A Camden Council committee yesterday evening voted through plans for a protected cycle lane on a road that Conservative councillors had claimed was "too steep" for many cyclists, including children.
Tory councillors in the Labour-controlled borough had called in the scheme, but the council's culture and environment committee voted it through by a majority of five to one, with the news welcomed by London's walking and cycling commissioner, Will Norman.
Our original story published yesterday appears below.
Conservative councillors in Camden want plans for a protected cycle lane in the borough scrapped because they claim the road it is on is too steep, saying that among other things, schoolchildren won’t use it – even though four local schools back the plans.
The Camden New Journal reports that the Conservative group on the London council have called in the route on Haverstock Hill, meaning that it will be scrutinised by Camden’s culture and environment committee at a meeting this evening.
Under its powers of call-in, the committee can approve the original decision, ask for it to be reconsidered, refer the issue to the full council for a debate, or require more information or that further work be carried out.
The cycle lane runs a little over a kilometre from the junction with Prince of Wales Road, just north of Chalk Farm tube station, up to the junction with Pond Street, where the Royal Free Hospital is located, and passes through Belsize Park on the way.
Councillor Oliver Cooper, leader of the Conservative Group on the council, described it as “one of the most daunting climbs in London, and that won’t change with cycle lanes.”
In fact, it has an average gradient of 3.5 per cent, with a short stretch nudging 5 per cent early on through a section of Haverstock Hill that has become known as Steele’s Village, and there is no shortage of much tougher climbs in the capital – not least, Swain’s Lane in nearby Highgate.
Construction is due to start in October under an 18-month experimental traffic order, with a full public consultation held after 12 months to decide whether or not to make the changes permanent.
Publishing the results of a consultation into the 18-month trial earlier this month, Camden Council said the route had been backed by four local schools, and the charity Wheels For Wellbeing, which campaigns on behalf of disabled cyclists, has also endorsed the lane.
But Councillor Cooper claimed: “Children will not cycle up it, new cyclists will not cycle up it, and elderly people will not cycle up it.
“Yet Camden’s model has expressly assumed that everyone – whatever their age and whatever their disability – could cycle up and down that hill,” added Councillor Cooper, who described the scheme as “detached from reality.”
Labour holds 43 of the 54 seats on the council. The Conservatives are the largest opposition party with seven seats, while the Liberal Democrats have three and the Green Party one.
A Camden Council statement said: “During the consultation, older and disabled residents told us that the lack of protected cycle lanes is one of the biggest obstacles when wanting to take up cycling.
“For example, one said the plans will ‘allow disabled people who might have been too fearful to use active transport greater confidence to do so’. The disabled cyclists charity Wheels for Wellbeing also wrote in to support the plans.”
When the results of the consultation were announced earlier in August, Councillor Adam Harrison, the council’s cabinet member for a sustainable Camden, said: “Last year we began making changes to enable greater social distancing and provide non-polluting alternatives to public transport during covid. There were also big benefits for quality of life in Camden in the form of keeping more people safe from road danger, improving air quality and cutting carbon.
“In Camden, more than two-thirds of people do not have a car, and already more than 8 in 10 trips made by Camden residents are made by public transport, walking and cycling. But we know this can rise further if we make our streets as safe and as welcoming as possible.
“I have been contacted on many occasions by parents asking for much safer travel for their children. With numerous schools on or close to Haverstock Hill, segregated cycle lanes are designed to allow more kids to ride a bike to school, improving their health and making Camden a more family-friendly borough.
“For that reason, I am pleased that four local schools have supported the proposals, along with the Royal Free Hospital. We should also not forget the new pedestrian crossings that this trial will introduce, making it a much better environment for people who want to walk in the area. I am also pleased to be introducing extra disabled parking,” he added.
Tonight’s meeting begins at 6.30pm and beforehand Camden Cyclists will be holding a demonstration outside the venue, the Crowndale Centre, Mornington Crescent.
Add new comment
47 comments
In my experience, hills like that ought to be a key target for segregated infrastructure. It's simply not true that it's too steep to cycle up. Far more accurate would be to say it's too steep to cycle up without feeling intimidated by aggressive drivers. I like to think I'm a fairly confident cyclist, but even I don't like going up hills in urban areas. The slower you go, the more you feel uncomfortable if there is traffic behind you (no-one wants to be an inconvenience to other road users), and the more likely it is one of the drivers will get fed up and overtake dangerously.
Put in a segregated cycle lane and cyclists can pootle up in peace at whatever speed is comfortable.
Although I got my ebike for longer recreational rides, it is very useful on urban hills as I can go a bit quicker and feel I am holding up drivers less, so a more comfortable experience.
Chances are you're not really holding them up on Haverstock Hill though, because they'll only end up in the permanent traffic jam of their own making in Hampstead and you'll pass them again at the lights.
I could not agree more. Edinburgh council recently installed segregated lanes on Drymbrae north. It's over 12% in places. No doubt for this reason. One complainer in the local paper said "no one in their right mid would cycle there". Can't hang around , off to be assessed.
“In Camden, more than two-thirds of people do not have a car, and already more than 8 in 10 trips made by Camden residents are made by public transport, walking and cycling."
"Business owners on the route have warned that removing car parking spaces will likely lead to lower numbers of customers, and affect the viability of their businesses. Owner of restaurant Tish David Levin warned it could lead to the loss of 60 jobs."
Does this mean only drivers use the restaurant ? Tricky business model if you rely on only drivers coming.
This nonsense about customer's needing parking spaces really annoys me. Global evidence is that if you increase provision for active travel and improve aesthetics by reducing traffic the footfall increases. People stay longer and spend more. This is also exactly what DfT says as well. Why are idiots allowed to spout their 'received wisdom' unchallenged.
A variation on why cyclists don't use a cycle lane !
If only there were bikes that offer some sort of assistance to cycling up hills.
Apparently it is also too cold and too wet to cycle there and sometimes too windy...and too hot.
Indeed. Somebody tell Councillor Cooper about these new fangled ebikes.
https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/news/over-half-of-brits-are-thinking-of-getting-an-e-bike-and-subsidies-could-tip-the
even without e bikes, strava heat maps reveals this road is already extensively used by cyclists. Clearly the demand is there, and the fact that cyclists will be travelling slowly makes the cycle lane nore neccesary, not less.
"I see from our bulging postbag that we've recieved an enormous letter from a Mr O. Cooper-Trellis of North Wales, who begins 'Dear Boris'..."
Call that steep?
Councillor Cooper, who described the scheme as "detached from reality."
It would appear that councillor Cooper is rather more detached from reality than the scheme. I rode up hills steeper than that every school day from the age of 11 to 15.
Is there some sort of competition going on between tory councillors for the most absurd, ridiculous, plain daft reasons for opposing cycling infra? Maybe we could start a league, with tables, spreadsheets and a points system for each idiot excuse they trot out.
Does anyone else get error 403 trying to read the newspaper report? Try this link http://camdennewjournal.com/article/haverstock-hill-climb-is-too-steep-f...
Not sure if he's yet a black belt gammon, but he's definitely well on the way.
This is the steep bit. So the Tories are ok with the school kids, old people and anyone else who actually do want to cycle up it at 5-10mph to be over taken at multiple pinch points and parking spots rather then continue the current cycling lane past the lights in some way.
Point of order - Tories don't give a shit about school kids, old people or anyone else - period
Yes they do; the ones at Eton.
Best demonstration would be to get local cyclists to spend an hour cycling up and down said hill.
That consellors consider most children in their borough too unfit to cycle up a small hill should be seen as a shocking comment on the inaccesibility of sports and recreation activities to those children. Certainly not an excuse to poison them a bit more with exhaust fumes or helping them get even more corpulent through being driven everywhere.
Or explain to them how gears work.
Surely they need to remove all pavements along there and replace them with escalators as pedestrians can't walk up a 5 % gradient.
Pages