First, thank you for setting out the successful campaigns, I'll look for the consultation documents supporting these.
yes, I have seen that response in countless answers during the development consultation. What it doesn't explain is how 2 lanes in each direction for the majority of the one way system (only 3 on Warwick Road), with regular traffic lights to negotiate, is faster for the motorist than 2 x two-way streets. The one-way system doesn't create an extra lane. On Warwick Road, the 1st lane is mainly used by buses. Cars just don't use it, except for the short stretch by Philbeach Gardens.
Firstly, I should have mentioned that TfL's position has shifted slightly from 2009. I can't remember whether that will make a difference to Earl's Court, though. The Roads Task Force Report may contain a mention.
Secondly, it's mainly an issue with the carriageway width at junctions. The number of traffic lanes along a link doesn't matter as much as the number of stacking lanes at nodes. Earl's Court Road is very narrow at the Old Brompton Road junction in particular and two-way operation would allow only two short stacking lanes (instead of three as at present). Obviously, the assumption that motor traffic capacity must be maintained is nonsense in the first place, but it's still mostly their methodology.
That's why I'm looking for someone qualified in urban planning/transport to have a look at this, because I think the motorist's/TFL's case for the one-way system is a weak one. However, TFL need to be presented with the facts.
TfL are fully aware of the facts--don't worry about that. The problem is just the methodology. You're certainly right that their case is weak. :)
I've been in touch in the sense that I've e-mailed them a few times. I haven't yet have a reply to any. So far, they appear focused on HSK in what they publish, and they meet infrequently. I'd be happy to coordinate, but I don't think anyone is actively taking an interest in this area. Even the current councilors, who all live just off this one-way system, haven't done a thing about it.
The best thing is to go along to a meeting (however infrequent--they're all volunteers, too) and to get to know them. They'll welcome any help. I should also have noticed that the link to their Yahoogroup mailing list isn't given on the page I linked to above:
No idea how active it is, but you should be able to get discussions going there if you join. (Unfortunately, the LCC still doesn't have a 'proper' forum, so it's Yahoogroups for now.)
Firstly, I should have mentioned that TfL's position has shifted slightly from 2009. I can't remember whether that will make a difference to Earl's Court, though. The Roads Task Force Report may contain a mention.
Secondly, it's mainly an issue with the carriageway width at junctions. The number of traffic lanes along a link doesn't matter as much as the number of stacking lanes at nodes. Earl's Court Road is very narrow at the Old Brompton Road junction in particular and two-way operation would allow only two short stacking lanes (instead of three as at present). Obviously, the assumption that motor traffic capacity must be maintained is nonsense in the first place, but it's still mostly their methodology.
TfL are fully aware of the facts--don't worry about that. The problem is just the methodology. You're certainly right that their case is weak. :)
The best thing is to go along to a meeting (however infrequent--they're all volunteers, too) and to get to know them. They'll welcome any help. I should also have noticed that the link to their Yahoogroup mailing list isn't given on the page I linked to above:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/kccyclists/info
No idea how active it is, but you should be able to get discussions going there if you join. (Unfortunately, the LCC still doesn't have a 'proper' forum, so it's Yahoogroups for now.)