This strategy was commissioned from Farrels by LB Camden, University College London and the London Development Agency. It is concerned with the future of the Bloomsbury Squares, the areas around UCL and other university buildings and the British Museum quarter.
This is a long term project on which Camden is asking for comments. The printed brochure was passed round at our members meeting on 12th February. You can also see an exhibition at the Building Centre in Store Street during the consultation period.
This strategy appears is strong on aesthetics and pedestrians, yet takes very little notice of cycling. Although it speaks of reducing speeds to 20 mph, it says nothing about reducing motor vehicle flow.
The main features of the strategy are outlined in the summary near to the end of the document.
These include:
- the restoration of two way working in Tottenham Court Road, Gower Street and removal of Russell Square gyratory.
- the enhancement of many of the Bloomsbury Squares
- the introduction of shared surfaces in Byng Place, Malet Street and Montague Street. For example, in Byng Place, the shared surface consists of the area currently occupied by footways, cycle tracks and roadway.On closer study of the brochure, particularly pages 66-7, it becomes clear that the strategy is to introduce a shared surface between Woburn Place and Tottenham Court Road on Tavistock Square, Gordon Square, Byng Place and Torrington Place.
Criticism
The two most important LCN+ routes in Camden pass through this area, yet are not explicitly mentioned.
In fact, the only mention of issues related to cycle routes appears in the statment that the segregated cycleways will be removed in the shared surface areas and will not be needed in the streets with 20 mph limits.
Any wide area strategy should consider how two these routes can be enhanced and how they can continue to function during the development.
LCN+ routes are supposed to be comfortable, safe, fast and direct cycle routes that give priority to the cyclist. Therefore any changes made to the above two routes should ensure that they are at least as comfortable, safer and as fast as they are now.
Comfort: The proposal (p 22 Byng Place) says that shared surfaces consisting of granite setts will be laid. Initially I thought: “Granite setts are not suitable for cycling. They do not provide a smooth and comfortable surface, being far inferior to the surfaces on the current cycle tracks. They shake and rattle both cyclist and cycle”. However, Chris Nicola tells me: “Where Farrels refer to the granite setts, they are talking about the smooth (flush) sets not cobbled ones, these setts are similar to normal bricks (like the ones used at the Gloucester Gate cycle lane) but would be made of granite. The yellow colour is just their illustration but the granite would be the usual colour of grey.”
Safety: Farrells illustration of Byng Place on page 22 shows few vehicles and only one cycle. But in practice, both roadway and cycleway are very congested at peak times. If the ever-increasing numbers of cycles are to mix with motor vehicles in the east-west corridor through Byng Place, the motor vehicle flow needs to be reduced.
Speed: It is likely that with current vehicle flows, cyclists will be delayed by congestion and will not be able to achieve the speeds now possible on the cycleways.
Pedestrianisation
The report specifically mentions the following for pedestrianisation (page 67): Montague Street, Museum Street/Coptic Street, Denmark Street, north end Shaftesbury Avenue.
In none of these cases is cycling mentioned: cycle access should be retained in all of them.
CCC’s response
Cycling in the Bloomsbury Plan
This strategy appears to consider aesthetics and pedestrians, yet takes very little notice of the needs of the other main form of sustainable transport – cycling. Although it speaks of reducing speeds to 20 mph, it says nothing about reducing motor vehicle flow.
Main Criticism
The two most important LCN+ routes in Camden pass through this area, yet are not explicitly mentioned.
In fact, the only mention of cycling issues related to cycle routes states that the segregated cycleways will be removed in the shared surface areas and will not be needed in the streets with 20 mph limits.
Byng Place is the junction of Route 6 and Route 0 (SSL) and should be shown to be so, for example, a Sustrans style route sign could be deployed instead of the vertical panel shown on page 23 of Farrel’s report.
The proposals affect these routes as follows:
• Route 0: along Tavistock Square, Gordon Square, Byng Place,Torrington Place,
• Route 6: along Tavistock Square, Gordon Square, Byng Place, Malet Street, Montague Place, Russell Square, Montague Street,
where shared surfaces are proposed.
LCN+ routes are supposed to be comfortable, safe, fast, and direct cycle routes that give priority to the cyclist. Therefore any changes made to the above two routes should ensure that they are at least as comfortable, safer and as fast as they are now.
Shared surfaces
Comfort: The proposal (p 22 Byng Place) says that the shared surfaces consisting of granite sets will be laid. We understand that where Farrels refer to the granite setts, they are talking about the smooth (flush) sets not cobbled ones, these setts are similar to normal bricks (like the ones used at the Gloucester Gate cycle lane) but would be made of granite. The yellow colour is just their illustration but the granite would be the usual colour of grey. Cobbled granite setts are not suitable for cycling. We have been assured by Chris Nicola that smooth granite setts are intended. This is very important.
Safety: Farrells illustration of Byng Place on page 23 shows few vehicles and only one cycle. But in practice, both roadway and cycleway are very congested at peak times. According to LCDS Figure 4.2, a 20 mph limit and traffic calming provides suitable mixed cycling conditions provided that the vehicle flow is below about 500 per hour. We believe that if cycles are to mix with motor vehicles in the east-west corridor through Byng Place, the motor vehicle flow needs to be reduced.
Speed: It is likely that with current vehicle flows, cyclists will be delayed by congestion and will not be able to achieve the speeds no possible on the cycleways.
- Pedestrianisation*⁃ (36) Montague Street⁃ (47) Museum Street/Coptic Street⁃ (54) Denmark Street⁃ (57) north end Shaftesbury Avenue.
The report specifically mentions the following for pedestrianisation (page 67):
In none of these cases is cycling mentioned: cycle access should be retained in all of these streets. Montague Street is partcularly important, being on Route 6.
Integration of existing cycleways with the shared surface area
We are very keen to hear how the designers of the scheme expect the interface to work between the Route 0 kerb separated sections of the route and the traffic calmed free for all shared surface. Presumably cyclists are expected to seamlessly switch sides of the road and riding behaviour.
Construction
Inevitably some of the elements will be constructed before others. The strategy suggests that Byng Place would be a quick win. If that is done first, very careful planning will be required to ensure that the two cycle routes continue to function, either by means of a fully signed diversion or by staged working. The same applies to each of the elements on the two cycle routes.
Conclusion
CCC believes that the proposals for the area would deliver substantial improvements, if they are not watered down too much. However the optimal solution would be to remove motor vehicles completely from the area (except for access at 10mph max speed limit), and would be the most visionary approach.
But we are disappointed that Farrel’s report pays so little attention to the needs of cyclists, totally ignoring the existence of two major cycle routes through the area.
We therefore hope that LB Camden will remedy this deficiency by ensuring very careful planning of the integration of the cycle routes into the plans, both as they develop and in the final long term project.
