Green Party Assembly member, Jenny Jones, has discovered that a large number of borough councils have raised concerns over the Mayor’s plans to remove some pedestrian lights across London. Most of the boroughs who responded to Jenny’s request for information do not yet have plans for consulting local people and some expressed surprise at the sites which have been chosen.
Only 20 of the traffic lights proposed for removal are on Transport for London roads controlled by the Mayor, with the final decision on the future of the remainder being split between London’s 33 local authorities. Here is a selection of quotes taken from the 23 letters from the boroughs which Jenny has so far received:
Kingston: "At that time it was made clear to TfL that this authority has no desire to maintain signals that no longer serve any traffic control purpose, but neither were we of the opinion that any of the listed sites fell within this category."
Hackney: "We also have concerns about the list of sites they have suggested and would not be able to support all of them."
Harrow: "Indeed two of the sites are puffin crossings installed as part of the LCN+ cycling programme only two years ago."
Southwark: "Two of the existing pelican crossings on the eastern extent of Tooley Street provide crossings opportunities to more vulnerable road users, in particular children…"
Havering: "Havering has safety concerns with all four sites and are waiting to discuss the matter with TfL."
Bexley: "We therefore have no immediate plans to remove these particular signals and so have not established the consultation schedule that you request."
Jenny Jones said:
"Some of these crossings are outside schools and medical facilities where children and the elderly will need them. The speed of traffic is being valued more highly than people’s safety. I am glad that local authorities are rejecting some of the Mayor’s suggestions and taking
the time to consult local people and the vulnerable about others.
"It seems ridiculous to be taking out crossings which have only been put in two years ago. A more sensible and cost effective approach would be to have a systematic review of whether traffic signals are worthwhile, when they are actually due up for renewal. There seems to have been a lack of clear communication between Transport for London and the boroughs."
ENDS