Hotel group and taxi drivers make Tavi Place proposals

Further Tavistock Place ideas ….. for those that missed it, the exhibition run by Imperial London Hotels last week-end, with support from the ‘Mayfair Mob’ taxi drivers, proposed – as we predicted – a return to the pre-trial set-up.

MV has searched in vain for any details of the proposals online. In their absence, the main details are: –

• A continuous bi-directional cycle lane between Judd Street and Malet Street, on the northbound side of the road – but on a wider lane (4m) than the 2m that existed before the trial. The carriageway would theefore be reduced from 8.5m pre-trial to 5.5m.
• Return to two-way traffic between Woburn Place and Malet Street. Traffic between Judd St and Woburn Place would remain one-way east-bound.

Exhibition boards_finalproof

The exhibition also presented a second option, of keeping the one-way traffic movement, but switching it to west-bound only.

The organisers were running a survey at the event and will no doubt tell us what it found soon. They are also talking to LB Camden about their ideas and would like them adopted as the Council’s preferred option when it goes out to consultation in early September  –  though worth noting that Cllr Phil Jones tweeted this ….

poor quality proposals designed to prioritise taxis over others

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Hotel group and taxi drivers make Tavi Place proposals

  1. The exhibition did not make clear what problem(s) the proposals are trying to solve. The scheme designers told us that they were not even aware of the traffic problem in Judd Street until they had designed it. Hence the last minute idea to extend the two-way traffic from Woburn Place back to Judd Street, although they admitted that this section the cycle track would have to be much narrower because the road was so narrow. This would bring back to the Marchmont junction all the confusion and danger that was there before, particularly for pedestrians.

    Also, the proposals are incomplete. For example: they do not show how westbound cyclists are meant to cross the road to get onto the 2-way track, nor how they would get back again. However this is achieved it would delay the traffic and cause confusion to any pedestrians trying to cross the road at those points.

    The proposals are really not worth the time we have given them. Also, they are backward-looking and retrograde. Future proposals must look at the whole area. Camden has gathered statistics from the trial period and can compare traffic levels with the situation pre-trial. Where there is excess traffic in inappropriate streets, then the question is: where is that coming from and how can it be managed away? With that information, proposals can be made that move the situation forward. Camden has already designed a number of proposals, such as: restrict access for motor vehicles between Lansdowne Terrace and Brunswick Square at the junction with Bernard Street; restrictions for motor traffic at the Euston/Judd Street junction. These need to be brought back into the mix.

    The Camden counts show that traffic levels on Judd Street before the trial were already too heavy for a residential road. Our problems are excess traffic, using inappropriate roads, causing noise, congestion, pollution and danger. Our local roads should be for local people, for access to their homes and businesses, for walkers and cyclists. We should not give our road space over to through-traffic and all the nastiness that brings.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s