Agenda item

Representatives from TfL to be heard.

The Chairman welcomed Stuart Reid, Interim Director of Vision Zero at Transport for London (TfL), stating that he was very grateful to have someone of this calibre present today to address the Committee. He added that he would like to thank Mr Reid for the open dialogue that he had helped to facilitate on Ludgate Circus.

Mr Reid began by praising the strong collaborative partnership between TfL and the City Corporation on this work and spoke of plans to introduce more significant/bold improvements to the junction going forward. Mr Reid’s presentation to the Committee covered the following points:

·         Vision Zero – Targets – Mr Reid spoke on short, medium and longer term targets as well as bus casualty targets;

·         Rationale for the current design at Ludgate Circus;

·         Finding the right safety solution - reducing waiting time for pedestrians as much as possible as well as changing signal timings to encourage pedestrians to cross safely;

·         Proposals to improve road safety at Ludgate Circus - restricting turning movements Southbound from Ludgate Hill and at Fleet Street which would provide an additional 30-35 seconds crossing time for some pedestrians. Mr Reid commented that a surprisingly small number of vehicles were currently making this turn, even at peak times, and that it was therefore felt that this traffic could be re-routed via

Queen Victoria Street where it was felt that the impact would be acceptable. There were also proposals around removing east-west movements turning south into New Bridge Street. It was reported that one night bus route currently took this turn and that this route would be retained. Members were informed that thought was now being given as to how these proposals might be enforced with the potential use of CCTV under consideration.;

·         Timescales for delivery of the new proposals – Mr Reid reported that new signal timings were currently at design stage. It was hoped that this work would conclude in approximately 3 months time.

The Transportation and Public Realm Director added his thanks to Stuart Reid for presenting a solution to a significant problem aimed at improving safety at the junction for pedestrians. He praised TfL’s positive response to the issue and highlighted that any solution was likely to be difficult given that this was one of London’s busiest junctions. He highlighted the fact that work to introduce improvements here had been accelerated to be implemented within the next three months and commended this solution to the Committee.

Members were invited to pose questions.

A Member thanked Mr Reid for an excellent piece of work which placed pedestrians as ‘number one’’ in the hierarchy of users of the junction. He went on to question how the additional 30-35 seconds of pedestrian crossing time would be allocated and whether it would equate to the ‘green man’ simply being illuminated for this much longer. Mr Reid stated that he believed that pedestrians would actually be provided with additional opportunities to cross at the junction, with the aggregate of this being an additional 30-35 seconds of crossing time.

Another Member referred to proposals to prohibit two of the turns and questioned whether this would be applicable to bicycles as well as cars. He welcomed the proposals but expressed concern that these appeared to be a little slow in coming forward. He added that it was already well known that pedestrians were the predominant users of the junction and that it should be made safe for pedestrians of all ages and mobility. With this in mind, he questioned if consideration might also be given to introducing countdown timers for the crossing going forward. The Member also highlighted that he felt that a huge problem here was the inflexibility of the existing cycle route, something which TfL themselves had now recognised was ill-judged. The Member concluded by stating that he was unsure that moving the central crossing was a good idea as many struggled with the length and size of this. He urged that the crossing be made much simpler, clearer and more pedestrian friendly and questioned why this had not been the key aim all along.

The Chairman clarified that the idea of introducing islands in the middle of the crossing had been explored but that this idea had been discounted as unworkable due to the fact that it was likely to result in a large number of pedestrians congregating/penned in to the middle of the highway. The Member responded that, at present, high volumes of pedestrians were congregating on a narrow kerb. He emphasised that a reduction in waiting time should therefore be another key aim.

Mr Reid responded that prohibited turns would apply to all vehicles with the exception of the night bus route referred to which would continue to take the turn at certain times of the day only. He stated that he would seek to discuss the idea of introducing a countdown to the crossing back to engineers. He reiterated the Chairman’s point that introducing central islands to the crossing had been looked at alongside the City Corporation but that the conclusion had been that the volume of pedestrians was such that this would not be able to be safely accommodated. It was felt that the pavement was a safer place to congregate and that additional crossing time should go some way to improving the volume of pedestrians doing so at any one time.

The Chairman clarified that one of the arms of the crossing did already have a countdown timer.

Another Member commented that 22 years to achieve ‘Vision Zero’ did not appear to be overly ambitious. He went on to state that there appeared to be a lack of ambition around the proposals as a whole and questioned why there were not proposals to raise the surface of the road to cater for pedestrians as priority users. Finally, he questioned the re-routing of traffic via Queen Victoria Street and sought some reassurance as to how this would work in practice.

Mr Reid agreed with the desire to progress more rapidly towards Vision Zero and highlighted that significant progress had already been made in recent years in terms of the number of deaths/serious injuries on London’s roads. He highlighted that there were some ‘quick wins’ that could be implemented and that if Vision Zero could be achieved ahead of 2041 it certainly would be. He went on, however, to highlight the need to be realistic and the fact that there were other contributors towards achieving targets – not least achieving a change in the mindset of pedestrians and other road users.

With regard to the suggestion of raising the surface of the junction, Mr Reid highlighted that the volume of traffic here was such that this measure could be problematic. He added that this proposal was not, however, to be ruled out in the longer term whilst more immediate, rapid improvements were sought. He reassured the Committee that the implementation of any improvements would be carefully monitored with further measures introduced as required.

Mr Reid reported that the Signal Team had carried out an analysis of the prohibited turns and concluded that surprisingly few vehicles made these turns. Diverting via Queen Victoria Street was felt to be the optimum route as traffic flows here were relatively low. He assured the Committee that the consequences of this would be monitored.

The Chairman stated that it was clear that pedestrian safety ranked above traffic flow at this junction and that all parties seemed to be in agreement on this point. He went on to articulate that his view was that the proposals put to the Committee represented a major intervention at this dangerous junction, more so than some of those improvements mentioned that were more visual. He added, however, that it was important to note that these were not to be totally discounted going forward.

A Member cautioned that this project should not be viewed in isolation and questioned the knock-on effects of the proposals around things such as air quality in the area and whether this would be monitored in any way.

Another Member questioned the shorter term, interim targets around Vision Zero were currently on track in terms of achieving a 65% reduction in those killed or seriously injured (KSIs) by 2022 against the 2005-09 baseline. He added that he also had some concerns as to how the prohibited turns would be enforced, particularly in relation to cyclists.

Mr Reid responded to each question in turn, by first highlighting that the ‘knock-on’ effects of the proposals at the junction had been examined in terms of traffic flow so that Officers were confident that it would be possible to proceed without substantial impact on the surrounding area. In terms of the wider management of the area, signalling would have two layers of control, the first being SCOOT (an automated system to detect queue lengths with parameters set within which SCOOT could operate to optimise use/flow for each signal) and the second being the ability to take over signalling centrally at TfL’s Control Centre  if necessary. The Traffic Centre was manned around the clock, 365 days per year.

With specific regard to air quality, Mr Reid stated that, as the proposals concerned low flows of traffic, it was not anticipated that there would be any specific impact. Mr Reid underlined that Air Quality remained a significant priority for TfL and the City Corporation alike.

In terms of progress towards Vision Zero, Mr Reid reported that there had been a multi-pillared approach to this in terms of safe speeds, safe streets and safe vehicles. He added that the aim was to introduce 20mph speed limits on all TfL roads by 2020 with all new bus vehicles fitted with intelligent speed limiters. It was noted that this was also likely to have a positive ‘pacing’ effect on general traffic in areas where there were a lot of buses. Safer Streets involved work around the education of cyclists, drivers and pedestrians with the introduction of a schools education programme also included. The final pillar centred around safe vehicles and the introduction of things such as auto breaking – a technology that it was expected would be rolled out more widely going forward.

A Member highlighted that the need to keep London moving also needed to be a consideration here. Mr Reid highlighted that the need to keep London moving was a statutory duty of TfL’s but highlighted that pedestrians were also very much part of that obligation.

Another Member questioned whether jay walking was likely to be addressed as part of the education of pedestrians. Mr Reid stated that he would not be keen to criminalise pedestrians in any way given that the objective for many organisations was to encourage movement around London on foot.

In terms of the wider area, a Member referred to traffic currently turning right from Fleet Street through Whitefriar’s Street. He stated that this resulted in 50% of traffic ‘rat racing’ here at present and that he had previously asked that this matter be addressed/enforced with the use of ANPR cameras. Mr Reid stated that he had not been made aware of the issue previously but was happy to discuss this matter with the Police going forward.

Some Members questioned whether it was necessary to ban both turns as suggested and whether the turns might be permitted at certain times of the day only. Mr Reid responded that it was felt necessary to ban both turns given that it was a straight ahead crossing. In terms of allowing the turns at certain times, Mr Reid stated that, at the outset, for simplicity, it was felt that it was preferable to be unambiguous although this option could be explored on an experimental basis alongside the City Corporation going forward with the turns permitted off-peak, for example.

The Chairman, on behalf of the Committee, thanked Mr Reid for a welcome, interesting and informative presentation. He informed Members that progress on work in the area as well as the monitoring of this would be shared with this Committee at appropriate intervals going forward.