An ambitious proposal to transform a London roundabout described as “one of the most dangerous junctions on the road network” and the scene of 56 collisions in the last three years has been criticised by a Conservative MP who claims it will “lead to increased traffic congestion, increased pollution and rat-running”, and “the main cycling beneficiaries will be those out of borough looking to cycle in a straight line”.
Kensington MP Felicity Buchan was reacting to Transport for London’s (TfL) proposals for Holland Park roundabout, a junction where six people have been seriously injured in collisions in the three years to last May, the Evening Standard reports, with 59 people, including 14 cyclists and pedestrians, injured in total during the same time period.
Consequently, TfL wants to build more protected cycleways at the junction and install separate traffic lights for cyclists to help create a safe environment for riders to cross. And despite the government body’s modelling predicting the scheme would not have “significant impacts” on motorists or buses, Buchan has expressed her opposition to the proposals and claims it will increase congestion, worsen air pollution and increase the number of drivers rat-running on residential streets elsewhere.
“While I am supportive of cycling and improving cycling safety, this scheme is ill-thought through. It will lead to increased traffic congestion, increased pollution and rat-running,” she claimed.
“Cycling infrastructure already exists so the main cycling beneficiaries will be those out of borough looking to cycle in a straight line. I therefore oppose the scheme.”
Buchan says her views reflect those of Kensington and Chelsea council and London Assembly member Tony Devenish, the political figures previously outspoken in their opposition to the Kensington High Street cycle lanes that were abruptly ripped out in November 2020 as the Tory-controlled council claimed the scheme was “not working”.
TfL’s proposal, which can be seen in full in the video below, shows how the planned improvements would connect to earlier Cycleway 34 works, while at Holland Park roundabout a new 45-metre section of bus lane would be built, along with new signal-controlled cycle crossings, new protected two-way cycleways, and a new signal-controlled cycle crossing to Holland Road and C39.
TfL says at one section of the roundabout the outside traffic lane could be removed to “make space for a new protected two-way cycle lane”. The junction is one of the 73 most dangerous that TfL is hoping to upgrade, London’s walking and cycling commissioner Will Norman saying it is “one of the most dangerous junctions on the TfL road network, and has seen 56 collisions in the last three years”.
“This scheme will make it safer for people walking and cycling and will help improve journey times for bus users without any significant impacts on general traffic, building a better, safer city for all Londoners,” he added.
And addressing Buchan’s congestion concerns, TfL has said its modelling had suggested there would be no “significant impacts” on motorists or buses, with journey times in fact expected to be cut during peak morning and evening times “due to traffic reassignment away from Shepherd’s Bush Green, West Cross Route and Holland Park Roundabout”.
52 thoughts on “MP opposes plan to improve cyclist safety at “one of the most dangerous junctions” — because “main beneficiaries” will be non-local cyclists “looking to cycle in a straight line””
It’s amazing how often
It’s amazing how often Felicity Buchan says “I’m all in favour of cycling infrastructure schemes, but not this one” . .
. . about ANY cycling infra through Kensington it seems.
The ken High St lane was ripped out after she and Tony Devenish claimed “it wasn’t working” despite the actual traffic data showing busses and other traffic moving better once teh “illegal parking lane” had been taken out of use.
“I’m not a racist but…”
It’s like saying “I’m not a racist but…”
That’s a really nice attitude
That’s a really nice attitude shown by Buchan – “so the main cycling beneficiaries will be those out of borough looking to cycle in a straight line.” Even if she is right, which I highly doubt, does it matter? You wouldn’t want to worry about anyone outside of your borough, would you?
And how can she claim it will lead to increased traffic congestion etc etc, is she an expert? Has she done the research?
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
I don’t care how many people die in my consituency, as long as they are not my consitituents
wycombewheeler wrote:
Trying to be an apprentice Lib Dem !
I thought immediately of a
I thought immediately of a common objection to removing LTNs: that doing so mostly benefits those driving through, not locals. Why is that a good argument, but stating, even if true, that this cycling infrastructure mostly benefits local cyclists is not?
Oh yeah, it’s safety versus convenience.
Arguing that a change mostly enhances the convenience of drivers/cyclists/pedestrians passing through: potentially good argument.
Arguing that a change mostly enhances the safety of drivers/cyclists/pedestrians passing through: terrible argument. Everyone’s safety is equally important.
I was thinking the same thing
I was thinking the same thing but was having trouble framing the argument appropriately 😀
Quote:
As far as I can see, that really isn’t something to be proud of…
“While I am supportive of
“While I am supportive of cycling and improving cycling safety…I’m still a witless Tory seeking re-election and will use any old culture war trope to generate the oxygen of publicity for my self-aggrandisement”. Well that’s probably what she meant say…
Whilst I am supportive of
Whilst I am supportive of cycling and improving cycling safety….. it is just a theoretical, abstract opinion, and in no way would I use my power to make it happen in reality
She’s going for the Nigel
She’s going for the Nigel Havers vote
I’m not sure i quite get the
I’m not sure i quite get the proposals either, at least not from a cycling perspective. That roundabout already has a cycle track on the outside/pavement. They could connect up to C34 using the crossing at the shopping centre (where the current cycle track just kind of drops you off). On the negative side, this tweak would mean cyclists still run into the shopping centre crowds, and have four controlled crossings instead of 3 (and a half if you include the Thames Water vehicle exit). But i don’t think the saving would be enough to justify the redesign.
I suspect the main goal is to reduce capacity on the roundabout to try to calm things down a bit. The new cycling infra seems more like a bonus to make use of the reclaimed space.
I find the hardest part is getting to the roundabout via Holland Park Avenue, which is a congested hellscape with no cycling infrastructure at all. And navigating the side streets isn’t the easiest task (i guess they’d be ratruns otherwise).
“I suspect the main goal is
“I suspect the main goal is to reduce capacity on the roundabout to try to calm things down a bit.”
And so what? That’s called having a coherent transport policy (or at least trying towards one).
Yup – pretty sure reducing
Yup – pretty sure reducing capacity a bit for motor traffic in urban areas is a win and reduces congestion.
They’re doing it the right way also by providing an alternative – reclaiming that space for a very efficient private transport mode – cycling. Which is probably going to be averaging a similar speed in much of London.
Definitely not “in keeping” in Ken and Chelsey though – where it sounds like not a few are probably miffed about common buses passing through!
Which I think is her actual
Which I think is her actual point. She probably consider cyclists through Notting Hill Gate rat-running because this is the access road for her constituency, not plebs west of that.
I’m flabbergasted at Felicity
I’m flabbergasted at Felicity Buchan MP.
She’s something in the Levelling Up department, and is all ovcer twitter with the Govt’s “Plan or the Disabled”. That is after 13 years, with a lot of commissions and paper shuffling which will lead to nothing before the Election, and follows attacking disabled people via undermining benefits and trying to close nearly all the Ticket Offices which took 750k consultation responses to fight off.
Now she’s opposed to reducing a 5 lane gyratory to 4 lanes IN PART, which will make disabled people who walk or use mobility aids safer?
What was her position on the scheme that made High Street Ken more dangerous?
This one comes across as even more thorougly lobotomised than Susan Hall, I’m afraid.
Fortunately the Election is coming, and I think the seat is marginal.
mattw wrote:
Please tell me that was a typo … please?
(Unfortunately I am not flabberghasted. But yes – sounds like that constituency might find itself better off with a new MP).
If the proposals don’t
If the proposals don’t support the kneejerk, divisive, desperate and misguided ‘plan for drivers’ clearly they are not worth bothering with.
Considering the amount of
Considering the amount of drivers who use the roundabout to go straight ahead, may as well just demolish the whole thing entirely then
A Tory MP against a safety
A Tory MP against a safety measure for vulnerable road users, who would have guessed?
Have they all signed a pact with the devil?
Thay all seem intent on killing everyone who doesn’t drive a Wankpanzer, either through poverty or under the wheels of a motor vehicle.
Why can’t some people see how evil these bastards are?
yupiteru wrote:
It seems to be all about being selfish and cruel. It’s like using a ladder to climb up and then pulling up the ladder so that no-one else can use it.
Definitely a case of “well I’m okay so I think we should stop helping anyone else”.
hawkinspeter wrote:
You mean like the previous two home secretaries’ attitudes on immigration?
brooksby wrote:
I thought Teresa May was responsible for introducing the “hostile environment” policy which was a key part of the Windrush scandal and we’ve had a few home secretaries since then (five not counting Grant Shapps)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/theresa-mays-hostile-environment-policy-at-heart-of-windrush-scandal
hawkinspeter wrote:
Or nine if you count Grant Shapps and his alternative names.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’d meant more that Braverman and Patel were both children of immigrants, who were then trying very hard to pull up the drawbridge after them.
These Tory MPs are quite
These Tory MPs are quite happy to vote against a ceasefire and a stop to the brutal genocide in Palestine – so I doubt a cycle lane will bother their conscience.
I can’t quite get over the
I can’t quite get over the idea that cyclists “wanting to cycle in a straight line” is in some way a bad thing.
Come to Leith and say that…
Come to Leith and say that…
Trying to appeal to the
Trying to appeal to the driving constituency seems rather futile, as just like the cyclists whose lives she doesn’t care about as they are just riding through, those drivers are likewise driving through. So you’re vote counts if you’re driving, but not if you’re cycling.
They’ve had this pro-car policy for some time, and they’ve lost almost every bye election since by a landslide, and the only one that they didn’t lose, they lied massively about ULEZ. Not very good at reading the runes, tories: or anything really. The defining trait of tories over the past fifty years, apart from lying of course, is incompetence.
And yet – people seem to
And yet – people seem to favour them over the others… is the issue they’re not playing by the rules, or the other parties are less competent / single-minded, or … perhaps the issue is the voters?
In a system that induces and
In a system that induces and exacerbates individualism and competition over working together, is it any wonder people tend to favour parties that embody the I’m-alright-Jack attitude?
UK “national character” –
UK “national character” – another rabbit hole! In our (arguably not-quite-post-) imperial nation there are still systematic biases.
I also suspect that this may have been one strand inspiring Douglas Adams’ point on democracy.
Prior to her political career
Prior to her political career, Buchan worked in investment banking for JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. Compared to TfL highway planners, she knows f all about highway infra, so why has she got this airtime? Is it because the banker mindset is ‘we are experts at everything because we are rich by legally stealing money’ or is it because this personality type, so suited to banking, is so arrogant from the start?
I’ve worked at both those
I’ve worked at both those banks. Stereotyping people who work in investment banks as arrogant thieves is ignorant at best. You do realise that your pension is an investment don’t you? How would you feel if your savings account paid no interest for the money you put in it? Or are you so against Investment banks that you deliberately dont have a personal pension and are going to wait for the state pension to see you through retirement?
She is an arrogant pillock, but that is unrelated to her previous line of work. It’s her personality.
A pillock, a tory MP, a
A pillock, a tory MP, a former investment banker and spouting nonsense about cycling… too many coincidences…
For a moment there I thought
For a moment there I thought you were listing a new cast of Top Gear…
It’s an interesting new
It’s an interesting new stupidity isn;t it? Tax money can only be spent locally to where it’s raised and may not benefit anyone from somewhere else… On that basis, London would get a lot of money spent, but couldn’t get fresh water from reservoirs maintained outside of London, Or electricity other than generated inside London, or dump sewage outside London, or have a motorway / road crossing the boundary. This stratospheric level of stupidity in an MP is only outshone by the stupidity of those voting for said MP.
Bigfoz wrote:
It’s an interesting take on the 15 minute city rubbish that the swivel eyed lions are spouting.
Or is it just a variation on the banjo playing “you’re not from round here, are you…?” brigade.
Console yourself with this
Console yourself with this and ignore her mindless bleatings.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?postcode=W8+7NX
There’s a laser at the end of
There’s a laser at the end of that tunnel.
The odds from the bookies are
The odds from the bookies are astounding
Such a shame.
Such a shame.
Looked up her biography and
Looked up her biography and sadly, unsurprisingly, it turns out she was awarded a degree by Oxford University! We have two premier (probably overprestigious) undergraduate teaching institutions, why is it that only one of them seems to gift us dunces of such a tall order?
Robert Hardy wrote:
I’ve just finished a book “Chumocracy” all about how Oxford students got into government and promoted their mates, not because they were competent, but because they were their mates.
It’s interesting that none of
It’s interesting that none of her many online biographies mentions the class of her degree: she studied law but went straight into the finance industry rather than qualifying as a lawyer. To read for the bar one needs at least a Desmond, the fact that she didn’t become a barrister (a traditional route for aspirant MPs) leads one to speculate that she may have been awarded a Douglas.
A third class degree but a
A third class degree but a second class politician; that’s personal growth for you.
What you learn in school is
What you learn in school is probably vastly less important than who you meet in school (so yeah, overall – what school you went to).
Mind you only a quarter of the PMs in the last century went to Eton and only most attended either Oxford or Cambridge so you can overstate these things…
This is explicitly recognised in most places … one to file under “human nature” and how we naturally tend to organise ourselves in societies.
Why would the local people
Why would the local people need to be driving in the first place? If they are travelling within their local area, what need of a motor vehicle? If they are travelling beyond their local area then how do they benefit from policies hostile to such travel?
Aha! Another one here –
Aha! Another one here – seeking to lock us down into “15 minute prisons” by trying to stop us driving 300 metres to the shops!
We have to drive because we aren’t steady on our feet these days, or we don’t feel safe walking some places, or have 3 small children to get to school, or we need to do a big shopping run, or we have to take the dog / cat / granny to the park / vets, or we have to do something and then something else and we don’t have time to be messing about with bikes, or it’s raining …
People are sometimes also concerned because “what about the people driving to me?”
There’s a continuum of “need – want – like/habit” (although I suspect skewed towards the low end…) and everyone’s got some reason. People get very twitchy when there’s talk of restricting something. Perhaps they see it like “now you can’t use your phone” – or “you can’t use your legs”?
chrisonabike wrote:
IAF, in central London it probably takes you 15 minutes to drive those 300 metres…
Qui, mois?! No – it’s the Hon
Qui, mois?! No – it’s the Hon Tory MP who is agitating for the 15 minute city, militating against any who would travel from beyond. Apparently she wants to keep it all local, or have I misunderstood?
Her line to take seems to be
Her line to take seems to be that cyclists and thorough traffic should not use Notting Hill gate rather than any of the concerns on paper.
Pathetic but certainly a great way to buy votes