A316 / Manor Circus – RCC response update.

We’re preparing to get our response in to TfL on the Manor Circus junction. Please take a moment to read this and get your own response in.

Consultation is here. Remember you can respond by using their form, or just by emailing consultations@tfl.gov.uk and saying “I agree with Richmond Cycling Campaign’s submission”.  

Dear TfL,

Richmond Cycling is not in favour of the current proposals for the A316 / Manor Circus roundabout, for the reasons we outlined on our site: http://www.richmondlcc.co.uk/2014/10/16/manor-circus-a316-consultation/

Since writing that, we’ve had a chance to talk to one your engineers when there was a public exhibition at Sainsbury’s.

After that discussion we have some additional points and clarifications:

  1. The roundabout could be replaced by traffic lights, with an ‘all ways green’ phase for walking and cycling.
  2. The objection we were advised of – that buses use the roundabout to turn around is easily dealt with, because buses can either use the Homebase car park which they use at present, or the turning opposite the fire station could be extended.
  3. We were told that the owner of the petrol station would object to better pedestrian access around the periphery of the station. This is a completely unacceptable position to take  - the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in this area is of significantly more importance than access which, in any case, is not being prevented but de-prioritised versus other users.
  4. While we welcome the intent of the plans – to legitimise the existing behaviour, where cycling and walking co-exist – any minor advantage which accrues to walking and cycling from the changes is wiped up by crossing changes which are specifically designed to prioritise the movement of motor traffic over the movement of pedestrian and cycle traffic.
  5. The move away from specific space 4 cycling to shared surfaces is a massively retrograde step, far out of keeping with the new designs being considered in central London.
  6. Perhaps most significantly, if the intent of the changes is to improve safety for walking and cycling, then the design of the junction should make significant steps to lower traffic speeds with tighter radii and other engineering changes: it is not appropriate to accept that vehicle speed is a problem, without finding some resolution for it.

So in summary, while we welcome the new attention being given to this junction, these plans are simply not good enough for walking or cycling: where the design either increases conflict between walking and cycling, or encourages through poor design risk-taking crossing of junctions, it is probably also unlikely to lead to an improvement in safety.

We strongly urge you to take these back to the drawing board.

Sincerely,

Richmond Cycling Campaign

Kew Road cycle lane – show me the paint!

Kew Road is mostly a lousy place to cycle. But until recently, it at least had mandatory cycle lanes along a large part of its length.

 

The cycle lanes used to look like this - not ideal, but probably the best observed cycle space in the borough.

The cycle lanes used to look like this – not ideal, but probably the best observed cycle space in the borough.

Given the volumes of traffic, and the potential for it to be an arterial route for people to cycle around the borough and from places like Kew Bridge, the road badly needs fixing. Recent changes have included over £100,000 spent on replacing a zebra crossing with a traffic-light controlled crossing, and resurfacing.

(Yes, you read that right: replacing this zebra crossing – apparently because a bus stop needed moving – cost over £100,000.)

zebra

(Image from Google Maps)

Most worrying about all these changes is that engineers told us there were concerns about speeding on Kew Road, and the new design of the crossing point above – which adds a pinch point – is expected to slow traffic. We don’t think it’s appropriate to plan to slow traffic by pushing cycling into the carriageway. Further, it’s hard to believe that resurfacing the road is actually going to do anything other than increase average speeds: so far, the it seems our borough engineers aren’t very on-board with TfL’s new interest in properly supporting cycling, or indeed with the new team.

We’ve asked the council to at least re-instate the cycle lanes properly, and will update you as soon as we have a response.

Credit where it’s due.

We spend a lot of time giving the council a hard time, and so it started this morning, when Tim Harris spotted this appalling piece of parking by a council contractor.

Parking on the cycle laneWhy a driver would think it appropriate to park here at any time is beyond us, but to compound the error, there were apparently clear parking bays just 50m away. We asked Councillor Speak (Cabinet member for Transport) to look into this, and by the afternoon he’d tweeted this:

TweetingIt’s only a small thing, but if you ever needed proof that it’s small individual actions like this that make the world a better place …

Ham to Richmond – Reconnaissance Ride 12 July 2014

Outcomes and Ideas from Reconnaissance Ride – Ham to Richmond – 12.07.2014

Background: All three Councillors for the Ham & Petersham & Richmond Riverside Ward signed up to the London Cycling Campaign “Ward Ask” which was to create a safe surfaced route for cycling and walking from Ham to Richmond. As a starting point towards that Cllr Loveland, Cllr Frost, Andrew Beedham (Chair of the Ham Forum), several representatives of the Richmond group of London Cycling Campaign as well as other interested local people met to cycle the route and talk about how it could be improved.

I have done my best to put together all the thoughts, problems and suggestions that were raised during this ride., but of course there will always be more to add. While I have included the ideas and solutions put forward to some of the difficulties presented by this route, the intention was not to try to present technical solutions as this is a job for Council officials.

  1. Petersham Road across Ham Common (from The Hand & Flower – Ham Gate Avenue)

Suggestion:

1. This section is wide enough for advisory cycle lanes to be marked on both sides. This would alert motor traffic to people on bikes

  1. Petersham Road from Ham Gate Avenue – Sandy Lane

Suggestion:

1. This section is not wide enough for cycle lanes however the central white lines could be removed. It was noted that during the period when the road was resurfaced and there were no markings, cars treated cyclists with more caution when overtaking. This concept is backed up by studies from the recent TfL London Cycling Design Standards, which states:

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/draft-london-cycling-design-standards/user_uploads/ch5-cycle-friendly-street-design.pdf

Street design

Psychological traffic calming
5.3.8 The character of the street has a subtle effect on traffic speeds: the street width, lane widths, the amount of greenery, the sense of enclosure given by the buildings, the levels of activity and the uses that the street supports. If motorists perceive that they have unbridled priority and that the street has been designed primarily for through traffic, then they will drive accordingly.

5.3.9 A study by TRL,’Psychological’ traffic calming(2005),compared different design techniques for traffic calming, together with more conventional speed reduction methods. Uncertainty was observed to be very effective in reducing speed, particularly ‘tree buildouts’. The greatest impacts were achieved using combinations of psychological and physical measures. Geometry is a key factor: when motorists are in more doubt about whether the space exists to make a passing manoeuvre, they are likely to overtake more slowly and more carefully (if at all).

5.3.10 Features that may support this psychological calming effect include:

  • the appearance of road narrowing and reduction of forward visibility
  • removal of road markings that give motorists more security than is appropriate,

resulting in excessive speed (typically centre lines on local roads) 

  1. Ham Avenues intersects Sandy Lane – built out crossing with one way priority give way signs for on-road traffic.

 photo1

 

photo2

 Background: The built out crossing was meant to slow motor traffic but creates an unnecessary inconvenience for people cycling along Sandy Lane towards Ham Street as they have to stop to give way too. There is also a danger and inconvenience for people cycling from Ham Street towards Petersham Road as motor traffic often does not see/ or just fails to give way to cyclists. The advantage of the built out crossing is that it links the well-used Ham Avenues and creates a safe crossing point for people on foot and bike, particularly for children and buggies because on one side is the Sandy Lane playground and on the other is Greycourt School.

Suggestions:

  1. Build a cycle path across the built out path on the Greycourt side of the road so that bikes do not have to stop. Possible difficulties with this solution include the potential conflict with people crossing the road. Would the cycle path run behind them and they wait on an “island”? Alternatively it could be placed right next to the road.

2. Build a fully segregated cycle path down both sides of the street, from Ham Street to where the residential housing begins.

  1. Cut Throat Alley

photo3

photo4

Cut Throat Alley is a valuable walking and cycling link between Ham Street and the Avenues. It is a safe child-friendly route to reach the Russell, German, Strathmore Schools as well as the KISH (Kindergarten in the Scout Hut) and onwards to Richmond. The narrow winding alley and path bumpy path surface keep speeds extremely low and users are almost always polite and considerate when walking and cycling through.

Throughout the autumn/ winter/ spring the second half of the alley, the part furthest from Ham Street does not drain and becomes dangerously muddy.  Apart from creating a slipping hazard this makes the route unappealing for anyone who does not want to reach their destination covered in mud.

http://www.cyclescape.org/issues/1018-bad-path-surface-in-cut-throat-alley-ham

Suggestions:

  1. Include the alley in the council leaf clearing schedule.

2. Look into improving the water drainage on this part of the path. The first part of the path has the same surface but does not end up with deep mud. What is causing this difference? Is it just the leaves?

3. It was noted that this problem cannot be solved, as previously tried, by scattering a layer of pebbles, as this just increases the slipping hazard. 

  1. Dirt track across The Copse adjacent to Strathmore School, linking Meadlands Drive with Ham Avenues/ service road for the German School and the Polo Club.

photo5

photo6

 Suggestion:

  1. Providing a properly surfaced path from Meadlands Drive to the road serving the German School and the Polo Club would improve walking and cycling access to Strathmore and Russell Schools and help provide a better quiet route from Meadlands Drive area towards Richmond – providing more/better options for avoiding the busy Petersham Road. The current expansion/ rebuild/ land sell off on the Russell Strathmore site offers a perfect opportunity and additional imperative to make this happen.

photo7

The path could be properly linked to the pavements at either end.  Currently there is an uneven drop at both the meeting point with Meadland Drive and with the Ham Avenues.

  1. A possible surface would be a continuation of the treatment used for the rest of the Ham Avenues, see photo below:

photo8

http://www.cyclescape.org/issues/836-link-meadlands-drive-to-ham-avenues-surfacing

http://www.cyclescape.org/threads/1259 

  1. Ham Avenues intersects with service road to German School/ Polo Club and also intersects with dirt track leading to Meadlands Drive.

photo9

At the point where the Ham Avenues intersect with the Polo Club/ German School access road and the aforementioned path across the Copse there is a dangerous spot. School coaches, horse boxes, delivery trucks and other motor traffic comes down the one-way loop service road to the Polo Club and German School, and around the blind corner. When crossing from the Avenue to the Copse path on a bike or on foot with kids it is not possible to get out of the way in time once you hear a vehicle coming. The alternative to using the service road is a ditch next to the path wide enough for a person on foot but not for bike or buggy. If the hedge were cut back and the Ham Avenue surface extended this ditch could be changed to create a safe alternative link.

  1. Ensure sold off land has excellent pedestrian and cycling through-access As there is already such a problem with high volumes of motor traffic and parking in Petersham Road and Meadlands Dri veany agreement to sell the current Strathmore land needs to have strict expectations imposed on the developers. Ie high quality through-traffic access for walking and cycling, possibly including segregated cycle paths. This is another opportunity to genuinely improve access and create a modal shift towards walking and cycling. Also, covered secure cycle parking for every new residential property built (2 cycle spaces per bedroom) will encourage the new occupants to cycle too, (as per the revised London Plan?) 
  1. Signage for public footpath which borders the Scout Hut Land the German School, leading to wooden bridge leading onto towpath.

photo10

At this point, coming from the Ham Avenues or the Petersham Nurseries, the wooden sign indicating the footpath is behind a hedge and facing in the other direction. In the photo you can see the wooden posts of the sign on the left behind the foliage.  Straight ahead is the Scout land which is not a public right of way.  To the right is the path leading towards Water Lane and Ham Nurseries. This sign is currently not usefully visible to anyone.

  1. Crossing Petersham Meadow

This is a key section of this route and the one which presents the most obstacles but also many opportunities.  I have divided the main possible routes into options A, B, C and D. They are not mutually exclusive as a combination of improvements would be likely to attract a wide range of users.

A. The Tow Path: This is the most obvious off road link for this part of the route. The difficulties with it are that the path is not well-surfaced and it gets very muddy for much of the year (see photo below).  In order to make this route attractive to people getting to work/ school/ shops who do not want to arrive covered in mud, an alternative needs to be found.

http://www.cyclescape.org/issues/810-thames-towpath-richmond-ham

 photo11

 The towpath floods fairly regularly when there are very high tides, which means that it is sometimes impassable and the flooding makes the mud worse. Below: people trying to negotiate it at a high tide.

 photo12

Below: Some pedestrians avoid the mud by climbing over the wall and walking on the grass in Petersham Meadow. This is not a solution for the less able or people on bikes/ with buggies. 

 photo13

B. Main Path across Petersham Meadow: This is the first alternative to the towpath

photo14

As you can see in the picture above this path is narrow and also prone to flooding but is not muddy because it is a tarmacked.  In order to be a genuinely useful link all year the path would need to be raised.

photo15

Above: Kissing gate by Buccleuch Gardens leading into Petersham Meadow

photo16

Above: Kissing gate leading from the meadow to Petersham Nurseries.

At either end of the route there are kissing gates to prevent the cows from escaping. The gates are not big enough to allow longer bikes, bikes with trailers, cargo bikes, or double buggies to pass through and are difficult to negotiate for standard bikes too.

In Cambridge, where many cows graze on common land there is a standard design for a cattle grid which cyclists can cross with a separate pedestrian gate next to it. The link gives lots of information and examples http://www.camcycle.org.uk/resources/cattlegrids/ Below is one example of cattle grids for pedestrians and cyclists.

photo17

Another difficulty with this route across the meadow is that when you reach the Petersham Nurseries side there is a narrow path leading to a bumpy muddy track past the nursery and then another even narrower path linking with Water Lane. This last link is really only suitable for people on foot who do not mind the mud, so it does not provide an inclusive route for all. Alternatively, you can go straight ahead past the church and join Petersham Road.

Below: the track next to Petersham Nurseries  and Petersham Church (Feb 2014)

photo18

Below: path linking Petersham Nurseries with Water Lane:

photo19

 C. Entrance to Petersham field through kissing gate on River Lane, next to Old Cow Sheds (below).

 photo20

Another potential link across Petersham Meadow begins at the entrance through the kissing gate on Water Lane. Currently, the gate is so narrow that no bikes can pass through, and it is also too narrow for a larger person or pregnant woman to pass through – not an inclusive design. The track leads straight across the field to the kissing gate by Buccleuch Gardens. This removes the problem of the difficult section around the Petersham Nurseries and Church altogether. The disadvantage of trying to push for this possibility is that it would mean creating a properly surfaced path across the meadow (raised to avoid flooding). As the view from Richmond Hill overlooking the meadow is protected it could be difficult to get approval for a surfaced path here.

photo21

Above: track from Water Lane kissing gate across the meadow

 Lower path running alongside Petersham Road, from the Dysart Arms to the Rose of York.

photo22

Above: the is start of the off road path linking two sections of the Petersham Road,  next to the meadow, from the Dysart entrance to Richmond Park to the Rose of York pub. The first part above is surfaced because it is also a driveway, the second part (below) is a dirt track.

Below: where the path comes to end, bringing you back on to the Petersham Road.  This path also gets muddy in winter but if it was properly surfaced it could potentially provide a solution to the problem of crossing Petersham Meadow.

photo23

 Below: A few metres further along the road is another narrow kissing gate which is too small to be passable for cycles and leads to another track around the edge of the meadow, linking up with the Buccleuch Gardens kissing gate. The path and the gate could be linked, the gate could be changed and the path surface around the edge of the meadow could be improved. This could then provide a link which would not effect the view from Richmond Hill.

photo24

D. On road route on Petersham Road between the Rose of York and the Richmond Hill road junction.

This could be improved by redesigning the wide section of Petersham Road (below) by putting in an (at least) 2 metre wide segregated cycle path on the Petersham Common side of the road, with corresponding redesign of the junction. As it stands, this wide smooth section of the road encourages motor traffic to speed when clear, and leaves bikes blocked in when congested.

photo25

I would like to end on a positive note, with an example of a good piece of infrastructure, which has recently been repaired, (admittedly after many complaints by locals) and now continues to provide a valuable link in the chain of this route. The bridge below, leading between Ham House and the towpath by the Hammerton Ferry stop is in keeping with its surroundings, suitable for all possible route users and extremely well-used.

photo26

New broom. New faces. New wheels. New feel … new Cycling Liaison Group?

What a breath of fresh air was the recent Cycling Liaison Group! The change at the top – with a new Cycling Champion (Councillor Jean Loveland), and a new Cabinet Member for Transport (Cllr Stephen Speak) gave the whole meeting a very different feeling indeed.

You may remember from earlier reports that going to the Cycling Liaison Group has been less than a pleasant experience, these last four years. Rather than weeping into our coffee hearing how nothing has been done, nothing is going to be done, and the council has only been prepared to spend money on a few pots of paint, we appear to have a sea-change (step-change? maybe ‘gear change’) at the top of transport.

We heard about the new cycling strategy – a refreshingly simple set of principles and statements, including:

  • Make cycling an option for everyone
  • Making it an every day option
  • Creating a connected cycling network
  • Recognising the economic benefit to our high streets and businesses that cycling can bring

There’ll be more details soon, and there was extensive discussion around some of the recent schemes which have been done in the borough and which are being considered. Of greatest interest is that the engineers are planning to try an ‘all ways green’ junction, which would have a green light phase at all arms when cycling and walking get priority while motor traffic waits. These junctions are very popular in the Netherlands, and have been talked about over here for some time. (Another borough may also be looking to trial these, too.)

Also, Richmond has received £100,000 from TfL to investigate ‘various aspects’ of our Mini Holland bid. Sadly this will apparently be spent on looking at the railside cycle routes, which we think were the weakest part of the final bid. Not only would they require extensive linking up with routes down which people actually want to travel, but they ignore the fact that we already know where people want to go – it seems less than desirable to build an entirely new parallel set of routes which could require costly and lengthy negotiations with dozens of land owners, when the roads and cycle routes we already have provide clear links between key destinations.

There was good news from local police, with a significant fall in cycle theft – down 27% on last year apparently. But there was also clear input from officers that they felt they were getting a hard time at local Police Liaison Groups about cycling on the pavement, red light jumping, etc., etc.

To be clear, Richmond Cycling Campaign does not endorse anyone breaking the law when using a cycle. However, it’s clear that Richmond has a lot of cycling on the pavement either because routes aren’t clear, or because they’re unsafe. Here’s the view of one group dedicated to improving cycling, and we’ll be trying to write something soon, too.

The key thing for readers to note is that there’s going to be a marked increase in enforcement activity with, apparently, a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to running red lights. We’re told that this will apply both to cycles and motor vehicles, and that they will also be policing cycling on the pavement ‘on a case by case basis’.

We think cycling needs to be better represented at Police Liaison Groups, and we urge all members to do this – we’ll try to do a post in the next few weeks on how best to approach this, but do email us (info@richmondlcc.co.uk or http://www.richmondlcc.co.uk/contact-us/) if you’d like some advice.

So what next? We’ll be keeping up the pressure: the recent incidents in our area, along with yet another fatality in central London, show that cycling needs somewhere safe, and needs to be part of a wider strategy.

If you’d like to come along to the Cycling Liaison Group, or indeed to our monthly meeting, here are the details:

CLG homepage   RCC Monthly Meeting

 

Hampton Consultation – Why we think it sucked.

Richmond’s Hampton consultation was fatally flawed, and we were very disappointed that this was the first major consultation from the new team at the council. You can see our original response here, but we’ve tried to explain it better as well.

Thankfully, it sounds like this one was started before the new team were in place, so we’re offering these notes in an attempt not to repeat consultations like this. We think the council has the skills, the knowledge and the will to start doing cycling right, and we’re going to do our best to help. If you want to help us get cycling in Richmond for everyone who’s 8 to 80, drop us a line.


The proposed route to Hampton Court has apparently been abandoned. Richmond Cycling objected to it – as we find we’re objecting to more and more council plans – and it seems the council also didn’t manage to consult some key stakeholders.

The engineers on the project have been good at discussing with some of the interested parties, and we’ve looked through some of these back and forths. After doing a site visit with senior Hampton Court officials on Friday, it seems an appropriate time to talk in more detail about why we weren’t able to support the plan.

To be clear, the intentions in the plan are very good:

“Whilst the Council has invested significantly in the shared-use schemes at either end of the proposed section an investigation of the area identified that it is not possible for cyclists to travel continuously along the route without risking either their own safety having to join heavy fast moving traffic or that of pedestrians using narrow footway with poor visibility.

There are pre-existing National Cycle Route facilities coming across Hampton Court Bridge as well as popular cycle usage of Bushy Park. The scheme as proposed will serve to link all of these provisions into a unified network and reduce vehicle speed along the 30mph section of the A308, enhancing vehicle and pedestrian safety.

The proposed upgrades to the Bushy Park entrance will improve traffic flow and vehicle safety by increasing the sightlines into and out of the Park as well as providing better access to and from the Park entrance.”

But the resulting plan has a number of quite serious flaws. We’ve outlined our views on these below.

Cycling for Everyone

The most important problem with the plans is that they still provide for long stretches of on-road cycling on a busy route which can include very heavy good vehicles. When we did our site visit, the majority of people we saw cycling chose to use the paths and pavements, with only a few braving the unpleasant, busy conditions on the road. If that’s how people cycle now, we know from long experience elsewhere that making it marginally nicer is going to have marginal gains at best: where people are already cycling on a pavement, we know there’s demand, but we also know that demand isn’t going to be satisfied by simply making cycling on the pavement a bit easier.

But for most of the route, the intention was to widen pavements and to make them shared use with walking and cycling.

“Shared Use”

This seems to be a favoured option for far too many engineers in the UK, and RIchmond’s seem to be no exception. “Shared use” is engineer-speak for “making everyone walk and cycle in the same place”. On some routes, this can work Ok. For example, Richmond Riverside is shared use and, despite the occasionally very high volumes of both walking and cycling, it works for both.

But this is an attempt to build a route which is about getting people from place to place, and in these situations, everyone needs a bit of space. In fact the council’s consultation already recognises that people cycling on pavements isn’t a great thing, yet the proposal explicitly outlines a design which takes a space two metres wide and suggests that you can cycle and walk on it at the same time. To give you an idea, stand up and stretch your arms out with a wooden spoon in each hand. You need to walk in that space and feel comfortable having someone riding by at the same time – does that sound compelling to you?

Cost

A key area of issue that has been mentioned is that of cost. It sounds like the money for this scheme has been assembled from a number of different ‘pots’, giving a very limited budget, and also accepting a series of compromises, depending on where the money comes from.

This is an ongoing issue for Richmond’s transport department. The lack of money to do jobs properly means that, well, they don’t get done properly. Little bits of funding get sourced,and then things like the expensive crossing change on Kew Road, and the pots of paints splashed on the A305, south of Richmond Bridge.

“Dual Network”

Embedded in the consultation is the idea that you have fast cyclists and slow cyclists, and that therefore you can have two separate types of provision. TfL has abandoned this idea in its new flagships schemes in central London. Instead it aims – as the Dutch and Danes have for years – to provide a single, safe, pleasant riding experience for everyone on a bicycle.

The best to think about a dual network is like this: for any ordinary journey by car, would you expect engineers to build one route for people to go fast, and the other for people to go slow? Or one route for people who were brave and another for people who are more cautious?

Naturally not, you’d ask them to do the job properly, once. And that’s what we’d like them to do every time they build a cycle facility.

“Continuous Routes”

This is a good try by the engineers to provide a cycling route all along this unpleasant road. However, routes still need to be actually continuous. This one has a great big ‘stop’ in the middle, where you have to cross the road to keep on using the off-road cycle path.

For an idea of why this is poor, try and think of how you’d do it for a pavement or a road: would you suddenly stop it dead and make it cross a busy junction, because you can’t implement a suitable engineering solution?

Manor Circus / A316 Consultation.

This is Richmond Cycling’s draft response to TfL’s consultation on changes at Manor Circus. Please share any comments below, via our feedback form, or to campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk.

 

Although RCC is supportive that genuine efforts are being made to improve this junction for cycling, we think that the changes have three key problems:

  1. They introduce severe dis-utility for pedestrians
  2. The design clearly envisages two different types of cycling – those happy to brave a dual carriageway, and those not.
  3. The actual cycling experience doesn’t appear to be significantly improved

The specific items we identify:

  • The replacement of zebra crossings with traffic lights, and with stepped crossings, is a severe downgrading for pedestrians.

New staggered crossing

In the new design, the time to cross two arms of the roundabout could increase by at least three minutes. Not only do pedestrians have to walk further to cross each arm, but they have to wait twice on the A316.

Making pedestrians walk further is going to increase the chances that they will attempt to cross at the most convenient place – desire lines for walking and cycling have not been supported in this design.

Why not instead, have some nice shared zebras like this?

cycling on zebra

  • The greater introduction of shared space will increase conflict.

This is perhaps inevitable. Current behaviour in the area suggests that this will not change hugely – luckily both sides seem fairly considerate. However, it seems nonsensical to remove some of the already separate provision, in order to make the shared space look nicer.

  • It’s a missed opportunity to provide cycle lane priority across the Sainsbury’s exits, and on the entry to North Road.

Give cycling priority at these junctions

TfL is already planning this at Elsinore Way. The same opportunity should be taken at these locations, rather than North Road having markings specific to cycling which will inevitably be ignored by all the current users.

  • Traffic will queue from the A316 westbound into Manor Road.

This seems inevitable – it queues already, and there’s nothing obvious that can be done. Perhaps the better use would be a yellow box to prevent waiting on the roundabout?

  1. The petrol station is one of the worst bits.

At present, the design outside the petrol station does not support pedestrian priority across its exits, nor does it sufficiently protect pedestrian space around its periphery. The kerb on the A316 north side needs improving to remove the drop, pedestrians and cycling should have priority when coming round to Sandycombe Road, and the petrol station exit requires marking better. This area might also be improved by taking space from the barrier that separates the lanes at the top of Sandycombe Road.

  • The introduction of on/off slips for cycling is going to be confusing for everyone involved.

on-off

By providing the on/off markings, it isn’t really clear where people should expect to be cycling, or indeed where other road users might expect to see someone cycling.

  • Heading south on Manor Road by a cycle looks unpleasant.

The design suggests that cycling should stop and start down here, and does not make it clear that someone coming onto the road is going to be inserted into traffic which is quite likely to want to turn left into Sainsbury’s. At the very least, there should be markings of a different colour on the road which indicate that those cycling will often want to carry on.

Cycling Liaison Group – When Will We See A Cycling Strategy?

The new administration at LBRUT holds its first Cycling Liaison Group on Tuesday 14th October.  The meeting agenda and details are here.  This will be the first meeting chaired by the borough’s new cycling champion, Cllr Jean Loveland.

As usual, there is an agenda item on the Borough’s Cycling Strategy.  Throughout the last administration, the ‘cycling strategy’ was a regular feature of the CLG meetings, and the strategy itself was always ‘in development’.

So, for all the new faces at CLG tomorrow, we thought we would dig up our previous input to LBRUT’s Cycling Strategy – in the hope that this time some of it might get incorporated into LBRUT’s thinking.   We captured most of the thinking here, almost a year ago:  What the Cycling Strategy Should Say

Let’s hope that there is now an appetite to take some of these ideas on board.

Monthly Meeting – Monday 13th

Our monthly meeting is tomorrow – at the Old Ship, in Richmond.

On the agenda there’s quite a bit, including the inaugural Cycling Liaison Group for the new administration.

  1. Minutes of the last meeting
  2. Matters arising from the minutes
  3. Report on council cabinet meeting on 20mph consultations in Kew, Hampton Hill and Whitton
  4. Cycling Liaison Group meeting on 14 October
  5. Public meeting on cycling, with emphasis on problems in Richmond Park, on 17 December 2014. Convened by Zac Goldsmith MP for Richmond.
  6. Issues:
    a) Sheen Road crossing consultation
    b) Parking in Advisory Cycle Lanes

If you can’t make it, please let us know (info@richmondlcc.co.uk or http://www.richmondlcc.co.uk/contact-us/) , or share anything you want to know about!