Mayor of London's Cycle Super Highway Route 8

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Key Decision Report dated 8 February 2011

For Decision by Councillor Paget-Brown, Cabinet Member for Transportation, Environment and Leisure

MAYOR OF LONDON’S CYCLE SUPER HIGHWAY ROUTE 8 –PROPOSALS FOR CHELSEA BRIDGE

1. Introduction

1.1 I seek your approval of Transport for London’s detailed design proposals for Cycle Super Highway Route 8 on Chelsea Bridge and the Chelsea Bridge Road approach to Grosvenor Road.

2 Background

2.1 Transport for London (TfL) is creating twelve Cycle Super Highways (CSHs) between parts of outer London and key central London destinations. TfL has already opened the first two CSHs, running between Merton and the City and Barking and Tower Gate. TfL plans to implement the remaining ten by 2015. The CSHs have a distinctive identity with the use of blue markings and route signposting.

2.2 According to TfL, the CSHs improve conditions for cyclists already using the routes to commute to work, and will encourage more people to cycle. TfL claims that the first two routes have increased the numbers of cyclists using those particular roads by 25 per cent. TfL say that 60 per cent of cyclists they interviewed on the routes said they felt safer riding in the blue cycle lanes. TfL has promised to share with us the detailed data they have collected on the first two routes later this year.

2.3 Much of the CSH network is on TfL’s roads, but it also uses some borough roads. TfL has no specific powers to impose CSH measures on borough roads, although, as with all of the policies in his Transport Strategy, the Mayor of London does have powers to issue directions to boroughs to carry out actions in support of his strategy.

2.4 Two of the ten remaining proposed CSHs, Route 8 (Wandsworth to Westminster) and Route 9 (Hounslow to Hyde Park) will run through part of the Royal Borough.

2.5 This report deals with proposals for Route 8 which TfL wants to complete by this summer. This route runs along Chelsea Bridge and Grosvenor Road in Westminster. We have signed a Memo of Understanding with TfL committing us to work together to secure the implementation of Route 8, subject to our consents and approvals. We have had discussions with TfL about the development of their proposals and we have told them unequivocally about our concerns over some aspects of the standard CSH designs, particularly the streetscape implications of blue carriageway surfacing and additional signage.

2.6 TfL has shown us its final designs for Chelsea Bridge and its junction with Grosvenor Road. TfL has proposed minor changes on the Chelsea Bridge Road approach to the Grosvenor Road junction. Both Chelsea Bridge and Chelsea Bridge Road are boundary roads, but under a boundary agreement, the Royal Borough has traffic and maintenance responsibility for all of Chelsea Bridge and also for all but the eastern footway of Chelsea Bridge Road.

2.7 The Chelsea Bridge junction with Grosvenor Road is part of Transport for London’s road network. TfL has told us that they will not change the alignment of the route if we do not approve the measures – there would just be a short gap in signage and markings along this section.

3. Need

3.1 Cycle use in the Royal Borough has almost doubled in the past ten years and initiatives like the London Cycle Hire scheme are encouraging still more people to cycle. Chelsea Bridge is heavily used by commuter cyclists. The cycle flows across the bridge are tidal with about 900 cyclists crossing northbound in the am peak hour and a similar number going southbound in the evening peak. At present cyclists can use the existing northbound bus lane which operates between 7am-10am Monday to Friday and runs to the middle of the bridge from the south side.

3.2 We receive regular complaints about cyclists using the Chelsea Bridge footways instead of the carriageway. We have asked the Police to deal with this problem on numerous occasions. In turn, often after Police enforcement campaigns, we have received requests from cyclists to allow cycling on the bridge footways. We continue to resist these requests and when TfL was considering

possible CSH measures for the bridge we made it clear that we would not accept cycle routes along the bridge footways. Implementing measures on the bridge carriageway to make it easier for cyclists to use may help discourage cyclists from using the bridge footways.

3.3 TfL can only go ahead with the proposals on roads for which the Royal Borough is responsible with our written agreement. If you want TfL’s proposals for the bridge to go ahead you need to approve their proposals.

4. TfL proposals

4.1 The attached TfL plans show the existing arrangements and TfL’s proposals which are summarised below.

Chelsea Bridge (borough road)

4.2 The carriageway space on the bridge is reorganised to: • widen the existing northbound bus lane from 3.1m to 4.5m; • provide a 1.5m wide northbound cycle lane operating at any time between the bus lane and the junction with Grosvenor Road along with two northbound traffic lanes; • provide a 1.5m wide southbound cycle lane operating at all times along the length of the bridge with one southbound traffic lane.

4.3 The cycle lanes and the bus lane would be edged with a continuous white line. To make it easier for cyclists to follow the CSH route, cycle logo markings with the route number are to be marked on a blue background at regular intervals in both directions. Going north there would be two such markings in the right turn lane approaching the junction with Grosvenor Road. Going south there would be two similar markings in the southbound cycle lane. The new northbound cycle lane would have three white standard cycle logo markings leading up to the junction with Grosvenor Road.

4.4 The proposals include three additional signs. The new cycle lanes each require a sign at their beginning and TfL is proposing a new CSH direction sign beneath the existing traffic direction sign on the northern approach to the junction of Grosvenor Road. The traffic direction sign itself is also being changed to remove the Congestion Charge symbol.

Chelsea Bridge Road approach to Grosvenor Road (borough road)

4.5 The two lane approach with an advanced cycle stop line is retained but the existing short feeder cycle lane on the approach is removed.

Chelsea Bridge/Grosvenor Road/Chelsea Bridge Road junction (TLRN )

4.6 The proposals involve: • widening and relocating the existing central island on the Chelsea Bridge arm and cutting back the south west and south east corner footways of the junction to accommodate the new traffic lane layout on the bridge; • widening the central island on the Chelsea Bridge Road arm to provide deflection for a new blue surfaced refuge area for cyclists waiting to turn right into Grosvenor Road from Chelsea Bridge; • providing new 5m deep blue surfaced advanced cycle stop lines on the Chelsea Bridge and Grosvenor Road arms and cycle super highway markings on Grosvenor Road (this is in Westminster); • providing a new 5m deep green surfaced advanced cycle stop line on the Chelsea Embankment approach.

5. Evaluation of proposals

5.1 The proposals TfL have put forward are unlikely to make any difference to traffic capacity on the bridge as traffic already crosses the bridge in two single lanes adjacent to the bus lane, and the two traffic lane approach to Grosvenor Road would be maintained.

5.2 It is possible that northbound traffic capacity on the bridge maybe marginally improved by the provision of the northbound cycle lane as some of the northbound cyclists will use the cycle lane instead of the general traffic lane. However, given the high numbers of cyclists using the bridge at peak periods, and that some cyclists will be turning right, it is likely that some cyclists will continue to ride in the general traffic lanes.

5.3 Cycle lanes are common in other parts of London but our policy as set out in Transport and Streetscape Policies is to use more subtle approaches to providing space for cyclists. Kensington High Street is a good example of this approach where we provided a wider than standard inside lane to give cyclists extra space. Bridges do not give rise to demand for parking or loading facilities, so dedicated cycle lanes would not cause the conflicts that they tend to on most busy roads.

5.4 We have explained our policy on cycle lanes to TfL, but TfL wants improvements which not only assist cyclists travelling along the whole CSH route but also those leaving and joining the route. More

northbound cyclists crossing the bridge go straight on than turn right into Grosvenor Road. TfL believes that the northbound cycle lane will help these cyclists and provide them with a clearly visible space as they approach the advance cycle stop line, without affecting other traffic capacity.

5.5 There will be some cyclists who feel less vulnerable riding inside a cycle lane and the Council does receive requests from cyclists to make some form of provision for them across the bridge. The Mayor of London’s office has also received complaints from cyclists for more to be done on the bridge. TfL’s first choice would have been to run the cycle lanes along the bridge footways, but we opposed this, so TfL has designed measures on the carriageway to assist cyclists in both directions and discourage them from using the bridge footways. On balance, because of the volume of cyclists and their perceived vulnerability when cycling over the bridge we can see some benefit in a northbound and southbound cycle lane.

5.6 TfL’s reason for removing the southbound advisory feeder lane at the Chelsea Bridge Road approach is because the taxi rank and bus stop just to the north outside The Lister Hospital, cause most cyclists to approach the junction in the outside lane and then go straight on. It is counter intuitive for these cyclists to pull in close to the kerb behind left turning traffic. We support the proposal to remove the feeder lane on this approach.

5.7 TfL’s designs for the CSH are in conflict with our streetscape policy. Following discussions with officers, TfL has agreed to reduce the amount of blue surfacing to what it regards as the minimum. There will be no blue lanes across the bridge as is to be provided off the bridge and elsewhere on the CSH, but TfL still wants blue used as a background to the cycle logos used on the CSH as shown on the plans.

5.8 The proposals for the junction of Chelsea Bridge Road and Grosvenor Road have no adverse traffic impact on the Royal Borough. TfL has indicated that as part of the proposed changes to the traffic islands, it would remove the existing guard railing on the islands. TfL’s use of coloured surfacing for the advance cycle stop lines and right turn refuge at the junction is not in keeping with our streetscape policies. We have raised this in our discussions with TfL, but the junction is TfL’s responsibility and the choice of marking theirs to determine.

6. Options

Option 1

6.1 You could ask officers to tell TfL that the Royal Borough will not agree to any of the CSH measures proposed for Chelsea Bridge. I do not recommend this option because we have given a commitment to work with TfL to provide better facilities for cyclists using the bridge and to do nothing will not assist cyclists or do anything to discourage cyclists from using the bridge footways.

Option 2

6.2 You could agree to ask officers to inform TfL that the Royal Borough agrees to their proposals. This is the option I recommend.

7. Traffic Management Act 2004

7.1 The proposals in this report meet the requirements of the Council’s network Management Duty as set out in Part 2 of the above Act. The proposals have been developed by TfL taking account of the impact on TfL’s road network. However, the timing of the road works will need to be agreed with the Royal Borough and TfL may need to schedule the works after Albert Bridge is reopened.

8. Financial, Legal, Sustainability, Risk, Personnel and Equalities Implications

8.1 The implementation of the CSH will have no financial implications for the Royal Borough as the works will be carried out by TfL’s contractors. This requires the Royal Borough to enter into an agreement with TfL under section 8 of the Highways Act 1980 to allow TfL to undertake work on Royal Borough highway (similar to that for the Cycle Hire Scheme). TfL agreed to meet the cost of drawing up the agreement which has now been signed by the Director of Transportation and Highways. However, TfL is not able to start works until we approve the Detailed Design. TfL has also agreed to pay the Royal Borough a commuted sum for future maintenance of the CSH markings and signage on Royal Borough highway.

8.2 The existing bus lane Traffic Order defines the bus lane as the area between the western edge of the carriageway and the marked longitudinal single white line, so TfL can widen the bus lane without changing the Traffic Order.

8.3 The proposed cycle lanes which are to operate at any time will require a Traffic Order to be made under section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. TfL intends to administer and fund all the Traffic Order making for CSH measures including on borough

roads. For TfL to do this for Chelsea Bridge requires the Royal Borough to enter into an agreement with TfL under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972. TfL agreed to meet the cost of drawing up the agreement which has now been signed by the Director of Transportation and Highways. This will allow TfL to process the Traffic Order for the cycle lanes. As part of this process the City of Westminster and London Borough of Wandsworth will be consulted. Any objections TfL receive during the Traffic Order making process will be referred back to you for consideration in line with our normal Traffic Order making process.

8.4 The proposals support a more sustainable pattern of travel in the Royal Borough.

8.5 All threats and opportunities identified to the proposals in this report have been considered and risk mitigation actions addressed.

9. Recommendations

9.1 I recommend that you agree to Option 2 as set out in section 6 of this report and instruct officers to inform TfL accordingly.

Graeme Swinburne Director of Transportation and Highways

Tot Brill Executive Director of Transport, Environment and Leisure Services

FOR COMPLETION BY AUTHOR OF REPORT:

Date of first appearance in Forward Plan: 26 January 2011

Key decision reference identifier from Forward Plan: 03493/11/T/A

Background papers: none

Contact officer: Bob Romei, Traffic and Transportation Policy Service Tel: 020 7361 3398 E-mail: [email protected]