Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Demonstration in support of CS11 to be held after petition against it attracts thousands of signatures

Petition suggests scheme has been deliberately designed to maximise congestion
Photograph courtesy of: @LondonDynaslow

A demonstration in support of CS11 is to be held in London’s Regent’s Park at 6pm on Friday. Organised by the Outer Circle Action Group, it serves as cyclists’ response to an online petition against the plans which at the time of writing had attracted over 2,300 signatures.

A consultation is currently underway for Cycle Superhighway 11 (CS11), a route from Swiss Cottage to the West End, which includes a stretch around Regent’s Park’s Outer Circle.

London Cycling Commissioner, Andrew Gilligan, recently told road.cc that the park was an "infinitely more pleasant route" than the alternative, Finchley Road. "What it does is make what is currently a rat run into a nice part of the park."

Writing on change.org, Daniel Howard says the plans will result in gridlock and asks people to sign his petition, ‘to stop Transport for London from destroying some of the nicest, greenest areas of London and turning a major section of London into a congested car park.’

“This scheme, if allowed to go ahead, will adversely affect local residents, all road users and public transport users in: Finchley Road, Swiss Cottage, Avenue Road, Regents Park, St John's Wood, Baker Street and all surrounding areas by causing TOTAL GRIDLOCK on the roads and increased air pollution to all the affected areas as a result.

“It is strongly suspected that this scheme has been DELIBERATELY designed to cause maximum road congestion and make life as miserable as possible for motorists that we simply abandon our cars and vans and lorries and instead join Boris Johnson and Andrew Gilligan's utopian ‘cycling-vision’.”

The Outer Circle Action Group, which comprises Camden Cycling Campaign, Camden Friends of the Earth, Canal and River Trust, Westminster Cycling Campaign and Westminster Living Streets, takes an opposing view. The group’s ultimate aim is to remove through motor traffic from the Outer Circle of Regent’s Park so as to restore what it says is an environment more appropriate for a park.

Describing CS11 plans as a huge step towards this goal, they are urging people to attend a 45-minute demonstration at Park Square East on Friday. “We need to demonstrate our support in massive numbers to defeat opposition from the NIMBYs and those who simply don’t want to see more cycling, walking and clean air.”

For more information on the demo, click here.

Earlier this week, Boris Johnson was asked by The Guardian which debate had been the more fractious – that surrounding the cycling superhighways or that regarding the EU.

“Oh God, cycling. Unquestionably. The public hostility about the cycle superhighways has been much worse.”

Nevertheless, he clearly has no regrets beyond an early compromise approach with painted lanes. “If I had my time again, and if I knew then what I know now, I would have gone straight in with a massive programme of segregated cycle superhighways. I probably wouldn’t have been re-elected, unfortunately. That’s one thing to consider. But that would have been the right thing to do.”

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

16 comments

Avatar
thereandbackagain | 8 years ago
2 likes

I'd urge everyone who cycles in that area to complete the consultation, a number of sections are optional, and it doesn't take that long.

The comments in the change.org "anti" petition are a depressingly familiar mix of ignorance about how taxation works, and pants-on-head stupidity.

 

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 8 years ago
6 likes

It's hilarious that people arguing for vehicles, which cause the air pollution, to have access everywhere, are claiming to be concerned about air pollution.

Avatar
Username | 8 years ago
2 likes

I think we should counter the arguement that motorists *need* to have the right to drive on the Outer Circle with a new proposal to allow driving on all the park's paths. 

 

I mean if driving on the Outer Circle is essential then they deserve the right to drive everywhere in the park, surely?

Avatar
bikebot | 8 years ago
12 likes

Recognising that not everyone reading this is familiar with either London or Regents Park, I thought this might be helpful.  If only motorists had some alternative to the Outer Circle readily available to them.

//i.imgur.com/r2etEPk.jpg)

 

Avatar
lerrup replied to bikebot | 8 years ago
3 likes
bikebot wrote:

Recognising that not everyone reading this is familiar with either London or Regents Park, I thought this might be helpful.  If only motorists had some alternative to the Outer Circle readily available to them.

//i.imgur.com/r2etEPk.jpg)

 

I'm confused, why do motorists need to drive in the park at all?

Avatar
bikebot replied to lerrup | 8 years ago
1 like

lerrup wrote:

I'm confused, why do motorists need to drive in the park at all?

Same reason as any other rat run, to avoid traffic.

Avatar
surly_by_name | 8 years ago
3 likes

A similar thread runs through objections to making traffic in Richmond Park one way. (Something which I disagree with the Richmond LCC about.)

Make traffic one way - like Centennial Park in Sydney, with half of the road width segregated for use by cyclists (and in line skaters, sigh). Makes life safer for cyclists - less absent minded overtaking by flustered/aggro drivers - also means your speed limit could go back up to 30 to alleviate need to drive a bit further. And really, if you are visiting the Park, you shoudn't really mind if you are forced to drive a bit further because presumably the park is the destination after all. Not at all. Biggest objections (when the issue was consulted on in 2002 - to the point of a JR application by one of them) was from the adjacent boroughs, Wandsworth, Richmond and Kingston. That's because all of the adjacent Boroughs have come to rely upon the park as a traffic alleviation device - or, more colloquially, a "rat run". (In 1998 an Origin and Destination Study carried out for The Royal Parks by Peter Brett Associates established that between 96% and 98% of traffic using Richmond Park during weekday peak hours and 80% at weekends was through traffic.) If you make the park less attractive as a cut through, you increase pressue on surrounding roads which means angry voters with pitchforks. (And while I am on the subject, it is perfectly possible to create a decent XC mountain bike course within the confines of the park while still respecting the things that make it an SSI - conservation doesn't have to mean exclusion.)

Parks - Regents Park and Richmond Park as two leading examples in London - should be as traffic free as possible - some traffic is necessary (the aim isn't to exclude people). But they shouldn't be a solution to poor road/transport infrastructure elsewhere and personal safety must trump a desire to get somewhere a little bit quicker.

Avatar
bikebot replied to surly_by_name | 8 years ago
4 likes

surly_by_name wrote:

A similar thread runs through objections to making traffic in Richmond Park one way. (Something which I disagree with the Richmond LCC about.)

It wouldn't be that difficult, you could certainly make the park one way to motor traffic (single central lane) but two way for cycling.  Maybe initially just make Broomfield like that, which has the least motor traffic but probably the most danger.

Something needs to be done, the traffic in the park has become ludicrous, especially the school run traffic in the afternoon. Last year Zac said that addressing cycling in Richmond Park would be one of his main priorities, he's done precisely nothing.  The Royal Parks also carried out a large traffic survey, they had sensors at all the entrances and roundabouts.  I don't believe any of that has been made public, and I'm sure it would be very interesting reading.

*multiple sources - http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/12945464.Back_to_work_for_Zac_Go...

Avatar
Mystery Machine replied to bikebot | 8 years ago
4 likes

bikebot wrote:

surly_by_name wrote:

A similar thread runs through objections to making traffic in Richmond Park one way. (Something which I disagree with the Richmond LCC about.)

It wouldn't be that difficult, you could certainly make the park one way to motor traffic (single central lane) but two way for cycling.  Maybe initially just make Broomfield like that, which has the least motor traffic but probably the most danger.

Something needs to be done, the traffic in the park has become ludicrous, especially the school run traffic in the afternoon. Last year Zac said that addressing cycling in Richmond Park would be one of his main priorities, he's done precisely nothing.  The Royal Parks also carried out a large traffic survey, they had sensors at all the entrances and roundabouts.  I don't believe any of that has been made public, and I'm sure it would be very interesting reading.

*multiple sources - http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/12945464.Back_to_work_for_Zac_Go...

 

Have there been any efforts to get hold of the traffic survey? Freedom of Information requests by Alex Ingram were quite effective in terms of getting hold of the evidence for Kensington & Chelsea's actions in killing off TfL's plans for Ken High Street:

http://alexinthecities.co.uk/2015/07/near-and-yet-so-far-how-superhighwa...

It hasn't made much difference to date in shaming K&C into changing their attitudes, but at least it makes it harder for them to pretend that they care about anything other than the motons.

Maybe something similar would work with the Royal Parks / boroughs surrounding Richmond Park?

 

Avatar
bikebot replied to Mystery Machine | 8 years ago
1 like

Mystery Machine wrote:

Have there been any efforts to get hold of the traffic survey? Freedom of Information requests by Alex Ingram were quite effective in terms of getting hold of the evidence for Kensington & Chelsea's actions in killing off TfL's plans for Ken High Street:

Answer via Tim Lennon (@lucullus) of Richmond LCC.

"Not that we've seen. But hoping the Chair of the Friends will be coming to talk to @RichmondCycling next monthly meeting"

Avatar
Arno du Galibier | 8 years ago
6 likes

The excessive use of capitalisation is the clear sign of a reasoned and thoroughly thought through argument. Good work.

Avatar
Bob's Bikes | 8 years ago
11 likes

Writing on change.org, Daniel Howard says

“It is strongly suspected that this scheme has been DELIBERATELY designed to cause maximum road congestion and make life as miserable as possible for motorists that we simply abandon our cars and vans and lorries and instead join Boris Johnson and Andrew Gilligan's utopian ‘cycling-vision’.”

 

He says this as if it's a bad thing.

Avatar
Edgeley | 8 years ago
1 like

As for Boris, it is easy to be utopian after he doesn't need to be reelected.  Tsk.

Avatar
Edgeley | 8 years ago
5 likes

I am sure that the plan isn't deliberately to discourage driving to create a public transport/cycling "utopia".

 

But if it was, that would be ok.   The other half of how the Netherlands got so good, the bit that isn't great cycling infrastructure, is that urban areas are deliberately made unwelcome to motor vehicles. 

Avatar
Accessibility f... | 8 years ago
11 likes

Daniel Howard doesn't realise that once people figure out that certain roads are congested, they'll either stop using them, or find another form of transport.  Which oddly enough, will lead to less congestion and lower pollution.

Avatar
Condor Andy | 8 years ago
12 likes

Daniel Howard sounds like a right prick.

Latest Comments