Dear Mr Helyer, Ms Demasi   (London Borough of Camden traffic engineering department)

I write on behalf of the King's Cross Railway Lands Group, of which I am joint chair.

We were not directly consulted about this, as far as I can tell, but found out about it through our membership of the King's Cross Development Forum - which itself only heard from you on 13 October, a fortnight before consultations close (which is today, Sunday).  We wish to register our strong objection to your failure to consult (after 22 years of our continuous engagement with the area).

Please treat this email as our response.  The online form you provide seems to resist all attempts to enter data and there is not enough time to print it, complete by hand, scan and return it.

We have discussed this matter with as many members as we can in the 2 available weeks but have not been able to hold a special meeting about it.  We are fairly confident of the views on the matter of many of our members because of the recent and protracted discussions about pedestrian and cycle movement in and around York Way while the footbridge was being discussed.

Our view is as follows:
1.  If this is the only chance on offer of getting some amelioration of the appalling conditions on York way then we support it.  We have many negative comments below but would not want to risk any delay to action. The scheme is deeply disappointing but better than the existing arrangement.

2.  The two "options" are identical except for the treatment of the regulated parking strip on the east side.  We prefer option 2 because the distinct surfacing might make it more likely for pedestrians to be respected.

3.  Although your leaflet says that one of the problems to be addressed is the poor conditions for cyclists, your proposals seem to do nothing for cyclists.

4.  What guarantee do we have that when TfL see your new crossing for pedestrians at Caledonia Street they don't take advantage (for cars) of that to abolish or relax the light-controled pedestrian crossing at the mouth of York Way and send all the pedestrians (a massive flow) north to the new crossing?  Please can you reply with an assurance on this?

5. Why do these proposals stop at Wharfdale Road.  We had understood that this S106 money was to ameliorate conditions on York Way more generally, in recognition of the loss of amenity caused by the closure of the NE entrance to the Station.  Our view is that, without prejudice to the present scheme, you should follow it with proposals for the rest of York Way, at least as far as Copenhagen Street.

6.  What became of the proposal for improved lighting?

7.  What has become of the consideration of alternatives to the entire gyratory at King's Cross?  We have long supported a return to 2-way traffic on all the main streets.

*************end ****************
Michael Edwards, co-chair
King's Cross Railway Lands Group
5 Caledonian Road, NW1 0SE 07813194401