Enfield Council's plans for cycle lanes along main roads and quieter neighbourhoods in residential areas moved a little closer to completion this week, when a High Court judge refused an application for a judicial review of the Cycle Enfield consultation arrangements and ordered that the Save Our Green Lanes campaigning group should pay the Council's costs.
The judge dismissed claims by the anti-cycle lane campaigners that there were serious flaws in the way the consultation was carried out, in particular regarding the availability of information and its accuracy. Save Our Green Lanes has stated that it intends to appeal against this decision.
Well, that's an issue above my pay grade that will be resolved in due course, hopefully very soon and in the Council's favour. But I want to look at Cycle Enfield in a much broader context. Is it just 99 per cent of residents being inconvenienced for the sake of the one per cent who cycle? Is the scheme really being "bulldozed through by a Council that is determined to ignore the damage the scheme will cause to residents and businesses"? Why does the Council claim that it would create "a better Enfield for everyone"?
The answer to these questions can be found in a briefing for local authorities published earlier this year by Public Health England under the title Working Together to Promote Active Travel>.
This is a clearly written and jargon-free document, with all its points carefully reasoned and supported by evidence, explaining the importance of reducing the current over-reliance on private cars and increasing the amount that people walk or cycle. Its primary focus is improving health - not just physical health, but also the mental health of individuals and the healthy functioning of society. But it also concludes that there shifting away from motorised transport would have significant economic benefits (and svings for the NHS, whose financial situation is not exactly rosy these days).
The document is detailed but flab-free and I've had to struggle to resist quoting whole passages from it. I've just extracted the graphic and summary box below, and strongly recommend reading it in full.
Key adverse links between motorised road transport and health
Box 2: An agenda for action on active travel
Key tasks – policies:
- active travel should be enshrined in transport policies
- ensure that safe, convenient, inclusive access for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport users is maximised and is prioritised over private car use in the movement hierarchy
- focus on converting short car trips to active travel and public transport
- ensure that policies and budgets demonstrate how maximising active travel can benefit health, the economy and the environment
- encourage new developments (and retrofits) to maximise opportunities for active travel with appropriate infrastructure (eg cycle lanes, cycle parking)
- ensure that travel plans for new developments (including schools) prioritise and support active travel over car transport as part of designing safe and attractive neighbourhoods
Key tasks – implementation:
- consider how to minimise car parking as a way both to support local economies (eg local high streets) and to promote sustainable modes of transport
- ensure that new developments don’t adversely affect capacity and safety of surrounding cycling networks
- support 20mph speed limits in residential areas, and promote road safety in urban and rural settlements to complement school policies on safe and active travel
- promote local ‘street play’ initiatives
- ensure monitoring and evaluating the use of travel plans
Key tasks – social infrastructure:
- develop and strengthen cross-sectoral working both within local authorities as well with other key local agencies
- involve and take account of the needs of different members of the community (eg people with disabilities, children and young people, older people) to create local solutions that address possible conflicts of interest and meet local community needs
- work with schools and workplaces on travel planning to promote safe modes of active travel to and from settings on a daily basis
- work with local enterprise partnerships to ensure that the economic value of active travel is considered in local developments, and demonstrate how it contributes to the functioning and prosperity of local areas – for example, developing local cycling and walking investment strategies.
Conclusion? Cycle Enfield isn't just the brainchild of a bunch of Labour councillors showing the borough's residents who's in charge. It's not about banning driving or forcing people to cycle, as some people seem to think. It's a perfectly rational and essential first step to a healthier relationship with the private car, part of a national strategy to improve everyone's wellbeing. There may be teething troubles if enough drivers don't get the message, but the choice is between, on the one hand, doing nothing and suffering from ever increasing congestion and pollution and, on the other hand, making a start on modal shift.
