Low traffic neighbourhoods and emergency cycle lanes in the London Borough of Harrow that were brought in last year as part of an emergency response to the coronavirus pandemic are set to be scrapped after two reports compiled by the council recommended that the schemes be removed “with immediate effect.”
While other councils in London such as Wandsworth and the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea have previously removed emergency infrastructure, should Harrow Council’s cabinet approve the recommendations when it meets on 29 April, it would be the first time that pop-up cycle lanes and LTNs had been scrapped following detailed consultation with stakeholders and residents.
The recommendations that the schemes be removed follow a six-month review of each initiative, which the Labour-controlled council introduced in the northwest London borough in October last year under its Harrow Streetspace Programme.
The reports, compiled by council officials and which you can find here, were prepared ahead of a meeting this Thursday of the council’s Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel, and conclude that it should recommend that the cabinet remove the schemes.
The cycle lanes in question are in Honeypot Lane in Queensbury, Sheepcote Road in Harrow and Uxbridge Road in Harrow Weald, and were financed by a £100,000 grant from Transport for London (TfL).
The report said that they “were funded on the condition that we only used the TfL design criteria, which wasn’t Harrow specific and therefore didn’t account for any local conditions.
“Therefore, post implementation the schemes have clearly demonstrated that they aren’t the option best suited to Harrow and that alternative designs for any future cycle scheme fully account for local conditions,” it continued.
“The TfL funding has been exhausted and therefore any new scheme would require new funding which is not currently available from within existing budgets.
“With the need for social distancing to continue for the longer-term, alongside the return of schools and easing of lockdown restrictions it is expected that levels of car usage will remain high, if not increase, in the short term, thereby putting further strain on the highways and junctions.
“The engagement and consultation over the experimental six-month period have highlighted that a majority do not agree with the design of the cycle lanes and have clearly indicated that they are not working for all users.”
The report added that there is still “support from residents and ward councillors to retain the 30mph speed limit introduced as part of the cycle lanes schemes on Honeypot Lane and Uxbridge Road.”
The campaign group Healthy Streets for Harrow last month urged people to support keeping the cycle lanes, saying that “the key outcome of the trial is that it has been shown to be feasible to reallocate road space away from motorists to create protected cycle lanes along these sections, with negligible impact on motor traffic.
The group added: “Some sections of the routes have been used well and they provide a good experience for people, as they are direct and convenient. However, overall cycling numbers are still low, because the routes are incomplete and lack protection at junctions.”
In total, 1,949 responses were received on the three schemes, 1,609 of which were described as “negative mostly” and 132 as “negative.” Just 38 responses were described as “positive” and 153 as “positive mostly,” while 17 were “neutral.”
But Healthy Streets for Harrow last month said that “opponents of safer roads have posted multiple entries with non-specific negative feedback, and the proportion of negative and positive responses is in no way representative of the views of the general population.”
The report to the council says it will cost between £50,000 and £66,000 to reinstate the previous traffic lanes, with the money for that coming from its Highways Maintenance revenue budget.
The four LTNs introduced last year are Headstone in South Pinner View, Francis Road in Greenhill, Vaughan Road in West Harrow and Southfield Park in North Harrow, paid for by £180,000 of TfL money.
The report into it acknowledged that “while the residential roads within the LTN have benefitted from reduced levels of traffic, speeding and vehicle damage, surrounding roads have experienced an increase in levels of traffic, longer journey times and waiting times at junctions, and increased vehicle emissions thereby reducing air quality.”
As with the report into cycle lanes, it said that car usage is expected to be high, and even perhaps increase, as lockdown restrictions ease.
It said that the engagement and consultation process had found that “a strong majority do not agree with the LTNs, do not feel that they are working, and do not agree with the proposal to retain the LTNs using ANPR and virtual permits.”
The report said that to continue the schemes and implement them using ANPR cameras would involve a capital cost of £172,000 as well as year-round operation costs of £93,500. Removing the planters and signage currently in place in the four LTNs, meanwhile, would costs £25,000.
A Telegraph report regarding the expected axing of the schemes claimed that they “block emergency services.”
However, the report on LTNs states that at a meeting last month, “it was confirmed that the emergency services continued to meet their statutory response requirements,” and that “there are no significant issues concerning the LTNs within the borough.”
As far as the cycle lanes are concerned, the report noted that “no operational issues have been highlighted generally but some changes were made to the Honeypot Lane cycle lane due to the proximity of Stanmore Fire Station to the cycle lane, and impact on queueing traffic on emergency vehicles leaving and accessing the station.”
A separate report recommended that an 18-month trial of four school streets scheme in the borough which began in October last year be continued, and that the council carries on evaluating the schemes during that period.
Add new comment
22 comments
Did I miss the Golden Age of Cycling? Is it over already...?
God that was months ago. It was a Sunday, October 25th between 5 and 6. It was pretty good actually. Hope they do it this year too!
The golden age of cycling for me was April last year. Drivers were extra cautious, presumably worried about justifying their car use if anything happened, and the weather was amazing. I think the lockdown started to lift in May. Shortly afterwards I decided I wouldn't go out without a camera and many friends who had started using their bikes wouldn't cycle on the roads at all.
> “while the residential roads within the LTN have benefitted from reduced levels of traffic, speeding and vehicle damage, surrounding roads have experienced an increase in levels of traffic, longer journey times and waiting times at junctions, and increased vehicle emissions thereby reducing air quality.”
I urge Harrow campaigners to submit a FoI request for this data immediately.
Either they were badly implemented (very possible) or the consultation and report was designed in such a way as to ensure the result they got and wanted came to pass.
Weird how they are a roaring success in other areas that take it seriously.
Only been to Harrow a couple times but I got the impression it was a typically pro car anti everything else kind of place (in my very limited experience of the area tbf)
So, because I'm a massive data geek, I flicked through the report to find out where the data was to support the claim that "“surrounding roads have experienced an increase in levels of traffic, longer journey times and waiting times at junctions, and increased vehicle emissions thereby reducing air quality.”
And I couldn't find it - there are some mention that there are fears that it may increase in future, but no actual measure of this. So this is simply not proven - not tested, not examined, not proven. It is outrageous that a council could claim that this has happened.
The queuing data is in appendix 2
Any data to support the crucial claim of air quality reduction?
not in the report for the council, but London does have a fairly good air pollution monitoring setup the data is publically available at sites like https://www.londonair.org.uk/LondonAir/Default.aspx
But I suspect its just an extrapolation that longer queues,means more engines idling,results in more pollution
Only two site in Harrow, one in a residential area in Stanmore away from all the installations, the other on the Pinner Rd in Nth Harrow.
The queueing data is also skewed by the roadworks that caused the Southfield Park scheme to be abandoned first.
24% of respondents that they investigated were from the same small number of respondents. How many used fake addresses etc and don't appear on the electoral role?
Also the trial was in winter, repeat it for summer.
Thanks for that Awavey. is there a comparator, to show typical queues before the LTNs went in?
Doesn't look like it. They just took several counts during the lockdown but I suppose that does show the rush for these schemes though that they can't compare data from before they went in (I suspect there is not a massive increase anyway personally).
Surprised that they want to rip them out but the School schemes have similar negative feedback yet they are extending that further. I suspect the additional costs is the main reason they are recommending it rather then the survey data specifically.
in theory there should be traffic count data from previous years for comparison, local authorities regularly undertake such exercises for road planning purposes.
but yes I suspect spending near 300k to set up the ANPR,plus nearly 100k per year to then operate it, vs 25k to take it back out...was more the consideration.
I'm not sure that just comparing it to previous years would be all that helpful anyway though, given that there are, shall we say, special circumstances at the moment. You'd need to wait until life has returned to some sort of normality before you could make any meaningful comparison.
well the roads round here have felt like theyve been back to normality since Christmas
Even if there's the same overall amount of traffic around, though, that doesn't mean you can necessarily sensibly compare them, because the traffic makeup and patterns may well be different. You'll have some people who aren't making the same journeys they were before at all, offset by a whole different group driving more in preference to using public transport, and the way they behave (the routes they choose, etc.) may well be completely different.
It could be that traffic's actually increased because there's more of the second group than the first, and the queueing is more to do with that than any effect of the LTNs.
As far as I can tell, the schemes were implemented in October and the traffic queue data covers July to February, and nearly all show a drop. I must be looking at the wrong thing or have misunderstood
Actually I totally missed that they had implemented them in October. I assumed it was the ones from last April that had everyone in a tizzy. However the drops in the last two counts will be because of national Lockdown in Jan and Feb and all but one shows a significant increase between before and after implementiation if you ignoret the last two months.
Although as they also counted the Pre implmentation during School Holidays those "control" numbers are also suspect as well compared to when Schools are back in October / November, December and the numbers correspond almost the same when the schools were shut in Jan and Feb. So is 50 to 60 extra cars due to the LTN's or due to School runs? Especially as the weekend figures don't show much of a variation down each reading in most cases.
Lockdown didn't necessairly reduce traffic in london
According to TomTom's data, traffic in parts of london is UP 36% (yes seriously...)
It makes sense when you consider cars are only 33% of milage with almost all of the rest being public transport...
Public transport usage is down ~80% but more than 20% of journeys are essential. So even with massive increase in cycling and walking, cars shares of public transports lost capacity could easily exceed normal vehicle traffic...
Living, driving and riding in the are, the queues are smaller. Most caused by seperate roadworks.
On what basis did they classify people as "negative", etc.? You would hope that they would have asked people how they felt about it as compared to the situation before, but on the face of this report it sounds as though they may have lumped together people who thought they didn't go far enough (but may have thought they made some improvement) with people who were against them in any shape or form, as all being 'negative', which would give a massively distorted view of opinion.
Not invented here?
Would also be interesting to follow the money; in whose pocket did the £100's k end up?