Forum topic: Anti-cycle lane campaigners strike a negative note

Hot off the (mostly digital) presses comes the "Guide to the Cycle Enfield Public Consultation on the A105 (Green Lanes) Cycle Corridor", produced by a group of people opposed to the planned cycle lanes along the Enfield Town-Palmers Green main road.

While some of the detailed comments are valid, taken as a whole the document is alarmist, unbalanced and wholly negative.

Alarmist, because its predictions of negative consequences are greatly exaggerated. Unbalanced, because it makes no attempt to describe or analyse the arguments in favour of cycle lanes. Wholly negative, because from start to finish the "Guide" is nothing but a string of complaints without a single suggestion for any improvements. The inference is that everything is perfect as it is, no change required.

Why the "Guide" is alarmist

Road capacity

The real reduction in throughput capacity for motor vehicles is much smaller than would appear at first glance because currently much road width is not used. There may be theoretically room for two lanes in each direction at the moment, but in practice there is only single-lane traffic except where there are bus lanes or at the approach to junctions. The engineers know what current traffic levels are and have designed with this is mind.

Reducing road space for cars has also been shown to lead to "traffic evaporation", as described in this article from the Londonist .

Delays at bus stops

Yes, cars will be held up behind buses at stops, but the delays are unlikely to be significant. Following the abolition of cash fares bus dwell time at stops is now very short - and will be shorter still because buses won't have to wait for overtaking cars to allow them to pull out, which currently delays buses. Bus average speeds are much higher than they once were, and car drivers shouldn't expect to be going any faster than buses in a densely populated urban area.

Air pollution

Cars stuck in queues obviously do add to air pollution, but another major factor increasing emissions is the practice of accelerating excessively for short distances and then having to brake - when it is perfectly obvious that they are going to have to slow down almost immediately. The discipline imposed by narrower roads will hopefully result in drivers all travelling at the same consistent speed - 20mph would be good - and not repeatedly accelerating and braking (saves fuel too).

And, of course, an important objective of the scheme is to reduce the amount of car driving by making it slightly less convenient to drive and much safer and pleasanter to cycle or walk.

If the authors were really concerned about air pollution they would be calling for some tough anti-car measures!

The effect on businesses

The assumption that reduced on-street parking and other changes will negatively impact businesses is based on a simplistic understanding of a very complex phenomenon - human behaviour. Several studies have shown that reducing car usage along shopping streets can actually have the reverse effect (see the earlier quote). The scheme will undoubtedly bring some changes in shopping patterns, but this is something that happens all the time anyway and businesses need to be constantly adapting to changing circumstances.

"Priority is given to cyclists with almost no thought given to other road users, pedestrians or motorists".

Given the changes that have already been introduced to bring back some on-street parking, this is a laughable assertion. But it also ocmpletely misses the point of Cycle Enfield. It's true that the scheme is primarily aimed at improving conditions for people riding bikes - obviously. But 100% of people using Green Lanes will benefit from reduced air and noise pollution, the NHS won't have to treat so many people suffering from the consequences of lack of exercise and a sedentary lifestyle or treat so many victims of accidents caused by speeding drivers.

The positive aspects that the "Guide" ignores

At no point does the "Guide" even mention the objectives behind Cycle Enfield, not even to criticise them or to argue that, while they can see what the Council is trying to do, they consider that the disbenefits that it would bring outweigh any benefits. If anyone can be accused of focussing their priorities too narrowly, it is the anti-cycle lanes lobby.

The positive ideas that have prompted the cycle lanes scheme are: a desire to provide a pleasanter environment in Green Lanes - less noise, less pollution, slower traffic; a reduction in car usage - key to improving air quality and other factors impacting on health; and enabling people to travel by bike in a safer and pleasanter environment. It's completely unjust that people using the most benign mode of transport are those who are exposed to the most dangerous and unpleasant conditions. Along major roads segregated cycle lanes are the only realistic way to achieve the required level of safety.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that putting right the injustices that have befallen bicycle riders will inevitably require other road users to make some adjustments - perhaps park in a different place, sometimes choose not to drive, but walk or cycle or catch the bus. My personal sympathies are particularly with pedestrians and bus users, who also belong in the "benign" category. I hope that the traffic engineers will carefully consider the valid points that the Guide makes about crossings and bus stops - I shall be making many of the same points myself - and will be able to do some redesign work allowing them to restore some of them. But I recognise that the engineers can't put a quart in a pint pot and that sometimes it won't be possible. But civilising our streets will require everyone to respect amd pay more heed to the needs of other users - and that definitely includes inconsiderate high-speed cyclists, especially when they are using bus-stop bypasses.

The "Guide to the A105" can be downloaded from drive.google.com/file/d/0B6ALBbxYFMmnMTUxZFRQZ1F0dzA/view

Thank you for this thoughtful response, having reviewed the plan myself I couldn't agree more- it isn't perfect and needs some refinement but that is no reason to oppose the entire project , which could ultimately make the area more pleasant to live in.

A couple of points that support the arguments in my original piece:

1. Evidence that cycle lanes and parking restrictions can boost shopping

• Tim Warin sent me a link to this article .

2. Do buses delay cars or cars delay buses?

• This afternoon I was on a bus from Enfield Town to Palmers Green when the driver had to stop for several minutes in Winchmore Hill. He explained that he was running ahead of schedule "because there isn't as much traffic as usual to hold me up".

I've just been truly amazed for the first time in the Cycle Enfield discussions.

Happened when I was picking up an asthma prescription for my son – air pollution reduces lung function and worsens the symptoms of asthma, but that is incidental.

What I couldn’t understand was given so much medical sector inspired press that lethargy is a major cause of illness (latest that it is apparently worse than obesity); that we are all being forever encouraged to be more active with the likes of fastish walking and cycling to stave off ill health for as long as possible; and at least one major informing medical committee in London had pushed for a much more aggressive GLA cycling target than we now face based on health grounds, why was one of our core health outlets advocating the return of all Enfield’s Mini Holland money - one of London’s flagship cycling transformation projects?

Staff looked really embarrassed when asked, blamed the boss who looked just as embarrassed before muttering about businesses in the high street being affected, he wouldn’t be but was just seeking to raise awareness. Of what it wasn’t clear, faster death perhaps, before he stuck his head deep under the counter. Talk about mixed heath messages.

What on earth is going on with all this – am I being blind to something? I would hate to be on the wrong side of common sense.

On a positive note Chase Farm Hospital actually want the cycle tracks to be continued along the Ridgeway. It is too bad that this was bizarrely met with laughter at the Burrowes meetings.

Basil. Please note, Karl is asking a question on which I am giving an opinion, so please don't remove.

Karl Brown asks?

"What on earth is going on with all this – am I being blind to something? I would hate to be on the wrong side of common sense. "

Firstly. You may not be aware that the causes of asthma are unknown (see NHS website). What triggers your son's? For me it is pollen, not vehicle emissions. But I don't go around calling for the destruction of trees. I actually like trees and want more of them, even if they don't seem to like me.

Secondly, Enfield Council has still not carried out an air quality assessment of the likely impact of the cycle superhighway. Though, if as seems likely, the scheme causes more traffic congestion, surely air quality will get worse. This would indeed put you on the wrong side of common sense. in the not too distant future(setting aside the latest VW scandal please) all new cars will be zero emission.They will also be equipped with sensors and computers that will prevent collisions.

By the way. the many bike stands were lonely and unloved in in Walthamstow Village this evening. The new paving attractive enough. But you don't need bike lanes to get that done. But this is the nice bit of Walthamstow Mini-Holland. Cycle superhighways down the Lea Bridge Road and Forest Road Won't be nice.

And if you still like the idea of them have a look at this short video of what there is in Whitechapel:

Heartening to see health professionals focusing on positive health outcomes but why that’s funny I can’t possibly imagine.

On asthma, I’m not aware of any causal link with air pollution, what I said was “air pollution reduces lung function and worsens the symptoms of asthma”. That is known, or at least I believe the source, in this case direct from Frank Kelly
He basically is a (the?) top scientist running the main medical committee considering UK air quality effects and runs a team of about 40 managing HMG’s air quality monitoring and resultings. Go and meet him, he’s at Kings. You may be surprised at what is coming down the tracks into the public domain in this space.

Same as I’m happy to believe the WHO when they categorize diesel engine exhaust as a Group 1 (ie the top / worst) carcinogenic to humans.

All the research needed is available and much published – and much Evidenced - in such as earlier London Plan formulations and I dare say in preparing the NPPF. LBE don’t need to do more, they are now part of UK wide implementation based on the results.

I think if a substantial spectrum of plans, reports, research and the, like saw cycling as increasing air quality issues the world wouldn’t be heading down such a track- second biggest public health issue in the UK already, with more adverse data (issues) to come. The latest attributable figures are c50,000 UK deaths, (1 in 9), every year. Same as if there was any possibility of all cars being no emission cars in the planning future. Just where is this one documented? All planners and the likes of the Stock Markets worldwide have missed it. All combustion produces NOX which will convert to NO2s in the atmosphere and don’t say fuel cells.

The data really is clear. Cars will continue and be the dominant form of point to point transport for a considerable period. The evidence suggests there will simply be too many of them for space available so some transfer to other transport means needs to be made. Crossrail for instance. Those able to do other than drive the 1-2km sort of very short journeys are being addressed by cycling. Many other benefits, such as better direct health through fitness and less resulting air pollution follow. That’s all known and stated. The issues for each of us then becomes where we stand on common sense.

(Prof Kelly leads a substantial research activity which spans all aspects of air pollution research from toxicology to science policy. He is Director of the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit on Environmental Hazards and Deputy Director of the MRC-PHE Centre for Environment & Health. He has led studies of the urban airshed within London including the impact of the introduction of London’s Congestion Charging Zone and Low Emission Zone.
Prof Kelly has published over 280 peer-reviewed papers as well as many conference papers and books (as author or editor) on the toxicology and health effects of ozone, nitrogen dioxide and particulate pollution. In addition to his academic work Frank is past President of the European Society for Free Radical Research and past Chairman of the British Association for Lung Research. He is also involved with providing policy support to the WHO on air pollution issues and he is Chairman of COMEAP the Department of Health’s Expert Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution.)