Consultation Watch – Elsinore Way / A316

Post Updated – 1 August 2013
TfL have now published the findings of the consultation, and we’re happy to report that after an overwhelming proportion (over 70%) rejected the removal of the cycle lane, TfL will no longer proceed with this change. Thank you to everyone who responded to the consultation. We shall continue to push for improvements to the A316 cycle lane, including getting priority for cyclists across junctions, improving Chalkers Corner and sorting out the London Scottish car park exit.

The report from TfL is worth a read to see the breakdown of the responses and their analysis of our submission – Elsinore Way Consultation Report

Original Post – 7 June 2013
TfL would like to make it a bit more grim for cycling and walking along the south side of the A316 apparently. (Consultation here, deadline to respond Friday 21 June.)

This is where the A316 runs by a little road called Elsinore Way

And, basically, they’re going to remove part of the cycle lane and pavement, make you jink to the right, beside the tree, then jink back out after the junction. (Here’s their PDF of the plan.)

You can view our initial view of the plan, and another local view on Cyclescape, here. We think this plan is a bad idea for a number of reasons, and we’d like you to get in touch with TfL (fill in the form or email them at STEngagement@tfl.gov.uk) to ask them to reconsider.

Key points you might want to make:

1. The fact that poor driving means people are over-running the kerb is not a reason to change the road layout.

2. This new design brings cyclists and pedestrians into serious conflict on what would otherwise by a reasonably quick, simple route for both.

3. Making it wider just invites people to take the junction faster – that can’t be a good thing when children could be happily running home from school down here. (Let alone anyone else using the pavement.)

4. There’s a perfectly simple, cheap solution: mark the eastbound side (FOUR LANES WIDE at this point) for longer vehicles to take a wider turning, using signs or road markings.

So check it out on Cyclescape, and then please tell TfL you’d rather not have another cycling facility spoiled for the sake of a few drivers who struggle to manage their vehicles. Deadline to respond is Friday 21 June.

2 thoughts on “Consultation Watch – Elsinore Way / A316

  1. These proposals are potentially dangerous both to pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. From my reading of the proposals the turning arc is being widened due to the inability of many vehicles to turn there without mounting the kerb. I would assume the this turn has been tracked using software and vehicles should be able to turn in the existing space so widening the turning circle is allowing poor driving easier.

    Removing the section of cycle lane could lead to potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists and does not encourage more use of these sustainable transport modes. The only advantage of this scheme is for motor vehicles and therefore could increase the use of these vehicles and discourage cycling and walking. This seems to be against TfL’s (and the mayor of London’s) stated aims.

    There is limited width between the tree and the building line and, again, this could create serious conflict points. If this scheme is to go forwards consideration should be given for merging further from the tree so extending the shared space area – for visibility reasons. Consideration should also be given to bring back the give way line so vehicles emerging from Elsinore Road to have to give way to cyclists.

    If poorly driven vehicles are mounting the kerb at this location a bell bollard (or similar) should be installed and monitored by CCTV so anyone striking it can be identified.

    This scheme looks to re-allocate road space from sustainable modes to motor vehicles, seemingly only due to the inability of some vehicle drivers to be able to drive properly.

  2. Leave the cycle lane as it is…find another solution if there really is a problem with vehicles turning here…I agree with richmondlcc comments, they are well considered.

Comments are closed.