Mini Holland

Filtered perm

Part of the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, the investment will benefit all road users by funding substantial improvements to streets and better facilities for pedestrians.

CTmv1_rXIAE1Aaq.jpg-largeRichmond bid for mini Holland funding several years ago but was unsuccessful.  However schemes such as the segregated cycle path that is being consulted for London Road is being covered by a smaller pot of funding that Richmond received.  Also there is talk of an upgraded A316 cycle path from mini Holland funding.  We’ll keep you posted.

Kingston our neighbour was awarded 30 million pounds for its mini holland scheme.  It has since been branded ‘Go Development’ details are here.  Some quite impressive schemes I think you will agree.   We need to help our friends in Kingston ensure that it is executed well so we’ll keep you posted here of consultations or progress.  A successful mini holland will help us all when we visit Kingston and will also demonstrate to Richmond how cycling can be a great transport choice when the infrastructure is right.

First task is to take the Wheatfield Way Survey and ask for cycle tracks that are separate from motor traffic.

Kingston station plaza proposals mini-Holland.JPG-pwrt3

 

Recent Posts

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.

  1. Cycling Liaison Group – An Emasculated Quietway? 2 Replies
  2. Rides for Explorers : Sunday 14th January : Box Hill Comments Off on Rides for Explorers : Sunday 14th January : Box Hill
  3. East Twickenham Consultation – another poor scheme from Richmond Comments Off on East Twickenham Consultation – another poor scheme from Richmond
  4. Twickenham Riverside – Our Response Comments Off on Twickenham Riverside – Our Response
  5. What’s Going on in Richmond? Comments Off on What’s Going on in Richmond?
  6. Air Quality Action Plan – Just not good enough 3 Replies
  7. Rides for Everyone : Crane Park new link : Saturday 21st October Comments Off on Rides for Everyone : Crane Park new link : Saturday 21st October
  8. Rides for Explorers – Surrey Woodlands – Sunday 8th October Comments Off on Rides for Explorers – Surrey Woodlands – Sunday 8th October