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?
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’.
This is the response of Brent Cyclists to this consultation. This change was proposed by Brent in response to our Space for Cycling Campaign (the Ward Ask for Brondesbury Park) and the location was also one of our ‘Top 10 Quick Win’ suggestions. Continue reading “Christchurch Avenue / Brondesbury Park Junction”
Space for Cycling is a campaign being coordinated across the whole of London by London Cycling Campaign, for the 2014 local elections (and there is also a national Space for Cycling Campaign being coordinated by CTC).
You can find all our Space for Cycling updates from Brent here.
Continue reading “Space for Cycling Campaign”
Areas without through motor traffic
Close the Chapter Road & St Paul’s Avenue corridor to through motor traffic Continue reading “Space for Cycling Ward Ask: Willesden Green Ward”
Liveable town centres
Make Wembley High Road friendly for cycling and pedestrians Continue reading “Space for Cycling Ward Ask: Wembley Central Ward”
Protected space for cycling on Main Roads
New cycle bridge or underpass across the North Circular at Neasden Continue reading “Space for Cycling Campaign Ward Ask: Welsh Harp Ward”
Protected space for cycling on main roads
Protected cycle route from Wembley Park Station to Wembley Triangle / Harrow Road Continue reading “Space for Cycling Campaign Ward Ask: Tokyington Ward”
Protected space for cycling on main roads
Segregated cycle paths along the A404 Watford Road Continue reading “Space for Cycling Campaign Ward Ask: Sudbury Ward”