A1000 cycle lane in Finchley in the London Borough of Barnet
Request ID: FOI-1217-2122 Date published: 27 September 2021
You asked
Background
I understand that TfL financed the A1000 cycle (part bus) lane between East Finchley and North Finchley that was completed in or about November 2020 and is the subject of an 18 month trial.
Barnet Council's Environment Committee was going to meet in October 21 to decide upon the future of the lane but that decision has now been postponed to January 2022. At neither meeting would the full 18 months of data be available.
Question: What are the financial implications for Barnet Council (which council tax payers like me will be affected by) should they vote to remove the segregated cycle lane i.e. will they have to repay TfL the reputed £500,000 cost or is there some other remedy or financial implication?
We answered
TfL Ref: FOI-1217-2122
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 8th September 2021 asking for information about the A1000 cycle lane in Finchley.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.
Specifically you asked:
“What are the financial implications for Barnet Council (which council tax payers like me will be affected by) should they vote to remove the segregated cycle lane [the A1000 cycle lane between East Finchley and North Finchley ] i.e. will they have to repay TfL the reputed £500,000 cost or is there some other remedy or financial implication?”
TfL has not had any correspondence with the London Borough of Barnet about this issue. However, in determining the course of action, we would refer to the following guidance from the Department for Transport website which applies to all Highway Authorities
In particular we would refer you to the following paragraphs: Remarkable work has been done by many authorities, achieving significant change in a short period. A few, however, have removed or watered down schemes, sometimes within a few weeks or days, or without notice, or both. Of course, not every scheme is perfect, and a minority will not stand the test of time. But we are clear that schemes must be given that time. They must be allowed to bed in, must be tested against more normal traffic conditions and must be in place long enough for their benefits and disbenefits to be properly evaluated and understood. We have no interest in requiring councils to keep schemes which are proven not to work. But that proof must be presented. Schemes must not be removed prematurely or without proper evidence. And any decisions on whether to remove or modify them must be publicly consulted on with the same rigour as we require for decisions to install them. This guidance lays out new standards for consultation, including the use of objective methods, such as professional polling, to provide a genuine picture of local opinion, rather than listening only to the loudest voices. And; Trial or experimental schemes should be left in place for the full duration of the temporary traffic regulation order (TTRO) or experimental traffic regulation order (ETRO), where appropriate, or where no traffic regulation order (TRO) is required, until at least 12 months’ traffic data is available and has been published. This will allow them to settle in and for changes in travel patterns and behaviours to become apparent so that an informed decision can be made. Adjustments may be necessary to take account of real-world feedback but the aim should be to retain schemes and adjust, not remove them, unless there is substantial evidence to support this. In assessing how and in what form to make schemes permanent, authorities should collect appropriate data to build a robust evidence base on which to make decisions. This should include traffic counts, pedestrian and cyclist counts, traffic speed, air quality data, public opinion surveys and consultation responses. Consultation and community engagement should always be undertaken whenever authorities propose to remove, modify or reduce existing schemes and whenever they propose to introduce new ones. Engagement, especially on schemes where there is public controversy, should use objective methods, such as professional polling to British Polling Council standards, to establish a truly representative picture of local views and to ensure that minority views do not dominate the discourse. Consultations are not referendums, however. Polling results should be one part of the suite of robust, empirical evidence on which decisions are made. Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.
Yours sincerely,
David Wells FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
