This is the response from Brent Cyclists to the consultation that ended on 3 January 2018.
We do not support these proposals.
We support the removal of all motor traffic from Oxford Street, but we believe cycling could and should be accommodated safely on Oxford Street with a clear design that uses a central, two-way 4m wide cycle track, with low kerbs and distinctive surfacing, and designated pedestrian priority crossings. This track could also be used for servicing the street utilities and businesses with light electric vehicles out-of-hours.
TfL said in the previous consultation that they will produce plans for a parallel cycle route. There is still no plan. One parallel cycle route is not enough unless there is a track on Oxford Street, therefore two parallel routes (one on Wigmore St , Cavendish Place, Mortimer Street and Goodge Street , one on Upper Brook Street, Grosvenor Square, Brook Street, Hanover Street, Great Marlborough Street, and Noel Street) should be provided, with cycling fully separated from motor traffic. TfL state “we propose to make some modest improvements to Wigmore Street, Harewood Place and Holles Street for cyclists, amongst other users.” As these changes means road narrowing and new bus stops, they will make things worse, not better for cycling. Baker Street and Wigmore Street will be two-way, without cycle infrastructure, effectively narrowing these roads for cycling.
Despite supporting the principal of removing motor traffic from Oxford Street, therefore, the sheer lack of consideration shown for cycling in these proposals means that, on behalf of our members, we must oppose them outright.
A response to this consultation, closed 15 December 2017.
Do you agree with the proposed 20 mph zone?
Do you agree with the proposed zebra crossing facility near junction with East lane and three zebra crossings at The Avenue junction with Preston Road?
Do you agree with the proposed four uncontrolled crossing facilities in Preston Road with double yellow lines?
Do you agree with the proposed removal of two parking bay outside 11-12 The Broadway, Preston Road and extension of the double yellow lines ?
Do you agree with the proposed two flat top speed tables at the existing Pelican and Zebra crossings?
This is the response from Brent Cyclists, the local group of the London Cycling Campaign.
We agree with the aims of the scheme but we do not wish to see road narrowings between pavements, or pavement build-outs, and central islands that create lane gaps in the 3-5m range, as these create locations where cyclists tend to get passed at a dangerous distance by impatient motorists unwilling to wait until they can give the overtaking space required in the Highway Code. We therefore do not want extra central islands introduced on to the road, or pinch-points unless short segregated cycle lanes past them are created. We are also opposed to speed cushions, as these cause competition for flat road space and unpredictable horizontal manoeuvrings of vehicles, and can push cyclists too close to parked vehicles.
From our point of view, the light-controlled crossing near the station is in the wrong location. It should be actually outside the station: its offset nature encourages many pedestrians to cross slightly away from it. This is particularly relevant in relation to the location of the cycle parking on the east side of the bridge.
This is the response of Brent Cyclists to this consultation (closing 4 December 2017).
This is the response on this scheme from Brent Cyclists, the local group of the London Cycling Campaign. We have to oppose this scheme because we want to see segregated cycle tracks on the length of the A5 through Brent and beyond, to support inclusive cycling on this critical link. The A5 through Brent and Barnet as far north as Edgware is already designated as the ‘LCN+ 5 cycle route’, which already means that cycling should be given a high degree of consideration here (but is not). There is sufficient room for cycle tracks in the width of the street in most places, including, and indeed especially, at The Hyde, where, currently, a vast amount of the road space is given over to long-term parked motor vehicles. As the A5 is already a major artery for cycling, and especially as it has been identified as a priority corridor for future cycling investment in TfL’s recent ‘Analysis of Cycling Potential’ document, it is essential that any developments now should contribute, if only in a small way, to the creation of a protected cycle route all along the A5 from Edgware to Marble Arch.
Though this scheme tidies up The Hyde area somewhat, we find it unacceptable for it to be planned that so much of the width of the road will be devoted to car parking, with no specific provision whatever for cycling. The current parking on the islands between the service road and the main road needs to be dealt with, but can be dealt with anyway, without any scheme, as it is simply illegal. We urge a re-think of the use of this whole area of road, with the need to allocate dedicated space to cycling in mind, and to accommodate parking only when that, and the needs of other moving traffic, including pedestrians, have been adequately addressed.
This is the response by Brent Cyclists to this consultation.
1. Do you support our overall proposals?
2. Do you have any comments on our overall proposals?
Overall these proposals are good, however some details fail to meet the high standards required for a comfortable, attractive cycling route. In particular the route fails to provide a link to existing cycle infrastructure, for example the E-W CS in Hyde Park. Therefore this route must be extended through the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
3. Do you support the proposals for Hammersmith Road?
Comments: Junction at Blythe Road should be tightened. Additional protection should be given at junction of Brook Green (e.g. additional raised kerbs after pedestrian crossing on North side of road. The route must not stop suddenly on Kensington High Street, there is sufficent width to continue the route along this road Eastwards.
4. Do you support the proposals for Hammersmith Gyratory?
Comments: These proposals provide no protection for cyclists heading South from the gyratory. The entrance to the protected tracks by crossing two traffic lanes on QUEEN CAROLINE STREET is dangerous, a crossing of the slip road South of Blacks Road should be included. Eventually plans must be made to remove the gyratory.
5. Do you support the proposals for Beadon Road?
6. Do you support the proposals for King Street (East)?
Comments: A new zebra crossing by the bus stop should be provided to provide easy pedestrian crossing to the bus stop and reduce the likelihood of pedestrians standing in the cycle lane waiting to cross the motor traffic lane.
7. Do you support the proposals for King Street (West)?
Comments: Cycle access to Studland Street appears inadequate.
8. Do you support the proposals for Chiswick High Road?
Comments: Road can be narrowed to maintain pavement width. Access from Clifton Gardens and Fisher’s Lane onto CS9 is inadequate. Staggered pedestrian crossings should be replaced with straight across crossings to remove the need for a pedestrian island, and to widen the pavement and cycle path.
9. Do you support the proposals for Heathfield Terrace / Wellesley Road?
Do not support.
Comments: CS9 cannot be described as a “cycle superhighway” if bicycle users are expected to share space with motor traffic. Either: a) this road must be closed to through motor traffic (ie filtered), or b) separate infrastructure must be provided.
10. Do you support the proposals for South Circular Road (Kew Bridge Station)?
Do not support.
Comments: A bus stop bypass must be provided outside Kew Bridge station. A route must be provided from CAPITAL INTERCHANGE WAY onto CS9.
11. Do you support the proposals for Kew Bridge Road / Watermans Park / Brentford High Street (East)?
Comments: Junctions to the North of CS9 along this route must be narrowed to prevent motor vehicles from impeding the cycle route. Forcing bicycle users to use a bus lane and overtake a loading bay is unsuitable for a cycle superhighway, separate space for cycling must be provided.
12. Do you support the proposals for Brentford High Street (West)?
Comments: a Two stage right turn into Ealing Road would be preferable to passing the junction and then turning back to use a toucan crossing.
13. Do you have any comments on future proposals for CS9 from Brentford High Street to Hounslow town centre?
The following is our response to this scheme (consultation closed 7 August 2017) involving new and improved cycle lanes in Park Royal.
This is the response from Brent Cyclists, the local group of the London Cycling Campaign.
We support this scheme, but would make the following points:
1) The contraflow cycle lane on Rainsford Road and new connection from the canal towpath, via a cycle crossing of Twford Abbey Road, are very welcome. However, the junction of the proposed southbound cycle lane on Rainsford Road with Whitby Avenue does not look safe: it simply terminates, leaving cyclists to the right hand side of traffic turning out of Whitby Avenue. It may be better if the cycle lane were taken left round the corner and then crossed over Whitby Avenue on some kind of crossing.
2) A desired manoeuvre is for cyclists travelling south over the canal bridge, on the cycle track or shared pavement on Abbey Road, to then turn right into the bus lane on Twyford Abbey Road. There is no clearly-designated method of doing this. Although a right turn is permitted for cycles on the carriageway, getting into this, with railings in the way, even if there is no traffic, is impossible. This scheme does not appear to solve this problem.
3) While welcoming any upgrade of advisory cycle lanes to mandatory status, and recognising the budget of this scheme is going to be limited, we need to point out Abbey Road is such a busy road that the cycle lanes should really be truly segregated throughout. The best way to achieve this in the limited road width would be though construction of stepped cycle tracks, differentiated from pavement by a level change (similar to Camden’s solution on Pancras Road). The existing fragments of paint-segregated pavement-level cycle lane around the junction of Abbey Road and Twyford Abbey Road are poor-quality infrastructure, and will remain so even when ‘refreshed’. (Though the principal of minimising unnecessary cycle stops at traffic lights is correct.)
This is a response to this consultation, which closed 28 July 2017.
This is the response from Brent Cyclists, the local group of the London Cycling Campaign. This response has been agreed by our Committee.
We are objecting to this scheme because:
(1) If Gaddesden Avenue is to made one-way, as implied in the plan, there should be an exception made for cycles, so as not to inconvenience cyclists. This will affect how the no-entry end of the road is designed.
(2) If traffic-caliming is desired, there is no reason here to use speed cushions rather than the more cycle-friendly sinusoidal full-width humps, as specified in the London Cycle Design Standards. Speed cushions are fairly ineffective at controlling vehicle speeds, and cause unpredictable horizontal manoeuvres by drivers and riders that cause extra risk for cyclists, as well as sometimes pushing cyclists too close to opening car doors.
(3) The proposed 20mph zone is illogical in not including Nettleden Avenue and Tring Avenue, very small roads which should not have a 30mph limit.
This is the Brent Cyclists response to this consultation (ended 28 July 2017).
This is the response from Brent Cyclists, the local group of the London Cycling Campaign. We agree with the scheme but wish to query the way the zigzag lines are shown on the plan for traffic entering Drury Way. The road does not have two lanes entering, so why are three sets of zigzags shown? Further, as only a B-class road, and one near schools, we think Drury Way should have a 20mph limit. It is wide enough to have cycle lanes (which could in part use space that could be recovered by removing centre-hatching), and, if such lanes were painted, these would visually narrow the traffic lanes and help to restrain speeds.
This is a response to this consultation, that closed on 7 April 2017.
This is the response from Brent Cyclists, the Brent Group of the London Cycling Campaign (LCC). We represent around 200 members in Brent, and aim to represent the interests of all who cycle or would like to cycle in NW London. We have discussed this scheme at a meeting, and agreed our response.
We would like to see a scheme in Kingsbury Road that provides properly segregated cycle tracks on both sides of the road. This route is a clear cycling desire-line, and features as a ‘short to medium-term link’ in Brent’s Cycle Strategy 2016-21 (p8). Hence it is essential that the opportunity is taken now to upgrade cycle provision on Kingsbury Road to the best standard.
The current consultation appears confused over what cycle provision is actually proposed, but as parking is located inside the cycle lanes or tracks, cars must cross them, so this is not quality, segregated cycle provision that is being proposed. Despite the provision of a buffer zone alongside the parked cars, the space between parked cars and large moving vehicles like buses is not an attractive, inclusive cycling environment that will support Brent’s policy objectives of widening participation in cycling. The design is not in accordance with our (LCC’s) standard for cycle routes, which is that we require physical segregation if motor vehicle flows are higher than 2000 Passenger Car Units per day. Also the design would score zero under the ‘Collision risk’ and ‘Feeling of safety’ categories in the Cycle Level of Service Assessment (TfL London Cycle Design Standards Chapter 2), so it is definitely not an optimum scheme for cycling. An existing segregated cycle track will be removed to create this scheme, so we feel it is actually retrograde.
We believe an optimal solution for cycling should be possible here because of the very great total width of the road (30m between buildings). Also the scale of reconstruction proposed suggests that the budget for the scheme should be capable of stretching to this.The distribution of space shown in the proposed Kingsbury Road cross-sction is quite actually good, but the spaces need rearranging. The parking needs to be located between the carriageway and the cycle tracks, protecting the cycle tracks. Cycle tracks should pass behind bus-stop bypass islands at the bus stops so the paths of cyclists and buses do not cross. The need to interact with buses in this way is one of the most off-putting aspects of cycling on roads for most people. We think there is space here for the general traffic lanes, for the parking, for two 0.5m segregation islands, and clear 2m wide cycle tracks on both sides, still preserving very ample pavement space.
There are welcome features in these proposals, such as the 20mph limit, the traffic -calming features and decluttering. But essentially the planned redistribution of space amounts to removal of the existing short segregated cycle track, putting cyclists on the carriageway with little or no protection, and moving parking on to the pavements. This is not welcome to us. We would also question the need for the scale of on-street parking envisaged, when there is an off-street car park behind the shops on the south side. In this supposed ‘public realm scheme’, the quality of the public realm created would be improved by minimising the on-street parking, though this is not essential to achieving good cycling infrastructure.
Following the advent of the Carlton Vale cycle scheme in Kilburn, we have also been hoping to get a similar high-quality cycling scheme in the north of the borough, and last year consultancy Urban Movement produced an excellent redesign of Kingsbury Road incorporating segregated cycle tracks on both sides (to replace the current short, ineffective pavement track on one side).
We are therefore disappointed to see that the current consultation proposes provision that falls far short of this, with a layout (below) that implies just painted advisory lanes in between parking and moving traffic. The huge (30 metre) width of this road means it should be possible to get an optimum solution for all traffic here, and we are urgently seeking discussions to try to get this plan improved.
In the mean time we ask supporters to fill out the survey (by 7 April) by clicking on the link above, disagreeing with the scheme, and commenting that ‘The cycle tracks should be properly segregated and placed inside the parking, with bypasses provided at the bus stops’.