Marksbury Avenue / A316 Consultation.

 

Richmond Cycling Campaign welcomes the removal of the pointless ‘Cyclists Dismount’ signs at the Marksbury Avenue crossing of the A316, but we’d really like to see some other changes in the current TfL Consultation

Planned changes at Marksbury Avenue / A316 junction.

Planned changes at Marksbury Avenue / A316 junction..

The crossing is nicer

The new design improves the crossing, but we think it could be better: why not allow pedestrians to cross the whole road at once, rather than have to wait for up to several minutes to make two separate crossings?

Removal of the guardrails could accompany this change: if we are worried about pedestrian safety on this road, the best way to fix it is with much more rigorous enforcement of the speed limits.

How does It Join Up?

On the south side of this junction is a cycle lane which should be connected to the crossing. Instead of the minor changes in paving, the opportunity should be taken to repeat the design of Elsinore Way. This would mean that the cycle lane would have priority at this minor road, and would become a more attractive, useful place to cycle.

Elsinore Way will get priority for cycling.

Elsinore Way will get priority for cycling.

More Joining Up

Just south of here is Somerton Road, and a network of quieter residential roads. These could all be part of a wider upgrading of routes to allow cycling both ways on the one way street.

Signing It

Despite the welcome removal of the ‘Cyclists Dismount’ signs, the only other sign changes are more ‘no cycling’ signs at precisely the place where most people will prefer to cycle. No opportunity has been take to improve the signing to key local destinations or other cycle routes. (Such as North Sheen station, Kew Gardens station, and into Richmond.)

It is Richmond Cycling’s strong proposal that this should be a straight through crossing for pedestrians with a single light phase, and that serious consideration is offered to the improvement of the connected cycling facilities.

Please respond to the consultation via their email consultations@tfl.gov.uk or using the form on their consultations page

Route: Richmond Park Gate to Richmond Bridge

A perennial complaint has been about cyclists using the footway to descend Richmond Hill against the one-way system. We have argued that the legitimate route which has the benefit of filtered permeability P1010453a

has lost many of its signposts so cyclists are using the obvious route for fear of getting lost. Many of the signs have now been restored (Thank you Richmond Council)

P1010447aP1010450a

 

 

 

 

However, in the process, the Castle Yard cut through has been deleted so that cyclists are sent right down to congested Paradise Rd which we are not happy about. The RCC rides rep had a meeting with a council engineer discussing where signing is still not clear and we came up with a route using a contra-flow in Ormond Rd. To avoid head-to-head confrontations the engineer suggested that the carriageway should be raised level with the footway allowing cyclists to move to the side should they meet a (rare) vehicle coming the other way. NIce to get imaginative ideas from the other side – we are so used to “can’t do that”.

Can Zac help fix Richmond Park?

Dear Mr. Goldsmith,

(Image by “The Cycling Dutchman”) http://thecyclingdutchman.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/london-by-bike-in-three-days-east-west.html

Thank you for organising the meeting about Richmond Park, before Christmas. Richmond Cycling Campaign is really keen to help make the park a great place for everyone, so we’d like to share some thoughts and feedback.

The park is for everyone

This was a big theme at the meeting, although there seemed to be some element of consensus that Richmond Park is not merely a through-route for people moving around different parts of the borough. But we’d like to emphasise something else, here. Perhaps because the most visible cycling in the park is club or competitive or sport cycling, little thought was given to other forms of cycling. Whenever you talk to the Royal Parks, or indeed your working group, we’d like to remind you that not only is there an off-road trail which is consistent source of conflict, but that the park also needs to be accessible to everyone on a bike. This means that children need to be able to ride round, as does anyone else who is powering themselves – handcycles, trikes, people with shopping, etc.

Codes of conduct

Much was made by some panelists about having a code of conduct for park users, and indeed there’s one that was circulated at the meeting. Aside from the basic point that there’s already a perfectly usable set of legislation to govern use of the park, we would be concerned about issuing a code of conduct unless strenuous efforts were made to ensure that it is circulated to all users in the park, and not just those on cycles.

Some Data would be good

As Andrew Gilligan and a number of people observed, the whole conversation needs some actual data. The only data we’ve seen – the STATS19 data, and the Friends’ traffic survey – show that cycling is the most vulnerable thing to do in the park, yet can also provide a very significant majority of traffic at some points during the week. Unfortunately, as Gilligan also noted, cycling attracts a large volume of complaints despite causing virtually no danger to cars, and significantly less danger to pedestrians. We aren’t arguing for cycling to be treated differently, but just to be treated fairly.

Let’s try some things

In the last few years, New York has been very successful with ‘trying things out’ – using low cost trials which can be easily reversed. Recently, the borough of Camden has done the same. The outcome of these experiments is that for small investments, it is possible to get a good idea of what possible solutions might actually work. We think the same could be done in Richmond Park – your advisory panel could consider simple, limited ideas which run for a short period, in order to establish what longer term solutions could be good for the park.

Finally, cycling needs to be safe, and feel safe

Our biggest message though, is that thousands of people in the borough don’t cycle or cycle rarely, because they don’t think it’s safe to do so. And the Space for Cycling guidelines – which echo best Dutch practice – make it very clear that Richmond Park’s roads are simply not of a sufficient standard to make getting on a bicycle of any type an attractive option for many of the people who should – by rights – see the park as a great place to visit by bike, or to use as a safe way to get from Richmond to Kingston, Roehampton, etc. So if you believe that cycling is a good thing which benefits not just those who cycle but society generally – as we do – then you’ll support the Royal Parks in trying to make Richmond Park a place for everyone.

We welcome the opportunity to engage with your working group on the Park.

 

Yours sincerely,

Richmond Cycling Campaign.

Greening the Infrastructure Bill – Urgent

It’s been described by George Monbiot as “the Climate Change Act’s evil twin”. The Infrastructure Bill is entering a crucial stage in Parliament today, and we need your help to get your MP voting for important changes to what it will do. Both the local MPs have Green aspirations so they should be susceptible to public pressure.

With £15 billion being set aside in the Bill for road investment, and a new ‘Strategic Highways Company’ being created, your MP’s vote will be needed to pass a range of vital amendments that will make the company:

  • Protect the environment and communities from problems like noise and air pollution
  • Work with local authorities when it makes new plans, so it doesn’t just focus on widening main roads
  • Stop the new ‘watchdog’ only sticking up for motorists and make it stick up for people living near main roads too

Sixteen health, environment and transport charities  are also asking for a whole new Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy to be added to the Bill. This will guarantee long-term national investment in cycling and walking, in the same way that rail and roads will be funded if the Bill passes.

Please use our quick and easy tool to write to your MP now and ask them to vote the right way when the Infrastructure Bill comes to the House of Commons in the next few days.

Tell your MP to help sort out the Infrastructure Bill

Bike Marking – from Fulwell Police SNG.

Please be advised and make aware as many residents as possible about future bike marking events on Fulwell and Hampton Hill beat:

14/01/2015 16:00-17:00 – Fulwell Rail Station

17/01/2015 14:30-15:30 – Bushy Park gate (end of the High Street Hampton Hill – opposite to The Rising Sun Pub)

26/02/2015 17:00-18:00 – Fulwell Rail Station

As you may know theft of bikes from sheds is a concern across the London; often expensive bikes are left unsecure or locked with very cheap lock in poorly secured sheds.

These events will give the opportunity to mark & register your bikes, and learn how to secure your property.

Have your say on Cycling in Richmond Park

On December 17th, Zac Goldsmith is hosting a meeting about Richmond Park. We don’t want this to be another “cyclists ate my hamster” session, so we’ve got together with Kingston Wheelers, London Dynamo, Twickenham Cycling Club, Barnes Cycling Club, Chevaliers, Kingston Juniors, and Kingston’s own LCC branch, to make the case for why cycling in the park is a good thing, and why the Royal Parks need to be doing more for it.

Here’s our view, and you can find the meeting details here. Come along and support cycling for all in one of the finest natural reserves we have access to.

Richmond Park is there for everyone, and we want it to stay that way. The present situation, where cycling can comprise up to 75% of all the traffic in the park, is clearly objectionable to some users.

However, the usual reaction – especially in the letters page of the local papers, and in frequent conversations even at the Police Liaison Group – is that cycling, and people who choose to cycle, are the villains in this piece. None of the groups representing cycling will tell you ‘All cyclists are angels’, because breaking the law on a bicycle is almost as endemic as breaking the law in a car. That makes it neither right nor acceptable, but we believe that it is time proper consideration were given to making sure Richmond Park can continue to be a recreational space for the thousands of people who flock there, week in, week out.

There are a number of issues that any proposed solution needs to address:

  1. The park is a wildlife haven and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). It is home to a huge variety of wildlife, large and small.
  2. The park is used by large volumes of traffic during the day which is avoiding roads outside, or ‘rat-running’.
  3. It’s a recreational space for walking and hiking, with the current road effectively acting as a continuous pedestrian crossing. The Tamsin Trail is also used extensively for walking.
  4. It is also a recreational space for cycling, with cyclists tending to use either the main circular route, or the Tamsin Trail.
  5. A number of businesses operate in the park, and require access for themselves and their customers.
  6. This is a park, and therefore street furniture such as posts, signage, etc. is not very desirable. (Although there is clear value in some signage to support safety needs.).
  7. So far as possible, the park needs to be accessible to everyone - whether able-bodied, or with some form of disability.

And there have been quite a few ideas previously floated for how to deal with this combination of issues. But what we think that The Royal Parks needs to consider is this:

What is the purpose of the park, and how can that best be fulfilled?

We think the park is a resource that everyone should be able to enjoy, however they visit it.

Of the proposals we’re aware of, we think there are pros and cons for each of them.

One way traffic

One way traffic will basically encourage the park to be used as a race track one way, and will encourage commuting / rat-running in the given direction, as well as actually requiring more driving (wasted time and pollution) round the park as people have to circumnavigate it in order to get to a particular place.

Congestion charging in the park

Charging people to enter the park if they don’t stay beyond a specific time (for example, charging those who stay for 20 minutes or less), will discourage through traffic.

More pedestrian crossings

Although pedestrians can (and should be able to) cross anywhere in the park, there’s a good case for providing clear places for crossing especially around the car parks. and particularly busy areas. It should not be necessary for a zabra crossing to have the full DfT-mandated paraphernalia of zig zags, Belisha Beacons, etc., as evidence from other 20mph locations indicates good compliance where the crossing is clear.

A new cycle-only route round the park

In the Netherlands, the usual guidance is to build separate provision for cycling when motor traffic is above a particular volume, and or a particular speed. We believe that while the speed of traffic in the park – where the limits are observed – might not require segregation, the volumes certainly do.

Through traffic bans

The park is an area for recreation and for nature, yet there is a significant volume of traffic which uses it as a cut-through to various locations. Especially given the sensitive nature of the park environment, and the very real danger that is posed to wildlife and to other park users by high volumes of traffic which is keener to get somewhere than to enjoy the surroundings.

And a possibly contentious point to make …

If we accept the premise of the public meeting that there is very real conflict in the park, experienced by all users, then we should follow the logic of many such conversations, which come round to “Well, whose fault is it?

On a fundamental level, the conflict which is experienced in the park reflects the day to day experience of driving, walking and cycling in London generally. Many conversations that we’ve heard tend to pick out ‘cyclists’, and often ‘club cyclists’ as significant offenders, and anecdotal evidence is usually called upon to demonstrate how cyclists ‘intimidate’ other road users, including the slightly bizarre assertion in the last Friends of the Royal Park newsletter, that cyclists are a danger to wildlife. (We’ve yet to find someone who wouldn’t stop their bike to avoid hitting a deer …)

At the same time, we hear stories of intimidation, dangerous driving and actual assaults from people who cycle in the park. (As well as stories of dogs causing riders to fall off on the Tamsin Trail, and cyclists intimidating pedestrians there.)

Our response to all of these is simple. Firstly, what does the data say? An investigation of the STATS19 data shows that bicycles are overwhelmingly the victims in Richmond Park incidents, with the other party invariably motor vehicles. Secondly, we argue that no amount of discussion around sharing, mutual consideration or other such proposals is going to resolve the problems in the park, because there is simply too much traffic on the small area allocated to it. .

And this is, very simply, because it is inappropriate to have this volume of cycling and driving traffic in the same place. People who drive, walk and cycle through the park are no more or less lawless than anyone else in London. The solution to this problem is the same as the solution which is about to be implemented in central London – proper and safe separation of the modes, so that both can be done without conflict.

Sustrans campaign to get cycling and walking added to Infrastructure Bill

I had had an email from Sustrans in association with other cycling groups :

The Infrastructure Bill has proposed a five year investment plan for strategic roads whilst rail already has such a plan in place. However, there is no similar framework in place for cycling and walking.

 We would like MPs to back an amendment to the Infrastructure Bill to guarantee long-term ambition and funding for cycling and walking, including local road maintenance.

We are now at a critical stage as MPs will get the chance to propose amendments and debate the need for such a proposal in December and January.

 We need your help. Please write to your MP and ask them to support an amendment to the Infrastructure Bill.

Write to you MP now

Both our local MPs should be sympathetic but having constituents letters helps their backbones !

20 really is plenty in Richmond.

Tonight there’s a call-in of the council’s arbitrary approach to 20mph limits in the borough. The local branch of 20′s Plenty has put together this excellent paper, supporting their submission.

If you want to attend, it’s an open meeting – all the details are here

We thank the London Borough of Richmond Call In sub-committee for allowing 20’s Plenty for Richmond to speak to and submit comments about the Borough’s approach to 20mph speed limits. Where appropriate we have referenced the relevant paragraphs of the 9th October 2014 report to Cabinet entitled “Review of the Borough’s approach to 20mph Speed Limits”.

Summary

  • We are disappointed by the negative approach to 20mph speed limits being taken by those seeking to introduce the policy outlined in the report to Cabinet dated 9th October.  We believe that by setting up a procedure that imposes almost insurmountable hurdles to the introduction of 20mph speed limits (Para 3.15 Cabinet report) LB Richmond is at odds with the direction of Government and Mayoral policy and fails to support all those in LB Richmond who are trying to promote walking and cycling.
  • We believe that this is a public health issue and not just a road safety issue. Public health deals with avoidable deaths and injuries and slowing traffic by introducing 20mph speed limits has been shown to make a positive contribution.  It seems that LB Richmond recognises this, but, by not consulting its own Public Health Department about this issue, has distanced itself from its public health responsibilities.  In no other area of public health are 51% of residents required to endorse a policy. This procedure assumes that only people who live on a street use that street but streets are public spaces not private property and are used by many other people.
  • It is widely acknowledged that 20mph speed limits can reduce road casualties and improve public health, including obesity levels, by increasing the numbers walking and cycling, especially those who are more vulnerable such as older people, children and those with disabilities.  They can also improve social cohesion and wellbeing by encouraging more people to be active outside in their community and improve the local economy as more pedestrians walk to and shop at their local shops and high streets[1].  They are not a silver bullet on their own but, over time, they are a means of creating a fairer balance between motor vehicles and people and encouraging greater activity levels.
  • We would thus encourage LB Richmond to review the obstacles it is seeking to put in the way of the introduction of 20mph speed limits and be more open to their introduction because of the many benefits that they bring.

Detailed Submission

We would briefly like to outline a number of areas that aim to address the Cabinet paper’s stated concerns about 20mph speed limits:

  1. Their popularity and the demand for them;
  2. Their effectiveness and the increasing support for 20mph from the police; and
  3. The changes to the regulatory regime from the Department for Transport and in London the GLA and TfL and more recently the Equalities Act 2010; and
  4. To highlight some further benefits that could result from introducing area-wide 20mph zones in LB Richmond.

1) Demand for 20mph Speed Limits

There are high overall levels of support for 20mph speed limits across the UK. Research under the long running British Social Attitudes Survey has consistently found that around three-quarters of UK adults support 20mph speed limits for residential roads (73% support in 2011). More recent research by YouGov in 2013 found that:

  • 65% support a 20mph speed limit in residential areas
  • 72% support a 20mph speed limit in busy (eg shopping) streets.

Recent research by Edinburgh City Council confirmed previous studies that support for 20mph limits increases after their introduction. In its research into the South Central Edinburgh’s 20mph limit trial found that support for 20mph rose from 68% before they were introduced to 79% after they were implemented[2].

We remain perplexed at the conclusions that LB Richmond has drawn from the consultation that occurred into 20mph limits in Kew, Whitton and Hampton Hill.

We understand the clear desire of residents not to see the introduction of a borough-wide 20mph limit and the overall lack of majority support for a 20mph speed limit in Whitton. Given, however, the fact that the principle of identifying candidate areas for 20mph limits was established in this consultation and the proposal for a 20mph limit on Hampton Hill High Street is to be taken forward on the basis of the results, it is not clear why the proposal for Kew has been rejected when levels of support for a 20mph zone were higher in Kew (at 56%) than in Hampton Hill High St (51%).

In addition, it appears strange that Para 3.11 uses the results of the question concerning whether the 20mph limit should include residential and or main roads to reject the support identified in the “20mph in my area question”. As a total of 43% of Kew residents stated that the 20mph limit should apply on only residential roads and a further 26% that it should apply on both residential roads and main roads. Therefore a combined total of 69% appear to support a 20mph limit at least on residential roads. Given that this process of consultation has been used to endorse the adoption of a 20mph limit on Hampton Hill High Street, it appears illogical that in spite of these high levels of support for 20mph in Kew as an area and on all of its residential roads, the process is then rejected owing to the low level response namely “Furthermore approximately 73% of Kew residents did not respond to the survey at all”.

2) Effectiveness & Enforcement

a) Casualty Reduction. (Para 3.1) Whilst it is true that lower speeds reduce the severity of road casualties, it is also the case that they reduce the numbers too.  Research by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine into the impact of 300+ 20mph schemes across London over a 20 year period found that when speeds were reduced to a maximum of 20mph (principally in these studies through traffic calming) casualty numbers fell by 42% (over and above the rate of the background decline in road casualty levels)[3].

In the case of 20mph speed limits (without calming), the reduction in average speeds alone may initially be no more than 1 or 2 mph but research has found that in an urban environment each reduction in average speeds of 1mph will deliver a 6% reduction in casualty levels. While there are examples of the creation of area-wide 20mph limits where the impact on casualties may not be clear cut, there are many examples of significant declines in casualty levels. Examples of this include:

  • a 25% decline in casualties in a 140 road pilot in Warrington
  • a 56% reduction in 8 areas each introducing 20mph limits in Newcastle
  • a 46% fall in three 20mph pilot areas across Lancashire County Council
  • most recently in Brighton & Hove where initial indications (in the year following implementation) show a 17% decline in all casualties and a 20% decline in the numbers killed and seriously injured in the year following the introduction of area-wide 20mph limits (compared to the 3 year average for 2010 to 2012).

In Islington, in the year following the introduction of the 20mph borough-wide speed limit (January 2013), there was a 42% reduction in the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on its roads. This compares to a 23% reduction across London for 2013. It is important to state, however, that percentage reductions in casualties in a number of other London boroughs were greater. In terms of casualties of all severities, there was a decline of 1% in Islington compared to a 6% fall across London.

In terms of vehicle speeds, the impact of the introduction of the 20mph limit in Islington was mixed with average speeds falling on 18 of the 29 main roads researched and rising on 10 of them. Overall it is estimated that average speeds across the borough fell by 1mph. It is important to note that this occurred without any significant enforcement support from the Metropolitan Police. Both in Islington and across London this picture of a lack of support for enforcement of 20mph limits is changing (see below).

b) Enforcement. While we agree that the environment for the enforcement of 20mph limits has not been strong in the recent past (Para 3.2) and that compliance with 20mph limits should not solely be about enforcement, the picture on enforcement is changing with the Metropolitan Police becoming far more willing to enforce 20mph limits.

The reasons for this are:

  • Changes in ACPO Guidance. It is now the policy of the police to enforce 20mph limits following the change of guidance from ACPO in October 2013[4].
  • Enforcement of 20mph limits is now occurring in London and FPNs are being issued to speeding drivers[5].
  • The creation of the new Roads & Transport Policing Command. The Metropolitan Police has set up a 2,300 officer strong Road & Transport Policing Command which will become operational from 1st December 2014. At the Road Danger Reduction & Enforcement Conference of 1st November 2014, Sergeant Simon Castle confirmed Metropolitan Police support for enforcement of 20mph limits. A contributory factor to this change in approach has been the perceived success of Operation Safeway and the clear impact that enforcement had on dangerous behaviour on London’s roads.
  • Local Enforcement. Ward panels have the capacity to set policing priorities and enforcement of speed limits can be set as a priority[6].
  • Community Speed Watch. Members of the community can now play a role in encouraging compliance with speed limits through Community Speed Watch[7].

3) Regulatory Framework & 20mph Speed Limits

We are concerned that the statement in the Cabinet report (Para 3.2) “Guidance from the Department for Transport states that 20 mph speed limits should only be considered for streets where average speeds are already below 24mph” is an extremely skewed interpretation of Paragraph 95 of the DfT Setting Local Speed Limits Circular of 2013[8] and adds to the impression that the Cabinet report has not sought to be objective in relation to 20mph limits. We feel that stating this alone masks the support that the Department for Transport (DfT) and Transport for London (TfL) and the Greater London Authority (GLA) have sought to give to 20mph speed limits over the past 2 years.

Examples of policy support for 20mph limits in urban settings such as those which apply in Richmond are outlined below:

  • DfT Setting Local Speed Limits Circular from 2013 (page 3 Key Points): “Traffic authorities are asked to keep their speed limits under review with changing circumstances, and to consider the introduction of more 20 mph limits and zones, over time, in urban areas and built-up village streets that are primarily residential, to ensure greater safety for pedestrians and cyclists”
  • DfT Setting Local Speed Limits Circular 2013 Para 84: “Traffic authorities are able to use their power to introduce 20mph speed limits or zones on:
  • Major streets where there are – or could be – significant numbers of journeys on foot, and/or where pedal cycle movements are an important consideration, and this outweighs the disadvantage of longer journey times for motorised traffic;
  • Residential streets in cities, towns and villages, particularly where the streets are being used by people on foot and on bicycles, there is community support, and the characteristics of the street are suitable.
  • The TfL/GLA Safer Streets for London Road Safety Action Plan[9] (up to 2020) from June 2013 strongly supported the creation of more 20mph zones in London.
  • The Mayor of London Vision from Cycling[10] from March 2013 called for wider use of 20mph on the TLRN and the installation of 20mph zones and speed limits on borough roads owing to the “clear evidence that traffic travelling at speeds of 20mph improves the safety of both cyclists and pedestrians”.

20mph speed limits also help local authorities to meet the terms of the 2010 Equalities Act and its aim to protect people from “unfair treatment and to create a more equal society”. They can help ensure that access to services is more easily achieved for those with disabilities and those who are vulnerable, for example through their age, through a fairer balance between those on foot and those in motor vehicles.

We believe that these policies at a national and London governmental level give a strong foundation for the introduction of 20mph limits on residential roads and appropriate main roads in Richmond.

These policies envisage an area-wide approach and appear at odds with LB Richmond’s street-by-street approach. The Cabinet report admits that introducing 20mph on individual streets is more confusing and more costly than area wide limits, but then continues to recommend it.

4) Public Health and other benefits of introducing 20mph speed limits

In addition to the impact on casualty reduction we believe that there are further extensive benefits from 20mph speed limits which are supportive of other Council policies in relation to the health and wellbeing of residents and the success of local businesses but which were not considered in the Cabinet report. Examples include:

Obesity – promotion of walking and cycling is vital to address levels of obesity. Obesity, although lower than other parts of London, is remains high in LB Richmond and is a serious public health concern, according to the Council’s own Public Health reports[11]. It is estimated that 14.3% of adults and 12% of 11 year old children in LB Richmond are obese, with levels of child obesity doubling between age 4 and age 11 and a further 14% of children considered to be overweight by age 11. No local figures are available for overweight adults but the national figure is a staggering 61.9%.

Public Health England has stated that “Creating an environment where people actively choose to walk and cycle as part of everyday life………. may be more cost effective than other initiatives that promote exercise, sport and leisure pursuits… Local Authority initiatives on road safety are key opportunities to create better conditions for walking and cycling. Moving to a default 20mph speed limit for streets where people live, work and shop may be the most cost effective approach available at present.[12]”

The Edinburgh 20mph trial found that those considering cycling to be unsafe fell from 26% to 18%, the proportion of older primary age children cycling to school rose from 3% to 22%. Overall walking trips rose 7%, cycling trips rose 5% and car trips fell 3%.

Keeping Older and Disabled People Active - LB Richmond has an ageing population with 13.5% of people over 65 (2011 census) and a significant predicted increase in the 75+ age group over the next 5-10 years. Keeping these people active through providing an environment where they feel they can walk and cycle safely is also vital to keeping this group of residents healthy. Disabled people are more likely to be obese and are thus also in need of opportunities to walk and cycle safely.

Air Quality – remains a key local issue with pollution levels continuing to exceed the recommended standards. Driving at slower speeds generally decreases emissions[13].

Community cohesion – people spending more time outside. The Edinburgh 20mph trial found that the proportion of children allowed to play on the pavement or street rose from 31% to 66%.

Suggested action

20s Plenty for Richmond believes that LB Richmond should:

  • undertake consultation on the introduction of 20mph zones on an area by area basis, prioritising communities which have demonstrated support for them e.g. in their Village plan;
  • ensure that the consultation explains that the proposal covers the introduction of 20mph limits on main roads with a high “place” function (high streets or B roads) but not in those that have principally a “movement” function (eg arterial A roads);
  • remove its insistence that only over 50% of residents of an area voting in favour demonstrates public support for 20mph speed limits;
  • as well as the demand from local people, take into account the road safety, public health and community cohesion benefits as well as the boost that higher levels of pedestrian activity can give to local economies when considering introducing 20mph in zones and limits.

20’s Plenty for Richmond

www.richmond.20splentyforus.org.uk

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[1] http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/town-centre-study-2011-report.pdf

[2] http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/3067/transport_and_environment_committee

[3] http://sphr.lshtm.ac.uk/files/2013/12/improving-the-publics-health-kingsfund-dec13.pdf

[4] http://www.acpo.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/ACPO-marks-refreshing-of-speed-enforcement-guidance-26e.aspx

 

[5]http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/drivers_breaking_islington_s_20mph_limit_to_be_fined_for_the_first_time_tomorrow_1_3796635

[6]https://twitter.com/MPSCallySgt (Tweets – 23 September 2014)

[7] http://www.communityspeedwatch.co.uk/

[8] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/63975/circular-01-2013.pdf (para 95)

[9] https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/safe-streets-for-london.pdf

[10] http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Cycling%20Vision%20GLA%20template%20FINAL.pdf

[11] See www.richmond.gov.uk/jsna

[12] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213720/dh_130487.pdf

[13] http://www.20splentyforuk.org.uk/BriefingSheets/pollutionbriefing.pdf

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