that although cyclists tend to be quite vocal, someone needs to speak up for people with disabilities. What are Living Streets going to do about it? Tony replied that cycling on pavements is a conflict that needs to be tackled. He believed that the general principles of shared space are good but there is an issue with segregated paths, and mentioned that Living Streets had been opposed to segregation of pedestrians and cyclists along a path in Regents Park. If more space is required for cycling it should be at the expense of (vehicular) traffic and not pedestrians. Living Streets speaks for pedestrians, but if we can help cyclists at the same time that’s a good thing.
3. A representative from Lewis Living Streets asked whether Living Streets talked with the Ramblers Association. They asked because rural walkers often had difficulties such as crossing dual carriageways. Tony said that LS have contacts in rural villages, and mentioned that Tom Franklin, who had been CE at Living Streets, was now CE at the Ramblers and they kept in touch.
4. A delegate from Loughborough said she was interested in what Tony been said in relation to bus improvements following the de-cluttering of Walworth Road in London because in Loughborough there were proposals to pedestrianise the town centre and send buses around a ring road. This would increase the distance to the town centre and the time it took to reach the town centre. The findings from Walworth Road would be useful to help with the campaign in Loughborough.

It is also worth noting that the presentations given by Mike Loveday and Tony Armstrong are to be made available on the Living Streets site in due course.