Sustainable Transport in Barking

And Surrounding Areas

Views

28 May 2005 – Heathway and The Mall – viability

With the news that WH Smith is to close its branch at Dagenham Heathway came happier – perhaps – news of B&D council’s plans to pep up the area. What should they do – if anything – and will it succeed?

The car, I argue, was the first nail in the coffin of traditional high street retailing. For Heathway, an issue is the draw of Asda (at Chequers corner) with its free (I think) car parking. Those without cars have to catch a bus, the inference being they don’t much like that. No-one is doing much to attract non car shoppers and the view of many people seems to be that Heathway has to compete on the basis of attracting more cars.

The purchase of a car entails fixed costs. Either you pay for it up front or you pay back a loan each month for a few years, but the point is that you pay that whether you use the car or not. Other fixed costs are insurance (with very few honourable exceptions), residential parking permits and the MOT test. These you pay no matter how much or little you drive the car. The additional cost of actually using the car is comparatively small. The retail sector knows this and has abdicated the responsibility of the last link in the distributing chain (to the local shop) to the customer, who (typically) drives to what is basically a warehouse. Offers like BOGOF (buy one get one free) persuade the shopper to take the supermarket’s stock off its shelves and put in their own cupboard or fridge. All this is backed up by heavy selling of cars – usually with a glamorous pitch – sometimes with a practicality pitch in the case of small cars.

Even if we accept for the sake of an argument that motorists are paying, somewhere along the line, all the costs of motoring, why are these costs “front end loaded”? Wouldn’t it make more sense if the cost were per mile driven or - better still - per kg of C02 exhausted? Then people would think twice about driving and local shops would become more viable and attractive. This would benefit those who do not have cars and suddenly we hit a virtuous circle: There’s less use of cars and less need to own one – more people can walk and cycle and there’s more space for buses – and with ridership up the cost falls. With fewer cars there’s less need for parking and more space for more useful things – including places to live for the customers of the vibrant local parade.

The second nail in the coffin of traditional retailing is  - or is becoming - the internet. For large purchases, the web gives access to the best prices in seconds – prices with which others must compete. OK, you would have to pay for delivery, but if you haven’t got a car that can cost in, and if your car isn’t big enough to put the item in you’d have to pay it anyway. Even for small items the internet is invaluable. Why scour a bookshop or a record shop for an item you know you want when an online retailer will make it easy for you to locate, and send it to you at home?

OK, for some the internet is out of reach, but broadband is growing rapidly and the technology will improve to make it easier to use. There are dozens of internet connections available to the public to accompany the growing number of home connections.

Where does this leave the local parade?  Well more and more stock will be held in distribution centres ready to be ordered on line and delivered. Local parades will become more like showrooms. Then there would be restaurant, bars and cafes – social places where people will always want to go – you can’t send “atmosphere” over the internet. Then there might be small specialist shops on the principle that there are many things people want to see before they buy. This might apply to some take home food where freshness is an issue.

In this model, the local parade becomes more a place that people want to go rather than have to go. Therefore making it visually attractive is important. B&D’s plans for more trees at Heathway make sense. For traditional parades, trying to compete with edge of town outlets on parking capacity is folly – compete on character, quality, and liveability.

Here’s a scenario. Mrs Jones goes out on her bicycle first thing Saturday morning. She chooses one of the many cafés – parking her bike easily nearby and orders her breakfast. While she’s waiting, she can use a wireless-connected computer to order her groceries on line. This facility is funded by a supermarket that wants Mrs Jones to buy its products, the council that wants Mrs Jones to be able to use computers and the café that wants Mrs Jones’ custom.  Staff are available to help Mrs Jones – but she finds more and more she’s getting used to the computer.

A service based economy underpinned with electronic communications is what’s needed for Heathway.

Local Transport 2003/04

Thanks to the Barking & Dagenham Post (23/10/02) for the information.

B&D “will receive … £3.65 million to carry out a range of local transport projects …”. This is for 2003/04. Ken Livingstone said, “Most travel in London is still local, with well over half of all trips under 3.5 miles. This funding is designed to improve the quality, safety and reliability of those trips for Londoners, whether they are driving, catching a bus, walking or using their bike. The money will fund a wide range of programmes, including road safety, road maintenance, cycling, and safer travel for school children. These schemes have been put forward by Barking & Dagenham Council, who are best placed to identify local people’s transport needs.”

The point that most journeys are less than 3.5 miles is worth commenting on. First, journeys of that length are readily cyclable by many people.  When one makes that point in campaigning, someone inevitably responds that they personally would not or could not, entirely missing the point that it doesn’t have to be everyone for all journeys to make an impact. The proportion of journeys cycled is far higher in many cities in mainland Europe (and in the UK) than in London, even though those cities have similar climate and terrain. This very powerful point hasn’t quite got home to the “impossiblist” contingent yet. If we could get a similarly high proportion of journeys cycled in London, we’d be making a start on easing congestion. And I haven’t even mentioned the environment.

The last point made by Ken (above) may “raise the eyebrows” of those who know B&D’s record with cycling. Local people’s transport needs are likely to be equated with what they ask for – their wants – and the car lobby is the most vocal. If you have, as B&D does, a policy of increasing levels of cycling, it follows that you must change the built environment so that people can store, park, and ride bicycles at ease. Otherwise you are left with just exhortation. People who are immersed in car culture obviously won’t demand these improvements, yet they are clearly necessary. Where the town centre in Barking (as an example), has improved in this respect, it is mainly if not entirely as a result of intense campaigning, rather than council action. On an engineering level, the cycle facilities along the relief road round Barking are very good, but little or no help to those wanting to go to the town centre to “attend to their personal business” or catch a train.

I don’t know what specific proposals B&D has put forward – but they surely must include some cycling schemes – I suspect based on previous LCN plans – but B&D still has some way to go before it “gets the idea” of sustainable local transport.

10th August 2002: Why should drivers pay when it's the cyclists' fault?

Let's say for the sake of an argument that the European directive making motorists always liable in collisions is unfair. The point is, what would happen if it were enforced? Opponents would have us believe that cyclists would practically run riot and pay no heed to the law whatsoever. Car drivers, fearful of hitting a cyclist or pedestrian would drive more cautiously, therefore slowly, and thereby reduce the number and severity of collisions. Thus the end apparently justifies the means.

Anyway, I find it hard to believe that, because the motorist is liable, cyclists will recklessly put themselves in danger from motor vehicles. The fact that the motorist is liable does not balance out the effect of being killed or seriously injured.

A natural extension of this ruling is that cyclists would automatically be liable in the event of a collision with a pedestrian. Somehow I think that will be more popular, though in my last collision with a pedestrian I came off by far the worst. I was 'de-biked' and rolling down Green Lanes listening to the still upright pedestrian saying "sorry mate". Neither of us was seriously hurt. Though I blame the pedestrian for stepping out without looking, I still wouldn't wish injury on him because it was his "fault". He made a stupid mistake.

In conversations about the directive, this is the attitude I find chilling: If as a cyclist I am in collision with a car, I will come off worst. If it were the driver's fault, then presumably s/he would accept liability. If it were my fault - a mistake, say - I still come off worst, but my mistake is punished severely if I am injured. This punishment does not fit the crime.

These two scenarios seem to me to be the most likely. The reckless cyclist inflamed by his/her freedom from liability riding around causing collisions right left and centre does not seem to me to be a likely scenario at all.

 

24th November 2001: Model solution to road chaos

So runs the headline to the Barking & Dagenham Post's report (21/11) of a topic at the recent Abbey, Gascoigne & Thames [wards] Community Forum, but it is optimistic.

Technology can of course help improve the throughput of the road system, whether generally, or when road works change the normal patterns - the Volunteer flyover removal being a case in point. I have some doubt though, that any significant gains in throughput can be made by such methods. It is a tinkering with the edges of the problem.

Transport campaigners bring another solution to the table: traffic reduction. It is not taken too seriously, usually though. The aim would be achieved by (in no particular order): (a) Improved public transport; (b) "Modal shift" to cycling, stimulated by improved cycling facilities and reduced road danger; (c) Technology - advanced electronic communications reduce the need to travel; (d) Planning - services are provided nearer to where people need them.

Thames View Estate is a case in point. Quite a self-contained place, but suffering appalling severance because of the A13, all the worse with the current problems caused by the junction re-ordering.

The most obvious public transport improvement would be the building of the proposed new rail station at Box Lane. This would serve the growing community of Barking Reach as well as Thames View. Buses could link the two communities to the station without needing to cross the A13 en route.

There is major scope for improving cycling facilities throughout the borough and further afield, but one obvious step forward would be the use of the tunnel from Charlton Crescent to Alfred's Gardens. Although narrow, so that cyclists would have to give way to pedestrians, this tunnel is a vital link to a network of quiet roads either side of the A13.

I wonder how many people have to travel off the estate to use services that could be used electronically. Here is a golden opportunity, for example, for B&D to get a step change in its levels of electronic service delivery. Those who do not have the skills to use the electronics could be assisted in cyber cafes and libraries by those who do.

As for planning, town planning itself is rather long term, though no less important for that. Planning in its broader sense would include co-ordinating journeys onto and off the estate. Goods and services being brought to the people would involve far less traffic than the people going to the goods and services. I am sure there is scope.

The point is that the current suffering because of major road works brings into focus the ongoing problems of traffic growth. Solving or easing the particular problems here and now, is a valuable learning experience for other places in the future.

 

18th November 2001: Borough strives to meet its recycling targets by kerbside scheme

One of the archive films shown as part of Footprints In Time, B&D's weekend of events to launch its heritage strategy, showed what we would call a kerbside paper recycling scheme in operation in 1948.

Made for the then Borough of Barking, it showed the complete waste paper to new paper cycle. Paper/cardboard was shown being picked by hand from landfill (near Creekmouth) and transferred step by step into larger and larger containers until it was compressed and bound into large bales by a huge machine and taken to Thames Board Mills where it was made into new paper. A second stream of waste paper / cardboard was collected from outside homes and shops. The justification for this labour intensive operation was to save the shipping space occupied by [materials to make] new paper and aid the country's post WWII recovery. Figures were quoted for how much paper came into the borough and how much was recovered as waste. Citizens were requested to save "every scrap".

The beauty of the scheme was that it created work and largely - so it seemed - operated within the Barking Borough boundary. The philosophy of not wasting things was associated with wartime austerity, and it is easy to understand why society turned its back on this, allowing wastefulness in by the back door - a great pity.

 

11th October 2000: Dome Journey zone

I went to the Dome today. One of the best attractions, in my opinion, was the 'Journey' zone, (sponsored by Ford). The car giant was exhibiting an electric powered, largely recyclable "city car" there. Whoever wrote the accompanying text made a telling Freudian (?) slip: S/he said: "If only we all drove cars like this, what would it be like?" (Or similar). I thought -'absolutely grid-locked'. What s/he meant was "if only all cars were like this". Electric, recyclable cars go some way to addressing pollution concerns, but not concerns about road danger, energy conservation, congestion, car-dependency, out of town shopping, and the giving over of large, sometimes prime, spaces for parking.

 

September 2000 Petrol 'Strike'

Of course there is sympathy for those who couldn't make vital journeys for want of fuel during this strike, and some sympathy for those in rural areas who have no choice but to depend on private cars for their day to day transport * . But the effect of the strike has been positive in some senses in cities and large towns. Many people took to cycling or walking. Certainly some will continue to do this even after the petrol situation returns to normal. This means that the sustainable alternatives to the car for these journeys is, as we argue, very much possible. Every cloud, as they say, has a silver lining. Even a cloud of exhaust fumes.

* Presumably in areas where there is little by way of subsidised public transport, local taxation reflects this?

One subject I haven't heard or seen discussed at this time is "food miles". Bananas, for example, are docked at Southampton, then taken by road to Scotland for ripening, then taken back down south for storage and distribution. Similar absurdities apply to all kinds of other commodities. Tackling the rising cost of transport (in money and environmental terms) can be done by reducing the amount of transport needed. Eliminating "food miles" is just one way of doing this.

 

It seems basically fair that the cost of motoring be related directly to the amount of fuel used. At the moment, the fixed costs (the HP, road tax, MOT, Insurance, etc) far outweigh the variable costs (fuel, oil, wear and tear) meaning that the marginal cost per mile of driving is small compared to the overall cost. This encourages driving over short distances. If the cost were evenly spread per unit of fuel consumed, there would be complaints that this is unfair on rural communities. I don't believe that these communities have exhausted all possibilities of cutting fuel use, however. Perhaps the "polluter pays" principle will stimulate their imaginations and organisational skills.

 

In the Barking & Dagenham Post on 20th September 2000, it was reported that the Council managed to cut its fuel use by 30%. Admittedly, some 'essential' services may have suffered but I am quite sure some of this saving could be made permanent by the methods used in extremis (which included using foot, bicycles and mopeds instead of cars and vans).

 

Travelline

On the very same day the government announced this new service, I was trying to find out from the web how to get to Broxbourne council's offices in Cheshunt. The council's website was poor - just the main roads on one map and on the street map Cheshunt station was off the edge. Links to other websites allowed you to plan journeys at town-to-town level (even walking though I didn't try that option) but nowhere could I find how to get from Cheshunt station to the council offices (or anywhere in the stations catchment area).

Critical Mass

If you've ever ridden with a group of cyclists large enough to take command of the road you'll know the feeling of "Critical Mass". You feel dominant and you feel in control. This feeling can be experienced regularly at the London Critical Mass monthly ride. This is a protest, yes, but there's a carnival atmosphere as you take a gentle ride around London's sights without the noise and hassle of cars, buses and taxis. You really should try it.

The ride starts from the South Bank alongside Waterloo Bridge on the last Friday of every month at 6.30pm. If you can, go in costume, take a novelty bike or a novelty hooter. In June 2000, fifty people turned up dressed as Elvis!

 

 

... Arising from "Dr Bike" at the 1999 Barking Festival:

Keep your brakes properly adjusted. If you're not sure, get them professionally checked.

I can personally recommend Shimano Nexus 7 speed hub gears. There is also a four-speed version. Hub gears may be heavier than derailleur gears, but sealed away from the elements the mechanics stay clean and reliable and hardly ever need adjusting. The so-called disadvantage that you have to pause pedalling before changing gear is negligible the tiniest pause works. Also you have the major advantage of being able to change gear whilst stationary - this is brilliant in stop start traffic. Watch the derailleur riders "honk" (stand up to pedal) to move off in too high a gear and listen to their chains crunching around as they try to change down under heavy load.

Bikes in Parks

The news that LBB&D is to allow cycling in its parks and that three park rangers use bikes for their work is excellent. The change seems to be in the interpretation of Bylaw 3(1) - "No person shall without reasonable excuse ride ... a cycle in the ground" (My emphasis). The question is what is "reasonable excuse"? Further, B&D can use the 3(2) and "set apart a space in the ground for use by vehicles of any class". (The term "ground" refers to a list of Pleasure grounds, public walks and open spaces annexed to the bylaws).

Local Cycling Group

I am considering trying to form a local cycling group to press for better facilities for local cyclists. I already campaign for The London Cycling Campaign and The Cyclists' Touring Club and any members of those organizations who live in LB Barking & Dagenham could be members for free.

 

There may be others who don't want to pay the subscriptions to be in LCC or CTC, or may not feel they live in London, or are more interested in a very local group. For these I envisage a group with very low subs, possibly only to cover the cost of a (monthly?) newsletter.