Menu

Holland Park Avenue

Cars vs Bikes

Support grows for a safer RBKC

, , , 0

While most people are focused on saving lives in the current pandemic, yesterday MP for Kensington Felicity Buchan revealed she’d been spending her time rather differently. She released an extraordinary and long open letter opposing the road safety scheme on Holland Park Avenue and Notting Hill Gate on multiple grounds.

“While I support more cycling, I do not think CS10 is right for Kensington” she tweeted, which we would translate as “saving lives on hostile roads is not right for Kensington”.

Her motivation? She has received “so much correspondence” against the scheme – and goes on to regurgitate in her letter the misinformation being put out by the highly organised opposition, Save our Streets. We have called out Save Our Streets’ arguments and myths before – to see those points rebutted click here.

Ms Buchan seems to think all of Kensington hates the proposals. Yet in the weeks before the coronavirus shutdown, we were overwhelmed by the positive local response to our Safer RBKC campaign, both through talking to people on the street and online. In one week alone we saw 150 emails to the council supporting the Transport for London scheme, via our web page here.

Who would object to a road safety scheme?

The ‘Save Our Streets’ campaign opposes Transport for London’s scheme to stop the many injuries to people walking and cycling on these hostile roads. There were 32 casualties in 3 years on Holland Park Avenue alone, of which 16 were classed as ‘serious’. Save Our Streets is supported by local resident associations, businesses and even three schools.

But Save Our Streets is not saying anything new. It’s a classic case of ‘bikelash’ – organised opposition to bike lanes or any space taken from motor traffic. RBKC council should not be surprised. The same arguments have been used all over the world from New York to New Zealand. They are based on fears about pollution, congestion and harm to local business, but there’s no evidence for any of these ill effects, as our myth buster points out here. And the campaign does not mention the serious danger to those walking and cycling, how to make our streets less dominated by motor traffic, or how to get more people travelling actively in a borough beset by physical inactivity and toxic air.

There is another voice

Dismayed by all the opposition and misinformation, we launched our ‘Safer RBKC’ campaign . We advertised it on social media and via flyers handed out on the street. This led to all the emails stating strong support for the scheme, the vast majority of which were from people who live, work, travel or have children at school in RBKC. People, in other words, who have a very real stake in the area – who shop on the shops along Holland Park Avenue, who pass through often, or live right round the corner. These people tell us they want the scheme, indeed, they often tell us they are baffled and angry about the opposition to it. Talking to people on the street was a massive eye-opener for our group – we weren’t expecting such a positive reaction. 

Nearly a quarter of the emails are from residents, for instance:

I have lived in RBKC all my life. I used to cycle to school along Holland Park Avenue. It was a shock that a small number of vested interests on Holland Park Avenue were able to derail a very good proposal.

I regularly frequent Holland Park, it’s close to where I live and is where my chemist is. Every time I am appalled about the sheer volume of motor vehicles and traversing the road is always an anxiety provoking ordeal. It shouldn’t be this way.

Those who work in the borough spoke out as well:

I have worked in Kensington for 26 years. I cycle to work every day and regularly feel scared by the behaviour of people driving cars. We need segregated space for cycling. This also improves the environment and safety of people walking

It’s time for RBKC to step into the 21st century, make the best use of available road space to prioritise streets for people. That means more people walking and cycling, and delivering this revised scheme.

Most heartbreaking were the emails from parents, like the mother concerned for her pre-school daughter breathing in toxic air on her way to nursery school and the father feeling stressed about crossing the road with his six-year old daughter.

Do cycle commuters not matter?

We lost count of the emails that said, “I have to travel through your borough on my daily commute and it’s the most stressful/unpleasant/dangerous part of my journey”. One email said:

“I cycle from home to work, but when I reach Kensington I am forced to get off and walk.”

Should these people be ignored because they are not RBKC residents? Shouldn’t any Londoners who choose to travel to work by bike, refusing to add to pollution and congestion, be given a safe, direct route? Instead, people riding bikes to work experience RBKC like a shark-infested river to be crossed without a bridge. 

Moreover, RBKC is a hole in the city’s growing cycle network – a central, strategic hole that affects residents from many boroughs. The emails were from Southwark, Ealing, Lambeth, Hammersmith & Fulham, Wandsworth and beyond, all basically saying, ‘Please grant me (or my loved one) safe passage’. This central void is making London as a whole a less safe, sustainable, healthy city.

We need better leadership

Our campaign has shown that SoS wasn’t the only voice in the borough – just the best-organised one. While resident associations are important stakeholders who deserve to be heard, they aren’t representative of the whole borough or even in most cases, the neighbourhoods they operate in. 

Sadly, RBKC has a tradition of ‘elite capture’ in consultations such as these. A tiny but well-resourced minority dominates the debate. Resident association members tend to be older, wealthier and more time-rich than the average resident, and more engaged with the political system. They tend to be small ‘c’ conservative, wary of change, protective of the status quo. They know how to get their views across and from the council’s point of view, theirs can sound like the only voice. But for a fairer society, the council should not be sitting back and letting these residents dominate the debate.

For a fairer society, the council should not be sitting back and letting these residents dominate the debate

Now we’re in a pandemic and that’s where the authorities need to focus their attention. But when it’s over, for this and any public consultation, the council needs to seek views from every demographic – in workplaces, businesses, schools, community groups and so on, using tools that are accessible for everyone (such as online mapping tools for consultations, and pop-up exhibitions in public places). They should also be tackling misinformation, and reassuring residents that their fears are unfounded. Indeed, the political leaders of Kensington & Chelsea – both our MP and councillors – appear to view political leadership as “echoing the voice of whoever shouts loudest”. In a climate crisis, as with other crises we are living through viscerally, political leadership needs to come from the front, to listen to residents – but also to show them principles and support plans that residents need to get behind.

If Ms Buchan and the council are genuinely listening to all residents, and many others with a stake in the borough, they will realise that there are many who want this scheme and many more who need it. Attacking it now, in the middle of this crisis, is not only wrongheaded, but incredibly insensitive and a waste of precious resources at this difficult time. 

Our dangerous roads

Act now for a safer RBKC

, , , 0

The trees are saved. What about the people?

Transport for London has listened to residents’ feedback on the proposed walking and cycling improvements for Holland Park Avenue and Notting Hill Gate. In their revised plans, only three trees will be removed (with more replanted nearby) on Notting Hill Gate.  No trees will be lost on Holland Park Avenue. Other changes include keeping loading bays for businesses that were due to be removed.

Injuries from collisions – click on the map for more details. Credit: Andy Beverley
Eilidh Cairns, 30, was run over by a lorry and killed while cycling on Notting Hill Gate in 2009

The trees are saved, but the threat to people remains. These two busy roads saw 128 collisions in three years, with people on foot or on bikes getting injured the most. It’s only a matter of time before a collision leads to another tragedy like the death of Eilidh Cairns, aged 30, in 2009. 

Do you want Holland Park Avenue and Notting Hill Gate to remain dangerous and dominated by motor traffic? 

Or do you want safer, healthier streets that work for people, not just for traffic? 

Now is the time to speak up!

Tell the council it must approve these vital safety plans.

RBKC councillors know about the hundreds of injuries on these roads and have seen the revised plans – but are still wavering. 

Please act now and tell them you want a safer RBKC!

 

Why do we need this scheme?

  1. Local authorities have a duty to keep people safe. To ignore these roads’ appalling safety record would be immoral. As well as RBKC residents, thousands of Londoners use these roads daily as their most direct route to work.
  2. It will allow all ages and abilities to travel actively. Fifteen new pedestrian crossings, safer side roads and protected bike lanes will mean that elderly people will more easily reach bus stops and shops and children will be able to pedal safely to school. More physical activity will mean healthier residents.
  3. Our roads are dominated by motor traffic. We need to move away from ‘car as king’. Any main direct road should cater for people walking, cycling and spending time, not just for motor traffic. This is the definition of a ‘healthy street’.
  4. It will improve air quality. Transport for London’s modelling shows the scheme will have very little negative impact on congestion – and that’s the ‘worst case scenario’, if no journeys shift from cars to active travel. Other cycle infrastructure in London, such as CS3 on Upper Thames Street, has delivered an improvement in air quality.
  5. The council has declared a climate emergency. We can’t begin to decarbonise our roads without providing safe, direct walking and cycling routes as an alternative to motorised transport. Electric vehicles on their own are not the answer.

What are the objections?

These are the objections raised by various residents associations.

  1. Bikes should use a ‘parallel’ route on quiet streets. Except there isn’t one. The council’s proposed quietway north of Holland Park Avenue is so wiggly and indirect, it won’t encourage anyone to take up cycling – and certainly won’t tempt current cyclists off their direct east-west route.
  2. It will cause more congestion and pollution. Transport for London’s modelling shows very little difference to journey times except a slight rise in the westbound morning peak – and in fact most walking, cycling and bus journeys should be faster. Bike lanes are much more efficient than motor traffic lanes at moving lots of people, and don’t pollute, so they will ease congestion and pollution in the long run even as London’s population grows.
  3. There will be more rat running on side streets. There doesn’t have to be. Side streets could be closed to through traffic to prevent this, or even area-wide low traffic neighbourhoods created, with huge benefits for residents.
  4. Fast cyclists will endanger pedestrians. Cycle lanes elsewhere in London, including those going past ‘bus stop islands’, are not seeing more pedestrians injured by cyclists. Safe bike lanes also encourage a more diverse mix of people on bikes – women, children and elderly – diluting the faster riders.
  5. Residents ‘don’t want’ the scheme. Which residents? Certain residents associations have been very vocal with their negative views, but they only represent a small minority. What about those who may not have the time or resources for association meetings, like those working long hours, or families with young children? Their safety and well being matter too.

Is the council listening to you?

We believe there are many people who live, work, study or have children at school in the borough who would welcome a safer RBKC.

Does that describe you?

As Better Streets for K&C, we are trying to give you a voice – please join us and take action now!

7

Open Letter to the Council

, , , 0

As residents of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, we are deeply disappointed with your decision to reject Transport for London’s (TfL) plans for safety improvements on Holland Park Avenue and Notting Hill Gate. We were hoping for safer and healthier streets. We were looking forward to crossing the roads more easily with our children and anyone being able to ride a bike. Now this idea seems to have been just a pipe dream.

Why did you reject the scheme before the consultation ended?

We were invited to respond to a consultation and discuss it in a meeting. We were told that you would be neutral and consider all the responses before any decision.  But you had decided to reject the scheme before the consultation had even closed. And far from being neutral, it appears that your lead member for this project campaigned against it.

How did you reach that decision? You claim, “The vast majority of our residents do not support these proposals”. This statement turns out to be based on 450 emails in a borough of over 150,000 residents.  How could you know the views of the residents who participated in the TfL consultation, which had not even finished at that point? How much effort did you make to listen to views from across the borough and not just from the well-organised few who orchestrated the meeting?

A flawed conversation

Many of the borough’s most vulnerable residents are in the silent majority – families with young children, those working long hours, people struggling on a low income, or elderly or disabled residents. All of these groups stand to gain from safer and healthier streets but lack the time and resources to make their voices heard.

You repeat residents’ concerns, but have not tried to address the myths behind them. You talk about trees, which can be replaced (and were to be replaced under the plan), but not about human lives, which cannot. You talk about pollution, when the evidence shows that cycle lanes do not worsen it (and can reduce it). You talk about congestion without admitting that the only way to reduce motorised traffic is to reduce capacity for it and provide sustainable alternatives. This is exactly what the scheme will do, even if journeys slow down marginally in the short term.  You need to listen to evidence, not anecdotes, and seek to allay the unfounded fears of some residents.

Better Streets for Kensington & Chelsea

Our new group, Better Streets for Kensington & Chelsea, will give a voice to residents who want safe streets and clean air in our borough. We’re calling for urgent action which will enable more people to walk and cycle. This will result in healthy and thriving communities.  There is overwhelming evidence from major cities around the world that it can be done – so surely it can be done here, in one of London’s wealthiest neighbourhoods.

Making walking and cycling safer and easier benefits everyone. However, as long-time residents, we’re frustrated by the lack of any meaningful progress to improve our streets.  The Quietway network you refer to is not a solution. This patchy network does not enable convenient and direct journeys to where people want to go. You need a bold and comprehensive plan which will deliver better streets across the borough. Let’s turn the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea from laggard to front runner in safe, clean and active travel!

The Transport for London scheme is a crucial part of the change we need. It will allow more people to travel actively. It will open up our streets to those who don’t own cars and those who are keen to start using their bicycles. It will make this important public thoroughfare a place for young and old, regardless of income, status and mode of transport. It will make the difference between people coming home safely – or, like Eilidh Cairns, never coming home at all.

By all means sit down with TfL and discuss keeping trees and the locations of bus stops. But please – don’t outright reject these important safety improvements for our streets.

We would welcome a meeting to discuss these issues in person.

Sincerely,

Sara French and Jonathan Kelly

On behalf of Better Streets for Kensington & Chelsea

holland-park-avenue-cgi

Holland Park Avenue and Notting Hill Gate scheme axed

, , , 0

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has said no to plans to make Holland Park Avenue safer for all road users. They made this decision even before the consultation had finished, responding to objections from a tiny but influential minority.

See the story in The Guardian

TAKE ACTION

Do you agree with the council’s decision? Or do you think the improvements would save lives and make this route much healthier for everyone? The council needs to hear from Kensington & Chelsea residents who want better streets – and also from those who work in, travel through or take children to school in the area.

Two ways to make a difference

  1. Write to Kensington and Chelsea Council. Contact the Leader Cllr Elizabeth Campbell: cllr.elizabeth.campbell@rbkc.gov.uk and Transport Lead Cllr Johnny Thalassites: cllr.johnny.thalassites@rbkc.gov.uk. Explain your connection to the area and why you think the scheme is needed.
  2. Support this group. We’re tiny and we need more local members with commitment, passion and ideas. Let us know you’re in via the form below.

Why should I support it?

This important investment would make walking and cycling safe and attractive for all ages, including school children. People would have the option to travel safely without a car for short journeys, reducing congestion and pollution and boosting public health. And renovated town centres would help the local economy.