Response to Kensal Corridor Improvements consultation

This is the response from Brent Cyclists to the consultation on the Kensal Corridor Improvements. We are the local group of the London Cycling Campaign in Brent. We represent directly about 200 paid-up members who live in the borough, and we also attempt to represent all those who cycle or would like to cycle in the borough.

We do not support the proposals for any of the three sections.

We think these proposals will not achieve the stated objectives of the scheme, and particularly, will not encourage more cycling. This is because the proposals are largely cosmetic, and do not address the fundamental issue of too much motor traffic using the corridor. Continue reading “Response to Kensal Corridor Improvements consultation”

Response to the consultation on the London Plan

Responses below to various sections in the draft London Plan, with the links to the relevant sections at the top
T2 “We support this move to prioritise active transport over motorised transport.”

10.2.2 “Targets for active tranport, separate from public transport use, are required.”

10.2.6 “Distance possible by cycle is not purely dependent upon linear distance, but on ease of travel. Making more routes safe will make longer journeys possible and more inviting due to the lower stress environment. in turn this can reduce pressure on public transport. Specifying “long” and “short” journeys is unhelpful.”

T5 “We support moves to increase access to cycling through infrastructure. We support reallocation of space to cycle parking from other uses such as on-street car parking. We suggest that reallocation of space from other uses such as on-street car parking to cycle infrastructure / routes should be included.”

Table 10.2 “We support these increases in required cycle parking for new developments. The plan must include requirements for cycle parking in all re-development, upgrades, other planning, and existing development cases with a timed implementation plan.”

10.5.1 “We support this plan for a London-wide network of cycle infrastructure.”
Figure 10.2 “This figure looks very weak. This is taken on a borough level, not on a neighbourhood level. Therefore sharp divisions can exist at borough boundaries, where cycling levels may be very similar.”

10.5.3 “The Mayor should not just “support” higher levels in Mini-Hollands and Liveable Neighbourhoods or Opportunity Areas, but mandate higher levels.”

T6 “We support restricting car parking for the reasons given, this should be termed “motor vehicle parking” to include non-car vehicles. Provision for Ultra-Low Emission vehicles must not be at the expense of cycle users: ie. must not be on-street.”

10.6.2 “PTAL assessment should also include level of cycleability in the area.”

10.6.3 “Do not use the word “quantum”.”

10.6.7 “Support, as above using the term “motor vehicle parking” would avoid this confusion.”

10.6.8 “This means nothing, must all new parking provide for ULEV charging, or a %, or all by 2050?”

Table 12.1 “The target of mode share for walking, cycling and public transport at 80% by 2041 is commendable, however it is weak. There must be additional (yearly) interim targets, within mayoral terms. The target must have minimum active travel levels. This must be measured locally and London-wide, and significant local differences from the target must be highlighted.”

SD7 “We support the identification of Town Centres, however are concerned that this misses existing centres in Brent of local and international importance. 1. Wembley is a international centre, as are developments in Stratford. 2. Brent Cross is missing as a Metropolitan Town Centre.”

SD10 “We support the indentification of areas for regeneration, and suggest highlighting that transport poverty is one of the specific causes of deprivation, and that improved facilities for active travel can help overcome this.”

D7 “We are concerned about the suggestion that new developments will include “on-street parking”, on-street parking must not be the norm for new developments. We are concerned that an emphasis on “public realm” leads to unsafe and unsuitable proposals such as the shared space on Exhibition Road, it must be specified that “public realm” improvement does not mean removing infrastructure (e.g. kerb separation) used to promote safety.”

SL1 “The risk of air quality to active travel users should be considered, in addition to areas with low active travel, but high pollution, areas with high active travel, but lower relative pollution levels should be a focus due to the total impact over the people present.”
9.1.9 “If a development cannot meet Air Quality Neutral standards it should not be allowed to proceed, mitigation or payments are not a suitable solution for the Londoners who will be killed through the resulting air pollution.”

9.1.10 “This statement should read “Where there have been significant improvements to air quality resulting in an area no longer exceeding air quality limits, development should not take advantage of this investment and worsen the local air quality.” Extent of worsening should not be considered, any worsening should not be allowed.”

AN3 “We are horrified by the highlighting of Brent Cross as an area of high growth. All the proposals for Brent Cross area completely unsuitable for active travel, will cause the area to continue to breach air quality guidelines, and will not reduce motor vehicle use. The Mayor must not continue to support developments in Brent Cross as long as they continue to breach London Plan requirements.”

Pentavia housing development planning application (Barnet)

The planning application for this site between the A1 Watford Way and Bunns Lane in Mill Hill is here. Further information on the Barnet Cycling Campaign website.

This is a response to the application from Brent Cyclists, the Brent group of the London Cycling Campaign.

We wish to object to this application, as the unsatisfactory cycle access it proposes is inconsistent with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the planning brief for the site. It does not create ‘new pedestrian and cycle links that contribute to the integration of the site with Colindale and Mill Hill’, as required in the brief. Critical to doing this would be creation of a good-quality cycle link to Bunn’s Lane, usable by all types of cycles and all cyclists without dismounting, plus improvements to the very poor cycling environment of Bunn’s Lane. The links to the (itself poor-quality) cycle track (shared pavement) on the east side of A1 from the site will also remain very poor and uninviting, with steep indirect ramps and an intimidating tunnel with blind bends, none of which were ever designed with cycling in mind. We would expect a residential development here to be used as an opportunity to fix these long-standing problems, but current plans fail to do this, hence our objection.


Evidence to the GLA Transport Committee investigation into cycling infrastructure

22 January 2018

Dear Transport Committee,

This response to your call for evidence is from Brent Cyclists, the local group in Brent of the London Cycling Campaign. We answer the questions from a viewpoint of those actively campaigning for better conditions for cycling in an Outer London borough which has had, traditionally, very little accommodation for cycling, and very hostile conditions for cycling.

1. What progress on new cycling infrastructure has been made under Sadiq Khan, and what are his long – term plans ?

It remains unclear what Sadiq Khan’s long-term plans may be. Though lip-service is paid, with a promise that he will make London a ‘By-word for cycling’, we see no clear, ambitious, practical plan coming forwards, certainly no plan comparable to that which we saw from the last Mayor and his Cycling Commissioner. Certain schemes planned under the last Mayor have continued, such as the completion of the East-West Superhighway (CS3) and North-South Superhighway (CS6) in Central London, but at a disturbingly slow pace. New Superhighways planned, in SW London (CS 9) and SE London (CS 4) are not as ambitious or transformative as those planned under the previous Mayor, and there are already signs that they may get bogged-down in local political processes.

Worst of all for Brent cyclists, the north-west quarter of London, beyond Camden Town, remains largely a desert for cycle infrastructure, and is set to be such for the rest of Sadiq Khan’s term. The cycle superhighway that we were promised by Boris Johnson, CS 11 from the West End to Edgware, then later curtailed to end at Brent Cross, then later curtailed to end at Swiss Cottage, appears now not to be on the cards ever to happen in any meaningful sense. The cycle superhighway planned into west London, CS10 via the A40, has been abandoned with no practical plan for its replacement. Both of these abandonments are huge blows for the prospects of increasing cycling in NW London, and not just for obvious reasons. The original plan for CS11 would have had to provide a solution to the severance created by the North Circular Road, that cuts Brent into two halves that are extremely challenging to cycle between. The consulted plan for CS10 included a vital connection to the Paddington area from the north, that would have solved the N-S severance problem created by the A40 and railway corridor that makes it hard to cycle from Brent into western Westminster and Kensington except via the busiest and most dangerous roads. The section of CS3 built north of Hyde Park to connect to the proposed CS10 has been left as a useless stub of infrastructure because of the CS10 abandonment. There seems no sensible plan here.

The last Cycling commissioner promised Brent a Quietway route that would parallel approximately the Jubilee Line, running from central London to Wembley. This has not happened in any meaningful sense, and there are no plans for it to do so. The Quietway that was ‘built’ was essentially the resurfacing of an existing cycle route that was not that attractive, and provided no new connections. The basic problem of the severance caused by the North Circular Road, with no adequate cycle crossings in Brent and Barnet for 5 miles between Park Royal and Golders Green, remains unsolved, despite many funded studies and concept designs for a new link produced over the years. Further Quietway plans in Brent and Harrow look half-hearted, do not address the issue of rat-running traffic on the narrow backstreets proposed for their use, and reman disjointed.

We conclude that the vast potential for cycling in outer NW London remains untapped, and this situation will continue for the foreseeable future. We need plans that would provide not only radial cycle connections into central London, as with Superhighways, but connections between local town centres such as Wembley, Willesden, Harrow, Hendon and Edgware. These are arguably more important in Outer London, as these are the orbital journeys not well-served by public transport. But there is no programme that is designed to deliver these. The Quietway programme does not, we have no Superhighways here, and Liveable Neighbourhoods would not, as these schemes likely will be too local, if and when they ever do come to our area. There is a basic lack of strategic cycling vision for Outer London.

2. Has TfL resolved the problems that delayed some cycling schemes under the previous Mayor?

No, as indicated above, progress has slowed under this Mayor. The basic problem is the existence of so many different road authorities. For example, the A5, as a straight, direct route from the NW suburbs to the West End, is a huge desire-line for cycling. But it is controlled by 5 boroughs: Harrow, Barnet, Brent, Camden and Westminster. There is no prospect of the co-operation between these needed to create good cycling conditions on this road. We believe roads such as the A5 must be taken over by TfL if we are to make progress.

3. Has segregation delivered the anticipated benefits on the Cycle Superhighways? How many cyclists are using these routes?

We believe it has. We have not counted them (TfL has done that), but it is obvious that the range of people cycling on the best of these routes (CS3, CS6 and part of CS5) is quite different to the normal demographic of cycling in London. These routes enable unaccompanied children, those carrying large loads, the less fit, those with mobility impairments, older people, and more women, to experience the benefits of cycling. They are a great success.

4. To what extent has segregation had negative consequences for other road users and , if necessary, how can this be mitigated?

There are no negative consequences that we can see. Motor traffic continues to flow satisfactorily, if not better than before, on these roads, after conversion, and pedestrian conditions have been improved. Emergency vehicles can, in an emergency, use the cycle tracks, allowing them to bypass congestion. Bus performance is improved by buses not being impeded by cyclists in the same lane.

5. Have Quietways delivered their anticipated benefits? How many cyclists are using them?

Again, we have not measured numbers. We hope TfL has. In our view, the Quietway in Brent has delivered little benefit. There is little evidence of an increase in cycling on that route, as the main problems with the route, in Camden, particularly the traffic on West End Lane, have not been addressed, and the North Circular issue has not been addressed. Large-scale infrastructure changes are needed to enable routes in Brent to work, owing to the severance cause by numerous railway lines, major roads, and watercourses. The scale of investment, and limited political will that backed the Quietway routes, was never going to address these problems.

6. What are the differences in infrastructure between inner and outer London? How can TfL ensure infrastructure in different areas is sufficient and appropriate to the location?

We have largely addressed this above. In our part of Outer London, the main cycling potential is not for commuting into the centre, as we have very efficient rail links for that. The main potential is for school journeys, other trips by children, leisure trips, shopping, and cycling to railway stations, as well as commuting journeys between local town centres that are poorly connected by public transport. Some of these could be address by Liveable Neighbourhoods funding, if the schemes were very high-quality, the remit correct, the areas covered correct, and the funding adequate. The Walthamstow and Enfield mini-Holland projects offer the best examples for Outer London, but we have doubts they will be reproduced again without clearer guidance, more rigour in awarding, and higher funding levels from TfL.

7. How will TfL’s new ‘Strategic Cycling Analysis’ help determine where and how to invest in infrastructure?

If will help if it is seriously used. However, most of the routes and corridors identified have been identified many times before. For example, the potentials of the A404 and A5, covered in the SCA, have been examined in numerous (now forgotten) studies over the years. It is not really the analysis that has been lacking, but a governmental system that can deliver the needed changes. These changes seem impossible to be delivered on roads controlled by multiple authorities with contradictory political attitudes and objectives for the roads. For example, Brent Council has, due to our campaigning, recently delivered a good semi-segregated cycle route on Carton Vale, Kilburn. But where this road runs into Westminster, the infrastructure disappears, thus it does not connect with the A5 or other cycle routes. At best, the SCA may deliver good infrastructure on roads entirely controlled by sympathetic councils, but the end result will not be ‘strategic’. There is also a problem with some ‘beating about the bush’ with the CSA, in its insistence that the corridors it identifies are not specific roads. We can see what roads in Brent need cycle infrastructure: they are the main ones already used by cyclists, principally the A404 and A5. There are no possible roads that can be used as alternatives, owing to the limited crossing points of the railways and other barriers. A lack of honesty about this in the SAC leads, for us, to a lack of confidence that it will lead to the right solutions being delivered.

8. How appropriate is the 400 – metre target set in the draft Transport Strategy ? Can we equate proximity with access?

The target is resonable, if the routes are of good quality. It needs to be recognised that some of the existing Cycle Superhighways, and all the Quietways, are of inadequate quality or continuity. The access question is a good one, however. Without low-traffic neighbourhoods, many people might still remain isolated from even high-quality cycle routes, as the weaest link in their cycling environment may be right outside their front door: for example, a miror road filled with rat-running motors.

9. Is TfL’s approach to public engagement working effectively to improve scheme designs and meet stakeholder needs?

We have to say no, since popular Superhighway schemes that received over 60% support are not going ahead. It seems a higher political level of decision-making is over-riding the public engagement process. This is not good for democracy.

10. Are Londoners sufficiently aware of the cycling infrastructure available to them, and how can awareness be increased?

This is not a very relevant question in an environment like that in Brent, with so little useable cycle infrastructure. In our experience, awareness of what exists is surprisingly good. The demand is for cycling infrastructure to actually come here.

11. How is TfL using infrastructure to attract a more diverse range of people to cycle in London?

Already addressed in 3. A diverse range of people will be attracted when cycling is very largely separated from motor traffic, and when the routes are efficient, comfortable, high-capacity, and direct. A few of of the Superhighways meet these criteria, but none of the Quietways.

12. Is there sufficient cycle parking in London, and is it in the right locations?

There is a particular lack in Westminster. However, lack of cycle parking is not the dominant issue even here: it is a lack of good routes. There is an issue of ‘defunct’ bikes not being removed from parking outside stations in Brent, which restricts capacity. This needs tackling, but the borough seems incapable of it.

13. How are the lessons of the Mini-Hollands and other previous cycling schemes being applied elsewhere?

They are being applied in places. The Carlton Vale scheme in Brent applied some of them, and a forthcoming scheme for Kingsbury Road, in North Brent, may also do so. However, the big reluctance in the boroughs is to restrict through motor-traffic to the principal roads, enabling local neighbourhoods to be calmed. There is a lack of understanding of the principles of traffic filtering and road network cells. It is early days however, and there is some spread of knowledge from the existing mini-Holland projects.

14. Should cycling infrastructure be oriented toward longer-distance commuting journeys, or more localised trips?

Both, as stated above. A connected network that enabled the latter comprehensively would also enable the former, by default, so there is really no choice here.

Response to 2017 TfL Oxford Street consultation

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.

Preston Road 20mph zone

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.

Kingsbury Town Centre Proposed Public Realm Improvements Scheme

This is the response of Brent Cyclists to the consultation on Kingsbury Town Centre Proposed Public Realm Improvements Scheme (closed 1 December 2017).

We approve of this scheme, which is a major improvement on previous proposals, and on the existing design, but have some concerns on the design of the cycle facilities, as follows.

1) Surface and kerbs
The cycle lanes or tracks are said to be ‘on footway with coloured surfacing to match paving’. Quite what this means is not clear to us, but we see it as important that the cycle space is distinctive and obvious to all road users. We think the tracks should be a definitely different colour to the footways, and have a smooth surface. The current two-way cycleway on the south footway is green asphalt, but we think the best surfacing to use is reddish asphalt, as on the recently-completed cycleways on Lea Bridge Road, Waltham Forest. This is the most generally-recognised colour for cycleways internationally, and actually corresponds to some previous practice in Brent. (In both the Brent River Park and the open space behind Cambridge Close in Neasden, cycleways next to footpaths were coloured pink).

An issue with the current cycle track is that pedestrians walk in it a lot, as it is at the same level as the footway. The improved placement of the track in the current plan will help with this, but we believe using kerbs and a small level change, along with a distinctive surface colour, is the best way to make clear to all (including the visually-impaired) where cyclists are supposed to be.

2) Width of the cycle tracks
The 1.5m width specified seems un-generous, given the total amount of space available here. 1.5m is insufficient for one cyclist to overtake another with safety, and 2.0m should be the norm for one-directional cycle flow. If there are particular obstructions that are difficult or impossible to remove, then going down to a 1.5m minimum is acceptable in such places, but 2m width should be achieved where possible.

3) Priority of the cycle tracks
As they follow a main road, the tracks should have priority over side-roads and entrances (London Cycle Design Standards Sect. 5.3.4). The track surfaces should be continuous and flat across junctions and not be interrupted by kerbs. This applies to:

  • The exit from the the service road at the NW end of the scheme
  • Berkeley Road junction
  • Brampton Road junction
  • The driveway just west of Manor Close
  • Manor Close junction
  • The entrance and exit roads to the car park on the south side
  • The entrance to the service road at the SW end of the scheme

Paralleling the priority and continuity of the cycle tracks, that we would like to see, all these junctions could have continuous, uninterrupted footways also, for the best ’state-of-the-art’ public realm for a town centre street of this character. This was one of the things that was suggested in the ‘Imagine Kingsbury’ consultation process in 2016.

4) Bus stop bypasses
We are pleased to see that bus stop bypasses are envisaged for the stops at the NW and SE ends of the scheme. It is therefore unsatisfactory that they are not envisaged for the other two stops – the one outside the station, and the one just west of the park entrance on the north side. Ejecting cyclists from the tracks at these points into the carriageway to pass around the outside of stopped buses severely damages the whole scheme, breaking the continuity of the protection for cyclists, and removing much of the usefulness of the tracks.

The reason for this would appear to be the desire to maintain two flowing lanes of motor traffic when buses are stopped. As the road is only one lane in either direction, this results in a lot of wasted carriageway space ahead of the bus stops. This was not the approach taken in the Carlton Vale cycle scheme, and also the Walm Lane public realm scheme (on another town centre A-road), where a lane is blocked when a bus stops – an increasingly acceptable concept in street design, so much so that bus stops are sometimes moved out into the carriageway, so that buses moving off do not have to pull out into a stream of traffic.

However, if the designers here are determined to keep motor traffic flowing when buses are stopped, there is still space for cycle track bypasses of all the bus stops in this scheme. We don’t know if the omission of a bypass outside the station is connected with the blue block on the plan marked ‘Phase 1’, as if something else remains to be designed. In the case of the eastbound stop near the Roe Green Park entrance, a possible solution could be to move the edge of the park (which is marred here by an informal dirt track and the remains of some identifiable piece of old infrastructure, where the edge of the park is indented for about 1.7m distance) slightly inwards, and the bus stop slightly outwards (into the carriageway), to make space for the bus stop to be bypassed. This would make the transition from the eastbound cycle track back to the road at this end of the scheme much better.

5) Pedestrian crossings
We are concerned that the priority for cyclists and pedestrians is unclear where pedestrians must cross the cycle tracks in order to use the two signalised crossings of the road (near the west end, and west of Manor Close), and this could lead to conflict and possibly danger. We recommend the cycle tracks be continuous but have zebra markings across them at the crossing points. This would make it clear that cyclists should give way to crossing pedestrians.

Hyde Town Centre Proposed Public Realm Improvements

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.

Cycle Superhighway 9 Consultation

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?


Comments: none.

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?


Comments: none.

Campaign: 20’s Plenty for Us

We are asking our supporters, and all who are interested in road safety in Brent, to encourage our councillors, in the run-up to the local elections in the spring, to adopt a more concerted approach to getting lower speeds on our roads. We believe 20mph should be the default speed limit everywhere in Brent, with exceptions only for a few of the biggest roads. This would bring Brent into line with neighbouring Camden, which has been entirely 20mph for some years. We would like supporters to email their councillors with the suggested letter below, or some personalised variant of it.

You can find out the addresses of your councillors here.

Thanks for your help.

Dear Councillor XX,

We are fast approaching the local elections in May 2018 and I wanted to raise the issue of 20mph speed limits in Brent. Almost all of the Inner London boroughs have now introduced 20mph limits on the roads that they manage. A number of Outer London boroughs such as Hounslow, Ealing, Haringey and Croydon have also brought in 20mph limits on many of their roads. Bringing in 20mph limits does not of course solve all the road safety problems in a borough on its own but they work to reduce road casualties as well as encouraging more people to walk and cycle. 20mph limits fit well with the draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy and its proposals for Healthy Streets and Liveable Neighbourhoods where more people will want to walk and cycle and use public transport in people friendly streets. Obviously reducing the speeds of vehicles is vital too as part of Vision Zero where the Mayor aims for no one to be killed or seriously injured on London’s roads by 2041.

Up until now Brent has very much taken a piecemeal approach to lower speed limits often introducing 20mph only on a few streets in a neighbourhood and omitting them on high streets and town centre roads where the vast majority of road casualties actually happen.

I would ask that Brent agrees to take a bolder approach to lower speeds and makes 20mph the general speed limit for the borough, with exceptions for only a few large roads (most obviously for the North Circular). This will make speed limits across the borough far more coherent for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike. It will save council time and money by avoiding having many small consultations and schemes on very local 20mph limits as we have seen up until now.  It will reduce the numbers of road casualties and help all of us as residents of the borough to make the healthy choice to walk and cycle as we will feel and be safer when we are out and about on the borough’s roads.

I look forward to discussing this further with you and hope that you will put this idea forward as policy for the forthcoming elections.

Thanks & best wishes – X