CCC has always wanted to get rid of this gyratory. But we participated in a CRIM (inspection) of LCN+ Route 50 which is supposed to go through Swiss Cottage Gyratory. We made a case for northbound contraflow cycling on the esat side of the gyratory. We were waiting for a meeting to discuss Swiss Cottage in more detail.

Then TfL sent a consultation on bus improvements with no significant cycle improvements. See details of consultation and our response.

WE brought the matter up at WCRSAG on 4th July and there was universal support for reverting to two-way working on the gyratory.

Stefano organised a protest ride at 8 am on 4th July. Read illustrated account of protest ride. This was reported by Ham and High.

See Ham and High article 5th July

Read letters in Ham and High.

Meanwhile we asked jenny Jones to question the Mayor. Her question:

Cycling and the Swiss Cottage Gyratory

Question No: 1697 / 2007

Jenny Jones

Do you find it acceptable that the proposed TfL improvements to the Swiss Cottage Gyratory, requires northbound cyclists going from Avenue Road to Finchley Road to cross over many lanes of fast moving vehicles twice (once moving west and the second time moving north)? Were the remedies suggested by the March consultation (part of the CRISP study) discussed by the senior project manager and the Cycling Centre of Excellence? Can you state the reasons for rejecting the idea of sacrificing a lane of southbound traffic in order to enable northbound contraflow cycling (e.g. in a two-way segregated cycle track) on the east side of the gyratory?

Answer

The options put forward in the CRISP study you mention are still under review. TfL’s Cycling Centre of Excellence (as well as other stakeholders) have been involved in the entire CRISP process, and will continue to comment on proposals as further details become available from consultants commissioned to examine alternative options.

The CRISP final report recommended removal of the gyratory and as an interim measure, a contraflow cycle track for northbound cyclists. However, we rejected the very poor design for a segregated two-way track.