Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Kensington and Chelsea says congestion and loss of trees and bus stops are reasons why it won’t back cycle lane

Council says TfL cycle lane plans "won't work"...

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) says that residents’ concerns about increased congestion are among its reasons for refusing to back a proposed cycle lane between Wood Lane and Notting Hill Gate. The council says that residents have also written to raise concerns over loss of trees and bus stops.

At a public meeting on Thursday night, RBKC announced that it would not be backing the new cycle route proposed by Transport for London (TfL).

The news took London’s Walking and Cycling Commissioner Will Norman by surprise as RBKC had previously agreed to a consultation, which is due to run until Sunday.

“People will die and suffer serious injuries as a direct result of this cynical political stunt,” he said. “The Council’s stubborn opposition to making the borough safer for cyclists and pedestrians is putting residents at risk.”

Councillor Johnny Thalassites, Lead Member for Transport and Planning at RBKC, responded: “It is not a political stunt to listen to local residents and businesses, reflect their views, and ask for a rethink on their behalf.

“We are surprised that TfL have taken such an aggressive tone, when around 400 people sat in a hall last night to tell them that their plans don’t work.

“We’ve told TfL that we cannot support plans for a segregated cycle lane on Holland Park Avenue and Notting Hill Gate – it risks causing congestion and damaging local air quality.”

As we reported yesterday, RBKC has received more than 450 emails from local residents who are against the scheme.

The chief concern has been increased congestion. An RBKC spokesperson said: “TfL’s traffic modelling, provided in the consultation material, acknowledges that westbound journey times in particular would increase as a result of the scheme, despite a number of modifications to junctions and traffic signal phasing to mitigate the reduction in capacity.

“It is clear that for large numbers of our residents, any significant increase in congestion along this corridor is unacceptable. A four-to-five minute increase on a 20-30 minute bus journey could mean a 20 per cent increase (Routes 94 and 148 Westbound, morning peak). And on Route 31, the potential increases in journey time are over 40 per cent (Eastbound, evening peak).

“For general traffic, the forecasts show several instances where journey times could increase by two-thirds, and some by more than that. While some of the eastbound journey times would be shorter, all of the westbound journey times shown in the three sections of road in our borough, for both morning and evening peaks, would be longer.”

Norman said: “This stretch of road simply isn’t safe. There have been 275 collisions over the last three years alone, and the vast majority of serious injuries have been to cyclists and pedestrians. Our plans would change this – making it easier to cross busy roads with 15 new pedestrian crossings, and a segregated space for people to cycle safely in west London.

“Many councils across London are going out of their way to make their streets safer, greener and less polluted places, but Kensington and Chelsea are simply refusing to change. They’re harming the wellbeing of their residents and are quite frankly on the wrong side of history.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

24 comments

Avatar
burtthebike | 4 years ago
0 likes
Avatar
alansmurphy | 4 years ago
2 likes

I wonder how many of the 450 complaints were from those who catch the bus...

 

Avatar
Bmblbzzz | 4 years ago
2 likes

Not wanting to lose trees and bus stops are good reasons. The answer is to build the cycle lane in the space currently occupied by the carriageway – the photo shows three lanes plus hatching, so it's plenty wide enough – rather than take space from the pavement with its trees, bus stops... and people. 

Avatar
Jitensha Oni replied to Bmblbzzz | 4 years ago
5 likes

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Not wanting to lose trees and bus stops are good reasons. The answer is to build the cycle lane in the space currently occupied by the carriageway – the photo shows three lanes plus hatching, so it's plenty wide enough – rather than take space from the pavement with its trees, bus stops... and people. 

Indeed - something, perhaps, almost exactly like the TfL visualization?

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/teasers/public/tfl-hollan...

Avatar
Bmblbzzz replied to Jitensha Oni | 4 years ago
1 like

Jitensha Oni wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Not wanting to lose trees and bus stops are good reasons. The answer is to build the cycle lane in the space currently occupied by the carriageway – the photo shows three lanes plus hatching, so it's plenty wide enough – rather than take space from the pavement with its trees, bus stops... and people. 

Indeed - something, perhaps, almost exactly like the TfL visualization?

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/teasers/public/tfl-hollan...

Yes! (Hadn't seen that.) Even better might be to make the floating bus stop bulge out into the carriageway with the cycleway carrying on straight behind, so not even losing those trees (which will continue to shade the waiting bus passengers from the sun, shelter them from rain and drop colourful leaves on them in autumn). 

I'm sure there are advantages to the borough system of local government – I'm not a Londoner so can't say – but pathetic excuses like this show how easily it can descend into an administrative version of "the tragedy of the commons". 

Avatar
fixit | 5 years ago
1 like

There is no hope...

Avatar
brooksby replied to fixit | 5 years ago
4 likes

tsarouxaz wrote:

There is no hope...

*Finally!* Someone understands!  

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
4 likes

It's the bushes and shrubs that advocate a broadly pro palestinian viewpoint from a human rights, self determination perspective that really confuses the issue though.

Avatar
Luca Patrono | 5 years ago
3 likes

What I don't understand is why the very simple answer to congestion wittering (caused by cars) wasn't "well, with this new lane right on your doorstep, it would be a great time to purchase a bike, then you wouldn't have any problems with congestion, would you?"

Avatar
Username | 5 years ago
3 likes

Councillors have tweeted tonight that it was a bipartisan, Labour and Conservation, intiative.

So Labour have decided to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories on an issue decided by lies (the 27 trees).

Where have I heard that before?

Avatar
leqin replied to Username | 5 years ago
0 likes

Username wrote:

So Labour have decided to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories on an issue decided by lies (the 27 trees).

They wouldn't happen to be Jewish trees would they?

Avatar
thelighterthief replied to leqin | 5 years ago
1 like

Unfortunately councils have to consider what responses they get. Doubly so if they turn out to be rich enough to f@ck up your life if you don’t do as you are told. 

Tfl should just extend the congestion zone if it’s that bad already. 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to leqin | 5 years ago
2 likes

leqin wrote:

Username wrote:

So Labour have decided to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories on an issue decided by lies (the 27 trees).

They wouldn't happen to be Jewish trees would they?

 

That comment doesn't make any sense.  Indeed, could be seen as anti-Semitic (you are suggesting that 'Jewish trees' - whatever the hell they would be - get special protection that other trees don't?).

 

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 5 years ago
2 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

leqin wrote:

Username wrote:

So Labour have decided to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories on an issue decided by lies (the 27 trees).

They wouldn't happen to be Jewish trees would they?

 

That comment doesn't make any sense.  Indeed, could be seen as anti-Semitic (you are suggesting that 'Jewish trees' - whatever the hell they would be - get special protection that other trees don't?).

I thought it was excrutiatingly bad taste.

Avatar
brooksby replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 5 years ago
1 like

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

leqin wrote:

Username wrote:

So Labour have decided to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories on an issue decided by lies (the 27 trees).

They wouldn't happen to be Jewish trees would they?

 

That comment doesn't make any sense.  Indeed, could be seen as anti-Semitic (you are suggesting that 'Jewish trees' - whatever the hell they would be - get special protection that other trees don't?).

 

 

I think they're alluding to alleged Labour antisemitism, rather than making an antisemitic comment per se...

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

leqin wrote:

Username wrote:

So Labour have decided to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories on an issue decided by lies (the 27 trees).

They wouldn't happen to be Jewish trees would they?

 

That comment doesn't make any sense.  Indeed, could be seen as anti-Semitic (you are suggesting that 'Jewish trees' - whatever the hell they would be - get special protection that other trees don't?).

 

 

I think they're alluding to alleged Labour antisemitism, rather than making an antisemitic comment per se...

 

If so, not only is itentirely  irrelevant to the topic, but they got their polarity reversed somewhere, because as written it's an anti-Semitic comment, not an anti-Labour one.

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 5 years ago
1 like

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

brooksby wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

leqin wrote:

Username wrote:

So Labour have decided to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories on an issue decided by lies (the 27 trees).

They wouldn't happen to be Jewish trees would they?

 

That comment doesn't make any sense.  Indeed, could be seen as anti-Semitic (you are suggesting that 'Jewish trees' - whatever the hell they would be - get special protection that other trees don't?).

 

 

I think they're alluding to alleged Labour antisemitism, rather than making an antisemitic comment per se...

 

If so, not only is itentirely  irrelevant to the topic, but they got their polarity reversed somewhere, because as written it's an anti-Semitic comment, not an anti-Labour one.

 

Maybe so. Maybe it's me that was misunderstanding them... (I had a big lunch, half asleep, y'know)

Avatar
growingvegtables | 5 years ago
3 likes

That wouldn't be the same council that "was responsible for" (?) Grenfell Towers?  No ... of course not.  It's the "new", "socially responsible" bunch of see-you-next-Tuesdays.

 

Let me guess - 450+ vitriolic, ill-founded, unevidenced emails from well-placed/well-heeled "residents" count for a damned sight more than the hard-headed, fact-filled pleas from residents (who RBKC thought "undesirable").

 

Blood on their hands.  Then and now.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to growingvegtables | 4 years ago
4 likes

growingvegtables wrote:

That wouldn't be the same council that "was responsible for" (?) Grenfell Towers?  No ... of course not.  It's the "new", "socially responsible" bunch of see-you-next-Tuesdays.

 

Let me guess - 450+ vitriolic, ill-founded, unevidenced emails from well-placed/well-heeled "residents" count for a damned sight more than the hard-headed, fact-filled pleas from residents (who RBKC thought "undesirable").

 

Blood on their hands.  Then and now.

The block of flats was run not by any council but by KCTMO; made up of 8 TENANTS, 4 councilors and 3 independent members.
LABOUR hold the seat that the block is situated in.
LABOUR run the London Council who manage the under funded London Fire Service
Emma Coad the sitting LABOUR MP for that ward also sat on the KCTMO.
The advise to stay put which (former LABOUR MP) Sadiq Khan has been so vocal about was given by the London Fire Service.
The decision to change contractors during the refurb was made by KCTMO.
The decision not to spend a paltry £138k on fitting sprinklers again  - KCTMO.
The decision to create ALMO organisation such as the KCTMO was made under the Right To Manage legislation passed in 2002 as part of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act.
This was put in place to give leasehold tenants a greater say and the ability to self manage, which has clearly proven to be a disaster. Which Govt was in a charge when this law was passed? LABOUR
FORMER LABOUR MP Sadiq Khan as mayor of London Produced a report to say that the fire service did not need further funding.
Emma Coad, elected LABOUR MP was on the board of the Tenant Management group who are being accused of not listening to tenants.

HTH

Avatar
Luca Patrono | 5 years ago
1 like

Because their views align with those of most business lobbyists and those of the current governing party.

Avatar
ConcordeCX | 5 years ago
2 likes

TfL go through quite long consultation processes in my area before changes of this type are undertaken, and that includes polling people about their views. I'd be very surprised if the vast majority of local people weren't strongly in favour of this scheme (mind you, it is RBKC...). In which case is there not some means by which councillors can be recalled, in the way that constituents can now recall their MP? If not there bloody well should be.

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
5 likes

Burt, it's worse than that, it's the selfish desires of a very few local residents.

Avatar
Shades replied to ktache | 5 years ago
3 likes

ktache wrote:

Burt, it's worse than that, it's the selfish desires of a very few local residents.

Why do we always back down to the noisy minority in this country?  You watch plans getting held to ransom by, literally, a couple of motivated and intelligent individuals.  If it's for the greater good and benefits the majority, they should (politely) be told to poke-off.  I think it's called leadership?

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
7 likes

So the selfish desires of local residents takes precedence over the safety of other human beings?  Must be a tory district, and the fact that the council has stopped this scheme before the consultation has finished, confirms it.

The forecast increases in congestion are unlikely to happen, as people will avoid making journeys when it is congested, and if more people ride bikes, there will be fewer cars anyway.  As for the "aggressive tone" of TfL, entirely justified by these duplicitous councillors.

Latest Comments