Forum topic: Waltham Forest residents (and businesses) are already benefiting from Mini-Holland

Some photographs of Orford Road in Walthamstow, showing how the Waltham Forest Mini-Holland scheme is transforming life for the better.

They look like artists impressions don't they. This is the reality:

Paul, what your pictures show is the reality of the transitional period, not what those streets will look like in the future. Road works inevitably cause problems while they're being carried out - what about the terrible traffic queues on the North Circ in Edmonton some years ago when the road was being widened? I don't suppose you objected to those road works, since when finished they allowed car drivers to go faster. The road closures will be good news for people living in those streets, which shouldn't have any through traffic.

And as for the picture of the bus stuck behind a parked car - it just shows how inconsiderate some car drivers are. If the car had stopped a little further on there would have been room for the bus to get past.

I don't think this road with only a single lane for traffic can be compared with Green Lanes which is a major thoroughfare from Wood Green to Enfield and is used as both a shopping and commuter route. It seems to me that the massive upheaval to many junctions, disappearance of bus lanes and bus stops, loss of pedestrian refuges in the road and loss of parking spaces far outweighs any benefits from having 2 continuous cycle lanes.

Where are the benefits in the environment? Apart from a few saplings at the Triangle in one option there don't seem to be any other green benefits and yet there will be a lot more congestion and consequent pollution with the traffic condensed into 2 narrow lanes. Some traffic may go onto the side roads but this will cause problems for those living in these roads.

The removal of the bus stop at the Fox not only will mean a longer walk for residents in the roads off Fox Lane (including the elderly in Skinners Court) and Park Avenue but also create more congestion in the centre of Palmers Green. Losing the bus lanes at the North Circular and Enfield Town will significantly increase bus journey times. Having to cross cycle lanes every time you need to board or alight from a bus will create safety problems for the elderly, disabled and carers with young children.

Pedestrians will find it harder to cross the road unless they are at a traffic controlled crossing which will inconvenience both drivers and pedestrians.
The car park at Lodge Drive is a long way from the shops near the Fox or Ruth Winston centre - will these parking spaces make up for those lost on the road? The local businesses are concerned that their trade will decrease and these fears should be taken seriously.

I agree that cycling should be encouraged but this scheme seems to be at the expense of all the other users of Palmers Green town centre and Green Lanes.

Sue Younger

Sue I don't think Basil was trying to compare the two roads, just showing an example curbing the domination of motor vehicles in our public spaces.

On Google maps there is a feature which allows you to see the traffic levels on main roads. I will keep an eye on the Embankment which has had lanes removed for the construction of the East West superhighway. Green Lanes will be narrowed; lanes will not be removed.

Tom - From my reading of the street maps for Cycle Enfield there will be several junctions where there are currently two lanes of traffic in one direction but there will only be one as the cycle lanes have taken up the available space.This will lead to frustration for drivers, congestion and more pollution for everyone. The A105 is a major thoroughfare and the only way for drivers to avoid it will be to move on to the adjacent side roads which will suffer even more from rat -running and go against the 'Quieter Neighbourhood ' proposals.

Buses which carry a lot more people than the number of cyclists currently using Green Lanes will be adversely affected by the narrowing of the lanes and the removal of bus lanes as well as the loss of bus stops. Constantly having to cross cycle lanes at bus stops creates yet another obstacle for bus passengers. This seems particularly unfair when bus users are often the elderly, disabled and parents with buggies none of whom will be able to transfer to cycling.

Roads like the Embankment and the A10 can accommodate cycle lanes but not the narrow and winding Green Lanes with its many shopping areas.

I question who really wants these cycle lanes as most of the cyclists I know prefer to use the quieter routes and would not want their children to use the main roads.

Sue

Yes some junctions will have reduced capacity. However it isn't a given that congestion will be worse. The Embankment is one of the busiest roads in London, so the stakes should be even higher than the A105. In that case it isn't just junctions that have been narrowed but also lanes have been removed. I think that in reality no matter how many roads are narrowed without adverse effects there will always be excuses as to why it can't happen 'here'. If the cycle track were to be built on the A10, the congestion card would be used again. You could perhaps removal the central reservation and use the surplus space to build cycling infrastructure, but that would require a lowering of the speed limit.

There are other ways options drivers can take. Perhaps use a totally different thoroughfare, perhaps you can drive at a different time, perhaps you can use a different form of transport, perhaps you can combine journeys, etc. There aren't any good side road routes through Enfield near the A105 ( as otherwise they would be filled with traffic already). We could always time the quieter neighbourhoods scheme to coincide with the cycle track to prevent the creation of rat runs.

There are benefits to bus users in the removal of lay bys. I agree that the bus stop design isn't great and should have bypasses instead. However, the design they propose is used in Royal College Street and hasn't caused problems. At busier areas I would advise that a by pass would be much necessary.

"I question who really wants these cycle lanes as most of the cyclists I know prefer to use the quieter routes and would not want their children to use the main roads."

They might prefer it (although good luck finding routes) but that is because main roads are currently hostile. If the infrastructure is there, then people wouldn't have the same problems; the same with kids cycling.

Don't be so sure that the disabled, elderly, and parents with young kids cannot cycle. In the latter case, there are many things parents can do: cargo bikes, trailers, etc. For the disabled and elderly, read this:

streets.mn/2015/05/06/enabling-the-disabled-a-view-from-the-uk/

Sue Younger’s contribution to the Green Lanes cycling debate on the 31st August reeks of the sense of entitlement felt by so many drivers: cyclists are a becoming a nuisance to us so relegate them from their preferred route to an inconvenient, and probably longer, route through a residential area. Not that a sense of entitlement is surprising given that, for a century or more, drivers have been awarded preference to bikers so they’ve come to expect it.

Meanwhile cyclists, walkers, and perhaps most of all children, whose independence has been curtailed beyond recognition since I was young, have had to put up with being second class on the roads. And let’s also face up to that other sense of entitlement: rat-running, which has so blighted residential areas, and contributed even more to the curtailment of the independence of the young. Such curtailment should be prevented in the manner described in the council’s Mini-Holland bid i.e. closing Quieter Neighbour streets to through traffic.

Aside from the inherent lack of equality in the current situation it’s important to join the Government (it found the money for Boris to spend), London’s mayor and the council in facing up to the fact that car use just can’t go on at its current rate; not least because the policy is to create more housing in the outer-London boroughs. Ways just have to be found to encourage travel without a car, including a move where convenient and possible from driving to cycling which saves space, makes a fairer distribution of priority and confers some health benefits, not least from less exposure to poor air quality.

The travails of bus passengers, many of whom are children, disabled, or not young, are a consideration, but if there are to be places where passengers have to disembark across a cycle lane it’s important that cyclists aren’t allowed to develop their own sense of entitlement, and are prepared to give way when necessary/possible. And that’s why I prefer arrangements based on Shared Space rules to cycle lanes through high streets like Palmers Green; I have vivid memories of crossing cycle lanes bordering carriageways in Copenhagen and Stockholm, and finding it more challenging than crossing a road in London.

Personally I find the constant reference to local poor quality if traffic is held up somewhat disingenuous. Buy a petrol fuelled car next time is the first need, but the most obvious and immediate choice is to avoid the pollution of short, driver only journeys and use a bike (or walk). If you want an incentive bear in mind that cycling is statistically much safer than being a driver inhaling the vehicle exhaust which has become highly concentrated in the passenger compartment of every saloon car.

A few tens of cyclists die in London as a result of a collision, ten thousand are estimated to die as a result of poor air quality.

And finally. What would work best would be traffic calmed to 30kp (20mph): safer, probably quicker (because pedestrian crossings and at least some traffic lights could be removed), and providing better air quality.