Lea Bridge Road/Walthamstow mini Holland

Ah, the view from zone 1 and 2 and the demographic to match
I am not really sure if you have read the article.
It's certainly not what we see in E10 and E17.

You mean this?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/oct/12/why-are-london-cyclists-so-white-male-and-middle-class

Or are we talking about another article?

I blogged about why Dave Hill and the Enfield Tories are wrong: http://eco-vehicle-exchange.net/some-middle-class-white-men-need-to-get-on-their-bikes/

Also, any cyclists based in E10/E17 area, the swivel eyed anti mini-Holland fossil fuel addict loons are planning a protest on Thursday at 6pm outside Waltham Forest Town Hall on Forest Road. I'm going down to voice my support for the scheme. Anyone else up for it?

Perhaps calling them swivel eyed fuel addict loons is not helpful to the cause . That's my barber and my cobbler whose sanity you are questioning..

Just in case you had any doubts, I do support Mini Holland. I rather wish it was not called that

Yes, that's why I am not sure you read it...

Well, it would be charitable of you to explain the point that you clearly think I am missing :)

I suspect Dave Hill cherry picked that report to support some of his previous articles on cycling which have been fairly broadly criticised (including by other Guardian journalists).

I can't think of many other areas where participation being mainly white/middle-class was used as a justification to not invest rather than investments being made to promote equality.

errrrrr

*When you assume etc

/classwar!

Erm, sorry 7up, but I couldn't disagree more on just about every point you make.

1. The surrounding streets aren't more congested. Lea Bridge Road and Hoe Street got dramatically worse a few weeks after the full village scheme went in - when schools went back. But a) that could have been the scheme bedding in, and b) we simultaneously had huge roadworks on the north circ. Either way, last week or so, congestion back to roughly where it was before - ie sometimes horrible, sometimes fine, bit around Selbourne Road always fairly chuggy. Church Hill is exactly as it was before the scheme went in, and has remained that way throughout. Queuing on Shernhall onto Forest the same. Queuing other end onto LBR (Eastern Ave?) is worse - but not dramatically so.

2. Residential roads across the borders of the scheme largely unaffected - some quite a lot quieter. Look at "poets" roads or Howard - traffic counts definitely down from where they were before. Ratrunners not just displaced from one area, but several.

3. On top of that, of course, the village scheme represents one tiny fraction of even the residential schemes. Pretending the village is all Tarquins inaccurate enough. But what will you say when all of Blackhorse Village, Hoe/Wood and Markhouse in too?

4. There is not a high percentage of people who rely on access to private vehicles. Under half of all households in Walthamstow have access to a car, and most disabled folks don't use a car. We're not quite as low car as Hackney. But we're not miles off.

5. Loads of people have raised concerns over the schemes, sure - and Stella is getting it in the neck. There's a lot happening, fast. But that doesn't automatically mean there's been "little consideration" of anything. It just means people hate change.

Sorry, but again, look at not even Groningen, not even Hackney, but places in Walthamstow like north of Lea Bridge Road between Argall and Markhouse. Huge sodding road closure cell over there. Been in for decades. No one notices it. Does it mess up everyone else's drive? No. In six months time, most will barely remember the big mini-Holland panic of 2015.

Simon, I d agree it's settling down and the traffic is flowing.

However, the battle for hearts and minds is being lost. I can not get my hair cut or shoes mended without hearing about bloody MH. There is also , I am afraid some truth in the Tarquin stereotype of the village.

To be honest, apart from the LCC and the LVCC there's not yet much utilty cycling in the borough. It would be interesting to know how many of our cyclist's moved to e10/e17 in the last 2-3 years.

Unless we revive utility cycling in the borough; for example, few Green School girls ride to the school, then I fear we are creating another Stevenage.

Unless we revive utility cycling in the borough; for example, few Green School girls ride to the school, then I fear we are creating another Stevenage.

And your plan for upping utility cycling is to send kids out into the state of traffic so clearly documented in the 'Reporting bad drivers' thread?

Greetings from a Leyton-resident-before-it-started-to-become-gentrified-utility-cyclist.

I walk through the Olympic Village down to Stratford City most mornings and it's a very mixed demographic riding off the top of Leyton High Road down Temple Mills and through the park; I'd estimate about 20% female, about 25% commuting hoodies on mountain bikes (great to see and has increased a lot the past year) and the balance typical roadie commuters. Numbers are definitely up, though that could be because more people have discovered the route.

@coshgirl I would be love to join you but have to work Thursday evening, Peter Carter's advice is probably worth heading though...

On top of that, of course, the village scheme represents one tiny fraction of even the residential schemes.

This is key, of course--deal with the displacement by consistent cell designation.

In six months time, most will barely remember the big mini-Holland panic of 2015.

Frankly, I hope they do remember it and how wrong they were. We need precedent for further progress elsewhere. Sweeping it under the carpet of memory just won't do. :)

As I've said many times, the key is whether local economic performance improves (which I'm confident it will). This is much bigger than cycling--it's about how we live in an urban area like London in the 21st century. Can me modally filter and not build bypasses? I'm sure we can.

hehehe

Thank you Oliver for reminding us that in the end it's always about the economy.

It is bigger than cycling - its about making Leyton, Leytonstone, Walthamstow and Whipps Cross better places to live and work in for all of their residents and all of their communities...

They should fill hollow ponds with concrete and pedestrianise them. Bloody geese.

You leave the forest out of this, young man :-)

As I've said many times, the key is whether local economic performance improves (which I'm confident it will).

Whenever the benefits of the scheme are shown in photographic form it's always white, middle-class people eating at cafes on Orford road, so I guess your confidence is correct.

^ nailed it

It would be interesting to know how many of our cyclist's moved to e10/e17 in the last 2-3 years.

No shit! I mean technically it shouldn't matter, right? But in reality, it does!

Interesting to hear your local perspective, 7Üp.

The main roads are not my concern. They are supposed to be busy. The residential streets, however, are not.

Residential streets are supposed to be busy with children playing and neighbours chatting, though. :)

#idyllicrosetintedspectacles

Traffic isn't just moving cars (of which, there are indeed more, as people who are still not familiar with the scheme try to cut corners) but parked cars.

Er? Parked cars are most definitely not traffic (even if, say, someone has just got out of one by the roadside and is popping into a shop--the agency in 'traffic' is with the person). They certainly have a negative impact on the ambience of the environment, but obviously not of the same order as through motor traffic.

You realise those people that don't own a car also need access by private vehicles, don't you? I know of two families that require access by bus to collect infirm grandparents, and a disabled girl who needs to wait on the corner of lea bridge since she cannot be collected from her house any more.

That shouldn't happen--every property should be accessible by private car. That said, I still haven't been up there to look at the scheme (as there's no point until it's bedded in), so I don't know what was actually implemented. When I last saw design drawings, back in the consultation phase, they had some significant shortcomings, and I don't know if they were resolved, but if not they were most likely necessary compromises and may be improved in future iterations. Simon can probably explain.

There are a lot of (particularly older) people that rely on minicabs and private buses in the area, and the congestion has affected them quite badly. Ask them.

Whether the volumes are reduced is going to be one of the tests. Experience from elsewhere suggests it should. I don't mean overall traffic volumes should be reduced; those should increase, but with more people using sustainable modes rather than cars.

Congestion is a funny thing, though. In principle, it actually isn't a problem but a sign of the success of an attractor (place etc.). For instance, there are reports of bad congestion in the Londinium of Roman times, in medieval times, in Victorian times, right up until today--because London has for a very long time been a very successful place. Ubiquitous motor traffic has changed this slightly in that it's a lot easier to congest a place if everybody drives cars with one person in each than if they walk, cycle, use public transport, or the occasional horse and cart, and while congestion has always been felt to be a problem, today it seems to be perceived as far more unpleasant than in former times because of the noise and pollution. However, oddly enough, if traffic (all forms) flows very freely, it is less likely to be traffic stopping in a place and trading there; it is more likely to travel further afield, e.g. 'leap-frogging' a closer centre. Congestion can mean that people want to trade where they are rather than elsewhere because of the additional cost (time, fuel, patience) involved in getting there. This gives an advantage to traders based on where they are, which in the age of mass motorisation has progressively been lost (and is now being reduced all over again because of on-line ordering). With any luck, Walthamstow and other places in Waltham Forest may get more of a slice of London's pie in this way. It's early days, but it'll certainly be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Why did they choose the village over wood street?

Do you mean over the Wood Street area?

I'd be happy if the scheme was larger. I'd be happy if the scheme was implemented along with restrictions in the surrounding areas to control the fallout, right now it's a free for all.

Yes, as ever, if other areas bear the brunt, there's still work to do; it's a similar mechanism as with car parking control.

Whenever the benefits of the scheme are shown in photographic form it's always white, middle-class people eating at cafes on Orford road, so I guess your confidence is correct.

Hopefully, that's only the thin end of the wedge. Too many cafés are certainly a symptom of an unbalanced local economy. It's not supposed to turn into a middle-class leisure park.

It is certainly true that in the past modal filtering has mainly been done in fairly affluent areas. We've been aware of that for a long time and have always argued that it should be adopted everywhere. One scheme in Hackney in a not-very-rich-yet area is fairly advanced (although I realise that Hackney's ridiculous price increases are pushing local people out, this area has a lot of housing association and Council housing that hopefully won't be destroyed by the Government's ridiculous policy of flogging off HA properties).

You see what I'm suggesting by parked cars and vans though? Crossing the road/cycling along the road is much more dangerous when there are bumper to bumper cars parked! This has to have been a consideration?