Consultations 2001

Document Actions

To search in this page, use 'Find' in your browser

Traffic Management Schemes

proposed by Camden Council, and Camden Cycling Campaign's responses

Last updated 20/6/2004

Summary of Camden Traffic Management Proposals

For the year 2001.

As we get as many as 5 traffic management proposals or traffic orders each week, we have only listed those which we consider to be particularly notable; we have omitted minor schemes such as the provision of disabled parking bays, or the conversion of a residential parking bay to a pay and display, unless we believe it to be particularly contentious. Two dates preceed each proposal listed here: the first is the date it was dispatched by Camden Council or their consultants, and the second is the deadline by which responses should be received.

The first section of this page covers a summary of the traffic management proposals. Our detailed consultation response for the more significant of these schemes follows further down this page. Unless entitled with another organisation (eg 'JMP Consultants'), these are consultations undertaken directly by Camden Council. If you want a map of an area below, try the UK Street Map web site.

Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator.

Nov 01 & 12/12/01: Royal College Street consultation - northern cycle route extension
Camden Council is consulting on the long awaited northward extension (phase II) of the Royal College St. scheme. The proposals comprise:
- a northbound (ie with flow) physically segregated track in Royal College St (on the right hand side) as far as Randolf St,
- advisory cycle lanes in Pancras Way & Georgiana St.
- conversion of the zebra crossing on the canal bridge in Pancras Way to a toucan (a signalled crossing which allows both pedestrians & cyclists to cross).
- entry treatments (presumed to be raised tables) for the 2 side roads in Royal College St.
Potential issues include:
- this proposal splits the two directions, which have been united all the way from Euston Road. Could instead run a 2 way track up Royal College Street & along Randolf St.
- St Pancras Way is a fast and busy road so the standard of protection should not be lower here; the advisory lanes in Pancras Way & Georgiana St offer little benefit to cyclists other than highlighting their potential presence to motorists.
- difficulties for cyclists getting into the right hand track (at the Georgiana Street junction) when the Royal College St traffic light phase is green (which is most of the time)
- the toucan crossing in Pancras Way will introduce an additional wait for cyclists, as well as for for pedestrians (the zebra means pedestrians currently do not have to wait for any lights to change before they can cross)
- the heavily queueing motor traffic (especially at 5.30-7pm) trying to exit from Baynes St into Royal College St will inevitably block the cycle track when it is in heaviest use.
- northbound cyclists (the majority of users) will prefer to stay on the left hand side of the carriageway and would probably not use the track. However a track on the western side of the road presents its own problems...
- concerns over the southern of the 2 entry treatments (which cost £7,000 - £15,000 per junction) as the side road is not believed to be a public highway (ie leads into a small private development). We hope that this table could be redeployed at the Randolph St junction instead where it would prove of much more use to cyclists & pedestrians.
Our full response is here.
Nov 01 & 10/12/01: Grays Inn Road & Finchley Road Red Route changes Transport for London
Transport for London is consulting on bus stop, loading bay and waiting restriction changes for
- Grays Inn Road near Acton Street junction
- Finchley Road in the vicinity of Canfield Gardens
Our Finchley Road response is here; we did not respond to the Grays Inn Road proposals as none of our members expressed an interest in these changes.
2/11/01 & 30/11/01: Modifications to the Streetscape Design Manual
CCC took issue with just one of the changes which proposed deleting 2 pages from the manual displaying cycle contraflow designs. Our response was as follows:
31/10/01 (no deadline given): West End Lane/Iverson Road Parkman
The council is seeking ideas via the Parkman consultancy for improvements for cyclists and pedestrians in the vicinity of the West End Lane/Iverson Road junction.

CCC's response is here.
31/10/01 & 12/11/01: Hampstead High Street pedestrian crossing facilities
The council plans to improve pedestrian crossing facilities to the signalled junction outside Hampstead tube station, as well as 'upgrade' the existing zebra crossing in Heath Street around 150 metres to the south of the junction.

There are 2 options for the Hampstead High St/Heath St/Holly Hill junction.
- 'Green man' pedestrian crossing phases for each of the junction arms
- As above, plus a diagonal crossing of the junction from outside the tube station entrance
In addition, under the 'safer routes to school' scheme, the council is planning to replace the existing zebra crossing in Heath Street next to Church Row with a pelican (ie push button signal controlled crossing) located around 10 metres north of the zebra.

Whilst pedestrian issues are not in CCC's remit, CCC responded
- supporting option 2 as it is the best pedestrian option (as it will require an all-green pedestrian crossing phase thus avoiding separate waits to cross each arm of the junction) and will reduce the junction capacity for motor vehicles.
- squestioning the rationale for the conversion of the zebra crossing to a pelican as it will require pedestrians to push the button and wait, whereas at present they have right of way as soon as they step onto the zebra.
20/10/01 & 12/11/01: Guilford Street/Doughty Street Consultation: Raised Junction Table
The council is consulting on implementing a speed table raised to pavement height covering the entire Guildford Street/Doughty Street junction. The ramps to the table would be set back 3-5 metres away from the junction corners, and the existing pedestrian crossing in Guilford Street would remain in the same place and would run across the table top. The scheme's purpose is to reduce traffic speeds on the approach to the junction, in order to 'provide a safer environment for pedestrians'.

The absence of any mention in the consultation material of cyclists (and the benefit of such a measure to them) is odd, especially as Guildford Street is on the Seven Stations Link. Even more bizarre is that a public consultation on running the Seven Stations Link cycle track along Guilford Street is due imminently; if the SSL were to run down Guilford Street this would have considerable impact on the table design. CCC supported this measure, but pointed out the apparent absence of joined up thinking.
18/10/01 & 16/11/01: Regents Park Road Traffic Calming Parkman
The council wants to reduce traffic speeds along the southern part of Regents Park Road between the Parkway & Fitzroy Road junctions; a speed survey conducted in late August showed that average motor vehicle speeds was 40mph.

Three options are being consulted on

A. Speed cushions at 40 metre intervals, plus raised (up to pavement height) speed tables across Regents Park Road located:
- 8 metres north of the Gloucester Road junction
- just north of the Princess Road junction
- on either side of the Albert Terrace junction
- just south of the Fitzroy Road junction
B. As for option A plus raised tables (up to pavement height) across the following side roads at the junction with Regents Park Road
- Gloucester Road
- St Marks Crescent
- Albert Terrace
- Fitzroy Road
C. As for Option B except the side road raised tables to be replaced with a flush (ie at road surface level) coloured & textured surface using 'York stone paving tiles' (believed to be the slightly textured but flattish grey granite blocks installed recently for other Camden schemes).

CCC's response is here
17/10/10 & 13/11/01: Dartmouth Park 20mph Zone
Camden's planning a 20mph zone in the area bounded by Dartmouth Park Hill, Raydon Street, Chester Road, Swains Lane, Highgate Road, Little Green Street, Ingestre Road, Burghley Road.

The council wants to install 3 sets of speed cushions in St Albans Road (a bus route) between its junctions with Highgate Road & Brookfild Park.

Most of the remaining streets in this area already have traffic calming measures such as speed humps. Hence the council is not planning to install any further physical speed reduction measures (eg such as raised speed tables at the junctions at the entry point to the zone), and will simply sign the entrance to the zone with 20mph zone signs.

See a diagram of the existing traffic calming and new proposed speed cushions at here .

CCC is concerned about the speed cushions, and we requested that we were consulted on the cushion layouts. We also suggested that raised tables across the junctions at the entry point to the zone is required to physically reinforce the 20 mph limit. See our full response here.
16/10/01 & 13/11/01: Safer Routes to School: Brookfield Primary School Area, NW5
The main objectives of this scheme just to the south of Swains Lane are to provide safer environment for children and parents, encourage more walking & cycling to school, encourage motorists to take more care in the area, and reduce casualties (especially young children).

Croftdown Road
- Flat topped speed table to assist pedestrians crossing the road near to school entrance; the pave,ment will be widened 'on one or both sides'.
- Cycle racks installed on widened pavement.
- School warning signs on approach to table.
- Guardrailings on either side of the speed table.
- Removal of existing speed hump outside school (next to where new table will go)
- Longer 'keep clear' zig-zag markings outside school entrance (and removal of zig-zags neat St Albans Rd jct)
Chester Road/Raydon Street junction
- Redesigning the current island at this junction, removing the 3 zebra crossings to the island and replacing it with separate zebras moved away from the junction.
- Guard railing next to each zebra crossing & at Chester Road school entrance
- Double yellow lines at the Chester/Croftdown Rd junction plus dropped kerbs
Croftdown Road/St Albans Road
- Guardrailing to be added to parts of the island in middle of junction.
- Double yellow lines around St Albans Road/Croftdown Road junction corners
Swains Lane/Chester Road
- New zebra crossing ('or similar' - ie it could be a signalled crossing) on Swains Lane just to south of Chester Road junction
Brookfield Park
- Double yellow lines and dropped kerbs at its junctions with St Albans Road & Swains Lane
The council suggests that the Chester Road/Raydon Street junction zebra crossing relocation will fit in better with 'pedestrian desire lines' - ie caters better for where people want to cross. Do you agree? Can you think of any additional changes or facilities which would help children cycle to school in this area?

CCC did not respond to this consultation as no members fed back comments.
13/10/01 & 26/11/01: Cross River Transit Scheme
TfL are now consulting on the proposed link between Camden Town/Kings Cross/Brixton/Peckham.

See http://www.transport-for-london.org/wn_transit_cr.shtml

There is an on-line consultation form; consultation finishes 26th November.

TfL are considering the use of one of:
- Bendy-buses - ie a long bus split into 2 articulated sections
- trolley bus - with overhead power lines, no tracks
- trams - with rails, but no overhead lines.
There route will be 2 branches in Camden:
- Camden Town to Euston via Camden High St & Eversholt St
- Kings Cross railways lands via Kings Cross/St Pancras stations then using streets just north of Euston Road to Euston station.
Then a single route will run from Euston down to Waterloo via Woburn Place, Southampton Row, Kingsway & Waterloo Bridge. From Waterloo the route splits to serve Peckham & Brixton

For each type of vehicle they are considering, 'segregation from other traffic' is mentioned, but it is unclear whether cycles would be allowed to use this section of road. If trams were the chosen option, as they require rails it seems unlikely (unless engineers can come up with a rail design which does not adversely affect cyclists), that cyclists would be allowed to the same road space.

See CCC's response here.
1/10/01 & 31/10/01: Church Row width restriction proposals
The council is consulting on introducing width restrictions in Church Row (in Hampstead NW3), which are intended to stop wide vehicles from using the street and damaging buildings.

The width restrictions would be implemented via bollards at the kerb side and on a central island; the width for each direction of traffic would be 7 feet (2.13 metres). This would obviously have a pinching effect on cyclists if they were approaching the restriction with a car on the outside.

There are 2 options:
- One width restriction in Church Row mid way between the Frognal Gardens & Holly Walk junctions.
- Two width restrictions, one as above, the other in Church Row next to the Heath St junction.
Whilst this scheme is not ideal for cyclists, CCC did not object; we stated a preference for option 1.
8/10/01 & 28/10/01: Frognal Way Road Closure
We have received a consultation on the proposal to close Frognal Way at its junction with Frognal to motor traffic; pedestrians & cyclists will continue to be allowed to use this road 'to gain access to the footpath link to Church Road'. CCC supported this proposal.
3/9/01 & 28/9/01: Great Queen Street Speed tables & buildouts
The council is consulting on 2 speed tables incorporating pavement buildouts in Great Queen Street; the road is a key London Cycle Network route.

An outline plan of proposals is here: http://www.greengas.u-net.com/TMPGtQueenSt.JPG

CCC's response is here.
11/6/01 & 20/7/01: Proposed Redington Frognal Controlled Parking Zone
One of only 2 areas in Camden without controlled parking (the other being Highgate/Dartmouth Park).

CCC responded supporting a separate zone (as opposed to enlarging the current Hampstead Zone), all day parking controls, and the same parking permit fees and pay and display charges as elsewhere in the borough.
11/7/01 & 20/7/01: Chalk Farm Road Route 168 London Bus Priority Network.
Proposal for more bus lanes, and a bus priority signal for southbound buses at the Adelaide Road junction.

CCC asked for clarification on whether cyclists would be excluded from any bus lanes; if this was the case, we formally objected to the proposals as the roads affected are part of the London Cycle Network.
6/7/01 & 17/8/01: Hartland Road Safer Routes to School
Due to vehicle speeds well over 30mph, the council is proposing to introduce a width restriction in Hartland Road outside the Holy Trinity C of E School, as well as road humps in Hartland Road to the north and south of its junction with Clarence Way. The width restriction will only allow one motor vehicle through at a time, with priority to southbound traffic; we are trying to find out how wide the road will be (ie if it will be safe for a cyclist and car to go through together).

CCC's response is here.
14/6/01 & 6/7/01: Plus Bus Route 55 Bloomsbury Way to Clerkenwell Road
As part of the Mayor's plans to improve bus journey times, it is planned to extend bus lane operating hours along the above roads, and add a new bus lane along the eastbound direction of Theobalds Road between Southampton Row and Harpur Street.

The Campaign responded requesting that the bus lanes be widened to 4 metres wide in order to allow buses to safely overtake cyclists.
10/5/01 & 1/6/01: Plus Bus Route 68 through Russell Square
The 'Plus Bus' proposals for Route 68 improvements, affect the north/south route running from Upper Woburn Place (from the Euston Road junction) through Russell Square and down to Southampton Row. They include new bus lanes, a possible bus-only north bound contraflow bus lane in Russell Square, and the replacement of 3 zebra crossings with signalled controlled crossings for pedestrians.
- The proposals for the Russell Square section are shown on a diagram here.
For our formal response see here.
April 2001 & 9th May 2001: Dartmouth Park Hill Traffic Calming Proposals
Islington council has responsibility for this road which runs along the Camden border; it is proposing the following traffic calming measures:
- Zebra crossings near Churchill and Chester Road junctions.
- Junction tables (ie the road raised to pavement height across the entire junction) at Burghley Road, Spencer Rise & Wyndham Crescent.
- 9 sets of speed cushions along around half of the road length in a variety of configurations; they are at approximately 50 metre intervals between the Cathcart Road & Bickerton junctions, and the Magdala Avenue & Highgate Hill junctions.
- 7 new pedestrian refuges; a refuge is a traffic island in the middle of the road which allows pedestrians to wait until traffic has passed. All of the refuges have adjacent speed cushions.
- A kerb build out (plus adjacent speed cushions) approx 30 metres to the north of Holbrook Close.
- A raised table across the Hargrave Park & Bredgar Road side roads.
- Waiting restrictions (mainly no waiting at any time) in the vicinity of most of the cushions and tables.
To see a plan of the proposals see our web site here:

An example of the cushion/pedestrian refuge combination can be seen here

The use of speed cushions, especially as all but one set are combined with carriageway narrowing features (in most cases pedestrian refuges), are of great concern. CCC's general position on speed cushions is that they make the road considerably more hazardous for cyclists, and they do not slow larger vehicles (remember lorries are responsible for a disproportionate number of cyclist deaths and serious injuries in London). The incline on the road is likely to add to the dangers.

More details on our case against the use of speed cushions can be found on our web site here: http://www.greengas.u-net.com/FacilityDesign.html#SpeedCushions

The lower section of Dartmouth Park Hill is an unimplemented (ie planned) London Cycle Network route; it runs between the Tufnell Park junction and Churchill Road (then along York Rise)..

A cyclist was killed in Dartmouth Park Hill in February this year, and it is likely that excessive motor vehicle speed was the most important factor. Thus the Campaign needs to make a strong case for ensuring that the proposals are as cycle-friendly as possible, and do lead to an effective reduction in vehicle speeds.

Our response to LB Islington on the proposals is here.
27/2/01 & 23/3/01: East Hampstead Traffic Calming Plans Babtie Consultants
Following the implementation of traffic calming measures in East Hampstead 18 months ago, Camden (via consultants Babtie) is consulting on a further round of measures for the area.

Despite the proposals for a number of new one way streets, and some discussion on the implications of the various measures for pedestrians and 'traffic', there is not a single mention of the impact on cyclists.

Moreover, the Cycle Plan approved by Camden only a fortnight ago recognises the effect of one way streets on cyclists (for our summary of the impact see here). As it has targets for reviewing all one way streets in Camden with the aim of allowing 2 way cycle flow along as many as possible, we cannot help wondering why new one way streets are being considered at all.

There are 3 separate areas under consultation, each with a separate brochure.

A. Downshire Hill

The options are:
1. Make Downshire Hill no entry from Willow Rd/South End Rd & make the section of Downshire Hill between Keats Grove and Willow Rd one way towards the Heath. Speed cushions or pinch points may also be introduced.
2. As option 1, but make the whole of Downshire Hill one way.
3. No one way flow, but introduce speed cushions or pinch points to slow traffic.
4. Do nothing.
B. Well Walk/New End Square/Gayton Road/Flask Walk

The options are:
1. Make the island at this junction bigger
2. Introduce a one way streets along New End, Christchurch Hill, Willow Road & Gayton Road
3. Do nothing.
4. Revert junction back to its pre September 1999 state (ie 2 way flow on all roads)
C. Holford Road

The options for the Holford Road/East Heath Road junction are:
1. Close secondary slip road, reduce island & cut down tree, add zebra crossing to East Heath Road.
2. As option 1, but Holford Road becomes one way southbound, and retain tree.
3. Scheme as at present but with zebra crossing, and slip road closed.
4. Do nothing
D. Squires Mount

The options for Squires Mount are:
1. Ban left turn into East Heath Road & reinforce with kerb buildout, speed table at Squires Mount/Cannon Place junction
2. Speed table at Squires Mount/Cannon Place junction.
3. No change except keep clear box junction marking across East Heath Road
The Campaign is most concerned about the proposal to make Downshire hill one-way; this road is crucially important for cyclist access to and egress from the Heath cycle route. This is used by many cyclists including particularly families and children for leisure purposes to access the Heath and its facilities, that East Heath Road is very dangerous, and any diversion of cyclists on to that road is likely to lead to casualties. Options are either a no-entry plug and contraflow cycle lane, or even possibly a road closure with cycle gaps.

Our formal response for the Downshire Hill scheme can be found on our web site here.

For Holford Road/Squires Mount we favoured option 1 including the closure of slip road (and the new pedestrian crossing) as it offers improved pedestrian safety and reallocated existing roadspace to pedestrians; we also requested that cycle access is considered in the final design.

For Well Walk/New End Square/Gayton Road/Flask Walk we favoured option 4 as it returns the streets to two way flow, and does not incorporate traffic calming features which we view detrimental to cyclists' safety. We suggested consideration of the closure of the Well Walk/Willow Road slip road, with the reallocation of that section of carriageway to a pedestrian area; again we asked that cycle access is considered in the final design
17/1/01 & 30/3/01: Mayor's Transport Strategy Transport for London
See our response here.
Dec 2000. Safeways, Chalk Farm.
Expansion of retail area

See our response here.
17/1/01 & 16/2/01: Covent Garden Traffic Scheme Consultation
Camden Council has declared a 'clear zone' region in the south of the borough. A Clear Zone is described by the council as "an accessible, people friendly, high density, mixed use area for living and working, which encourages walking and cycling and excludes extraneous motor traffic. Ultimately, access will only be allowed for low or zero pollution vehicles, for essential servicing traffic and public transport".

In this scheme, which is seen a step towards the clear zone, the council is trying to reduce the amount of rat running through Covent Garden. The proposals are:
- Reverse one-way flows in the lower section of Monmouth Street & all of Tower Street
- Close Earlham Street at the junction with Shaftesbury Avenue
- Close Endell Street just south of its junction with Betterton Street
- Close Andrew Borde Street to westbound traffic (ie into Charing Cross Road)
See our response here.
15/1/01 & 26/2/02: Highgate West Hill Double Yellow Lines (with some 'summer time only')
The council is planning to introduce double yellow lines along much of both sides of Highgate West Hill due to obstruction caused by parking; the effect will be that virtually all of the road from the Swains Lane junction to the top of the hill will have double yellows on either one side or the other. They carried out a similar consultation last year and received much opposition from local residents, so the original proposals have been watered down to some extent. It appears that the existing parking bays would be retained; there is one new section of single yellow line (no parking 8.30am - 6.30pm Mon - Sat).

The most contentious part of the proposal is for two sections of (admittedly fairly short) double yellow line which will be operational during the summer months only (1st April - 31st October); both will be on the west side of the road, with one section at the top of the hill just south of the pedestrian crossing, and the other about half way down. The rationale for summertime only restriction is the visitors to the Heath are responsible for much of the problem.

CCC's concerns are that these seasonal double yellows may undermine the message of an absolute parking ban on other double yellow lines in Camden, and that whilst the problem may be worse in the summer due to the Heath, it is unlikely to disappear altogether November to March. Also, when not in operation it would seem that parking will be allowed 24 hours a day.
8/1/01 & 8/2/01: West End Lane Zebra Crossing
The council is proposing a new zebra crossing in West End Lane to the north east of the island & public toilets (ie just east of where West End Lane does its sharp turn to link up to Finchley Road). In addition, the 'slip road' along side the island will be ramped up to pavement height, an existing pedestrian refuge (ie traffic island) will be removed, and the kerb line slightly altered.

We suggested a "buses and cycles only" sign at the north entrance to the slip-road, and that the zebra crossing island should be retained to improve pedestrian safety.

Campaign Responses to Consultations since 2000

Royal College Street Northern Extension: 12/12/01
A41 Finchley Road - bus stop, coach stop and loading bay changes 6/12/01
West End Lane/Iverson Road: 3/12/01
Cross River Transit: 25/11/01
Regents Park Road: 15/11/01
Dartmouth Park 20mph Zone 12/11/01
Great Queen Street Speed tables & buildouts: 19/9/01
Hartland Road Safer Routes to School: 16/8/01
Plus Bus Route 68 through Russell Square: 1/6/01
Dartmouth Park Hill Traffic Calming: 9/5/01
Mayor's Draft Transport Strategy: 30/3/01
Downshire Hill: East Hampstead Traffic Calming Phase II: 23/3/01
Expansion of Safeways, Chalk Farm: 13/3/01
Covent Garden Traffic Management Proposals: 16/2/01
Proposed 20mph zone - Camden Square Area: 19/1/01
Camden Cycle Plan: 12/1/01

Royal College Street Northern Extension

12/12/01

Whilst we very much welcome the principle of extending the Royal College Street route to the north, it is with some regret that I have state that these proposals are not viewed as acceptable in their current form, and the Camden Cycling Campaign is unable to endorse them. This was the unanimous view of the dozen members present.

As I indicated at the Cyclists & Pedestrians Liaison Advisory Panel a fortnight ago, the previous meeting minutes (of the August CPLG) had noted that this proposal was 'to be discussed with CCC' (by clear implication this means prior to public consultion); if we had been kept in the loop I very much doubt we now face this unfortunate situation.

Specific Issues with Consultation Proposals

As summarised a week ago via informal feedback to Festus Agwu-Jones, we have the following specific concerns over the proposals.

Northbound cyclists will experience difficulties in getting into the right hand track (at the Georgiana Street junction) when the Royal College St traffic light phase is green (which is most of the time).
Northbound cyclists (the majority of users) will prefer to stay on the left hand side of the carriageway and would probably not use the track. However we appreciate that a track located on the western side of the road presents its own problems in terms of providing protection for cyclists trying to turn right into Randolf Street. See our comments below on our preferred solution.
We question the southern of the 2 entry treatments (which we presume will include raised tables across the track and into the side roads) shown on the map as we believe the side road is not a public highway (ie leads into a small private development) and low traffic volumes means that this measure is highly unlikely to to be cost effective. We hope that this is a drafting error and that the table could be redeployed at the Randolph St junction instead where it would prove of much more use to cyclists & pedestrians.
Heavily queueing motor traffic (especially 5.30pm -7pm) trying to exit from Baynes St into Royal College St will inevitably block the cycle track when it is in heaviest use; this we view as a total 'showstopper' in terms of the current design.
St Pancras Way is a fast and busy road so the standard of protection should not be lower here - full physical segregation should be employed; the advisory lanes in Pancras Way & Georgiana St offer little benefit to cyclists other than highlighting their potential presence to motorists.
The toucan crossing in Pancras Way will introduce an additional wait for cyclists as they will have to push a button and wait for the lights to change. Pedestrians will also be disadvantaged as the existing zebra means pedestrians currently do not have to wait for any lights to change before they can cross.
This proposal splits the Royal College Street extension by utilising 2 different sets of roads. One of the existing cycle route's great strengths is that from Georgiana Street down to Tavistock Street the same roads are used for both directions of travel; this is an important consideration in terms of ease of use and attractiveness for cyclists, and we believe that this principle should be maintained for as much of the rest of the route as possible.

Potential Solutions

Moving onto a more constructive feedback, there was considerable debate at Monday's meeting on to how to progress the proposed design. The strong concensus from members & committee was that:

The first phase of the scheme should be progressed (as per Paul Gannon's draft design submitted to LB Camden over a year ago) with the design of a two way physically segregated route along Pancras Way between the Agar Grove and Georgiana Street junctions. We appreciate that, whilst physical segregation would be highly desirable in Georgiana Street, existing carriageway widths may make this difficult to acheive without introducing further one-way flow for motor traffic. Progressing this section of the route would yield a high quality link towards Camden Square and Islington.
A second phase of the scheme should seek to progress a two way physically segregated route northwards towards Kentish Town. Those at the meeting were unanimous about the importance of investigating the feasibility of a two way track up Royal College Street to the Camden Street junction and beyond, and not proceeding with the proposed northbound-only track until the 2 way option can be conclusively ruled out (as once built there would be much inertia and cost involved in rebuilding the track to accomodate two-way flow). The heaviest cycle flow is understood to be north/south (rather than via Camden Square), and the Royal College Street route is the most direct road. We are concerned that providing a 2 way route via other roads (either Pancras Way or possibly Lyme Street/Camden Street) is likely to lead to a high proportion of cyclists not using the cycle facilities on other roads in the northbound direction, and instead continuing to use Royal College Street to reach Kentish Town Road; this is clearly an undesirable situation.

Whilst this was not discussed at the meeting, a fallback position might be to provide a northbound segregated track up Royal College Street (on the western side), and a southbound route down Pancras Way to Agar Grove.

This has the advantage that (if our proposed 2 way route via Pancras way is accepted) there is no need to provide a right turn facility from Royal College Street into Randolf Street (as cyclists wishing to travel north to Agar Grove can use the Pancras Way route). Furthermore the segregating track does not need to be broken (and blocked by queuing traffic from Baynes Street).

If you think there is merit in this proposal I recommend that you discuss this option with CCC before any undertaking any major investigation, as we should debate this alternative further with our committee and membership.

Paul Gasson, on behalf of the Camden Cycling Campaign

A41 Finchley Road - bus stop, coach stop and loading bay changes

6/12/01

We do not think the proposed changes are a good idea.

The policy of both the Government and TfL is ostensibly to improve connections at public transport interchanges and improve the integration of transport modes, particularly to make it easier to interchange for those with disabilities and those who cannot walk far due to heavy loads etc. Thus, although there is a problem with overcrowding of the stop on the northbound side of Finchley Road, to move both stops further from the station is undesirable and counterproductive. In fact they have already been moved too far away and should be moved closer if they are to be moved at all.

Bus stops used to be located actually at junctions, which placed them close to station entrances. Attempts over the last 30 or so years to increase motor traffic capacity of the roads have lead to them being moved away from junctions, leading to reduced amenity for pedestrians. We feel that if public transport is to be encouraged and car use discouraged, this policy needs to be reversed.

In the cases of the northbound stop, one possibility would be to move it south to where the underpass now is, just north of the station. The underpass is an unpopular and unpleasant facility, the vast majority of pedestrians preferring to cross at surface level. This would be quite a lot of engineering, but supposing it were done away with and the entrances to it removed, and the railings, which also undesirably restrict pedestrian mobility and convenience, were also removed, a conveniently-sited bus stop could be created here which would have more queuing space than the current one, and indeed, would be partly under cover because of the arcade which currently takes pedestrian flows round the subway entrance.

Another possibility might be to move the northbound stop to the south of the traffic lights, alongside the island that separates Finchley Road from the taxi-rank road outside Waitrose. This again would offer quite a spacious area for queing, were the existing railings removed, along, probably, with some of the benches and the large concrete pots containing stunted and unsightly trees which are currently occupying this area from a past failed streetscape-improvement scheme. The disadvantage of this scheme is that is would entail passengers emerging from the station to cross an extra road to reach the stop. However, if you were really thinking about re-designing and re-engineering this area of the Red Route for greater pedestrian convenience, which you probably are not at the moment, you might consider the complete closing and paving over of this side road entrance (Canfield Gardens) and re-directing the traffic round the other side of the Waitrose block to enter Finchley Road at the Goldhurst Terrace junction, thus abolishing the dangerous, unpleasant and space-wasting giratory system round the Waitrose block. This would liberate a tremendous amount of space for a pedestrian interchange.

David Arditti, on behalf of Camden Cycling Campaign

West End Lane/Iverson Road

3/12/01

Junction of West End Lane and Iverson Road

There is a strong need for pedestrian phases to be built into the signal timings, particularly to allow pedestrians on the west side of West End Lane to cross Iverson Road, in part to facilitate walking between the Silverlink and Thameslink stations.

We would like advanced stop areas for cyclists, surfaced in green, on all three arms of the junction ideally, but most importantly in Iverson Road and West End Lane northbound carriageway.

A fair number of heavy or large vehicles turn left from the northbound carriageway of West End Lane, and are forced to overlap onto the other carriageway of Iverson Road due to space limitations, which are usually exacerbated by parking of cars on the south side of Iverson Road close to the junction. We therefore suggest double yellow lines from the junction, to a suitable distance down.

West End Lane

It is true that this is a London Cycle Network route, but with minimal cycle facilities. There are intermittent green mandatory cycle lanes on both sides but only in the wider sections of the road. However, we are not going to suggest further painted cycle lanes, as we don't think these measures are effective for increasing cyclists' safety unless backed up by strong traffic reduction measures, and there is the problem of enforcement which is very severe in a busy shopping street like West End Lane, to which there is no likely solution in sight.

More restrictions on parking in the section of the road between the Iverson Road junction and the Broadhurst Gardens junction would be welcomed. Particularly, we suggest double yellow lines all along the east side. There is parking along here at virtually all times of the day, in this very problematic and narrow stretch of carriageway across the two bridges. Cycling on this route would be made safer if it could be removed, and buses and delivery vehicles would also benefit.

From the pedestrian point of view, there is very high pressure on the pavements, which are very narrow, particularly on the south side around the tube entrance. The bridge was rebuilt a few years ago with pedestrian barriers and sloping kerbstones on the carriageway side of them, which waste useful space. We would suggest all this be removed and the pavement area maximised. The purpose of the railings was to prevent cars stopping, but they do not succeed in this, and we do not support the restriction of pedestrian access with barriers, which tends to encourage speed by vehicles and a feeling of the environment being motor-dominated. There is a case for for the carriageway to be narrowed , given the problem of the width of the bridge and the pedestrian pressure.

There are also numerous minor obstructions to pedestrian passage which could be looked at. The flower shop's displays to the north of the tube entrance tend to cause an obstruction, but whether the owners are within their rights, I cannot tell. There is also somewhere on that stretch on the east side of the road a more or less cyclindrical object, to do with one of the utilities, I presume, stuck obstructively in the middle of the pavement.

However, there is a real need to find a more far-reaching and radical solution to the problem of West End Lane. There is no real alternative as a cycle route, because the railways are next bridged, to the east at Finchley Road, which is the Red Route and less suitable, and to the west at Kilburn High Road, which suffers from even worse congestion. Pedestrian movement between the three West Hampstead stations is severely impeded by the traffic and parking problems and the narrowness of the causeway across the three bridges, and the road also has to act as a bus route.

Our suggested solution is the complete closure of West End Lane between Iverson Road and Broadhurst Gardens to traffic other than buses and bikes. This would create a quasi-pedestrian precinct linking all the stations (along with the new pedestrian crossing of Iverson Road). It would sever the through-route that exists from the West End, via Lisson Grove, Grove End Road, Abbey Road, West End Lane and Fortune Green Road, to the north. Much of the traffic in West End Lane is this through-traffic from central London, which is avoiding the A41 Finchley Road and the A5 Kilburn High Road. On any week-day evening from about 4 to 7 pm, West End Lane northbound from Belsize Road to Iverson Road is blocked and at a standstill, filled with single-occupancy private cars, most of which are bound for Finchley Road, Hendon Way and the M1. This makes it virtually useless as both a bus and cycle route.

The stated idea of creating the Red Routes initially, and one of the ways in which they were "sold", was that they should be the conduits for the long-distance through traffic, with increased capacity, to relieve the local "town centre" roads like West End Lane, which is a shopping street and community centre and should not have to take this through traffic. The objectives of the Red Routes were not realised in this respect, because the capacity-increasing measures on the Red Route roads were not accompanied by a systematic programme to re-design the traffic systems for the "town centre" roads to prevent the long-distance through-traffic from using them as well. Consequently, the increased capacity was just taken up by increased traffic volumes, and both sets of roads filled up.

This should be the policy justification for closing West End Lane to through-traffic. It would have to remain open for emergency vehicles and buses as well as bikes, so some innovative engineering solution might be appropriate, such as automated bollards. There would be an increase in traffic in Broadhurst Gardens, which would take the northbound general traffic to Finchley Road, and Iverson Road, which would take the southbound general traffic to Kilburn High Road. However, these increases would not be as great as might be initially thought, because much of the non-local traffic will be deterred from using the route all together and will use the A41 or A5 all the way.

This would be a proper solution to the issue of using West End Lane as a priority cycle route, and would have major bus, train, underground, pedestrian and emergency-service benefits (there is a fire station in West End Lane and a police station just to the north in Fortune Green Road), and would probably improve conditions for local traders as well by increasing the environmental pleasantness of the shopping centre.

I have also previously come up with a plan for a new pedestrian and cycle bridge across the railways to the east of West End Lane, which would address some of the same problems for cyclists and pedestrians, given that in terms of political realities, closure of the road is not likely in the near future.. This is a separate document, which I enclose for your interest.

David Arditti, on behalf of Camden Cycling Campaign

Cross River Transit

Response to Transport for London

25/11/01

Camden Cycling Campaign (CCC) is a constitutive group of the London Cycling Campaign with a membership of about 600 individuals (who are also members of the London Cycling Campaign).

One of the main aims of CCC is to improve the environment of Camden by promoting engineering schemes that facilitate cycling in the borough. For example, CCC has recently closely collaborated with Camden Council in the design and construction of a highly successful segregated cycle lane in Royal College Street.

CCC, through its voluntary management committee, its monthly members' meeting and its very active e-mail group, closely scrutinises new urban projects. The Cross River Transit project has obviously attracted great interest among our members and has been extensively debated. In this letter I have summarised our comments and recommendations in relation to the impact that the Cross River Project may have on cycling. Our members will respond individually to your questionnaire which naturally deals with wider issues.

1) CCC welcomes improvements to the current public transport system.

2) Of the three proposed vehicles CCC strongly recommends the adoption of the tram. CCC recommends that the designers consult with tramway engineers in cities that have shown good long-term co-existence between bicycles and trams, such as Amsterdam, to determine the best designs for the rails and other aspects of the engineering from the point of view of the safety of cyclists

3) CCC strongly believes that the Cross River Transit must be conceived and delivered in the general framework of redistributing road space away from private vehicles use towards public transport use without erosion of space from pedestrians or cyclists but actually favouring the latter two groups.

4) CCC believes that the interaction of the tram line with cycling must be carefully considered from the very early design stage and CCC would like to be consulted throughout the planning and the implementation phases.

5) CCC believes that the construction of the Cross River Transit represents an excellent opportunity for also developing high quality cycling lanes along the tram line. This could be achieved at a small fraction of the total cost of the Cross River Transit project and would greatly enhance the cost effectiveness of the whole project in terms of tax payers' money spent per mile travelled.

I hope you find these comments constructive and I wish to stress that we believe that the Cross River Transit project has the potential to enhance to the quality of public transport in London. However, we strongly believe that the Cross River Transit project should include enhanced facilities for cycling. Again I would like to stress that CCC would like to be consulted during the design and the implementation of the project and we will endeavour to contribute to its success.

If you wish to have further clarification or discussion on the above points please do not hesitate to contact me.

Stefano Casalotti , on behalf of the Camden Cycling Campaign

Regents Park Road

15/11/01

The Camden Cycling Campaign has a strong preference for option 2 as shown in plan B. Our reasons are that we strongly believe that this option with its cross-junction speed tables will

offer the most effective motor traffic speed reduction measures
offer the safest environment for cyclists
and if properly designed (see our further coments below) offer the most convenient and safest environment for pedestrians.

We do have 2 areas of concern over the proposals.

Speed cushions

The Campaign is worried about the proposed speed cushions in Regents Park Road. We presume that cushions are being deployed due to objections from the emergency services, but wish to point out that cushions are undesireable for a number of reasons. If the emergency services do not object, we strongly recommend that humps are used instead of cushions.

If speed cushions are to be deployed, we urge that we are consulted during the detailed design phase on the positioning of the cushions. Cushion positioning is critical in that if wrongly placed, they can make a road far more dangerous to cyclists than a street with no traffic calming measures.

Junction Table Extents

The text in the leaflet for option 2 and the green hashed markings on Plan B appear to conflict. The text suggests the entire junction will be raised (ie side road and Regents Park Road throughout the junction area), whereas the markings on the plan suggests that the extent of the raised areas will be more modest for most of the junctions.

We strongly recommend that the entire junction areas are raised, with the tables extended such that natural pedestrian crossing points are on the raised section to give a flat pavement to pavement crossing surface.

If the entire junctions are not to be raised, then all the pedestrian crossing points should have raised tables located where they will be most convenient for pedestrians.

Taking in each junction in turn.

Fitzroy Road junction. We presume that this entire junction will be raised. The raised table area should extend to encompass the adjacent pedestrian crossing.,
Albert Terrace. We presume that this entire junction will be raised. The table does not appear to extend far enough into Albert Terrace; it should be extended by approximately 5 metres to ensure that pedestrians crossing Albert Terrace can do so with deviation from the desire line dictated by the non built out sections of pavement. We strongly recommend that the island in Albert Terrace is reduced in width, with the pavements being built out; this is particularly important for the north side, which currently has a carriageway angle more suited to motorway slip treatment, thus encouraging motorists to take this junction at speed.
Princess Road. We presume that this entire junction will be raised. The table should extend into this side road such that pedestrians can cross via the table.
Speed table to east of Gloucester Avenue. We do not understand why this will have a less steep gradient - in view of the no entry plug for cyclists into Gloucester Avenue and the current difficult cyclists have in make the turn into the plug, we strongly recommend a 1 in 15 gradient to help reduce motor vehicle speeds.
Gloucester Avenue. The speed table across the mouth of Gloucester Avenue is welcome; however some thought will need to be given to the street furniture on the island and the adjacent pavements to ensure that pedestrians have an unobstructed crossing point (as many will cross here despite the zebra crossing set back from the junction). We suspect that for reasons of improved pedestrian accessibility/ convenience the pedestrian crossing would be better relocated so that it is on this table; local residents may be best placed to give a view on this.

If any of these details are unclear from the above text, email me at paulgasson@greengas.u.net.com and I can provide diagrams as required to further illustrate these points.

As this is the first consultation that I am aware of that Parkman has been involved in Camden, I should point out that the Camden Cycling Campaign has established a reputation in the borough as a champion of pedestrian as well as cyclist safety. Indeed a number of our committee including myself are active members of the Pedestrians Association.

I thus urge you to also give due weight to the aspects of this scheme on which we comment from a pedestrian perspective.

Paul Gasson, on behalf of the Camden Cycling Campaign

Dartmouth Park 20mph Zone

12/11/01

We very much support the principle of a 20mph zone, but have a couple of concerns about the scheme proposed.

Firstly, the Campaign is worried about the proposed speed cushions in St Albans Road. We appreciate that the use of this road by buses means that speed humps will not be acceptable to London Buses.

However we do request that we are consulted during the detailed design phase on the positioning of the cushions. Cushion positioning is critical in that if wrongly placed, they can make a road far more dangerous to cyclists than a street with no traffic calming measures.

Secondly, we are unhappy with the lack of physical traffic calming measures on the boundary of the zone. We strongly recommend that raised tables are implemented across the junctions at all the entry points to the zone in order to physically reinforce the 20 mph limit to motorists.

Paul Gasson, on behalf of the Camden Cycling Campaign

Great Queen Street Speed tables & buildouts

19/9/01

Firstly the Campaign wishes to express full support for the principle of implementing traffic calming measures along this street. And the Campaign fully supports the proposed speed tables, as long as they are full height tables (ie raised to footway level) as this should result in a significant decrease in motor traffic speeds.

However we must point out that Great Queen Street is an important London Cycle Network route, and thus the proposed measures should at least take cyclists' safety into account, and should preferably improve safety for them.

General Buildout Issues

At our members meeting last Monday the committee and members present expressed strong reservations about proposed pavement buildout aspect of these tables.

Build-outs (especially wide ones) increase danger by forcing cyclists to move out into the centre of the road, and thus into the space used by faster moving motor vehicles.

This is one of the most dangerous manoeuvres cyclists have to make, as it entails cyclists having move into and 'compete' with an area of roadspace that motorists consider to 'belong' to them. As motorists will find it more difficult to overtake cyclists in this position, they can react aggressively to a cyclist moving out in front of them.

Wild Street table/buildout

However, the additional potential hazards to cyclist caused by a buildout tend to be reduced where parking bays are located in the vicinity of the buildout, and the occupancy of the parking bays is generally high. This is because a reasonable frequency of parked cars create a stretch of road where cyclists can

A Committee member has inspected Great Queen Street and tells us that there are parking bays which seem to have reasonably high occupancy rates in the vicinity of the proposed table plus buildout adjacent to Wild Street, thus we do not anticipate major problems for cyclists for this western table.

Newton Street table/buildout

With respect to the table and buildout near Newton Street, we gather that there are double yellow lines on the north side of the carriageway, and single yellow lines on the south side. Therefore there should be little or no parking during the day.

Thereore our strong recommendation for this buildout therefore is that its width from the kerb on each side should be no more than 1 metre (and preferably less than 0.85 metres). This is because the 'primary' (ie safest) riding position for cyclists is considered to be 1 metre from the kerb. Thus cyclists adopting this position will not need to deviate significantly around the buildout and into the motor traffic stream.

Request for detailed designs

In view of the lack of information in the consultation about any changes to parking bay layouts or parking restrictions, and the absence of any information on carriageway widths or dimensions of the tables and buildouts, the Camden Cycling Campaign requests that we are sent copies of the detailed designs for the tables & buildouts so that we are able to further assess the potential hazards for cyclists, and make more specific recommendations on how to improve cyclists' safety.

Paul Gasson, on behalf of the Camden Cycling Campaign

Hartland Road Safer Routes to School

16/8/01

Firstly the Campaign wishes to express full support for the principle of implementing traffic calming measures in the vicinity of the Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School.

The Campaign fully supports the proposed road humps.

However at our members meeting on Monday the committee and members present agreed that we should formally object to the proposed design of the pavement buildouts.

The primary reason for our objection is that these build-outs will significantly increase danger to cyclists. And as a consequence it will also undermine efforts to create safe routes to schools for pupils who wish to cycle.

Build-outs (especially wide ones) increase danger by forcing cyclists to move out into the centre of the road at all times, and thus into the space used by much faster moving motor vehicles. This is one of the most dangerous maneouvres cyclists have to make, and it is especially inappropriate to require an inexperienced cyclist of school age to undertake such maneouvres.

We have often explained the danger of build-outs to the Council through the Cyclists and Pedestrians Liaison Group and other channels and we are both surprised and disappointed that our experience on this safety issue has been overlooked.

The problem is made even worse in this design as the build-outs are designed to create a pinch-point� with sufficient space for only one motor vehicle to pass at a time. Signs will indicate the direction of priority, however it is extremely unlikely that motor vehicles will accede priority to cyclists even though they should. This will create a dangerous situation, particularly where wider vehicles such as lorries are concerned, where cyclists believe they have priority, but a high proportion of drivers (through ignorance, confusion or deliberate harrassment), will assert their priority for this roadspace.

We do not feel that the pinchpoint will, as asserted, assist pedestrians to cross the road. If there is a problem for pedestrians to cross it must be caused by inappropriate speeds, so pedestrians would be better served by motor vehicle traffic reduction and speed-reducing measures.

Additionally, the pinchpoint will create its own problems for pedestrians as, when there are vehicles in both directions which would have passed simultaneously, will have to wait for vehicles to pass consecutively. In some circumstances this may make it difficult for pedestrians to cross at all in a reasonable time and may lead to them to taking risks when crossing.

Therefore our strong recommendation is that a full width speed table be constructed instead of the current kerb buildout design.

However bearing in mind the possibility that, despite yellow zig zag markings or double yellow lines alongside the speed table, motorists may attempt to park on the table, we propose that buildouts on both sides of the carriageway are constructed, but at approximate 0.75 metres are of a narrower width than that in the design consulted upon.

The width will allow cyclists to maintain the recommended 'primary riding position' of around 1 metre from the main kerb alignment wihtout having to manoeuvre around the buildout and thus into conflict with motor traffic.

We illustrate this our modified proposal overlaid on the original plan below.

We support the solution preferred by many local people for the closure of the road (on either side of the Clarence Way junction) to motor vehicle traffic. Alternatively, further physical speed reduction measures should be introduced along Hartland Road.

A further recommendation is that 2 new speed humps should be constructed in Clarence Way on either side of the Hartland Road junction. This is due to the growing rat run and speeding vehicles along Clarence Way, by motorists seeking to avoid Prince of Wales Road and Kentish Town Road.

Paul Gasson , Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator

Plus Bus Route 68 through Russell Square

1/6/01

We have a 70 strong newsgroup, thus when we posted details of this consultation we received a considerable number of comments back from London Cycling Campaign members who live in Camden and cycle through the Russell Square area. A few of our members also work in the area, and thus had comments as pedestrians.

The general response from our membership was that we strongly favour option 1, but only if cyclists are allowed to use the contraflow cycle lane. We see no reason why the lane could not be constructed to a 4 metre width, which would allow buses to safely overtake cyclists; however if a 4 metre width was not possible, we do not believe that delays caused by cyclists to buses would be significant due to the short stretch of carriageway involved.

We recommend that all bus lanes (ie including with-flow lanes) are widened to a 4 metre width; this is a London Cycling Campaign recommendation, which results in the removal of any small delays which might be caused by cyclists in a narrower bus lane.

There was a strong concensus against the conversion of zebra crossings to pelican crossings (which would require pedestrians to wait before crossing). This is because pedestrians are already greatly disadvantaged in terms of crossing our road network, and any changes which add delays to walking journey times should not be implemented unless there are extremely strong safety reasons.

This is also the view of Camden's Cyclists & Pedestrians Liaison Group, and I believe the Pedestrians Association.

We also feel we should bring your attention to the recently opened cycle track which runs between Russell Square and Montague Street. For this reason we request that we (as well as Festus Agwu-Jones, Camden Council's Cycling Officer) are involved in the detailed design stage of the proposal.

Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator

Dartmouth Park Hill Traffic Calming

Response to LB Islington 9/5/01

Introduction

The Camden Cycling Campaign (which is the Camden group of the London Cycling Campaign) welcomes the intentions behind the proposals for traffic calming measures along Dartmouth Park Hill.

Many of our members (and countless other cyclists) live close to Dartmough Park Hill and will thus be directly affected by the traffic calming proposals on a daily basis. A large number of further cyclists either currently cycle through the area, or would do so if conditions were improved for cyclists.

However we strongly believe that some of the measures proposed, if implemented, will greatly increase the hazards for cyclists. This will lead to a rise in cyclist casualties, and also to a reduction in cyclists travelling through the area, because of the perception of increased danger in Dartmough Park Hill.

Thus on behalf of our 600 Camden members, we must strongly object to a number of aspects of the proposed measures for this scheme.

Speed reduction for all vehicles is essential

A cyclist was killed in Dartmouth Park Hill in February this year, and it is likely that excessive motor vehicle speed was the most important factor. Inappropriately high vehicle speeds are the most important factor in terms of safety for both cyclists and pedestrians.

Therefore motor vehicle speed reduction must be the primary aim of any traffic calming scheme which is to be effective, and we recommend physical measures to support a 20 mph zone.

Unfortunately as we discuss below, speed cushions have negligable impact on the speeds of larger vehicles, and we do not consider these to be a suitable measure for a number of general and cyclist specific reasons.

We welcome the use of raised tables; these are effective traffic calming devices which reduce vehicle speed, do not cause significant problems for cyclists, and thus have a net benefit in terms of road danger reduction for cyclists.

We request therefore that these, or full width speed cushions, are used throughout the length of Dartmouth Park Hill in order to reduce the speed of all vehicles.

We conclude that any objections that the emergency services may have on small increases in their response times will be more than offset by

a reduction in deaths and injuries due to slower vehicle speeds, and
general mobility and quality of life improvements for residents and those who travel through the area using more sustainable modes of transport.

Measures which represent new hazards for cyclists

The proposed features of the scheme which we believe represent major additional hazards for cyclists are detailed below.

Carriageway narrowings

The use of pavement buildouts or pedestrian refuges effectively creates chicanes for cyclists and reduces the amount of road space available for evasive action by motorists and cyclists.

Furthermore, with pavement buildouts cyclists are forced to move into the path of motor vehicles.

With traffic islands, cyclists are forced into the kerb (or towards parked vehicles which generate unexpectedly opening doors) to avoid collisions when motorists attempt to overtake on the approach to, or at, traffic islands.

Speed Cushions

The use of speed cushions, especially as all but one set are combined with carriageway narrowing features (in most cases pedestrian refuges), are of great concern. The Campaign's general position on speed cushions is that they make the road considerably more hazardous for cyclists, and they do not slow larger vehicles. Unfortunately lorries are responsible for a disproportionate number of cyclist deaths and serious injuries in London.

Whilst we do have recommendatiosn (see later) on how speed cushions can be positioned to reduce the hazards to cyclists, we cannot support their use as irrespective of placement they still increase road dangers for cyclists.

The key issues relating to speed cushions are:

Competion for flat roadspace. Cushions force traffic to use the same piece of flat road space. Depending on traffic volumes and road conditions, this can be very dangerous as it can result in frustrated motorists aggressively trying to push their way into the restricted space adjacent to a cushion. There is rarely enough room for a cycle and car to safely pass at a set of cushions. Cushions positioned alongside parked cars are particularly dangerous, as many cyclists will be 'persuaded' by motor traffic to pass on the inside of the cushion, thus putting themselves at risk of colliding with an opening car door.
Pushing cyclists into unfamiliar road positions. Cyclists of various persuasions and expertise may routinely cycle anywhere in the carriageway, ranging from in the gutter/skimming parked cars, in the middle of their lane, or even close to the centre line. Wherever cushions are located, some cyclists will be forced to veer from their preferred positioning into that dictated by the gaps between the cushions. This requirement for cyclists to reposition themselves is inherently dangerous as many motorists will not anticipate this. Where inexperienced cyclists are forced into a more dominant (and for them, uncomfortable) road position, this may lead to last minute weaving, and/or a visually perceptible loss of confidence (which more aggressive motorists will exploit). Also, motorists will tend to zig-zag to negotiate cushions, which means that they may suddenly manoeuvre without warning.
Larger vehicles not slowed by cushions. Wider wheelbase vehicles (larger 4 wheel drive cars, vans, lorries & HGVs) can speed over cushions as their wheels straddle the obstacle; some of the 'top of the range' cars with expensive suspension are also able to overcome much of the speed reduction intentions of cushions. Given the disproportionately high rate of cyclist casualties with respect to lorries, this cannot be in cyclists' interests, let alone pedestrians'. Indeed, one would presume that if a street is being traffic calmed, you would want to discourage heavy vehicle use, not provide them with a potential rat run.
DETR Guidance recommends bypasses for cushions. There is a DETR traffic advisory leaflet (on 'horizontal and vertical traffic calming measures') which advises the use of cycle bypasses where cushions are deployed; clearly even the experts are nervous about cushions & cyclists.

Safety issues exacerbated by carriageway gradient

The issues we raise above are compounded by the fact that much of Dartmouth Park Hill is on a moderate to steep gradient.

As a result cyclists travelling uphill will be travelling comparatively slowly, and the speed differential between them and motor vehicles will be much higher than usual, thus adding to hazards. Furthermore at slow speeds cyclists have poorer manoeuvrability, thus increasing the risk of collision.

In terms of the downhill direction, cyclists will be travelling at higher speeds than usual, and thus will have less time to conduct avoidance manoeuvres (eg such as negotiating vertical or horizontal traffic calming measures) safely and with adequate warning to other vehicles.

We will of course be pleased to discuss these issues and detailed designs further with the London Borough of Islington in the hope that the impact of this scheme on cyclists can be minimised.

Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator

Mayor's Draft Transport Strategy (GLA)

30/3/01

General Priorities of the Strategy

1) We consider that the key priority should be traffic reduction. This is not the same thing, and not as good, as congestion reduction. We are disappointed the the Mayor is not committing himself to the LPAC road traffic reduction targets.

2) The primary means of reducing traffic, congestion, accidents and pollution should be seen as the encouragement of walking and cycling. Modest but well-planned investments in these areas have been shown in progressive European cities to be by far and away the most economical methods of furthering these objectives.

Crucially, even if great increases in the uptake of public transport can be achieved, and this we doubt without very large investments over several decades, it needs to be recognised that public transport is only about twice as carbon efficient as private car use. The maximum reduction in carbon emissions that could be produced by a strategy prioritising public transport improvements would therefore not be sufficient in the long term as London's contribution to the reduction of global carbon emissions that is necessary to avoid disastrous climate change. There should therefore be a stronger emphasis on reducing people's need to travel long distances, and on enabling them to meet their remaining, short-to-moderate distance travel needs using completely sustainable means, i.e. by walking and cycling.

3)We are disappointed by the acceptance in the Strategy that car travel should remain the dominant mode of transport in outer London. We see great difficulty in achieving improvements in bus services and in walking and cycling conditions, given the limited space available, without a radical reassessment of the priority allocated to car travel throughout London. There is a hard choice which has to be grasped: reduction of the convenience of motoring, and increase in its cost, in outer, as well as inner London, is an essential prerequisite to these other objectives being met.

4) New infrastructure: we strongly support new rail lines, tram lines or guided bus services. We do not approve of new road bridges across the Thames, as these again would facilitate car travel and work against the other objectives.

The Strategy's approach to cycling

We welcome much that is said, but find a weakness in the general lack of targets, particularly in the failure to set targets to actually increase the modal share of cycling.

We would strongly recommend the Mayor to study the Borough of Camden's Cycling Strategy, which we consider to be a model, comprehensive strategy on cycling, developed through extensive consultation between the Council and local cyclists, pedestrians and community groups. This contains numerous meaningful and relevant targets which could be copied generally across London.

More specific points on the Strategy relating to cycling:

Para. 4J7 There needs to be some attempt to define what is meant by "a supplementary network that provides a core of high quality routes". In the development of our proposals for the "Seven Stations Link" (SSL), the high-quality east-west cycle link across central London, the Camden sections of which are now being constructed, we have used a criterion of "segregation from motor traffic except where motor vehicle flows can be reduced to less than 10 per hour by other means". We suggest this as the basis of a definition of the standards for the network proposed here.. We further believe that the best candidate for the "pilot high quality route" already exists in the SSL design, and we would like the Mayor to commit himself specifically to completing this in all 5 central London Boroughs through which it runs as the beginning of this network.

Para. 4J2 The type of commitments to review all one-way streets, no entries etc. that the Camden plan has, or a commitment to encourage the Boroughs do it, would be appropriate here.

Para. 4J5 We would like to see numerical targets for numbers of on-street stands and for parking at new developments.

Para. 4J11 We would like targets for the numbers to be trained. While we stress that we agree with training for cyclists and better law-enforcement, we must point out that the policy as stated here is unbalanced with respect to the training of, and law enforcement on, different road-users, as there is no mention of training motorists better to understand the needs of cyclists, and no budget (stated here at least) for increasing enforcement against those motoring offences which impact most adversely on cyclists, such as parking or driving in cycle lanes, speeding, encroaching into advanced stop lines and dangerous overtaking at junctions.

David Arditti, Camden Cycling Campaign

Downshire Hill: East Hampstead Traffic Calming Phase II

The Camden Cycling Campaign is highly concerned over the traffic calming proposals for Downshire Hill, and is only able to support option 4 (do nothing) due to the inadequacies of the first 3 options regarding provision for cyclists.

We vehemently object to options 1 & 2 as presented due to the adverse impact of one way flows on pedestrians and cyclists.

We are worried by option 3 as speed cushions and pinch points are not generally cycle friendly measures, and offical guidance from the DETR is that these should not be employed unless cycle bypasses can be provided. We explain these issues in more detail below.

In our view the best and most effective traffic calming option, would be the closure of Downshire Hill at some point along its length. We would enthusastically support such a measure as long as suitably design cycle gaps were provided. If this measure is to be considered we would like to discuss the design with the council.

Our concerns over options 1,2 & 3 can be broken down into 4 main areas:

Absence of any sign of consideration of cyclists' needs.
General issues relating to one way flows (options 1 & 2)
Use of pinchpoints and speed cushions (option 3)
Specific impact of proposed measures for Downshire Hill (options 1, 2 & 3)

1. Absence of any sign of consideration of cyclists' needs

The consultation brochure has no mention of the needs of cyclists, yet Camden Council's official policy is to encourage more people to cycle.

Unless traffic management designs are planned with the safety and convenience of cyclists as a high priority consideration from the outset (ie well before consultation), it is unlikely that the resultant scheme will result in safer conditions than prior to implementation.

It is simply not effective or acceptable to attempt to retrospectively bolt on a couple of concessionary facilities in order to be seen to be doing something to address cyclists' concerns and try to silence the cycling lobby.

2. General issues relating to one way flows (options 1 & 2)

The introduction of one way streets generally has a damaging impact on sustainable transport modes for a number of reasons including higher vehicle speeds, motorists negotiating junctions with less care, degredation of local street environment, and general ; pedestrians and cyclists will tend to avoid dangerous or unpleasant locations which tend to be encouraged by one-way street systems. We cover the issues in more detail in appendix A.

The problems caused by one way streets for cyclists is reflected in the Camden Cycle Plan, which gained formal Committee approval in February 2001, and will be officially launched on Friday 6th April at a National Cycling Strategy Seminar to be held at Camden Town Hall.

The Plan has a number of observations about the problems caused for cyclists by one way streets, and has two specific targets which are:

The Council will carry out an audit of all one way streets, produce a register of the schemes, evaluate the purpose of each scheme, examine whether it should be retained and consider whether cycle facilities should be introduced. The audit to be completed by December 2001.
The Council will implement a five year programme of reintroduction of two way working or introduction of contra flow cycle facilities in one way streets, where appropriate, following the one way street audit.

In view of this it is nonsensical for the council to be considering the introduction of new one way streets, only to be conducting an audit later this year with the aim of reversing the anti-cycling aspects of such schemes.

We suggest that a minimum requirement is the consideration of no entry exemption for cyclists via the use of cycle plugs (ie a cycle track allowing cyclists to pass the no entry restriction). However we are aware of the increased visual & street clutter caused by such schemes, which may not be viewed as appropriate for this part of Hampstead.

3. Use of pinchpoints and speed cushions (option 3)

The use of horizontal deflections such as pinchponts is regarded as highly cycle unfriendly, and even the DETR suggest that they should not be used unless cycle bypasses can be implemented. However the design of such bypasses so that they are genuinely useful for cyclists (and are used by them) is difficult in the conditions of high parking stress along Downshire Hill.

Speed cushions are also highly undesirable in terms of cyclist safety, and they are of dubious benefit in terms of traffic speed reduction. The issues include:

Cushions force most traffic to use the same piece of flat road space. This often leads to motorists pushing past cyclists when there is insufficient room to safely do this, or pressuring cyclists to pass on the inside of the cushion, thus putting themselves at risk of colliding with an opening car door.
Pushing cyclists into unfamiliar road positions. Wherever cushions are located, some cyclists will be forced to veer from their preferred positioning into that dictated by the gaps between the cushions; the unfamiliar positioning leads to a higher risk of collision. Their is also the risk that motoists or cyclists may not antipate the other swerving to negotiate a cushion..
Wide wheelbase vehicles (vans & lorries) can speed over cushions as their wheels straddle the obstacle; some of the 'top of the range' cars with expensive suspension are also able to overcome much of the speed reduction intentions of cushions. This effectively gives such vehicles a high speed rat run.
The DETR traffic advisory leaflet (on 'horizontal and vertical traffic calming measures') advises the use of cycle bypasses where cushions are deployed; clearly even the experts are nervous about cushions & cyclists.

The issues relating to speed cushions are covered in more detail in appendix B. The appendix also makes suggestions how, if speed cushions have to be employed, they can be positioned in order to reduce the risk to cyclists.

In view of the above factors, the Campaign recommends that either speed humps (with a sinusoidal profile) or speed tables are employed instead of cushions and pinch points.

4. Specific impact of proposed measures for Downshire Hill (options 1, 2 & 3)

The most serious aspect of any proposals which do not fully address cyclists needs (ie options 1-3) is the degredation of the key link provided by Downshire Hill for cyclists to access the main cycle routes across Hampstead Heath.

The Heath's most important cycle links run from the path to the south of the East Heath car park (ie the Downshire Hill/East Heath Road junction); one runs north up the middle of the Heath to Spaniards Road, with the other branching off to run eastwards to Mill Lane.

The Heath is increasingly used by cyclists for leisure reasons, and is popular for family cycling excursions with young children, as well as those seeking a safe haven to master basic cycle skills.

If Downshire Hill becomes more dangerous for cyclists, due to the rising traffic volumes along East Heath Road, it will become virtually impossible to safely (and legally) reach the Heath.

The Camden Cycling Campaign appreciates that its response will not be welcomed by officers. We are thus keen to stress that we will be pleased to discuss these issues further in the hope a suitable scheme can be found which meets the traffic calming objectives and take suitable account of cyclists needs.

Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator

Expansion of Safeways, Chalk Farm

13/3/01

The Camden Cycling Campaign objects to the principle of the expansion of the Safeways supermarket.

The Campaign has noted that local shops and once-vibrant Queen's Crescent market have declined since the store was opened, and the store generates a huge volume of 'unneccessary' motor traffic. We do not believe that an expansion of the retail area from the current 3,065 square metres to 5020, which is a 63% increase, will be healthy either for the local economy or in terms of the inevitable increase in motor traffic.

However, should the council (or government) decide to approve any changes for the supermarket, the Camden Cycling Campaign requests that a condition of planning consent be the improvement of facilities for cyclists as detailed below.

Improvements Requested for Cyclists

The London Cycle Network route which runs across the Safeways site and past the front of the store should be redesigned so that it is safer, properly signposted, and more convenient for cyclists to use. This could be an important facility as the route has the potential to be a well used bypass to the heavily trafficked Camden High Street/Chalk Farm Road alternative.

Furthermore, as the store is being extended over where the current cycle parking is, the opportunity should be taken to improve the number of stands and their location so that they are closer to the main entrance.

The most important issues relating to the existing cycle route are as follows:

The painted cycle lane at end of Oval Road (ie prior to the pedestrian/cycle only section) is always parked on by motor vehicles; just one car parked renders the whole section unusable.
It is questionable whether a two-way cycle lane for the section above is appropriate unless physical segregation techniques are employed. Unless physical segregation is to be introduced it would make more sense to have a one way lane (northbound) whilst maintaining the current 2 lane width.
Access to the pedestrian/cycle track from the Oval Road end is frequently blocked by parked cars (leading to cyclists riding on the pavement).
The cycle track passes right next to a pillar adjacent to the supermarket entrance; the resultant blindspot could lead to a cyclist/pedestrian collision and injury.
The cycle route terminates in a flower bed next to the pedestrian crossing (just to north of supermarket entrance).
The barrier arms to control motor vehicle entrance & exit to car park require shortening - at present cyclists risk being whacked on the head by them, and have difficulty getting past if the barrier arm is down (eg if the car park is closed).
The section of the route between the car park barriers and Chalk Farm Road requires a review in order to establish how it could be made more cycle friendly.
Access should be provided for cyclists travelling between the above section of road, and Ferdinand Street; this require modifications to the existing signal controlled crossing in Chalk Farm Road.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator

Covent Garden Traffic Management Proposals

16/2/01

The Camden Cycling Campaign does not generally support one way working for a number of reasons; we have formally lodged a paper with LB Camden on this subject, and can provide this to you if required. However we accept that for Covent Garden the options for change are currently very limited, partly due to the area also being under control of the less enlighted Westminster Council.

We request that the opportunity for cycle contraflows along all one way streets in Covent Garden be explored.

We assume that cycle gaps will automatically be provided in all road closures (this is standard council policy).

We also request that we are kept in the loop on the design phase for the scheme, and in particular have the opportunity to review the detailed design for the road closures.

The reason is it is very important to ensure that the scheme does adequately cater for cyclists needs if cycling is genuinely to be encouraged in the area, and safety improved for more vulnerable road users. For example poor design of road closure cycle gaps (eg placing them next to the kerb) can lead to cyclists having to concentrate on weaving around obstacles, rather than looking out for pedestrians who are crossing in the vicinity.

Our web page on 'Designing for Cyclists' discusses this type of issue in considerable detail, and has a number of design recommendations & solutions, including good practice designs for road closures.

Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator

Proposed 20mph zone - Camden Square Area

19/1/01

The Campaign warmly applauds the above initiative, which we believe will create a safer street environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

We favour option 1, which is the inclusion of Agar Grove into the scheme.

We also see an opportunity to assist cyclists. We suggest the use of sinusoidal profile road humps, which are easier for cyclists to negotiate, as recommended by Sustrans.

However we do have grave doubts about the proposed use of speed cushions in Camden Park Road and Agar Grove, as these will increase the dangers to cyclists. Our reasoning follows below.

Please note that Agar Grove is an official London Cycle Network route, thus requiring an implementation which maximises cyclist safety and convenience.

And that Camden Park Road is likely to be agreed shortly as a critical link for the Waterloo Bridge to Barnet London Priority Cycle Route. The Campaign is about to formally resubmit proposals (which stalled a year ago the Traffic Director for London) for two way physically segregated cycle track running along Camden Park Road from Cliff Road across Camden Road and along Torriano Avenue.

The Impact of Speed Cushions on Cyclists

Competion for flat roadspace

Cushions force traffic to use the same piece of flat road space. Depending on traffic volumes and road conditions, this can be very dangerous as it can result in frustrated motorists aggressively trying to force their way into the restricted space adjacent to a cushion. There is rarely enough room for a cycle and car to safely pass at a set of cushions.

Pushing cyclists into unfamiliar road positions

Cyclists of various persuasions and expertise may routinely cycle anywhere in the carriageway, ranging from in the gutter/skimming parked cars, in the middle of their lane, or even close to the centre line. Wherever cushions are located, some cyclists will be forced to veer from their preferred positioning into that dictated by the gaps between the cushions. This requirement for cyclists to reposition themselves is inherently dangerous as many motorists will not anticipate this.</

Camden Cycling Campaign

Sections

Personal tools

Consultations 2001

Document Actions

Traffic Management Schemes

proposed by Camden Council, and Camden Cycling Campaign's responses

Summary of Camden Traffic Management Proposals

Campaign Responses to Consultations since 2000

Royal College Street Northern Extension

A41 Finchley Road - bus stop, coach stop and loading bay changes

West End Lane/Iverson Road

Cross River Transit

Regents Park Road

Dartmouth Park 20mph Zone

Great Queen Street Speed tables & buildouts

Hartland Road Safer Routes to School

Plus Bus Route 68 through Russell Square

Dartmouth Park Hill Traffic Calming

Introduction

Speed reduction for all vehicles is essential

Measures which represent new hazards for cyclists

Mayor's Draft Transport Strategy (GLA)

Downshire Hill: East Hampstead Traffic Calming Phase II

Expansion of Safeways, Chalk Farm

Covent Garden Traffic Management Proposals

Proposed 20mph zone - Camden Square Area