Afternoon:
10°c
Of all the places to start a revolution, the last on my list would be Ealing. Yet to Ealing goes the palm, spurred by a minor revolt in the equally unlikely Kensington and Chelsea.
The solid suburban burghers of Ealing are putting to shame the Camdens and the Islingtons. They will be the first in Britain to do what half the rest of Europe has been doing for years. They are banning red lights.
Years ago, when I first campaigned for this libertarian cause, I dreamed of throwing the first switch and watching London step from darkness into light - or lightnessness.
London's 6,000 traffic lights are a costly, timewasting, polluting, infuriating, anti-technological emblem of a dead religion, that of pre-war traffic engineering.
Its acolytes are morbid priests, obsessed with street clutter and persecuting (indeed killing) pedestrians.
They have not even caught up with New York's "rolling greens", queue-sensitive phasing or the digital countdowns on red, familiar in cities such as Islamabad, which allow drivers to relax and save petrol while waiting.
Ealing is following the "shared space" ideas of the Dutch Hans Monderman, dubbed everywhere but in Britain the "world's most famous traffic engineer".
Monderman's trick was to conduct interviews walking backwards through the uncontrolled traffic at intersections in his village of Oudeshaske. Only at major intersections did his roundabouts operate a rough-and-ready discipline.
Hundreds of municipalities across Europe have adopted his methods, and seen a fall both in accidents and, paradoxically, in journey times.
It is London's refusal to countenance even the safety case for shared space that makes its road planners criminal in their resistance. One day, someone should sue them.
In its crude form, shared space holds that drivers should always be watching and taking account of other road users, rather than being distracted by and relying on lights, markings and signs.
This spells the end of traffic management that sought to segregate users who have eye contact with others (pedestrians and cyclists) from those who do not, that is drivers of all sorts.
Mix them up, goes the theory, and the evidence indicates that every user looks out for everyone, indeed adopts a self-preserving courtesy.
In the famous Dutch scheme in the town of Drachten, crashes virtually ceased while overall traffic speeds across intersections doubled. The outcome was entirely benign. It was even safer for the disabled.
The message is admirably set out in Tom Vanderbilt's recent book, Traffic, with traffic in towns proving safest at below a maximum of 20mph. This is the highest speed at which drivers and pedestrians can respond to each other within eye sight.
"Smooth roads, enormous signs and distorting markings," says Vanderbilt, "soothe our brains into believing that we are travelling more slowly than is the case."
Such traffic management is dangerous. A sign warning of children ahead does not slow the driver but distracts his eye from the child.
When traffic has to weave its way through competing users, the brain enables it to negotiate danger responsibly. Pedestrians need not be dragooned behind railings, forced into detours and kept waiting at kerbsides.
They need not be ordered to "cross" even when it is actually dangerous to do so. Drivers need not stand for minutes at red lights, belching fumes, while an expanse of tarmac stands empty and unused ahead of them. They need not navigate a maze of one-way streets, adding to pollution, irritation, congestion and time.
Even Kensington High Street's half-hearted scheme has led to accidents falling by some 60 per cent. Similar success has followed tentative shared streets in Ashford in Kent and New Street, Brighton, where pedestrian use has soared 160 per cent. In London there has been almost nothing, apart from the enjoyably unregimented Seven Dials intersection in Covent Garden.
The danger is that the revolution is half-hearted. Such revolutions often fail. The Mayor, Boris Johnson, claims to be a fervent enthusiast, as well might any true cyclist.
He already wants powers (which he must get, absurdly, from central government) to permit cyclists to jump red lights when they can see a crossing is empty. This infuriates other road users but only because they do not enjoy the same liberation. Now they should.
Ealing is proposing merely to put hoods over some of its traffic lights to see what happens. This is risky.
It can leave motorists confused and still looking for the light, still racing to the next green and still not seeing pedestrians hovering tentatively on the kerb.
The transformation of streetscape must be emphatic. Drivers entering a shared-street zone must understand that they are having to surrender all primacy.
There must be no lights at all, no road markings except for parking. Road use must be policed by that military familiar, "the mark-one eyeball". Short cuts and rat-runs are rationed only by congestion, as are most market streets today.
There must be no kerbs, only raised ramps at crossroads with guide studs for the blind.
An ideal neighbourhood for the Mayor to start would be Mayfair, bounded by Oxford Street, Regent Street, Piccadilly and Park Lane.
It is substantial, not just an oasis. It has the benefit of a local authority, Westminster, that is archaic when it comes to traffic, making the shock all the greater.
Its one-way streets, dating from the 1960s, are today beyond comprehension, compelling hapless pedestrians and drivers to travel two or three times the shortest distance between two points. Stalin himself could not beat Westminster's road staff in control-freak dirigisme.
I would bet that more than half the traffic lights in London could be abolished with ease, leading to the smoother running of cars, buses and taxis and the easier passage of pedestrians.
The only loss would be of unused road space. After Mayfair, perhaps Soho and Covent Garden, Camden Town and Islington, Shoreditch and Bermondsey could follow suit.
This is not a matter of reckless experimentation. It has been shown to work, and with added courtesy, in cities abroad. London is in the dark ages.
Shared streets are a seriously exciting innovation. They would be Johnson's greatest legacy, contrasting with his predecessor's grim increase of 20 per cent in the number of red lights in London.
But like Galileo, he must first confront the reactionaries and flat-earthers of the city's most dyed-in-the-wool profession, traffic engineering.
He must wave his hand over the fuming traffic jams and defy the freaks. Having liberated the road space, he must declare with Galileo: "And still it moves".
Reader views (16)
I believe the whole philosophy of 'looking out for one another' should be extended far beyond roads to everything that burdens our over-regulated lives.
It is the terrotorial aspect - bus lanes, cycle lanes etc that causes most friction between users.
- Mary, Twickenham, Middlesex, 26/05/2009 18:01
Report abuse
No Red lights - what a great idea, but when it's socialist government policy that we are all homicidal simpletons who will always do the wrong thing on all occasions unless controlled; how can we be trusted to use this system? Once we had freedom to choose on roundabouts but now they too are enmeshed in traffic lights - and what about those traffic lights and other street clobber? Someone has made millions out of their proliferation - I'm surprised no one has investigated that.
- C Maund, London, 20/05/2009 17:07
Report abuse
The streets of Mayfair do not fall under Boris Johnson's remit, but under that of Westminster City Council, who have already approved in principle the introduction of shared surfaces for one small part of Mayfair. Shared surfaces may have a role in some locations, having initially been designed with obstacles in the roads to slow cars down (such as large planters). Over in Europe, countries that at first embraced shared surfaces are now beginning to discover the problems, and they are no longer recommended in every country. Research is showing that some citizens simply cannot use shared surface areas, or only do so at great risk. Various ways have been tried to make them usable by the visually challenged, such as using different surface textures, but these have been shown to be ineffective. The fundamental design excludes sections of the population, in contravention of disability inclusion legislation. I have lived in a shared surface area, and the experience was not pleasant. Some neighbours could no longer use the streets outside their doors. Parents with young children found it stressful and frightening to go shopping, take children to school, or go for a walk. Cyclists behaved as if they had total priority over everyone else. Drivers became irritated and aggressive, and only by switching their attention from other vehicles and cyclists could they allow their 'eye' to be caught by pedestrians. No thanks, Mr Jenkins. Unsafe and unwanted.
- Vjr, London UK, 20/05/2009 13:45
Report abuse
One only has to observe traffic in London for five minutes to realise that congestion is caused by empty car seats which, on average, outnumber occupied seats by about three to one.
- James, London England, 20/05/2009 11:49
Report abuse
Ealing’s Conservative Council is committed to smoothing the flow of traffic on the roads of our borough. Residents have said, through the most recent annual Residents’ Survey that they are fed up with traffic congestion.
So Ealing Council is doing something about it. We’re just using common sense and not spending vast amounts of money. Small changes will have a big effect.
How many times have we waited at a junction when nothing is happening? No cars are moving, no pedestrians are crossing. Nothing. Just wasted time, adding to our frustrations. So we will bag over some traffic lights and then enhance the junctions with some mini-roundabouts, give-way signs and zebra crossings. This will allow a more constant flow of traffic and pedestrians. We’ll still need traffic lights on the really busy junctions, particularly on the main roads. So to start with, we’ve selected some junctions on busy roads, though not the main roads.
Obviously we can’t do any of this without ensuring that pedestrians can cross the roads safely. So the changes will be sensitive to that. We’ll install some zebra crossings and pelican crossings or move others to a better place.
Some of these schemes, at some junctions, may not work, so the changes will be done initially as experiments. If they work they’ll stay, if they don’t they’ll go.
- Councillor David Millican, Ealing Council, 20/05/2009 09:15
Report abuse
I live in a highly residential area in Bermondsey (Jamaica Road) where TFL removed a round-about because it was too big for HGV's - instead of putting in a new smaller round-about they put in a total of 12 traffic lights! They never consulted anyone about it and the lights phasing seems unmanaged judging by the time of the red lights on the busy road compared to the quieter roads. Before the lights I could look my window in the middle of the night and the road would be virtually empty, now when I look out there is always a long stream of cars revving their engines and waiting for the red lights to change even though the road in front in front is clear. It's madness.
- Mc, London, 19/05/2009 23:24
Report abuse
This theory of shared space might be fine, but maybe in the Netherlands they don't have that many black cabs, white van men and illegal, uninsured immigrant drivers to contend with.
- Robert C, London UK, 19/05/2009 21:40
Report abuse
The powers that be want as much congestion as they can get. That's why the lights are phased the way they are, and roads are being narrowed. Who cares about the pollution this causes?
- Ted, London, 19/05/2009 16:18
Report abuse
As a driver in London there is no chance of improving the roads in the capital. I cannot think of a single instance in the last 20 years where the road planners TFL , the council and anybody else for that matter who have made the roads safer, quicker and more manageable for all.
The problem is that the people in charge of our roads do not use them, they have no idea of the frustrations we have to put up with everyday by their actions.
Its not just the roads, property developers need to be banned from building at all intersections where the roads are just not wide enough to enable free traffic flow, all around the capital now, buildings are going up with no thought whatsoever for the problems they create in clogging up the arteries of the capital.
Ask the people who use the roads, the bus drivers the black cabs the van drivers the shopkeepers and the pedestrians who live in the city what they want not a bunch of boo ro crats who dont.
- Mr S.Port, London, 19/05/2009 15:49
Report abuse
When I lived in Hong kong, they did a survey of why the place was seizing up with traffic. There were three key findings:
1. 30% of traffic was due to drivers cruising, looking for non-existent parking;
2. 25% of traffic was caused by lanes being blocked due to loading/unloading of merchandise or pick-up/discharge of passengers;
3. 20% of traffic was caused by vehicles too large for the confined spaces.
UK planning laws forbid the provision of private parking in new buildings and restrict loading bays.
Traffic moving smoothly produces less pollution and providing off-street parking would reduce congestion by removing vehicles. Following the example of Washington DC where articulated trucks are banned and merchandise has to be decanted into smaller vehicles for delivery within the beltway, would make a major contribution to London's traffic flow. It would also probably improve the mood of drivers and make it less stressful for everyone, even cyclists. Then we would all feel good about "naked streets".
- Iceman, Jersey, Channel Islands, 19/05/2009 13:59
Report abuse
The Dutch model is all very well... for Holland. However, over there you have a choice. You can drive down a "shared use" street at a snail's pace, but there is usually the option of getting somewhere using an alternative road and at a normal speed. Dutch towns have mostly been designed with this in mind.
However, London's streets have grown organically since the 1600s and very little design has been applied. There is simply not the room to have a shared space and an alternative. It is one or the other.
I like the idea of re-phasing or removing traffic lights though. There are about 50-60 sets in the five miles between Clapham Common and London Bridge. This does not help traffic flow smoothly at all and is a throwback to Livingstone's era when he believed that it was more important for pedestrians to walk in an unhindered manner than for vehicles to move similarly.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland, 19/05/2009 12:14
Report abuse
If you look at aerial photographs of London traffic or ride through town on a motorbike it is clear that most of the roads are empty most of them time: traffic moves along in bunches separated by quite wide gaps and this bunching effect is caused by traffic lights.
I entirely disagree with the poster who claims that "roads are not community areas"--who does he think all those shops, post offices and public libraries are for? Brixton has made a great step forward by doing away with pedestian barriers, with no ill-effects so far. I'd be very wary of getting rid of kerbs--I'd be more worried about cyclists than cars, to be frank--but who knows?
- Mickgj, London, 19/05/2009 11:38
Report abuse
Mr Morgan, there is a difference between the streets of central London and major traffic arteries to get you from A to B. See the AA's website for information on traffic speeds, if you were able to travel at an average of 20mph in London you would be doing very well indeed!
'The average traffic speed across London is 16.9mph. But during peak periods in central London this slows to just 10mph1 – the same speed as horse-drawn carriages a century ago.' - AA website
The use of shared space is about creating places for people, not just car dominated roads. We are not talking about the M25, these are shopping, business and residential locations. Traffic can potentially move quicker overall, but not at the expense of other road users. The space gained can be used for pavement cafes, trees and parking increasing the activity, enjoyment and air quality for all... as well as getting you from A to B that little bit quicker.
- James, London, UK, 19/05/2009 11:17
Report abuse
'Naked streets' works OK in some parts of the Netherlands but they have a different insurance and legal standpoint: because a motor vehicle causes more potential damage, the burden of proof in a car/ped or car/bike accident is on the driver. Here, given the sort of virulent anti-cyclist rhetoric hurled at comments columns such as this, and the sort of pro-driver bias in virtually any legal situation, 'naked streets' would be a disaster for pedestrians and cyclists.
Mr Morgan, I can assure you that it's not cycles that hold up motor traffic. Motor traffic holds up motor traffic. Try cycling across central London - you'll get there much quicker.
- Rob, London, UK, 19/05/2009 10:19
Report abuse
The point of a road is to get you from A to B ideally as quickly as possible. It's not an adventure playground, a community area etc, it's a transport conduit to get people to their destinations. Segregating slow and fast traffic makes sense, it might not please the pc brigade with their wolly ideas that will get us nowhere, but people need to get to work and the longer they waste in 20mph limits and being stuck behind cyclists the longer it takes.
- H Morgan, London, 19/05/2009 09:32
Report abuse
Ah, but this would result in the dismissal of regiments of street planners and traffic light maintenance engineers which would impact the the mini-fiefdoms that exist in town halls.
Do you really see them sacking council staff and adopting common sense? It goes against the grain. These people work for themselves while claiming to work for the public.
- George, London, 19/05/2009 09:30
Report abuse
