Dec 2016: TfL’s report on results of the consultation on CS 11 and decisions
TfL reported in August, that they received 6,270 responses to the consultation, of which 60 per cent supported (53%) or partially supported (7%) the proposals, while 37 per cent did not support the scheme and 3 per cent said they were not sure or did not give an opinion.
Then in December, following a series of stakeholder meetings, TfL announced they would to proceed with the majority of the proposals, which includes removal of the gyratory at Swiss Cottage. See TfL’s report.
February-March 2016 Consultation on CS 11
TfL consulted on a scheme that returns the gyratory to 2-way working. Only cycles and a few buses on Avenue Road. Two-way motor traffic including other buses on Finchley Road.
See links to the consultation, to our discussion on CycleScape and our response on the CS 11 consultation.
We heard that Option 4 had been chosen. The design was displayed at an exhibition in Swiss Cottage Library at the end of October. But there are still issues about left hook risks at some of the junctions. We were told there will be a consultation in Spring 2015….
By this time it had been agreed that CS11 will run down Avenue Road to Regents Park.
We were shown five new designs, all of which attempted to provide the east-west connection between Swiss Cottage Market and Swiss Terrace. None of them provided much support for cyclists on Adelaide Road.
- general traffic 2-way on Finchley Road and Adelaide Road; cycles and all SB buses on Avenue Road but the cycle track changes sides
- gyratory mostly in place but two way cycling in Avenue Road; east-west crossing a mess
- two-way motors on all arms; pair of cycle tracks on Avenue Road
- Avenue Road 10 buses per hour, cycles, two-way motors on other arms (Camden Council’s preferred option)
- all buses and cycles on Avenue Road; two-way motors on other arms (rejected at meeting)
Following this meeting and a discussion at our members meeting, we wrote a note that provided criteria for our selection of Options 3 and 4. This also notes our concerns about the poor junction design.
CCC invited to a meeting between Camden Council and TfL. We saw some more designs but were disappointed there was no east-west crossing. However, they allowed us to state all our requirements and then to send a written statement.
Safer Junctions Review May and December 2012
In preparation for this, we had a site meeting and wrote down our requirements which were passed on to LCC for participation in the Design review Group. See photos from our site visit.
TfL produced several designs for consideration with a range of options.
The report is more complete than Version 1 (May 2012) in that it provides fairly comprehensive data on flows. But it fails to cater properly for an E-W crossing for cyclists from Eton Avenue.
As in May, we have 4 options, which are now labelled 1, 1A, 2 and 3.
All of these show a light blue shared use crossing from Eton Avenue Market to the west side of Finchley Road. As before, on Option 1 it is labelled ‘cycle and pedestrian facilities improved’, but doesn’t state whether it is two-way for cyclists.
All motors including buses gyrate. For cyclists:
- Avenue Road: NB contraflow and SB track on footway
- – Adelaide Road: WB lane and EB shared use on footway across Hillgrove and Finchley Roads junction and Adelaide Road/Avenue Road junction
Extra ASLs compared with version 1.
Like Option 1, but SB cyclists on Avenue Road use road.
Option 2 (partial gyratory removal) WORST proposal
Finchley Road: buses and cycles two way
Adelaide Road: everything two-way
Motors gyrate all the way round clockwise
No NB cyclists on Avenue Road. (Notes p 20 say there is a contraflow, but not on drawing).
Option 3 (full gyratory removal) WORSE than version 1
Different from version 1 (which severs connections between College Crescent and Finchley Road).
Avenue Road: NB 2 lanes + cycle lane; SB two lanes with inset bus stops (nothing for cyclists). Complex connections to and from Finchley Road. How does cyclist go north up College Crescent?
Finchley Road (good SH facilities) and Adelaide Road roughly as version 1.
Avenue Road/Adelaide Road left hook (Option 2 tries to remedy this).
Modelling (on page 22) says 9-10% traffic will reassign affecting Belsize Lane, Acacia Road, Abbey Road.
LCN+ Route 50 (2007)
We participated in a CRIM (inspection) of LCN+ Route 50 which is supposed to go through Swiss Cottage Gyratory. We made a case for northbound contraflow cycling on the east side of the gyratory. We were waiting for a meeting to discuss Swiss Cottage in more detail. Then TfL sent a consultation on bus improvements with no significant cycle improvements.
See details of consultation and our response.
We brought the matter up at WCRSAG (Camden’s Walking, Cycling, Road Safety Action Group which stopped meeting after 2010) on 4th July and there was universal support for reverting to two-way working on the gyratory. Stefano Casalotti organised a protest ride at 8 am on 4th July.
Read illustrated account of protest ride. This ride was reported by Ham and High and our letters published. But these are no longer on Archant’s website.
Meanwhile we asked Jenny Jones to question the Mayor. Her question:
Cycling and the Swiss Cottage Gyratory
Question No: 1697 / 2007
Do you find it acceptable that the proposed TfL improvements to the Swiss Cottage Gyratory, requires northbound cyclists going from Avenue Road to Finchley Road to cross over many lanes of fast moving vehicles twice (once moving west and the second time moving north)? Were the remedies suggested by the March consultation (part of the CRISP study) discussed by the senior project manager and the Cycling Centre of Excellence? Can you state the reasons for rejecting the idea of sacrificing a lane of southbound traffic in order to enable northbound contraflow cycling (e.g. in a two-way segregated cycle track) on the east side of the gyratory?
The options put forward in the CRISP study you mention are still under review. TfL’s Cycling Centre of Excellence (as well as other stakeholders) have been involved in the entire CRISP process, and will continue to comment on proposals as further details become available from consultants commissioned to examine alternative options.
The CRISP final report recommended removal of the gyratory and as an interim measure, a contraflow cycle track for northbound cyclists. However, we rejected the very poor design for a segregated two-way track. However signage for a bypass route via Winchester Road was implemented in autumn 2008.