Cycle Campaigning Kensington and Chelsea

So local elections are coming up soon, and I've been to meet the candidates, principally in response to the lack of progress on "The Grid" in K&C. All appeared sympathetic to improving road safety in the west end of Ken and Chelsea, but none had any ideas of their own, and are essentially passive - they are waiting for instructions on the red routes from TFL. Clearly, that isn't going to happen without outside influence.

I'd like to propose unwinding the gyratory system in Earl's Court to TFL. I'd like to propose adding a cycle lane on Warwick Road as part of that, as it is wider than Earl's Court Road between Old Brompton Road and Cromwell Road (where there are cycle lanes for the cyclist to pick up). This would link to the Hammersmith and Fulham cycle routes, and would improve road safety greatly in this area. I'd like to present a coherent, fully reasoned scheme to K&C, local councilors, and TFL, which includes an impact assessment on the traffic.

High Street Kensington gets a lot of attention on here and elsewhere, and CTC have been successful here, but I'd like to raise awareness of the problems elsewhere in this area. Interestingly, the candidates I spoke to were pushing for a cycle lane on HSK, but the opposition was currently from residents along HSK.

I need help in coming up with a feasible and realistic proposal, and hope that some of you are in a position, and willing, to help with this.

First of all, a return to two-way use would be overwhelmingly popular with local residents here. Secondly, if done in the next few years, it could integrate with the transport plans for the new development on the Exhibition Centre site, and with the Hammersmith 'fly-under'. Thirdly, it would make cycling in this part of town so much safer. It isn't popular here, because it is so difficult for novice cyclists. Fourthly, looking at the system overall, a return to two-way use wouldn't necessarily slow down average traffic speeds (detailed discussion will surely follow).

The first step must be to obtain data from TFL which justified the imposition of it in 1963. This was part of the plan for the inner circular, so presumably has different aims to the current road system, and it's unclear whether the system has been reviewed systematically since then. Secondly, to obtain the study which resulted in goods vehicles being banned from this area in the early 1970s. This I can do.

Where I would like help is in two areas:
1) Could you help me understand where (and I'm thinking of East London) one-way systems have been unwound. Where have successful interventions been? What has been done? Do any of you have involvement in the campaign.
2) Does anyone know anyone who works in town planning or as a traffic engineer, who could help with asking for a consultation on this from TFL, or even better, who could help conduct an analysis of whether this is possible? I'd imagine presenting a large map with proposed changes, positions of a new cycle lane, and some estimate of the effect on traffic in the area.

The reason I am keen to do this is that the local councilors will not come up with a scheme on their own to improve road safety. There is little political will from inside RBKC employees to change this, and none from TFL. However, the candidates were clear that if presented with a feasible idea, they would back it.

So, is anyone willing to offer any help? If so, reply here or send me a PM. I'd be very grateful, as would local residents, and people commuting through K&C to areas further west, and even more so, those commuting north/south.

I know the instant reaction is along the lines of 'you don't simply unwind the Earl's Court One-Way System', or make cycling in this area safer, but I wouldn't want that to be for lack of trying or lobbying.

Thank you.
EC

Aldgate was/has been unwound hasn't it?

Thank you, I'm not as familiar with Aldgate, and I'm searching for the consultation documents. Has this already happened?

Picadilly is the most obvious example I can think of.

Optimate, have you been in touch with the K&C LCC group?

http://lcc.org.uk/boroughs/kensington-and-chelsea

It's great that you want to get active there.

• The classic return to two-way (not quite 100%) was the Shoreditch Triangle, which happened in 2002-3 as part of the Inner Ring Road scheme to surround the Congestion Charging Zone. It hugely increased cycling from Hackney to the City and was one of the main reasons why Congestion Charging kick-started cycling growth. There's still work to do; Curtain Road is still one-way and the 'Apex' junction of Great Eastern Street, Old Street, and Pitfield Street is still not very good, but work is ongoing to improve it.

• More recently, and almost without fanfare, the City of London returned the (small, but annoying) Mansion House gyratory to two-way.

• The large Tottenham Hale gyratory has also just been returned to two-way (although there remain serious problems with this scheme, at least both directions are now available).

• Aldgate's partial return to two-way is in the works, but there will still be one-ways in the southern part of the gyratory even after the current scheme by the Corporation of London is finished. Under this, Aldgate High Street will become two-way and a new public square will be created outside St Botolph's church.

There are quite a few more examples of partial returns to two-way around London.

As you probably know, K&C did the pilot a few years ago for 'no entry except cycles' signage, which will be formally permitted in the 2015 revision of the TSRGD. This signage is important, as its lack had previously made traffic engineers very reluctant to permit contraflow cycling in one-way streets. They had had to use the 'flying motorbike' 'no motor vehicles' sign, which is not understood as well as the 'no entry' sign by drivers. The pilot was successful and the signs are already being used widely.

See also this thread:

https://www.lfgss.com/thread72710.html

Have you seen this:

http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=25105

I'd have a look at Earls Count Square and Kempsford Gardens that allow for bicycles to cross Earls court Road and Warwick Road. Restoring a two way traffic might make the crossing much harder without new traffic lights.

I would personally prefer to have a cycling route from Embankment crossing the cemetery and continuing north through the new Earls Court Development (to be constructed).

But happy to support your idea as well, warwick RD is currently a nightmare.

Have you seen this:

http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=25105

Yes, absolutely standard TfL 'can't do' response nonsense, containing the usual mistaken assumption that reducing motor traffic capacity would increase congestion.

Don't disagree here just better be prepared than not...

Thank you all for your replies (and to the private messages so far). I know there is an element of reposting in this thread, but I'd like to pick the successful elements from each as part of this presentation, and it's too much for one person to both search for and read through all the other consultations. The more detail you can help me with, the better.

ap8006, I use those routes when appropriate, and there is some 'contraflow' already in between Earl's Court Road and Warwick Road. However, the main issue in using these is reaching them in the first place. It involves crossing the main roads to enter or leave them. There are few direct cross-overs, and most involve, on Warwick Road, e.g. coming from Eardley Crescent, holding the right-hand lane on a 3-lane road, for a significant distance, where vehicle speed is highest, or even holding that position from the bottom of Warwick Road. The tube station cuts off the north/south routes, except on the main roads. Crossing three lanes on a bike (1st-3rd lane to make the turn off) is a stressful evolution. Similarly on Earl's Court Road, there isn't a 'straight' crossover. In fact, coming from Earl's Court Gardens - to go North - you have to either get off and walk, or go round the one-way system with the traffic and go through Earl's Court Square, then join Warwick Road, and go through Nevern Square! Two-way operation would allow these quietways to be used more logically - yes, there would still be a wait for cyclists, but it would be to cross only one lane of traffic, which has to be an improvement.

Oliver Schick:

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.

I agree - new lights would help - and the council have to look at this issue - a pedestrian was killed in February crossing Earl's Court Road, and the number of crossings are already inadequate for the pedestrian density here, even before the development.

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.

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.

Oliver Schick:

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:

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.)

And how could I forget that Camden is in the process of making Tottenham Court Road and Gower Street two-way at the moment.

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/newsitems/ccc/tottenham-court-road

Also:

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/newsitems/ccc/fitzrovia-improvements

First have you seen the Space4Cycling web map for Kensington and Chelsea http://action.space4cycling.org/data/borough/61 for this month's borough elections. It highlights issues in each ward and can link you emails for every candidate standing in those wards. London Cycling Campaign have set this up for all 629 wards in London with 6-7000 candidates standing.

Most of the demands linked to Space4Cycling in Kensington and Chelsea support the changes you would like but perhaps lack the ambition to see removal of the whole one way system as the crucial demand for K&C. The whole purpose of the Space4Cycling election campaign is to show councillors and candidates that cycling matters. If everyone goes to the site and sends some emails then councillors will know that there are votes in doing good things for cycling.

London Cycling Campaign only has a few good people in K&C partly because, as you say, cycling is pretty difficult there and also there is a large turnover in population so we need all the help we can get. Welcome on board. You have come to the right place, Oliver knows more and understands more about removing gyratories than anyone else in London.

The LCC has local yahoo groups in every area and also a planning and engineering group where experienced campaigners and engineering experts help each other learn how to change things. There is an infrastructure review group that coordinates our engagement with TfL etc over plans for 'better' junctions, cycle superhighways, perhaps even the central London grid when (if) TfL and the boroughs get round to doing anything.

Charlie,
Thank you - I will try and contact LCC again in this area, if you could put me in touch with anyone you know to be active here, either that live locally, or that are interested in or have experience in organising this sort of campaign, that would be great. I'm keen to support LCC in this area if they are keen to look at the overall problems in RBKC and not just focus on HSK.

I have seen that website, and that was the final tipping point in going to meet the councilors personally! It's a very good way of generating numbers, but in this ward, it's not specific enough. I got back the standard reply of "yes, we're interested, and we care about cyclist safety', but no specifics. When I asked what they might do - absolutely no ideas came back to me. That's why we need to present a workable scheme. So they can say 'that looks like a good idea, I'll back that', and to save them from having to think for themselves. It's much easier to present someone with an idea, than to ask them to come up with a solution. TheSpace4Cycling campaign is great for publicity, but in this ward at least, short on ideas. The developers, in any case, will say that they have undertaken a safety review on the and limited the number of HGV movements per day on Warwick Road, so they have already factored cycle safety into their project management (I've already spoken at length to their transport consultant at the last public consultation about this).

I agree population turnover is a problem. However, there are a lot of hotels in this area, and many on the main roads. The one-way system hurts their business too. A campaign that involved cyclists, but that also engaged local business and residents would be, in my view, much more likely to be successful. Limiting this campaign to cyclist only is surely short-sighted?

I'll join this group, and repost there, thank you for pointing this out.

Oliver,
Thank you very much again for the summaries. I hadn't found that yahoo group, only a fairly inactive board on LCC.

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.

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.

Oliver,

No, both roads have to be returned to two-way at the same time. There is a small campaign on Earl's Court Road to pedestrianise it, and have ALL traffic on WR! This is clearly unworkable, but shows the support for some change.

It would have to be all the way from Cromwell Road down to the River, (the part just above Cromwell Road might be possible to keep separate, but would probably function better in any case as a two way road)

I mentioned WR turn to Cromwell Road as that is the only point on the entire system, where there is a three-lane patch of road that is used as such.

I agree, it's the whole one-way system, or nothing at all.

I'd considered contraflow on Warwick Road, and the idea fills me with dread. The lanes are narrow, so putting a cycle lane would return it to two lanes in any event - and then it would actually function much better as a two-way street...

No, both roads have to be returned to two-way at the same time. There is a small campaign on Earl's Court Road to pedestrianise it, and have ALL traffic on WR! This is clearly unworkable, but shows the support for some change.

I agree, it's a nice idea, though (although cycle traffic should continue to be permitted, of course). Persuading them that full two-way would be better will undoubtedly run up against some well-laid objections.

It would have to be all the way from Cromwell Road down to the River, (the part just above Cromwell Road might be possible to keep separate, but would probably function better in any case as a two way road)

Quite right. Permeability is required everywhere. I'd forgotten that it carries on via Finborough Road, Redcliffe Gardens, etc.

Can anyone techy help with drawing a presentable map of these roads?

I've just drawn one by hand, and double checked all the roads on google-maps to see if I'm right, and the TFL case for the one-way system appears much weaker than I'd thought.

The scheme runs North/South, and it's very interesting to look at the access points to the one-way system. As these very roughly form a grid, I'll look at North/South and then East/West.

At the Northern end, the scheme starts where the A3220 connects to the Shepherd's Bush Roundabout. This is a single carriageway in two-way operation for the first stretch heading south.

At the Southern End is Cremorne Road. This is also a single carriageway in two-way operation.

So, North/South, there are already bottlenecks where the road is single carriageway.

Looking at the East/West points:
High Street Kensington may be a double carriageway on the eastern side, but on the western, towards Hammersmith, it goes down to a single carriageway.

The A4/Cromwell Road may be a 6-lane monster, but on the Warwick Road side, only one lane turns off into it.

The Old Brompton Road is a single carriageway.

The Fulham Road is a mix between a single and dual carriageway, albeit that there is plenty of space for 'stacking' at junctions, and it goes into 3 lanes to allow this.

King's Road, equally, is a single carriageway in most places, with short stretches of dual carriageway.

So, with the exception of the A4/Cromwell Road, and HSK going east, every single road is a single carriageway in two-way operation before it reaches the next significant junction. That must be fairly significant.

The one-way system is 2-lane for almost the whole length, save for along WR between OBR and the A4, and as 'stacking' on the junctions before Fulham Road and the KR.

Factoring in stop/start for traffic lights, what benefits, then, does this scheme offer over having these roads in two-way use, if 'stacking' were preserved?

Now, at the moment, this is on a sketch map, and isn't very presentable. Can anyone offer any suggestions/help with drawing a road layout diagram. Is there software that's out there that people use for this?

One of the main reasons for inaction in returning one-way systems to two-way is signal phasing. If you have two-way traffic at a junction, you may need more signal phases, which can be difficult to cram into the usual 90- or 120-second signal cycle. One-way systems help in emphasising certain dominant flows over others, giving them more time at the signals.

If all you have is traffic coming out of a one-way street, and the arm of the junction opposite it is one-way in the same direction (as in the case of the Earl's Court north-south arms) you only need one phase for that, regardless of whether traffic turns left or right, or goes straight on.

With two-way traffic, there will be conflict between right-turners out of one arm with right-turners out of the opposite arm, and there may also be conflict between right-turners and left-turners from opposite arms depending on the shape of the junction.

Resolving this, and then clearing the junction, takes longer, so you may need separate right-turn phases (split phase), or separate phases for each arm of the junction. This is especially the case at very busy junctions. I shouldn't have given you the impression that it's only stacking space that matters, although of course the two are related.

I've just drawn one by hand, and double checked all the roads on google-maps to see if I'm right, and the TFL case for the one-way system appears much weaker than I'd thought.

Oh, and don't expect too much rationality in defending these things. :)

Yes, I see that, except Warwick road is already part two way by Cromwell road and many junctions are already restricted turns. Looking forward to discussing this in more depth.

I expect that this would have been a concession to the Tesco development there. Adding a single (probably very short) left turn-only phase isn't going to cause much of a problem there.

Thank you for the public support and PMs so far, in particular to Oliver.

It seems as if RBKC are starting to consider this, in a vague sort of way.
The March 2014 Local Infrastructure Delivery Plan contains a reference at p.76.
http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/LDF%20IDP%20March%202014.pdf
(Thanks to Oliver for the pointer)

This is, in my view, a realistic and achievable campaign to return these roads to two-way use.

This campaign needs a web presence as a matter of urgency, given the timescale of elections and the redevelopment consultations in the area. This needs graphics, and it needs a website. Can anyone help with either? I've no experience in these things. I think something very simple would suffice at first.

• a single page website setting out the aim of the campaign
  
• a few 'doodles' of a couple of sites in the area showing two-way use restored (e.g. Earl's Court Road/Warwick Road/ Lillie Road).
  
• a 'graphic' for the campaign
  (I can draw passably, but I've no kit for transposing anything online - and i've never worked in marketing so my ideas might not be popular...).
  
  

I don't even think an e-petition is suitable at this stage - It's easy to set up another e-mail account for this - unless some sort of petition and 'counter' is easy to create?

So, any creative people on here able to offer a few hours to time to help make this part of London a better place for cycling? I've no sponsorship for this, so the consideration might well have to be in beer...! Please PM me if you feel able to help!

This campaign needs a web presence as a matter of urgency, given the timescale of elections and the redevelopment consultations in the area. This needs graphics, and it needs a website. Can anyone help with either? I've no experience in these things. I think something very simple would suffice at first.

• a single page website setting out the aim of the campaign
  
• a few 'doodles' of a couple of sites in the area showing two-way use restored (e.g. Earl's Court Road/Warwick Road/ Lillie Road).
  
• a 'graphic' for the campaign
  (I can draw passably, but I've no kit for transposing anything online - and i've never worked in marketing so my ideas might not be popular...).
  
  

A blogspot or WordPress page would do absolutely fine at this stage--set up in five minutes. It'll only cost you something if you want to host it at a URL of your choosing.

I don't even think an e-petition is suitable at this stage - It's easy to set up another e-mail account for this - unless some sort of petition and 'counter' is easy to create?

Anything electronic is distinctly low priority right now. I'd set that up once you have gauged local engagement/support/met fellow travellers, so that it becomes a representation of a group effort rather than a lone campaigner's initiative. Nothing wrong with web-sites, of course, but best to set one up once there's something with a bit of oomph behind it.

So, any creative people on here able to offer a few hours to time to help make this part of London a better place for cycling? I've no sponsorship for this, so the consideration might well have to be in beer...! Please PM me if you feel able to help!

Uh-oh, I predict that this will never be popular *on here*. :)

I agree - nothing worse than an isolated website with only one view and little content! - but then again it's difficult to start off without being able to say "show your support/ find out more here", or something similar - just wish to be ready to go when there is support, and I know this takes time to create.

I've had positive replies from the two nearest residents' associations already, who have provided further contacts, including in the local business association. Essentially "We'd support it but we're not doing anything about it ourselves".

Blogspot is a good idea. Do you have experience in naming this sort of thing?
Is "Restore Earls Court Roads" or something similar better than "stop the Gyratory!" The name for a campaign is important in setting the tone, and I didn't ask you about your experience earlier.

Ha, well, you can either go for an acronym (try to think of a suitable word with 'ec' in it and then construct an acronym around that--time-honoured method of campaigns everywhere :) ), or think of a pun. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is something with 'swirl', as in: people are currently swirling around the gyratory, but I can't think of a way of putting that in 'Earl's Court' without it sounding silly. I might think of something better later.