Derby Cycling Group have again written to DEFRA objecting to the removal of the cycle lane, shown here, on Friar Gate. We also object to the suppression of the amount of support for cycle transport which is expressed within the Clean Air Strategy consultation process, and we rebuff DEFRA’s excuses for why removing the cycle lane “is OK”.

DCG Open Letter to DEFRA regarding Derby Local Air Quality Plan Full Business Case

Please write again, yourself, to object to the removal of the Friar Gate cycle lane as part of Derby’s Clean Air Strategy.

Use your own story and maybe back it up with information from our letter and our two website posts below:

Friar Gate Cycle Lanes are Misrepresented by DEFRA

Friar Gate Cycle Lanes are Misrepresented by City Council

• Write to DEFRA  defra.helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk   (FAO Therese Coffey MP)
• Copy the minister responsible for Air Quality: therese.coffey.mp@parliament.uk
• Subject: Derby Local Air Quality Plan – Objection to Removal of Friar Gate Cycle Lane

Note that MPs can only respond to their own constituents, but they will be aware of other correspondence as well.

Object again to the removal of Friar Gate cycle lane as part of Derby’s Clean Air Strategy.

• Write again to DEFRA  defra.helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk   (FAO Therese Coffey MP)
• Copy the minister responsible for Air Quality: therese.coffey.mp@parliament.uk
  MPs can only respond to their own constituents, but they will be aware of other correspondence as well.

The Full Business Case for Derby’s Local Air Quality Plan has been submitted to DEFRA by Derby City Council.

• It barely mentions cycling. Sometimes cycling is most notable by its absence:
  • Figure 3 (page 23) excludes details of the changes to the Friar Gate/Bridge Street junction, where the cycle lane is to be removed. Why would the city council want to hide the removal of a cycle lane from the public and DEFRA’s view?
  • Section 2.4 (“Preferred Scheme”) also contains the following misleading point: “Changes … on Friar Gate to help provide alternative route choices”. On the contrary:
    • The removal of the cycle lane will reduce the alternative choices open to many cyclists and many will stop cycling here altogether; many others who may have considered cycling will never start.
    • As cycling should be a significant element in any long term air quality improvement strategy, this is a lamentable situation and the very words show that active travel has never been considered as part of this air quality plan; a shameful indictment.
• The lack of mention of cycling is in spite of the air quality consultation showing that people in Derby want better cycle routes
  • The consultation for the three initial options  showed that, from 2,537 responses:
    • In Chart 4 (page 9) : 61.2% (4^th highest) thought switching to lower emissions transport modes (such as cycling) can improve air quality.
    • In Section 5.1.11 (page 9), the top 3 suggestions for how to tackle air quality issues included “more cycle lanes or an improved cycling infrastructure”.
    • In Chart 5 (page 10): 31.7% of respondents (4^th highest) use a bicycle as part of their current transport menu (this is omitted from the consultation summary, but the 6^th highest (Train at 22.2%) is quoted instead! Why omit the statistics for cycling?
    • In Chart 6 (page 11) 36.1% of respondenat (4th highest) said they would consider using a bicycle more to help improve air quality,
    • However 16.3% of respondents who do not cycle said that poor infrastructure and safety concerns about riding on the road were barriers to them using their bikes.
  • From the 189 responses to the final proposal consultation :
    • 44% (4^th highest) supported greater use of active travel investment and promotion (Chart 4, page 16)
    • 41.7 % (5^th highest) supported expansion of the e-bike share scheme (Chart 4)
    • The most common “other comment” (17) called for increased cycling infrastructure.
  • So why is the cycle lane on Friar Gate being removed? Removal runs contrary to what people in Derby say they want.

The on-road cycle lane on Friar Gate is a cycle lane, and is an essential safety feature for all kinds of cyclists. It is the thing which enables most of those people cycling here to be there in the first place.  The desires of so many people in Derby to have more cycling infrastructure must be upheld. The cycle lane must be retained or replaced with something different which gives the same or better continuity and directness of route AND, therefore, enables the route to be developed further in the future.

Object to the removal of Friar Gate cycle lane as part of Derby’s Clean Air Strategy.

• Write to DEFRA  defra.helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk   (FAO Therese Coffey MP)
• Copy the minister responsible for Air Quality: therese.coffey.mp@parliament.uk
  MPs can only respond to their own constituents, but they will be aware of other correspondence as well.

OBJECT again to the removal of the Friar Gate cycle lane as part of Derby’s Clean Air Strategy.

• Write to DEFRA  defra.helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk   (For Attention Of Therese Coffey MP)
• Copy the minister responsible for Air Quality: therese.coffey.mp@parliament.uk
  MPs can only respond to their own constituents, but they will be aware of other correspondence as well.

DEFRA have replied to some of the correspondence from objectors to the removal of the cycle lane on Friar Gate. Derby Cycling Group wonders where they have got their information from; they speak of “local knowledge being crucial in solving pollution problems”. Here are some examples of their replies:

• The cycle lane on Friar Gate is “a very short section of bus lane which is also used by confident cyclists.”
  • There are several untruths about that statement:
    • The cycle lane is a cycle lane as well as a bus lane!
    • It is used by all sorts of cyclists
  • The cycle lane may be “very short” but it is a crucial safety element on this piece of  road for cyclists. Size isn’t everything!
  • Is it alright to have dead or injured cyclists so long as they are confident ones?
• Regarding the off-road path alongside Friar Gate, DEFRA say that it is OK to remove the on-road cycle lane because the off-road path is a suitable alternative. Quote “The NCN routes 54 and 68 already use a diversion to take cyclists past this junction to link directly to the existing off road cycle route on Friar Gate”
  • They are correct it is a “diversion” but good cycle routes follow continuous and direct routes, not diversions.
  • DfT standards say that cycle routes should be direct and continuous.
  • The Friar Gate off road cycle path has many faults:
    • It is of very poor quality by any standards, and especially measured against the forthcoming revised DfT standards
    • It is only useable by people travelling in a specific direction (it does not cater for people travelling along Ashbourne Road into town)
    • It is fraught with hazards:
      • Very narrow in many places with tree roots making a surface which can be dangerous
      • Cyclists have no right of way at side roads, which poses its own risks
      • There are severe cobbled sections which are rough and are slippery in the wet
    • It is slow and indirect:
      • Cyclists have to cross moving traffic on Friar Gate to get onto the cycle path
      • It only runs for 1/3 of the length of Friar Gate.
      • Cyclists then have to negotiate three sets of traffic lights before they have to cross the street again to rejoin the road at the Stafford Street junction
  • By contrast the on-road cycle route:
    • Is direct and continuous over the full length of Friar Gate
    • Provides rights of way over traffic emerging from side roads and driveways
    • Is made safe by the provision of that short length of cycle lane, as well as the cycle/bus/taxi-only section of road from Bridge Street to The Warwick
• DEFRA say there was overwhelming support for this traffic management approach during public consultation – but:
  • That was only for the traffic management option over the two clean air charging zone options (what a choice!)
  • In the Preferred Option consultation (Section 4, page 6)
    • “The majority of respondents (42.9%) said that they strongly disagree/ disagree that the preferred option addresses roadside NO2 in the shortest possible time.”
    • “The majority of respondents (44.4%) strongly disagree/ disagree that the preferred option maximises benefits and minimises costs for the Government.”
  • They say there has been considerable engagement with local cycling groups, but omit to say that Derby Cycling Group emphatically opposes the removal of the cycle lane.
  • The Derby City Council Full Business Case does not mention the removal of this cycle lane and does not mention the many cycling-supportive responses in the consultation documents (refer to the article “Friar Gate Cycle Lanes Misrepresented by Derby City Council”).

DEFRA have commented:

• “This government is committed to increasing cycling and walking and making our roads safer for vulnerable users”.
  • In a contest to choose the best cycle route into town along Friar Gate run by a government committed to making roads safer for vulnerable users, the on-road cycle lane would win hands down.
  • Why? Because removing it makes the road more dangerous for the most vulnerable on-road users – cyclists.

Write NOW to DEFRA  defra.helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk   and copy the minister for Air Quality: therese.coffey.mp@parliament.uk

Friar Gate Cycle Lanes – Write to Michael Gove & Therese Coffey

Derby City Council have submitted their outline business case for their clean air strategy to the Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) – and it still includes the removal of cycle lanes on Friar Gate as part of the plan. DEFRA are reviewing the outline business case right now.   Derby Cycling Group have asked DEFRA to reject that part of the outline business case which relates to removal of cycle lanes and asked that all existing cycling and walking infrastructure be retained or improved, but not removed. (Open Letter to Michael Gove)   Can you please help to put pressure on DEFRA to accept our arguments by writing to Michael Gove, Therese Coffey, two other influential government ministers and Derby’s MPs.   It is best if you can write a letter or e-mail in your own words, however you can use the template below as a guide.   If you use the template, add your own words at the beginning to say why you want the cycle facilities on Friar Gate to be retained.     Write to: Michael Gove (Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Therese Coffey (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at DEFRA with responsibility for air qualilty)   Courtesy Copy: Jesse Norman (Minister of State at the Dept for Transport with responsibility for cycling) Matt Hancock (Secretary of State for Health and Social Care)      Derby MPs: Chris Williamson (in whose constituency the cycle facilities lie) Margaret Beckett   Remember that if this space is lost for cycling, it will be lost for ever. Please do all you can to help keep it. Thank you.

….. Letter Template…..

Send e-mails to the departmental addresses, marked “For Attention Of” or “FAO” :

Michael Gove (DEFRA leader)    correspondence.section@defra.gsi.gov.uk  

Therese Coffey (DEFRA, air quality) defra.helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Jesse Norman (DfT responsibility for cycling) POCorrespondence@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Matt Hancock (Health and Social Services) upload letter via: https://contactus.dh.gov.uk/

Send postal letters to the MPs above at

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

Dear Mr Gove and Dr Coffey,

I urge you to reject Derby City Council’s proposal to remove important cycle-safety infrastructure on Friar Gate as part of the city’s Clean Air Proposal because ….

<add your own text here, this is important for your letter to be taken more seriously>

I agree with Derby Cycling Group’s assessment that:

• The removal of a cycle lane on Friar Gate to create two motor vehicle lanes as part of Derby’s clean air proposal is totally unacceptable.
• The cycle lane is present because it provides a safe haven for cyclists to access a bike-and-buses-only section of street; if it is removed cyclists will have to ride into a faster lane of traffic to gain access to it, at greater personal risk.
• The removal of protected space will make it more dangerous for cyclists wishing to turn right into Vernon St.
• Cycling is a very clean form of transport and must not be penalised by a project which purports to improve air quality. Fewer people will cycle on Friar Gate if the cycle lane is removed, which is an unbelievably bad ambition for a clean air strategy. It is perverse to make cycling less easy and more dangerous as part of a project which has the objective of making air cleaner.
• It is also perverse to make it easier for more motor vehicles to use Friar Gate as part of a project to make air cleaner; emissions are bound to rise which is another poor deliverable from this ill-conceived clean air proposal.
• The plan to remove cycle infrastructure runs against much government and local policy (the governments Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, the DfT’s Cycle Proofing working group; Derby’s fledgling Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan, City Council-run Cycle Derby’s local initiatives to promote cycle transport, especially to children).
• The cycling facilities on Friar Gate and the roads leading to it must be improved so that more people can use them, which would really help to reduce emissions.
• MORE cycling and walking should be a cornerstone of Derby’s clean air strategy and it must certainly NOT make cycling or walking worse or more dangerous.
• The City Council have suggested that cyclists should use an off-road cycle path on the opposite side of Friar Gate to avoid the road danger, but the off-road path is:
  • Very poor quality
  • Cannot be accessed safely because access requires a right turn off Friar Gate
  • Does not go all the way into the city centre
  • An inconvenient, discontinuous and devious route – we already have a convenient, safe, direct, and complete route which needs to be retained or further enhanced.
• This will increase the severance of the communities on either side of what will now be four lanes of motorised traffic.
• There are strong objections to this proposal from local residents as well as professionals inside and outside the council.
• This proposal would not pass a fair safety audit.

Yours sincerely,

<your name>

<if by e-mail, your address or at least post code>