- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Holland Park roundabout improvements (Transport for London)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"
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".
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- mctrials23 3 sec ago
Not gonna lie, from what I can tell, Australia makes the UK look like a modern, forward thinking country when it comes to the media....
- brooksby 8 min 13 sec ago
Maybe everyone will be given those blue plastic shoe covers like they wear on police procedurals?
- brooksby 8 min 48 sec ago
I'm pretty sure that an act of violence which is clearly deliberate and premeditated attracts a much harsher set of laws. An act of domestic...
- eburtthebike 33 min 43 sec ago
The Daily Mail, Telegraph and GB News.........
- Tass Whitby 42 min 15 sec ago
Still available on Amazon if anyone's keen - link is in the review.
- Benthic 46 min 41 sec ago
Not AB specifically, but that sort of thing. Focus Pocus is the most entertaining.
- Benthic 53 min 16 sec ago
That question would send Daily Mail readers into turmoil.
- Dnnnnnn 1 hour 15 min ago
Was that Marchmont? I remember a £975 Claris bike there a few years ago.
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 33 min ago
It is for four months, TrainingPeaks offers a free basic athlete account and TrainingPeaks Virtual is currently free for all users until March 2025...
- Cyclo1964 3 hours 26 min ago
It's not vindictive and the council should crack down on it. There is an application process they should follow but in general it means you have to...
Add new comment
52 comments
If the proposals don't support the kneejerk, divisive, desperate and misguided 'plan for drivers' clearly they are not worth bothering with.
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.
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).
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 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 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 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.
"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 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 Havers vote
As far as I can see, that really isn't something to be proud of…
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 - 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"?
IAF, in central London it probably takes you 15 minutes to drive those 300 metres…
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?
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?
I don't care how many people die in my consituency, as long as they are not my consitituents
Trying to be an apprentice Lib Dem !
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 but was having trouble framing the argument appropriately
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.
It's like saying "I'm not a racist but..."
Pages