Consultations for 2002

Document Actions

To search this page, use 'Find' on 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 2002.

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.

20/12/02 & 31/1/03: West End Lane Pedestrian Improvements
We have been consulted on some minor changes to West End Lane in the vicinity if the Silverlink station, to be implemented after the bridge strengthening work has been done, as part of the same works.

CCC's response was:

"Camden Cycling Campaign supports the proposals. The pavement widening is much needed as the pavements are currently very inadequate. Increased numbers of people using the pavements for interchanging between the stations in the future make this essential, especially as it now looks unlikely that the money will be found for any major re-development of the stations, which was proposed to have included sub-surface links.

Currently, the carriageway is seriously obstructed by parked cars on this stretch most of the time. The reduced width, combined with the "at any time" waiting and loading restrictions, will hopefully stop this, and improve conditions for cycling as well, despite the reduced carriageway width.

We would like to suggest one change to the plan as drawn. This is the addition of an Advanced Stop Line for cyclists on the southbound carriageway of West End Lane, as well as the lane shown, and the other two ASLs. The purpose of this would be to help cyclists turning right into Iverson Road, allowing them to position themselves in front of straight-on traffic when the signals are red."
20/11/02 & 20/1/03: Holborn Local Streets & Transport Plan
As with the Gospel Oak scheme below, the council is also trying the new area-wide approach to delivering improvements to 'traffic, highways and the streetscape' for the Holborn area bounded approximately by Guilford St, Farringdon Road, High Holborn, and Southampton Row.
- There is an extensive questionnaire - some of the key questions include:
- Do any streets have problems with too much traffic or too high speeds?
- Where do we want more cycle parking stands?
- Where do you want to see cycle lane markings (ie painted lanes)?
- What other cycle facilities do you want?
- Where are new pedestrian crossings needed?
- Locations for more trees?
- Locations which would be a good spot for social/recreation areas - sitting, chatting, enjoying the sunshine?
Our response is here.
20/11/02 & 20/12/02: Gospel Oak Neighbourhood - Local Streets & Transport Plan
The council is trying a new area-wide approach to delivering improvements to 'traffic, highways and the streetscape' for the Gospel Oak area bounded approximately by Chalk Farm Rd, Haverstock Hill, Agincourt Rd, Mansfield Rd, Grafton Road Price of Wales Rd, Kentish Town Road, and Camden Town tube station.

What is this consultation about?

"Camden is intending to develop a new approach to spending on transport and streets in the borough. We are looking at particular areas, including yours, as shown on the map on the front cover. This has been generally named the 'Gospel Oak Neighbourhood Management Area'. We want to put together a programme delivering real improvements across the area. We need to know from you what your priorities are for the area. We will analyse all the responses and look at how we can achieve what local residents and businesses want.

The information gathered from this consultation will be used to put together a programme of schemes for the area. However, each scheme will then have its own consultation process, taking place when funding has been secured."

There is an extensive questionnaire - some of the key questions include:
- Do any streets have problems with too much traffic or too high speeds?
- Where are new pedestrian crossings needed?
- Locations for more trees?
- Locations which would be a good spot for social/recreation areas - sitting, chatting, enjoying the sunshine?
CCC is the only organisation mentioned in the questionnaire - it states that the council wants to work with CCC to develop better cycle routes and parking, and asks:
- Where do we want more cycle parking stands?
- Where do you want to see cycle lane markings (ie painted lanes)?
- What other cycle facilities do you want?
Our response is here.
13/12/02 & 13/01/03: Camden Square Area Traffic Management
Anticipating additional traffic pressures in the Camden Square area once the Congestion Charging Scheme starts in February, the council is consulting on measures to restrict through motor traffic.

The proposals are fairly complex but in essence involve one of two options:

Option 1:
- Permit the currently banned left turn from Camden Park Road into Camden Road, and put a diagonal road closure (with cycle gaps) across the Murray Street/Camden Square junction.
- Reverse one way flow in South Villas
- 'Open up restricted access' at Murray St/Agar Grove junction (this presumably means removing the width restriction)
- Road closure (with cycle gaps) in Camden Terrace
- Ban right turn from Camden Road into Murray Street.
Option 2:
- As for option 1 the banned left turn from Camden Park Road into Camden Road, and diagonal road closure in Murray Street.
- Physical measures to enforce existing banned left turn from Camden Park Road into South Villas
- Ban all right turns at Agar Grove/Murray Street junction (ie from Agar Grove into Murray Street, and from Murray St into Agar Grove)
- Reverse one way traffic in Cliff Road & the north eastern end of Camden Mews
A plan of these proposals can be seen here.

CCC will probably support option 1 as it has an additional road closure (Camden Terrace) which is the ultimate measure to reduce through traffic.

Option 2 is worrying due to its reliance on motorists respecting the banned right turn at the Murray St/Agar Grove junction. The proposal to reverse the one way in Cliff Road would also increase hazards for cyclists as the existing contraflow cycle lane would be moved to the other side of the road, thus creating conflict with vehicles turning to/from Cliff Villas.
7/1/03: Brecknock Road bus boarder
Car parking on yellow lines is hindering buses stopping and passenger access. The proposal is for a 13 metre long bus stop and bus boarder outside 119 Brecknock Road (on the west side of the street); the plan indicates that the bus border pavement buildout will be around 1 metre wide.

CCC neither supported nor objected to the proposals. We did however express concern that
- motorists may not anticipate cyclists pulling out into their path to avoid the buildout, or
- cyclists might get pinched by motorists pulling in at the end of the bus boarder to avoid the central refuge outside number 127 Brecknock Rd.
We asked for the council to assess the scale of this risk at this location and whether any remedial action might be possible to maintain safety for cyclists. We suggested that a boarder width a little narrower than a parked car/parking bay would be best to ensure that cyclists did not have to pull out into the middle of the road any further than they do at present.
9/12/02 & 6/1/03: Eton Avenue (Finchley Rd end) - "cyclists dismount"
This consultation looked innocuous as it was primarily about the details for car parking in the vicinity of the market at the western end of Eton Avenue (ie at the Finchley Road end).

The market area will be delineated by a line of bollards across the road (opposite the entrance to the School of Speech & Drama); it will operate on 2 weekdays (30 pitches) and at weekends (40 pitches). Traders vehicles will be allowed in the area to load/unload.

However the following sentence appears in the consultation "Essential service vehicles such as emergency vehicles, refuse vehicles and deliveries would also be permitted to enter [the market area], as would pedestrians & pedal cycles, the owners of which would be advised to dismount in the area."

Those of you who use the area will be aware that there is a cycle track across the pavement providing access to Finchley Road/Fitzjohns Avenue. CCC has been in a long running dialogue with the council in order to maintain cycle access through the market; so far there has been no suggestion that cyclists would be adversely affected.

CCC is not impressed that this is the first we have heard of this proposal, and that the council has no better proposals for this popular & important cycle route.

CCC's response was to formally object to the 'cyclists dismount' aspect of the consultation, and ask for the council to consider routing the cycle link past the edge of the market rather than through the middle.
16/11/02 & 16/12/02: Motorcycle Parking Strategy
Following a request by Transport for London, Camden Council is consulting on a new strategy for motor cycle parking which includes
- increasing the amount of cycle parking for motorcycles, and
- providing secure parking for motorcyclists, initially as trial schemes in Hatton Garden & Fitzrovia.
The justification for increasing cycle parking seems to hinge around 2 factors:
- "The Mayor of London has stated that where there is high demand, more motorcycle parking should be provided."
- "Motorcycles will not pay a charge in the Mayor of London's congestion charging scheme and so demand for parking space in the congestion charging area in the south of the borough is likely to increase significantly."
Our response was as follows:

In our view the strategy is seriously flawed and should be abandoned. Our reasons are as follows.
- This strategy seeks to improve motor cycle parking facilities, and will hence result in a rise in the number of motorcycles in London; this will lead to an increase in noise and air pollution, and road danger for all road users.
- Casualty figures for built-up areas in Great Britain indicate that motorcycles kill four times as many pedestrians, per vehicle mile, as cars do. Hence any strategy which encourages a shift from car to motorcycle use (as the motor cycle parking strategy in conjunction with the congestion charge exemption does) will badly impact the most vulnerable road user group, and the one which Camden Council regards as being its highest priority transport mode.
- Stephen Plowden's calculations suggest that up to 50 extra deaths and 500 extra serious casualties each year will result from exempting motorcycles from the congestion charge. These forecast casualties will make it far more difficult for Camden Council and the Mayor for London to achieve their respective targets for a 40% reduction in road casualties.
14/11/02 & 8/12/02: West Euston 20mph zone
The latest 20 mph zone proposal is for the area between Euston Station, Euston Road and Hampstead Road. Its justification is the introduction of the congestion charging zone and the need to 'mitigate the adverse impact of any displaced traffic'.

Two options are presented:

Option 1:
- Raised junction speed tables in Drummond Street at its junction with North Gower Street, Coburg Street & Melton Street.
- Speed tables in the southern half of Cardington Street.
Option 2: As for option 1 but with
- the section of Drummond Street between North Gower St & Coburg Street becoming one way westbound.
- the middle of Drummond Street above having a pinch point (pavement buildout) and speed table.
Our formal response is here.
12/11/02 & 4/12/02: Maitland Park 20mph zone
Camden Council is planning to create a new 20mph zone in the area bounded by (but not including) Prince of Wales Road, Malden Road and Maitland Park Villas (but Maitland Park Villas will be within the zone).

Speed humps are planned for Queen's Crescent, Herbert Street & most of Maitland Park Villas, and an 'entry treatment' (ie a raised speed table) for Herbert Street at its junction with Malden Road.

Unfortunately the council intend to put speed cushions along
- Marsden Street
- Grafton Terrace
- the western end of Maitland Park Villas and the eastern part of Southampton Road (both are a London Cycle Network route)
Comment:

I presume that the speed cushions are at the request of the police who often speed along these roads with their woo-woos blaring. Our usual arguments against speed cushions can be found here:
I propose that we:
- reiterate the above cushion issues and ask to be consulted over the detailed cushion positioning to try to ameliorate the impact on cyclists.
- make a case for the cushions to be replaced with humps in Southampton Road, as cushions will be of limited benefit to the police.
- ask for an 'entry treatment' at the Southampton Road junction. Physical speed reducing measures to remind motorists they are entering a 20mph zone are essential, and this is the only road into the zone without a table. It would also deliver a substantial improvement for pedestrians at this awkward crossing point.
2/11/02 & 30/11/02: Parkway/Arlington Road - zebra to signalled pedestrian crossings
Camden Council is proposing to replace the zebra crossing of Parkway next to the junction with Arlington Road with a signalled pedestrian crossing for 3 of the 4 arms of this junction. See map of proposals
CCC"s response was as follows:

Cyclist 'advance stop lines' should be incorporated to the proposed traffic signals. (New TfL / TCSU rules require that all new lights should have an ASL on every arm unless there is an engineers 'exception' report explaining why).

The consultation leaflet text suggests 'more priority should be given to pedestrians', but this proposal will instead deliver greater restrictions on when pedestrians are officially encouraged to cross. We therefore propose
- speed tables for both Arlington Road arms of the junction so that pedestrians cross on a raised pavement-level surface.
- that the crossing points be realigned sop they follow pedestrian desire lines (ie not perpendicular to kerb line)
The best solution for pedestrians would be zebra crossings on all 4 arms of the junction - this is the only only option which will genuinely deliver improved priority and accessibility for pedestrians.
October 2002 & 30/11/02: Kings Cross Central
Kings Cross Central developers Argent St George have a highly informative web site dedicated to this massive development (one of the largest regeneration schemes in Europe) located just to the north of Kings Cross rail station: http://www.argentstgeorge.co.uk/

You can download many documents including the current 3rd consultation entitled 'A Framework for Regeneration'; the site also allows you to submit consultation responses electronically.

CCC's response will include:
- a maximum 5mph speed limit (and perhaps aim to become the first city centre 'home zone').
- only having a single access point to the site for motor vehicles (and having no through roads).
- having multiple access points into and across the site for pedestrians & cyclists.
- as far as possible a car free development (with minimal car parking provision).
- provision of sufficient secure and indoor cycle parking to allow 100% of residents to own a bicycle.
- provision of sufficient secure and indoor cycle parking to allow 50% of employees to cycle to work.
- provision of sufficient on-street cycle parking to support 50% of journeys made by bicycle.
- design of site & amenities such that it draws people from the immediate locality on foot and by bike, rather than generating longer distance trips via the Kings Cross interchange.
In terms of specific links, we want:
- a pedestrian/cycle link constructed between Agar Grove and Camley Street
- east/west pedestrian and cycle access into and across the site (ie to encourage through pedestrian and cycle traffic)
- north/south pedestrian & cycle access from Goods Way to York Way
- high quality pedestrian and cycle crossing points of Goods Way & York Way
July 2002 & 22/11/02: UDP Chapter 13: Kings Cross
CCC's response to the 'Planning for the Future of Kings Cross' (Chapter 13) of the Unitary Development Plan is here.
30/10/02 & 22/11/02: Regents Park Road/Crogsland Road & Haverstock Hill/Prince of Wales Road/Maitland Park Villas pedestrian & cycle facilities
Haverstock Hill/Prince of Wales Road/Maitland Park Villas pedestrian & cycle facilities

As part of a Safer Routes to School scheme for Haverstock School, the council is consulting over proposals to allow cyclists to travel through the road closure in Maitland Park Villas into Haverstock Hill.

See a plan here:

It is proposed to:
- Install a cycle route link to Maitland Park Villas. This would involve replanting two (fairly recently planted) trees to ensure there is enough width for the cycleway with the fire gate beside it. The cycleway would be marked with green tarmac.
- Provide a pedestrian crossing phase in the traffic signals. This would allow people to press a button to stop all the traffic and cross the road safely when the 'green man light shows. The inclusion of this phase would slightly increase the waiting time and queue lengths at the lights for traffic, but would not exceed the road capacity. Red tactile paving to assist visually impaired people would also be included.
- Make the crossings on two of the arms of the junction (to the East and South) 'toucan crossings', which allow cyclists to cross with pedestrians. The measures would include widening of the existing crossings, additional sections of cycleway on the pavement and special buff-coloured tactile paving, to indicate the edges of the area of pavement that would be shared by cyclists and pedestrians.
- Alter the road layout on all the approaches to the junction to allow for two full width traffic lanes as well as a 1 m wide cycle lane, which would provide access for cyclists to the advance stop line areas.
Regents Park Road/Crogsland Road cycle facilities

As part of a Safer Routes to School scheme for Haverstock School, the council is consulting over proposals to allow cyclists to travel in both directions along Regents Park Road (the section to the east of the rail bridge, near Chalk Farm tube station) and Crogsland Road.
It is proposed to:

Install a cycle crossing with traffic lights between Crogsland Road and Regent's Park Road, with push buttons to activate the crossing. The crossing would turn green at the same time as the existing pelican crossing and would not increase waiting time at the lights for traffic on any arm of the junction.
Provide a contra-flow cycle lane on Regent's Park Road and Bridge Approach. This would allow cyclists to access the new cycle crossing from the cycleway on the railway bridge, against the one-way motor traffic. This would require moving some of the resident's parking bays onto the opposite side of the road, but there would be no loss in the total parking space available in Regent's Park Road and Bridge Approach.
Widen the pavement either side of the new cycle crossing to enable cyclists to be off the road whilst waiting for the crossing to activate.
Widen the pavement at the junction of Bridge Approach with Adelaide Road. This would allow cyclists to join the contra-flow cycle lane without coming into conflict with other traffic.

See CCC's consultation response to both of these schemes here.
19/10/02 & 19/11/02: Delancey Street Pelican Crossing
The council is planning to install a Pelican crossing in Delancey Street, just to the east of the Arlington Road junction. The reason for this is the high volumes of traffic and excessive speeding.

The plan is to link the lights on the crossing to traffic lights at Camden High Street, 'thereby not causing extra congestion'.

CCC reluctantly supported this scheme as it will improve the ability of pedestrians cross the road. We pointed out that the best option for pedestrians was a zebra crossing. We criticised the planned linkage of the Pelican signals to the lights in Camden High Street as a pedestrian pressing the button at the wrong part of the light phase will have to wait until their crossing is less inconvenient to the motorists racing through. We presumed that the crossing type and phasing linkage was as a result of Transport for London requirements; but if it was not we suggested that the council should review its design and adopt a more pedestrian-friendly solution.
23/10/02 & 15/11/02: Bus Route 16: Cricklewood to Victoria
Camden, Brent & Westminster councils are consulting on changes to Maida Vale between the Cambridge Avenue and St Johns Wood Road junctions.

Key features of the scheme are:
- Bus lanes operational between 7am & 7pm on both sides of the road for most of the length of Maida Vale.
- Signalled pedestrian crossing for all arms of the Maida Vale junctions with Abercorn Place/Elgin Avenue and Carlton Hill/Carlton Vale.
- A ban on all vehicles turning left from Maida Vale (northbound) into Cambridge Avenue.
CCC supported these measures, but asked for cycles to be exempt from the banned left turn from Maida Vale in Cambridge Avenue (this latter road is marked as an advisory cycle route on TfL's Londonwide maps).
11/10/02 & 1/11/02: Hunter St/Handel St Vulnerable Road User Scheme : New Zebra Crossing
The council plans to install a zebra crossing in Hunter Street, just to the south of the Handel Street junction (just up the road from the Brunswick Centre).

The main changes are:
- Zebra crossing located where the existing pedestrian refuge is.
- Removal of advisory cycle lane in vicinity of crossing.
- Removal of 2 parking bays, and relocation of 3rd bay 2-3 metres southwards.
See our response here.
8/10/02 & 4/11/02: Extension to St Andrews 20mph Zone
The council is planning to enlarge the existing St Andrews 20 Mph Zone (just to the east of Grays Inn Road) so that it extends all the way down to (but does not include) Roseberry Avenue.

The new roads to be in the zone are Coley St, Phoenix Place, Gough St, Elm St, Laystall St, and Mount Pleasant (excluding the section to the north east of the Phoenix Place junction).

The proposed measures include
- raised speed tables at all entry points to the zone
- 5 speed humps along Phoenix Place, and one in each of Mount Pleasant and Laystall St.
- speed tables across the following junctions: Mount Pleasant/Phoenix Place, Gough St/Coley St.
- a new speed table across the Fredrick St/Cubitt St jucntion (at the north end of the existing zone).
CCC strongly supported this scheme. We suggested a post implementation review of the 20 mph zone extension to see if speeding and rat running had been sucessfully tackled. If not, then road closures need to be considered, as well as an attempt to reach agreement with the Post Office to reduce the overuse of these local roads by their vans.
8/10/02 & 4/11/02: Fairfax Roundabout
Fairfax Roundabout is located just to the west of the Swiss Cottage gyratory, at the 6 armed junction of Belsize Road, Fairfax Road, Hillgrove Road, Loudoun Road, & Fairhazel Gardens

The main components of this scheme, which is 'to reduce accidents & to provide a safer and more pleasant residential environment', are:
- new or bigger pedestrian 'refuge' islands at most of the roads into the roundabout.
- pavement buildout in Hillgrove road, plus a realigned zebra crossing.
- pavement buildout on the south western arm of Belsize Road, and a realigned zebra crossing.
- anti-skid surfacing on the approach to the zebras.
See CCC's response here.
28/9/02 & 25/10/02: Safer Routes to School - Frognal/Fitzjohns Ave/Arkwright Rd
The council is consulting on a Safer Routes to School scheme for University College School & Devonshire House Preparatory School. The proposed measures are:

Fitzjohn's Avenue
- Kerb buildouts (pavement extensions) at Ellerdale Road & Prince Arthur Road at their junctions with Fitzjohn's Avenue.
- Pedestrian refuge (island in the middle of the road) in Fitzjohn's Av to the north of the Netherhall Gardens junction.
Frognal
- Raised zebra crossing north of junction with Arkwright Road.
- Road hump midway between junctions with Arkwright Road & Frognal Lane.
- Kerb buildout in Frognal Way at its junction with Frognal.
- Pedestrian refuge in Church Row at its junction with Frognal.
Arkwright Road
- Road hump to west of junction with Fitzjohn's Avenue.
- Zebra crossing just east of junction with Frognal.
- Raised entry treatment (speed table) in Lindfield Gardens at its junction with Arkwright Road.
See our consultation response here:
28/9/02 & 25/10/02: Safer Routes to School- Netley Primary School area
This latest Safer Routes to School scheme is for the area on either side of Hampstead Road as you approach the Euston Road (from the north). The proposed measures are :

William Road
- Raise the carriageway and widen the footway (pavement) of William Road at junction with Stanhope Street. This is to slow vehicles down and make crossing the road easier.
- Provide a road hump on William Road to keep traffic speeds low
- Put bollards on the footway outside the school to prevent vehicles being parked on the footway (pavement).
Junctions with Stanhope Street
- Widen the footway (pavement) by the traffic lights at the junction of Robert Street with Stanhope Street. This is to make crossing the road easier and to provide more room for pedestrians waiting to cross.
- Widen the footway (pavement) at the junction of Mackworth Street with Stanhope Street. This is to make crossing the road easier and help children see past parked cars.
Junction of North Gower Street with Drummond Street
- Install a zebra crossing on a new road hump on North Gower Street. Approximately five on street pay and display parking spaces would be removed to make way for the zebra crossing.
- Widen the footway (pavement) at the corners of the junction. This is to make crossing the road easier.
Robert Street
- Provide additional signs on the approach to the zebra crossing by Albany Street warning of the presence of children.
CCC fully supported these proposals, but suggested that some cycle parking stands outside the school entrance( (for parents or visitors) would not go amiss.
12/9/02 & 10/10/02: Proposed traffic lights at Willesden Lane/Kilburn High Road junction.
Camden & Brent councils are consulting on changes in the vicinity of the Willesden Lane/Kilburn High Road junction.

The main changes for the scheme are:
- Removal of the advance stop line in Willesden Lane in order to 'provide enough room for a two lane approach' (just in case this has escaped you they are considering motorists' needs here).
- Lengthening of the existing feeder lanes into the advance stop lines in Kilburn High Road at its junction with Brondesbury Road.
- Pedestrian green man crossing phases for all 4 arms of the junction.
- Moving the existing pedestrian crossing point of Kilburn High Road 5 metres north of the junction.
CCC's formal response is here.
12/9/02 & 10/10/02: Proposed traffic lights at Brondesbury Road/Kilburn High Road junction.
Camden & Brent councils are consulting on changes in the vicinity of the Kilburn High Road/Brondesbury Road junction.

The main changes are:
- New traffic lights Kilburn High Road/Brondesbury Road junction (it is currently unsignalled)
- Advance stop lines with feeder cycle lanes on all 3 arms of the above.
- An all green pedestrian crossing phase for the junction.
- New pedestrian refuges (traffic islands with a gap where pedestrians can wait in the middle of the road) on either side of the junction in Kilburn High Road.
- Double yellow lines around the junction.
- Removal of the pelican crossing of Kilburn High Road just to the north of Brondesbury Road.
- Raising the carriageway to the same level as the pavement in
  
  Birchington Road at its junction with Kilburn High Road
  West End Lane at its junction with Kilburn High Road
For a plan showing all the proposed changes see here.

CCC supported this scheme, but queried the removal of the pelican crossing as pedestrians need as much protection as possible in crossing Kilburn High Road. This removal will leave quite a long stretch of Kilburn High Road, from the new crossing point to the Quex Road junction, with no crossing facilities at all (not even central refuges). We recommended that the pelican crossing be retained, and is perhaps relocated closer to Birchington Road if this helps justify its continued existence.
2/9/02 & 27/9/02: Cantelowes Road cycle gap
The council is consulting the public on implementing a cycle gap through the road closure in Cantelowes Road at its junction with Agar Grove.

The facility will comprise:
- a 2 metre wide cycle track between the trees through the closure
- a short section of 1.5 metre wide advisory cycle lane in Agar Grove in the vicinity of the track junction
- a painted 'refuge' in the middle of the road (adjacent to the existing pedestrian refuge) for cyclists turning right from Agar Grove into the track.
We strongly supported this proposal, but made the following detailed design comments
- The track heads straight towards, but stops short of, the existing pedestrian drop kerb in Cantelowes Road. This we presume to be due the council policy of only designing shared cyclist/pedestrian use as a last resort. We suggest that a separate dropped kerb be constructed, with the cycle track connecting upto this dropped kerb. Or, if the council does not believe that it is cost/effective to create a separate drop kerb for the cycle track, we propose that rather than introducing ambiguity into the design, the cycle track be extended to the existing dropped kerb.
- We see no reason for the advisory cycle lane to be broken at the point pedestrians cross the road, and recommend that it be continued, as discontinuous cycle facilities are considerably less effective.
- We suggest that double yellow lines be applied for a few metres each side of the track junction for each of Cantelowes Road & Agar Grove.
2/9/02 & 30/9/02: St Pancras Way - two way cycle track
Camden Council is now formally consulting over the design for a 2 way physically segregated cycle track in St Pancras Way between Agar Grove & Georgiana Street.

This scheme will complete an important link between the Royal College Street cycle track and the cycle route which runs from the Agar Grove/Stratford Villas junction via Camden Square through to Holloway Islington.

A plan of the proposed facility can be found here:

The principle features of the design are:
- A two way cycle track with a segregating island running along on the west side of St Pancras Way from the Agar Grove junction to the Georgiana Street junction. [The existing short section of mandatory lane will be removed.]
- A raised speed table across Baynes Street which will also encompass the track; ie motorists travelling down St Pancras Way will hit the speed table ramp before they reach the cycle track.
- Although the consultation does not make this clear, we understand that there will be a separate traffic light phase at Agar Grove to cater for cyclists crossing between the track and Agar Grove, and pedestrians.
Our response is here.
2/9/02 & 4/10/02: Home Zone in Lupton St, Raveley St & part of Ospringe Road
An historic event is taking place... Camden Council is consulting on the borough's first Home Zone in the streets just south of Tufnell Park tube station.

The general idea of a "Home Zone" is to make changes to a group of streets so that pedestrians & cyclists have more priority than motorists, with the following specific aims:
- Reduce motor traffic flows and speeds, casualties from road crashes & air pollution
- Improve the environment for people walking & cycling
- Provide a safe place for children to play
- Create a sense of community
- Improve community safety
The zone will encompass the whole of Lupton St & Raveley St , and part of western half of Ospringe Road, and the main proposals entail:
- Removing the fire gate at the junction of Lupton Street and Raveley Street.
- Closing part of Raveley Street outside the entrance to Eleanor Palmer nursery school to all vehicles except emergency services and cyclists.
- Closing part of Lupton Street close to the entrance to the primary school to all vehicles except emergency services and cyclists.
- Raising the road to the level of the pavement on parts of Lupton Street and Raveley Street.
- Extending the church garden on Ospringe Road.
- Widening the pavement at the entrances to the Home Zone on Raveley Street, Lupton Street and Ospringe Road.
- Improving lighting throughout the area.
The expected benefits of the proposals are:
- The amount and speed of motor traffic through the area would be reduced.
- The rat-run between Fortess Road and Brecknock Road would be removed.
- Space would be provided for social uses such as sitting, talking and playing.
- The area would be more attractive.
- The area would be more pleasant for people walking and cycling.
The expected 'drawbacks' of the proposals are:
- By trying to stop people rat-running through the area, access for residents travelling by car would be reduced.
- Some parking space would be lost.
Traffic options

If the Home Zone went ahead, Lupton Street and Raveley Street would continue to be two-way. However as residents are concerned that a rat-run would develop from Lady Margaret Road towards Brecknock Road the council would measure the traffic flows for three months after the road closures were implemented. After this time, if residents felt that there was a rat run, there would be three traffic options for trying to prevent this.

All of the traffic options would aim to stop any new rat run between Lady Margaret Road and Brecknock Road. The proposed no entry traffic options (2 and 3) would allow cyclists to travel in both directions but traffic would be more likely to ignore these than a whole length of a one way street (traffic option 1).
- Option 1: Lupton Street becomes one way southbound between Brecknock Road & Raveley Street.
- Option 2: Lupton Street & Raveley Street remain 2 way, but there is a no entry (except for cyclists) in Lupton St northbound at its junction with Raveley Street (ie traffic cannot enter Lupton St heading towards Brecknock Road)
- Option 3: Lupton Street & Raveley Street remain 2 way, but there is a no entry (except for cyclists) in Raveley Street at its junction with Lady Margaret Road.
An exhibition of the proposals can be seen at Eleanor Palmer Primary School (Lupton St) Weds 11th Sep 6-9pm & Sat 14th Sep 1-4pm; large scale plans are also on display at Kentish Town Library until 4th October.

Our initial views on this scheme are:
- We should enthusiastically welcome this initiative in principle.
- We should seek further vulnerable road user improvements. For example there is no mention of reduced speed limits - whilst this will introduce a lot of signs on posts, wouldn't it be worth setting a 10 mph limit for the zone?
- We should object to the pavement widening at the 5 entrances to the zone (as this could result in cyclists being pinched by motorists), and ask that this be replaced by speed tables.
- 8 new pay & display spaces are planned for Fortess Road, but these haven't been mentioned in the main text of the proposal. I can't for the life of me see any reasonable grounds to link this in with a Home Zone scheme, and I think we should object as it will make Fortess Road even more dangerous for cyclists than it already is.
- Should second phase anti-rat running measures be viewed as necessary, we should vigorously object to making Lupton Street one way (option 1). However the other 2 options (no entry exemption for cyclists) will each result in the loss of 4 residents parking spaces, which is likely to go down like a lead balloon with residents (they are already losing around 24 residents bays).
2/9/02 & 30/9/02: Bartholomew Road Area 20 mph Zone
This proposed 20 mph zone will be bounded by, but not include, the following roads: Camden Road, Torriano Avenue, Leighton Road, Kentish Town Road & Bartholomew Road (this last road will be within the zone).

The measures planned include:
- Speed humps in the few remaining streets which don't already have them: namely Bartholomew Road (north of Caversham Road & west of Bartholomew Villas), Hammond Street, Patshull Place, Bartholomew Villas.
- Raised speed tables across the following side roads: Busby Place at its junction Torriano Avenue, Bartholomew Road at its junction with Kentish Town Road.
. CCC's response can be found here.
2/9/02 & 30/9/02: Fordwych Road Area 20mph Zone
This proposed 20 mph zone will comprise the following roads to the north east of Kilburn High Road & north of Mill Lane: Richborough Road, Ebbsfleet Road, Skardu Road, Rondu Road, Manstone Road, Minster Road (to the west of Westbere Road), and Fordwych Road (from the Mill Lane junction northwards).

The measures planned include:
- Speed humps within the 20 mph zone for all the above streets
- Raised speed tables across the following side roads at their junction with Kilburn High Road: Richborough Road, Ebbsfleet Road, Skardu Road, Rondu Road, Manstone Road,
- Raised speed table in Fordwych Road at its northern junction arm with Mill Lane.
CCC strongly supported these plans, but queried why raised tables (which should be at all entry points into a 20 mph zone) were not being planned for Minster Road at its junction with Westbere Road, or Richborough Road at its junction with Oak Grove. It is important to present motorists with consistently designed 'gateways' to 20 mph zones with physical speed restriction measures. The tables also add visual amenity, and most importantly make it much easier for pedestrians to cross the road (particularly for those who are less mobile). We also suggested a post implementation review of rat running (ie through motor traffic) along Fordwych Road, with consideration of a 2nd phase road closure in Fordwych Road if neccessary.
4/9/02 & 27/9/02: North/South LCN route 6: Tavistock Place to Great Queen Street
The council is consulting on the following routing options for a part of the north/south cycle route 'LCN 6' between Tavistock Place & Great Queen Street (the whole route 6 runs from Elephant & Castle via the existing Somers Town route right up to Barnet.)
- Option 1: Tavistock Place, Malet Street, Montague Place, Russell Square, Montague Street, Great Russell Street, Bury Place, High Holborn, Newton Street, Great Queen Street.
- Option 2: Tavistock Place, Herbrand Street, Bernard Street, Guilford Street, Russell Square, Montague Street, Great Russell Street, Bury Place, High Holborn, Newton Street, Great Queen Street
- Option 3: Tavistock Place, Malet Street, Montague Place, Russell Square, Montague Street, Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury Square, Southampton Place, High Holborn, Newton Street, Great Queen Street
The measures planned would be as follows:
- Montague Place: The existing westbound segregated facilities along Montague Place would become a two-way segregated cycle lane by widening the existing cycle lane.
- Russell Square (South corner): The western footway of Montague Street along Russell Square would be widened from Montague Place to the beginning of Montague Street in order to add a two-way cycle facility at footway level.
- Bury Place: Since Bury Place is a one-way southbound, a segregated cycle lane would be built along the eastern side of the street to provide contra-flow cycle facilities for northbound cyclist along Route 6. This measure would mean that the existing parking along the eastern side of the street would be relocated, where possible
- High Holborn: The northern footway along High Holborn between Bury Place and Newton Street will be extended to increase the footway area and accommodate a two-way cycle lane on footway level. These changes would utilise vacant space without infringing upon the existing carriageway and parking bays. These changes will also provide a new pedestrian and cycle crossing facility on High Holborn in the form of a Toucan crossing between its junctions with Southampton Place and Newton Street
- Newton Street: Newton Street would have a southbound one-way segregated contra-flow cycle lane along its eastern side from High Holborn to Great Queen Street.
- Great Queen Street: To ease southbound cycle access to the end of Great Queen Street there would be an advisory cycle lane from Great Queen Street at junction with Wild Street to the junction with Drury Lane. To do so, the Motor Cycle Parking at the south side of Great Queen Street at junction with Drury Lane would be relocated to the hatched area before the central island at the end of Great Queen Street.
- Southampton Place: If Option 2 is implemented, Southampton Place would have a southbound contra-flow segregated cycle lane all along its west side.
We supported option 1: our full response is here.
26/8/02 & 20/9/02: Seven Stations Cycle Link - Eastern Section
Camden Council is now consulting the public on the long awaited 2nd half of the Seven Stations Link (SSL) between Gordon Square and Grays Inn Road, using an attractively design brochure which point out the benefits of the scheme, which as well as the obvious ones, include improvements for pedestrians & streetscape enhancements.

The consultation proposes reverting back to CCC's original routing of the 2 way cycle track via Tavistock Place and Sidmouth Street, and puts forward 2 options (listed in greater detail below)
- Option 1: Two way motor traffic flow (as at present),
- Option 2: One way traffic westbound between Grays Inn Road & Woburn Place.
We would have expected that option 2 (one way for motor traffic) would free up road space either for existing car parking or a wider cycle track & pavement; however the consultation says nothing about the differences between each option. And the plans we have suggests that if option 2 is adopted then there will be 2 lanes of westbound one way traffic... not something that CCC is likely to be very comfortable about endorsing.

Another potential issue the plan shows is the track along the Tavistock Square section running along at pavement height. We do not yet know why this is proposed, but this appears at best unwise given the ongoing furore about cyclists on pavements, and the possibility that this design will lead to cyclists straying onto the section of pavement intended for sole pedestrian use.

CCC's response was to strongly support these proposals, but raise the following issues.

Our preference is for option 1. This is based mainly on the desire that one way systems for motor vehicles should be avoided wherever possible. This is due to their tendency to deliver higher speed motor vehicle flows, and the generally adverse impact one way systems have on sustainable transport modes.

However we must point out that we will be unable to support the scheme if the proposed cycle track widths are less than 2.5 metres. Thus if option 1 is unable to deliver a 2.5 metre wide track, and option 2 can, our preference would then be for option 2.

We also wish to use this opportunity to raise a couple of matters which strictly speaking fall outside of the remit of this consultation.

1. We understand that it is envisaged that the track will be raised up to pavement height just prior to some of the signalled junctions, in order that a Toucan crossing can be used. In view of the potential conflict between cyclists & pedestrians (especially as cyclists will be moving frequently between dedicated and shared space), we look forward to seeing an example design for one these junctions as soon as possible.

2. We are confused by the reply to our query on why two lanes for motor vehicles is planned for the one way option 2.. The response included the following: "The one-way option has two traffic lanes at the approach to the junctions to manage traffic flows/turns. If there were only one lane on approach to junctions the resulting queues would cause disruption along the whole corridor." We wish to point out that most of the existing junctions currently only have a single lane on approach to the junction, and thus any 'disruption' will be no worse than at present. We would be concerned should the Seven Stations Link implementation deliver an increase injunction capacity for motor vehicles.
15/8/02 & 16/9/02: Safer Routes to School Holborn (St George the Martyr C of E & Christopher Hatton Primary Schools)
Camden Council is consulting on a Safer Routes to School scheme for 2 schools in Holborn: St George the Martyr C of E Primary School & Christopher Hatton Primary School.

The proposals include the following measures:
- Speed table across Great Ormond Street just to the east of the Lambs Conduit Street junction
- New zebra crossing in John Street (just north of Northington St junction)
- Pavement buildouts at
  
  John Street/Doughty Streetjunction
  John Street/Northington Street
  2 locations in Millman Street
For John Street at its junction with Theobalds Road, two options are proposed:
- Option 1: a speed table across John Street
- Option 2: a road closure of John Street with cycle gaps
CCC supported all these proposals, and strongly supported the road closure (option 2) for the John Street/Theobalds Road junction. We did also indicate that we supported option 1, although we felt that this would be a considerably less effective scheme.

We made the following additional comments.

1. Lambs Conduit Street &endash; motor vehicle use. This street is supposed to be 'for access only' for motor vehicles. However there are many through journeys made by cars, lorries and (non-emergency) police vehicles; some of these vehicles travel at considerable speed. As many children attending St George's travel from the other side of Lambs Conduit Street, we are surprised to see no measures to enforce this 'for access only'. We would therefore strongly recommend consideration of a road closure (with cycle gaps) in Lambs Conduit Street at its junction with Rugby Street.

2. Lambs Conduit Street &endash; cycle use. Whilst this street is northbound only for motor vehicles, cyclists are permitted to use the street southbound as well. However the street is poorly designed for southbound cycle use, and oncoming motorists are not aware that cyclists are permitted to use it in this direction. The unsatisfactory nature of Lambs Conduit Street is one of the biggest causes of complaints from cyclists to the Camden Cycling Campaign; even the police tell cyclists they are not allowed to cycle southbound! We would be very pleased to discuss potential remedial solutions with the council.

3. Northington Street. We note that many vehicles (especially taxi cabs) use Northington Street to reach John Street. We therefore recommend that flows along Northington Street be monitored if John Street is closed, as it is likely that a substantial rat run could develop, in which case speed humps or even a closure may become necessary.
12/8/02 & 6/9/02: Beckford Primary School
The council is consulting on plans for a Safer Routes to School area around Beckford Primary School in West Hampstead. The proposals include:
- a 20mph zone for Ravenshaw Street, Broomsleigh Street, Dornfell Street & Glastonbury Street.
- Raised speed tables across the junctions of the above roads with double yellow lines around the corners.
- Raised speed tables across the following side roads at their junction with Mill Lane (ie the tables will not be across Mill Lane itself): Gondar Gardens, Hillfield Road, Ravenshaw Street, Broomsleigh Street.
- Removal of pavement buildouts at each end of Dornfell St [This is to allow coach access to the school!]
- Conversion of zebra crossing in Mill Lane (near Ravenshaw St) to Pelican crossing.
CCC supported most of these proposals but:
- we queried the pavement buildout removal. Our grounds is that this is an important measure for increasing pedestrian safety when crossing the junction and thus it appears counter productive to remove a pedestrian measure (particularly for a safer routes to school scheme). We sugested that the possibility of the children walking to a suitable coach pick up/drop off point which could surely be provided within a 100 metres or so of the school gates.
- we requested that the council think hard about the issues behind the proposed zebra to pelican conversion, as what might be gained in 'safety' could be more than outweighed by a loss of convenience. A crossing which might offer marginal safety benerfits (for the research statistics are, we understand, far from conclusive) but which introduces a delay for the pedestrian before they cross will probably lead to a decrease in the number of people walking in the area.
9/8/02 & 20/9/02: Warren Street one way reversal
Warren Street is presently one-way west bound all the way along, from Tottenham Court Road to Cleveland Street. The basic idea is to reverse the direction of flow for most of the length of the road (from either Conway Street or Fitzroy Street), so that traffic is going east-bound, to Tottenham Court Road. This should reduce traffic flows, as west-bound motorists coming up the Tottenham Court Road will then no longer be able to cut through and bypass part of the Euston Road.

The council is also suggesting that a contra-flow west-bound cycle lane could be put in alongside the south side of Warren Street for the length of the east-bound one-way stretch, removing up to 17 parking bays (nearly all pay and display) to achieve this.

There are therefore five options before us:

1. Do nothing.

2. Reverse the direction of the one-way flow between Fitzroy St and Tottenham Court Rd, with a contra-flow west bound cycle lane;

2a. As 2 but with no contra-flow cycle lane;

3. Reverse the direction of the one-way flow between Conway St and Tottenham Court Rd, with a contra-flow west bound cycle lane;

3a. As 3 but with no contra-flow cycle lane.

In CCC's view Warren Street is definitely too narrow for there to be a contra-flow cycle lane without the removal of the parking bays, so this proposal may fall if there is a lot of pressure to retain them. A bigger problem will be the inevitable illegal parking by delivery vans which will block any unsegregated cycle lane (again, yesterday, there were three such vans parked illegally on the south side). The answer would be to ask for segregation, but this would obviously be expensive and we would need to be sure that this was a facility we really wanted. It seems to be quite easy to by-pass the proposed new one-way by using Grafton Way/Fitzroy Square instead.

The Council also intends to put in a speed table at the junction with Tottenham Court Road, which, with the changed direction of traffic, will make for much safer conditions for pedestrians. We will need to ensure that the contra-flow lane, if installed, runs over the table and not alongside it in a gulley, as the diagram seems to indicate.
9/8/02 & 6/9/02: Kingsgate 20mph zone
Camden Council is consulting over the introduction of a 20 mph 'Streets for People' zone in the Kingsgate area of Kilburn. The affected area is that enclosed by Kilburn High Road (west), Quex Road (south), West End Lane (east) and Netherwood Street/Sherrif Road (north). In addition to the introduction of the lower speed limit, various traffic calming measures are proposed, in particular 'speed tables' at the entrances to the area and speed humps along those roads which currently don't have them. T
In our response we supported the general principle of the scheme, and made the following specific points.
Comments on the proposed measures

The consultation papers claim that the plans take into account the recent 'Safer Routes to School' proposals, however, the new speed tables recommended as part of the latter scheme for the Kingsgate Road/Messina Avenue junction do not appear on the diagram. We strongly recommend that these be installed.
In order to achieve 'a safer and more pleasant residential environment' motor traffic rat-running through the area has to be curbed, especially 'rush-hour' north-south using Kingsgate Road. We therefore recommend that serious consideration be given to the use of road-closures (as, for example, works very well in the Brent half of Kilburn, in particular to the south of Willesden Lane) to reduce through-traffic in the area.

Suggestions for improvements to the street environment

Kingsgate Road. The carriageway of the section between Messina and Gascony Avenues is cobbled at both ends. This surface is very uneven in places and is awkward for people with narrow-wheeled vehicles (push-chairs, bicycles etc). We recommend re-doing these raised entries (not shown on your diagram). The paving is in very poor condition at the southern end of this stretch of Kingsgate Road (i.e., toward Gascony), indeed is quite hazardous. We further recommend that the southern entry to this section be made 'No Entry' to motor vehicles to cut down on through traffic
The Kingsgate Road/Gascony Avenue junction presents quite a few problems for pedestrians. A. there is no dropped kerb on the SW corner of Kingsgate Road. B. the carriageway on the SW junction cuts in very sharply into the pavement, in order, it seems, to create space for two lanes for traffic coming down Gascony Avenue. However, the traffic can almost never form two lanes due to the build-out just along to the left. The width of the carriageway, combined with the fact that Gascony Avenue bends to the left looking up toward Kilburn High Road, can make it troublesome for pedestrians to cross. Solution: continue the build-out toward the junction with only one lane.
Messina Avenue (west). Most people coming to Grange Park from the south walk along the south side of Messina Avenue and then cross directly by the park entrance (i.e., they don't use the build-outs to the west). This de facto crossing point should be facililated by either a raised table across the road or a pavement build out on the south side (instead of one of the parking bays).
30/7/02 & 23/8/02: Safer Routes to School - St Albans C of E Primary.
Camden's Safer Routes to School propoals for a school in a Baldwins Gardens (off Grays Inn Road) are as follows:

A raised speed table across each of the following roads at their junction with Grays Inn Road: Baldwins Gardens, Verulam St, Portpool Lane.
Pavement buildouts in Baldins Gardens opposite the school's entrance.

In our response we strongly supported the scheme in intention and almost all of the execution, except that we did not like the pavement buildouts adjacent to the school. We felt that these would be dangerous for cyclists, and incompatible with Safer Routes to School for children who might want to cycle. We suggested a table across the same area, and if there was a problem with parking then bollards and a partial narrowing.
30/7/02 & 23/8/02: Safer Routes to School - Kentish Town C of E Primary.
The consultation proposal for this scheme includes the following measures:
- pavement buildout on southern side of Islip St between Kentish Town Road & Wolsey Mews
- contraflow cycle lane (through the above buildout) from Islip Road into Kentish Town Road (motor traffic will not be able to drive into Kentish Town Road),
- extension in length of pavement buildout outside primary school entrance.
CCC supported these proposals but asked for a proper segregated cycle track solution for the Islip St contraflow - see our final response here.
30/7/02 & 23/8/02: Rochester Terrace Area: Vulnerable Road User Scheme
The council is consulting on plans for:
- a speed table across Wilmot Place at its junction with Rochester Road
- pavement widening along the north west side of Wilmot Place between the Rochester Terrace and Rochester Road junctions
- kerb buildout at the Wilmot Place/Rochester Road junction
Up to 4 parking bays will be lost in Wilmot Place.

We supported this scheme, but suggested that cycle parking stands could be provided on kerb buildout at Rochester Road/Wilmot St junction.
30/7/02 & 23/8/02: Vulnerable Road Users: Theobalds Road/Lambs Conduit St junction
The consultation proposal for this scheme includes the following measures for the Theobalds Road/Lambs Conduit Street junction:

Addition of green man pedestrian crossing phases for all arms of the junction
advance stop lines for the Theobalds Road arms of the junction.

CCC supported these proposals, but strongly recommended that advance stop lines are also added to the other 2 arms of the junction (ie Lambs Conduit St & Red Lion St).
30/7/02 & 23/8/02: BusPlus Eversholt Street
As part of the BusPlus improvement programme, changes are planned for Eversholt Street outside Euston Station (the section between Euston Square and Phoenix Road).

The main components are:
- a southbound bus lane (which I assume to be available for cyclists) with hours of operation Mon - Fr 07:00 - 10:00, 16:00 - 19:00.
- right turn bus only lane for southbound buses into Euston Square.
- double yellow lines along the northbound kerb.
- swapping the positions of the southbound bus stop & pelican crossing
CCC generally supported this scheme as it will improve conditions for cyclists due to the bus lane and tougher vehicle parking restrictions.

However we expressed strong reservations about the right turn bus only lane due to the lane swapping required which we suspect may make the road much more hazardous for cyclists. Non-bus motor traffic will have to move from the right hand lane (outside the bus lane) to the left hand lane (inside the bus only right turn) in the space of around 20 metres; this will lead to cyclists being pinched by motor traffic.

On behalf of Camden's pedestrians we formally objected to moving the pedestrian crossing away north from its current position opposite the steps into the station, as it makes pedestrian access to the station less convenient.
25/7/02 & 15/8/02: Cressy Road/Agincourt Road pedestrian crossing
Camden Council is consulting on changes for the Cressy Road/Agincourt Rd junction (just to the south of South End Green). The main proposals are to add traffic signals at the junction, with a pedestrian crossing phase for 3 of the 4 junction arms, and to remove the 168 bus stand from South End Green to Cressy Road.

Agincourt Road is one of the borough's nastier streets for cyclists due to its narrowness, and high traffic volumes & speeds, so slowing traffic down with a new set of lights is likely to improve conditions for cyclists. CCC supported this scheme but asked for an advance stop line to be incorporated into the southbound arm of the Agincourt Road junction.
12/7/02 & 16/8/02: 20mph zones for Lymington Road & Birchington Road Areas
The council is consulting separately over the introduction of 2 separate 20 mph zones for
- Lymington Road area encompasses the following streets: Fawley Road, Honeybourne Road, Crediton Hill, Alvanley Gardens & Lymington Road.
- Birchington Road area: Priory Terrace, Priory Road, Abbots Place, West End Lane (southern part only), Mutrix Road, Birchington Road.
The council is finally planning to deploy raised speed tables at the zone boundaries (which we have been consistently pushing for with the last few such zones), and speed humps on all the roads within the zone. The latter measure is a welcome change from recent 20mph zones where speed cushions have often been deployed (which we have always opposed as a cycle-unfriendly measure).

CCC formally objected to the aspect of the proposal for making the section of Lymington Road between Crediton Hill & West End Lane one way unless a cycle contraflow lane (or some other mechanism to permit 2 way cycle flow) is provided. We also strongly recommended that 2 way for motor vehicle access is maintained, and that if necessary parking bays be removed to permit this.

CCC fully supported the Birchington Road proposal, and stressed the need for raised tables at the zone boundary (ie that this aspect of the proposal must not be watered down).
20/6/02 & 8/7/02: In Town Without My Car Day 22nd Sep 2002
The council is consulting on the area to be closed off for a car-free 'In Town Without My Car' day on Sun 22nd Sep. There are 2 options which involve streets in Bloomsbury.
- Option 1: Around 10 streets in the area between Endsleigh Gardens (north) and Montague St (south), and Malet St/Gordon St (west) and Russell Sq/Woburn Place (east). See map here: (Taken off line)
- Option 2: Around 20 streets, with the area above extended southwards as far as Bloomsbury Way/Southampton Row. See map here: (Taken off line)
In our formal response to the council we expressed 'strongly support' for the principle of In Town Without My Car day, and whilst we supported both options above, expressed strong support for the larger option 2 area.
15/5/02 & 10/6/02: Eton Avenue Roundabout Consultation
You've all heard of the Swiss Cottage gyratory, and probably most of you try to avoid it. However Camden Council is now proposing creating a new roundabout in Eton Avenue (at the Winchester Road/Adamson Road junction) as part of the relocation of Swiss Cottage market to the western end of Eton Avenue.

This is bad news for cyclists as its located on the popular Eton Avenue cycle route (used by many cyclists to avoid the Swiss Cottage gyratory). Even worse in this case is the council's proposals to make traffic go round in an anti-clockwise direction, thus complicating this junction and increasing hazards.

This proposal appears to be as totally out of place for an area which will feature large numbers of pedestrians (and quite a lot of cyclists), and a wasteful use of space. Roundabouts are usually introduced to improve matters for motorists and increase junction throughput speeds - competent transport professionals will know that roundabouts and cyclists do not mix very successfully, as well as being aware that roundabouts are generally bad news for pedestrians (they have to detour around the roundabout to cross the junction).

We think there is a good case for getting rid of the roundabout, and reclaiming either the north or south side of the junction as a paved pedestrian area.

See our consultation response here.
23/4/02 & 17/5/02: Chalk Farm Road banned right turn consultation
Camden Council is formally consulting on whether to retain the banned right turn for motor vehicles from Chalk Farm Road into Castlehaven Road; the scheme also features a cycle track to allow cyclists to turn right..

There has been much opposition to the banned motor vehicle turn from retailers in the area who claim to have seen a substantial drop in trade, and from residents groups who have seen an increase in motor traffic and dangers in streets such as Hawley Street, Hartland Road & Harmood Street.

The scheme was implemented last September following a risk assessment of the area which identified the need to minimise or eliminate motor traffic from northern section of Camden High Street (next to the market) so that pedestrian capacity could be increased.

Some local councillors are calling for the scheme to be scrapped (see local press below), and CCC suspects that without more public displays of support for this scheme (eg via the local press letters pages - see David Arditti's recent letter on the subject) there is a very real likelihood of this happening.

CCC's view so far has been that the no right turn ban should remain, and that the council should develop more traffic measures which lead to further reductions in motor vehicle flows in this road.

See our consultation response here.
27/3/02 & 17/4/02: Regis Road Pedestrian/Cycle Link
As part of a revised planning application for a 3-4 story office block at the site between 58 & 74 Holmes Road (this is where the pedestrian route through to Regis Road used to go), the council is 'considering improving links for pedestrians & cyclists between West Kentish Town and the tube station and shops in Kentish Town Road'.

The possible options are :

a) pedestrian and cycle route through 76 Regis Road linking Regis Road with Holmes Road (ie where the pedestrian route originally was), or

b) pedestrian and cycle route between warehouse buildings linking the railway arch at Arctic Street with Regis Road opposite the Interchange business units.

A number of us have been lobbying on route b) for several years, but it has been bedevilled with legal problems and lost paperwork, so it is heartening to see that something finally seems to have started moving on this.

But I wonder why we can't have both options... its not as if pedestrians & cyclists are overwhelmed with measures in the area encouraging more use of sustainable transport modes.

Our response to the council is here.
18/3/02 & 12/4/02: Spaniards Road Pedestrian Crossing
A pedestrian crossing of Spaniards Road is planned, in between the 2 bus stops (ie approximately half way between Spaniards Inn & Whitestone Pond); the aim is to help reunite the 2 halves of Hampstead Heath which are currently severed by fast flowing motor traffic.

The options proposed are:
1. A pelican crossing (ie push button with signals)
2. Zebra crossing with speed cushions located on either side of the crossing.
3. Zebra crossing with rumble strips located on either side of the crossing.
I guess most pedestrians would prefer a zebra (you don't have to wait to cross), and cyclists would prefer option 3, as long as the rumble strips stop with a 1 metre gap next to the kerb.

Bizarrely the pelican crossing option lists amongst its advantages 'increased safety for cyclists'! Anyone got any insight as to why this might be?

Most alarmingly, surveys of traffic speeds list the average weekday speed at 41mph, and weekend speed at 45mph for this 30mph road. There's surely a good case for regular speed tables along this stretch, although the budget for this scheme is very limited; perhaps the police could help with a few speed enforcement sessions.

See our final response here.
20/3/02 & 27/4/02: Canfield Gardens/Finchley Road Public Space
Transport for London & the council are planning to make substantial improvements to the area around Habitat, Waitrose & the tube station in Finchley Road.

The existing service road outside Waitrose will be pedestrianised, and improvements will be made to a number of pedestrian crossing points in the vicinity; the taxi rank will be moved to Canfield Gardens next to the tube station.

However in an incomprehensible step away from the integration of transport modes, the bus stop will be moved away from the tube station by a further 40 metres north up Finchley Road.

Committee member David Arditti suggests our response should be to welcome the plan as far as it goes, particularly the pedestrianisation of the taxi road, but asking them to go further, by :
- closing the end of Canfield Gdns,
- changing the currently very dangerous arrangement of the junction of Goldhurst Terr and Finchley Road,
- and making the adjacent sections of Goldhurst Terr and Broadhurst Gdns two way (there is adequate width), and
- doing away with the gyratory round Waitrose, and
- creating a completely pedestrianised "piazza" in front of the tube station, for bus interchange.
Our response to the council is here.
10/3/02 & 9/4/02: Safer Routes to Schools - St Eugene de Mazenod, St Mary's & Kingsgate schools
The Council is proposing the following traffic calming measures and improvement proposals for the area taking in St Eugene de Mazenod Primary School, St Mary's Primary School and Kingsgate Junior and Infant Primary School (Mazenod Avenue, Quex Road and Kingsgate Road). NB: Quex Road and West End Lane north of the junction with Quex Road are proposed London Cycle Network routes.

The proposals
1. speed table along top of Mutrix Road where it meets Quex Road;
2. raised table by existing zebra crossing on West End Lane;
3. speed table along West End Lane (where it meets Abbey Road);
4. pedestrian refuge and speed cushions on Abbey Road (near to Quex Rd junction);
5. enlarged pedestrian refuge and speed cushions on Abbey Road (by church);
6. two speed tables at Kingsgate Road/Messina Avenue junction;
7. raised table/zebra crossing on Netherwood Avenue (close to junction with Kilburn High Road).
Our response to the council is here.
Feb 02 & 16/3/02: Great Ormond Street one way
Development work related to Gt Ormond Street Hospital have lead to the proposal to make Great Ormond Street one way westbound.

CCC objected to these proposals, and we now understand that the scheme is unlikely to see the light of day.
19/2/02 & 23/3/02: Malden Road pedestrian refuges/no waiting restrictions
As part of the Malden Road traffic calming scheme the council has removed a number of pedestrian refuges (islands in the middle of the road); some local people have now pointed out that despite new speed tables, it is more difficult for pedestrians to cross the road. The reason given by the council for the removal of the refuges was to make room for advisory cycle lanes along Malden Road (which is on a London Cycle Network route).

The council is now consulting on putting the refuges back in Malden Road:
- on the northern side of the Grafton Terrace junction speed table (about 100m north of Simpson's Cycles)
- on the northern side of the Queen's Crescent junction speed table (10 metres south of Simpson's Cycles)
- just south of the Rhyl Street junction.
If these refuges are restored, the council is proposing to remove the planned advisory cycle lanes for around 3 metres on either side of the refuge.

To give you an idea of the impact, the proposed Grafton Terrace junction design is on our web site

See our full response here.
Feb 2002 & May 2002: Air Quality Management Action Plan
The council's monitoring of air quality shows that NO2 & PM10 (fine particle) exceed government health standards in parts of the borough, so the council is required to draw up an action plan in order to reduce pollutants.

Whilst the council has some worthy proposals, CCC suggests that far more needs to be done :

CO2 is not currently covered by the plan - targets for CO2 should be added due to the need for Camden to play its part in slowing climate change.
the proposals for 'cleaner vehicles' all focus on improved engine technologies - what about the council using and promoting the use of human powered delivery machines?
the council has many staff categorised as 'essential car users' (the figure is believed to be in the hundreds) - the council must dramatically reduce this figure, and increase the number of essential cycle users from the current 40.
many people in Camden don't cycle because they have nowhere at home to put a bike - council housing stock could be upgraded with secure cycle parking for residents.
21/1/02 & 15/2/02: Camden Cycle Plan Review
The Cycling Plan with its 48 targets is arguably the best local authority strategy there is the UK for achieving on the ground improvements and thus increase the number of people who cycle.
Whilst in some instances the council is proposing to lower targets are being lowered or extend timelines for achieving them, in other cases the targets are being substantially strengthened. To paraphrase one officer, Camden Council wants to set challenging but achievable targets, and it is important that we do not aim so high that the council is unable to get attain the majority of these targets.

What is very clear that we are fortunate to have very high calibre officers working on the Plan's evolution, and our feedback is being taken very seriously.

To give you a flavour of the changes being considered...

Target 2: Council will seek to acheive a 5% modal share for cycle use by 2002: proposed change to 7% by 2007. The reason for this proposed change is that there are no reliable figures for the proportion of journeys in Camden by cycle; CCC is in discussions on how this information can be acquired.
Target 13: No of adults receiving cycle training increasing by 10% per year to acheive total of 70 per year by 2005. Proposed change: to 200 adults per year by 2005. This change is due to Camden's training programme having been far more successful than originally expected. Note that 258 young people were trained last year.
Target 15: Repairing all dangerous damage on roads within 24 hours, and report back weekly to CCC on items raised on CCC web based snagging list. Proposed change is to drop the weekly report back to CCC as the council's own web based logging system makes CCC's redundant. CCC is worried as this change makes it impossible for us to track progress on potholes etc; however it believes that road surfaces have generally improved and that the new council procedures and much higher proportion of street inspections may be an adequate repolacement. We'd like to review this issue next year.
Target 32: Audit of all cycle route signage by Dec 2001 (now complete). Proposed new target: programme of signage upgrades to be complete by April 2004. CCC has also requested that a further audit be conducted in 2005 as much of the cycle network has yet to be completed in Camden.
Target 38: The council will work with police & others to reduce recorded thefts by 5% per year. See news item below.
Target 45: The council will provide sufficient cycle parking, lockers, showers and drying racks for 10% of council staff at main buildings by 2002. Proposed change of date to 2003. The council has provided a programme of changes which have been implemented or are planned at 9 their biggest sites; given the scale of work to be done, a 1 year slip does not seem unreasonable.
18/1/02 & 14/2/01: Arlington Road/Delancey Street Safer Routes to School
Camden Council is consulting on a Safer Routes to School s Scheme centred around Cavendish Primary School in Arlington Road, Camden Town.

The proposals are:
- Arlington Road : 3 sets of speed tables with kerb buildouts
- Delancey Street: 2 sets of speed cushions (one to the east of the Arlington Road junction, and one to the west), plus a kerb buildout on the north west corner of the junction with Albert Street.
- Repaint the road markings in Parkway at its junction with Camden High Street.
There is no mention of cyclists in the consultation literature. As all of these roads are on official cycle routes it is important that CCC members give us their views of these proposals.

Likely to be of greatest concern is the proposal for speed cushions Delancey St; this street is one way westbound, and the council are proposing to have 2 traffic lanes with speed cushions in each lane. Surely if the council wanted to introduce major reductions in road danger they would use speed tables instead of cushions (cushions are much less effective at slowing motor traffic), reduce the road to one lane of motor traffic, and with the space left add a cycle lane (or even a 2 way segregated cycle track).

See our full response here.
8/1/02: Illegal & Inappropriate Road Traffic Speed: House of Commons Select Committee
The Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee has decided to undertake an inquiry into the nature and effects of illegal and inappropriate road traffic speed in the UK. The Committee will wish to consider:
Witnesses are invited to submit memoranda to the Committee before Tuesday January 8. Memoranda should consist of up to six A4 pages on computer disk in either ASCII, Word or Word Perfect 8 with a single additional hard copy.

David Harrison, Committee Clerk, Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. Telephone: 020-7219 3266 ; Fax: 020-7219 6101 ; E-mail: tlrcom@parliament.uk

In the event CCC was unable to find the time to submit evidence.
images/bluegreen" ALIGN=bottom>
Campaign Responses to Consultations since 2000
- West Euston 20mph zone: 7/12/02
- Hunter St/Handel St New Zebra Crossing: 30/11/02
- Fairfax Roundabout: 1/11/02
- Safer Routes to School: University College & Devonshire House Prep Schools: 24/10/02
- Willesden Lane/Kilburn High Road Traffic Lights: addition of pedestrian phase: 7/10/02
- Bartholomew Road Area 20mph Zone: 28/9/02
- North/South LCN Route 6: 26/9/02
- St Pancras Way: Two Way Segregated Cycle Track: 25/9/02
- Safer Routes to School - Kentish Town C of E Primary: 20/8/02
- Eton Avenue NW3 Proposed Changes: 10/6/02
- Chalk Farm Road/Castlehaven Road: Retention of Banned Right Turn: 17/5/02
- Design Proposals for Canfield Gardens: 15/4/02
- Kilburn Safer Routes to Schools (West End Lane Area): 9/4/02
- Pedestrian & Cycling Links for West Kentish Town/Regis Road/Kentish Town Road: 17/4/02
- Spaniards Road Pedestrian Crossing: 14/4/02
- Malden Road Consultation on Island Refuges & Waiting Restrictions: 23/3/02
- Safer Routes to Schools for Cavendish Primary School, Arlington Road: 14/2/02
  
  West Euston 20mph zone
  
  7/12/02
  
  Questionnaire responses
  
  We support the introduction of traffic calming measures in Cardington Street.
  
  We support option One: YES (but not option two).
  
  We support the introduction of a 20 mph zone.
  
  Further comments
  
  We strongly support Option One. However, we are disappointed that no entry treatments are planned for roads leading into the zone. We strongly recommend that Cardington Street and Drummond Street both have entry treatments at their junctions with Hampstead Road. We would point out that cyclists going north up Melton/Cardington Street often encounter motorists coming out from Drummond Street in an aggressive and dangerous manner, and hope that the proposed raised junction designs out such behaviour.
  
  We are not happy with Option Two. We are in general opposed to the introduction of one-way systems *. We therefore formally object to the proposal to make the central stretch of Drummond Street one way unless a cycle contraflow along all one way sections of Drummond Street is implemented.
  
  The proposal to make the central stretch of Drummond Street one-way east bound seems particularly unwise, as this will only encourage motor traffic to treat it as a rat-run to avoid the Euston Road. At least at present, the intermittent west-bound traffic along that stretch obliges east-bound vehicles to proceed less recklessly than they are otherwise prone to.
  
  We are not sure what the point of the proposed width restriction is: we don't believe it will be tight enough to prevent big commercial vehicles passing through, and in any case, business premises in the area need deliveries from such vehicles. Presumably the idea is to allow pedestrians to cross safely on the raised table. But then the build-outs can only be required so that the crossing is not infringed upon by parked vehicles. Surely it would far better to widen the pavements on both sides, thereby preventing cars from parking on the north side (currently a single yellow line) and allowing the restauranteurs etc in the area to have outside seating. (Lambs Conduit Street suggests itself as a model.)
  
  In short, the width restriction is only acceptable to us if parking is to be allowed on the north side of the street (but we don't see why it should be). Otherwise we are strongly opposed to it, as it will be hazardous for cyclists, forcing them to move far out from the kerb and into conflict with other road users.
  
  * See (Taken off line)
  
  Meade McCloughan, Camden Cycling Campaign
  
  Hunter St/Handel St Vulnerable Road User Scheme : New Zebra Crossing
  
  30/11/02
  
  We support the addition of a zebra crossing at this location, which represents a substantial improvement for those who walk in this area.
  
  However we do have concerns about the following aspects of this scheme.
  
  Cycle lane alignment
  
  The alignment of the northbound advisory cycle lane just to the south of this proposed zebra crossing location has been the subject of a critical comment on the design page of the Campaign's website for some years now (see here ).
  
  The problems with this design are twofold:
  
  The cycle lane follows a line which skims past parking bays. This is a highly dangerous part of the carriageway for cyclists as they are at risk of running into carelessly opened motor vehicle doors. 10% of London's KSI figures for cyclists are attributable to cycles colliding with open vehicle doors. Whilst experienced cyclists know not to venture into this 'zone', less skilled cyclists will naturally ride within the lane; thus the council's markings are encouraging cyclists into adopting dangerous road positioning.
  The cycle lane has a completely arbitrary kink towards the kerb (at the Brunswick Centre car park exit ramp) which no competent cyclist would ever follow. The problems with this design are that cyclists are encouraged to veer into an area of carriageway where motorists exiting the car park do not expect other road users to be as it is out of the main traffic flow. Also by encouraging cyclists out of the traffic flow, they then have the problem of re-entering the main flow when the cycle lane kinks back out to avoid the parking bays.
  
  We also note that the diagram on the consultation leaflet shows a parking bay being moved so that it encroaches over the cycle lane. We cannot understand how such a basic mistake can have escaped the council's internal review processes.
  
  In response to the above issues our recommendations are as follows.
  
  As part of this scheme the council modify the cycle lane where the design is deficient as identified above, so that a 1 metre gap is left between the outer edge of the parking bay and the inner edge of the cycle lane, and the cycle lane has a width of no less than 0.5 metres.
  If the above cycle lane modification is not possible then we propose that instead that large 1.2 metre wide cycle logos be applied to the carriageway road surface at around 20 metre intervals. The centre of the logo should be no less than 1.2 metres from the outside edge of theparking bay marking.
  
  We request that we are consulted further if the council decides to alter the specification from either of the 2 above recommendations.
  
  Loss of cycle lane
  
  We note the unfortunate loss of a section of the advisory cycle lane in the vicinity of the zebra. This is particularly valuable to cyclists during the rush hour when long queues of motor vehicles form, as the lane encourages queuing motorists to leave a gap for cyclists. However we appreciate that the loss of the lane is unavoidable due to traffic engineering regulations not allowing any other markings alongside zig-zag markings.
  
  We wonder whether other devices might continue to encourage motorists to leave a gap alongside the kerb. We suggest 2 possible measures:
  
  a) Increase the width of the zig-zag markings, as we believe that motorists will tend to avoid the markings.
  
  b) Have taller than usual 'look left' and 'look right' lettering adjacent to the zebra, which again we would expect motorists to avoid.
  
  We wish to stress we are happy to discuss this proposal with the council following consultation, and would for example be pleased to be given the opportunity to review any detailed design for this scheme.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  Regents Park Road/Crogsland Road & Haverstock Hill/Prince of Wales Road/Maitland Park Villas pedestrian & cycle facilities
  
  20/11/02
  
  Firstly we wish to congratulate the council on proposing a safer routes to school scheme which contains such substantial proposals to benefit cyclists.
  
  We trust that the feedback and alternative suggestions we offer are taken in the spirit that they are intended &endash; not as criticisms, but as potential enhancements and changes to deliver even higher quality schemes than the ones proposed.
  
  Our bottom line is that we support in principle the aim of both the Regents Park Road and Maitland Park Villas schemes.
  
  And whilst we are not convinced that either of the proposed solutions are ideal, if the changes we suggest cannot be implemented, we would prefer the schemes to go ahead as proposed but be closely monitored to ensure that any substantive issues which become apparent can be remedied quickly.
  
  Proposal A: Regents Park Road contraflow lane/Crogsland Road link
  
  The proposed scheme suffers 2 substantial problems:
  
  a) despite the revised bus stand and parking layout in Regents Park Road, and thoughtful spacing between the contraflow cycle lane and the parking bays, parts of the carriageway are quite narrow. As the contraflow lane is unprotected by any physical segregation, this is potentially hazardous due to oncoming motor traffic.
  b) contraflow cyclists are expected to cross to the 'wrong' side of Regents Park Road to get to the cycle track crossing of Chalk Farm Road.
  
  Our first preference therefore remains for a 2 way physically segregated 2.5 metre wide cycle track running along the south east side of Regents Park Road between the bridge and Chalk Farm Road. The advantage of this is that cyclists have physical protection from motor traffic, and the awkward and potentially quite dangerous uncontrolled crossing from one side of Regents Park Road to the other for northeast bound (contraflow) cyclists is avoided.
  
  We find it difficult to believe that it is not possible to relocate a rarely occupied bus stand to elsewhere in the area to permit this high quality cycle link design to be implemented.
  
  We appreciate that this option might require a further consultation exercise, but suggest that the major safety benefits for cyclists would make a 1 year delay for the scheme very worthwhile.
  
  If a physical segregation solution is completely out of the question, we support the general aim of the proposed design, but request that CCC be involved in further design discussions in order to seek any improvements to address the 2 key issues above which we have identified.
  
  Two further aspects of the design which we recommend should be modified are:
  
  Cyclists travelling from Crogsland Road across Chalk Farm Road should not have to turn right onto the 'wrong' side of Crogsland Road to get to the crossing point as per the current design). The simplest solution is to move the cycle track crossing point through the central island in Chalk Farm Road southwards by 3 - 4 metres. Cyclists into Crogsland Road would use the bypass to the no entry signs, and those exiting Crogsland Road would retain the standard road positioning for going straight ahead at a junction.
  The cycle facility in Bridge Approach at its junction with Adelaide Road become a standard no entry plus cycle plug at carriageway level (not pavement level as per the consultation design).
  
  An alternative suggestion made by CCC members is for Regents Park Road and Bridge Approach to be made 2 way for all vehicles, with clear 2-way carriageway markings and signage. Cycle logos could be marked on the road to remind motorists of the presence of cycles. A no entry may be required in Regents Park Road at its junction with Chalk Farm Road; or alternatively a restriction on motor vehicles to only permit them to turn left into Chalk Farm Road. The Campaign is happy to discuss these ideas further.
  
  Proposal B: Maitland Park Villas/Haverstock Hill/Prince of Wales Road
  
  The Camden Cycling Campaign is keen to see this scheme proceed.
  
  However as we had already indicated prior to consultation, and have since been strongly backed by our members when we consulted them on this proposal, a 3rd Toucan crossing is required for the northern arm of the junction. This is backed up by feedback from our membership suggesting that few cyclists would use the 2 Toucans proposed (Prince of Wales Rd & Haverstock Hill south) to make the right turn from Maitland Park Villas into Haverstock Hill.
  
  One aspect of the scheme we concerned about is cyclists travelling down Haverstock Hill on the green traffic signal phase, and turning left into Maitland Park Villas. The high speed of some southbound motorists as they turn into Prince of Wales Road, combined with cyclists having to brake and swing out as they negotiate to turn onto the track, will lead to a risk that less experienced cyclists could be shunted from behind by motor vehicles. Whilst we do not expect this manoeuvre to be particularly frequent, it is important to consider how cyclists can be better protected from this scenario.
  
  A solution may be to tighten the corner of the junction to force motor vehicles to slow down as they negotiate the bend. Or alternatively to create a piece of 'quiet' roadspace next to where the track heads towards the carriageway, by modifying the kerb alignment so that there is a slight indent which leaves the road motor vehicle free, but allows cyclists to get onto the track.
  
  There are some concerns about whether there might be a degree of pedestrian/cyclist conflict, but we are of the view that conflict is unlikely to be a serious issue unless there is a major increase in cycle flows via Maitland Park Villas.
  
  It is worth recording an alternative solution for this junction, which would remove pedestrian & cyclist conflict, and tackle the hazard from cyclists exiting from Maitland Park Villas into the carriageway when the signals are green for vehicles travelling down Haverstock Hill and into Prince of Wales Road.
  
  If the Maitland Park Villas track was under traffic signal control, cyclists could cross into Prince of Wales Road at the same time as the green pedestrian phase. The cycle track would exit south of the Prince of Wales Road pedestrian crossing and the cyclist would be fed into the Prince of Wales Road advance stop line.
  
  Finally, in terms of CCC's recommended standards, we draw your attention to our Cycle Facility Design guidelines on our web site here:
  
  For example we recommend that the absolute minimum width for cycle tracks is 2.5 metres.
  
  We will of course be pleased to continue discussions with officers on design issues right through the lifecycle of these schemes.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  UDP Chapter 13: Kings Cross
  
  22/11/02
  
  Policy number: KC6; Paragraph: 13.54; Subject: Cycle route connections
  
  With respect to the last bullet point in this paragraph, there is no such entity as the 'London Cycle Route' and the wording should be changed to encompass the several London Cycle Network routes passing through and near to the site.
  
  Propose that wording modified to read:
  
  'Connections into those London Cycle Network routes passing thorough and adjacent to Opportunity Area, and the Green Lanes network.'
  
  Policy number: KC6; Paragraph: 13.54; Subject: Road danger reduction
  
  Whilst policy KC6 requires 'high levels of ... safety for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities', there is no explicit requirement to minimise road dangers on all roads carrying motor vehicles within the Opportunity Area. As Camden's latest Road Safety plan tells us, the most important means to reduce road danger is through motor vehicle speed reduction.
  
  Propose that a new paragraph be added:
  
  'New and existing roads through the Opportunity Area must be designed such that for vulnerable road users, road dangers from motor traffic are minimised and accessibility is maximised. Measures to achieve this might include a 20mph or lower limit for the entire area supported by physical traffic calming measures, raised speed tables at all key pedestrian crossing points (eg across side roads), all green pedestrian crossing phases at signalled junctions, wide pavements, frequent zebra crossings, and physically segregated bicycle tracks with priority over side roads.'
  
  Policy number: KC7; Paragraph: 13.55; Subject: Low car parking/high cycle parking provision
  
  The sound principle to minimise car use should be supported by a complementary principle to maximise cycle use. Just as restricting car parking will reduce car use, a lack of adequate and secure cycle parking will restrict cycle use.
  
  Propose that a new paragraph be added:
  
  'In order to ensure that potential bicycle use is not inadvertently discouraged, cycle parking provision for all classes of residential and non-residential buildings must exceed Camden's minimum development control requirements. Secure indoor and frequent on-street cycle parking provision should be made to support no less than 20% of all journeys being made by cycle. The design of cycle parking provision should be such that space will be retained to allow the expansion of existing cycle parking by 50% should demand exceed supply in any location. Inner London's high cycle theft rates should be considered when designing on-street cycle parking provision; the standard unenclosed sheffield rack design currently used in London is unlikely to offer adequate security for most locations.'
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  Fairfax Roundabout
  
  1/11/02
  
  We reluctantly support the proposed measures, which will at least deliver some benefit for those who walk in this area.
  
  However we wish to point out that roundabouts are generally awkward for cyclists to negotiate, and government studies show that they are generally more hazardous than other types of road junction.
  
  The key reason is that roundabouts are a mechanism to increase motor vehicle capacity at junctions. As motorists enter the junction at speed, they therefore have less capability to consider the needs of more vulnerable road users.
  
  As far as this scheme is concerned, the larger islands and pavement buildouts.will deliver narrower carriageway widths in Belsize Road and Hillgrove Road. This will result in less room for motor vehicles to pass cyclists, and thus cyclists are likely to be 'pinched' between cars and the kerb.
  
  So whilst this scheme will offer some benefits to pedestrians, it will be at the expense of cyclists' safety due to the narrower carriageway space.
  
  We therefore ask that cycle casualties be actively monitored at this roundabout to ensure that should there be a substantial increase, swift remedial action can be taken.
  
  Making a more general point, we are disappointed by the rather modest adjustments the current layout, and wonder whether these measures can genuinely be justified on cost/benefit grounds.
  
  Assuming this proposal has been triggered by pedestrian casualties, we would not expect the casualty savings to be that impressive.
  
  At the very least we suggest that zebra crossings should be installed across all arms of the roundabout, as this would substantially improve the walking accessibility of the area.
  
  Looking ahead, we appreciate that 'road safety' funding is limited, but suggest that the council consider submitting a bid under a different budget head for a complete junction redesign to tackle some of the issues at source.
  
  We suggest that the aim should be the removal of the roundabout altogether, as the current design:
  
  requires pedestrians to make an inconvenient detour around the edge of the roundabout (which is hardly supports the council's policy to encourage more walking journeys), and
  supports inappropriately high motor vehicle speeds (bad for pedestrians and cyclists).
  
  The Camden Cycling Campaign suggests that the roundabout should be removed and 2 or 3 conventional junctions be created. This would yield useful space which could be used for something of benefit to the local community.
  
  We also wonder whether all these roads need to carry through traffic. A road closure would substantially reduce junction complexity, as well as providing major benefits to residents.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  Safer Routes to School: University College School & Devonshire House Preparatory School
  
  24/10/02
  
  Camden Cycling Campaign welcomes measures to make routes to schools safer and more attractive for pedestrian and cyclists. We however feel that the proposed measures are not sufficient to create a safer and more pleasant environment for children and parents walking or cycling to school .
  
  In addition to your plan we propose:
  
  1) As essential
  
  Pedestrian crossing (ideally elevated) on Fitzjohn's Avenue .(At the location of the proposed pedestrian refuge islands)
  Pedestrian crossing on Arkwright road on some of the present elevated tables.
  
  2) As Highly desirable
  
  Pedestrian crossing at as many as possible of the roads junctions leading to Fitzjohn's Ave, Arkwright Rd and Frognal . It is necessary to create complete routes where children walking to school have priority over other road users. (your proposals do not achieve this)
  Lengthening of the green phase for pedestrians at the Arkwright Rd/Fitzjohn Ave (at present it is impossible to cross both roads within the same phase)
  
  We also bring to your attention:
  
  Road narrowings especially on uphill sections where cyclists move slowly are particularly dangerous for the less assertive cyclists who do not occupy a central position on the lane on approaching the restriction. For this reason we strongly recommend pedestrian crossings and/or road elevation.
  Any road elevation scheme must be of high quality allowing cyclists to approach it at the same speed of cars without danger or discomfort.
  
  Stefano Casalotti, Camden Cycling Campaign
  
  Willesden Lane/Kilburn High Road Traffic Lights: addition of pedestrian (green man) phase
  
  7/10/02
  
  We fully support the pedestrian green man phase aspect of this scheme, which represents a substantial improvement for those who walk in this area.
  
  However we do have concerns about the following aspects of this scheme.
  
  1. Willesden Lane: Advance stop line removal
  
  We formally object to the removal of the advance stop line (ASL) and feeder lane because:
  
  a) This is a highly retrogressive step, and will without doubt increase dangers for cyclists. This attempt to increase in junction capacity for motor vehicles at the expense of cyclist safety will therefore lead to an increase in cyclist casualties, which is in our view totally unacceptable.
  
  b) ASLs have a beneficial impact on pedestrians, as motor vehicles are pushed back from the crossing point. This reduces the intimidation experienced by pedestrians with vehicle bumpers inches from where they are crossing, and which is often accompanied by revving engines and vehicles inching forward in anticipation of the signal change.
  
  2. Willesden Lane: two lane vehicle approach
  
  We also formally object to the proposed two lane approach to the traffic signals on the following grounds:
  
  a) Most of the traffic (70-80%) coming down Willesden Lane turns right to go south down Kilburn High Road, where there is only one lane. If two lanes are put in, then at least half the traffic in the northern lane will try to go right, rather than left or straight ahead, and traffic will become clogged up in the middle of the junction, causing confusion and creating dangers for right-turning cyclists;
  
  b) There are continuously flouted double yellow lines along the northern side of Willesden Lane. Given the abysmal level of enforcement in the area, any inside lane will be permanently blocked by parked cars.
  
  3. Cycle lane extension across Messina Avenue.
  
  We support this measure, but propose that in order to cater for motorists 'nosing out' of Messina Avenue into the path of cyclists, that if possible the lane width is 1.5 metres wide.
  
  4. Pedestrian crossing relocation
  
  We are concerned that the pedestrian crossing relocation will have a detrimental impact for those on foot, as the new location is less convenient.
  
  Furthermore, south-bound traffic often gets caught in the area between the northern most signals and the hatched no-entry zone after the lights have gone red, thus blocking the way for pedestrians and encouraging non-compliance with red traffic signals. In our view moving the crossing north will only exacerbate this issue.
  
  5. Kerbline at the south west corner of the junction.
  
  The large radius kerbline at the south-west Kilburn High Road/Willesden Lane causes problems for cyclists and pedestrians. This broad bend (rather than a sharp 90 degree turn) results in the considerable volumes of motor vehicles taking the corner at speed.
  
  a) In particular the shape of this junction is a problem for cyclists (even the more experienced ones) travelling northbound along Kilburn High Road. The speed of traffic, combined with the volume which turns left, means that it is difficult to get ahead of left turning traffic to avoid being "swept" round the corner.
  
  b) Furthermore, it is a very wide space for pedestrians to cross, and they will inevitably continue to do so even on the pedestrian red man phase if they judge it safe to do so.
  
  We therefore recommend that the pavement be built out to create a more perpendicular turn; we believe that this will still leave plenty of carriageway space for larger vehicles such as buses to make the turn.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  Bartholomew Road Area 20mph Zone
  
  28/9/02
  
  We welcome and strongly support these proposals, which represent a vitally important component in Camden's strategy to reduce unnecessary motor vehicle use, and encourage people to make greater use of walking & cycling.
  
  We do however have the following observations to make on these proposals.
  
  Raised table 'gateways'
  We do not understand why raised tables are only being proposed for 2 of the 'gateways' into the 20mph zone. In our view it is highly important that all the entry points into the zone have raised speed tables for the following reasons:
  
  It is important to present road users with consistently designed 'gateways' to 20 mph zones in order to reduce the potential for confusion.
  The actual entry point must have a physical speed restriction measure, otherwise some vehicle drivers will enter the zone as fast as they can until physically slowed by the first measure they encounter. This is likely to result in casualties to vulnerable road users who are expecting slow speed traffic.
  The raised tables make it much easier for pedestrians to cross the road (particularly for those who are less mobile), thus this increases the likelihood of an individual deciding to walk rather than drive.
  As an added benefit, the tables also improve visual amenity.
  
  We regard these raised tables as a critically important component for zone entry points along Kentish Town Road, due to the need to reduce the impact or motor traffic on pedestrians walking along the street, and generally improve this currently very unsatisfactory 'walking experience'.
  
  To add additional weight to our case, we point out the Kentish Town 'Town Centre' bid in the current Borough Spending Plan. In our view it is inevitable that such measures will be proposed should the bid proceed, thus we strongly recommend that these raised table are implemented now.
  
  If the argument is that the council wishes to wait to implement this measure once the bid gains funding, our question is what will happen if it does not get funding?
  
  Improved cycle accessibility
  Currently several roads leading off Kentish Town Road have a number of access restrictions which apply to all vehicles. The Camden Cycling Campaign strongly recommends that in order to enact the council's official policy of encouraging more people to cycle, these restrictions are modified to exempt cyclists.
  
  Furthermore the casualty statistics for Kentish Town Road demonstrate that it is the borough's most dangerous road for cyclists; all but one of the proposed measures below would allow cyclists to leave this busy main road and follow quieter back streets routes.
  
  Finally, the Camden Cycling Campaign wishes to point out that of its 600 members, by far the biggest grouping lives within 1/2 mile of Kentish Town Road. Whilst we appreciate that our membership profile is not as representative of the borough's cycling population as we would like, this indicates that substantial benefits would accrue to the borough's existing and potential cyclists if the measures below were implemented.
  
  We have identified the following restrictions which do not need to be applied to cyclists:
  
  Bartholomew Road
  
  There is a no-entry sign and a plug at the junction of Bartholomew Road with Bartholomew Villas.
  
  In the past officers have agreed that a cycle contraflow lane through the plug would be beneficial, and easy to implement.
  
  This is the most important restriction to remove for cyclists, as by doing so it would allow southbound access to Kentish Town Road for cyclists coming from the east and north. Removal of this restriction would also offers a bypass to most of Kentish Town Road.
  
  Caversham Road, Gaisford Street and Patshull Road no entry.
  
  These all have no-entry signs preventing access from Kentish Town Road; however each of these roads are two-way further up. We propose a no-entry plug and cycle contraflow lane.
  
  Caversham Road no right turn.
  
  Caversham Road has a no right turn restriction into Kentish Town Road.
  
  However Caversham Road (via Torriano Avenue & Busby Place) is a key route for cyclists travelling across the borough from Camden Square & Islington towards Gospel Oak and beyond. And the only through route in the area west of Kentish Town Road is via Holmes Road, which is designated as an official 'LCN' cycle route (see Camden's excellent Cycle Route map).
  
  We believe this represents a strong case for 'except cycles' wording to be added underneath the no right turn sign.
  
  Islip Street.
  
  A short one-way section preventing entry to Kentish Town Road.
  
  This should have a contraflow cycle lane and is already the subject of consultation as part of Kentish Town C of E Primary the Safer Routes to School proposals.
  
  However should these Safer Routes to School proposals not proceed, we request that this measure be reinstated as part of this 20mph zone implementation.
  
  The Camden Cycling Campaign would be pleased to offer constructive input on any cycle facilities which might be considered during the detailed design phase for this 20mph zone.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  North/South LCN Route 6
  
  26/9/02
  
  We strongly support option 1.
  
  We consider that much further feasibility work would have to be done if options 2 or 3 were to be chosen, and we have considerable doubts about whether either would prove viable.
  
  Russell Square: We are a little uneasy at the on-pavement section of track due to the following:
  
  1. Should private motorists, taxis or coaches etc stop in the carriageway to let passengers off, without a 1 metre gap between the edge of the track and the carriageway there is a risk of cyclists colliding with carelessly open vehicle doors. Note that London casualty statistics indicate that around 10% of cyclist KSIs are due to opening vehicle doors.
  
  2. The risk of cyclist overspill onto the footway; eg cyclists may at times use the footway for overtaking &endash; this is particularly likely if cycle flows are moderate to heavy.
  
  However having said this, we appreciate that options are seriously limited here, and the detailed design process will simply have to focus on minimising these risks.
  
  Montague Street: We believe that 2-way segregation on one side of the street remains
  
  highly desirable here, and indeed quite practicable. We are concerned that failure to provide adequate protection here may devalue the entire route. Also we are worried that the southbound route will presumably entail a rather awkward crossover for cyclists as they travel from the pavement facility above on the western side of Montague Street, across two way motor traffic to the eastern side of the street; this is likely to act as a significant deterrent to use of the entire route.
  
  Bury Place: Whilst we agree that a segregated contraflow track should work if the design is carefully though through, we feel that the closure of Bury Place to through motor traffic (or even better complete pedestrianisation with cycle access) would achieve the same effect for cyclists. Moreover it would be more in keeping with the type of pedestrian enhancement/traffic reduction measures which we believe the area deserves.
  
  If the contraflow cycle track solution is progressed, CCC strongly recommends that it is fully consulted during the detailed design phase; we are concerned that with-flow cyclists could get squeezed.
  
  High Holborn: Whilst we appreciate that it is difficult be absolutely certain before the detailed design phase is reached, we expect that a segregated on-carriageway solution stands a much greater chance of success than a footway level approach.
  
  Our key reasons are as for Russell Square, but most critically the high pedestrian volumes and general 'haste' of all users is likely to lead confusion & conflict over what might be treated as shared space.
  
  Furthermore the use of a Toucan crossing requires further thought. Since we expect this to be an extremely popular and busy route when complete (it could be the busiest in London if it is well designed) we anticipate that a Toucan will be found to be impractical due to the number of cyclists using it.
  
  We reckon that this is a further reason for an on-carriageway scheme which makes use of conventional traffic signal phasings.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  St Pancras Way: Two Way Segregated Cycle Track
  
  25/9/02
  
  The Camden Cycling Campaign (CCC) strongly supports these proposals; in principal but please note our qualifying remarks as follows.
  
  Members at our September meeting expressed serious reservations about one key aspect of the design. There was unanimous agreement that the volume of motor traffic currently using the unsignalled junction at St Pancras Way/Baynes Street could deter most cyclists from using the scheme.
  
  It was therefore agreed that this scheme would only be viable if Randolph Street was made two way for motor vehicles; this should dramatically reduce traffic turning into Baynes Street.
  
  Our members clearly stated that CCC should not support this scheme unless Randolph Street becomes 2 way, or some other alternative solution to this issue is found.
  
  We wish to make a few further more detailed observations about the design:
  
  We strongly recommend that Baynes Street speed table extends across the cycle track, so that motorists turning from St Pancras Way into Baynes St or forced by the table ramp to slow down before they reach the track.
  The south western kerbline around the St Pancras way/Baynes St junction appears to date back to when the street was 2 way. We therefore recommend it be tightened so that it has a similar radius to the kerbline on the north side of Baynes Street. This will further reduce traffic speeds, and also create a narrower carriageway for pedestrians to cross.
  The segregating island re-starts a long way south of the the St Pancras way/Baynes St junction, and again seems to be designed on the basis that vehicles will be travelling eastwards along Baynes Street (they cannot as it is one way westbound). We recommend that the segregating island start point be moved as close to the junction as possible.
  
  We also recommend that as part of this scheme the existing Royal College Street/Georgiana Street junction be improved as follows:
  
  An improved slip for cyclists travelling northbound along the existing cycle track and continuing northwards up Royal College Street, because at present cyclists are not able to filter smoothly into the motor traffic flow.
  A better junction design for cyclists turning from Royal College Street northbound right into Georgiana Street.
  A better junction design for cyclists turning from Georgiana Street westbound left into the Royal College Street track southbound.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  Safer Routes to School - Kentish Town C of E Primary
  
  20/8/02
  
  The Camden Cycling Campaign fully supports the principle of the proposals as presented.
  
  We do however have strong reservations about design of the part of Islip St with the contraflow cycle lane, as we believe that motorists entering Islip St (particularly from the north) could overrun into the painted on-road section of the cycle lane, and sometime obstruct it by parking there.
  
  We are also dubious about taking the track up onto the footway, as this is in contravention with Camden Council stated policy to avoid shared pedestrian/cycle facilities if at all possible; for confirmation of this contact Agwu-Festus Jones (Cycling Officer) or Doug Amer.
  
  We therefore propose the following amendments to the design as illustrated below:
  
  1. A kerb segregated cycle track running at carriageway level between Wolsey Mews & Kentish Town Road. The cycle track should be 1.5 metres wide, with a segregating island of no less than 0.4 metres wide. [The council now has considerable expertise in this type of design, having implemented around 2.5 km of such track in the last 3 years.]
  
  2. Realignment of the kerb opposite the cycle track to allow motor vehicles sufficient space to turn into Islip St from Kentish Town Road.
  
  3. We recommend that the cycle logo markings and arrows are applied as we show on the diagram in order to ensure that motorists and pedestrians are made aware of the existence cycle track.
  
  4. It may be necessary to relocate some cycle parking in the vicinity of the track, and request that this is considered early on in the detailed design phase of this scheme.
  
  On a separate matter, a member has requested cycle parking on the footway outside the school gate in Islip St - this seems to us an eminently sensible suggestion.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  Eton Avenue NW3 Proposed Changes
  
  10/6/02
  
  Q1: With respect to the consultation document and attached drawing
  
  We disagree with the proposals.
  
  Q2: Aspects of the proposals which give us cause for concern
  
  We are concerned by the following design features:
  
  a) The introduction of a new roundabout on a popular London Cycle Route.
  
  Roundabouts are one of the most cycle unfriendly measures available, and will lead to high cycle casualty rates; this is supported by the DTLR's own Traffic Advisory Leaflet on roundabouts.
  
  The introduction of this roundabout is doubly unfortunate as cyclists use the Eton Avenue cycle route in order to bypass the dangerous Swiss Cottage gyratory system.
  
  Furthermore do not believe that a roundabout is called for when using conventional roundabout justification criteria (eg need for high motor vehicle flow rates to be accommodated).
  
  b) The use of a non-standard anti-clockwise flow round the roundabout will increase risks to cyclists and pedestrians as neither they nor motor vehicle drivers will be familiar with this
  
  c) We see little evidence that, despite our considerable input so far, the requirement for a clear cycle route through the market area has not been reflected in the consultation drawing. With no defined route through the market area or the bollards, we fail to see how the council thinks this can possibly be satisfactory for cyclists, and we anticipate much pedestrian/cyclist conflict.
  
  d) As with most roundabouts, with no apparent consideration of pedestrian needs, this scheme is likely to force all but the most agile & assertive pedestrians to circumnavigate around the periphery of the roundabout in order to cross the junction rather than take a direct line.
  
  Q3: Further comments
  
  In view of our comments above, we strongly recommend that the council abandons plans for the roundabout and seeks to simplify this junction and reduce its capacity.
  
  We suggest that instead the council should consider reclaiming some of the current space allocated for the carriageway and the 'dead' space in the middle of the roundabout and revert it back to pedestrian only space.
  
  This could best be achieved by converting the Adamson Road side of the roundabout (as shown on the consultation diagram) to pavement, and making the remaining 2 sides of the roundabout two way.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  Chalk Farm Road/Castlehaven Road: Retention of Banned Right Turn
  
  17/5/02
  
  Thank you for consulting the Camden Cycling Campaign on the experimental banned right turn from Chalk Farm Road into Castlehaven Road.
  
  Our answers to the questionnaire are as follows:
  
  Q1: Are you in favour of the retention of the banned right turn?
  
  Yes, the Camden Cycling Campaign applauds the council on its initiative and fully supports the banned right turn.
  
  Q2: If answer to Q1 is no, what gives you cause for concern?
  
  Not applicable
  
  Q3: What measures would you like to see the council introduce in the area?
  
  We note the increased traffic flows after the right turn ban was implemented and propose that a combination of road closures and speed humps be introduced in order to reduce the impact of additional vehicles.
  
  We suggest that a road closure could be implemented in Hartland Road between the Hawley Street & Clarence Way junctions.
  
  We also recommend that speed humps are introduced along the length of Harmood Street, which should not only reduce traffic volumes, but would also reduce traffic speeds are often excessive for this residential road.
  
  Q4. Further comments
  
  The Camden Cycling Campaign believes that the council should persist with this pedestrian safety and motor traffic reduction scheme and seek to introduce traffic calming measures in the residential streets which have been adversely impacted by the banned right turn.
  
  We believe that the considerable vocal opposition to the scheme, was greatly reinforced by the works associated with Boulevard pavement widening in Chalk Farm Road, which resulted in major tailbacks into Camden Town. The key factor here was due to carriageway space being reduced to a single lane fo r northbound traffic, hence traffic queuing for the separate traffic signal turn right phase into Ferdinand Street caused a large proportion of the delays and congestion.
  
  [Note that the Camden Cycling Campaign believe that there is a general problem here in terms of coordination or works within Camden this highly sensitive issue.]
  
  As a result of these Boulevard works distorting public perception we therefore propose that :
  
  the right turn ban be retained for a further 3 months in order to be able to assess the true impact of this scheme, and
  further traffic flow monitoring be carried out.
  
  Furthermore, given the conclusions of the Area Risk Assessment Study, the Camden Cycling Campaign cannot understand how the council can consider abandoning the no right turn scheme until it has a viable alternative which reduces risks.
  
  We query what the council's position might be if the right turn ban was rescinded due to opposition from some local businesses and residents, and casualties arose following an incident of a type covered by the risk assessment. If this were to occur, it might at best put the council in the position of being seen as not having undertaken an adequate comparative assessement of the reduced risks against any disbenefits of the no right turn ban.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  Design Proposals for Canfield Gardens
  
  15/4/02
  
  The Camden Cycling Campaign is a constituent group of the London Cycling Campaign, and we represent 600 cyclists in Camden.
  
  We have discussed the design proposals for Canfield Gardens. We agree strongly with the creation of the new public space through pedestrianisation of the taxi road outside Waitrose, and with the re-design of the pedestrian crossings at the Canfield Gardens/Finchley Road junction.
  
  We agree with the creation of the new bus stop outside Watrose, to serve the station, and think that, if this is created, the existing stop in Finchley road north of the junction could beneficially be relocated northwards to the place indicated near the O2 centre. However, we would not support the relocation without the new stop, as that would be the making interchange between tube and bus more difficult.
  
  The re-location of the stop for the C11 and 268 westwards we consider less desirable, because this increases the distance between bus stop and tube entrance, contrary to the demands for more integrated public transport. We would prefer to see the taxis given less preferential treatment, by swapping the proposed bus stop and the taxi rank around, or using the proposed loading bay in between for one or the other. If it is a consideration, as stated, that the taxis should be visible from inside Waitrose, and near the underground entrance, it should be a stronger consideration that the C11 and 268 buses have these advantages, as more people will be using them in conjuction with shopping, or with tube travel, than will be using taxis.
  
  We would like to point out that there is a severe shortage of proper cycle parking in the area, so we would like to see some of the space liberated by the pedestrianisation used for provision of cycle stands. This is obviously highly important here both for shopping purposes and for integration of cycling and tube use.
  
  We approve of the speed table across the exit from Canfield Gardens, and would like to see the same across the entrance to Goldhurst Terrace.
  
  David Arditti (for Camden Cycling Campaign)
  
  Safer Routes to School for St Eugene de Mazenod Primary School, St Mary's Primary School and Kingsgate Junior and Infant Primary School.
  
  9/4/02
  
  Introduction
  
  We welcome the Council's commitment to calming traffic calming and improving conditions for pedestrians. However, we note that there is no mention of cycling in the consultation material, despite the fact that many children wish to cycle to school, and Camden Council is aiming for a major increase in cycle journeys (7% of all journeys by 2006, 10% by 2012).
  
  Comments on the proposals
  
  We generally approve of the measures proposed and particularly welcome the endeavour to reduce traffic speeds on West End Lane and Abbey Road.
  
  However, we must formally object to the use of speed cushions in Abbey Road (Proposals 4 and 5). Our membership strongly opposes the introduction of speed cushions as these are dangerous for cyclists, and I attach as an appendix some notes explaining our position on this issue.
  
  Speed cushions are particularly unsuitable for Abbey Road, given its narrowness and the bending line of the road. These features will accentuate the vicious chicane effect and lead to dangerous zig-zag manoeuvring by motorists.
  
  Moreover, we consider that the design recommended for Abbey Road, with cushions staggered on either side of pedestrian refuges, will make for an even more dangerous road layout, as well as making it very difficult for buses and other large vehicles to negotiate the cushions.
  
  Given that proposal 2 is for a speed table across West End Lane, which is also a bus route, we recommend that the same be installed in both locations on Abbey Road. (You should note speed tables have been used on other roads with very regular bus services (e.g. as recently implemented in Malden Road NW5).)
  
  Proposal 6, for speed tables at the Messina Avenue/Kingsgate Road junction, is fine, but one wonders why the same setup has not also been recommended for the Gascony Avenue/Kingsgate Road junction immediately to the south, where pedestrians face very similar problems.
  
  The one issue which has not been addressed at all is that of traffic speeds along Quex Road, particularly between the zebra crossing and West End Lane. The tendency of motorists to go too fast along this stretch, combined with the chicane effect created by the parking bays along the north side and the pedestrian refuge, make for dangerous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists alike. We also consider the pedestrian refuge inadequate as a means of enabling the road to be crossed safely, given that the school entrance is very close by. (Note that pedestrian crossings are being upgraded and traffic calmed on all roads in the immediate area, i.e., West End Lane, Abbey Road and Mutrix Road, except Quex Road.) We strongly recommend that the refuge be replaced with a speed table, ideally with a zebra crossing as well, and the parking bays to the south of the church be removed or at least reduced in number.
  
  The presence of Kilburn Grange Park directly to the west of Kingsgate Junior and Infant School has been unaccountably ignored. Despite the 'no cycling' signs prominent at the three entrances to the park, children under 14 are allowed to cycle in it. Could the by-laws not be amended to allow accompanying adults to use it as well? The park provides useful routes between Kingsgate School and Palmerston Road and Kilburn High Road.
  
  Finally, we would like to remind you of the Council's requirement that a 'cycle audit' be carried out during the design stage for any new road features.
  
  Meade McCloughan for Camden Cycling Campaign
  
  Pedestrian & Cycling Links for West Kentish Town/Regis Road/Kentish Town Road
  
  Planning application number PEX0100567/R1
  
  17/4/02
  
  Firstly, the Camden Cycling Campaign welcomes the council's consideration of improved pedestrian and cycle links into Regis Road; as you may be aware we have been campaigning on improvements in Regis Road accessibility for cyclists and pedestrians for some years.
  
  If we had to make a choice of one of the 2 options being proposed by the council, we would recommend proceeding with option b - ie the pedestrian and cycle route between warehouse buildings linking the railway arch at Arctic Street with Regis Road opposite the Interchange business units.
  
  This is because we believe that, if properly designed & implemented with sufficient regard to pedestrian & cyclist safety and convenience, this route has the greatest potential for attracting journeys on foot and by bicycle.
  
  Our reasons are:
  
  the new link offers much more convenient access from the huge Gospel Oak catchment area to premises in Regis Road, such as the post office and the recycling centre,
  the link would also serve as a bypass to Holmes Road for a substantial proportion of east/west journeys in the area (Holmes Road is far from ideal for use by pedestrians and cyclists, and conditions act as a suppressant to walking and cycling along this desire line), and
  the link would reduce walking and cycling journey distances for people who were travelling between Gospel Oak and the northern part of Kentish Town Road (eg the tube/rail interchange), as well as journeys via Leighton Road and Fortess Road.
  
  However we have received a number of comments (both from Camden Cycling Campaign members, and members of Renew Kentish Town) to the effect that the council should push for both link options to implemented as part of granting planning consent.
  
  And several members of the public (who most live in the area south of Holmes Road) have contacted me pointing out that they used to use the former link from Holmes Road (ie option a), and its closure has meant that they either no longer visit premises in Regis Road, or they now drive there.
  
  We also note that at times Regis Road exhibits signs of parking stress, which suggests that its capacity for accommodating further growth in motor vehicle trips is very limited; thus measures which encourage maximum growth in walking and cycling trips would be of benefit to Regis Road businesses and their customers.
  
  Furthermore, we wish to draw your attention to Camden Council's targets in the Walking and Cycling Plans which aim to open one new pedestrian and cycling link per year. Unfortunately no new links have been constructed to date.
  
  We therefore strongly recommend that the council seeks the implementation of both option a & b.
  
  Finally, we would be pleased to be involved in assisting with the identification of any specific measures which would maximise the use of these new routes.
  
  In particular as well as the obvious signage, lighting and surface enhancements required for option b), consideration needs to be given (for reasons of pedestrian safety) to the removal of the wall at the eastern end of the link, and measures to prevent motor vehicles parking and blocking the link.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  Spaniards Road Pedestrian Crossing
  
  14/4/02
  
  The Camden Cycling Campaign discussed this consultation at its members meeting on Monday 8th April 2002, and the following represents the views expressed by its committee and those members present.
  
  Question 1
  
  We wish to express our full support for a crossing for pedestrians of Spaniards Road; we strongly agree that such a measure is required..
  
  Question 2
  
  Our preference is for option 1, the signallised pedestrian crossing. We feel this option is the only suitable crossing measure which will provide sufficient safety for pedestrians. This is due to the excessive speeds recorded along this road (average 41 mph on weekdays, and 45 mph at weekends).
  
  Further comments
  
  We wish to draw your attention to the fact that the London Cycle Network runs along Spaniards Road, thus the needs of cyclists should be strongly considered.
  
  We consider that the zebra crossing options are unsuitable because:
  
  The proposed speed reducing measures are inadequate, as neither rumble strips nor speed cushions will reduce vehicle speeds sufficently to make a zebra crossing safe for both pedestrians and cyclists. The only physical measure which we believe would slow traffic adequately for a zebra crossing would be speed tables on either side of the crossing.
  As a consequence of the high speeds, cyclists will be less willing to stop to give way to pedestrians due to the fear of being run into from behind by motorists who are not paying attention to the road conditions and are travelling to fast to be able to stop in time.
  Our members are increasingly encountering the situation where as a cyclist they stop at a zebra crossing to let a pedestrian across, but motor vehicles behind fail to stop, overtake the cyclist, and swerve around the pedestrian on the crossing. This obviously leads to a potentially very hazardous situations for pedestrians.
  
  In terms of the speed reducing measures proposed for the zebra crossing options we have the following observations.
  
  If rumble strips are deployed, we draw your attention to research by the Transport Research Laboratories which shows that this measure is unsatisfactory for cyclists. We thus propose that there should be a 1 metre wide gap between the rumble strips and the kerbside to allow cyclists to travel on a smooth carriageway surface.
  If speed cushions are to be deployed, we draw your attention to the many disadvantages of this type of measure, and the creation of a number of new hazards for cyclists. The Camden Cycling Campaign feels so strongly about the problems of speed cushions that we have created a special section on our web site which deals with these issues.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  Malden Road Consultation on Island Refuges & Waiting Restrictions
  
  23/3/02
  
  We support all proposals: ie
  
  Options a, b & c: the reinstatement of all 3 traffic islands in Malden Road, and
  Option d: the addition of no waiting 'at any time' restrictions for the Marsden Street, Rhyl Street, Queen's Crescent and Grafton Terrace junctions.
  
  Our reasons are that these proposals will deliver a considerable reduction in risk and improvement in accessibility for pedestrians crossing Malden Road, as well as those side roads for which no waiting restrictions are proposed.
  
  Pedestrian refuges
  
  We wish to put on record that at no time has the Camden Cycling Campaign objected to the pedestrian refuges in Malden Road.
  
  With respect to those located on planned speed tables, in response to the Nov 2000 Traffic Order for Malden Road, we stated "Unless the table ramp gradients are sufficiently steep to reduce traffic speeds to no more than 15mph, we strongly recommend that the current refuges are retained."
  
  Whilst we did raise concerns about the impact on cyclists of the combination of refuges with speed cushions and motor vehicle parking, our proposed changes related to the introduction of double yellow lines in the vicinity of refuges to ensure that adequate carriageway width was maintained for cyclists and motor vehicles.
  
  We also voiced our worries about the proposed speed cushion positioning and cycle lanes past parking bays.
  
  Camden Cycling Campaign Recommendations
  
  We do however wish to raise some important issues relating to the impact of the Malden Road proposals on cyclist safety; these, along with the Campaign's design recommendations, were discussed at the Walking Cycling & Road Safety Advisory Group (WCRSAG) last Wednesday (20th March 2002).
  
  Camden Council's cycling officer Festus Agwu-Jones was present at this meeting (and has been copied on this response); we therefore suggest that you liaise with him over the design of any cycle facilities you are considering.
  
  Cycle lanes through refuges
  
  We strongly recommend that for all pedestrian refuges (except where regulations about zebra crossing markings disallow cycle lane markings), cycle lanes are continued along the carriageway past the refuges.
  
  This is necessary in order to indicate to motor vehicle drivers that they should not attempt to overtake cyclists on the approach to, or passing, the pedestrian refuges.
  
  Failure to maintain cycle cycle lanes through the refuges will send a signal to motorists that the presence of cyclists can be ignored, and thus encourage motorists to try to 'claim' the entire carriageway width between the refuge and kerb. This is likely to result in instances of motorists attempt to perform dangerous overtaking manoeuvres thus risking collision with cyclists, or at the very least intimidating cyclists and forcing them into the kerb (or, where the carriageway is raised, onto the pavement).
  
  We propose that the cycle lanes past the refuges be no less than 1.2 metres wide; if the lane width has to be reduced for any reason we consider the absolute minimum width to be 1 metre (however 1 metre is now considered to be substandard in terms of best practice design for cycle lanes).
  
  We fully appreciate that for some of the Malden Road refuge locations, the carriageway width remaining between the pedestrian refuges and the outside edge of the cycle lane may be such that wider vehicles (eg buses and HGVs) may partially overrun the lane. We regard this as preferable to introducing substandard width lanes which will reinforce to motorists (and less experienced cyclists) the message that cyclists should position themselves in the gutter.
  
  Should the carriageway width allow, we propose that cycle lanes alongside the refuges should be mandatory; however please bear in mind that a wider advisory cycle lanes is preferable to a 1 metre mandatory lane.
  
  The graphic below illustrates our proposed solutions.
  
  We strongly support the proposal for double yellow lines alongside the kerb in the vicinity of the pedestrian refuges.
  
  Cycle lanes past parking bays
  
  You are aware that for the Malden Road traffic order (in December 2000) the Campaign formally objected to the positioning of cycle lanes abutting motor vehicle parking bays.
  
  We stated that "The 1 metre wide advisory cycle lanes above are positioned right next to the many car parking bays lining Malden Road; this may encourage less experienced cyclists to cycle too close to parked cars, with the possibility of being 'doored' by someone flinging open a car door without looking.
  
  The road is not wide enough to allow for the ideal of a 1 metre wide gap away from parked cars, with a 1 metre wide lane. We recommend the use of narrower cycle lanes which have a gap between the inside of the lane and the outside of the parking bays. We suggest (although this is far from ideal) that the cycle lane has 0.5 metre wide gap away from parking bays, and is 0.75 metre wide."
  
  We are highly concerned to note that the plans which accompanied the consultation continue to show the cycle lanes running past parking bays. We therefore wish to bring to your attention that 10% of deaths and serious injuries amongst cyclists in London are now accounted for by vehicle doors being opened into the path of cyclists.
  
  There has been substantial discussion amongst the Campaign's membership (primarily via our 100 strong newsgroup) over 'generic' solutions to this issue, and we have now arrived at 2 main options.
  
  Option A, which is preferred by our membership, entails a 0.9 - 1.2 metre wide 'hatched' keep clear area adjacent to car parking bays. A 0.5 - 1.0 metre wide cycle lane adjoins the keep clear area.
  Option B features only cycle logo markings, which should be placed such that the centre of the logo is around 1.2 metres from the parking bay edge; we do not consider this to be as satisfactory a solution as it does not clearly define 'priority' space for cyclists. It is likely to be most appropriate as a 'fallback' option for narrow carriageway widths; we do not consider this option to be necessary for the widths in Malden Road.
  An option C was mooted at the WCRSAG meeting by those with an interest in visual amenity, and is identical to option A but without the hatched keep clear markings; this design is more appropriate for conservation areas where road markings should be minimised.
  
  All of these options encourage cyclists to maintain a safe distance from car doors (as taught by all those who run cycle training, including Camden Council), and signal to motorists that cyclists should be (and have a right to be) in this area of the carriageway.
  
  The previous graphic illustrates our option A and option B solutions.
  
  Note that last Wednesday (20 March 2002) CCC presented a 'Parking Bays & Cycle Lanes' document to the council's Walking Cycling & Road Safety Advisory Group on Wednesday. A debate followed, in which there was full agreement by all those present that the council should never implement cycle lanes which abut motor vehicle parking bays.
  
  Cycle lanes through junctions
  
  In our final point, the Camden Cycling Campaign strongly recommends that advisory cycle lane markings (ie green surfacing with a dotted white line) be continued across the junctions with Malden Road.
  
  This recommendation is derived from the London Accident Analysis Unit figures which show that 25% of cyclist deaths and 8% of serious injuries are caused by motor vehicles turning left across the path of cyclists; these markings across the junctions would encourage motorists slow down and turn left behind cyclists.
  
  May we conclude by welcoming the Council's openness to considering changes to benefit pedestrians for this scheme, and the Camden Cycling Campaign's expectation that the council will prove similarly flexible when considering our proposed modifications to improve the safety of cyclists.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator
  
  Safer Routes to Schools for Cavendish Primary School, Arlington Road
  
  14/2/02
  
  Introduction
  
  Whilst we welcome the aims of the Safer Routes to Schools programme, we do not believe that this scheme will have adequate impact in terms of reducing road danger to children who travel by non-car modes.
  
  We therefore propose bolder measures to reduce motor traffic capacity and speeds, and thus improve safety for more vulnerable travel modes.
  
  We also note that there is no mention of cycling in the consultation material, despite the fact that many children wish to cycle to school, and Camden Council is aiming for a major increase in cycle journeys (7% of all journeys by 2006, 10% by 2012).
  
  Furthermore, despite the 3 keys roads featuring in this consultation all being on official cycle network routes, there is no evidence that cyclists' needs have been considered in any form whatsover when proposing these measures.
  
  More specifically, we have little choice but to formally object to the use of speed cushions in Delancy Street. Delancey Street is a London Cycle Network [LCN] route, and our membership is of the strong view that speed cushions add considerable danger for cyclists.
  
  Speed Cushions in Delancey Street
  
  The Camden Cycling Campaign formally objects to the use of speed cushions in Delancy Street, which is a London Cycle Network route. Once the LCN has been fully implemented we expect this street to serve as the major east/west link for cyclists across central Camden.
  
  The Campaign has made it clear to the council on a number of occasions that speed cushions are not suitable measures for use on cycle routes, and it has become apparent from the many cushions installed across the borough that they are a largely ineffective traffic calming device.
  
  The Campaign proposes that speed humps or speed tables be used instead of cushions.
  
  Key issues over the use of speed cusions include:
  
  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, to close to the centre line. Wherever cushions are located, a high proportion of 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, and cyclists being pushed into unfamiliar road positions adds risk for the cyclist as they are less experienced in how to anticipate and manage traffic risks from this position. 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: 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. Given the disproportionately high rate of cyclist casualties with respect to lorries, this cannot be in cyclists' interests, let alone pedestrians'.
  DETR Guidance: 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.
  
  We are aware that buses use Delancey Street and that this is the main reason that cushions have been proposed, but point out that speed tables have been used on other roads with very regular bus services (eg recently implemented in Malden Road NW5).
  
  Finally, if the council decides that speed cushions have to be deployed, we request that the Camden Cycling Campaign is consulted during the detailed design phase on the positioning of the cushions in order to try to reduce the dangers to cyclists. We request that Parkman ensure that this recommendation is passed onto LB Camden, and that those tasked with scheme's detailed design are informed that the above web link also has guidance about optimum cushion positioning for cyclists.
  
  Parkway
  
  In view of Parkway being a London Cycle Network route, and the plans to reline the carriageway markings at the Camden High Street junction, we recommend that an absolute minimum measure for cyclists should be the incorporation of advance stop lines for both halves of the carriageway.
  
  Advance stop lines also benefit pedestrians by pushing motor vehicles back from the crossing point. As a result pedestrians are less intimidated by a phalanx of vehicle bumpers lined up inches from where they cross.
  
  The potential for more effective measures.
  
  Delancey Street
  
  We do not believe that retaining the existing 2 lanes allocated to traffic in Delancey Street is appropriate; this is particularly the case for the section to the east of Arlington Road.
  
  This layout creates a particularly intimidating environment for cyclists.
  
  Indeed we do not believe that 2 lanes are necessary for motor traffic capacity purposes, and that the current 2 lane width generally gives rise to faster traffic speeds as only a single lane of traffic is ever present. Thus 2 lanes will tend to counteract any traffic calming measures implemented, and the presence of 2 lanes certain make the road more difficult to cross for pedestrians.
  
  Hence we propose that alternatives for Delancey Street are considered which involve the reduction in width of the carriageway to one lane of motor traffic. The resulting spare capacity could be allocated to a one or 2 way cycle lane or cycle track (on the south side of the street) and wider footways.
  
  Arlington Road
  
  We suggest that Arlington Road be closed at the point outside the school gates; the closure could incorporate streetscaping (eg trees and benches) to create a pleasant space for parents to wait whilst collecting their children.
  
  A closure would not only result in a cessation of the rat running down this street, but will also discourage parents driving from their children to school.
  
  Paul Gasson, Camden Cycling Campaign Coordinator

Last modified 26-Jan-2009 11:57

Camden Cyclists

Sections

Personal tools

Consultations for 2002

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

West Euston 20mph zone

Hunter St/Handel St Vulnerable Road User Scheme : New Zebra Crossing

Regents Park Road/Crogsland Road & Haverstock Hill/Prince of Wales Road/Maitland Park Villas pedestrian & cycle facilities

UDP Chapter 13: Kings Cross

Fairfax Roundabout

Safer Routes to School: University College School & Devonshire House Preparatory School

Willesden Lane/Kilburn High Road Traffic Lights: addition of pedestrian (green man) phase

Bartholomew Road Area 20mph Zone

North/South LCN Route 6

Safer Routes to School - Kentish Town C of E Primary

Eton Avenue NW3 Proposed Changes

Chalk Farm Road/Castlehaven Road: Retention of Banned Right Turn

Design Proposals for Canfield Gardens

Safer Routes to School for St Eugene de Mazenod Primary School, St Mary's Primary School and Kingsgate Junior and Infant Primary School.

Pedestrian & Cycling Links for West Kentish Town/Regis Road/Kentish Town Road

Spaniards Road Pedestrian Crossing

Malden Road Consultation on Island Refuges & Waiting Restrictions

Safer Routes to Schools for Cavendish Primary School, Arlington Road

Arlington Road

Upcoming Events

News