A combination of 44 local businesses and 10 local residents’ associations representing thousands of residents have combined forces to campaign against TFL’s plan to jam up Holland Park Roundabout, by adding new traffic lights and running a new cycle lane through the middle of it, when there is already parallel infrastructure for cyclists on either side.
This is a major 4-way arterial route, north-south and east-west, in, out of, and across London, which many vehicles cannot reasonably avoid. TfL’s plan will remove lanes used by all traffic, including buses and emergency vehicles, rather than improve the existing infrastructure which is safe and effective.
The campaign comprises posters, leaflets, social media and a website, www.SOS10.co.uk, where people are encouraged to email all their relevant local representatives to tell them how they feel about TfL’s plans.
The campaigners are objecting to TfL’s traffic scheme as it will result in:
Traffic displacement
Traffic will be pushed from main roads onto residential side streets, increasing the risk of accidents for cyclists and pedestrians using these quieter routes.
Increased congestion
As TfL is proposing to add four new sets of signals to the roundabout, and to remove lanes, congestion is bound to increase. Traffic modelling, commissioned by the Holland Park Avenue Traders Association from consultants used by TfL, shows queues increased on Holland Park Avenue by 795% in the morning peak and by 159% in the evening peak. The equivalent increases on Holland Road are 225% in the morning and 296% in the evening.
Increased pollution
As crawling traffic is more polluting than flowing traffic, an increase in pollution levels around one of London’s busiest intersections is extremely likely.
Longer journey times
The congestion will significantly increase journey times for people who commute by bus or car, plus delivery and other vehicles, and slow response times for the many emergency vehicles who use this route.
Economic damage
Experience from other ill-conceived traffic schemes shows that increased congestion damages the trade of local businesses, resulting in shop closures. For example, in the Wandsworth Bridge Road/ New Kings Road area, 87.4% of shops suffered a loss of trade when a new traffic scheme was introduced.
The campaigners are also objecting to the misleading way TfL has promoted its scheme, arguing:
TfL’s scheme is not needed
With cyclists already using the two existing cycle routes and with only one slight cycle accident occurring on the roundabout during TfL’s 3-year reference period, the roundabout is not dangerous for cyclists and a third cycle lane is not needed.
TfL’s scheme is not safe
Encouraging cyclists onto a very busy roundabout with unsegregated, unprotected crossings is not safe. If cyclists are tempted to shoot red lights on the roundabout (as they often do, or if the lights fail), vehicles will have little visibility of them due to the tightness of the corners, resulting in more, not fewer cycling accidents.
TfL has used flawed data
TfL based its traffic modelling on data collected in the pandemic, when traffic was at its lowest level in the past three decades. Doing that suggested TfL’s plans would have insignificant traffic impacts. However, modelling that uses recent data, shows the proposed scheme will lead to massively increased congestion.
In promoting its plans to build a bike lane through the roundabout, TfL cited all accidents in a wide vicinity of it, even though the vast majority didn’t involve a cyclist. Analysis of accidents on the roundabout itself reveals only one slight cycle accident in TfL’s 3-year reference period.
There is overwhelming local opposition
TfL is flouting the findings of its own consultation, which showed that fewer than 12% of people and 30% of cyclists were supportive. A petition against the scheme received over 3,500 signatures, 68% more than responded to TfL’s consultation.
TfL’s publicity has been misleading
The public should be able to trust bodies like TfL to be open and honest. However, in its publicity for the scheme, TfL used misleading data to make its case and asked leading consultation questions to generate the responses it wanted.
Residents have a better solution
Last November, leaders of local residents’ associations met with the TfL’s walking and cycling commissioner and presented alternative plans. They recommended upgrading the two existing cycle routes around the outside of the roundabout, which could deliver TfL’s cycling objectives much more quickly, at lower cost and without jamming up the roads. Rather than prioritise the residents’ plan and evaluate its impact, TfL resolved to press ahead with the new cycleway regardless.
Carolyn Arnold, Chair, Clarendon Cross Residents’ Association, said: “The Clarendon Cross Residents’ Association (CCRA) is deeply concerned about the impact of traffic displacement resulting from the proposed new cycle lane across Holland Park roundabout. According to Transport for London (TfL), traffic will be displaced onto local roads which are currently relatively quiet residential streets. This displacement threatens to compromise the safety of cyclists and pedestrians—many of whom are schoolchildren, families, and residents on their way to local shops, friends, and places of worship.”
“The CCRA is outraged by Transport for London’s (TfL’s) decision to proceed with the proposed cycle lane across Holland Park roundabout, despite failing to conduct proper modelling to assess its impact. This decision ignores overwhelming opposition from local residents, including many in the cycling community.”
“We recommend upgrading the two existing cycle routes around the outside of the roundabout, which could deliver TfL’s cycling objectives much more quickly, at lower cost and without jamming up the roads.”
John Cowdry, Chair, Holland Park Residents’ Association said: “TfL’s claim of 54 accidents at the Holland Park Roundabout over the last three years belies that there was in fact just ONE (thankfully only slight) accident involving a cyclist on the roundabout.It is disappointing that TfL seems to have presented data in a way that paints a picture that is not accurate, seemingly to try to justify an unnecessary and expensive scheme. SAFE CYCLING is an objective wholly supported and encouraged by the HPRA, but it doesn’t need three parallel bike lanes to achieve it!”
Kevin Farrow, Lipp Interiors, concluded: “This proposal to remove lanes of traffic to make way for a new cycle lane on Holland Park Roundabout is simply absurd and will lead to more congestion, not less. We currently have safe existing cycling infrastructure on the roundabout which can be easily enhanced with better signage. This scheme seems extremely bizarre. As a local retailer I feel this would just add further pressure to my business, at a time that is already proving very challenging!”
Deepan, Hillcrest Pharmacy, said: “Our NHS Pharmacy is already struggling with patients not able to collect their medications on time. This plan will not only increase the traffic congestion; it will drive our customers away! Having to increase cycle lanes, causing more and more congestion, really doesn't seem to be a way forward to improving local services.”