Click to view a larger image of the plan.
LONDON CYCLE NETWORK ROUTE 6
PROPOSED CYCLE LANE IMPROVEMENTS
in MONTAGUE PLACE
(between Malet Street and Russell Square)
London Cycle Network (LCN) Route 6 is a north/south route running from Elephant and Castle in Central London to Barnet in North London. In the London Borough of Camden, Route 6 links Camden Town to Covent Garden, via Somers Town and Russell Square.
Route 6 runs through the heart of Camden, linking many of the major landmarks in the borough, including the British Museum and the British Library as well as Camden Town. It also links to LCN Route 0, the Central London orbital route, which is a priority route linking six boroughs and seven major railway stations.
The Council is proposing to upgrade the section of Route 6, which runs through Montague Place and Russell Square/Montague Street. The proposals include:
- converting the existing westbound segregated cycle lane in Montague Place to a two-way, 2.5m wide cycle lane;
- building a new section of one-way, 1.2m wide, segregated cycle lane on Russell Square into Montague Street (with the remaining carriageway width being 3.7m, which includes a 1m wide advisory cycle lane).
Please see the drawing on the inside of this leaflet for more details.
The proposed cycle facilities will allow cyclists to travel south from Malet Street to Montague Street, via Montague Place without having to dismount or use the busier traffic route around Russell Square. Currently there is only northbound access for cyclists from Montague Street to Malet Street.
The proposals are shown in this document for your consideration.
Camden Cycling Campaign has been waiting for some time for the missing link in route 6 between Malet Street and Montague Street. We are therefore very pleased to see the proposed solution and to have the opportunity to respond to this consultation.
The width of the short section of cycle track on the corner of Russell Square is only 1.2 m, which is less than our ideal of at least 1.5 m. But we understand that there is no additional space on the island side and that the remainder of the road requires the space to accommodate the northbound traffic and the advisory cycle lane for northbound cyclists. As the length of the cycle track is short, there will be no need to overtake and not much scope for hitting the kerb, therefore we accept this compromise.
We have one request concerning the cycle lane in Montague Place. At the east end of Montague Place, which is one way for vehicles, those vehicles in the lane on the north of the cycle lane, can’t cross and those in the other Coach Only lane have a Give Way. We would therefore like to suggest green surfacing joining the two parts of the cycle lane.
Do you agree with the proposed two-way cycle lane in Montague Place as well as the proposed one-way cycle lane in Russell Square/Montague Street?Yes
It was pointed out to CCC by Ralph Smyth that the contraflow lane in Montague Street should be 1.5 m in width (DDA requirement). He also suggested use of ramped kerbs in the Montague Place track.(October 13th)
Lisa Bailey, although interested in the drop kerbs thinks they are not necessary in Montague Place. They will not help in the contraflow track which has a single width kerb.
Dave Stewart will look into the possibility of cutting back the planter adjacent to the contraflow path. He will not consider managing without the advisory with-flow lane in order to make space in the road to widen the track. (October 19th).
On 27th October, Lisa Bailey said:
1. The possibility of cutting back the wall to the planter has been considered. This is a reinforced, retaining wall and therefore cannot be cut back without removing and rebuilding the wall. Cost could not be justified in completely rebuilding the wall to gain an additional 300 mm on the cycle lane.
- The 1.5 m stated in the manual is actually not a definitative – it’s an advisory, desired width. It is a guidance, not a staturory requirement. We always aim to put this in where it can be achieved. The available space along this stretch of the carriageway has to be shared with the northbound vehicular traffic (which includes buses), northbound cyclists and cyclists using the new contra-flow cycle lane.
- 1.2m is sufficient for one-way cyclists along this stretch of the route, which is 40 m in length.
- Finally we would advise you that CCC were consulted at a very early stage, as well as during the formal consultation. It is noticed that in CCC’s response, it was acknowledged that the 1.2m width was less than ideal, however under the contraints it was agreed as being an acceptable width.
28th October email from Jean to Lisa Bailey
Thank you for your considered reply to my queries. I agree with you that we were consulted at an early stage and that we acknowledged that the 1.2 m width was acceptable in the circumstances – that is, a short length of track where there is no need to overtake.
At that time, I had not considered the position with regard to the disability discrimination act, which was drawn to my attention by Ralph Smyth of City Cyclists. He has a legal background and told me the design is unlawful. But he hasn’t pointed out any regulations that state the 1.5m requirement. I guess that you and Dave are in a better position than I am to assess the legal position in relation to a track that will not let pass certain bikes adapted for disabled users.
Before closing this topic, I would like to make one further suggestion which does not involve cutting back the planter. This is as follows:
- make a raised platform on the road for the length of the contraflow section.
- dispense with the advisory cycle lane and replace it with cycle logos on the centre of this carriage way
- widen the contraflow lane with or without a segregating kerb
I know that this is taking up a lot of your time and it would have been better if we had explored the design more at the early stages when you gave us the opportunity. I think that if I had been more experienced, I would have forseen this problem – next time I will. However I hope that you will be able to find the time to evaluate my last suggestion (which has been discussed by CCC committee members).