LBRUT Cycling Strategy & Mini Holland Update

So Richmond and Twickenham might get some substantial mini-Holland cash, but we still don’t actually have a cycling strategy to really support spending it properly … 

Last week RCC members attended 2 key council meetings relating to cycling developments.  Monday saw the LBRUT Head of Integrated Transport make a presentation to the Environment, Sustainability and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee on (a) Mini Holland status and (b) the Borough Cycling Strategy; and Tuesday saw the quarterly Cycling Liaison Group take place covering the same topics.  A summary of both is given here.

Mini Holland status – Richmond has been selected to go through to the next stage; but with various modifications to the bid.  Three or four boroughs will get about £20m each; 4 others could get around £3m. Other boroughs who failed in their bids may get funds for certain aspects in their bids which TfL considers “worthy”. So there seems to be a good chance that LBRUT may get some funding whether or not they win.  LBRUT will be preparing the next bid with help from their consultants; and have 10 weeks (now 9) to do so.   Richmond Cycling has requested input into the bid as soon as possible, so we can make sure the proposal has some real substance around safer places for people to cycle in the borough.  Our review of the original bid is here.

  • Apparently Andrew Gilligan (Boris’ Cycling Commissioner) is enthusiastic about the rail-side routes. Network Rail and SW Trains have been contacted and they are “very excited”.  LBRUT is seen as a test bed for other boroughs. There is clearly a lot of more detailed work to be done to establish feasibility.
  • TfL also wants the council to work with them on the A316 route.  Hounslow and Hammersmith will be involved too.  TfL requires that the cycle route will be continuous, which is great news: cycling routes which stop and start for no obvious reason, and which dump you into unsafe locations, are one of London’s biggest cycling issues.
  • The proposal for the Ham-Twickenham bridge over the Thames will be dropped (on grounds of not enough benefit for the cost) and is seen as a more long-term possibility.
  • The current design for Twickenham town centre design will be improved. There is a possibility of mandatory cycle lane or lanes in King Street.
  • More cycle parking is needed. The existing 250 spaces at Twickenham Station should be doubled. (And we think Richmond station still needs more, let alone the other locations crying out for parking in the borough …)

Borough Cycling Strategy – the report presented by the officers at the O & S meeting appeared to be aiming to get the O & S committee to provide input into the cycling strategy; rather than claiming to be a strategy itself.  In fact the “strategy” seems to depend on whether or not LBRUT win any mini-holland money; so is unlikely to be completed until the outcome of that is known.  Two Richmond Cycling committee members made formal statements to the committee to comment upon the document and made a number of key points – in particular that the targets for modal share growth are unambitious; that LBRUT need to be making infrastructure changes to support more vulnerable cyclists; they need to focus on converting parents from driving their kids everywhere – by making the roads safer for cycling; they need to use the information from School Travel Plans to really address these problems; and that the level of funding committed is inadequate.

Our attendance at the meeting enabled RCC to raise awareness of a number of important points to a wider set of councillors than are usually engaged in cycling matters – and a number of questions were put to us.  It was apparent that many of the councillors are not very cycling-aware; and the general level of questioning reflected many of the usual anti-cycling prejudices (red light jumping, pavement cycling etc.) without any obvious awareness of why this behaviour might happen.

Cycle Parking – Each year there is a work programme (for parking).  Cycle hubs will be installed at stations over the “next year or so”.  Suggestions for parking are invited – if anyone has suggestions for places where more parking is needed please get in touch or log these on Cyclescape and we will then pass onto LBRUT.

 

5 thoughts on “LBRUT Cycling Strategy & Mini Holland Update

  1. It’s no surprise that the Council now admit that the design for Twickenham town centre needs to be improved.

    So why don’t they do that NOW before they waste a huge amount of money and cause months of traffic chaos on King Street & London Road.

    Get it right first time LBRUT.

    Don’t paint dotted lines in the middle of vehicle lanes, install proper cycle lanes NOW.

  2. I can’t see rail-side routes working here.
    1) Many railways in the borough already have parallel minor roads.
    2) Very high cost of construction work alongside busy 3rd-rail lines, esp if the line has to be closed for work in confined spaces.
    3) Many lines are not at road level and access ramps would need to use non-railway or highway land. Rail junctions would need expensive bridges.
    4) Where railways run behind houses & gardens (common here) objections from residents concerned about burglars gaining access from paths.
    5) Unused & inaccessible rail-side land sometimes serves as wildlife corridors, which would be damaged by path construction and use, esp. if tree felling or shurb clearance was involved.

  3. Pingback: What the Cycling Strategy Should Say… | Richmond Cycling Campaign

  4. I agree with the general tone of this article: Richmond has all it takes to be the a model cycling city, yet has failed to get even the basics rights.

    Just a few examples:
    – there are no continuous liaisons between green spaces, with the possible exception of Ham Gate avenue
    – the riverside paths are often only passable with mountain bikes
    – there are numerous “dismount” signs and shared space with pedestrians

    I could go on with the idiotic cycle lanes, those ones that are about 1.50m long, or the lack of secure parking.

    Or the fact the council redesigns roundabouts with more space for cars: http://richmondtransits.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/mini-holland-or-mini-neverland.html

Comments are closed.