Support Mini Holland

(hat tip to Oliver for the recommendation, many moons ago)

Ha, I can't even remember that, but glad you're enjoying it.

The thing that you always have to consider about those European cities is that there isn't a single one among them which has achieved greater rates of cycling in their town centre without building far more roads and actually increasing private motor traffic. This often doesn't show up in statistics for town centres simply because the orbital capacity can be beyond the administrative limits of the city. (Also, Copenhagen always had a relatively high share of cycling compared to London, for instance--London had very early development of public transport, so had significantly less cycling than the ~60-70% modal shares (of vehicular traffic, not including walking) of cycling in European cities in the 1930s.)

Basically, they have all made a simple trade-off--more walking and cycling in the centre, more sprawl and driving on the outskirts, or indeed on their trunk road network--e.g. Denmark has joined up its motorway system, meaning that it's now possible to drive from Germany to Sweden on motorways. This may at first seem an attractive trade-off, but in practice it leads to a vastly increased need to travel--it benefits big(ger) business, meaning that employment and shopping locations tend to become less localised.

Where people have much further to travel, cycling falls (e.g., levels of rural cycling in Denmark and the Netherlands), and this tends to be masked by the parallel rise in urban centres. Eventually, this catches up not only with villages but with larger centres, too, and more and more people can no longer work in their own town but have to commute to another town. Few people, if any, will cycle that sort of distance. Where employment moves away, it also means that the rest of the local economy suffers.

London has a unique chance to try and avoid more road-building and to experience genuine modal shift. While it does have a seriously damaging ring road in the M25, and a damaging semicircle road in the A406 North Circular Road, London is so vast that the effect of the M25 is comparatively remote, unlike for all those smaller towns in Europe, and the A406 doesn't go all the way around. (The Inner Ring Road, by contrast, isn't really a 'ring road', merely a continuous sequence of streets linked by a common name and certain traffic management measures to favour orbital motor traffic.) There is very limited scope for more road-building (not that that has stopped the Mayor's Roads Task Force from advocating bonkers plans like the underground orbital motorway), and London has a chance to experience genuine modal shift.

The effect of modal filtering as in Waltham Forest should be greater viability of locally-based business, both from the liveability angle and also, simply, because scope for motor traffic that merely passes through to go elsewhere is reduced, potentially reducing opportunities and incentives for 'leap-frogging' centres in chains of centres. (Ideally, it should be possible to either stay in one's own centre or at the most go to the nearest one.)

The upshot for cycling is that where more trips become shorter, a greater base of cycleable trips is created and more cycling will occur.

The infrastructure in Holland works because lots of people cycle and aren't car-centric/obsessed - cycling is an attractive option to lots of people because of the infrastructure, the infrastructure is supported and invested in because so many people cycle and round and round it goes.

As perhaps hinted above, it isn't quite so simple. As pretty much any Dutch person will point out to you, the vast majority of cycling in the Netherlands is on ordinary streets without any form of cycle-specific intervention. Key are (a) the high number of people who ride bikes, who make up a large proportion of the drivers you will encounter, (b) the legislation (a lot of laws which favour walking and cycling), and (c) the historically high proportion of short trips, for which cycling is unbeatable.

Which brings you back to the issue of good infrastructure which plays a part in encouraging people to walk or cycle instead of driving but it's only a small part innit.

Very much so. We need good infrastructure to make our cities more liveable, and in particular no more road-building except for access in new developments, but the reasons why people don't cycle are many and they all need addressing.

It wasn't always that way - Copenhagen used to be a car-filled hellhole just like anywhere else. They had the political will to change it by making it more and more difficult to drive, though, and my hope is that we can get the same thing happening here. Always look forward :-)

Yes, Copenhagen was badly affected by early motorisation, but the conditions from which they performed the inner urban turnaround were still far more favourable than those we have in London. This was even more the case for the Netherlands, which you referenced in your post before you edited it.

But yeah, Daily Fail headlines aside you're right of course. I just fret about how far away we are from that tipping point of people changing their perspectives innit.

Don't fret, just look to Hackney. :)

The negative rhetoric is absolutely depressing, but remember it comes from a place of fear - people are afraid they'll lose money, they're afraid they'll lose time, they're afraid they'll lose their freedom. It's a natural reaction to be afraid of change, and that councils are trying these things out anyway, even with the waves of fear rippling throughout their boroughs, is hopefully a sign that they're going to base their approaches on data rather instead of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

All true, and I do hope there's some money in the kitty for a data-driven approach. As I said further up, I suspect that a majority of the residential population is already in favour of filtering, and of course people will realise the startling effect is has on peace and quiet and air quality once it's in. The interesting question will be how it plays out electorally, i.e. will it become an election-deciding issue just as car parking has been in Camden and Islington in the last ten years? I think that car parking is likely to be a much more emotive issue than restraint of through motor traffic. Fingers crossed that that proves true.

I'm sure that many of those cars probably belong to people who own or work in those shops.

Possible, but depends on how the pay-and-display scheme, which should normally be biased towards short-stay parking, is administered.

Every time I ride through I'm struck by how noisy and shit it is and how badly that space has been wasted. What are all you people doing there! Hardly any of you are stopping, none of you are delivery trucks, and I sincerely doubt all of you are disabled. But those are the arguments against reducing car use that keep cropping up again and again.

True, most through motor traffic doesn't contribute anything to most town centres it passes, and only a small percentage of it will stop. But then look at the likely argument from the businesses--'we're fully aware of that, and this is why we want at least a small percentage of that traffic to stop and shop, so that it's not all a useless waste'. The argument, then, given that they see the through motor traffic levels as inevitable, reducing pay-and-display car parking provision (which in their view will be the main intervention) will attract more shoppers on foot and by bike, is difficult to make stick, because, after all, won't air pollution and noise be pretty much the same afterwards?

It has to be said in favour of Enfield that it has been making some impressive strides in developing local business and employment in recent years. How many more cycleable trips are generated by this I don't know, and given that surrounding London boroughs haven't usually followed suit very determinedly, but with any luck some effects might already be felt.

A couple of years back I was involved in the NHS's planning for the Olympics. We needed to work out how staff would get to work and how they would move around East London. What was interesting to discover was how spread out the work force was. A drive down the M11 from s of Cambridge was not unusual. So we already have that sprawling Dutch and Danish patterns of travel and work.
Don't under estimate how essential driving a car is to many people in East London being economically active..

Mini Holland in Walthamstow Village is a good thing though...

A drive down the M11 from s of Cambridge was not unusual. So we already have that sprawling Dutch and Danish patterns of travel and work.

This is the special case of London and its satellite towns (of which Cambridge is now one, even though it was of course not planned that way).

In major UK cities with good public transport, mainly London, the travel mix is far more towards the sustainable than in small towns. Small towns in the UK have the same problem of low employment and a high need to travel, of course.

Don't under estimate how essential driving a car is to many people in East London being economically active.

Oh, I wouldn't. On some measures, it is, however, easier to target car trips than in Inner London, as 50% of trips under two miles are made by car in Outer London, compared to 40% of such trips in Inner London. The vast majority of these trips could easily be walked and cycled. The aim is not to target those who genuinely couldn't do without cars, but firstly those who clearly make a lot of trips that should not be made by car. This will then generate better conditions for the others (as well as benefiting walking and cycling).

A lot are for the restaurants' customers but some are the same cars parked outside the same shops everyday.

There's no political will at the moment to change it though and the traders have an excessive influence. The last proposal put forward was to remove the bus lane southbound and change it to car parking. Fortunately that was vetoed by TFL as a bloody stupid idea.

The last proposal put forward was to remove the bus lane southbound and change it to car parking

This reminds me of something that's a bit of a worry in Enfield. My understanding is that of the three proposals, the most fleshed-out is the Enfield Town one, but the one the council intend to work on first is Palmers Green (on Green Lanes). The main proposal as regards buses there seems to be to, again, remove the southbound bus lane entirely - and replace it with a cycle lane. Obviously this elicits howls of protest from the traders because it's like rubbing their faces in the cycle provision they strenously object to, but the general policy of removing bus lanes and replacing them with cycle lanes is stupid anyway - take that space away from general traffic instead, not public transport.

So it looks like Enfield want to put the least thought-out proposal in first, all the while directly butting heads with the Green Lanes Business Association. It's like they're actively trying to make things difficult for themselves.

Looks like a great project. I own a place in leyton and any investment is cycling infrastructure would be brilliant.

Front page of this week's Waltham Forest Guardian. First piece they've run that isn't ENTIRELY negative. Gotta love the headline. Join the rage. Sign the petition! http://www.change.org/p/stella-creasy-mp-we-support-mini-holland-in-walthamstow

1 Attachment

Madrid goes car-free in city center . Yay ))
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/26/madrid-plans-city-centre-car-ban-masdar-brussels-athens

OH DEAR GOD BUT THE BUSINESSES, what about the BUSINESSES

they will all be RUINED

nobody will ever shop again!

Further news, no evidence of grid lock in Walthamstow .... this thing might be working....

Modal filtering works--and once everybody has realised just how nice it makes the streets, few want to go back.

Nice blog by Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign: http://wfcycling.wordpress.com/mini-holland/

Comments also worth a read - lots of moaning at the beginning "I WAS LATE FOR EVERYTHING" and "SO MANY DRIVERS" and "I HATE YOU WALTHAM FOREST COUNCIL", followed by a chap posting yesterday saying that he lives on one of the affected (made more busy) roads and that the traffic has essentially evaporated. Lovely stuff, and overall very positive (with reservations).

It was only one road up and one road down.

US think tank Mobility Lab on "bikelash":

This phenomenon has a name: “bikelash” – a clever word used to describe the resistance and hostility some people demonstrate towards the growing presence of bicycles in their cities.

Bikelash is not always a bad thing. CityLab has said it represents a mainstreaming of the bicycle movement.

http://mobilitylab.org/2014/10/10/how-to-combat-bikelash-embrace-it/#sthash.bRpZW9ei.uxfs

My tuppence worth: Get rid of ALL cut through traffic in Walthamstow. The only through routes should be Forest Road, Blackhorse Lane, Lea Bridge Road, Markhouse Road, Wood Street and Hoe Street, with the exception of buses like the W12. Everywhere else should be like Coppermill is now, one way in and the same way out for cars.
Also Councillor Loakes bring back Waltham Forest bike recycling centre to Low Hall Lane, not the Bikeworks one you have set up right at the south of the borough. Why should residents/helpers travel to the southern edge of the borough to give their free time, put it back in the centre of WF where it was, so equal access to all, oh and re-employ Colin and Chris. All them bikes we made and sold cheaply. This borough has all the fresh air in London with the marshes and the forest on its borders so is perfect for cyclists.
My other bug bear is speed humps, build them RIGHT across the road, not just a square block that car drivers take up the middle of the road to not effect their suspension. Which means us cyclists get cut up or have to give way to stay safe.
Err yes I do live here and have done for the last 20 years before you ask

^This

ibikelondon has today posted a short piece by Ruth Standing, one of the supporters of the Waltham Forest scheme, and what she learned while lending her support: http://ibikelondon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/fighting-for-mini-hollands-in-outer.html

I saw that, full power to the elbow of people like that. If I lived anywhere near I'd buy her a beer.

What stage is the process at? I guess some blocks have gone in? Are they due to be removed? Is it traffic armagedon?

I don't live in Waltham Forest, so mongrel or one of the other locals will need to confirm - my understanding is that things are now back to normal as the roadblocks have been removed (as of Monday 13th). Waltham Forest council will now consult on the next stage which will ultimately generate their final plans, this time involving local people more closely.

There are consultations happening next month in Enfield regarding "quieter neighbourhoods" proposals in the residential areas surrounding Green Lanes. From the literature I have it looks like they will be mostly concerning speed limits and possibly road closures to through traffic but nothing has been firmly decided at the moment. Enfield council have been at pains to make sure they are including residents so the proposals don't take anyone by surprise, and have also intimated that they will not be entering into discussions about any other element of the Cycle Enfield plans (which includes the Mini Holland bid). As I recall the last meeting of interested residential groups went reasonably badly as it was hijacked by local politicians in opposition to the plans who wouldn't let the residents get a word in edgeways(!), so the council will be more determined to head off potential problems this time round.

Sorry need to keep up with this thread better.

To update: the roadblocks came down a while ago. Residents' suggestions/critiques were gathered and new adjusted plans for filtered permeability were delivered last weekend.

Also traffic data was released, showing a dramatic overall reduction in cars in the trial area.

Some residential roads did see a dramatic INCREASE in traffic which worked out how to cut through. The revised plans feature more and moved road blocks to (hopefully) address this.

Pre- trial, slightly More than half of people in the area polled were for, about a third against. Post trial both percentages increased slightly, leaving a majority in support.

So this next consultation will be chewed over, and implemented early next year.

Next step is filtered permeability in a neighbouring area, and hopefully soon plans for a fully segregated Lea Bridge Road will be released.