Richmond’s Quietway Number 1 – Official Response

This is Richmond Cycling Campaign’s Official Response to the Quiet Way Proposals

Richmond Cycling Campaign welcomes these designs as a major change in council proposals for cycling. Although we have a number of concerns, and changes we would like to see, we support the overall proposal. We also welcome the effort and commitment that this quiet way implies, and we look forward to helping to make this a success.  

General Observations

The proposed 20mph limits are an essential element of this project.

We recognise that the budgets for quiet ways are lower than for ‘superhighways’, but it is clear that a number of compromises have been made on these designs which we’d really like reviewed.

Sections of the proposed route, due to the volumes of traffic particularly, are probably not compliant either with LCDS or the new Standards for Highways. Although 20mph limits will make a difference, we think that further changes will need to be part of a wider strategy.

We also recognise the limitations at Teddington Lock, and urge the council to look seriously at improving river crossings in the area

Specific Comments

Comments linked to specific design sheets from the consultation. A copy of these are on Cyclescape.

Ham Gate to the junction of Ham Common and Petersham Road

  1. Our optimal solution would be to stop parking on this road, widen it slightly, and use clearly marked cycle lanes each side (find Dutch example)
  2. If the existing path is to be used for shared walking and cycling, it will need more marking, and needs to be – as proposed – a continuous, plain, machine-laid surface. The present surface is no more suitable for cycling than a gravel track is for driving. We’d like it to be clear that the path should also have priority across drives, and should smoothly cross them.
  3. At the junction with Petersham Road, cyclists travelling away from the park have to make two movements to cross a road, where cars making the same journey have to make only one. This is repeated from the other direction as well – we would prefer a better solution to this.
  4. The dropped kerbs which access the quiet way may need to be further one way or the other, in order to ensure they’re not obstructed by queuing traffic.
  5. This area is also prone to flooding.

Ham Common – junctions with Martingales and Ham Common

  1. We support the new raised-table design proposed at these junctions. This emphasises speed and safety.
  2. We would like consideration to be offered to continuous pavements here: it’s a clear area where we should do our best for walking, and the low volumes of traffic turning in should make these possible.
  3. It would probably be preferable to have parking on one side of the road for this entire length, as there are regular point of conflict, depending on where people have parked.

Ham Common into Lock Road

  1. This junction will also need signing clearly.
  2. In general, consideration needs to be given to passing places on Lock Road, especially if it is to see an increase in volume.
  3. One option could be the use of raised tables instead of speed humps, to provide obvious pedestrian crossing points, and dissuade people trying to avoid the humps.

Lock Road leading to Hardwicke Road

  1. This section of the route will need to be signed clearly.
  2. We welcome the removal of barriers that prevent easy access by bicycle.

Hardwick Road to Riverside Drive and across to Teddington Lock

  1. We like the cycling zebra crossing.
  2. This route has a gate which is often closed – this may need review, to ensure that there’s a continuous route.

Teddington Lock

  1. We recognise that Teddington Lock is heavily used by foot traffic: if it proves to be very popular as part of this route, then this will hopefully give the council some urgency to look at how to upgrade the bridge.

Teddington Lock to Manor Road and Twickenham Road

  1. The change in priority on this road will make accessing the lock by bicycle much easier.
  2. At the Manor Road junction, we welcome the early release, but this is still likely to be a highly intimidating junction for cycling. (Though the new 20mph limit may have some beneficial effects.)

Teddington High Street (Twickenham Road to Udney Road junctions)

  1. Move to 20mph will make a difference here, though this could still be an intimidating environment.
  2. We like the improvements in pedestrian facilities, which bring more emphasis to this as an area for people, rather than for transit.

Teddington High Street (Udney Road to Vicarage Road junctions)

  1. Welcome the new pedestrian crossing.
  2. As earlier, the introduction of a 20mph zone will improve the accessibility of the road.

Teddington High Street to Broad Street

  1. The access from Waldegrave Road is quite steep, and could be problematic for people with mobility impairments, etc.
  2. In general, the proposed solution for the mini roundabouts is still not ideal, asking cyclists to make multiple stops and starts compared to motorised traffic.
  3. Other ways to deal with this could include traffic lights at both or one of the, roundabouts.

Park Road and Adelaide Road

  • No specific comments

Victoria Road, Clarence Road, Avenue Gardens

  • No specific comments

Avenue Gardens / Park Road / Bushy Park

  1. This seems very confusing for cyclists leaving the park, with three independent movements to go straight ahead. If the road either side is deemed safe enough to cycle, then the junction needs to be, as well. Why not traffic light control the junction?
  2. Another option could be a mini roundabout with a clearly raised centre to control speeds.
  3. Or there could be a raised table from the park to Avenue Gardens.