Embassy response to Superhighway Consultation, Green Park, St James's Park

We've responded to the consultation on the Superhighway route through Green Park and St James's Park. Our comments are below.

Overall comments

Given the high volumes of pedestrians in the locations covered by this consultation (and the potentially high cycle flows), it is not acceptable to put walking and cycling into the same space. Clear routes for cycling, separated from the pedestrian areas in these parks, should be provided. There is ample road space on all of the roads in this location to allow cycleways, physically protected from motor traffic, on the carriageway.

There should be safe, attractive and convenient routes on both Birdcage Walk and the Mall. These two routes should connect up properly with one another, both at Buckingham Palace, and through Horse Guards Road, and with the rest of TfL's Central London Grid more generally. Routes through the parks should be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If they have to be closed for special events, suitable, well-signed alternatives should be provided.

We would question whether some of the roads covered by this scheme need to remain open to motor traffic. Horse Guards Road in particular should be closed to through traffic (which was the original proposal). Closing roads would remove the need for unsightly traffic signals, improving the appearance of this important location.

We would also question whether removable infrastructure is even necessary - cycling infrastructure can be well designed, and in keeping with its surroundings, just as much as footways and roads themselves, and easily traversable on foot.

Sympathetic cycle path Amsterdam

If removable infrastructure is required, then it should be of a form that provides sufficient protection from motor traffic, to make cycling a comfortable and attractive experience.

Finally we would argue there is a case for a 20mph limit/zone in this area, applied with tighter junction geometry and better (and more) pedestrian crossing facilities. 

Section A

We support the proposals to provide a much wider bi-directional route for cycling, clearly separated from pedestrians, on Constitution Hill. However this route must continue in the same vein, separated from pedestrians, through to the Mall, and towards Victoria (connecting up with the cycle route on Birdcage Walk). It is not acceptable for the Superhighway route to run through a ‘shared area’ busy with pedestrians, as in the current plans. The Constitutional Hill route should ideally join the carriageway as early as possible, using the ample carriageway space here for a protected cycle route that connects up with the Mall and Birdcage Walk. With this in mind, it would make more sense to run the Superhighway route on the carriageway of the Mall itself, protected from motor traffic, rather than on North Horse Ride.

Section B

We suggest that the Superhighway route runs on the Mall, rather than on North Horse Ride (see Section A). However, if the Superhighway route is to run along North Horse Ride, rather than on the Mall itself, then the bollards and gates that currently interrupt this route should be examined to ensure that there are clear routes through, 1.5m wide. Any bollards or gates that inhibit safe and easy cycling for all potential users should be moved or removed. The crossing of Marlborough Road in particular should be widened.

Section C

A protected cycle route should extend to Trafalgar Square, along the Mall. This is absent from these plans. Indeed our suggestion is for a protected cycle route along the length of the Mall itself, using existing carriageway space. (See Section A). However, if the Superhighway route is to run along North Horse Ride, rather than on the Mall itself, then the bollards and gates that currently interrupt this route should be examined to ensure that there are clear routes through, 1.5m wide. Any bollards or gates that inhibit safe and easy cycling for all potential users should be moved or removed.

Section D

Horse Guards Road should be closed to through motor traffic, while remaining open for access. A physical closure could be put in place at the junction with Birdcage Walk, allowing access only from the Mall

Section E

We support measures to separate cycling from motor traffic along Birdcage Walk. However we note that temporary/removable cycle infrastructure may not provide the same degree of comfort as ‘hard’ engineering, particularly if it amounts only to armadillos, which can easily be driven over. See our general comments about the design of permanent cycling infrastructure. Horse Guards Road should be closed to through traffic, allowing access only, from the Mall. This would eliminate turning conflicts at this junction, and remove the need for unsightly traffic signals in this location.

Section F

We support measures to separate cycling from motor traffic in this area. The west-bound lane on Birdcage Walk requires more physical protection from motor traffic. More generally, the routes provided here must connect up with any route along the Mall, and on Constitutional Hill. Protected space for cycling must be provided on the Link Road, and in both directions on the Spur Road. Alternatively, one of these arms could be closed to motor traffic, allowing the space to be converted into a pedestrianised area with a clear bi-directional cycle route running through it.