Healthy Streets

The latest edition of Palmers Green Life highlighted the successful mini Holland bid by Enfield Council and sought specific input by the Green Lanes Business Association / ebra. My immediate thinking went along these lines:

Reading the detail and answering the questions posed on the Mini Holland successful bid in the recently delivered version of “Palmers Green Life.”
Key objectives are listed as reducing overcrowding on public transport, roads, pollution and parking demands. With an increased London population in the order of 1m expected in the near term with obvious implications for further increased overcrowding and air pollution, of which vehicle transport is a significant contributor, apparently costing Londoners an average of six months off their lifespan, these are surely worthy aims.
Lord Coe, earlier this month, highlighted other benefits of cycling which could possibly be added to the LBE / GLBA list:
Economic benefits
Reduced NHS costs
Reduced absenteeism
Increased employee productivity
Increased alertness amongst school children
And possibly more.

Certainly it is a powerful list of potential upsides and therefore deserving of very careful scrutiny if opposing
Looking at the local shopping environment, and my local one of Palmers Green, in particular the outcome of the last decade and more has not been good in the development of a mixed shopping area: more hair dressers, nail bars, betting shops, fast food outlets, charity shops, estate agents and restaurants with a commensurate reduction in what might have been thought of as a traditional high street, ie butcher, baker, greengrocer and the like. A retail area has gradually been replaced by more of a service orientated offering. Might that continue?
Looking back over the same decade and more, the retail environment has changed out of all recognition:
Huge and easily reachable retail complexes from Bicester Village, to Westfield(s), Harlequin Centre, Bluewater, Lakeside are well established;
Local retail Parks are available on the A10 and A406
Major Supermarket outlets (“Extra”) essentially forming a town centre in their own right are nearby
There are many major supermarkets offering an extraordinary range of items
All come as one-stop offerings complete with ample free parking
Add to this massive competition is the current huge growth in internet shopping
It all adds up to powerful competition for local retailers. Subjective evidence would suggest too much.
Over the same decade and more my wife, and other neighbours, have avoided the local high street other than for very specifics items, eg dry cleaning. The range does not attract and the public environment is seen as dirty, noisy, unattractive and at times intimidating.
The Palmers Green Life magazine coincidentally highlights three retail specialists offering a history of expertise to the local retail space: N21online, Love Your Doorstep and Creative Exchange as well as the Business Association itself. And yet the area deteriorates.
Everything so far perhaps suggests more of the same will generate merely more of the same, ie perceived deterioration.
At this point it would be most useful to have hard quantitative data, eg numbers of local shoppers and ATV, how local purchase trends – volume and value - have changed over the years, the reach of the shopping area in attracting customers and more. A set of potential metrics, developed for the original Palmers Green Regeneration / Improvement work in 2011 gives some idea of the areas which would usefully be tracked at local level, and targeted by any investment. (Document from 2011 copied below)
Palmers Green Shopping Area Regeneration and Improvements
Looking over the five year programme it is important that the anticipated investment is seen to produce returns which are beneficial to the area; both business and residents. The Council already produce a range of measures as part of their broader activity; other agencies, in particular the Police do likewise. We hope that a range of measure applicable to the anticipated regeneration and improvement of Palmers Green’s central area can be developed from such existing activity. The range we are provisionally suggesting is as follows:
Shops
Turnover (sales) to increase by an extra A% after 5 years
Local residents to increase their use of PG shops by B% after 5 years
Out of town visitors to the shops to increase by C% after 5 years
Overall footfall to have increased by D% after 5 years
Void measure / relative sq. footage rental to improve
Residents
Satisfaction with the area to have increased by an extra E% after 5 years
House prices to have risen by an extra EE% by end of year 5
Traffic
Time to drive through the centre to reduce by F seconds (or F%) after 5 years.
Shoppers using increasing road length to cross from side to side
Crime
Local crime to have fallen by an extra G% - (perhaps shopping street crime / ASB reports / graffiti reduction)
Pride
Pride in the area to have increased by H% after 5 years
Litter / spitting / dog mess – prevalence to have decreased by J% after 5 years (complaints / tickets)
Enterprise
K new businesses to have opened by end year 5
Employment (or unemployment linked measure) to have improved by L% by end year 5

Against such a background, the GLBA questions can be addressed:
1. Awareness of the scheme / bid before receiving the magazine
Only in the most general terms
2. Effects on various items / areas
a. Parking: would depend on the pace and scale of changeover to cycling / walking. Comparing Holland, where 27% of all journeys are made by bike to the less than 2% in the UK, reveals a huge potential to remove cars, and hence the need for parking spaces, from the equation altogether. A similar trend in car hire / pooling increasingly moving out from the central areas of London could have similar effects. The position seems uncertain
b. Homes: it is difficult to see the proposal as being other than positive for homes- less noise, passing traffic, pleasanter local environment
c. Residents: similar to homes, again a large positive
d. Businesses and retail. The opening section of large macro trends suggest issues of a scale dwarfing the occasional pay and display bay loss as requiring the real attention. Playing at the margin is not going to bring back lost shoppers with what would be effectively no more than more of the same. A clear wood for the trees risk may well apply without due care
e. Schools: as Lord Coe suggested, health and alertness should increase with more walking / cycling to school replacing car journeys
3. My thoughts and views: excellent that LBE applied and were successful in seeking radical change to a situation which is self-evidently not working or sustainable on present trends. I am most cautious of the knee jerk reaction to any short term threat to the status quo and will consider implications, argument and data carefully over the coming months. At a headline level it seems far too good a chance for this locality to miss and embrace. Getting it as right as possible for all stakeholders in the short term while moving to the long term situation would seem to be the main challenge.

Thoughts on the Public Meeting held on 24th April 2014

A well-attended public meeting of perhaps 100, comprising a mix of local traders, politicians, cyclists and residents, firstly heard three sets of individual presentational views opposing the mini Holland bid before the floor was opened for comments. Two core themes emerged from the first half of the meeting: firstly that there had been no consultation pre the bid’s submission. Attendees went on to learn that core stakeholders had indeed been consulted, EBRA and FERAA specifically were mentioned, but that real consultation effectively started now in the knowledge that a successful £30m or so bid was in place. The second issue was the real concern of traders that any reduction in car parking spaces would sound the death knell for their business / Palmers Green. Many traders built on this theme, supported by some politicians.
Several cyclists subsequently added their views, often backed by research data from elsewhere that cyclists were indeed good shoppers worthy of being more than banished to the side streets.
Much data followed ranging from the £4m apparent trade worth of the town centres parking bays to smaller bike : cyclist spend ratios. Piles of conflicting data appeared to loose the interest of most of the audiences by this point and was then wrapped up by one politician, claiming a statistical background, indicating stats could be made to tell whatever story one wanted, although that could well have been the accountant rather than statistician in him speaking.
It seemed a shame there was an overriding view only of the threat from Enfield’s £30m bid victory and not consideration of what a £30m success, one of a few flagship schemes for London, could do for the Boroughs various stakeholders. Surely something could be achieved from so much high profile capital.
But a good meeting with numerous individuals providing input, usually listened to carefully by the majority, laying out many of the issues the consultation will start to bring out and the bid team will need to work through in moving the borough and this locality into its emerging 21st century landscape.
Consultation input will be most important and all attendees (and beyond) were encouraged to make their views known when the time comes for formal consultation later this year.

I’ve some further points of information and reflection on the mini-holland meeting.

David Burrows who chaired the meeting reported that Andrew Gilligan, the Mayor’s Cycling Commissioner, had emphasised to him the need for community consensus before any money would actually be forthcoming. The GLA would not be dogmatic about the details of any scheme, but he was looking for improvements to the environment, the public domain and cycling. He had requested feedback from the meeting. I understand that David has arranged to do this. It also appears that Enfield are now considering delaying the formal consultation process to the autumn.

It’s not clear to me how the stakeholders’ meeting in November 2013 was constituted, nor why, in spite of the attendance of FERRA and the Enfield Business and Retailers Association, information about the mini holland bid wasn’t more widely known. There’s little doubt from comments made at the meeting that local businesses remain very irritated by this. The fact that Enfield still do not appear to have published the many detailed annexes to the report (including listing those at the stakeholders meeting I think) may not have helped.

There is also the question as to how the three consultations which affect Palmers Green (the promised consultation on mini holland, the recent consultations on the Palmers Green public realm, and that on the management of town centres – which includes Palmers Green) are related. None seem to take the others in to account, at least there is no explicit sign of this in any of the documentation or from those involved. Since August 2013 I have been involved with others in discussions with senior Enfield Officers over the future of the Triangle in attempt to persuade them to widen consultation. The mini holland bid was never once mentioned by them, though the bid annex on Palmers Green envisages its removal! (You can find out more about this elsewhere on PGC)

Given this background it’s not going to be easy to build the consensus which mini holland requires. Retailers fear an immediate negative impact from the changes, while proponents are convinced about the longer term benefits. Both have what they regard as evidence to support their cases, and question that of the others. It’s clear to me that the mini holland bid does offer prospects for positive change to the shopping environment, but there are likely be winners and losers if it goes ahead. Individual worried retailers and businesses are unlikely to be convinced by broad studies of the positive economic effects of promoting cycling, they want more tailored predictions which reflect their own circumstances.

Some retail outlets are more dependent on car borne visitors than others. Is there hard evidence on winners and losers from existing schemes in the UK? However, it was pointed out there are changing patterns in shopping emerging, including as regards reduced car ownership and use, and predictions of the effects of mini holland need to take this in to account.

In order to avoid getting bogged down in increasingly bitter argument it seems to me that Enfield will have to put in a very major hearts and minds effort and accept that any consultation process will have to go further than usual. Enfield defines “Consult” as “To obtain public feedback to inform decision making”. They will surely need to move at least to “Involve” defined as “To work directly with service users and the public to ensure that issues and concerns are consistently understood and considered.” They might even want to “Collaborate” which they define as “To work in partnership with service users and the public in each aspect of decision making.” This latter includes as an example “Consensus building” which is what we are told is essential. Delaying consultation until the autumn could provide a key opportunity to get this sorted out.

Some of questions raised which will need answering include the following.

Will the limits on parking apply in the evenings? If so will it damage the evening economy?

Locals believe that side streets are already fully occupied; will there be increased conflict over parking in them if spaces are lost on Green Lanes?

Will the changes have a disproportionate effect be on disabled drivers?

Will crossing the cycle lanes present problems for pedestrians?

Clearly without changes it will be harder to increase rates of cycling, but if the environment for cyclist improves will it really lead to significant increases in cycling? The current rate of journeys in Enfield is only 0.7%. Enfield aims to raise this to 5% in 5 years. The GLA target is to reach this by 2026.

Is the aim to get more people on bikes or to get more journeys by the existing cyclists? Where will the additional cyclists come from? Will Green Lanes become a superhighway for lycra-clad long distance commuters rather than for locals making local journeys? What effect might these different outcomes have on spending in the area? Are there plans for many more cycle parking spaces? If so where, given that some pavements are being reduced in width?

How relevant is the Dutch experience to Green Lanes? Are the basic highway characteristics on which the cycle lanes are to be introduced comparable?

What effect will the proposals to reduce road lanes at key junctions have on traffic congestion, and hence the local environment? Will bus journey times suffer? Have TfL endorsed the proposals?

How much, if any, money will be available for the more general improvements to the public domain as opposed to cycle lanes?

I'm sure that there is much more to say, and PGC is the place to say it!


Colin Younger

And let’s hope David gives a fair report of what finally emerged as a constructive meeting where as one reflective trader later put it to me, “we have to find a balance”. I suspect it would also be useful if David committed to providing the GLA with balanced input from all future public meetings on which point I would make a plea: if public understanding and fair comment of a complex picture is required then let’s hear the Council authors outline the position and not seek to build consensus by starting from a (highly) unbalanced set of presentations: throwing petrol onto an already burning fire and then calling for consensus risks more of the schism, point scoring, politics which has cost Palmers Green vs other areas of this Borough so dearly in the past. We don’t need it. Stage managed to the extent of slides available by one speaker in anticipation of an audience statement isn’t the middle, listening, way the public should reasonably expect.
And with understanding who knows what may be possible. An ambitious approach could even lead to no drop in parking spaces, safety for bikers, a pleasant public realm for shoppers likely to bring in more trade and traffic progressing through the centre without issue. Poynton recently took a not dissimilar bold step. With something similar, dedicated cycling lanes may not even be required through the main shopping stretch of the planned highway. Who knows what other options there may be but sticking your head in the ground probably rules out the required vision.

As a businessman you have to look for the risks but also grab the opportunities. From a flagship Borough whose two main parties have, in writing although evidently no longer in deed, committed to a substantial Borough wide increase in cycling and now have the capital to facilitate it, seeking to be actually on a new main-trade route (one of only two planned) rather than bypassed seems a good place to start your opportunity thinking.
We only have to look as far as at Broomfield House to see the risks of looking to hanging onto the past when things have changed and supporting capital doesn’t come your way. Tumbleweed on the high street it may in the longer term but maybe not for the reasons highlighted.

I was also at the meeting about the Mini-Holland proposals.

From the beginning it seemed that David Burrowes wanted it to appear like an information-providing occasion followed by an open discussion. In fact the ‘information’ presented by the three speakers was weighted against the plans which, but for the audience, could have enabled the organisers to claim universal objection to the scheme. Not an approach which suggests that our MP has grasped the problems which the Mini-Holland is designed to address (in addition to benefits for cyclists): severe congestion, shockingly poor air quality, an under-exercised and increasingly overweight population, a chronic and worsening health problem as a consequence of the other factors.

If David Burrowes hasn’t yet grasped the overwhelming need to foster cycling his Government (they provided £100M of funds to support it), London’s Mayor (he organised the allocation of the funds) and the Council (they made the bid) all do. The case for making it easier and safer to cycle is overwhelming, but it fell to the audience to make that point.

And amid all the arguments and counter arguments which came up was one which I find distasteful – that cyclists shouldn’t have the same democratic right to complete their journey by their preferred route as drivers. Indeed some contributors to the discussion made it crystal clear that they thought the opposite should be the case: cyclists, rather than choosing to travel along Green Lanes, should be required to use less direct routes via minor roads and residential streets. Which begs the question: why are drivers first-class people, cyclists second-class?

However, whatever the shortcomings of the meeting there’s no doubting that businesses and traders are genuinely worried – a friend described them as frightened – about the probable loss of parking places having a deleterious effect on their livelihoods; which is a fear which needs to be addressed. So it’s important to note that there is evidence that cyclists are better customers than drivers, and even better evidence that, provided the public realm is congenial to them, pedestrians are even better customers than cyclists. How to ensure a congenial public realm is therefore the key issue; all of us, whether businesses or buyers, want to see a revived and thriving local business community.

So in this context what constitutes a congenial public realm? I’d say:

• shared top-of-the-list must be traffic calmed to a maximum of 20mph and not held stationary at traffic lights and pedestrian crossings, together with as much social space (wide pavements, informal seating and pavement restaurants) as possible;
• all railings designed to control pedestrians removed;
• street trees and planters;
• good planning, good design, good surfaces and lack of clutter;
• harmonised shop fronts with security screens designed to be unobtrusive;
• high street buildings of all types maintained to a high standard;
• surfaces scrupulously maintained on a day-to-day basis with businesses taking responsibility for keeping pavement areas in front of their shops and offices spruce, and
• well-designed bicycle stands at frequent intervals.

The Poynton Shared Space scheme mentioned by Karl Brown in his earlier contribution to this dialogue might well fulfil the priority need for calmed but continuously moving traffic. The principle is a tried and tested one which began in the Netherlands, but now features in many mainland European countries and in Britain. It also has the wonderful property of encouraging all three groups of users of the carriageway to share rather than, as now, compete for priority. That’s a competition that drivers inevitably win.

Colin Younger in his contribution to this debate expresses concern about the level of consultation which preceded the submission of the bid. Personally I don’t think the Council had a lot of choice given the time pressures and the uncertainty of the outcome (as a number of the Councillors present at the meeting pointed out). But since the main point was to convince London’s Mayor of its determination to foster a cycling culture it hardly matters because it’s clear that Boris Johnson is unlikely to complain provided cycling rises in the priority stakes.

On the question of future consultation that’s partly down to us as a community. If we have ideas – Karl Brown’s for instance, but others may also have ideas – then it’s up to us to put them forward now.

As far as Colin’s other questions are concerned I think we can often foresee the answers.

Q. Will the limits on parking apply in the evenings? A. Yes, because cyclists have the same right to a guaranteed pathway as drivers.

Q. If so, will it damage the evening economy? A. Probably not because restaurants and pubs should be part of an improved public realm, but also because restaurant-goers generally live within walking distance even if they actually drive at present.

Q. Locals believe that side streets are already fully occupied; will there be increased conflict over parking in them if spaces are lost on Green Lanes? A. Two of the key aims of the policy are to reduce congestion and improve air quality, and a shortage of parking will increase the pressure to travel on foot, by bike or by public transport.

Q. Will the changes have a disproportionate effect on disabled drivers? A. It seems to me that this could be a difficulty in some social areas like high streets. Which is another reason why Karl’s thoughts about Shared Space carry weight.

Q. Will crossing the cycle lanes present problems for pedestrians? A. Experience in Copenhagen and Stockholm suggest that they can. This is because serious cyclists, like drivers, tend to expect walkers to keep out of their way if they have a segregated cycle lane even when pedestrians must cross the lane to reach the other side of the road. This phenomenon is another good reason for taking the idea of Shared Space seriously because every road user learns to share.

Q. Is the aim to get more people on bikes or to get more journeys by the existing cyclists? A. Without a doubt, both, but the former is the most important – cyclists are as entitled as drivers to travel by the most convenient route; lots of people are scared of cycling among selfish traffic; Mums and Dads prevent their children from cycling out of fear.

Q. Clearly without changes it will be harder to increase rates of cycling, but if the environment for cyclists improves, will it really lead to significant increases in cycling? A. In London, with its rising population, cars, especially driver-only cars, have a limited shelf-life. Cycling and public transport will fill the gap, rates of car ownership are already at an all-time low. Factors like rising obesity levels, an under-exercised population, cycling to school, air quality, are big issues which need to be addressed. Furthermore the Council is already doing a lot by way of support, training, promotion, repairing bikes, and will do more as part of the Mini-Holland plans.

Q. Will Green Lanes become a superhighway for lycra-clad long distance commuters rather than for locals making local journeys? A. I think, given the north/south direction, that they might (as it is already for cars). Which is another reason for creating Shared Space in social areas.

Q. Are there plans for many more cycle parking spaces? A. Yes, lots. And also plans to provide secure, roofed cycle storage installed on request in residential streets. Residents will be able to hire space for their bike if they don’t have space on their own property. Each unit accommodates several bikes and takes up about half a car’s length at the kerbside. They are already being installed elsewhere in London.

Q. If so, where, given that some pavements are being reduced in width? A. Let’s leave that to the architects for the time being.

Q. How relevant is the Dutch experience to Green Lanes? A. Is the question relevant? Either it’s possible to achieve or it isn’t.

Q. What effect will the proposals to reduce road lanes at key junctions have on traffic congestion, and hence the local environment? A. The idea is that short journeys, especially driver-only journeys, should be reduced considerably. Some early congestion will promote that change. Remember the tale of ‘evaporating’ congestion in Wolverhampton told at the meeting.

Q. Will bus journey times suffer? A. Transport for London will squeal if they do.

Q. Have TfL endorsed the proposals? A. Certainly not yet because Enfield has been given a free hand to design something which works.

Q. How much, if any, money will be available for the more general improvements to the public domain as opposed to cycle lanes? A. This is a key question, but it’s not hard to guess that it won’t be as much as the ideas warrant. Partly though the issue is one for retailers who could do more to spruce up high streets by working together on the design of shop fronts, and reducing the visual damage caused by some security curtains.

These are both exciting and essential changes in the context of London’s quality of life. Time to get our head down and work at it

I'm bringing together all contributions to the discussion about Mini-Holland and the meeting at the Intimate Theatre on 24th April under this heading.

I was at the meeting too and saddened by how car-centric the consensus was. "After I've picked my kids up from school I want to be able to park outside the cafe" was one of the comments. "You can't cycle to my restaurant because you have to wear a suit", was another.

Where are these people driving in from?

I hope the "Mini Holland" (stupid name) gets the go ahead with the emphasis equally on cyclist AND pedestrian safety.

Green Lanes and Bourne Hill/Hedge Lane are race tracks and a no-go zone for pedestrians trying to cross the road. In N21, N14 and N13 the car is king and we need to reverse people's attitudes.

Andrew Nix

There was standing room only at tonight's meeting about "shared space" organised by the Enfield Town Conservation Area Study Group held in the Civic Centre.

The main speaker, Ben Hamilton-Baillie, an urban designer and movement specialist, gave a very persuasive presentation on the philosophy and history of highway and urban design with particular emphasis on the challenge the retail revolution presented to the traditional high street. It was no longer essential to visit town centres because of the internet and out of town shopping centres. People needed other reasons to visit local shopping centres, and a key to this would be the quality of the experience. He suggested that high streets had historically had two main functions, traffic movement, and the exchange of goods and personal services. Traditional highway management had been to favour the former against the latter, and in fact had made the latter more difficult and indeed an unattractive experience. The evidence is in the empty shops.

Though admitting that after only ten hours in Enfield he could not advise on the situation facing the Town, his photographs and comments on the streetscape were striking - enabling the audience to see aspects through fresh eyes. He commented that Enfield was one of the most cluttered centres he had seen as regards street furniture, with large areas tied up as traffic islands to no benefit to pedestrians and shoppers!

This is not an attempt to summarise the whole evening, a record of that will be produced in due course. However, I think it was clear that the audience was very impressed by his analysis, by the evidence backing up his arguments, and strongly supported the need to look carefully at how this should modify Enfield's approach to mini-holland. My own initial view is that careful application of shared space ideas to Palmers Green around the Triangle and main shopping areas along Green Lanes and Aldermans Hill could have a positively transformative impact and achieve the aims of benefiting cyclists, shop owners and pedestrians alike.

The Council Cabinet is to take the proposed governance arrangements for the mini holland project (re-branded Cycle Enfield) on 17 September. The link to the report is

governance.enfield.gov.uk/documents/s47054/CYCLEENV%2014%2016%20Cabinet%202.pdf

The development of the Enfield Town part of the original mini-holland scheme is more advanced than it is for Green Lanes. It is worth keeping an eye on the process there to help thinking about Palmers Green.

One of the contentious issues raised in Enfield Town is whether a different approach based on shared space rather than traffic (ie cycle) segregation might not be better from a wider perspective, in particular for pedestrians, buses, and the overall shopping environment.

There is still uncertainty about how dogmatic the GLA (and hence LBE) are about cycle segregation along all the routes in question. However, the Enfield Town options does (or did?) refer to shared space as an option originally ruled out on safety grounds but then reconsidered after a visit to St John's Road in Clapham. I've attached the extract from the paper "Church Street Urban Design Treatments - Options".

I don't know how directly applicable this might be to the main Palmers Green shopping area not having seen this developement, but I think that consideration of a solution based on shared space principles should be considered. It seems to me that (pedestrian) movement across Green Lanes is surely as important as movement along it. The current proposal for hard segregated cycle lanes might also cause problems for bus traffic and passengers (note the proposed loss of the bus stop by the Fox).



Colin Younger

Andrew Gilligan has just visited Enfield Town at the invitation of the Enfield Town Conservation Area Study Group. It now seems that the Green Lanes part of the mini-holland/cycle Enfield project will precede the main Enfield Town aspect.

St John's Road in Clapham is noted in the Enfield Town proposal as a possible shared space option for Church Street. I went to look at the way it has been implemented to see whether it had lessons for Palmers Green. Though it has interesting aspects, it depends on banning car and lorry through traffic, and so isn't of direct relevance to Palmers Green's shopping areas.

The more I see of the project and the arguments for and against, the more it seems to me that insufficient attention has been given to the effects on bus routes along, and pedestrian movements across, Green Lanes. If the quieter neighbourhoods schemes go ahead it seems likely to put more traffic on to Green Lanes, which although it may be a plus for residential roads, will complicate matters so far as mini-holland goes.

That is not to say that I am against either scheme, just that more thought needs to be given to them. They both offer potential benefits, and it would be a pity if these were not realised

I am struck by this sentence: "If the quieter neighbourhoods schemes go ahead it seems likely to put more traffic on to Green Lanes, which although it may be a plus for residential roads, will complicate matters so far as mini-holland goes." taken from Colin Younger's most recent post. Not that I disagree with the likelyhood that Quieter Neighbourhood schemes will put more traffic on through routes, but I'd have thought that cycle lanes/possible Shared Space options would go in as planned giving drivers the choice of taking public transport/cycling, or adding to congestion. It's to be hoped that they'll do the sensible thing.

Let us be clear: whether rat-running drivers are making residents' lives a misery on residential streets, or adding to dangerously poor air quality on through routes there is no justification for their action unless the other forms of transport are unable to meet their needs. Why? Because as population and consequent car ownership rises we'll all have to pay more attention to community needs rather than personal preference.

I am not sure that the cycle lanes along Green Lanes plan is set in stone is it? It was just a preliminary idea to get the ball rolling as far as I was aware.

Waltham Forest have implemented their mini-holland scheme already which is just a few roads shut and benches installed on a few quiet street in the 'Village'.

I think it will be helpful to look at other implementations before the diggers are deployed.

This is in response to the posting by Andrew Nix.
Cycle lanes are a central part of the bid, and it will need some intervention to adapt it to local circumstances. Palmers Green is an obvious place to move towards a shared space solution which allows more freedom to pedestrians criss-crossing Green Lanes, and slows down traffic to a continuous safe stream rather than imposing stops/starts at traffic lights/pedestrian controlled lights. Buses and cyclists could also benefit. Retention of the Triangle, which the recent consultation showed was very popular, could also be included rather than being removed and replaced by a T-junction as the bid proposes.

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!