Campaigners demand ‘mini Holland’ in Hackney after Walthamstow success
Going Dutch: campaigners in Hackney want the council to follow Walthamstow’s lead
The success of a traffic safety trial in Walthamstow dubbed “mini Holland” has lit the touch paper in Hackney, with campaigners accusing the council of “losing its nerve” over similar plans for London Fields.
Waltham Forest Council was awarded £30 million by City Hall to begin piloting area-wide road closures around Walthamstow Village in February last year, as part of then mayor Boris Johnson’s “cycling revolution”.
Provisional results released this week show a 56 per cent reduction in the number of cars using key roads in the village – around 10,000 fewer vehicles a day – with an increase of 3 per cent and 11 per cent on two roads just outside the area, which opponents had worried would become increasingly congested.
Hackney Council rejected a similar “mini Holland” proposal for London Fields earlier this year following a consultation with local residents, instead opting for width restrictions on Middleton Road.
#London #Fields consultation has 49% support for Opt.1 but #Hackney council recommends Opt.4 with no #space4cycling pic.twitter.com/yLfi7jQugF
— London Fields (@FumeFreeStreets) May 29, 2016
Ben Alden-Falconer of Fume Free Streets said: “The resounding success of Walthamstow’s scheme – pursued by the council despite loud opposition and even a legal challenge – is further evidence that Hackney Council should have held their nerve and trialled similar proposals in London Fields.
“It wasted an opportunity to lead the way in improving the lives of its residents by cutting down motor traffic and its associated noise, dangers, and pollution – all with only minimal disruption to residential parking and with no significant traffic increase for roads not included in the scheme.
“Fume Free Streets believes the public consultation conducted this year did not support the council’s decision to introduce width restrictions, rather than a similar scheme to ‘mini Holland’.
“We will continue to campaign for area-wide reductions of motor traffic in London Fields, which can be achieved with fewer road closures than the initial proposals, with active provisions against traffic increases on peripheral roads like Richmond Road and help reduce dangerous pollution outside local primary schools.”
But Hackney Cycling Campaign’s Jono Kenyon wants the borough’s new mayor to be “more ambitious”.
“A ‘mini Holland’ should be a lot bigger, in my opinion. The London Fields proposal was not a multi-million-pound scheme. Hackney is supposed to be the leading borough for cycling and walking, and this is an opportunity for Mayor Glanville to be much more ambitious.”
Kenyon also welcomed the results of Waltham Forest Council’s trial, saying: “It’s very interesting in terms of addressing people’s fears and concerns over what happens to an area when these types of schemes are implemented.
“Evidence is building that they are very beneficial, and Hackney is well placed to introduce its own ‘mini Holland’.
“The branding – calling it ‘mini Holland’ – is actually slightly misleading. People see the schemes as being for cyclists, but really they are town centre improvements that will help everyone.”
In its decision to go with width restrictions on Middleton Road, Hackney Council said it would “continue to work with local residents and cycling groups to investigate and identify further options and other measures to address the traffic and pollution issues raised during the consultation.”
The Town Hall recently introduced road closures around De Beauvoir Road and Wordsworth Road, and a spokesperson confirmed it is considering and implementing further schemes across the borough, with more to be announced in the near future.
1. Waltham Forest didn’t spend 30 mill on just the one scheme in Walthamstow Village. It got 30 mill to radically change main roads for pedestrians and people cycling, including Lea Bridge Road to the Hackney border (and including removing the horrific Whipps Cross roundabout), Forest Road to the Haringey border, and lots of other main roads, plus secondary town centres, bike parking at stations and outside resident homes, cargo bike loan scheme, routes from town centre to town centre and finally creating four big “modal filter cells” – the Village scheme was just the first.
2. Hackney pioneered “modal filter cells” way back with De Beauvoir. And has long been doing them. So it’s a bitter irony that it’s now lagging behind Walthamstow, because of a lack of backbone and some very odd anger. If you look at the consultation results, a lot of the opposition comes from very quiet roads off Middleton Road. Seems to me a case of some residents deciding they don’t want anyone to drive through their street, but they should have the right to drive through everyone else’s?
We, in Walthamstow didn’t want this rubbish.
If you want mini Holland, have it. We want shot of it.
I moved to Walthamstow. I’m glad mini Holland is going in. I can now cycle on completed bits with much greater safety and enjoyment.
I live in Walthamstow village, mini holland has made the roads around the area more dangerous, turning one way streets two way, where cars have to mount the pavement to pass each other (Addison road) and creating rat runs where there were none. The congestion and pollution in Shernhall Street and Lea Bridge Road is markedly worse. What mini Holland did was to remove traffic from Orford Road and push it into the less wealthy areas. I am a cyclist and cycling is more dangerous in this area now. Sadly there is a small but extremely vocal group of cycling zealots who ignore the facts whenever they see a chance to stop a car irrespective of the consequences. Someone is going to die.
Hi Wendy! (Dr Strange) Are you single handedly posting every single anti Mini Holland post now?
Speak for yourself, Anonymous. This Walthamstow resident loves mini holland.
Sadly this is a typical response to any criticism of the Mini Holland. The first word in the title of this article is “Campaigners” and the campaign element has created a conflict between those who want a sensible approach to road changes and those who just want to shut roads with no thought for the consequences, people who see themselves as righteous campaigners and shout down – or in this case post disingenuous comments – to silence debate.
as the interim report from Waltham Forest makes clear, alongside an overall reduction in traffic of 16%, traffic on some roads went up, including an 11% increase on Lea Bridge Road. Local residents in London Fields who have been critical of existing plans to date have highlighted that schemes which did not address traffic on Queensbridge Road, Richmond Rd, Whiston Rd etc risked creating similar displacement. While the benefits of “evaporation” are welcome, a similar 10% increase of traffic levels on Richmond Road (for example) would see over 1000 additional vehicles on this local road.
Unless and until Hackney Council present a scheme that addresses not just the streets within a cell but those at obvious risk of displacement, they are likely to encounter the same opposition that scuppered the original plans. There is hope that Hackney Council is slowly moving towards a position where a timeline for a series of staged measures could be put forward, so at least streets not considered for an initial treatment could be confident that it would happen in an agreed time frame. such reassurance hasn’t been provided to date, and such a move would be welcome. However, Hackney Council has further eroded trust by reneging on the assurances in relation to the limited scheme currently in place: a three month flexible trial has morphed in to a set of inflexible measures that will be in place at least until May 2017.
It’s money that should be spent on housing and youth clubs, not on what basically comes down to a white middle class hobby, that is detrimental to pedestrians, the young and those with disabilities.
The mini Holland in Walthamstow in not a success to the majority of people in Waltham forest major road are always blocked and jounerys to work take 3 times as long local business are struggling and refuse collections and the emergency services lose valueable time in dealing with emergency a and crime also raised pavements cause problems for the blind ,partially blind,elderly and children as not sure we’re juntions are also the motorists and residents lose out for a few cycist that don’t pay road tax, insurance get pirotity to drive up side roads against the traffic the cyclist got through red lights don’t have lights and helmets or reflective clothing overhaul a poor idea and one that if floored with problems
Mini Holand in walthamstow is rubbish ,before mini Holand it use to take me 5 minutes from whipps cross to granville road now it takes me 20 minutes because of mini Holand
Don’t be an idiot all your life. The money for these schemes isn’t taken from youth clubs or housing, and the majority of society doesn’t even have access to a car.. its drivers that are privileged.
A disabled person is more likely to cycle than drive a car. Childrens health is improved greatly by cycling, and motorised vehicles kill and injure many more pedestrians than cycling ever will. Not to mention the benefits to the environment and in turn public health far outweigh any absolutely marginal costs by cycling related injury.
Waltham Forest is far more pleasant with Mini Holland. Shops report boosted trade, the emergency services have reported zero problems and traffic evaporation has taken place beyond any predictions. It’s an amazing success.
where on earth they received feedback from mini Holland being a success in Waltham Forest!! there has been nothing but unbearable trouble for everyone. I live in Walthamstow where the mini Holland has taken over everyone’s morning and evening. It would normally take me 10 minutes to work in the mornings, and 10 minutes to get home. However now since the mini Holland it now takes me 45 minutes to an hour each way. Emergency services have found this mini Holland a nightmare too as there are so many road closures that their time in responding to emergencies has increased. I know cyclists and on this subject none of them cycle to work anymore due to how dangerous the roads are now. the statistics of less cars on the road now is very strange as i now see 3 times the amount of cars on the road now. I have not seen one cyclist use the new cycle lanes, i think its a joke that road closures have been approved and the pavement has changed and raised which does not indicate to blind people or children when the pavement ends. As a member of someone who works in a school i am highly worried as the amount of congestion which is being caused is creating an increase of emissions on main roads which is near schools and there fore the children are being exposed to these emissions which adds to health problems such as asthma. There has been more car accidents since this all began and I am worried that it wont be long till a child is knocked down due to the uncertainty of where to cross. Myself having been driving for 5 years now, I personally feel more uneasy of the roads now as I am never sure where a cyclist will pop out from anymore. All mini Holland has done is make the roads a more dangerous place and made the public feel angry and frustrated. We pay road tax and car insurance to use our cars to commute to work and to have a social life, mini Holland has made us late for work and lessen the time we get with out loved ones. If Hackney are really considering opting for mini Holland then all i have to say is good luck because you’ll need it!
You use your car for a ten minute journey?
” There has been more car accidents since this all began” What is your source of that claim please?
The emergency services are stakeholders in the scheme, no problems at all have been reported by them. Where are you getting this nonsense from?
“There has been more car accidents since this all began”
No there have not. Why did you use your car for a 10 minute journey?
That people think nothing wrong with using a car for a 10 minute journey shows the state we’re in.
Well Spindrift, the reasons for why i use my car for a 10 minute journey is for a personal reason which for your information is none of your business! car accidents – there has been on occurrence at least 1 a week whilst driving in the area. my eyes and other witnesses around the accidents are the source of that claim. Complaints from emergency services have come from the mouths themselves when speaking to them.
And as for your comment ‘Shops report boosted trade’, well what about our local corner shops in which sell fruit and veg which is displayed outside, when speaking to those owners their struggling to now sell these products due to the emissions caused by traffic.
You can’t say what your journey was, you can’t name these emergency services people or the shop that’s stopped selling fruit. Is that correct?
Under the circumstances of the emergency funnily enough i was more concerned about the person who needed urgent medical care than to catch their name, but then again i speak to the public, dont just get my sources off what the internet says. and believe it or not there’s a thing called privacy, I am not the person who has authority to name them, especially when your name for these comments is also hidden for that same reason.
However i am a firm believer that people have their own views and opinions. I have got mine, you have got yours, and numerous people have got theirs.
LOL
So you drive a distance less than a mile? Unless you absolutely must drive you are pathetic.
Except it has been a success. Those are the ‘facts.’
20 minutes!?! Wow! I’m sorry for your loss
How did ‘we’ of Walthamstow write that comment? Are we all huddled around a keyboard?
Or do you mean ‘me’ of Walthamstow. In which case; that’s a great story. Thanks for sharing.
Be careful What you wish for Hackney it’s a disaster in Walthamstow closed so many roads traffic is at a standstill causing pollution
It depends on how you are measuring success. As I said in my earlier post it has increased congestion, pollution and made the roads around the village more dangerous. But people like you don’t really care about that. Your zeal means you are closed minded. I am not against road changes but they need to work for everyone.
Your suggestions an observable facts are two different things.
The scheme has been lauded as a success because there are overall less vehicles driven in the entire area. There is no evidence suggesting that any part of the area is more dangerous… all the evidence actually suggests the opposite.
You’d think you’d appreciate such good news.
I live in the area and it is more dangerous. But I appreciate some people don’t want to admit that. I can only assume they have a vested interest.
Got any evidence for the apparent increase in danger? How do you explain the reduction in vehicle related incidents?
As a daily cyclist for thirty years in london I was excited by my work taking me from Hackney into Walthamstow on a regular basis – whoo hoo – mini holland… I have to state that I find the current set up, confusing, inadequate and at times dangerous. I do admit that I didn’t cycle through the area previously so have nothing to compare it to but for example the segregated lane that runs from Blackhorse road to St James St – nightmare, not enough room to ride on the road so onto the cycle path, which cuts into the pedestrian footway without any clear demarcation and then drops on and onto the roadway. Pedestrians esp at bus stops becoming ( for me ) a hazard ( and no doubt vice versa. Inadequate unsafe crossing points eg towards Coppermill lane. Poor signage…
You seem to think quiet streets shouldn’t stay quiet – what sort of twisted logic is that? Plus the Council’s proposals for the area would have made life even worse for the streets which are already too busy – except Middleton Road of course which has much less traffic but a tiny minority of vociferous campaigners. A disgraceful botch job which was rightly thrown out by a wide coalition of environmentally minded residents
Where did I say “quiet streets shouldn’t stay quiet”? As I said, many of those who voted against the scheme were on the quietest streets. The proposed options wouldn’t have made their roads busier.
So presumably they didn’t vote on the basis of that fear! Nor were they under threat of that. It’s a guess, but a fairly sensible one, that those residents on already very quiet streets didn’t vote out of care for Richmond Road etc. residents – but because it would have meant their access would have been slightly more circuitous. Hardly the altruistic, environmental motivations you’d have us believe.
As I and cycle campaigners elsewhere have said repeatedly, a conversation about the other roads in the area, and ways the scheme could have been amended, would have been great. And a trial would have established the reality of how much traffic would have gone up on nearby roads. Judging by your twitter feed and the people you retweet, neither of those options were high on your agenda.
The experience in Walthamstow bears out a very different reality from the one that you and your mates on twitter say will happen. Zero minutes bus delays on Hoe Street, despite claims of 2 minute jourrneys becoming 30 minute ones. Increases on main roads far far under the expected (3 and 11% respectively), huge amounts of traffic gone from the area, including main road counts, etc. etc. “A wide coalition of enivronmentally minded residents”? Not from where I’m sitting, not from what you can see in the consultation results and objections raised.
Wow, look at all the anti-Mini-Holland folks from Walthamstow come out to play. So a few little facts:
1. Yes, traffic on Hoe Street and Lea Bridge Road has gone up. By 3% and 11% respectively. But overall traffic has gone down, the council says 16%. And there’s nothing to indicate traffic is “worse” on these main roads in terms of journey times, speeds etc, and one bit of evidence – a TfL statement that bus minutes average zero minutes delays on Hoe Street – to say it hasn’t changed in terms of vehicle speed etc. That isn’t to say it’s wonderful – congestion has been a huge issue in Walthamstow for a long time. And often buses and traffic is totally bunged. It’s just not worse now than before.
2. The emergency services as a whole had numerous opportunities to object to schemes. They’re broadly very happy with them. There have been one or two issues where individual drivers, who haven’t had their sat navs updates, are seen scratching their head. No one has died or been significantly delayed because of this. And it would be the case with any new changes to roads.
3. What interests me is all these naysayers in Walthamstow and Hackney – a) provide no alternative proposals ever – it’s always “if you make this scheme absolutely amazingly perfect then maybe we’ll grudgingly accept it”, b) everyone wants to claim they’re environmentally minded, that they cycle, that they’re not drivers, that it’s not about cars etc. and then again, they don’t have any alternatives to cutting congestion, pollution, inactivity etc. – in fact, they often go onto claim these schemes will cause more pollution, congestion etc. This is post-factual politics – there is simply no evidence that’s what happens, c) claim that those in favour are some sinister cabal, except it’s always those against reaching for sinister conspiracies and name-calling – says it all really, but when you start calling people the “cycling taliban” does it really need pointing out you’ve lost the argument? d) What’s really odd above all else is that in both cases, there are already nearby schemes that work, demonstrably, and no one is angry with – they’re just old. In Hackney, should we rip out the De Beauviour scheme? Would that make pollution drop? Make nearby ratruns better? No, not really. In Walthamstow, there is a huge “cell” north of Lea Bridge Road and west of Markhouse – been there for decades. But not even the most vociferous people against the village want it ripped out for some reason (several of them actually live in that area!).
As I am unaware of the nuances of the WF scheme i will refrain from commenting on it. However I am very aware of the issues relating to the London Fields scheme, and so need to challenge several of Simon Munk’s claims.
Firstly, lots of people have made and are making lots of suggestions to Hackney Council about how to move forward after the original debacle. This has included meetings between a varierty of local residents, the Council and their consultants. This has seen positive and constructive suggestions for change.
I can’t speak for others but my own position is far from Simon’s simplistic and dismissive “if you make this scheme absolutely amazingly perfect then maybe we’ll grudgingly accept it” line.
I recognise that LB Hackney couldn’t include all streets in the first tranche of work. It would be unrealistic to expect them to do so. But had the Council offered a firm, time-bound commitment to include streets on the periphery that weren’t included in an initial treatment, that I could and would have endorsed. Sadly no such approach materialized. Thanks to the proposed schemes, having met and heard from my neighbours I couldn’t endorse a scheme that would have seen an increase on their streets on the edge of the treated area, even if i were to personally benefit from the scheme. And yes, I say this as a non-driver, non car-owner, LCC member and cyclist.
So for example if Richmond Road were excluded from an initial treatment, then a package which included interim mediation measures (e.g. crossing points) and time-bound longer term measures would have likely seen a significant level of support and buy-in. My hope is that the Council can see that this staged plan is a way forward.
However the other thing you should understand (and your comments on Twitter suggest you don’t) is that for a scheme to achieve local support there has to be some trust, a commodity that is in short supply here now.
There is a real problem with transparency and honesty. The original figures used by a Councillor to justify a need for modal filtering on Middleton Rd was that there were 6000 vehicles a day and the figure was rising. It took FOI requests and a long wait to get figures released which showed figures significantly below this. Further digging revealed that the figures counted and time-scale were being misrepresented. Such behaviour engenders a distrust which is a hurdle to this and other schemes.
Another good example of how distrust is undermined is how the current trial is being executed. In the literature circulated to residents, the options were described as “flexible” over a trial period of three months. Post consultation the Council came back with a proposal to be trialled over six months. The intervention that has been put in place in concrete and steel is wholly inflexible and local residents were informed last week that any decisions regarding retention or removal won’t be made until May or June next year, so a 7 to 8 month period.
You, Simon, can and will argue that you need longer trials and trials before consultation. I know that’s your view. But irrespective of that I hope you can understand how such an approach on Hackney Council’s part does not engender trust. At the LLCiH mayoral hustings, there was a wide-spread acceptance on the part of all Mayoral Candidates that a key lesson from the failures of the scheme to date had been a failure to engage from the outset and bring people on board.
There is an opportunity here, if not to start afresh, at least to recognise that mistakes were made and learn from them. As the push to get a “mini-Holland” in Hackney gains momentum, with some impetus from at least some of the people behind the Fume Free Streets campaign, I hope that they do learn from these mistakes because repeating the mistakes of the past will likely do little to help us move on.
Ah, council figures, well they must be true. Like the figures they created from the so called consultation. The traffic is worse from personal experience. Anyone who says otherwise is being dishonest.
Perhaps this person is disabled or simply can’t afford to cycle you absolute moron.
This is the problem with cycling zealots like you – preaching without thinking
What nonsense. Care to share these facts about disabled cyclists?
jesus.
Congratulations to Hackney Council for not being taken in by Waltham Forest’s reports on the resounding success of Mini Holland. Although the objectives of making cycling safer etc are worthy, the implementation has been a disaster. Closing roads makes no difference to cyclists, but has massively increased pollution and congestion on all the non-closed roads (as you would expect) Buses are heavily delayed … Walthamstow is now known as “Walthamstop” in the bus driving community … and many are turned round before reaching their destination. Copenhagen crossings have been installed at enormous expense against all the best advice …. no benefit to cyclists but huge detriment to disabled, elderly, children … in fact all pedestrians. Pavement widths for pedestrians reduced way below access guidelines in order to create cycle paths which are not much used. Lots more cyclists feeling free to cycle on pavements and through play areas etc. Emergency vehicles severely impacted by road closures and consequent delays. Businesses suffering. etc etc etc. STAY FIRM! and read the research http://wfstreets4all.wixsite.com/home/research
These percentages are not at all comparable, they’re simply Council spin. Please look more carefully before supporting / reporting on such schemes. A 56% traffic reduction on a very quiet road may be only a handful of cars. Whereas an 11% increase in traffic on a busy boundary road may well be hundreds of extra cars.
We ALL want ‘traffic reduction’ but Hackney Council have never presented any evidence (either in advance or since the closures in De Beauvoir) to show how traffic is reduced overall. No evidence of the public benefit claimed by Kenyon above has been shown at any stage. In a public meeting, the Council said the idea was initiated not by TfL or London Cycling Campaign (who originally proposed a different route for the Cycle Highway) but by a small and vocal group of conservation area residents who have campaigned over many years to have their roads made traffic–free. Sadly, our local Labour Councillor is one such resident of the conservation area and took part in door–to–door petitioning for the closures.
Hackney Council acknowledged in written responses to our questions the likelihood that traffic would move to our boundary road, with increased pollution for thousands of residents, cyclists (many of whom still use our road as a quick and safe route) and public transport users (we have four bus routes on our road). The Council steadfastly ignored our requests for new data, in spite of promises by the previous Mayor. As a main road on the edge of the Borough (the other side of our road is Islington), it’s clear that the Council considers us collateral damage to be ignored.
We all support the aim of reduced traffic. But please consider the negative impact they have on thousands of (clearly less influential) residents who wake to a bedroom full of traffic fumes each morning. It’s a poisonous issue in many senses, and has divided what was once a happy De Beauvoir community.
The council are incredibly sneaky about their representation of figures, and worryingly in the pocket of cycle campaigners like Kenyon. Their haphazard closures are causing all sorts of problems further up CS1 in N16