Archive by Author
A316 Cycle Route
October 19, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation.
This post has been updated [again] on: 21st February 2012
Nothing new in the Mayor’s answers to these cycling questions, except being told work won’t begin until after the Olympics: no surprise there but maybe an opportunity to seek another review after the Mayoral Elections on 3rd May?
A316 cycle route (1) Question No: 200 / 2012 Jenny Jones
Will you look again at the past recommendations for light controlled crossings on the A316 cycle route at London Roundabout? A constituent informs me that the recent changes by Transport for London to help cater for pedestrians and cyclists travelling east/west along Chertsey Road, crossing both arms of London Road, are minimal and ineffective.
Written response from the Mayor
A feasibility report into the signalisation of London Road Roundabout was completed in 2008. At the time it concluded that it could be technically feasible to replace the roundabout with signalised crossings, but there would be costs close to £1m to divert the statutory undertakers’ equipment within the roundabout. The cost benefit ratio of these changes is therefore deemed to be too high. TfL is currently progressing an option to provide refuge islands for pedestrians and cyclists on the northern and southern arms of the roundabout. These will alert motorists to the presence of crossing pedestrians and cyclists and will provide a safe waiting space to cross in two phases. It is anticipated that these works will be constructed after the Olympics.
A316 cycle route (2) Question No: 201 / 2012 Jenny Jones
Will you make public Transport for London’s data for the predicted use of the London Road roundabout on the A316 and the judgement criteria that they used to decide that providing a continuous cycle route via a signalised crossroads at London Road/A316 would result in increased queuing and displacement of traffic?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
Yes, and we’re looking forward to reading it.
No Comments
Cycling Liaison Group Monday 24th October
October 18, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting.
We’ve not recieved notes yet of September’s CLG meeting, which may be the result of an apparent change in how it’s administered by the Council.
Click here to read our previous post about that meeting and click here to read the questions we’ve asked in advance of the meeting on Monday.
E-mail: campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk if you want an issue raised at the meeting.
No Comments
Patchwork – put wheels under the Big Society
October 15, 2011 by nick, under Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting, manifesto, Veloteer.
We’re moving fast towards the end of the campaigning year with RCC’s annual meeting on Monday 14th November and LCC AGM on 16th, so we’ve been thinking about doing things next year, with the London Assembly elections on 3rd May and the associated LCC 2012 campaign ”Go Dutch“.
We think we can strengthen what we already do by continuing to develop the veloteer idea used so effectively for the railway station cycle parking audits and the reports on Hammersmith Bridge and London Road roundabout.
Why do we think that? Because as a local cyclist you know the routes, what works and what doesn’t. You know the problems and because you know the problems you’re likely to know how to solve them. So you’ll know whether the works proposed by the Council, and TfL, will actually make your cycle journey better, or worse, or make no difference at all. Living locally means you can use your democratic right to ask your local councillor what’s going on. And because the Council’s highway officers have a geographic responsiblity we can develop a working relationship at a practical level.
We think there may be 9 patches in the Borough and if you live in one of them we’re asking you to get involved (and that involvement can be as simple as the occasional email or more involved if you want, the level of commitment is up to you):
1. Barnes, Beverley Brook, Barnes Bridge, Vine Road, Upper Richmond Road
2. Mortlake and East Sheen, Barnes Bridge, Chiswick Bridge, Manor Road, Richmond Park
3. Kew, North A316, Chiswick Bridge, Kew Bridge,
4. Richmond, South A316, Manor Road, Richmond Bridge, Petersham Road, St Margaret’s including north A316
5. Ham and Petersham
6. Whitton, North A316 from Marlow Crescent
7. Twickenham, Twickenham Bridge, Richmond Bridge, Fulwell and Strawberry Hill golf courses, St. Mary’s
8. Teddington, Bushy Park, Kingston Bridge, Hampton Court Bridge
9. Hampton
We also think the A316 Cycle Route should be have its own veloteers because it runs through so many of the patches and is such an important route.
E-mail: campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk to make a difference to cycling in Richmond Borough, we know many of you already do.
No Comments
“Oi !!!”, “oww !!!” and knee nor, knee nor
October 5, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting.
The 3 cycling related deaths we know about in our Borough this year prompted us to ask Richmond Council about all accidents, or collisions as they’re called by the responsible authorities, involving cyclists. At the end of September’s meeting of the Cycling Liaison Group we were given a map for collisions recorded between 1st January 2006 and 31st December 2010. We’ve only got it on paper at the moment but it looks like this [clicking on it makes it a bit bigger]
Now, whatever the Council, TfL and RCC does to encourage cycling, eliminating, or at the very least minimising, risk of harm to cyclists must be the priority.
Recent research tells us why people don’t cycle. It includes fear of harm stopping adults from allowing their children to cycle to school in significant numbers and a perception of risk of harm among other demographic groups, regardless of the economic and health benefits of cycling to both the individual and society in general.
The London Cycle Network and Cycle Superhighways are 2 examples of responding to the problem of harm, reducing risk by moving cyclists on to roads with less vehicle traffic, creating separation from that traffic and managing conflict with it at high risk locations like road junctions. And we’ll know more about what London Cycling Campaign means practically by “Go Dutch“ when they tell us in November about their Manifesto for the 2012 Mayoral Elections. This is what it means to the Dutch. And, if you’re a parent of school age children, have a look at this video of cycling to school and the very different challenges of the school run there.
So, how does the map help us to adopt a problem solving approach to reducing harm?
Remembering mapping is only a first level of analysis, answering the question ”where?” but not “who?“, “what?“, ”how?” or “why?“, you won’t be surprised to see clusters, concentrations, in certain places like:
East Sheen’s Upper Richmond Road, notably between Clifford Avenue and White Hart Lane:
Richmond Circus, including the southern end of Kew Road and alongside Old Deer Park:
That’s one reason why we took the Green Party Mayoral Candidate, Jenny JONES, there last week. We also took her there because Richmond Town Centre was voted the number 1 priority in our recent e-mail poll.
Teddington, in particular the High Street junctions with Waldegrave Road, Broad Street and Park, but also Ferry Road junction with Kingston Road:
Twickenham, with Heath Road, King Street junction with Cross Deep and then London Road up to A316, standing out:
It’s also interesting to note where collisions, or at least reported collisions, don’t happen, like Hampton [A1] and parts of Whitton [A16]
While the map is only “where?” what all these locations suggest, most clearly the line of blue squares [serious collisions] and green circles [slight collisions] along Upper Richmond Road, is the role junctions play in the “how?” and ”why?“ Knowing this should drive 2 things. First, and foremost, a priority list for highway engineering works in the Borough. Second, the test that work at a location does something about the problem there. Will TfL’s work on Upper Richmond Road reduce collisions?
In our view neither Richmond’s Second Local Implementation Plan for Transport or its associated Draft Cycling Strategy make harm reduction a priority or adopt a problem solving approach. Click here to see how our neighbours in the London Borough of Hounslow are encouraged to report problems.
Back in June we pointed out the consultation document for Twickenham Town Centre didn’t actually use the words “bicycle”, ”cycling” or “cyclist” and ”cycle” appears only once, on page 3: “Limited widening of eastern footway in London Road through removal of cycle lane”. This is very disappointing when you see the number of blue squares and green circles:
We also said back in May the apparent enthusiasm police showed for issuing fixed penalty notices for cycling on the pavement in Heath Road was likely to mask a problem with cycling on the road; borne out again by the blue squares and green circles.
We said at the beginning this is a map of recorded collisions so reporting them in the first place is important and the Metropolitan Police Service explains when and how to do that here. They also invite you to report drivers here. Note they say they are happy to hear about “Road layouts that you think may be dangerous or can be improved.”
Finally, you may be interested in: http://www.crashmap.co.uk/
E-mail campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk with your thoughts on taking a harm reduction approach to cycling in Richmond.
No Comments
Phew, Kew cycle lane lives on…
September 27, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting.
We said in our recent post on September’s meeting of the Cycling Liaison Group the Council were removing the cycle lane in Kew Road. It seems they were mistaken and have now clarified their position.
This is what we wrote to the Council after the meeting:
“We were surprised to hear…the cycle lane in Kew Road is to be removed. We were also surprised to hear consultation had taken place “some years ago.” Do you know:
- When the lane will be removed?
- When the decision was taken to remove it, who took it, who was consulted and did that include Richmond Cycling Campaign?
- What figures for cycle journeys along Kew Road were used in making the decision?
Removal of the lane was justified because there is a recommended route along Ennerdale Road. We’re concerned about the credibility of that route because its safety is threatened by use as a rat run and parking makes it impossible for cars and cyclists to share space. Signage also needs to be improved.
Given a Cycle Superhighway will run past the north side of Kew Bridge, RCC takes the view the Kew Road cycle lane is an invaluable on-road link between it and the A316 Cycle Route and removal of it is unnecessary and short-sighted.
We also note the written response of the Mayor of London to the following cycling related question:
“Will you ask Transport for London to reject any local transport plan produced by a borough which includes the systematic removal of all existing cycle lanes in a 20mph zone when the road is being resurfaced?”
“The Guidance on Local Implementation Plans (LIPs), published in May 2010, makes it absolutely clear that any borough must get written consent from Transport for London prior to removal or substantial alteration of works carried out to infrastructure installed with the benefit of TfL funding. Where a borough breaches the above conditions, TfL may require repayment of any funding already provided and/or withhold provision of further funding.
Accordingly, any LIP proposal to remove cycle lanes will be subject to review and approval by TfL. However, it may be that in locations where other mitigating measures are being installed, which assist in reducing traffic speeds and volumes, there is no longer a requirement for previously installed cycle facilities.”
Is the answer applicable to Kew Road?”
This is the Council’s reply:
“…apologies for any misunderstanding regarding the part-time mandatory lanes on the A307 Kew Road.
It was always envisaged that once the cycle route using Ennerdale Road as the alternative was completed then the possible removal of the 2 hour route on the west side of Kew Road would be the subject of a feasibility study. It had been suggested that a two way route on the east side of Kew Road on a widened footway could be investigated or the Ennerdale Road route would be the alternative cycle route to Kew Road northbound.
Since the Ennerdale Road route was completed the removal of the Kew Road west side has not been seen as a priority for removal, so no feasibility study has been carried out. It is not programmed for investigation in the near future and would be subject to extensive public and statutory traffic management order consultation prior to any decision being made.
In terms of TfL funding, these cycle facilities were put in prior to TfL’s existence so there would probably not be an opportunity for TfL to withdraw/claw back funding on this scheme even if there were plans to remove the cycle lanes.”
Good news then and thank you to members who contacted Councillors to express their concern about the proposal.
No Comments
Cycling Liaison Group
September 20, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting.
It’s two weeks since CLG met, arranged after the scheduled one was cancelled, and two weeks before the next on Monday 3rd October so, ahead of publication of the official record, a few things to think about.
Agenda Item 3 Minutes of last meeting
20 mph zones
Discussing this [Item 3g, page 2] we stumbled into a party political difference that became clearer on 9th September when the Richmond and Twickenham Times quoted Councillor Geoffrey Samuel, deputy leader of Richmond Council:
“We are very happy to follow national policies and guidelines and Greater London policies, but we don’t believe Richmond should be singled out for political experiments on the modification of how people get about the borough.”
Now, “Political experiments“ is a very strange and confused characterisation of an intervention the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said in their report “Preventing unintentional road injuries among under 15s”
“will reduce casualties by around 40%”
and went on to say:
“Signage, road design and engineering should be used to reduce vehicle speeds on roads where children and young people are likely to be, such as playgrounds, schools, residential roads or where pedestrians and cyclist journeys are frequent.”
Interesting also to compare Cllr Samuel’s words with the Mayor of London in his written response to the following cycling related question:
Question No: 2641 / 2011 ”Do you believe that 20mph speed limits make the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians alike?”
“The introduction of 20mph speed limits can improve safety for all road users. Research by the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found that 20mph zones have reduced casualties by up to 40% in locations where they have been implemented in London.
My Transport Strategy acknowledges the benefits of 20mph zones in making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists. In addition, TfL looks to include lower speed limits as part of new scheme designs where appropriate. For example, as part of the implementation of new Cycle Superhighway 8, a 20mph speed limit has been introduced at Old York Road.
In considering the introduction of lower speed limits a number of factors need to be taken into consideration including potential safety benefits, the characteristics and function of the road in question, the impacts on traffic flow and the practicality and cost of implementation and enforcement. As such, the potential for new 20mph limits will vary by area and road type.”
Presumably Cllr Samuel relies on the last sentence to support his position.
Given the Metropolitan Police Service issue fixed penalty notices to cyclists using the pavement to cross Richmond Bridge, and it’s unlikely the Council will make the footway shared use, we think the Bridge exactly meets the NICE description “where pedestrians and cyclist journeys are frequent” and should be part of a 20mph zone.
We’ve heard our Borough has the second lowest number of 20mph zones in the country but have yet to confirm it.
Agenda 4 British Cycling
During their presentation about SkyRide Local we were interested to hear British Cycling moving into the gap left by the abolition of Cycling England nationally, and Smarter Travel Richmond locally, and talking about cycling to work issues like secure parking and showers.
Agenda 5 CLG The way forward
Carried over to the next meeting in the absence of Cllr SALVONI Cabinet Member for Community Development
Agenda 6 PROW Footpaths
There seemed to be general support for our proposal to de-regulate footpaths on a case by case basis without deciding on the particular paths we suggested. We’ve asked to be told at the next meeting what the decision making process will be.
We’ve also added to our list:
Blandford Road to Bushy Park, about 4 metres wide and linking to the pelican that should have been a toucan in Blandford Road
Longford Close to Dean Road
linking to the new crossing of Uxbridge Road into Burtons Road
Oldfield Road to Upper Sunbury Road where there’s a toucan and a marked cycle route but also a no cycling sign.
Agenda 7 Draft LBRuT Cycling Strategy
Still in discussion with TfL although we weren’t told why.
Agenda 8 Update 2011/12 cycling scheme programme
Pleased to see one of our quick win suggestions make it on to the list [Scheme 3 Kingston Bridge] and very pleased to see consideration of Hampton Court Bridge [Scheme 4 Hampton Court roundabout] We’ve asked for a timetable so we know when work will be done.
Agenda 9 Any other business
Cycle Lanes
RCC members, both at the meeting and in e-mails ahead of it, asked about vehicles parking in cycle lanes, particularly in Lonsdale Road, Barnes and Staines Road, Hampton.
The definitive word on cycle lanes is in paragraph 16, pages 95 to 101, of the Traffic Signs Manual but by coincidence they were raised in a series of cycling related questions to the Mayor that received written replies, including these two relevant to our members concerns:
Question No: 2649 / 2011 “Is it now your policy to allow trucks to use cycle lanes?”
“It is not my policy to allow trucks to use cycle lanes. Cycle lanes which have a solid white line are only for the use of cycles and no other vehicles may drive or park in them at any time during their hours of operation. Other vehicles are also not allowed to enter cycle lanes with a dashed white line unless it is unavoidable. This is set out in the Highway Code.”
Question No: 2773 / 2011 “I understand different stretches of cycle lane have distinct levels of authority; mandatory, advisory and the highly recognisable blue surfacing, but what is the penalty for a driver that breaches the rules and drives into any sort of cycle lane? How many drivers have been penalised for such transgressions in each year of your Mayoralty?”
“Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.”
Chris Smith, LBRuT Integrated Transport Planning Manager was quite clear at the meeting: report it as a parking complaint for enforcement action by their team of 35.
We were also told, out of the blue, that the cycle lane in Kew Road is to be removed. The local councillor was surprised, particularly when told there was a consultation “years ago“. The justification for its removal was the LCN route using Ennerdale Road. Apart from our concerns about the safety of that route we don’t think this is either/or. With the planned Cycle Superhighway on the north side of Kew Bridge the Kew Road cycle lane provides a link between it and the nearest thing we’ve got to a cycle superhighway, the A316 Cycle Route. The removal of the lane is very short-sighted. E-mail Cllr.JBurford@richmond.gov.uk who was at the meeting and surprised to hear about it.
E-mail campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk with your comments or issues to raise at the meeting on 3rd October.
No Comments
“Red and yellow and blue and green…”
September 20, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation.
Like our parent organisation, London Cycling Campaign, Richmond Cycling Campaign is not party political for two important reasons. First, we have to work with whoever’s in power, although this is becoming difficult with the current administration who recently withdrew our invitation to attend their Transport Management Liaison Group. Second, and more importantly, our members have a wide range of political opinions we must respect. That said we will comment on what is being done by those in power and welcome the support of others, as we did with London Road roundabout and in the RCC Election Manifesto. For that reason we accepted the invitation to cycle with Jenny Jones, the Green Party candidate for Mayor of London, who will be visiting the Borough on Thursday 29th September as part of a tour around all the London boroughs looking at cycling provision. We’ll do the same for the other mayoral candidates if they ask. We’re working on the route, which we’ll post here, but if you want to talk to her about cycling in the Borough we’re meeting at Richmond railway station at 145pm and riding for about 90 minutes.
E-mail campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk if you’re interested in riding or have a cycling issue to tell her about.
No Comments
London Road roundabout – the last word?
September 5, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation.
It took time but we have a written response from Transport for London following the site meeting on 15th July.
2 documents stand out from the 18 sent:
1. 2008 report on the feasibility of replacing the roundabout with a traffic light controlled junction [conclusion: it's not, p17-18]
2. TfL reply to the series of questions we asked both in writing and in person at the site visit.
Dr Vince CABLE, MP for Twickenham, Teddington, Whitton & The Hamptons, told TfL on 14th July he was familiar with the report but wrote:
“I have received a number of emails…about the [London Road] roundabout and the omission of a crossing from TfL’s latest plans. My understanding is that in the original scheme there were plans for a signal controlled crossing across the northern arm of London Rd when it was concluded that full roundabout signalling could not be done. This also included closure of the Cole Park Rd/Chertsey Rd northern entrance. It is not clear to me why it is now being said that such a crossing would not be feasible. If you have visited the roundabout yourself, then you will know that it can be virtually impossible at times to cross the road because of the heavy flow of traffic and its speed. Enlarging traffic islands will still mean people have to take their chances and cyclists will still have to run across the road with their bikes to and from the cycle lanes. The only solution to make this roundabout safe is a crossing and I hope TfL will now revert to the earlier proposal.”
TfL replied on 10th August:
“TfL investigated the signalisation of the roundabout in earlier work undertaken between 2006 and 2008. We concluded that provision of signals on each arm would reduce the overall capacity of the junction to accommodate traffic flow, resulting in increased queuing and displacement of traffic to adjacent parts of the network (potentially to residential side roads). A further option that has been investigated but which was not feasible on cost grounds was to convert the roundabout to a signalised crossroads. There is a large gas main in the centre of the junction, and TfL would need to pay for it to be moved in order to accommodate a crossroads. This has an estimated cost of £870,000, in addition to the costs of other civil engineering and design. The total cost could not be justified in relation to user benefit. The provision of a stand-alone ‘Toucan’ crossing sited away from the junction cannot be provided due to several vehicle accesses for adjacent properties, and it is the Mayor’s policy to limit the number of traffic signals in London, given their operational and maintenance costs, in addition to their impact on capacity. Whilst we recognise that some respondents would prefer an alternative scheme, we frequently need to balance competing demands from road users and carefully prioritise available resources. The response to our recent consultation on the scheme was largely positive and for this reason we will progress it.
We are however investigating as a separate scheme a proposal to close the northern entrance to Cole Park Road and relocate the existing Toucan crossing to the east of the roundabout. This has the potential benefit of achieving a cycle crossing closer to existing desire lines, increasing the exit capacity of the roundabout through providing additional queuing space and reducing rat-running traffic on Cole Park Road, which is primarily residential. We do however need to carefully consider both the impact of the proposal on pedestrian desire lines at the junction and its costs. In the event that we are able to identify a viable option, we will proceed to undertake public consultation on this proposal before determining a way forward. Work is still at an early concept stage, and we are working closely with the London Borough of Richmond during the design process.”
Key statements are repeated in TfL’s response on 18th August:
“…signalisation of the roundabout would have caused severe delays.”
“…the presence of several dropped kerb accesses nearby mean that we are not able to provide stand-alone toucan crossings in locations that are close to the pedestrian and cyclist desire lines.”
“…the current Mayoral policy is that there should be no net growth of traffic signals on the network.”
“…St Margaret’s roundabout was signalised in 1995 prior to TfL’s formation, the introduction of the 2004 Traffic Management Act and current Mayoral policy to limit the growth of signals in London.” [i.e. we wouldn't do it now]
So, what’s the evidence to support the statements:
- reduce the overall capacity of the junction to accommodate traffic flow
- increased queuing
- displacement of traffic
Nothing specific to London Road but we’ve been given the Traffic Modelling Guidelines and Model Auditing Process MAP so we’ll read through them to see if they answer questions like:
- Is a numerical value ascribed to“severe delays” e.g. time taken to travel a set distance?
- Does a numerical value trigger the classification “severe“ e.g. twice as long to travel a set distance?
- How is “capacity“ expressed and calculated?
- Does a numerical value trigger the classification “unacceptable“ e.g. twice as long to travel a set distance during peak compared to off-peak?
- How is “increased queuing“ measured, expressed and predicted?
Thanks to:
Dr Vince CABLE for writing to TfL [Read more about his views on cycling in Twickenham in his recent column in Richmond Informer although we'd ask what "well appointed safe cycle routes" there are in the Borough];
Caroline PIDGEON, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group and Chair of the Transport Committee, London Assembly, for her persistence in asking about the roundabout at Mayor’s Question Time;
Monica SAUNDERS, Richmond and Twickenham Green Party, and Phil JONES for writing excellent letters to Richmond and Twickenham Times on 1st and 8th July respectively;
Radio Jackie for giving us air-time at the beginning of July.
Last, but certainly not least, Tim Harris, who, because he cycles the route to work and knows what he’s talking about, has repeatedly challenged TfL: a true veloteer.
More to follow on other parts of the A316 cycle route.
No Comments
Cycling Liaison Group 5th September
August 29, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting.
It’s been a while since the last meeting so there should be lots to talk about next Monday.
Click here for papers posted on the Council website including Agenda and Draft Budget 2011-12
Read notes of the March meeting [Agenda item 3] for what was said last time. In relation to those [6 Review of CLG Priority List] we’ll soon ask the Yahoo Group to indicate their preferences for the routes listed in Draft RCC Priority List Action Plan
Agenda item 6 Public Rights of Way Footpaths was prompted by our June posting and suggested so far are:
From Thames Towpath at Barnes Bridge to Barnes railway station and NCN 4 at Vine Road to Richmond Park via
Long Walk
Westfields Avenue
Barnes Recreation Ground
Evelyn Terrace at Old Deer Park Gardens in Kew, as an alternative to Jocelyn Road where the road is significantly narrowed by parked cars
South Worple Avenue in Mortlake, avoiding White Hart Lane
and on to Barnes station south of the railway via Rosslyn Avenue and Woodlands Road
and Barnes Common
E-mail campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk with your thoughts about these and issues to raise at the meeting. Remember TfL will not be attending as it’s outside office hours.
