Things to do in the borough (and why!)

This is a working list of things in the borough – of different sizes – we would like looked at. This page is a work in progress. You can read some of the supporting documents on our Cycling Links page.

Place Notes Cyclescape
Chalkers Corner Needs protected cycling on all arms
Quietway 1
Quietway 2
Quietway 3
Quietway 4
C1) A305 Richmond Road (j/w Aragon Rd – Richmond Bridge) Part of the corridor studies
C2) A305 Sheen Road (j/w Church Rd to TLRN URRW) Part of the corridor studies
C3) A306 Castlenau & Rocks Lane (j/w URRW – Hammersmith Bridge) Part of the corridor studies
C4) A313 Park Rd, Hampton Road & Teddington High Street (j/w Uxbridge Rd – Kingston Road) Part of the corridor studies
C5) A311 Hampton Hill & Hampton Road (j/w Upper Sunbury Rd – Heath Rd) Part of the corridor studies
C6) A310 Kingston Road, Strawberry Vale & Cross Deep (j/w Kingston Bridge rdbt – King St) Part of the corridor studies
C7) A3004 St Margarets Road (j/w Richmond Road to boundary) Part of the corridor studies
C8) A307 Kew Road (Richmond Circus – TLRN Mortlake Rd) Part of the corridor studies
C9) A305 Staines Road / The Green (j/w A316 – Heath Rd/The Green) Part of the corridor studies
C10) A308 Upper Sunbury Rd & Hampton Court Rd (borough boundary to j/w Kingston Bridge rdbt) Part of the corridor studies
C11) B358 Nelson Rd, HBR & Sixth Cross Rd (j/w Hanworth Rd – Hampton Rd) Part of the corridor studies
C12) A3003 Mortlake High Street & B350 Lonsdale Rd (j/w A316 – Castlenau) Part of the corridor studies
C13) A312 Uxbridge Road (j/w Hampton Hill HS – boundary) Part of the corridor studies
A316 / Manor Circus Needs protected cycling at the whole junction
A205 Gilpin Ave zebra Subject of a petition. Not liked by pedestrians, v. low rule observance
A316 quietway This route needs upgrading and finishing
Kew Road Needs sbound cycle lane, and protected cycling on both sides
Richmond Bridge to Orleans Gardens towpath Towpath review
Kingston Bridge to Hampton Court Bridge towpath Towpath review
Teddington Lock to Kingston boundary towpath Towpath review
Ham vicinity to Teddington Lock towpath Towpath review
Ham (Surrey side) towards Richmond Bridge towpath Towpath review
Richmond Bridge to Kew Bridge towpath Towpath review
Kew Bridge to Chiswick Bridge towpath Towpath review
Cross Deep Need protected cycling movement to turn left into, and go straight across
River Crane Path needs completing
Twickenham Riverside Needs access for cycling throughout site, and to site
Richmond Park needs less traffic
Copthall Road School should have better access than a tiny raised table
Byfeld Gardens Consider for filtering
Star and Garter roundabout
Kew Gardens Station It should be possible to walk and cycle from here to the Gardens.
Second Cross Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Sydney Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Grosvenor Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Grove Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Parkley’s Parade Contraflow cycling candidate
Plevna Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Denton Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Cresswell Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Morely Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Heathfields North Contraflow cycling candidate
Cambridge Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Bridge Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Broadway Avenue Contraflow cycling candidate
Queens Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Fulwell Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Holly Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Sidney Road Contraflow cycling candidate
Richmond Station Needs lots of bike parking
Palmerston Road Rat running from Sheen Lane – how does this affect the wider area?
Lonsdale Road Part of a corridor – needs protected cycling
Rocks Lane Part of a school route for some.
Stanley School Needs much better design in the area to promote walking and cycling
St Stephen’s School Petition for a school street
Turing House Urgently needs a robust travel plan with walking and cycling
Burtons Road Should be closed to through traffic http://www.richmondlcc.co.uk/2018/07/26/burtons-road-and-connections/
Strafford Road
Kew Bridge Shared use footway is poor for cycling – needs segregation, esp with CS11 coming
Darell Road footbridge Could probably do with cycle channels
Twickenham Bridge Where the A316 crosses the Thames there are steps down to the tow path on both sides of the river. There are cycling routes along the banks of the Thames and also on the pavement on both sides of the A316 but without a cycle ramp it is really hard to connect from one to the other (especially on the Richmond side of the river. Ideally there should be a bike channel on each of the 4 flights of steps.
St Margarets footbridge Needs bike channels
WInning post footbridge Needs bike channels Here.
Hospital bridge roaf footbridge Needs bike channels Here
B of E sports grounds FB This is a useful quietway link, currently obstructed. No need for cycle channels, but remove obstructions cyclescape link
Palewell fields FB This is a useful quietway link, currently obstructed. No need for cycle channels, but remove obstructions cyclescape link
Old Deer Park footbridge Needs bike channels
Woodlands Road footbridge This is a useful quietway link, currently obstructed. No need for cycle channels, but remove obstructions cyclescape
Barnes Station footbridge Cycle channels needed in a number of places here
Northcote Road footbridge No channels needed, but bike accessibility is poor. map
Forty Alley footbridge Needs bike channels
Church Road footbridge If this is the one to the back of Richmond station, a cycle channel would be good
Amyand Park Road FB Needs bike channels
Cricket Lane, Hampton Hill Signage to make clear it is two way, at least for cycling. Most motor traffic goes one way, from a car park exit, leading some drivers to think it is a one-way street and be uncooperative or abusive to cyclists going the other way.
Oakfield Path, Hampton Make this little-used footpath shared use, to link Hampton and Sunbury
Unnamed path linking Upper Sunbury Rd to Lower Hampton Rd, Hampton Clear bushes, and make path more accessible
Percy Road, Whitton Remove contradictory road markings on south side
Embankment, Twickenham
Add signage/markings to show that the cycle route continues through sections closed to motor traffic. Also to clarify that this is two way for cycling.
Bell Lane, Twickenham Signage to make clear this road is two way
Junction of Arragorn Rd and Amyand Park Rd, Twickenham Separate cycle and pedestrian routes
Kingsway, Mortlake Contraflow cycling candidate
Nightingale Lane, Richmond Contraflow cycling candidate

 

Strafford Road consultation

This is the response we recently sent to the Strafford Road consultation.

I am writing on behalf of Richmond Cycling Campaign, in response to the consultation on Strafford Road and access to the school there. (https://haveyoursay.citizenspace.com/highways-transport/strafford-road-18/consult_view/)

We welcome the thrust of the consultation – to make it easier and safer for families to cross in this area – but we would argue that there are more ambitious options that should be considered:

1. This area needs actual marked crossing on all roads linking the school. This is an opportunity to have a very wide, clear zebra crossing which prioritises the movement of people walking and cycling, over driving.
2. Pavements generally are very narrow, compared to the available space. Why not significantly widen them along most of the length of the road?
3. This, and the connected streets, could be school streets: closed to motor traffic for the entire period of school start and finish.
4. Traffic management should be considered in this area. There’s really no reason for anyone to be driving down this and connected roads, except for access – it could be a Low Traffic Neighbourhood.

The Mayor’s Transport Strategy calls for 80% of journeys to be by foot, cycle or public transport by 2041. For Richmond to achieve this, we need to start building a much more attractive environment for walking and cycling, and we believe that schemes like this are excellent incremental opportunities to begin this work.

An Open Letter to our New Councillors

Dear Councillors,

Richmond is an amazing place to cycle and walk. We’re already a healthy borough with some of the best cycling numbers in London and we’re one of the boroughs where residents are most likely to have cycled in the last week.

This year, every major party in the borough committed to a high quality ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ bid. This is an opportunity to get millions of pounds of TfL money to invigorate part of your ward and we’d love everyone to take part.

Cycling and walking (‘active travel’) is also one of the cheapest but most effective things you can do to make your ward a better place. Since 2000, a variety of different measures have appeared in the borough, focusing on making our streets nicer, safer, less congested, and less polluted. These have come from both Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils and councillors, and we’d like this to continue.

But we need your help and so do your constituents. There are a lot of things that can be done in the borough and we wanted to share just some of the options that are available to you.

Everything you see below is part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy – you can read a huge volume of important evidence here. By helping to deliver for your borough, you’ll be making it a healthier, cleaner, quieter, safer place for everyone, however they travel.

20 miles an hour

All the parties seem to agree that it’s finally time for 20mph in Richmond and it’s our understanding that planning for a consultation has already been largely done. We, and many other community groups, are very keen to see this go ahead. Slower speeds on our roads have all the benefits that you might expect – improved air quality, safer streets, calmer streets, easier crossings, safer cycling.

We know there’ll be a consultation after the summer, and we urge you to support 20mph across our borough.

Healthy School Streets

Camden is introducing ‘Healthy School Streets’. School streets are closed to traffic (except cycles) at school opening and closing times to make it possible for more children to walk and cycle safely to school and to reduce the air pollution in the area. You can see an example on the video here. (And one of their recent consultations here.)

Every school in our borough could benefit from less traffic at dropping off and picking up time. Persuading as many people as possible not to drive at these times will have a beneficial effect on the congestion the borough experiences.

Filtering

‘Filtering’ is the act of blocking a street so that it filters out one type of traffic – usually motor vehicles: filters allow streets to be used by people walking and cycling but prevent motor vehicles using them as a through road. They can be permanent and they can be temporary. In the borough, we have lots of streets – like this one – which have been closed to through traffic.

Well Lane

A recent problem is the growth of apps like Waze – which basically enables people to use all the quiet back roads and calm streets in your area as rat runs. Filtering is one way to make sure residential streets stay residential and also make them places where people are more likely to walk and cycle.

This little group of roads (image below), with the South Circular at one end, shows the benefits of filtering: because you can’t use them to get to the South Circular, the only reason to drive here is to get to your home, meaning they are quiet and calm virtually 24/7.

Bike Parking

If we want more people on bikes, we need to be sure we’re making it possible to store them somewhere safe and convenient. This applies both to places like stations and town centres, and homes.

Bikehangar

In other boroughs, there are dozens of locked, overnight shelters available so that people don’t need to drag their bikes through their house or flat, and so that they can store it out of the weather. Under the previous administration, these ‘cycle hangars’ have slowly started arriving. You can see how many some boroughs have by looking at this map – each shelter holds six bikes, and perhaps the best way to think of them is this: every bike which is easily accessible is a journey someone is less likely to do in a car.

The council has a list of people who’ve already asked for something like this, and we need your support to make sure they go in!

Pedestrian Priority

We think people walking is a good thing and we’re sure that you do too. So one of the things we’d like to see is the use of continuous footways. Here’s one in Waltham Forest: it doesn’t stop people driving into the road, or exiting it, but the priority is for pedestrians.
This type of junction is becoming increasingly common across London and the UK. When used where quieter roads join main roads, it helps significantly to enforce the Highway Code rules on pedestrian priority at side streets. (You can see we half did the job at Wharf Lane / King Street, in Twickenham – wouldn’t it be better for people if it looked like the Waltham Forest example, below?)

WF cross street

(Picture courtesy of Enfield Cycling Campaign)

TfL’s Corridors

Transport for London has been doing a lot of work looking at how people travel and how they might travel. They’ve identified a series of routes in London which they think have the opportunity to carry significant volumes of cycling traffic. These are a number of these routes in our borough: they not only support commuting by cycle but also people getting around the borough.
We’d like these routes to be prioritised for walking and cycling as a matter of urgency and we need your support for this.
This is the current list of the corridors as we understand it:
C1) A305 Richmond Road (j/w Aragon Rd – Richmond Bridge)
C2) A305 Sheen Road (j/w Church Rd to TLRN URRW)
C3) A306 Castlenau & Rocks Lane (j/w URRW – Hammersmith Bridge)
C4) A313 Park Rd, Hampton Road & Teddington High Street (j/w Uxbridge Rd – Kingston Road)
C5) A311 Hampton Hill & Hampton Road (j/w Upper Sunbury Rd – Heath Rd)
C6) A310 Kingston Road, Strawberry Vale & Cross Deep (j/w Kingston Bridge rdbt – King St)
C7) A3004 St Margarets Road (j/w Richmond Road to boundary)
C8) A307 Kew Road (Richmond Circus – TLRN Mortlake Rd)
C9) A305 Staines Road / The Green (j/w A316 – Heath Rd/The Green)
C10) A308 Upper Sunbury Rd & Hampton Court Rd (borough boundary to j/w Kingston Bridge rdbt)
C11) B358 Nelson Rd, HBR & Sixth Cross Rd (j/w Hanworth Rd – Hampton Rd)
C12) A3003 Mortlake High Street & B350 Lonsdale Rd (j/w A316 – Castlenau)
C13) A312 Uxbridge Road (j/w Hampton Hill HS – boundary)

Dockless Bikes

We know some councillors have already received enquiries about these. London Cycling Campaign supports almost anything that encourages more people to use bikes to get around and dockless bikes (like Ofo, who have a trial contract with the borough) definitely fall into that category. We’d urge everyone to sign up for this – even if you don’t use the bikes, the app is a great way to report bikes which have been left in the wrong place.

You can also suggest good locations for the bikes to be parked, by using this link: all the bike providers operate a ‘reward’ system which encourages people to leave bikes tidily and in the right place.

Liveable Neighbourhoods

Major funding from TfL is currently focussed on councils who make a ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ bid. As part of the election, all the parties in Richmond committed to making a ‘high quality’ bid. This is a great opportunity for every ward in the borough because a successful bid can be for a town centre, a residential area, or a specific route.

Consultation is Key

We know that getting the public on board for walking and cycling schemes is absolutely crucial. There’s a lot of best practice now available from other boroughs and from TfL, as well as committed funding specifically for public engagement in Liveable Neighbourhoods. ‘Bikelash’ is a real thing and we’re keen to make sure it doesn’t hold us back, so we would urge you to reach out to us, to officials, and to supportive groups like LCC, Living Streets, 20s Plenty, Sustrans, Cycling UK, and all the others who can help with this.

Sincerely,

Richmond Cycling Campaign

Stag Brewery – we’re not happy

We’ve responded to the Stag Brewery consultations, and we’ve objected.

Whatever you may think of the development itself, our concern is that it fails to support active travel, and it utterly fails to making walking and cycling compelling options for the area.

The consultation has three parts – the main site, the school, and Chalker’s Corner.

Our responses are below. Please take a moment to tell the council they aren’t good enough on these links:
Application A – the main site
Application C – Chalker’s Corner

Application A Response

I am responding to this planning application on behalf of Richmond Cycling Campaign, the local branch of London Cycling Campaign.

We object to planning application A on the following grounds:

On transport issues, Application A does not meet LBRUTs own requirements as set out in the LBRUT Development Management Plan https://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/11616/final_development_management_plan_adopted_nov_2011.pdf .

In particular the proposal does not address the requirements to:

  • Create or improve links with the local and wider transport networks, including links to the cycle and pedestrian networks (see page 101)
  • Protect maintain or improve the pedestrian environment (see page 103) for the increased number of pedestrian movements on & off the site
  • Maintain and improve conditions for cyclists (see page 105). With the increased population & increased number of journeys, conditions on the roads & towpath are likely to be worsened for cyclists.
  • Ensure that excessive parking demand  is not created which could have an adverse impact on the local highway/ traffic conditions (see page 106)

In general, we object to the overall failure to ensure that active travel is a core element of this development: as a dense development in an area with good access to a wide range of facilities, this is a design which should have all the key elements of active travel ‘baked in’ at this early stage. Until we see designs which included dedicated cycling facilities through and around the site, sufficient cycling parking for all residents and visitors, and the prioriitisation of links for people walking over people driving, we do not believe this application should pass.

Application C Response

Dear Richmond Council.

I am responding to this planning application on behalf of Richmond Cycling Campaign, the local branch of London Cycling Campaign.

We object to planning application C on the following grounds:

  1. It is in breach of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy goals because it fails to support the aims for reduction in motor traffic, and proper support for walking and cycling.
  2. The design utterly fails to provide suitable conditions for walking and cycling, and prioritises the movement of large volumes of motor traffic over all other uses at the junction.
  3. The overall design for the area and the development does not have any provision for walking and cycling from the development to any destination. Only the existing provision (of pavements, and small sections of unsafe cycle lane) remains.
  4. For a site with a 1,200+ person school, the absence of active travel provision is unacceptable. (Whatever the size of the school, there is clearly insufficient capacity for the increase in footfall or cycling which would be required to not turn the entire area to gridlock.
  5. We believe that any plans for Chalker’s Corner needs to be part of a wider traffic strategy in the area which is designed to move through traffic away from non-trunk roads, and which “bakes in” segregated cycling provision and safe walking provision to provide local people with genuine options for how they move around our borough.
  6. The plans and design are not in compliance with council strategies on air quality and traffic.
  7. The designs do not meet the requirements set out in the council development management plan: https://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/11616/final_development_management_plan_adopted_nov_2011.pdf. In particular:
  • Create or improve links with the local and wider transport networks, including links to the cycle and pedestrian networks(see page 101)
  • Protect maintain or improve the pedestrian environment(see page 103) for the increased number of pedestrian movements on & off the site
  • Maintain and improve conditions for cyclists(see page 105). With the increased population & increased number of journeys, conditions on the roads & towpath are likely to be worsened for cyclists.
  • Ensure that excessive parking demand  is not created which could have an adverse impact on the local highway/ traffic conditions(see page 106)
  1. The proposal is not compliant with TfL’s ‘Streetscape Guidance’, the London Cycle Design Standards (LCDS), nor does it include a Healthy Streets check. It is our opinion that the designs would fail both an LCDS review, and a Healthy Streets check, with Chalker’s Corner including a number of ‘critical fails’ in the LCDS review.

In general, the failure to provide for active travel is a fundamental failing of this plan. If we build dense new developments like this, which assume high levels of car use, then that is what we will get.

Local Elections – Call your Candidates!

Here’s what we’ve written to the leaders of all the parties in Richmond’s up-coming elections.

Can you contact your candidate and ask them? Use this link!

And if you’d like to know more about what a great Liveable Neighbourhood is, LCC & Living Streets have put these excellent documents together.

Liveable London banner

Dear Councillors and candidates,

London Cycling Campaign and Living Streets are urging you to support better walking and cycling in our borough.

The borough already has some of the best stats for ‘people who at least cycle occasionally’ in the whole of London, as well as a good modal share of cycling (at 7%), compared to many outer London boroughs. You may also have seen the recent data from TfL showing just how many journeys are walkable or cyclable, based on their distance.

For too long, we’ve focused the borough’s energies on making it easier to drive a car – we think it’s about time the focus became ‘easier to walk and cycle’. The ‘Liveable Neighbourhood’ ask from LCC and Living Streets is that we commit to a bid which does this. It’s all TfL money, so it’s not even something we need to pay for – but the only way we get the money is by showing real commitment.

To our thinking, almost as important as the fact that we don’t need to find this money ourselves in these tough times, is the strong emphasis from TfL that public consultation is crucial. The TfL Liveable Neighbourhoods plans include a specific allocation for public engagement, and for making the case for walking and cycling.

But as well as the Liveable Neighbourhoods bid, we’re asking you, as prospective councillors, to speak out about all the benefits of walking and cycling. We know from more than five years of consultations in this borough and across London that projects like this struggle badly if local councillors and officials don’t understand or don’t support measures for walking and cycling.

Great cycling facilities enable everyone to cycle, so please take the time to look at the documents LCC and LN have prepared, and think about how you can help make our borough a better place for everyone.

Sincerely.
Borough Coordinator, Richmond Cycling

Quietway Consultation Response

This is our response to the Ham Quietway (QW1) consultation
Y
ou can see the drawings in this PDF. We urge you to make your own response: you can fill in the questionnaire, or email the council team directly at highwaysandtransport@richmond.gov.uk

Richmond Cycling Campaign generally supports the changes proposed in this consultation, but we have specific concerns which we think need to be addressed in order to maximise the appeal of this route to people who cycle now, or who are considering it.

Taking the individual sections:
Ham Gate to Upper Ham Road
At 2.5m this is probably a minimum width to be shared between walking and cycling, and we predict that on busy days there will be conflict between the two modes because of the width.
The entrance to the park is also a potential area for conflict, as the design seems to suggest cycling joins the main road at this point.
The priority for this path over the driveways and crossings on the route is a very welcome change for the borough, and should benefit both walking and cycling.

At the traffic lights at the end of Ham Gate Avenue, we feel this is a poor experience for people cycling and walking. The design offers low capacity for these movements. It also requires someone cycling from the park to make two movements, whereas a driver needs only to make one. The design to then join Ham Common provides a very real likelihood that waiting traffic will block this junction, making it even harder to cross the road.

Fundamentally, if Ham Common is good enough to cycle on, then so is Ham Gate Avenue. If Ham Gate Avenue isn’t appropriate for cycling, then neither is Ham Common.

Even if we accepted the proposed movement, the designed turn from Ham Common onto the cycle route has extremely low capacity if – as is likely – someone arrives with a family, a cargo bike, or any other larger cycle. Again, conflict is being designed in if this route is used by the volumes we are hoping for.

Once on Ham Common, we welcome the change in design at Martingales Close, which provides a significantly better pedestrian experience. We are concerned that there are no parking changes on this road, however, because the volume of traffic here and the parking on alternate sides makes for a needlessly complex cycling environment which will especially deter less experienced and younger cyclists.

Risks around traffic volume persist on Lock Road. Although potentially suitable by volume and designed speed (20mph), this has some features – such as the speed cushions and build outs – which have a likelihood of causing conflict: we’d like to see some more analysis of how to make sure cycling gets clear priority in this area.

We applaud the proposed changes to the Broughton Avenue / Hardwicke Road crossings, as likely to make this significantly more inviting to cycling.

Similarly, the widening of the more obvious crossing is also a welcome change which we think will make a real difference to people cycling in the area.

Cycling Liaison Group – An Emasculated Quietway?

Richmond is going to get dockless hire bikes, but won’t get the full planned quietway. 14 separate roads are being lined up for contraflow cycling, North Sheen station will get a cycling channel on its bridge, the A316 quietway-or-superhighway-or-something-else isn’t going to happen any time soon, Twickenham Stadium will clean up their act on cycling signage on match and event days, and an improved design for Cross Deep junction to make it safer for cycling has been sent to TfL.

And every new transport scheme should now go in front of the cycling officer, so we’re hopeful that we will see fewer designs which go to great lengths to discuss car parking, but consistently fail to provide cycle parking, let alone anywhere nice to actually cycle …

Will this get some improvement?

Dockless bikes

The council seems to be running this a bit like a procurement exercise, even though they’re not planning to part with any cash. This has been in analysis for months, and we heard some slightly surprising things about what the council is worried about: bikes not being very nice, how good the apps are, and so on.

There are reasonable questions too: how do we try to keep pavements clear? How do we ensure bikes are picked up if left in places where no-one wants them? The good news is that Councillor Buckwell, the Cabinet Member for Transport, undertook that at least one company would be in trials by April – keep those eyes peeled!

Quietway

The quietway plans managed once again to dominate the meeting with, in our opinion, appalling manners shown to the councillors and officers. The route was ridden by Will Norman, the walking and cycling commissioner, late last year, and he has refused funding for the Teddington High Street portion – according to the meeting this was essentially because he felt it was not good enough to be a quietway.

However, the council has persuaded TfL to go ahead with the other two parts of the route: from Richmond Park’s Ham gate to Ferry Road, and from …. to Bushy Park. While we would like to see a complete route, and we think Teddington High Street should be an important section, the scheme has basically foundered on NIMBY local opposition.

You may think we’re harsh to say ‘NIMBYs’ with such a broad brush, but it’s quite clear that neither the Teddington Society nor many of its members are overly interested in having people cycling along their High Street if that means they can’t drive or park. This is a shame, as it’s directly in contradiction to the Mayor’s stated goals around healthy streets, liveable neighbourhoods, and air quality improvements.

When we read things like this from members, though, it just reinforces our determination to make the case for good, safe, cycling through Teddington itself, for locals and for visitors. One member from Ham wrote this:

“I tried to cycle with my son to his swimming lesson at Teddington Pool on Saturday.  We gave up just beyond Ferry Road and (sadly unable to teleport) we walked, with our bikes, on the narrow pavement to disgruntled looks from pedestrians.  I can imagine that most people would resort to the car at this stage, which means going via Kingston or Richmond or not patronise Teddington’s shops and services.  We will walk but it will take twice as long and makes Teddington a less appealing destination than it would otherwise be. “

Contraflows

A total of 14 streets are in safety assessment for contraflow cycling. We hope they’ll come to consultation in March or April. Each of these will only be a small project, but we believe that building a proper network for safe cycling across the borough is going to need dozens of small schemes like this, all of which eventually link together.

The A316

This has been mooted for far too long, and we don’t have good news on it. There’s no schedule for when things are likely to happen, and we know already it’s been downgraded from a potential super highway to a quietway. We do know proposals are still being developed, so will be keeping our eyes open.

New transport schemes

For a long time, the council has been producing consultations where they seem to have either forgotten cycling, or stuck it in as a band aid afterwards – East Twickenham, Star and Garter [Richard Reynolds], and now East Twickenham.

As a direct result of Richmond Cycling Campaign lobbying, every scheme will now go before the cycling officer before it comes to consultation. Some of what we hope will result is:

  • Cycle parking considered as a matter of course
  • Better and more realistic analysis of ‘shared space’
  • Reducing conflict between walking and cycling

The RFU & Twickenham

As many of you will know, Twickenham and Richmond get very busy on match and event days. To deal with these, there are road closures, crowd barriers, and various other changes.

For some months we’ve been trying to persuade the RFU that they need to be better at managing traffic on event days – that they shouldn’t be using ‘cyclists dismount’ signs, that there are other barriers and layouts they should consider, and that they should be more actively supporting and thinking about cycling as a way to deal with some of the transport issues on event days.

Thanks to persistence by local members, the council is meeting the RFU, and has promised to share a proper traffic plan before the next event.

Cycling Channels

These allow you to get your bike across footbridges without having to physically lift them. We first asked for these under the previous cycling champion, the utterly useless Katherine Harborne. With the help of the cycling officer, these are finally being fitted to more and more bridges, and the next one will be the footbridge over Manor Road, at North Sheen station.

Towpaths

We’re told that part of the towpath along the Thames around Petersham is going to be upgraded. While this isn’t going to be the full improvements we’ve been asking to this for a number of years (details here) it’s a small step in the right direction.

Remember, things only happen when we ask, so we need your help to do so. 

East Twickenham Consultation – another poor scheme from Richmond

This is the response of Richmond Cycling Campaign(RCC) to the council plans for East Twickenham. (https://haveyoursay.citizenspace.com/richmondecs/east-twickenham-2017/)

RCC represents London Cycling Campaign members and over a thousand supporters in the borough. We campaign for walking and cycling provision for everyone, so that these are transport modes available to all.

With some minor exceptions we oppose the proposals for East Twickenham and will be urging TfL not to fund them. This is because the plans fail to provide meaningful improvements for walking and cycling, in defiance of both council and Mayor of London policies which call for support for active travel.

The section of Richmond Road involved in this consultation will soon be home to a primary school of over 450 children, It also provides a route currently busy with cycling, and identified in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy as a key corridor for improving cycling. Despite fairly high volumes of pedestrians – obviously likely to increase significantly with a new Lidl and new school, the plans offer little for either mode of transport.

The road design in its proposed form has a poor general score (around 23/100) and multiple ‘critical fails’ using TfL’s ‘Cycling Level of Service Tool’. In continuing proposals for 1.5m (or less) cycle lanes the council is seeking to double down on useless designs installed in 2011 (see here).The design could also include ‘Copenhagen style’ side crossings as used in Waltham Forest and other boroughs, to prioritise walking and cycling, and should have better designs at the end of Richmond Road – removing cyclist/pedestrian conflict rather than maximising it.

We think this scheme should also be the subject of a Healthy Streets analysis (see the toolkit here): it is our suspicion that the road already scores poorly, and that the changes in this scheme will only result in marginal improvements.

  • The design includes a total of seven new car parking spaces, with no justification provided for why these are more important than walking and cycling provision.
  • The pedestrian crossing on Richmond Road appears to have no traffic light or pedestrian control on one side, and requires pedestrians to cross in two movements, whereas vehicles only require a single movement at any part of the junction.
  • The left turn from Richmond Road towards Twickenham unaccountably includes shared space markings for part of the area, with no explanation as to what route is supported by this.
  • On all parts of this design, cycling has no priority with the sole exception of the short contraflow lane from Rosslyn Road. Failure to provide priority will ensure that cycling will continue to be unpleasant in this area, and the TfL proposed route from the Mayor’s Transport Strategy is unlikely to come to fruition.
  • No explanation is provided as to why this area is being looked at or consulted on: is there a wider strategy it will feed into?
  • The shared space which the contraflow cycling lane feeds into is also inappropriate – adding pedestrian / cyclist conflict
  • The design for cyclists feeding from Rosslyn Road is very poor – the shared space ends before the cycle lane markings on Richmond Road, effectively ensuring a neat segue from one type of conflict for cyclists to another
  • 1.5m wide cycle lanes which are unprotected and not mandatory do not qualify as acceptable cycling facilities
  • Although there is clear analysis offered for parking of cars, there’s none for parking bicycles, whether analysis of required capacity of possible location
  • The council has policies which talk about improving air quality, yet this appears not to be under consideration in this consultation
  • A stated objective of the consultation is to ‘improve traffic flow’ – we feel that (especially with a new school opening), the goal of any changes in this area should be to actively discourage through traffic, which in most circumstances should be using the A316

Twickenham Riverside – Our Response

This is the text of our response to the Twickenham Riverside planning application. Please take a moment to pop down the sherry and add your opposition! You can make your comment on the planning website

We oppose the application on grounds of its failure to comply with LBRUT, Greater London Authority and Government policies:

Twickenham Area Action Plan 2013 (‘TAAP’) sets out LBRUT’s policy framework for the site. TAAP includes a principle to improve the pedestrian environment and reduce dominance of parked and moving traffic (7.5.2.3). TAAP states that the whole area should be changed in a comprehensive way, and that each phase must take account of the overall future layout (7.5.5.5). TAAP aims to improve the environment of the Embankment including reduction in car parking (7.5.5.2).

LBRUT’s Core Strategy 2009 includes spatial policy CP9 which aims to revitalise Twickenham Town Centre, creating a high-quality district centre serving residents, workers and visitors, founded on the principles of sustainability. Transport considerations include improving pedestrian and cycle links to and from the centre, and improving traffic management to manage flows and reduce dominance of vehicles on the town centre environment.

The Core Strategy is in the process of being revised and incorporated into LBRUT’s Local Plan. The Local Plan states (LP 44 B) that the council will ‘ensure that new development is designed to maximise permeability within and to the immediate vicinity of the development site through the provision of safe and convenient walking and cycling routes, and to provide opportunities for walking and cycling, including through the provision of links and enhancements to existing networks.’

The London Plan 2016, published by the Mayor’s Office, states that London should be ‘a city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities with an efficient and effective transport system which actively encourages more walking and cycling and makes better use of the Thames’. The Plan encourages patterns of development that (1) reduce the need to travel especially by car, (2) improve the capacity and accessibility of sustainable travel modes such as public transport, walking and cycling, and (3) encourage shifts to more sustainable forms of transport.

Healthy Streets For London 2017 (‘HSL’) published by the Mayor’s Office, a core element in the Mayor’s overall plan for London, states ‘Walking and cycling are the healthiest and most sustainable ways to travel, either for whole trips or as part of longer journeys on public transport… This will only happen if we reduce the volume and dominance of motor traffic and improve the experience of being on our streets.’

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012, (‘NPPF’) seeks to ensure that the transport system is balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes. Developments should be located and designed to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and should create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians.

Specific failings:

Failings in regard to TAAP
The application is not a comprehensive plan as required by TAAP. The site borders Water Lane and the Embankment, yet the plans do not consider any of the improvements of these thoroughfares anticipated by TAAP, for example reduced car parking along the water-front. The application’s car parking will increase traffic on the Embankment in contravention of TAAP.

Failings in regard to the Core Strategy and the Local Plan
The application encourages cars by excessive provision of car parking. Increased parking will increase the dominance of cars in the town centre environment in contravention of the Core Strategy. The application offers no improvement to cycling between the riverside and King Street, a requirement of the Core Strategy. The application fails the requirements of the Local Plan in not considering the riverside cycle route to Richmond or between the riverside and King Street which would have provided permeability to the site.

Failings in regard to the London Plan and HSL
The provision of cycle spaces at the rear of the basement does not encourage cycling as required by the London Plan as there is no improvement of cycling infrastructure in the immediate area; notably no northbound cycling on Water Lane to link with King Street. The application does nothing to reduce car travel, a requirement of the London Plan and HSL. The application does not improve the on-street experience or create a space where walkers and cyclists are free from manoeuvring cars.

Failings in regard to NPPF
The application gives no priority to cycle movements as required by NPPF. The car parking spaces within the development and the access via the Embankment will lead to increased conflict between pedestrians and cyclists on the one hand and traffic on the other, in contravention of NPPF.