Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

TfL boss paints cycle superhighway debate as "cyclists" v "businesses" despite 170 firms in favour

Peter Hendy ignores support from employers of over 100,000 Londoners

London's transport supremo has characterised the debate over two new 'cycle superhighways' across the capital as setting cyclists against businesses, despite the support for the scheme from a large number of London companies. 

Speaking to Matthew Beard of the Evening Standard, Transport for London (TfL) commissioner Peter Hendy revealed that there have been 20,000 responses to consultations on the plans and it will take TfL two months to go through them all.

Hendy spoke about the strong feelings that have emerged in the debate about the planned cycleways.

He said: “It’s really unhelpful to describe the objectors as being politically-motivated and the adherents as being unrealistic. It’s our job to try to sort something that works for everybody.

“One of the characteristics of this is that it’s highly emotional. I think the support for the scheme from the cyclists and the objections from the businesses are both heartfelt.

“For one side to represent that the other has no case is false.”

However, campaigners have already pointed out that it's false to characterise the row over the planned routes as being between cyclists and businesses.

Over 170 businesses, employing more than 100,000 Londoners have backed the scheme, including Unilever, Orange, The Financial Times, Microsoft, Royal Opera House, the Globe Theatre, RBS, and Deloitte.

Chris Kenyon of campaign group CyclingWorks.London, which has mobilised employers in favour of the scheme, said: “Rarely if ever has a scheme by TfL gathered so many CEO level signatures of support. Surely that is the big story.

“The backers represent every major industry sector and show that Londoners are in it together and believe that it's time for kerb protected lanes in the heart of the city.”

Objections from business representatives have centred on the stretch of the proposed East-West cycleway that passes through the City of London and along Victoria Embankment.

A briefing from Canary Wharf Group claimed this would cause delays in motor traffic, while the City is concerned about effects on pedestrians at Ludgate Circus.

Last week London mayor Boris Johnson dismissed a request from London Chamber of Commerce and Industry to make the east-west route partially segregated. A spokesman for the mayor's office said: “The Mayor is of the strong view that segregation will save cyclists’ lives and that semi-segregation would not save any more road space.”

Another business group that initially opposed the plans, London First, is believed to have softened its stance on discovering just how many businesses were in favour of the new cycleways.

The mayor's cycling commissioner, Andrew Gilligan, recently said that 80 percent of the responses to the consultation had been in favour, though Gilligan put the total number at 14,000.

Nevertheless, Hendy says that TfL has a hard task. He said: “Our job is to balance a scarce resource against a whole variety of claims... and it’s difficult.”

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment

12 comments

Avatar
Tripod16 | 9 years ago
0 likes

The sheer number of 1-person cars (drivers only) coming into the city is an indictment of how bad public transport provision is, how dangerous people feel the roads are to cycle on and how inconvenient walking as a form of commuting is (given the cost of housing and living a good distance from work).

Making cycling a viable means of transport will free up space on both the roads and public transport while creating a healthier society.

New York City has done it...Hendy with his sh*t accent should take note.

But why let the obvious get in the way...

Avatar
Paul M | 9 years ago
0 likes

Hendy implies that "businesses" have opposed the schemes, but as far as I can tell only one significant business has come out and said so - and then only because it has been "outed" in its attempts to influence the position behind the scenes with unattributed "briefings".

Business associations certainly have expressed opposition. The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association - well, there's a surprise - are against, and the Chambers of Commerce and London First both, at least initially, published negative responses. I think the Road Haulage Association is in there somewhere too.

Many businesses which rely on loading and unloading seemed rather less concerned about the implications for loading etc than the loaders/unloaders themselves. Apparently they don't see it as being that much harder to wheel a trolley across a cycle path and a footway than across a footway alone.

One LTDA objection to the embankment section is that the separating median is not wide enough to unload a wheelchair-bound passenger on to. If that were true, I would entirely agree that it needs to be sorted, but it isn't - the designs show that the medians will actually be plenty wide enough.

The principal City of London objection was that it was bad news for pedestrians in a couple of places - never mind that it is a huge improvement in many, many others. And I would have more sympathy with their view if they had shown any backbone in dealing with TfL over pedestrian crossings around their patch in the past, or the removal of zebras, or even entire crossings, which they have simply stood aside and watched without protest.

Avatar
TheSpaniard | 9 years ago
0 likes

So TfL boss is against something that would mean people aren't paying to use the tube or buses? Funny that...

Avatar
jasecd | 9 years ago
0 likes

So what if some motor traffic has more delays?

With the volume of commuters in London there is always going to be less space than traffic so cyclists and pedestrians should be prioritised over cars. The rationale for this is overwhelming - walking and cycling has health, environmental and economic benefits, while cars produce only costs.

More delays for motor traffic should encourage those drivers on to bikes wherever possible - an exponential cycle, which will increase the quality of life in the city.

Avatar
kraut replied to jasecd | 9 years ago
0 likes

Indeed. The vast majority of people - something like 80+% - commuting into the city do not use private cars - why do the few people that do get all the priority?

Avatar
Paul M replied to kraut | 9 years ago
0 likes
kraut wrote:

Indeed. The vast majority of people - something like 80+% - commuting into the city do not use private cars - why do the few people that do get all the priority?

It's actually 94% - only 6% using private cars or taxis, and that number is only marginally higher than the proportion using bicycles in the City of London.

Avatar
kie7077 | 9 years ago
0 likes

It’s our job to try to sort something that works for everybody.

Using modelling software that doesn't actually reflect reality. More roads doesn't cure congestion, it leads to more cars.

Hendy is out of touch, he should quit.

Avatar
HKCambridge | 9 years ago
0 likes

"“Our job is to balance a scarce resource against a whole variety of claims... and it’s difficult.”

A fine line... if they had ever shown any interest in balancing space requirements in the last few decades, rather than creating gyratories, multi-lane roads, monstrous overpasses and generally making much of London impassable by bike and slow and noisy and polluted by foot.

If there's balancing to be done, it's to correct every other highways decision of the last 40 years. Which means going all-out for the things that will restore some balance.

Avatar
jacknorell | 9 years ago
0 likes

This cuts to the heart of the issue whether we want a London built for machines or for people.

And we're going to have to live with that choice for decades.

Avatar
racyrich | 9 years ago
0 likes

I read that the Embankment cycle route will offer the same capacity as 20 Tube trains. At £1.5m per coach that's over £200m for the trains alone, though of course the signalling and station upgrades required to allow that many more to run are actually impossible, and a fraction of that increase would cost billions to the taxpayer.
So the cycle route is good value. Canary Wharf contributed £150m to the costs of Crossrail. They should be thankful they're not being asked to contribute to this improvement to the transport links to their demesne.

Avatar
rockdemon | 9 years ago
0 likes

This really needs to go ahead in London and be a success for cycling infrastructure to be improved seriously in the rest of the country...

Avatar
zanf | 9 years ago
0 likes

No, its Canary Wharf Group verses everyone else in London.

Hendy needs to get onboard or get out.

Latest Comments