Gallows Corner is in the news again with the threat that its owner, Transport for London, may have to close it because of a lack of funds due the impacts of Covid-19. Almost predictably, local politicians jump on the “we need to sort Gallows Corner out” bandwagon and all nuance is lost.
There are two things about Gallows Corner which come up and that’s general road safety and the flyover. Let’s take the second first as it’s in the news. TfL’s finances have been hit by Covid-19 and the latest drama is around TfL telling the Government that if support funding isn’t provided when the current support fund expires on 11th December. This means that a programme of “managed decline” will be initiated which could see TfL assets essentially mothballed and renewal projects shelved. The loss of TfL’s revenue support grant under Mayor Johnson might be a key point in the story which made the organisation financially at risk to something like Covid-19.
A scheme to replace the 1970s temporary flyover was suggested in 2018 where potentially £50m was made available for the Department for Transport, subject to TfL submitting a business case for it. It is very unusual for the DfT to fund individual schemes in London because generally, that’s a matter for TfL to prioritise, but in this case, political influence was brought to bear.
There are lots of ideas from lots of people who want to “sort out Gallows Corner” and pretty much all of them involved adding more motor traffic capacity with an extra flyover, an underpass (which completely ignores the fact that the River Ravensbourne passes beneath in a large culvert) or making the roundabout larger. It is very rare for discussions to cover the severance the junction creates for the communities around it or what the end-game might look like. Adding motor capacity simply induces more people to drive (often short trips) and creates more infrastructure that future generations will have to pay to maintain. In the long term, this cannot be sustainable, but politicians of all parties tend to see things like this as a one-time problem to solve until the same problems of congestion, pollution and road danger reappear a few years later.
So, what is the way forward here? Certainly, the existing flyover is coming close to the end of its serviceable life and a decision needs to be taken on whether it should be replaced. A new flyover would have to be designed to modern standards which includes the length of ramps and how it curves which in itself is a challenge in the space available. If such a scheme costs £50m to deliver, would this sum be better invested in measures to get local people out of their cars which would release capacity for those who really need them?
Gallows Corner also has a collision problem and although they are mostly involving slight injuries and shunts, it is people walking and cycling around and across the junction who come off far worse in terms of risk exposure. Since 1999, there have been 3 fatalities and 28 serious injuries in and around the junction. Of these, a third involved people walking and cycling. A new flyover wouldn’t necessarily address this toll and anyone who has walked and cycled around the junction knows just how hostile it is.
We need to talk about Gallows Corner, but the conversation needs to be around the future, sustainability and climate change because just doing the same thing again will lead to the same outcomes. We realise that government finance doesn’t work like this, but £50m invested in Havering’s street network in line with our asks would be utterly transformational and visionary.
Better Streets for Havering 