Traffic impacts on Bishopsgate, flowing from the Bank on Safety scheme – Question from Shravan Joshi received inadvance of the meeting
The monitoring area falls short of Bishopsgate, yet we are seeing accidents at most of the Bishopsgate junctions and the congestion and air quality certainly feels worse (sorry, but without quantitative data, I can only offer personal observation!). I understand that Bishopsgate as a road is outside of our direct control, but we must engage with TfL for the greater good of The City.
There is some traffic collision data on the TfL website from 2016:
4 serious collisions on the junction of Wormwood St and Bishopsgate
4 serious collisions on the corner of Brushfield St and Bishopsgate
2 serious collisions on the corner of Primrose St and Bishopsgate
1 serious collision outside Liverpool St station on Bishopsgate
2015 had a total of 24 and 2014 had a total of 26 serious collisions on the junctions crossing Bishopsgate.
Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find data to see whether this has improved in the past two years.
I do support the Bank on Safety scheme but would ask if plans can be made, sooner rather than later, to look at the wider traffic impact and how the Eastern Cluster, as it is presently called, could be made a priority for the next phase of such safety schemes?
The modelling and data captured shows that the impact from the Bank scheme on the Bishopsgate corridor has been neutral, but these emergency works have closed four arms of this major junction, and had an undoubted impact on the A10 corridor as a result. In particular, southbound traffic has been severely affected because irrespective of the Bank scheme, this is currently the only effective way to reach London Bridge.
The Bank scheme has been temporarily amended to facilitate alternative routes for some of the traffic diverted by the closure, but this too has been hampered in recent days by further emergency gas work in Cornhill.
I infer from your question that having tackled Bank, you would like the City to put its effort into making the Bishopsgate corridor safer, nicer and more efficient. Bishopsgate is dangerous. 16% of all serious casualties within the City occur on the Bishopsgate corridor; which is only 3% of the highway network within the City.
We can influence action but, as you acknowledge, Transport for London are the highway authority for the corridor and it is ultimately their responsibility to make changes. The good news is that we are continuing to enhance our relationship with the Greater London Authority and Transport for London around strategic plans for transport within the City and the delivery of radical projects. Indeed, we have considered reports on this matter at Committee today; both on the Transport Strategy and the Eastern City Cluster. Changing Bishopsgate will flow from the Transport Strategy and can then also enable the delivery of a radical ambition for the cluster.
A Member asked if there was now some doubt regarding the data presented at the recent presentation breakfast given that the Bank report had been deferred to a later meeting.
Officers advised that they now had more up to date data which would need to be evaluated before presentation to the Committee.
A member raised the issue of the inconsiderate use of signage used by contractors undertaking works across the city which often obstructed the pavements and asked why the signs could not be tailored to CoL streets which were often very narrow.
Officers agreed to take this up with contractors.