Submit a quick response

We know that life is busy and you may just have one short moment to tell us what you think of our proposals. That's why we now let you submit a quick consultation response.

This is different from our consultation survey as we ask just one short question "Tell us what you think of our proposal".

Your response can be long or short, but importantly it lets us know your views. 

You will need to register with our Have Your Say platform to give us your quick response, although your details will be kept secure.  

 You have until 16 October 2023 to give us your feedback.

Please note that responses to the survey will be made publicly available after the consultation has closed in the form of a report on the results. Your personal information will be properly safeguarded and processed in accordance with the requirements of privacy and data protection legislation. For further information, please visit our privacy policy.

Consultation has concluded
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

This scheme will not tempt me to ride a bicycle.

Graham Duguid 4 months ago

What is going to happen to the hospital parking bay H3 which is currently on the northbound side of Harewood Ave at the south end? It is a very useful parking bay for the Western Eye Hospital.

Graham Duguid 4 months ago

We as residents have cars we pay for parking we pay road taxes we pay for insurance, what do cyclists PAY for ? Nothing at all they cause accidents by not following the Highway Code they ride on the pavement. Cycle lane causes more disruption pollution from non flowing traffic, how many cyclists use the lane? Very few.

Ralphtadrous 4 months ago

I occasionally cycle this way & this will be a big improvement. It will also help more people feel safe enough to try cycling and use cars less for short journies. More active travel = less cars on the roads. I fully support the Conservative Gear Change policy and quote from Boris Johnson "I know many people think that cycling and walking schemes simply increase
car traffic on other roads. But there is now increasing evidence that they
do not. We sometimes think of traffic as like water: if you block a stream in
one place, it will find the next easiest way. Of course some journeys by car
are essential, but traffic is not a force of nature. It is a product of people’s
choices. If you make it easier and safer to walk and cycle, more people
choose to walk and cycle instead of driving, and the traffic falls overall." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007815/gear-change-one-year-on.pdf

Hyperweever 4 months ago

I am writing this as a keen cyclist and someone who enjoys the benefits of cycleways. However, I honestly believe it is time to balance the increasing quantity of cyclists with the needs of pedestrians, especially in residential areas.

I understand that a cycleway on Enford Street is inevitable, as work has already started! But I propose it would be better for cyclists to go West to Seymour Place and the C27, when they reach York Street. Going East, it would make more sense for them to go to Gloucester Place, where there are already cycle lanes in both directions. The official proposed routes are too convoluted.

Encouraging bicycles to go around Wyndham Place, and through Bryanston and Montagu Square shows disregard for the fact that these are purely residential, quiet areas with no commercial premises whatsoever. Due to their gardens and peaceful nature, the squares attract families with very young children, as well as elderly residents. It is crucially important to prioritise their safety - especially in the places they have to walk on a daily basis.

Statistics show that at least two pedestrians are killed or maimed every single week by bicycles in London. That number is increasing rapidly. It does not include the number of people who suffer injuries less severe than maiming, or other crimes like abuse or mugging.

Please keep our residents safe.






I am writing this as a keen cyclist and someone who enjoys the benefits of cycleways. However, I honestly believe it is time to balance the increasing quantity of cyclists with the needs of pedestrians, especially in residential areas.

I understand that a cycleway on Enford Street is inevitable, as work has already started! But I propose it would be better for cyclists to go West to Seymour Place and the C27, when they reach York Street. Going East, it would make more sense for them to go to Gloucester Place, where there are already cycle lanes in both directions. The official proposed routes are too convoluted.

Encouraging bicycles to go around Wyndham Place, and through Bryanston and Montagu Square shows disregard for the fact that these are purely residential, quiet areas with no commercial premises whatsoever. Due to their gardens and peaceful nature, the squares attract families with very young children, as well as elderly residents. It is crucially important to prioritise their safety - especially in the places they have to walk on a daily basis.

Statistics show that at least two pedestrians are killed or maimed every single week by bicycles in London. That number is increasing rapidly. It does not include the number of people who suffer injuries less severe than maiming, or other crimes like abuse or mugging.

Please keep our residents safe.





I am writing this as a keen cyclist and someone who enjoys the benefits of cycleways. However, I honestly believe it is time to balance the increasing quantity of cyclists with the needs of pedestrians, especially in residential areas.

I understand that a cycleway on Enford Street is inevitable, as work has already started! But I propose it would be better for cyclists to go West to Seymour Place and the C27, when they reach York Street. Going East, it would make more sense for them to go to Gloucester Place, where there are already cycle lanes in both directions. The official proposed routes are too convoluted.

Encouraging bicycles to go around Wyndham Place, and through Bryanston and Montagu Square shows disregard for the fact that these are purely residential, quiet areas with no commercial premises whatsoever. Due to their gardens and peaceful nature, the squares attract families with very young children, as well as elderly residents. It is crucially important to prioritise their safety - especially in the places they have to walk on a daily basis.

Statistics show that at least two pedestrians are killed or maimed every single week by bicycles in London. That number is increasing rapidly. It does not include the number of people who suffer injuries less severe than maiming, or other crimes like abuse or mugging.

Please keep our residents safe.



Sent from my iPad

Toggle 4 months ago

I am a resident of Montagu Square. I have seen a significant increase in all forms of traffic on Montagu square including many lorries and vans, particularly since the two way changes to Baker Street and westbourne Grove. My concern with this proposal is the impact of cyclists using Montagu Square (even if the proposal suggests they go back through Bryanson Square) with that increased traffic.

PeterBlott 4 months ago

The route for Cycleway 51 as proposed is acceptable although am concerned that some cyclists may seek to cut through Wyndham Place, a most popular open space used for recreation. Many children play there, ride their scooters/bikes supervised by parents/carers who will often sit on a bench or sit at a table having coffee.

Recently there has been a suggestion from the Marylebone Association that it would make more sense for the cycleway to go via Montagu Square.
I partly understand the logic but it is not feasible since the relative widths of Bryanston and Montagu Squares have not been taken into consideration.
The roads around Bryanston Square are significantly wider and if it were two way cars could easily pass by each other.
This is not the case in Montagu Square where the roads are much narrower and two cars could not pass by, ie there is very little room for cyclists to safely use Montagu Square as a through route.
The roads around Bryanston Square are sufficiently wide to accommodate cyclists safely and this is the only square of the two that is feasible for the Cycleway.

Montagu Square 4 months ago

The last thing the local residents and I mean the three main roads which will suffer the most need, is more traffic, loss of residents’ bays and fumes outside their homes. The traffic already backs up to my home near Hall Road at Rush Our on the best of days. Cyclists have their routes already established on parallel roads and this is enough.

Michelle BP 5 months ago

TFL what do you want to achieve? Stop ruining our streets / village with road furniture. We live in Northwick Tce, There is already limited parking availability. Removing 12 parking bays to create a cycle lane for low to zero usage is a gross waste of rate payers money. There is no need to make these changes and Northwick and Hamilton Tce should remain unchanged. These changes will only cause further frustration and hinderance to both pedestrians and motorists. We are against the implementation of cycles lanes in Northwick Tce.

WoodNW8 5 months ago

My wife and I walk around this area, St. Johns Wood road and Hamilton Tce. a lot.
We feel there is simply no need to make these modifications to this junction as there is simply not the cycle traffic to warrant it. In fact it has been reported this week that cycle use is on the decrease! Motorised traffic has enough hindrances already without making getting around our little town any worse!

Jamder 5 months ago

it doesn't go nearly far enough, but it's a well-thought-out start

oldedro 5 months ago

I am against any plans to implement cycle lanes on Northwick Terrace. As a resident on the road with a car in the household, it is already difficult to find car parking spaces on the road let alone to remove 12 spaces. In addition, there are hardly any cycles which use this road, to warrant a cycle lane. St John’s Wood road (and Aberdeen Place - are already available from Edgware Road for cyclists to use. This is a residential road not a cycle route. Thanks!

Londoner1805 5 months ago

It is likely that the C51 cycle route will be pushed through regardless of opinion as that is what TFL does. But the part of the route using Enford Street and particularly Wyndham Place is misguided. If anyone planning this route ever spent any amount of time on Wyndham Place during daylight hours, they would see that the space is for most of the time crowded with children from the nearby schools playing and with people sitting in the open area enjoying a coffee, a few moments of rest on the benches or simply a moment off the crowded pavement of Crawford Street.
When TFL pushes this route through, will they reconsider after cyclists hit children playing or adults walking or having their coffee? Wyndham Place is the only open space in the surrounding area. everywhere else are streets with traffic alongside narrow sidewalks with considerable pedestrian traffic.

marylebonewalker 5 months ago

Removed by moderator.

Ruth LIU 5 months ago

Support the proposal to go ahead.

Ruth LIU 5 months ago

What is the point of 'consultations' when the changes are going to be forced through anyway like Marylebone Road being made into a 20mph dual carriageway? And will there be any enforcement of the dangerous van drivers and food delivery cyclists flying through red lights at the pedestrian crossings?

platformfour 5 months ago

As with C51 the consideration only seems to be for cyclists.
Are many schools around here and paradoxically this will mostly make it less safe for them and for users of the roads in general.
Hence I object to the proposal C51, as I do for C43

Montagu Square 5 months ago

Having the cycle lane cut through Wyndham Place and down Enford St is incredibly dangerous for young children.
Wyndham Place is the only public open space in the area that children can run around. Nearby schools/nurseries take children there for their outdoor time. Parents/Carers get a tiny bit of sanity and fresh air when take their kids there to learn to walk, run, jump, cycle, etc.
There is bound to be an accident when a fast cyclist goes by quickly into the path of a toddler learning to walk.
Enford St is also a play street for the kids at St Mary's Bryanston school.
Why are we trying to take places AWAY from children in a neighbourhood that already has so few amenities for them?!
Does anyone designing this plan care for children - and do any of them even come and observe the areas they are designing for?!?

WorkingMum2 5 months ago

I think this is a well-considered and beneficial proposal, and that the changes outlined would improve the safety of bicyclists, pedestrians and commuters in these neighbourhoods, with minimal effect on motorists. I frequently cycle from St John's Wood to Marylebone and onward to Bloomsbury, and the section of my route from St John's Wood to Marylebone is consistently the most difficult. The proposed changes to the junction at Marylebone Road / Harewood Avenue / Enford Street would be most welcome. For north- or south-bound cyclists, crossing Marylebone Road is difficult, and often requires a risky avoidance of left-turning vehicles.
As for the proposed Cycleway 51, this would also be very beneficial to cyclists. I have often seen personal vehicles on Penfold Street driving quickly and recklessly, in what I assume is in an effort to avoid congestion along Edgware Road. Due to the current lack of designated cycle lanes, I have often been concerned for my safety when biking down this road. I believe the proposed Cycleway 51 would ameliorate the existing issues and improve safety for residents and commuters.

fullbookshelf 5 months ago

Generally I am for cycle lanes but the part that cuts through Wyndham Place is a very bad idea. This is a square in front of a church with a cafe on it who has chairs out on the square and is a gathering point for children after school and on weekends. They draw with chalk, practice balance bikes, play games and run around. Having bicycles cut through that is dangerous and should be avoided.

Carolinettej 5 months ago