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

For the very obvious reason that I submitted an ill-judged contribution to this thread I begin this one by confirming that I am a strong supporter and regular user of London’s buses; my wife even more so. Routes do need to be convenient in direction and use, and special attention must be paid to the requirements of the very young, and older/less physically able people. However, as in the relationship between pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, I advocate fair-shares and ‘give and take’.

And as you can tell I’m still fretting about my lunge at Sue Younger because she suggested sending cyclists on routes (contribution dated 31st August) inconvenient to them. Indeed I feel I should be on my knees apologising for not having remembered her previous contribution (27th August) which brought out the needs of bus passengers. Worse, I should not have used the word ‘reeks’ to describe her comment because I now see that it over-emphasises the general tenor of her contributions to the debate.

But my mistake and bad manners do not diminish the fact that change is essential and concession inevitable. Carriageways are already congested, locally badly so, and there is more congestion to come unless change is accepted. Also the domination of cars and their needs has limited the choice of street environment, stifled the pleasures and health benefits of walking and cycling, curbed kids’ independence and degraded the social benefits of high streets.

Which may in some circumstances mean that each of the three types of travelling groups have to accept some limitation or inconvenience which can only be resolved under the cloak of that magic principle: …………..sharing. Which, in the context bus passengers having to cross cycle lanes at bus-stops would mean cyclists taking special care and, when necessary, conceding priority to passengers; i.e. they should be prepared to ………..share.

Perhaps you’re beginning to get the feeling I’m obsessed with the concept of……..sharing. And why not in circumstances where the power and speed of cars, a 100 years plus of modifying streets as a consequence of, and for the benefit of, traffic, has created a sense of entitlement which many, possibly a majority, of drivers feel? In fact things have gone well-beyond even that distortion because a wide acceptance of the priority of cars has become so entrenched that Sue Younger, when pleading the case for people who use public transport, could feel comfortable with dispatching cyclists to inferior routes for them. This is a mindset everyone needs to address.

I’ve not been keeping up with the design of bus-stops or the detailed street design through social areas such as high streets, so I haven’t commented on those, but the need to get some car journeys off the roads is so imperative, and I would say the need to encourage a more physically active society is so imperative, that bus passengers should accept some changes if they can’t be avoided. If, as Sue suggests, no doubt accurately, those changes involve making life more difficult for older and otherwise physically-impaired people, and that is impossible to change, then cyclists should refrain from developing their own sense of entitlement and behave accordingly. A big change in favour of cyclists is in the offing, and they must behave in everybody’s interest and ……….share.

Indeed my view is that the need to share the streets is the big imperative to encourage more walking, including walking to school, as well as more cycling. Which is why, though I support the current proposal as being better than the status quo, I would have preferred a Shared Space type of solution: an enforced 30kph (20mph) speed limit, with calming and cameras if necessary, removal of pedestrian crossings and removal of many traffic-lights. But because I see the problems, and cycling lanes are the solution offered, I accept them as being better than the status quo.

With regard to sharing I think Tom Mellor’s approach is interesting because he seems to be fighting the cyclist corner rather than approaching the issue in terms of the best solution for the whole community.

My position is simply this: if we want more people to use bicycles ( and there are many reasons you would want this, some David has mentioned) then there are two ways of doing this, but they essentially have the same outcome. The outcome is separating people cycling from fast and high volume traffic. This is the only way people will be willing to cycle. To maintain Green Lanes as a through route, some space must be dedicated to cycling.

To me, the concept of 'shared space' makes absolutely no sense. How can an 8 year old 'share' with a truck? Sharing only works when the power of each user is similar and when each user has a good level of movability. This is why pedestrians seem to mingle fine with each other, but cars need to be controlled.

There is a reason that we have traffic lights, laws, road markings, when driving a car. Remember, originally they did not exist, but they were brought about by necessity. Removing them without dealing with the root problem, i.e. high levels of motor traffic, will not work. It certainly won't result in more cycling.

As for the bus stop by boarders, Sue, I would advise that in your consultation response you criticise the several locations where by passes could exist, but where car parking and being able to overtake buses has taken precedence. As Karl points out, it is strange that the 3-4 metres of space given to a different form of transport, one that is space efficient, quite, and clean, receives an attack so vociferous while the masses of space on one of the main North South routes dedicated to an unused object is apparently fine. This attitudes stems from the acceptance that car dependency is inevitable and cannot be touched, so any scheme that attempts to change this but which invariably may worsen other problems - problems which only exist because of the car dependency in the first place - is seen as the enemy.

I have heard today that 50% of car journeys in London are under 2 miles. This is unacceptable. If those that could not use a car for these journeys (the majority) did so, many of our problems would be significantly reduced.

By the way Sue, they do traffic modelling on the proposed junctions to see if they adversely affect traffic levels. TfL won't allow a scheme to go through if it slows buses too much. I have checked the junction proposal and compared them too Google Earth and they capacity hasn't been reduced as far as I can see. Like I said, the lanes are very wide, needlessly so.

The fact is Tom that in various countries, especially in the Netherlands the home of the idea, eight year olds do share with trucks. Apart from other sources the BBC Radio 4 programme dedicated to the subject described several schemes including one which was created through a playspace. Apparently there is also at least one whole town dedicated to the idea. Casualties are low compared with traditional arrangements.

But my thoughts about sharing on Green Lanes are not about full-blooded Shared Space, except perhaps in recognised social areas, but for calm traffic (30kph), and planning arrangements which encourage sharing, such as removing pedestrian crossing so that both traffic and cyclists have to be aware of the need to stop, as they say, on a sixpence.

I've always been against cameras in urban space, but in the short term - say 20 years - I'd settle for averaging cameras and a steady change to road design/carriageway surfacing which encourage people to remember they are in city which is essentially a place for people.

Above all we have to stop installing arrangements which encourage people to think this priority is mine. If people want absolute priority get on a railway line.

I really do not think that 'shared space' works as you portray it to. It goes against the system of sustainable safety, one aspect of which is homogeneity of mass, speed, and direction of road user. If you are thinking of 'living streets', then it that case through traffic is cut out and the area is used by drivers for access only. This is an environment conducive to mingling.

The shared space scheme I know of, Exhibition Road and Byng Place, function just like regular roads. You have a clear boundary between the pedestrian area and the motor vehicle area. Exhibition Road is hostile to cycling, Poynton looks hostile to cycling. Motor traffic levels are crucial in all of this, and that is unfortunately not going away from Palmers Green any time soon. To make cycling an attractive option on these sorts of roads, you need the segregation. 'Light' measures such as the ones you mention, even if they resulted in altered behaviour, will not mean people will be willing to cycle. They do not want to mix with high amounts of motor traffic.

Tom, I'd say two things about Exhibition Road:

• Ben-Hamilton-Baillee, principal designer, acknowledges that mistakes were made in the design', and
• in conversation with various people unfamiliar with SS on the road itself I found that in their behaviour they were trying their best to make it into a conventional British highway (And so are drivers).

And of course we all learned out behaviour in the conventions of our time - it will take time for people to learn that they must stick to 30kph, and are entitled to cross the road at any point of their choosing. It was for that reason I suggested a long period of calmed traffic in the early projects, and I now suggest a heavy publicity process so that people such as I have spoken to on Exhibition Road know what it's all about.

Personally I think that current traffic levels are unimportant. As drivers are ever more restrained, as cyclists find the situation less stressful, and as pedestrians learn that walking is becoming easier and they have more say, behaviour will change.

And finally. I think that within cities the car as dominant feature is just past its zenith, cities are beginning to think of car-free streets. I won't see major change, but you will.

David, can you show me an example that is good and provides a pleasant cycling experience?

When you say ''drivers are ever more restrained'', what do you mean?

Green Lanes still remains a through route. These must still exist. Although, especially around Palmers Green, the speed needs to be reduced, and better pedestrian crossings must be added, we will always require roads so that people can move around. The solution to allow more of these trips to be cycled is to make the experience stress free. Any interaction with motor vehicles must minimised, shared space does not do that. No matter how good the behaviour of drivers, people do not want to cycle with cars, and I think the idea is dangerous. Sustainable safety is based on much research. Separating vehicles of different speeds and mass is a sound principle. This does not mean that people driving have 'won', it is simply good sense. There are plenty of ways that we can make the environment pleasant for people walking and cycling without the shared space idea, which doesn't really do that.

A few ways: more crossings, direct crossings, quick crossings, side road continuity, closing residential areas and city centres to through traffic, allow people cycling to take the more direct route that is unravelled from motor vehicles, etc.

I remain dubious about people learning to behave. Even within our current feeble rules people still flout significantly. The majority speed, for example. How exactly will they learn? I have to keep bringing up that the simple physics of the situation is fundamental. People have a natural aversion at using their 'entitlement' to cross the road at any point with a moving vehicle along. Drivers typically only allow someone to cross if they are moving quite slowly. How will we 'teach' drivers to stop at any point someone wants to cross while they want to make progress?

londonist.com/2015/09/video-mini-holland-comes-to-walthamstow

Worth a look