Forum topic: Save our Green Lanes responds to Basil Clarke's "News" article on Palmers Green Community Website

Basil Clarke has made a number of false, inaccurate and misleading claims regarding the recent public meetings, David Burrowes MP's proposed referendum and Save our Green Lanes campaign, itself.

These deserve a response

Let's see how Basil's accusations add up: that SOGL is a " hysterical campaigning group.... (that) has used exaggerated and emotional language to stir up opposition culminating in the shameful scenes at some of the recent public meetings where people speaking in favour of cycle lanes - including their guest, the Mayor of London's Cycling Commissioner - were heckled and shouted down."

Firstly the Public Meetings were not organised by SOGL, but David Burrowes MP, has to date has acted in manner that is completely neutral. David has not registered as a SOGL supporter. Andrew Gilligan was therefore not our guest. Heckling is a great tradition and as long as it is controlled, which it was, contributes in a positive manner to a public meeting.

See the following;

www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/apr/28/past.labour



So what do we stand for. It is simply this, as stated on our website:
YES to cycle lanes
NO to putting them along the A105
CHANGE the cycle lane route NOW

And what do we claim:

1. Cyclists would have priority over ALL other road users.

TRUE. Over 1/3rd of the road space is being given over to cyclists who represent 1/130th if all journeys made in the borough. Cyclists will have priority at junctions with advanced stop areas and their own traffic light stages, leaving other vehicles as the Cinderella of the Road.

2. Other road users would face longer journey times and more inconvenience.

TRUE. The bus lane will be lost on London Road. Signal controlled junctions will become more congested due to the incorporation of traffic light stages for cyclists and the reduction in the number of lanes for queuing traffic at some junctions. It will rarely be safe or even physically possible to overtake a waiting bus in the narrowed carriage way. Following vehicles will have to queue behind others waiting to turn right into side turnings or driveways. It will not be able to undertake, as it is in most cases now. The main carriageway will be so greatly narrowed that any broken down vehicle especially a large one will cause severe problems.

3. Only cyclists would be allowed to turn up some roads, drivers won’t.

TRUE. The plans presented for the consultation show that there will be no left turn for motor vehicles from the A105 onto Station Road and Vicars Moor Lanes Winchmore Hill or onto Bush hill Road. One consequence of our campaign's success so far is that TFL now require that the left turn into Station Road remains open.

4 Buses would have to stop in the road and passengers will have to cross the cycle lanes to board and alight.

TRUE, as we all know

5 Bus stops would be removed or moved (to less convenient places)

TRUE, for example the loss of the bus stop outside the Fox Pub.

6 Crossings would be removed or moved (to less convenient places)

TRUE. This is mainly a reference to the numerous pedestrian refuges that will be removed. As an example of crossings that will be moved a to less convenient place the zebra crossing south of the junction with green dragon Lane is to be moved to the north of the, adjacent to the florist who will lose here delivery space as a result

7 A lot of people wouldn’t be able to park outside their own homes.

TRUE. Because of the loss of much of the residential parking. It will also mean difficulties for deliveries, recycling collections and worst of all, removals, where vehicles often need several hours to load.

8 Local people wouldn’t be able to park in Palmers Green and Winchmore Hill to use their local shops, restaurants etc.

TRUE. Under the consultation plans On street pay and display to be reduced by around 40%. All evening and Sunday parking on single yellow lines, is to be lost. Council claims with regard to Lodge Drive and Fords Grove car parks ring hollow, when it will give no guarantee that these will not be sold off to developers in the future. Another consequence of our campaign's success so far is that TFL now require that pay and display parking is retain on the west side of Winchmore Hill Broadway.

9 Businesses wouldn’t be able to receive deliveries, nor will residents.

TRUE: The entire route is to become what is in effect a Red Route, because the volume of traffic and narrowness of the carriageway, will make lengthy stops unworkable.

10. Congestion would cause worsening of air quality.

TRUE. I have provided plenty of evidence that the scheme will cause congestion. As for the correlation between congestion and worsened air quality, it is fairly obviously that stop start driving in heavy traffic generates more pollution than driving at a steady speed. You only have to notice fuel consumption increase driving in congested conditions to be aware of that. Until Enfield Council produces a reputable air quality impact assessment on the scheme which proves otherwise, this claim remains entirely valid.

Please note, "road users" in the above does not include pedestrians. A distinction between "road" and "footway" should be made in accordance with Oxford Dictionary definition.

What about the outrageous claims that Basil makes that:

"Save our Green Lane sudden conversion to concerns about pedestrians, bus passengers, pollution etc is dubious, to say the least. Previously they only worried about the effects on roadside businesses and car drivers." That has simply never been the case.

SOGL came into being just prior to the start of the public consultation on 17th July. We stood outside the Fox with leaflets that stated the scheme will cause:

MORE congestion
SLOWER emergency response times
MORE pollution
SLOWER buses
REDUCED crossing points for pedestrians
CLOSURE of many local routes
MORE TRAFFIC on local routes remaining open
REDUCED parking for residents & businesses

Prior to that date, opposition to the A105 cycle superhighway was not in any organised form. Basil Clarke's claims are therefore entirely without foundation.

What about safety and roundabouts. You can have your own opinion on this, but there is plenty of evidence that roundabouts are not just as safe, but are in fact safer than signals (1) . However, retaining the roundabouts rather than replacing with signals would help retain a smoother traffic flow. Retaining the zebra crossing at the Triangle, has the same benefit. It also means pedestrians don't have to wait so long to be able to cross the road.

Finally, David Burrowes' referendum. No, it won't have any legal standing in statute. No one as far as I am aware has claimed it will. However, David has told us that if the referendum does result in a "No" outcome, TfL will not provide the funding for the scheme. Right from the initial bidding stage for the mini-Holland, it has been a condition of funding that the schemes must be sufficiently supported by the local population. The referendum will cover the entire wards of Winchmore Hill, Palmers Green and Grange, as well as the part of Southgate Green. These are entirely within the Enfield Southgate parliamentary constituency. We requested to David, as soon as he announced the referendum, that it would be conducted by Electoral Reform Services. I understand that Bush Hill Park councillors, whose ward lies in the Edmonton constituency, may run a separate referendum. I understand that TfL will abide by the outcome of any referendum.

Basil has posted an extremely biased and ill informed "news " article that does the Palmers Green Community website no justice. I hope this goes some way to redressing this.

Paul Mandel
On behalf of Save our Green Lanes
(1) www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm

Paul, please don't try to claim you are all supportive of anything but cars and this isn't simply a convenient excuse. What I think Basil meant was that the people involved in Save Our Green Lanes haven't championed positive change for all these groups before.

Are you supportive of adding bus lanes on the A10 and A406 along the entire route?

Are you supportive of adding proper pedestrian crossings on the Bourne Hill junction?

Are you supportive of getting rid of rat running in residential areas?

Why are you not supportive of not being able to overtake buses, which benefits bus passengers and makes the bus more attractive relative to using a car?

Since you like to quote dictionaries, perhaps you should find out what 'priority' means in the context of traffic movement. Clearly you are using an equivocation fallacy.

Regarding the roundabout, it may be 'safer' for people driving, but it is most certainly dangerous for people cycling, and it doesn't provide an attractive means for the vast majority of people, which is why only 1 in 130 journeys are cycled.

You are going to have to find evidence from a reputable source on when and how a car emits pollution. Guessing won't cut it, as science is not 'obvious'.

So, what exactly would you propose to solve the problems caused our car dependence?

Tom,

You have not provided anything of substance to support Basil’s unjustified attack on SOGL.

As someone who walks/runs an average of more than 10 km each day, cycles several times a week, and uses buses and trains as much as possible, I find your assertion that I am supportive of nothing but cars, absolutely outrageous
What I do not believe in is social engineering. Individuals should be free to run their own lives with minimum interference from the state. The fact is though, that car travel has a huge social and economic benefit. We would all be a lot worse off without it, even non drivers,

In answer to your questions:
1. I am supportive of bus lanes where they help improve the flow of traffic and provide net economic benefits.

2. Some years back TFL rejected signalised pedestrian crossings proposed by LBE at the Bourne Hill junction, because of the congestion they would cause at busy times. It is quite a large junction and could be widened. I would be quite happy to see the traffic lights replaced by a roundabout, if necessary (and with the consent of the emergency services) all on a raised table with a textured surface to slow traffic. Zebra crossings could be placed at the entrances to and exits of the junction. There is already a zebra crossing on Bourne Hill, set a short way back from the junction

3. Rat running is a pejorative term and does not contribute the debate. Unless closed off to through traffic, the cycle superhighway will increase the amount of traffic on residential roads as drivers seek to avoid the designer congestion it will create.

4. All vehicles have equal priority on most roads. One exception is that bicycles are not permitted on motorways and sometimes through tunnels on main roads. Another, is that cars, vans and lorries are not permitted on bus lanes during their hours of operation. Whilst, In London, only pedestrians may use pavements, except where there is a crossover. Even then, pedestrians have priority. Increasingly bicycles are being given sole use of large swathes of road, in London. I call that giving cyclists undue priority, over all other road users.

5. I agree that very large roundabouts at very busy junctions e.g. A10/A406 are not good for cycling round. There, I think you can cycle under. But, smaller ones, are no problem. And if you are fearful, you can always dismount and cross as a pedestrian.

6. A car uses more energy when accelerating and braking, which is more prevalent in congested conditions. If a car is powered by engines running fossil or bio fuel has to burn more and will also emit more particulates, some of which are toxic. Of course a cold engine runs more inefficiently and I will accept that very short journeys are not good for that reason. I personally try to avoid short car journeys. However, in the future when all new cars are zero emission, this will no longer be an issue. I think this is a given truth and does not require a load of peer reviewed academic papers to prove.

Half of Londoners do not own cars. The further towards the centre you go, the less use they are. The Underground is the most efficient form of transit. As you move out into the suburbs more people find cars necessary and in more rural areas, life is difficult without them.

Even George Monbiot bought one when he moved to mid-Wales. Cars are a fact of life. Stop moaning about them.

"What I do not believe in is social engineering. Individuals should be free to run their own lives with minimum interference from the state."

You have got to be joking. These are the kinds of arguments that make the antis look ridiculous. No one will be forced to cycle, but right now people are effectively forced NOT to cycle.

How you manage to link this up with state interference is mind boggling. Presumably you are happy with road building projects, e.g. the expansion of the A406. So clearly a completely inconsistent argument.

You say "As you move out into the suburbs more people find cars necessary and in more rural areas, life is difficult without them." Perhaps the scheme could address this?

Anyway, I'm not against car ownership as cars obviously provide many benefits ( the Dutch, for example, have a similar level as us), but to me using them for the journeys we do is like opening a can with a chain saw. Completely unnecessary. And, yes, it does take a toll on society, as the research has shown, but I'm sure you will just reject it for whatever reason. There is no societal benefit to people using a car over cycling or walking most journeys. If there was, your comment about trying not to drive short journeys would be contradictory.

You will find many of the people supporting the scheme have cars and do drive ( and many don't cycle), so whether or not you cycle is irrelevant. You still claim they only are thinking about 1% of the population, despite the fact they drive, so I can call you anti cycling, despite the fact you cycle. You are barring cycling from the majority of the population, and yet I'm the selfish one?

So, back to your claims.

1) No it isn't if you look at what priority means. This is as equivocation fallacy, as I said. Your explanation confirms this.

These are directly about driving and cars, so I will ignore them as this is basically the thrust of Basil's argument: 3, 7, 8.

With 9, it will never be the case that every business and household will have on street parking, so clearly there are alternatives that can work.

2) By other road users, you can only mean motor vehicles, including buses. The assumption that ''more road = less congestion'' is a simplistic one in my view. Congestion is as much in the domain of sociology as engineering. Clare Rogers quoted some evidence in the public meeting: contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/disappearing-traffic/resources/disappearing-traffic/

However, bus users will benefits as now the bus driver does not have wait when pulling out, as I keep mentioning.

10) It is not a given that congestion will get worse, and this point is predicated on that, therefore it does not follow (yet). I still think you do need to provide actual evidence on emissions. I'm not aware of the details myself.

4) I agree with this, and that is why I suggested several ways for bus stop by passes to exist. Interestingly, 5 locations could have them if it wasn't for the car parking. Similarly, the bus stops are being removed in some locations due to having parking added, e.g. Fox Lane.

I admit I cannot comment about whether each crossing movement is more or less convenient. But there are more crossings with the plans. Basil walks in much of this area and he seems to view the specific crossings added as positive, so I trust his view. Any specific issue should be taken up with the council. So, on the one hand, I could see that the Bush Hill crossings may cause problems and will be inconvenient, but I disagree that the 3 traffic island removal is such a disastrous thing. I do wonder how Robert Taylor knows the number of people using them, but my guess would be not many. They aren't designed for people to cross with in mind.



"And if you are fearful, you can always dismount and cross as a pedestrian." A crappy solution that no one will want.

Rat-running is not a pejorative. I'm sure some on here will take issue with this. It worsens the quality of life for residents. I live in an area where rat running does not exist, and I am fortunate of this. The road would be much more hostile and unpleasant if the blocks were removed.

Tom,

Too Bl***y right, I'd be happy with an expansion of the A406, because there is clearly a demand for it and drivers have paid for it through fuel duties and road taxes. Unfortunately, Ken Lvingstone wasted the dowry given to the GLA for that on other things.

90,000 vehicles use this stretch of road a daily. The average delay between the Fore Street Tunnel and Friern Barnet is probably around 15 minutes in either direction, compared with an improved road. If an average person’s time is worth £20.00 per hour, there are no other associated costs and to be extremely conservative each vehicle has on average we attach and economic value to the driver only yearly economic cost of that congestion, for drivers is £164,250,000. Over ten years that is £1.64 billion. This is an enormous economic cost not even including the social and environmental cost to those living with the blight) and yet building a 1.7 mile tunnel to bypass the unimproved stretch of road would cost a little over £0.5 bn. Surely, that is a no brainer. www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13924687

The A105 has around 15,000 vehicles a day, using the same criteria. if the cycle superhighway adds on average five minutes to a motor vehicle journey from the A406 to Enfield Town and we use the same simplified method, that works out at an annual cost of £9,125,000 or £91,125,000. That is why the scheme is a waste of money.

That would not be social engineering, because it is meeting a market demand and giving people what they want.

Like it or not, cyclists are being given priority over all other road users. There is no other way to explain taking away road space from all other users for their sole use and making them pay hugely for it.

Traffic is not going to disappear if this scheme comes in. It will become more noticeable even if there is slightly less of it, simply because there will be more congestion. In London as a whole congestion has got worse in recent years, despite lower volumes of traffic precisely because roads are being blocked off. The data is all on the TFL website if you cared to look for it.

"Rat running" is a pejorative phrase, because it is describing drivers who use residential streets during peak periods to avoid congestion on main roads, as a pest. Drivers would rather have a clear stretch of main road. As I said in my last comment, all other things being equal, the cycle superhighway will worsen this phenomenon.

I just have to take issue with you on the 'rat running' phenomenon - our road is a one-way residential street and cars zoom up it at crazy speeds. Not because the main road is congested (this takes place at any time of day and night and not just at peak periods), but to take a short cut. There is no respect for people who live on the street and it puts all those who need to cross at considerable risk. Also, I am not in the 1% but don't agree that all other road users are being disadvantaged. As a pedestrian (and driver, bus user
and future bike rider hopefully) I am very happy that my needs will be met, rather than in the current situation (in Palmers Green) where motorists take priority over all.

I agree with you Maire. Actually cars travel down our residential road fastest when it's quiet on other roads - late at night, early in the morning and on a Sunday. I've recorded cars travelling at over 60mph in our road (using a MPS calibrated speed gun accompanied by a PCO). I think we need a more pejorative word than 'rat run'! Roll on 'Quieter Neighbourhoods'!