Brent's cycling hopes punctured by Mayor's Office

The Brent Highways Committee, which meets on December 10th, will hear disappointing news about the prospects for cycling highways in Brent. Brent Council was not chosen for the Mayor's 'mini-Holland' scheme and it now appears that secondary projects are also encountering problems.

Brent's initial proposals to the GLA included:

• ·  TheJubilee/MetropolitanSuperhighway-adirectroutebetweenWembleyand Willesdentoincludea“greenbridge”crossingovertheNorthCircular.
• ·  TheJubilee/MetropolitanQuietway-torunparalleltotheJubileelinebetween NorthwickParkandWembleyPark,andagainbetweenDollisHillstationandKilburnstation.
• ·  TheBakerlooSuperhighway-alongtheHarrowRoadbetweenWembleyandKensalGreentowardscentralLondon;and
• AnOrbitalQuietway-torunalongthecanalbetweenAlpertonandStonebridgePark,andalsoalongtheRiverBrent 

Despite an initial favourable response Andrew Gilligan the Mayor's Cycling Commissioner,  later supported just two routes. The first was a route following the Jubilee Line  linking Wembley ith Neasden, Willesden and Kilburn and an orbital route paralleling the North Circular, linking to Brent Cross.

Brent Council was interested in promoting local routes while Gilligan wanted routes into Central London.  Brent Council believe the latter would be of only limited benefit to Brent residents.

Officers summarise their reservations over content and progress of the proposals: LINK

BrentofficersareverysupportiveoftheMayor’scycleinitiative.Itcomplementssustainabletransport,employmentopportunities,publichealthandregenerationobjectivesfortheBoroughaswellascontributingtoimprovingcyclesafety.Atthesametimewehavesomeconcernsaboutitsdelivery.Theseconcernsareasfollows:

a)      OfficersareconcernedthatthereisafocusonstrategicroutesintocentralLondonratherthanmorelocalcycleroutes,whichiswherethegreatestgrowthincyclingislikelytobeachieved–onlyacertainpopulationofourresidentsworkincentralLondonandwebelievethattheproportionthatcouldbepersuadedtocycletocentralLondonwouldnotbeasgreatasthenumberoflocal cycle trips thatwecould encourage through local infrastructure investment;

b)      Selectionofroutesandlocalprioritiesdoesnotappeartobeascollaborativeasexpected,withprioritiesbeingsetanddefinedbytheMayor’sofficeratherthanbeing discussed and agreed in partnershipwithBrent;

c)      TfLhaveappointedconsultantstodevelopthefeasibilityanddesignoflocalcycleroutes,which intimatesthatBoroughswill nothave the freedomandflexibilitytocommissionanddevelopcycleprojectsonBoroughroads–BrenthasrecentlyenteredintotheLondonHighwaysAlliancecontract,whichhastheflexibilitytoenabledeliveryofconsultancyservicesandweareconcernedastowhyalternate consultants are being used outside ofthe LoHAC framework;

d)      Wearealsoconcernedaboutdecisionmakingpowersandprocessesbywhichlocalcouncillorsandcommunitieswillbeengagedgiventhatdesignconsultantsare being employed byTfL to developschemes on local roads;and

e)      Atpresent,noneoftheboroughshavereceivedanyofthepublishedfundingandthereisnoindicationofhowandwhenanyfundingwillbemadeavailableandwhattheroleofBoroughswillbeinutilisingandreceivingthisfunding.Todate all developmentcosts havebeen borne by the Boroughs andwehave beengiven no indication as towhenfundingwill bemade available.