Forum topic: Mini-Holland scheme: Will our high streets really be "sacrificed"?

A minor correction: the Waltham Forest scheme is not implemented already. They are now at the tail end of a two-week trial of part of their proposals, the purpose of which was to gather data in order to study the effect of road closures. That trial will end on Monday the 13th and its results will help to inform the eventual measures that Waltham Forest Council will put in place.

Waltham Forest have taken an excellent approach to Mini Holland by gathering this data first, though you would never think it from the howls of protest from local traders and drivers who are convinced that it is a harbinger of the apocalypse. I hope that Enfield Council are watching closely and considering how they, too, may be able to take a data-based approach.

Highway engineers Ringway Jacobs have been appointed to produce plans for Green Lanes, but I have heard no word as yet of how they will inform their plan. The original proposals for Green Lanes involved the removal of the Southbound bus lane, but alongside the suggested alternative of widening it and adding a cycle lane within instead. It's my hope that the alternative will be more seriously considered.

Colin Younger has mentioned the possibility of Shared Space in Palmers Green as has David Hughes in other places. Having seen how this works in many Belgian towns and cities I have often wondered what it would take to introduce these glorious living spaces into our own cities. Shared space of course is not on any of Enfield Council's proposals, but have any local groups produced concepts of how this might work? I have no problem imagining its implementation in Winchmore Hill, where shared space all around the Green and easy access for residents to the cafés, tea rooms, and shops without fear of being flattened by a 4x4 on the way there would be a fantastic sight. I'm struggling to imagine how it might be implemented around Palmer's Green Triangle due to the deep gouges of Green Lanes and Alderman's Hill. Note that I don't object to the idea of shared space here - merely that I'm having a hard time imagining it, possibly due to being unable to see the wood from the cars...!

Apologies Holly,

I got the information from a friend who lives in the Walthamstow conservation zone. It seems that residents have not been kept up to date and are not overly impressed with the pilot. But we will see.

I think it's important that Enfield take their time and have an extended consultation with local residents and traders.

Andy

No apologies needed, Andy! There's been a natural wave of pushback from residents who feel left out of the decision-making process, and it has led to misunderstandings like this. I've been pleased to see that Waltham Forest council are working on improving that, and also that Enfield Council are also doing the same.

Basil Clarke's post here from the 25th October contains a lot of heartening information, especially the comments from residents that say 70% of people would be in favour - which is not the figure I'd have assumed from reading the local newspapers! - and the overall desire for greening the area, calming traffic, and making Palmers Green a place for people to visit and stay in.

I have been feeling a little down about the degree of resistance to the Mini-Holland schemes (overall, not just in Enfield - as lessons learned in each proposal will naturally inform the others), but seeing things like this help to remind me that there is a lot of positivity around, and that people really do want to improve their living spaces and communities... even if there are disagreements on how to achieve those improvements.

It might be worth reminding ourselves of the trigger for Enfield's winning bid as outlined in the Mayor's Vision for Cycling in London - an Olympic Legacy for all Londoners
‘Mini-Hollands’ in the suburbs
 Cycling in Outer London is mostly low, with great potential for improvement. We will increase
cycle spending specifically dedicated to Outer London from £3m to more than £100m.
 We will choose between one and three willing Outer London boroughs to make into mini-
Hollands, with very high spending concentrated on these relatively small areas for the greatest
possible impact. In many ways, this will be the most transformative of all our policies.
 This is a fantastic opportunity for these boroughs to achieve dramatic change – not just for
cyclists, but for everyone who lives and works there.
 The idea, over time, is that these places will become every bit as cycle-friendly as their Dutch
equivalents; places that suburbs and towns all over Britain will want to copy.
 A good route will be provided for commuter journeys to central London, but the main focus
will be on replacing short car trips within the target borough(s).
 There will be substantial redesigns of the main town centre, to show what is possible when
roads and spaces are built around cyclists.
 A network of routes will radiate out from it, predominantly Quietways through back streets
and parks, paralleling all the main local travel routes.
 Cycle superhubs will be created at local railway stations.
 There will be a big marketing push to specifically target non-cyclists doing short car trips.
 All Outer London boroughs are invited to apply for this scheme. We will announce our
choice(s) later in 2013 and start work in 2014.
 All suburban boroughs will benefit from the increased investment in our Quietway and
Superhighway programmes, both of which will extend far into Outer London.

Well done again to Enfield for winning as so being "it" . And what a Vision, as Boris puts it:
Better places for everyone. Our policies will help all Londoners, whether or not they have any
intention of getting on a bicycle.
. Cycling will promote community safety, bringing new life and vitality to underused streets.
. Cycling will transform more of our city into a place dominated by people, not motor traffic.

Seems hard to argue with that one.

I’m a cyclist and someone who enjoys using my bicycle. But, for most journeys I make, it is less convenient than being on foot, in the car or using public transport. There is nothing I’ve seen so far about the “mini Holland” proposals that is likely to change that for me. Probably, this goes for the majority who own bicycles.

In principle I’m fully in favour of Enfield taking whatever Londoner’s money Boris wants to give us for a cycling scheme in the borough, particularly if it’s going to materially improve the health and wellbeing of its denizens and provide better living space. But, I’m rather sceptical that it will. Even an optimistic council, expects only 5 percent of journeys in the borough will eventually be by bicycle

However many millions are spent on Mini-Holland, cycling in the London Borough of Enfield will never resemble cycling in Amsterdam or elsewhere in Holland. There, cities are criss-crossed with wide avenues where there is plenty room separate pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. Even there though, not all cyclists follow the rules.

Locally, there are no wide thoroughfares. To make way for the cycle facilities on main roads, other road users will be squeezed further. This will result in longer journey times, along with increased congestion and pollution.

Local businesses in Green Lanes and elsewhere have legitimate concerns that removing on street parking near shops will have an adverse effect on trade. By far the most successful local shopping area in the borough, with a good range small traders is Cockfosters. It is no coincidence that there is a reasonable amount of on street parking in the slip roads and lay-bys in front of the shops there.

If you think driving general standards are poor locally (they are), then cycling standards are even worse. So, there are safety implications in any mini Holland scheme. Either traffic has to be kept at very low speeds, practical in small carefully selected areas, such as town centres with a concentration of pedestrian activity, or if cycling is to multiply, cyclists need to be separated from other road traffic.

The video of a ride down the A105 from Enfield Town to Wood Green, recently posted here shows the problems we have with mixed use roads. There is some pretty thoughtless positioning by the subject cyclist, leaving him vulnerable to a collision, and lots of impatience and poor observation by other road users. Considering that the subject is probably one of the more conscientious cyclists on the roads, there are grounds for concern about casualties, if the scheme is not well implemented. The following video demonstrates the kind of safe positioning cyclists should adopt, on a mixed traffic road.



As there is no compulsory cycle training, it is difficult to expect cycling standards to improve with increased cycle use, unless cyclists are adequately policed. This is something that is unlikely to happen. Here is a Dutch person’s impression of cycling in London.



The scheme will only benefit a small minority of the borough’s inhabitants. Any of the following will limit the use of bicycles for most.
Weekly superstore shop
Ferrying the kids around. If you’ve never been a parent, you really don’t know.
Other passengers.
The weather.
The dark.
Disability, age and fitness.
Fears about safety
Cost of ownership, compared with using public transport
Storage space

Cycling superhighways along the A105 and A1010, is not the answer. I’d like to see cycling encouraged along quieter mainly residential roads or making use of paths besides waterways such as the New River, River Lea and Pymes Brook. One is far more likely to convert people to pedal power, if they can be kept well away from faster and heavier traffic, and it will not lead to increased congestion on the main arteries in the borough.

Now, onto the matter of “Quieter Neighbourhoods.” It seems that the council wants to make already quiet neighbourhoods such as the FLDRA area even quieter.

We’ll know more what this will entail in the coming weeks. But, the following is likely to be on the cards.

1. 20 mph speed limits. 20 mph is too fast in many places and 30 mph is safe in others. Unnecessary and unreasonable 20 mph limits are frustrating, leading to them being almost universally disregarded by road users, and resulting reduced respect of the law generally.
Better to enforce a 30 mph speed limit and ensure all adult road users accept individual responsibility for their own actions and that children are given good road safety education at school.

2. Traffic calming measures.
Speed humps cause discomfort for drivers and riders including cyclists, encourage harsh braking and acceleration and they are largely unnecessary away from junctions, where mini roundabouts and speed tables are better solutions.
Chicanes and other narrowing also result in more braking and acceleration leading to increase pollution. They can be dangerous for cyclists when other vehicles overtake at the constrictions. They also reduce the space available for parking.

3. Closing of entrances on to main roads to eliminate so called “rat running”. This could actually increase vehicle movement within the “quieter neighbourhood” as drivers have to travel further to the remaining entrances and exits. At times where one of the surrounding main roads are blocked, local residential through roads enabling traffic to bypass an obstruction, preventing gridlock, that would occur if the council creates closed cells.

So to conclude:
1. Cycling should be encouraged on quiet routes, not bust or congested ones.
2. Without care in their design and implementation, so called “quieter neighbourhoods” will become frustrating neighbourhoods to get in, out and around.

"I’m a cyclist and someone who enjoys using my bicycle. But, for most journeys I make, it is less convenient than being on foot, in the car or using public transport. "

You're not really a cyclist then, are you? You're somebody who occasionally takes his bicycle out on towpaths for leisure rides, or maybe packs the family's bicycles onto your car to drive to a park so your kids can ride around there.

"I’d like to see cycling encouraged along quieter mainly residential roads or making use of paths besides waterways such as the New River, River Lea and Pymes Brook" is another desire that betrays that - people who are using bikes for utility don't want to be corralled off along waterways and traffic-free scenic routes, far away from the places they need to be. They want to be able to get to the shops, to cafes, to restaurants, to their friend's houses, to work, to school. Part of your argument against this seems to be "well, it's too dangerous for people to do that, so they shouldn't, and we should do nothing to improve matters."

I'm glad Enfield council are not (yet) so defeatist.

There is a lot I'd like to debunk and argue against here. First, as has been said, by your own admission your are not a regular cyclist.

Clearly, then, something should be done to address this imbalance, although I highly doubt walking is faster than cycling, irrespective of how bad the current conditions are.

So having segregated cycle tracks along Green Lanes, Hertford Road, and Southbury Road does not make cycling more convienient than walking, public traffic, and perhaps driving?

There is no reason to believe that providing high quality infrastructure will not also result in more trips being made by bicycle. This is evident by the suppressed demand for cycling infrastructure in polls and by the popularity of 'sky rides' and leisure cycling. In places were good cycling infrastructure exists, a high modal share of exists.

Ah the old 'our roads are too narrow argument'. This is simply not true. Cycling could exist on the A10 if space were made for it by reducing the speed limit, getting rid of the central reservation, moving the carriageways closer together, and using the new space for cycle tracks. Cycling could exist on Green Lanes, Hertford, and Southbury Road if car parking were displaced or removed. The same is true of many other roads in Enfield. The only thing that is lacking is the will to make the change. Currently, most space is (unfairly) dedicated to the motor vehicle.

Even if we don't reach levels of Amsterdam, though, so what? Higher cycling levels are better for the community so we should strive to increase it as much as possible.

With regards to cyclists not following the rules, we can clearly see that is doesn't cause much of an issue as the stats show people on bicycles pose very little risk.

From the examples I gave above, space will not actually be reduced for moving motor vehicles. Also, several studies repeatedly show that traffic levels accommodate a reduction increase in the carriageway. This is called 'Induced demand'. Following from this, the whole point of building bicycle lanes is to move away from car use to a much more space efficient form of transport. Thus, congestion may actually be reduced, as happened in Columbus Avenue in New York, for example.

In other areas building bike lanes improved business performance by making the place accessible to other forms of transport and more pleasant. Business owners repeatedly overestimate the percentage that arrive by car and how much they spend.


I won't dispute what you say about cycling standards, but again it isn't the cyclists that cause the carnage.


It is precisely the point of the mini Holland scheme to separate cycling from motorised vehicles and pedestrians.

I'm not aware of the video you are referring to. The 'primary position' takes some confidence and invites harassment, putting many people off and is completely unsuitable for children; it isn't the answer, only a mitigation to the hostile environment for cyclists.

Cyclists pose a very small risk so no training should be required. Incidentally, current cycle training focus on how to protect yourself best when cycling on roads with motor vehicles, pointing to the real danger.

Training would be completely unnecessary on segregated roads, unless you also support 'pedestrian training'.

Perhaps weekly superstore shops would be less common if travelling to local shops would be made easier on foot or bicycle?

Children of a very young age cycle in the Netherlands. This is one of the benefits of cycling infrastructure: increased mobility and independence for children. After being only a few years children can cycle with their parents and when they are slightly older, by themselves.

Cycling in the rain is fine if you have the right clothing. Dutch people cycle all year round in all sorts of weather.

Cycling in the dark is also fine on main roads, but can make someone nervous on back streets and towpaths, the very places you suggest cyclists should be designated to.

Mobility scooter users and wheel chair users use bicycle paths in the Netherlands, so it does benefit them.

Older people also regularly cycle in the Netherlands. This is a far better solution than people not necessarily fit to drive driving or simply being confined to their homes.

Segregated infrastructure is supposed to combat the fear about safety and increase the safety of cycling.

Cycling is far, far cheaper than using public transport. All that is really required is a basic bicycle, lights, and a lock.

For storage space, the council could provide bike sheds in the place of a parking space. One of these fits 10 bicycles.

No, making cycling convenient and safe is the answer. Using back streets is not the answer. Back streets are sinuous, filled with parked cars, and are frequency dead ends meaning you have to use main roads anyway. Segregating people form 'faster and heavier traffic' on main roads provides safety and convenience.

The thing is they are not 'unnecessary' or 'unreasonable'. A car is a lethal weapon. Driving at 30mph in the same place as children walking to school should not be considered normal. If drivers can't stick to the speed limit, they should be punished. Speed cameras can enforce this.

Clearly ensuring roads users 'accept individual responsibility has worked very well for us. We should not have to resort to victim blaming children for the actions of some car drivers. We must challenge the problem at its source.

I agree with this, but it comes as a result of the unwillingness to use speed cameras.

Do you have any evidence that it increases vehicle movement? If the blockages were placed in the middle of roads, rather than at the ends, then the distance traveled to the exits or entrances would be the same. The interests of the residents should be a priority on 'residential' streets. Eliminating thoroughfare reduces air pollution, noise pollution, and creates a more pleasant and safe environment for people, especially children.

Paul. It may be there are some quiet streets on the Lakes Estate, but there are also noisy, busy streets. I invite you to stand on the pavement of Old Park Road between 7.30am and 10 am and then again from 4pm to 7pm any week day (and most of Saturday)- I'm afraid 'quiet' won't be a adjective you'll use. It's a cut through for lorries, large vans and speeding cars. I'm having to invest in double-glazing with acoustic glass to minimise the noise in our front room. We desperately need a quieter neighbourhood in Old Park Road - and luckily 99% of residents agree!