Have your say on Cycle Superhighway 5

LCC Westminster web site »

LCC Westminster discussions index »

Transport for London are now consulting the public about three options for Cycle Superhighway 5 between Vauxhall Bridge and Belgrave Square.

For a larger version of this map, please click here

The three options are:

  1. Cyclists in both directions travel on Belgrave Road, Eccleston Street and Belgrave Place (Route 1). This would require a contraflow cycle lane for southbound cyclists on Eccleston Bridge, Eccleston Street and Belgrave Place.
  2. Northbound cyclists travel on Belgrave Road, Eccleston Street and Belgrave Place (Route 1). Southbound cyclists would travel on Lyall Street, Elizabeth Street and St George’s Drive (Route 2). There would be segregated tracks and new traffic signals to separate southbound cyclists from coaches in the vicinity of the Victoria and Bulleid Way coach stations.
  3. As Option Two, but southbound cyclists turn right from Lyall Street into Ebury Street, then use Cundy Street, Ebury Square, Ebury Bridge, Sutherland Street and Lupus Street (Route 3)

All three options would connect with a two-way segregated cycle track along the NE side of Bessborough Gardens and across Vauxhall Bridge. This track would extend as far as Regency Street, offering a quiet route into the Victoria Street area.

For further information on the options - and how to respond - please see www.tfl.gov.uk/cs5.

Earlier plans to route the Cycle Superhighway along Vauxhall Bridge Road were abandoned after Westminster objected. The council believed that reallocating space to cyclists would divert motor traffic onto local roads in the area.

When complete, Cycle Superhighway 5 will run between New Cross and Belgrave Square, via Peckham, Camberwell, the Oval and Vauxhall. According to the Mayor of London's Vision for Cycling in London, "the remaining Barclays Superhighways will be complete by 2016."

Belgrave Road

Belgrave Road, pictured above, is part of the proposed route. Councillor Angela Hooper, a successful candidate in this year's Westminster City Council elections, supported protected space for cycling here when approached as part of the LCC's Space for Cycling campaign.

This post was edited by Westminster Cycling Campaign at 3:02am 11 June 2016.


Given that roads are only a certain width and that Westminster is attached to car parking, we are faced with a bit of a dilemma. The council will probably be able to offer a higher degree of protection (cycle lanes, buffer strips etc.) in a one-way scheme than a two-way scheme. So do we support a more direct but less protected Option 1 or a less direct but more protected Option 2?

  • By paul at 7:52pm 11 July 2014

To be fair the design does talk about 1m wide buffer zones where cycle lanes abut parking. I would have thought that option 1 has the advantage of clarity and also avoiding the coach station.

"Design principles of a High-Speed Cycle Route

  1. Main streets: bi-directional cycle path with a minimal width of 4.5 metres. Separation from pedestrians; a footpath with a minimal width of 2 metres.
  2. Intersections:
    1. Maximal delay 15 seconds per kilometre,
    2. grade-separated, other streets, at grade or roundabout with priority for cyclists or traffic lights with a maximal red time of 30 seconds ('Simultaneous Green' and 'Green Wave')
    3. Surface must be very smooth, (well) lit.. Inclines below 4%.
    4. A high sense of social safety. (Not a face-full of coaches please!)
    5. At railway stations, etc, there should be ample bike parking, with (repair) services and KenCycles (so a good place for automated underground storage like the Japanese 'Eco-Cycle' or above ground Dutch bike 'Apple'?).
    6. The design follows the design principles of the CROW design manual for bicycle traffic."

    still too long a post, so edited down more!)

    See full version on http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/f35-high-speed-cycle-route-twente/ and another good critique with better suggestions re no through traffic on alternate routes, on: http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/superhighway-5-on-diversion/ with pics & diags.

This post was edited by mikeybikey at 10:39am 15 July 2014.

perhaps the best option would be to go for option 1, but to ask westminster to make belgrave rd one-way along its entire length (as it already is along a short section), thus leaving plenty of space for protected bike lanes in both directions.

At present there is far more traffic in Belgrave Road going SE-NW than in the opposite direction. That's probably because it leads up to Eccleston Bridge, which is one-way SE-NW. So cyclists need more protection and priority in the SE-NW direction than going the other way. Does that make it easier to put in a two-way cycle route in Belgrave Road?

If all of Belgrave Rd is made one way for motor vehicles (and there should not be too much opposition to this, given that, as Colin mentions, Ecclestone Bridge is already one way), but kept (or made) two-way for cyclists along the entire length, then there will be plenty of space to give cyclists high-quality separated lanes, in both directions, on the Royal College St model. This would be the best outcome. 

The superhighway also needs to continue beyond Belgrave Sq, to Hyde Park at Hyde Park Corner. This would probably best be achieved by putting a short two-way track on the West side of Hyde Park Corner.

If Belgrave Road were made one-way for motor vehicles, what about the 24 bus that runs along it between Denbigh Street and Lupus Street?

Why bother arguing the best way of achieving mediocracy. Make one of the roads north into a protected cyle route (1/2 the road) and the same for one south. The buses can share the single carriageway with evry other energy guzzler.



re-route the bus via vauxhall bridge rd or st george's drive?

Post a reply

Sign in to post a reply.