Active Travel Strategy Response

Response to LBRUT Active Travel Strategy consultation, which closed on 20 December, 2019

We strongly approve of the hierarchy propounded in the introduction :

Making the best use of our streets means prioritising the needs of different users above others. Our focus is on supporting space efficient, non-polluting modes that support a healthy populace. Our hierarchy of street users is as follows:
1.Pedestrians and people with disabilities and/or limited mobility
2.People cycling
3.Buses
4.Zero and low emission delivery and servicing vehicles
5.Polluting delivery and servicing vehicles
6.Zero and low emission cars, motorcycles, mopeds and taxi and private hire
7.Polluting cars, motorcycles, mopeds and taxi and private hire

Perhaps a category 8 could be included – use of road space for storage of motor vehicles ?

We note that the intention to reduce local pollution and greenhouse gas production is implicit in the above and could well be made explicit as a valid reason for promoting active travel. In that context it could be argued that cycling is even better at replacing polluting modes for more purposes than is walking.

It is , however, important that this in not merely lip service and the hierarchy is actually used to determine outcomes where competition for road space arises.

We find the Objectives – all very good

Support local walking and cycling trips through the introduction of low-traffic neighbourhoods, improved crossings, contra-flow cycling, cycle parking and public realm improvements, using the Healthy Streets Approach
• Create a high-quality core cycle network connecting popular destinations
• Make improvements to clean-air walking and cycling routes away from roads, including paths through parks, towpaths and other public rights of way
• Improve awareness of local walking, cycling and running routes through maps and branding

Walking and cycling should be the natural choice for undertaking local trips, including accessing local shops and town centres, travel to school and connecting to public transport. The highway network should support these trips, wherever possible, without the need for sign-posted routes.

Whilst ideally cycling routes should be so obvious that sign posting isn’t necessary, we believe that realistically signage is an important part of helping people to get around by bike. We have heard evidence that people are unaware of possible short-cuts as they are used to driving routes.
Signposting can also be a way of advertising cycling especially if times to reach destinations are given.

In terms of target setting we are disappointed that there is no specific target for cycling and find the
target for increasing walking cycling and public transport from 61% to 64% over 4 years unambitious.

Connectivity is of crucial importance but we do not find the porosity map convincing. This may be due to arbitrary choices of which roads to treat as barriers. There is no real alternative to dealing with individual issues here. An on-line system for members of the public to mark in where they have difficulties in crossing would be a useful way forward. (Other boroughs have shown that that sort of engagement is valuable). Places where established routes are severed should be a priority for example Kneller Gardens to Crane Park is obvious.

Where connections across busy roads have been made it is important that people know where they are. For example the toucan crossing of the A316 at Chudleigh Rd Twickenham has no signage from either side.

We are pleased that the drawbacks to the standard kerb build-outs / refuge treatment are recognised.

Kerb build-outs and pedestrian waiting areas make it easier for pedestrians to cross a road informally by reducing the overall crossing distance or allowing pedestrians to cross in two stages, however by reducing the width of the roadway these can cause unsafe pinch-points for cyclists and motorcyclists using the road

Obviously if the road is already narrowed by parking build-outs don’t make cycling worse. The worst situations are where a cycle lane is truncated by a build-out. ( Whitton Rd ,Twickenham)

If there is a refuge the gap should be 3m wide or more than 4 m wide but the presumption should be for the use of a formal zebra incorporating a parallel cycle crossing wherever that would be useful. (again Crane Park is obvious)

The accepted value of low traffic neighbourhoods for enabling walking and cycling is not really reflected in :

Such schemes will be supported for introduction on a case-by-case basis and will vary in size and scope. Most schemes will be introduced initially on an experimental basis following an informal consultation for 12 to 18 months before undertaking a formal consultation.

If low traffic neighbourhoods are to be part of the main drive to supporting walking and cycling surely the introduction should be planned rather than done piecemeal. Some Boroughs , eg Lambeth, have been proactive in preparing a global picture of potential neighbourhoods. Perhaps we should have a target for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods ?

It is a minor irritation that the strategy purports to give the criteria for London Strategic Cycle Network routes but merely lists the variables. Why not give the figures ? There should be some acknowledgement that the minimum standards have been criticised as too minimal.
LCC has pointed out that the DfT’s published guidance for the Strategic Road Network (IAN 195/16) says for motor traffic volumes of over 5,000 daily, cycle tracks are the minimum provision. That’s half the volume TfL is accepting before tracks become mandatory.
At least there should be an ambition to meet all the standards to at least the target standard.

When designing routes then surely the hierarchy of users propounded in the introduction should be used or why have it ? Yet we see :

Designing routes to this new standard on some roads in the borough is relatively straightforward, but there are many locations where space restrictions represent insurmountable challenges. For example, Richmond Bridge is the preferred route for trips between Twickenham and Richmond town centres. The current volume of traffic dictates that segregated cycle facilities should be provided, but the bridge is too narrow. Twickenham Bridge provides an alternate route with segregated facilities but requires a significant detour.

This seems to contradict the hierarchy. If a bridge is narrow and direct it should be reserved for pedestrians, people cycling and buses. The other users should be sent round the longer way especially as the A316 is one of few roads in the borough actually designed for motor traffic.

Perhaps we need an overarching strategy for transport in the borough based on the hierarchy putting what through motor traffic is essential onto roads where is does least damage.

By 2024, a core network will connect Hampton Court Bridge to Twickenham town centre via Hampton Wick, linking to RB Kingston’s Mini-Holland routes, the Wandsworth to Teddington Lock Cycleway and the Brentford to Twickenham Cycleway.

Cycling from Hampton Court Bridge to Twickenham would only go via Hampton Wick if Bushy Park were closed. This is a limited selection of useful routes. In no sense a “Core Network”.

The Map on p 25 shows proposed routes that fail to link up and allegedly existing routes that don’t actually exist. (Bushy Park). Arguably the existing routes should include the Amyand Park Rd route from Twickenham to Twickenham Bridge which is comparable in standard to the Wandsworth – Teddington Lock route.

The pink lines are just drawn down main roads irrespective of any possibility of putting in cycling infrastructure ( main roads would require segregated lanes , 3m if bidirectional and 2×2.2m for with flow) and don’t include the sensible route from Hampton Court Bridge to Twickenham. (Bushy Park, Waldegrave Rd).

Main roads are usually the most direct route but an aspiration that cannot be delivered does not help cycling. Quality alternatives should also be considered on the model of the Twickenham -Brentford route which also reduces exposure to pollution. An obvious general question , which has not been addressed , is can other parts of the LCN be brought up to standard ? We are slightly alarmed to read :

Accommodation will range from segregated routes to traffic calming measures focused on reducing vehicle numbers and speeds.

Traffic calming has been shown (eg Burtons Rd) to be ineffective in producing sufficient reduction in vehicle numbers and speeds for safe cycling routes. Filtering (eg Onslow Rd, Richmond) can be seen to work.

There should be a commitment to develop a plan for deliverable network through discussion with local cycling organisations and with Royal Parks who control some of the best places to cycle in the borough.

Massive e-cargo bid by council

The council is applying for up to £200,000 in grants to purchase electric cargo bikes to support local businesses and charities. But we need to move quickly, and we need you to express your interest.

Katie on trike 2

  • Could you deliver by cargo bike?
  • Could you use a cargo bike to help run your charity or local association?
  • Could you host a cargo bike so that locals could borrow it for big loads?
  • Are you a community association who could run events with a bike?
  • Could your BID use a bike to help smaller busineses deliver, etc.?

If successful, Richmond will be able to purchase a number of bikes which can be loaned to local businesses and charities, to support more zero-carbon transport. You’d be making your local area cleaner and greener, and you’d get more reliable delivery times, be able to park exactly where you were going, safely, and easily.

Ideas you could discuss with local businesses, friends, and groups:

  • A shared cargo bike for moving plant waste from your allotments
  • Using a bike to place and collect all the things you need to manage the park run
  • Sharing a bike in a community to make shopping by families easier
  • Having a bike for your BID to promote the area, and support events
  • Get a bike for your association to make it easier to do community events and support community activities
  • Deliver your goods by bike – depending on the bike / trailer set up you can transport 300kg of goods, or more than you can fit in a small van!
  • Fulfil between locations by bike – you can park bikes right outside where you’re going, and load and unload super quickly
  • Have a bike that customers can borrow to take a big shop home

You can download the application form here. And read more details here.

Contact the council direct at rebecca.howarth@richmondandwandsworth.gov.uk  or tweet or email us if we can help!

Richmond cargo bike flyer

 

 

 

Mortlake Brewery Planning Committee

These are the comments made by our coordinator at the planning committee meeting.

You can read the council papers here: https://cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=224&MId=4712

On behalf of Richmond Cycling Campaign, I am asking the committee to reject this proposal because of its manifest failure to provide meaningful transport options for the area which aren’t driving a car.

We know that a new development of this size will generate hundreds of new journeys a day, and we know that space for driving is already at saturation. The developers hint at wanting more people to walk and cycle, and it is Mayor of London and Richmond Council policy to encourage and support more walking and cycling. We’ve also got late changes which are said to be specifically to support ‘active travel’, but these miss the essential need for safe and complete routes.

Instead of new traffic lanes at Chalker’s Corner, we should actually be constraining the space available to cars, and adding space for walking and cycling. And this should follow throughout the area – for example the design which takes out part of Mortlake Green to provide a cycle and walking route that isn’t fit for purpose, and which is there simply because we will not sacrifice car space to space for people.

The modelling you see does not include a full Healthy Streets assessment, and almost no part of the designs will pass TfL’s key tools for active travel – the “Cycling Level of Service” tool and the Healthy Streets assessment.

We’re not asking or expecting for everyone to cycle everywhere, but that the Brewery embeds and delivers the targets in the Local Implementation Plan, Active Travel Strategy, and the associated mayoral strategies:

– Car mode share in the borough falls from 39.4% to 25% by 2041
– Proportion of residents living within 400m of the strategic cycling network – this is 0% in the borough at the moment, and the development does not add to this.
– And a year on year decrease in car ownership

Genuine Active Travel at this site will deliver clean air, safer streets, more active residents, and healthier residents.

Schools and School Streets – Where are we?

TfL STARS page for Richmond borough: https://stars.tfl.gov.uk/Partner/32/School?pageNo=1

School School Street Notes
Archdeacon Cambridge’s C of E  Primary School
Barnes Primary School STARS Gold

One of first candidate schooos, announced 25th September

Bishop Perrin C of E
Broomfield House STARS Gold
Buckingham Primary
Carlisle Infant School
Chase Bridge Primary STARS Gold
Christ’s C of E Secondary
Clarendon School
Collis Primary STARS Gold
Darrell Primary and Nursery STARS Silver
Deer Park School STARS Gold
East Sheen Primary STARS Gold
The German School STARS Gold
Grey Court Secondary
Hampton Court House
Hampton High
Hampton Hill Junior
Hampton Infant and Nursery
Hampton Junior STARS Bronze
Hampton School STARS Gold
Hampton Wick Infant and Nursery
Harrodian STARS Silver
Heathfield Infant
Heathfield Junior
Holy Trinity C of E
Jack and Jill School STARS Gold
Kew College STARS Gold
Kew Green Prep
Kew Riverside Primary
King’s House STARS Silver
Lady Eleanor Holles STARS Gold
Lowther Primary STARS Bronze

Bike It! school

The Mall School
Marshgate Primary
Meadlands Primary
Nelson Primary
Newland House School STARS Gold
Old Vicarage School
Orleans Park School
Orleans Primary  Hopefully first round of school streets consultations

Bike It! school

Queens C of E STARS Gold
Radnor House
Richmond Park Academy
Richmond upon Thames School
Richmond upon Thames College
Russell Primary
Sacred Heart RC
Sheen Mount STARS Gold
St Catherine’s School STARS Gold
St Edmund’s RC
St Elizabeth’s RC STARS Gold
St James’ RC STARS Gold
St John the Baptist C od E
St Mary Magdalen RC STARS Gold
St Mary & St Peter’s C of E STARS Gold
St Mary’s C of E STARS Bronze
St Mary’s Hampton C of E STARS Silver
St Mary’s University
St Osmund’s RC
St Paul’s School
St Richard Reynolds STARS Gold (secondary)
St Richard Reynolds Primary STARS Gold

Bike It! school

St Richards C of E STARS Gold

Bike It! school

St Stephens C of E STARS Gold

One of first candidate schooos, announced 25th September

Bike It! school

Stanley Primary STARS Bronze

One of first candidate schooos, announced 25th September

Bike It! school

Strathmore School
Swedish School STARS Gold
Teddington School Secondary
Thomson House School STARS Gold
Tower House School STARS Silver
Trafalgar Infant School
Trafalgar Junior School
Turing House School STARS Gold
Twickenham School Secondary
Vineyard School STARS Bronze
Waldegrave School Secondary

Active Travel Strategy – Your Borough Needs You!

Active Travel

The Active Travel Strategy is out for consultation: https://haveyoursay.citizenspace.com/richmondecs/ats/consult_view/

There’s an awful lot in there, and we need your feedback, and to respond. You can read the PDF document here.

Highlights from the strategy, in no particular order:

  • Banning loading in cycle lanes (“where possible”)
  • Work on plans to encourage delivery and servicing by cargo bike / low emissions vehicles
  • Focus on delivering properly for pedestrians
  • Better dropped kerbs, smoother pavements that don’t bob up and down for driveways
  • Link cycling as a way to get to stations and other hubs
  • New segregated routes – Strawberry Vale
  • New segregated routes – Kew Road (which will hoepfully link to CW9 eventually)
  • Kingston to Teddington via Bushy Park
  • Hampton Court Bridge to Kingston Bridge via the A308 – also properly segregated
  • More bike hangars, more parking
  • Make developers put in parking
  • More contraflow cycling across the borough
  • Better pedestrian crossings virtually everywhere, with a review of these
  • Working with TfL to shorten pedestrian waiting at crossings
  • A big low traffic neighbourhood plan
  • Walking, cycling and buses as priority modes for the borough

We’ve started a Cyclescape thread with some discussion: https://www.cyclescape.org/threads/5008

And you can email us – info@richmondlcc.co.uk – or tweet us @RichmondCycling – or come and chat on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/groups/richmondcyclingcampaign/

In a year’s time this is going to look very different.

We attended the Active Travel Advisory Group on 6 June 2019 , and there are lots of important updates …

Strawberry Vale is going to get a cycle lane

One of our key borough routes is going to get a proper bi-directional cycle lane, providing protected cycling along its length. This is a huge change, and it’s such an important route the council sounds like it has secured TfL funding.

Kew Road is (probably!) going to get a cycle lane (which isn’t a car park)

You know that row of parking on the Kew Road, over the cycle lane? Well the parking is going to give up to a cycle lane – the council told us on Thursday that Kew Road will get a cycle lane on both sides. Designs are still in progress, and it looks like the initial implementation won’t go all the way to Kew Bridge, but we think this is an important start.

Bikehangars are going to be sprouting like dandelions

Sometime in the next month, we’re going to see a consultation for thirty bikehangars. We know not all will be approved, but this means by Christmas the borough could have a dozen cycle hangars installed.

Low traffic neighbourhoods are go

Two areas – Burtons Road and the East Sheen / Palmerston Road area are under consideration for low traffic neighbourhoods. Burtons Road is currently in consultation, and there was a meeting with councillors and officials for East Sheen on 10 June.

We think other areas could benefit from these – see the London Cycling / Living Streets briefing here: https://lcc.org.uk/articles/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-briefing-documents-launch

School streets are also go (unless you’re trying to drive down them!)

Four schools – St Stephens, Barnes, Stanley and Orleans Park – are on course to get ‘School Streets’. What’s that? More here – http://schoolstreets.org.uk/ – but basically it’s about setting our schools and their roads up to really make it the obvious choice to walk and cycle there, and to make driving the option you only take if you really, really need to.

Liveable Neighbourhoods

Our next ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ bid is likely to be for Barnes and for Ham (possibility of two bids, rather than one). We’ll be thinking about it over the summer, but it’s worth everyone asking “What would be transformational in my neighbourhood?”

Rolling log on consultations and surveys on (active) travel in Richmond

Rolling log on consultations and surveys on (active) travel in Richmond

Upcoming deadlines

Royal Parks Movement Strategy (deadline: 14 July 2019)

Details and Survey

Richmond Council and Hammersmith Bridge (deadline: 16 July 2019)

Details and Survey

Richmond Council and Burtons Road area: proposed traffic-reducing measures (deadline: 26 July 2019)

Details and Consultation

TFL and changes to the local bus network following closure of Hammersmith Bridge to motor traffic (deadline: 1 October 2019)

Details and Consultation

List of all Richmond Council consultations

All the consultations are here.

How lawless is our borough?

One of our members has provided his experiences after acquiring a cycle camera and reporting traffic incidents to the Met Police’s Traffic Prosecution Services (TPS, aka Traffic Offence Report Team) over the course of a year.

Dangerous pass in TwickenhamOf 160 reports submitted in the year since April 2018, 59 resulted in Notices of Intended Prosecution (NIPs) being sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned. Of these, four registered keepers failed to comply with their legal obligation to provide details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident and are consequently facing legal proceedings for this offence. One such has already resulted in a £660 fine, £166 costs and six points on the owner’s licence.

Of the other 55 NIPs, no notice of what resulted has been received. A further 14 registered keepers received a letter informing them that an allegation had been made but that no action would be taken.

The bulk of the NIPs were for unsafe overtaking, usually too close to the cyclist, sometimes also too close to oncoming traffic, a few for overtaking on a bend including one that narrowly avoided a collision with oncoming traffic.

Eight were for overtaking on, or on the approach to, a pedestrian crossing, including when pedestrians have been crossing or about to cross.

Three were for driving on the footway, three more for failing to stop at a zebra crossing when our member was walking his bike across.

One (among several reported) was for failing to give way at a junction, one for driving in and then stopping in a contraflow cycle lane, one for turning right without observing the lane markings (ie cutting the corner and narrowly avoiding colliding with our member), and one for an illegal right turn.

Two reports received no response at all.

The most reports submitted by our member in a day was four, this on three occasions. In one such, all four incidents took place within twenty minutes on relatively quiet roads; three resulted in NIPs, the other in a letter.

Our member calculates that a NIP has been issued for roughly every five hours of his cycling and an incident worthy of report has occurred every two hours.

Certainly the TPS have a difficult job. They have to decide whether a prosecution is likely to be successful, not simply whether the driving might be considered  poor, careless or dangerous, and they do not have much time to do so. Judging by the incident case numbers, reports are received every few minutes.

However, his impression is that they do not always read the reports closely and sometimes assume cyclists are reporting close passing when they are  actually reporting something else. Very similar incidents often receive very different responses.

Nonethless, any camera-equipped cyclist is urged to make reports whenever appropriate in the hope that greater numbers of drivers may be encouraged to think carefully about their driving, their responsibilities, and the possible effects of their actions when on the road.

AGM Agenda – 17 April

8 PM, WEDNESDAY 17th APRIL, 2019
to be held at the “Old Ship” pub, 3 King Street, Richmond

AGENDA

  1. Apologies for absence
  2. Annual report from the Co-ordinator on the past year’s activities.
  3. Treasurer’s report
  4. Report from the Rides Officer
  5. Election of Officers :-
    Co-ordinator
    Treasurer
    Secretary
    Rides Officer
    Any others to serve on the Committee, eg Chairman, LCC Liaison Officer
  6. Review of current activities and prioritisation for the coming year, including (a) May Fair 10/11 May, and (b) Bike Week 8/16 June.
  7. Any other business