home | intro | new | current | diary | reading | info | links
A third of Londoners want to cycle. Increased cycle use offers a quick and affordable way of reducing congestion, pollution, climate change and health care costs. It is good for the individual and for the whole community.
We want Hackney to continue to be a leader in sustainable transport, and for our streets to become ever more cycle-friendly for both children and adults.
We put together the top ten most important things we think the local council could do to support cycling, and asked the main parties standing candidates in Hackney for their comments.
You can read the full statements made by the parties here.
We've also set out the responses they gave to our top ten requests below. Click on the headings to reveal/hide details -- works best if you reveal only one item at a time.
The London Cycling Campaign in Hackney calls on all parties to commit themselves to returning all Hackney streets to two-way cycling. This would be the most important and most effective commitment to make in increasing cycling. We have long championed the need to give cyclists ‘maximum route choice, minimum diversion’, i.e. returning one-way streets to two-way operation, and minimising other blockages to cycle traffic.
Hackney should make enhancing permeability official Council policy and make a full ‘permeability project’ the borough’s pro-cycling flagship programme. This should systematically identify and record obstacles to permeability to subsequently draw up a programme of improvement works.
Where a street or streets are under the control of Transport for London, such as in the Stoke Newington gyratory (see point 2), we would call on the borough to actively negotiate improvements with TfL and to support any such schemes by carrying out work in the surrounding streets under control of LB Hackney.
We wholeheartedly support such policies.
We need a step change to the slow progress in Hackney, which has been overtaken by programmes in other authorities in London. This is not just about making all streets two-way for cycling but tackling banned turns and designing in the needs of cycling in estate and other redevelopment.
All streets two-way for cycling. Yes in principle. It is in the council's current policy and runs through all that we do. We are happy to consider permeability for all our schemes -- and will continue to consult with the London Cycling Campaign when we agree our rolling capital programme. We would wish to go through each individual case, but with a presumption to allow.
Hackney Lib Dems support "permeability". Cycling works best when cyclists are able to get from A to B without unnecessary diversions created to control motorised traffic. This is part of the Lib Dem commitment to getting rid of unnecessary interference in people’s lives. We support the calls to return Hackney streets to two-way cycling traffic and believe that this will be a significant step to support cycling in the Borough.
We call on all parties to commit to removing the Stoke Newington gyratory as a priority.
We support the removal of gyratory systems generally, as we regard them as unhelpful to all road users. However any solution must be arrived at following public consultation, and must work for all road users and residents and businesses on the roads affected. In any event there is a pressing need to improve cycle permeability from Northwold Road to Stoke Newington Church Street—this should be prioritised pending resolution of the gyratory issue.
This is controlled by Transport for London (TfL) and Greens in the Greater London Assembly have been pushing TfL to fund the removal of gyratories including this one. We reject TfL's flawed study that claimed the gyratory could not be removed easily and will push for two-way working as a priority.
Hackney Labour has a manifesto commitment to return the gyratory to two-way.
The Stoke Newington gyratory simply does not work for cyclists, especially if you need to go straight down the High Street. This is not just an issue for cyclists - every local business we have spoken to in the area wants the gyratory removed. The Lib Dems got rid of the Shoreditch gyratory, we will continue to campaign for Transport for London to remove the Stoke Newington gyratory.
Ring-fenced TfL money for cycle training is ending in 2010. Will they commit to continuing to provide free on-road cycle training for schoolchildren, free training for adults and regular training for highway engineers, transport planners, and other Council employees?
Yes we wholeheartedly support this policy.
We support this wholeheartedly as providing free cycle training offers excellent value for money. We would not only ensure that council employees who manage the roads have regular training but also any sub-contractors and consultants, so that they all understand the needs of people who cycle.
We are happy to make this commitment.
Hackney Lib Dems support cycle training as an important way of encouraging new cyclists and improving safety. We will continue to provide free cycle training for schoolchildren and adults.
Hackney should provide political leadership to head a broad coalition of local decision-makers to reduce lorry danger on Hackney’s streets. The council should commit to achieving a real improvement in the reduction of casualties involving lorries through a driver-cyclist awareness programme for all council HGV drivers, including cycle training (as was done in the award-winning scheme by LB Lambeth) and by improving LB Hackney to become a silver or gold member of the FORS safety standards scheme (currently bronze).
We regard the presence of very large HGVs on London streets as totally unnecessary and will be calling on the Government and the Mayor of London to introduce a system of restrictions and licensing arrangements with a view to reducing the presence of such vehicles on Inner London streets.
We support these measures, not just for council HGV drivers but for any contractors the council has influence over. Raising awareness needs to be backed up by enforcement by the police so as to be effective: the limited enforcement there has been has shown most HGVs are in breach of various laws.
We agree. Funding is already coming in on this issue through a Hackney-led consortium bid for government funding.
We support training cycling awareness training for lorry drivers. We would also seek to implement a code of practice for businesses operating HGVs in Hackney (in whatever capacity) that highlights the dangers lorries can create for cyclists.
We call on Hackney’s political parties to commit to increasing the rate at which cycle parking is delivered, in the public realm, at workplaces, in housing, for staff and visitors at all council, NHS and school buildings, and to strengthen local planning policy requirements for cycle parking. Good quality parking in the above locations is essential to reduce levels of cycle theft, and we call on Hackney’s parties to use this tool in fighting bike theft. The Council should do all in its power to reduce bike theft, which is at a high level.
We wholeheartedly support this policy. Police should treat cycle theft as a greater priority and should be given the equipment needed to identify stolen bikes. More needs to be done to break the trade in stolen bicycles. This includes having a proper voluntary registration programme for bike owners.
We support much stronger planning guidance for new developments as well as retro-fitting of secure cycle parking, particularly in social housing and at major trip generators and more on-street stands. We will work with the police to mount proactive operations to tackle cycle theft, including sting operations.
We completely agree and this is already happening.
We want more secure cycle parking in the borough, in locations from workplaces to transport hubs to buildings that provide some kind of public service (this includes pubs). We will also look into providing staffed parking at key transport hubs.
We would like all parties to expand on Council policy on 20mph by additionally introducing 20mph limits as opposed to zones, especially in ‘stitch’ roads (roads between existing zones), and to use the latest DfT guidance on 20mph, which makes the introduction of 20mph limits easier.
There are two main points of difference between ourselves and the Labour party in Hackney on this issue. First we oppose the use of speed humps (we would welcome, by contrast, the use of average speed cameras). Secondly we oppose the policy of seeking to reduce traffic speeds by the proliferation of 20 mph zones in residential side streets. We regard this policy as dangerous and unfair as (particularly when combined with the use of speed humps in side streets) it leads to the displacement of risk-taking by drivers onto what you describe as “stitch roads”. We would like to see efforts to reduce traffic speeds equitably across the whole Borough— including TfL roads and “stitch” roads. We will also press central Government to undertake a national review of speed limits— which we feel is long overdue.
The latest DfT guidance now makes introducing 20mph zones easier, while calling for 20mph where walking and cycle flows are high, i.e. all of Hackney. We are the only party to call consistently for 20mph across all of Hackney's streets, not just in residential streets but also town centre streets and what you call stitch roads.
We have repeatedly set out our approach and will continue to implement this so that all residential roads are covered by a 20mph speed limit by 2012. We have also secured funding to be one of the first trial sites in Britain for average speed cameras to enforce this limit and we would look towards using this sort of technology to cover the "stitch" roads which are complicated by the needs of the emergency services and public transport.
The Lib Dems were the first to successfully introduce city-wide 20mph speed limits on residential roads in parts of Britain and we intend to do the same in Hackney.
We call on the political parties in Hackney to adopt a Road Danger Reduction strategy for the borough, following the example of LB Lambeth, to increase the impact of existing Road Safety initiatives. Together with the police, the Council should also step up enforcement against uninsured and dangerous drivers.
Yes, we would seek to have a coherent approach to the reduction of road danger. We are not sure how local authorities can usefully assist other authorities in relation to dangerous and uninsured drivers, but will take on board any advice you have on the matter.
We support a road danger reduction strategy as a key part of a holistic strategy to break down silo thinking between different different budgets, staff and public bodies. Following Jenny Jones' (Green MLA) report 'London's Lawless Roads', tackling careless and inconsiderate driving would also be a priority.
We already work with the police to act against uninsured drivers and will continue this work. We have also brought in funding to begin to tackle the disproportionate number of black and minority ethnic children involved in road accidents. We are happy to investigate a Road Danger Reduction Strategy.
No specific response was received on this subject
We call on all parties to back an investment plan that will raise Hackney, for years the London leader in cycling growth, to the level of a cyclable and prosperous European city. Hackney currently has a modal share of cycling of 8%, twice as much as the next London borough (Richmond), and four times the London average. As the Mayor of London’s target for cycling is a modal share of 5% throughout London (T2025 strategy), Hackney should maintain that four-fold lead. A target of a 20% modal share for cycling in Hackney by 2025 is not unrealistic.
We are committed to encouraging people to cycle, making life easier for cyclists and reducing barriers to cycling. Modal share would be a measure of how successful we were in pursuing these aims -- but we do not believe in target-led policy.
We support a doubling in cycling levels by 2014 and feel existing TfL's targets are unambitious compared to progress elsewhere in Europe. To ensure wider health benefits are secured, we need to ensure that more people cycle not just that people who already cycle decide to cycle more.
We wish to adopt achievable targets and wish to see a year on year increase in the percentage of journeys taken by bike. We would wish to stay significantly ahead of other London boroughs and will continue to work to achieve this goal.
We recognise that, compared to the rest of London, a high proportion of people in Hackney cycle (the modal share is 8%), but this isn't enough. We believe the commitments in our manifesto will make cycling safer, easier and more attractive so we will set a target to at least double the number of cyclists by 2025, in line with the London T2025 strategy. We will set the minimum threshold to 16% (double the current rate) with a target rate of 20%.
We would welcome it if all parties were to commit to building on the Council’s successful MOVE Travel Awareness programme for Council staff and working with local employers, especially Homerton Hospital, expanding the programme. Also, the Council should sign up to the Government’s Cycle to Work Guarantee scheme. We also call on all parties to work with City and Hackney PCT to introduce a comprehensive programme of ‘cycling on prescription’ to enhance health through higher activity levels, including provision of National Standard cycle training.
Yes -- we support this.
With likely cuts to government funding, joined-up working and preventative health strategies will be essential. We support these programmes, which are very important given the high levels of child obesity in Hackney.
We have already worked with the Homerton Hospital over travel planning. We are happy to discuss with the PCT, proposals on how cycling can be part of an "active travel" approach to health.
No specific response was received on this subject
The Council should promote healthy living by running regular cycling events such as Cycling Sundays. This could engage the whole borough to experience their major town centres free from being choked by motor traffic. We would be delighted if all parties committed to this new event culture.
Events can be fun and worthwhile, but one man's event can be another man's nuisance, and the majority of cyclists just want to be able to get on using their bikes as a means of transport and recreation. We don’t support 'event culture' but will be happy to support individuals and organisations who have ideas for events if they seem worthwhile and are not going to be too expensive from the Council's point of view.
Greens in the London Assembly have already called for continental style street events in London and we would support these in Hackney. Like the Shoreditch Carnival on Curtain Road years ago, these remind people how much we miss out when our streets, our public spaces, are choked with motor traffic 24/7.
The council already runs a regular series of events to promote cycling and to assist cyclists, both on our own and with others such as the police. We have also held events to encourage those less likely to cycle to consider it for their journeys, such as "Wheels and Heels" in Shoreditch to encourage more women to cycle.
No specific response was received on this subject
