Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had,
if any, with (1) Transport for London, and (2) the Mayor of
London, in relation to the abolition of temporary cycle lanes in
London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, decisions on installing or removing cycle lanes in the
capital are a matter for Transport for London and the London
boroughs. Officials from the department have regular meetings
with TfL to discuss this and other matters. The delivery of cycle
lanes across London is also overseen by a steering group, which
comprises senior representatives from government and TfL.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for her response. To clarify, I am a keen
cyclist myself and, during the lockdown, I even bought myself a
new bicycle. To clarify my concerns, I refer only to the
temporary cycle lanes. If they become permanent, they will be
even more of a nuisance. In that context, it seems to me that,
given that the Government have provided emergency funding to TfL
during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to contribute to any
debate about their continued existence in a meaningful way. Can
my noble friend confirm that the meetings and discussions that
she says have taken place have addressed that issue?
(Con)
I think I can reassure my noble friend that the meetings are
taking place. They take place fortnightly, and they discuss a
wide range of issues. It is the case that cycle lanes were put in
at the start of the pandemic on a temporary basis—indeed, on a
trial basis. The vast majority of those have now become permanent
cycle lanes; I think that maybe only about 1 mile of cycle lane
has been removed, and that was on Euston Road.
The Prime Minister recently announced his desire to invest £1
billion to boost electric car usage. Given the push for cleaner
and greener travel, will Her Majesty’s Government first address
the number of faulty charging points for electric cars in London
and, secondly, promote co-operation among suppliers, so that
potential users are not dissuaded by the current requirement to
download multiple apps from multiple companies?
(Con)
The right reverend Prelate has gone a little bit beyond my brief
this morning, but I can reassure her that we work very closely
with the manufacturers of the chargers—indeed, the operators of
the chargers. Of course, we need the chargers to work, and we
need to make sure that we work with local authorities to make
sure that they do so.
(Con)
But, my Lords, did not the Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea jump the lights by removing so precipitately the
successful and popular bicycle lane in Kensington High Street,
which was a crucial link in the east-west cycle route? At the
next meeting of the Active Travel Oversight Group, on which my
noble friend’s department sits, will she reopen discussions with
the royal borough to see if the scheme can be reintroduced, with
amendments if necessary?
(Con)
Ah, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—that well-known
hub and hive of interest in cycling. Indeed, it has about 100
miles of road in the borough, but not a metre of cycle lane. But
it is the case that the Active Travel Oversight Group, to which
my noble friend refers, has discussed the issue of cycle lanes in
that particular council. It is also the case that TfL has thus
far not provided any active travel funding from the latest
settlement to that council.
(Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and TfL on these temporary
cycle lanes. As other noble Lords have said, they are really
good. Will the Minister confirm that as many of them as possible
will be made permanent and that, where there are missing links,
which are so important for safe cycling, she will discuss with
TfL some cycle routes to link them, which are also safe and will
therefore encourage cycling?
(Con)
Of course, we have discussions with TfL on what the network looks
like as a whole. It is, of course, the decision of the local
borough, in many cases, as to whether it puts a cycle lane in
place, and it must consult the local community. But I am pleased
to say that the surveys that we have done to date show that twice
as many people support increased cycling and walking as oppose
it.
(LD)
Does the Minister agree that air quality in London remains poor
and that, to achieve better air quality as soon as possible,
there has to be a modal shift away from cars towards bikes and
e-bikes? Does she agree that maintaining cycle lanes is a
critical factor in people feeling safe enough to cycle in London?
(Con)
It is the case that London has an incredibly good public
transport system. I found out the other day that, of London car
owners, 90% of their journeys are within London. One has to ask
some of them at least why that would be the case, when there are
very good buses and, obviously, an excellent Tube network. So
modal shift does play an important part, not only for carbon
emissions but also for air quality improvements.
(Con)
My Lords, I would like to echo the words of my noble friend. Park
Lane, Millbank and other routes across London are permanently
clogged up due to the disappearance of bus lanes, which were
there for a very good reason, along with taxis. The congestion
and pollution caused are appalling. Would my noble friend the
Minister use her influence to try to reverse some of these
ill-thought-through cycle lanes?
Noble Lords
Hear, hear.
(Con)
I sense that the House is divided on this topic.
My Lords, well-designed cycle lanes and low-traffic
neighbourhoods benefit everybody. Sometimes traffic increases,
but evidence shows that the increase is temporary and short-lived
as the traffic adapts. Of course, we must be cognisant of
increased congestion if it occurs for a prolonged period—for
example, as it did on the Euston Road. In that particular case,
the cycle lane was removed.
(Lab)
My Lords, given the conflict between the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea and the mayor, and that all new transport
schemes have winners and losers, has the Department for Transport
provided adequate decision-making criteria for the resolution of
interagency disputes?
(Con)
The Government’s role in this is to ensure that the guidance
relating to the network management duty is appropriate. We have
reviewed and refreshed that guidance, and it does reflect the
Government’s desire for local highway authorities to provide safe
space for cyclists and pedestrians. It also sets out that
boroughs need to consult and must give any scheme sufficient time
to bed in before they think about removal.
(Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Young, I am a former chairman
of the All-Party Cycling Group in the House of Commons. However,
not all measures to encourage cycling, which I have been doing
since I got to Parliament in 1992, are worth while. I
particularly pick up on Park Lane, where there is a cycle lane in
the park not 50 yards away. This is mad—all we are doing is
achieving pollution and congestion in Park Lane. I very rarely go
up Park Lane but, when I do, I see that it is a shocking waste of
money and people’s time and, indeed, it is polluting the
atmosphere.
(Con)
My Lords, there is much focus on Park Lane this morning. Of
course I will take the concerns of my noble friends back to the
department and it will be discussed at the Active Travel
Oversight Group.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, as another former chair of the All-Party Cycling Group,
I would like to invite noble Lords to come with me for a bike
ride to discover the joys of cycling in London. They will find
that it is good for their health and public health, it cuts
congestion and emissions, and it helps to meet the targets that
the Government set this week at COP. So I ask the Minister: how
do the Government propose to persuade reluctant local authorities
to provide more safe infrastructure for cycling, so that they hit
the Government’s own target to double the number of trips made
wholly or partly by cycling from 2013 figures by 2025?
(Con)
The route to your Lordships’ House is clearly the chairmanship of
that APPG. The Government want to encourage improved cycle lanes
and cycling infrastructure and, for those reluctant local
authorities, we make it very clear to them that future funding is
conditional on historic performance. If they do not put in the
sort of measures that we would wish to see, frankly, they will
not get any money in the future.
of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, the report Cycling Injury Risk in London showed that
protected cycling infrastructure reduced the odds of injury on
the morning commute by up to 65%, whereas advisory lanes
increased injury odds by 34%. Have the Government carried out a
cost analysis of increasing protected cycle infrastructure
against the benefits to the NHS of increasing the number of
cyclists?
(Con)
The Government expect that new cycle lanes are properly
segregated to ensure that cyclists are as safe as possible.
