Helen Vecht (as chair) introduced Sam Monck, head of Street Policy at the London Borough of Camden, who had kindly agreed to come and along and talk about the new plan for Bloomsbury (and other matters).

• Two years ago, Camden Council commissioned Terry Farrell Architects to draw up a Strategic Vision for Bloomsbury (using money from the London Development Agency and University College London). This has now been produced and can be got from the Council’s website.

• The plan considers six main areas: (i) the University, (ii) the squares, (iii) the British Museum, (iv) traffic, (v) pedestrians and way-finding and (vi) streetscape design.

• Sam commented that in retrospect it was clear that the brief hadn’t recognized the importance of the residential use of the area nor the need for a specific focus on transport.

• Another problem had been the failure to consult sufficiently during the process, but this it was hoped was being rectified.

• LB Camden is due to be producing its own ‘commentary’ on the Farrell proposals in due course.

• Sam then moved to deal with the issue which he felt would be of most interest to us, namely Farrell’s desire to get rid of the segregated cycle lanes in the area. This was motivated by the following three claims about these lanes: (i) they are aesthetically unsatisfactory; (ii) they are a barrier to pedestrians; (iii) they present various safety problems for cyclists, particularly at junctions.

• Sam said that these three claims were probably true, but that the great increase in cycling along the routes indicated that they had also been successful in encouraging more cycling, and so should not be given up on lightly.

• The real issue is what the architects were proposing in place of segregation, which turned out to be fully shared use of the road space, raising the carriageways to the level of the pavements.

• Sam didn’t think that such shared use schemes had a clear safety benefit. They would only be likely to do so in cases where traffic flow was less that 100 vehicles an hour; with more than that, motor traffic would tend to use the entire space as de facto carriageway.

• There is as yet little experience of shared-use in this country, and what there is involves fairly small initiatives. The Exhibition Road scheme is still not yet in place. There is of course much more experience of shared use on the continent, but with a concomittantly different driving culture.

• Initial feedback from Living Streets and disability groups is skeptical about shared use.

• The architects would probably like to introduce shared use throughout Bloomsbury, but at the very least they want to try it in Byng Place (where traffic flow is much higher than 100 vehicles an hour).

• Sam then mentioned some of the other things which were happening in the area:

• Tottenham Court Road, reversion to two-way working: the modelling for this was underway, and looked promising. However, the scheme might involve having no bus lanes. We should expect to be consulted on this next year.
• A ‘corridor study’ looking in a holistic way at Southampton Row, Russell Square and up to Euston Road was due to get going soon; this for example might consider reintroducing two-way working on Russell Square. - The Gordon Square / Tavistock Square area will be made into a 20 mph zone later this year.

• Sam’s informative talk then stimulated many questions and responses.

• Was there anything about reducing motor traffic in the Bloomsbury plan? Sam replied that there wasn’t, mainly for the reason that any such traffic reduction programme would have to take in central London as a whole, but that this was something LB Camden was pressing for. There should in any case be traffic reduction as a result of the various improvements to public transport in the area, such as the introduction of the tram.
• Mention of tram prompted reminders about the need to ensure that this scheme was made cycle-friendly (e.g. as in Sheffield). Sam rather worringly indicated that it wasn’t even yet clear how the tram would work alongside the buses.
• It was argued that given the architects’ desire to highlight the distinctive character of Bloomsbury, more should be made of cycling, as this has always been a form of transport associated with students.
• Some of those present expressed dissatisfaction with the existing segregated routes. In part, this was a consequence of their success – the routes are now often very congested, which can make them unpleasant to use. In addition, there are difficulties at many of the junctions, e.g. Tavistock Place / Tottenham Court Road. In response to the first line of thought, it was suggested that what was required was a more continental and civil approach from cyclists, along with wider lanes. For those who preferred to use the carriageway, it was pointed out that segregation often helps by narrowing the road space, thus making it easier for cyclists to hold the lane. Sam added that segregation remained very high on the list of things which people who don’t cycle say would encourage them to do so.
• Doubts were expressed about the idea of shared use in Byng Place, primarily because of the high traffic flow but also because it didn’t seem to make sense to introduce this scheme in such a very small area. It was also pointed out that Byng Place already featured shared use – i.e., shared between pedestrians and cyclists, so precisely did not involve the segregation which the architects dislike. Sam said that a shared use scheme would probably be put together for consultation next year.
• On other issues, Sam was asked about the new administration’s proposal to increase the size of Controlled Parking Zones. Sam responded that the officers’ view was that this was a bad idea as it would increase traffic, and that accordingly their advice was that this should not be done. However, motorists will inevitably want CPZs expanded, and it is they who are most likely to respond to the consultation. Sam was pressed to make sure that some way was found of registering the interests of the majority of Camden households who don’t have access to a car.
• A further issue which generated comment was traffic calming. Some felt that road humps were a poor way of trying to reduce traffic speeds and that cameras were much to be preferred. Sam said that Camden has been trying out new speed cameras in Mansfield Road. These don’t need to be hardwired and thus don’t involve digging up the road. Camden is waiting for government approval before installing them elsewhere. However, these cameras can only register the speed of vehicles entering and leaving the zone, and not speeds within the zone. Morever, funding for camera-enforced schemes would have to come from the general engineering budget.

• Sam was then thanked for his talk and enthusiasm in responding to our questions.

Photo Lionel Shapiro