Thanks for the praise, Charlie. We do what we can. :)
That's a very interesting point about 'nodes'. In that case, looking at a map, couldn't Warwick Road be two-way - a cycle lane could be on the right hand side of the road up until the turning into Nevern Square, and then the extra space could be used to have a turn left lane, so at the very top by Cromwell Road, two lanes heading north, and one heading south? There is already a short stretch of two-way just north of the junction. If the issue is primarily about 'stacking space' for motor vehicles just before the junction, this problem is really easy to solve.
Yes, Warwick Road could easily be two-way (as could all streets--they all used to be!), but you always have to consider that with TfL's motor traffic capacity calculations, a lot of sensible things are ruled out. :)
WR is a typical London street in having a carriageway width of about nine metres. That means either two wide lanes (4.5m each) or three narrow lanes, as at present. Of course, you could configure those any way you like. The best possible layout for cycling here is to have the two wide lanes, as that's an easily shareable width. You can then vary this at the junctions according to TfL's approach lane requirements. (A good example of this approach is Kingsland High Street.)
You're probably right that WR currently doesn't really function as three lanes, anyway, but you have to consider the impact on the whole one-way system, including Earl's Court Road. It's not really a good idea to only return one of the elements to two-way (which I'm sure wasn't what you were implying when discussing only WR--by explaining the junction problem, I didn't mean to imply that ECR shouldn't be two-way, just what TfL's likely objection would be).Also, keeping narrow lanes wouldn't really improve cycling conditions much. You'd still have cyclists squeezed and harassed, plus no northbound permeability along ECR.
Another option is to have a contraflow cycle track, but then you only improve one flow direction and not the other, and you couldn't fit one on Earl's Court Road. Anyway, it's not rocket science, the blockage is just TfL's insistence that levels of motor traffic be kept the same.
Thanks for the praise, Charlie. We do what we can. :)
WR is a typical London street in having a carriageway width of about nine metres. That means either two wide lanes (4.5m each) or three narrow lanes, as at present. Of course, you could configure those any way you like. The best possible layout for cycling here is to have the two wide lanes, as that's an easily shareable width. You can then vary this at the junctions according to TfL's approach lane requirements. (A good example of this approach is Kingsland High Street.)
You're probably right that WR currently doesn't really function as three lanes, anyway, but you have to consider the impact on the whole one-way system, including Earl's Court Road. It's not really a good idea to only return one of the elements to two-way (which I'm sure wasn't what you were implying when discussing only WR--by explaining the junction problem, I didn't mean to imply that ECR shouldn't be two-way, just what TfL's likely objection would be).Also, keeping narrow lanes wouldn't really improve cycling conditions much. You'd still have cyclists squeezed and harassed, plus no northbound permeability along ECR.
Another option is to have a contraflow cycle track, but then you only improve one flow direction and not the other, and you couldn't fit one on Earl's Court Road. Anyway, it's not rocket science, the blockage is just TfL's insistence that levels of motor traffic be kept the same.