Archive for 'Cycling Liaison Group Meeting'
Cycling Liaison Group
September 20, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting.
It’s two weeks since CLG met, arranged after the scheduled one was cancelled, and two weeks before the next on Monday 3rd October so, ahead of publication of the official record, a few things to think about.
Agenda Item 3 Minutes of last meeting
20 mph zones
Discussing this [Item 3g, page 2] we stumbled into a party political difference that became clearer on 9th September when the Richmond and Twickenham Times quoted Councillor Geoffrey Samuel, deputy leader of Richmond Council:
“We are very happy to follow national policies and guidelines and Greater London policies, but we don’t believe Richmond should be singled out for political experiments on the modification of how people get about the borough.”
Now, “Political experiments“ is a very strange and confused characterisation of an intervention the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said in their report “Preventing unintentional road injuries among under 15s”
“will reduce casualties by around 40%”
and went on to say:
“Signage, road design and engineering should be used to reduce vehicle speeds on roads where children and young people are likely to be, such as playgrounds, schools, residential roads or where pedestrians and cyclist journeys are frequent.”
Interesting also to compare Cllr Samuel’s words with the Mayor of London in his written response to the following cycling related question:
Question No: 2641 / 2011 ”Do you believe that 20mph speed limits make the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians alike?”
“The introduction of 20mph speed limits can improve safety for all road users. Research by the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found that 20mph zones have reduced casualties by up to 40% in locations where they have been implemented in London.
My Transport Strategy acknowledges the benefits of 20mph zones in making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists. In addition, TfL looks to include lower speed limits as part of new scheme designs where appropriate. For example, as part of the implementation of new Cycle Superhighway 8, a 20mph speed limit has been introduced at Old York Road.
In considering the introduction of lower speed limits a number of factors need to be taken into consideration including potential safety benefits, the characteristics and function of the road in question, the impacts on traffic flow and the practicality and cost of implementation and enforcement. As such, the potential for new 20mph limits will vary by area and road type.”
Presumably Cllr Samuel relies on the last sentence to support his position.
Given the Metropolitan Police Service issue fixed penalty notices to cyclists using the pavement to cross Richmond Bridge, and it’s unlikely the Council will make the footway shared use, we think the Bridge exactly meets the NICE description “where pedestrians and cyclist journeys are frequent” and should be part of a 20mph zone.
We’ve heard our Borough has the second lowest number of 20mph zones in the country but have yet to confirm it.
Agenda 4 British Cycling
During their presentation about SkyRide Local we were interested to hear British Cycling moving into the gap left by the abolition of Cycling England nationally, and Smarter Travel Richmond locally, and talking about cycling to work issues like secure parking and showers.
Agenda 5 CLG The way forward
Carried over to the next meeting in the absence of Cllr SALVONI Cabinet Member for Community Development
Agenda 6 PROW Footpaths
There seemed to be general support for our proposal to de-regulate footpaths on a case by case basis without deciding on the particular paths we suggested. We’ve asked to be told at the next meeting what the decision making process will be.
We’ve also added to our list:
Blandford Road to Bushy Park, about 4 metres wide and linking to the pelican that should have been a toucan in Blandford Road
Longford Close to Dean Road
linking to the new crossing of Uxbridge Road into Burtons Road
Oldfield Road to Upper Sunbury Road where there’s a toucan and a marked cycle route but also a no cycling sign.
Agenda 7 Draft LBRuT Cycling Strategy
Still in discussion with TfL although we weren’t told why.
Agenda 8 Update 2011/12 cycling scheme programme
Pleased to see one of our quick win suggestions make it on to the list [Scheme 3 Kingston Bridge] and very pleased to see consideration of Hampton Court Bridge [Scheme 4 Hampton Court roundabout] We’ve asked for a timetable so we know when work will be done.
Agenda 9 Any other business
Cycle Lanes
RCC members, both at the meeting and in e-mails ahead of it, asked about vehicles parking in cycle lanes, particularly in Lonsdale Road, Barnes and Staines Road, Hampton.
The definitive word on cycle lanes is in paragraph 16, pages 95 to 101, of the Traffic Signs Manual but by coincidence they were raised in a series of cycling related questions to the Mayor that received written replies, including these two relevant to our members concerns:
Question No: 2649 / 2011 “Is it now your policy to allow trucks to use cycle lanes?”
“It is not my policy to allow trucks to use cycle lanes. Cycle lanes which have a solid white line are only for the use of cycles and no other vehicles may drive or park in them at any time during their hours of operation. Other vehicles are also not allowed to enter cycle lanes with a dashed white line unless it is unavoidable. This is set out in the Highway Code.”
Question No: 2773 / 2011 “I understand different stretches of cycle lane have distinct levels of authority; mandatory, advisory and the highly recognisable blue surfacing, but what is the penalty for a driver that breaches the rules and drives into any sort of cycle lane? How many drivers have been penalised for such transgressions in each year of your Mayoralty?”
“Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.”
Chris Smith, LBRuT Integrated Transport Planning Manager was quite clear at the meeting: report it as a parking complaint for enforcement action by their team of 35.
We were also told, out of the blue, that the cycle lane in Kew Road is to be removed. The local councillor was surprised, particularly when told there was a consultation “years ago“. The justification for its removal was the LCN route using Ennerdale Road. Apart from our concerns about the safety of that route we don’t think this is either/or. With the planned Cycle Superhighway on the north side of Kew Bridge the Kew Road cycle lane provides a link between it and the nearest thing we’ve got to a cycle superhighway, the A316 Cycle Route. The removal of the lane is very short-sighted. E-mail Cllr.JBurford@richmond.gov.uk who was at the meeting and surprised to hear about it.
E-mail campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk with your comments or issues to raise at the meeting on 3rd October.
No Comments
Cycling Liaison Group 5th September
August 29, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting.
It’s been a while since the last meeting so there should be lots to talk about next Monday.
Click here for papers posted on the Council website including Agenda and Draft Budget 2011-12
Read notes of the March meeting [Agenda item 3] for what was said last time. In relation to those [6 Review of CLG Priority List] we’ll soon ask the Yahoo Group to indicate their preferences for the routes listed in Draft RCC Priority List Action Plan
Agenda item 6 Public Rights of Way Footpaths was prompted by our June posting and suggested so far are:
From Thames Towpath at Barnes Bridge to Barnes railway station and NCN 4 at Vine Road to Richmond Park via
Long Walk
Westfields Avenue
Barnes Recreation Ground
Evelyn Terrace at Old Deer Park Gardens in Kew, as an alternative to Jocelyn Road where the road is significantly narrowed by parked cars
South Worple Avenue in Mortlake, avoiding White Hart Lane
and on to Barnes station south of the railway via Rosslyn Avenue and Woodlands Road
and Barnes Common
E-mail campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk with your thoughts about these and issues to raise at the meeting. Remember TfL will not be attending as it’s outside office hours.
No Comments
TfL, Terrible for Listening
August 21, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting.
Despite our continuing disagreement with TfL about their planned work at the London Road roundabout, the urgency of making the A316 cyclepath safe to use at Old Deer Park and resolution of those “Cyclists Dismount” requirements at Manor Circus, Chalkers Corner and Mortlake Road, we’re not ignoring their Programme of work in the Borough this financial year.
11 schemes are listed, 5 relating to A316 Chertsey Road and 6 to A205 South Circular, 4 of those in Upper Richmond Road.
There are no projected costs attached to these works so we don’t know what money is being spent.
London Road is 1 of the 5 schemes and another, the route between Chalkers Corner and Manor Road, is apparently complete, leaving 3 to be considered. TfL have asked us to comment on one and, if you cycle the route or live in Whitton, we’re asking you to contact them direct because they don’t acknowledge or reply to our e-mails. Here’s the detail:
A316 Chertsey Road – Proposed cycling and pedestrian improvement scheme
Transport for London (TfL) is currently developing a proposal to improve facilities for pedestrians and cyclists along the A316 Chertsey Road. In addition the scheme will eliminate the issues of illegal rat running on the adjacent side roads off Chertsey Road.
The scheme will see the junctions of Godfrey Avenue, Redway Drive and Jublilee Avenue on the Chertsey Road permanently closed to vehicular traffic (junctions have been temporarily closed for over 10 years)
Shared use pedestrian and cyclist footways will be provided at these locations and improved signage informing cyclists and pedestrians of shared use footways will be installed.
In summary, the proposed measures include the following:
- Formally close the junctions of Godfrey Avenue, Redway Drive and Jubilee Avenue with A316 Chertsey Road;
- Provide shared use footway at the closure locations;
- Provide improved cyclist and pedestrian facilities and information on where cyclists are able to use the footway.
Please find attached design drawings for this scheme Godfrey Avenue, Jubilee Avenue and Redway Drive
If you have any comments with regard to this proposal please contact us at STEngagement@tfl.gov.uk by 22 August 2011.
Yours faithfully
Sara Peters, Consultation and Engagement Centre, Transport for London, STEngagement@tfl.gov.uk
Now, Richmond Cycling Campaign welcomes any changes that makes cycling this route better, we just think there are rather more important things to do, which is what we will tell TfL.
By the way, we asked TfL to come to the Cycling Liaison Group, which meets 4 times a year, every 3 months, but they say they don’t attend external meetings outside office hours.
Click here to read what Cyclists in the City think.
Sadly, one of the A205 schemes listed ”Rocks Lane to Kew signage review” includes the words “confirmation is also needed for shared use for cyclists over Kew Bridge which could link to cycle improvements to the other side of the River Thames”, sad given the recent fatality on the bridge.
No Comments
Bridge of sighs
July 19, 2011 by nick, under Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting, manifesto.
Dan Deptford’s letter in the Richmond Twickenham Times about Richmond Bridge reminded us that the Thames defines our Borough, that we cycle in the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames. We can cycle along it, with varying challenges, from one end of the Borough to the other, and it’s a glorious ride. But it also means crossing bridges to get to the other side, even to other parts of our own Borough, in Twickenham and Teddington, and that produces ”pinch points”, where different modes of transport are brought together to share the same space.
Dan’s letter prompted us to make a Freedom of Information Act request to the Metropolitan Police Service asking how many fixed penalty tickets for cycling on the footway were issued in the Borough by their staff during the financial year 2010-11
Click here for the reply.
The highest number, 34, 1/5th of all tickets, [note some out-of-Borough locations in the table] were issued at Hammersmith Bridge. The 3rd highest number, 18, was at Richmond Bridge. So, 52 tickets, just under 1/3rd of all those issued, were at two bridges: what does this say about their affect on cycling in the Borough?
From the east, at Hammersmith Bridge (1), we get off to a bad start with no off-road alternative as there’s no cycling on the paths each side of the bridge, enforced by the police as we already know.
Its historic nature, coinciding with the age of austerity, means we’re not going to see anything like the Millennium additions to Hungerford Bridge. So, it’s share the road with the traffic, including single deck bus routes 33, 72, 209, 285 and 419, as well as vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes. The carriageway is narrow and narrowed further by the arch supports. Managed by Hammersmith and Fulham Council we support the hfcyclists campaign for a 20mph speed limit. There are also on-going issues on the approach to the bridge we are talking to Richmond Council about.
Moving up river Barnes Rail Bridge (2) is shared with pedestrians and managed by Network Rail who recently installed wheeling channels.
Next up, Chiswick Bridge (3) is managed by Transport for London and as good it gets with shared use on both sides and a ramp down to the river on the south east side
Kew Rail Bridge (4) has no public access.
Also managed by TfL, signage on the approach to Kew Road Bridge (5) indicates shared use like Chiswick
Making sure there is a safe and convenient connection to the planned Cycle Superhighway 9 [Hounslow to Kensington] on the north side is a new priority for us with TfL.
Richmond Lock (6) managed by the Port of London Authority with no cycling and steps only
Twickenham Bridge (7) like Chiswick and Kew managed by TfL, has a cycle path on both sides with access by The Avenue to the Twickenham side of the river but steps only on the Richmond side
Richmond Rail Bridge (8) has no public access.
Richmond Bridge (9), like Hammersmith, has no off-road option and police enforcement, so, like Hammersmith, we’re asking for a 20mph limit, although the pavement is quite wide
Teddington Lock (10), like Richmond Lock, managed by the PLA, with no cycling on either part of the double bridge, but ramps on both sides
Like Hammersmith, history and austerity makes any change here unlikely.
Kingston Bridge (11), managed by the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, has cycle lanes on both sides
We’re still waiting for a safe and convenient connection at Church Grove to Bushy Park and the off-road cycle path in Hampton Court Road.
We’ve talked about Hampton Court Bridge (13) before, saying the shared use path on the up river, Molesey, side only doesn’t meet the needs of people cycle commuting north-south rather than east-west along National Cycle Network 4, the Thames Valley route
Action is complicated by agreement in April 1989 on the responsibilities of Richmond Council and Surrey County Council [SCC]:
- “SCC will carry out structural inspections and repairs with the costs being shared equally between LB Richmond and SCC;
- Each Authority to inspect and carryout repairs on the carriageway and footways on their respective sides up to the middle/centreline of the Bridge. The cost of road works carried out in conjunction with structural repairs to be shared equally between LB Richmond and SCC;
- Each Authority to carry out salting and gritting, trench reinstatement, road marking and signing on their respective sides up to the middle/centreline of the Bridge;
- Each Authority responsible for lighting on their respective sides up to the middle/centreline of the Bridge.”
Changes to routes across the Bridge is likely to need approval from both councils.
Proposed Bridges
Given the river’s length and the distances between some bridges it’s not surprising imaginative people have suggested additional ones, including Radnor Gardens in Twickenham and at Hampton. The enthusiasm behind these proposals, and the loveliness of their designs, are to be cherished in these harsh economic times, a reminder of how very different the world was running up to the Millennium, when a new bridge was regarded as THE statement of an optimistic future.
E-mail campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk with your thoughts on Thames bridges in Richmond Borough.
No Comments
Good-bye-laws, hello stands
June 24, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting.
1. Byelaws
A recent article in the Independent headed ”Government plans to relax cycling by-laws” quoted Local Government Minister, Grant Shapps, saying:
“There have been some crazy by-laws in place from the year dot stopping cycling from taking place. This should enable local people to scrap laws stopping people from getting on their bikes.”
“Everyone is interested in looking after themselves and their health, as well as the environment, and cycling succeeds on both of those fronts.”
As you would expect we don’t just “agree”, we “strongly agree” with the Minister. The article said “Hundreds of miles of cycle routes could be created across England following a move to make it easier for councils to scrap outdated local laws.” Why? Because councils won’t need permission from Central Government to abolish byelaws, part of the initiative to devolve decision-making better known as “localism”.
So, will Richmond Council be rushing to ”scrap laws stopping people from getting on their bikes“? Click here to see the wide range of current byelaws on their website.
“There is a general feeling…that any general abolition of ‘NO CYCLING’ byelaws may not be desirable, but a review of well-used paths or paths where problems have emerged may be more appropriate.”
Ok, so on a case by case basis, we can live with that.
“There are a number of public rights of way footpaths, many in the old Borough of Twickenham, which are subject to byelaws but they remain unenforceable as ‘no-cycling’ signs warning of the offence have not been erected at each end of the path.”
Maybe things aren’t so bad, permissive cycling courtesy of legal inadequacies.
“The preferred course could be to undertake an appraisal of the footpaths where cycling could co-exist satisfactorily with pedestrians. This would be done in accordance with design guidance and consideration of path widths, pedestrian flows and sight-lines etc. However, this would not be a remedy to allow cycling, as footpaths only provide for a right of way on foot and ‘conversion’ using the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 would still be necessary to legally allow cycling.”
I’m beginning to feel the weight [wait?] of bureaucracy bearing down. We mentioned Cycle Track Orders back in February when they appeared in the Programme of Works 2011/12 in relation to the Thames Towpath
And, of course, it goes without saying that:
“The above would all be subject to funding being identified and the approval of Cllr Harrison, Cabinet Member for Highways and Streetscene & Cllr Virginia Morris, Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways.”
But, there’s always a silver lining:
“The Parks Department do not have the resources, or desire, to enforce ‘NO CYCLING’ byelaws in parks. It is acknowledged that many people cycle in the Borough’s parks and in high flow areas shared use “pedestrian priority” signs have been erected to try and regulate behaviour.”
We’ve asked to discuss the next steps at the Cycling Liaison Group meeting on 11th July [NB: this meeting has been postponed] and agree:
- Considerate Cycling as the Council’s default postion rather than No Cycling;
- The quickest and simplest process to remove no cycling signs at those places classed as unenforceable and create shared use on identified paths.
Let’s find out how bureaucratic this is and how long it takes by making a list of suitable paths: e-mail campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk with your suggestions.
2. Cycle parking
A recent question about the stands removed from outside Dickens and Jones in George Street, Richmond, received a very prompt reply from the Traffic Management and Projects Manager, Highways and Transport, Environment Directorate, with this good news:
“Now that the paving works are nearing completion we will be shortly installing 16 new cycle stands (provision for 32 bicycles) in the area near to House of Fraser. We expect this work to be carried out in approximately 2-3 weeks“.
That’s early July if you’re counting and we’ll check: not difficult as our monthly meeting is in the pub opposite.
This is what it looks like there at the moment:
No Comments
I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike…
June 17, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting, Veloteer.
If you cycle in, or through, Twickenham, then please click here to go to the Twickenham Area Action Plan consultation page on the Council website.
If you cycle then some of the words on the page are encouraging, like “improvements to the environment, traffic management, public transport and pedestrian and cycle links will be required”
Unfortunately the 8 page consultation leaflet ”Twickenham Rediscovered, looking back looking forward” available at yesterday’s public meeting and here doesn’t actually use the words “bicycle”, ”cycling” or “cyclist”. ”Cycle” does appear, once, on page 3:
“Limited widening of eastern footway in London Road through removal of cycle lane”
In the document you’re either traffic or pedestrian and if you’re pedestrian then you’ll be pleased to know the impact of traffic is being reduced, mainly by widening pavements.
Now I’m sure when the word pedestrian is used the author had cyclists in their mind’s eye, after all there’s a bike in the drawing on page 6, parked in the middle of an imagined King Street, just like they do in Kensington High Street. But it doesn’t say that and cyclists aren’t pedestrians, except when we’re required to dismount and push our bikes.
There again maybe I’m wrong because our aspirations for the Crane Valley Route providing a traffic free journey through Twickenham and Moor Meads Park is undermined by repeated reference to the “River Crane walkway”.
Please take the opportunity to comment by completing the questionnaire here pointing out the lack of any explicit reference to the needs of cyclists, including secure cycle parking spaces.
The closing date is 22nd July
Talking of which you may want to keep an eye here on the planning application for re-development of Twickenham Railway Station that includes
“250 covered cycle spaces for commuters, 208 covered cycle spaces for residents and provision of a river walkway”
Click here for what we’ve said before about cycle parking at railway stations, including Twickenham.
Some interesting numbers from yesterday’s meeting included:
2000 vehicles an hour through Twickenham during the peak, dropping to 80% of that, still 1600 vehicles, off-peak.
For the imagined King Street to work the off-peak figure needs to drop to 65%, 1300 vehicles. So 300 drivers need to get out of their vehicles and use another way to get around: maybe cycle?
If King Street is pedestrianised off-peak traffic will be diverted to London Road via Arragon Road.
Note it says on page 5 “Transport proposals will be subject to further detailed testing to ensure they do not have an unacceptable impact on the highway network.”
No Comments
Round and round and round we go…
June 7, 2011 by nick, under Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting, Veloteer.
We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again, crossing the London Road at the junction with Chertsey Road is difficult and dangerous. So we were pleased to hear in March that Transport for London was consulting on a plan to make it easier. We weren’t pleased when we saw it. Why? Because it doesn’t do anything to make crossing less difficult or less dangerous. Here’s an example of what TfL say:
“In terms of the width of the traffic islands, the Department for Transport has issued guidance which suggests that a cycle with a trailer is 2.75m long, and that the recommended minimum depth of a traffic island (in order to accommodate a cycle with a trailer) should be 3m. The proposed pedestrian refuge on the southern arm of London Road is 3.5m wide at its widest point, and at the northern arm is 3.7m wide at the widest point. We are confident therefore that parents using cycles with trailers can be accommodated.”
Forget, for a moment, the relevance of the widest point on an island that’s a tear drop shape and is not designed to be crossed at its widest point anyway: much, much, more important is how do you get on it when traffic is nose to tail and moving at different speeds?
And how do you get off it when vehicles are accelerating into the exit lanes like it’s a race track?
We say people need protected space to cross in and narrowing entrance and exit lanes creates that space. TfL says:
“Increasing the size of the islands any further would prevent the owners of [properties in] London Road from entering/exiting… The same issue prevents us from installing zebra crossings – there are a number of dropped kerbs on the north and south sections of London Road and these would prevent the installation of a crossing. The only available space is approximately 30m from the roundabout (on each arm), which would be too distant from the natural pedestrian desire line to make their provision worthwhile.”
Why can’t TfL install toucan crossings, like the all junctions before and after London Road and like the one that is so well-used on the Richmond side of the roundabout ?
We think it’s disgraceful that people, cyclists and pedestrians, are brought to the edge of a busy road and given no help to cross by TfL: why not?
What do you think? E-mail campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk Remember TfL have been invited to the next meeting of the Cycling Liaison Group on 11th July.
And thanks to Caroline Pidgeon, Chair of the Transport Committee at the Greater London Assembly, for her continuing support, including repeatedly asking the Mayor of London when and what TfL is planning at the junction.
UPDATE: Getting TfL to prioritise the safety of pedestrians and cyclists is not just an issue here in Richmond, over in the City of London, Transport for London won’t release information about whether or not it included cyclists or pedestrians in the models for Blackfriars junction.
No Comments
Money? Money? Money?
May 16, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting.
A few things to think about after publication of the notes of the last Cycling Liaison Group
1. Heath Road, Twickenham
For reasons not clear to me, the meeting began with a Police Community Support Officer telling us 27 fixed penalty notices were issued over 6 months for cycling on the pavement near a travel agents in Heath Road. At £30 that’s £810, or £1,620 a year at that rate of reporting. The officer wasn’t taking a problem solving approach so we didn’t get who, what, when and how, or, more importantly, why. As our Co-ordinator said ”a cluster of complaints about footway cycling may indicate there may be a wider highway issue to be addressed, such as narrow cycle lanes or a one-way road with no contra-flow facilities.”
At least we know “the Council was pro-active with regard to footway cycling.“ We’ll ask how many fixed penalty notices for cycling on the pavement have been issued in the Borough and where, to establish problematic locations. There is often a PCSO on the Richmond side of Hammersmith Bridge.
We’re interested in hearing from those on the receiving end of enforcement and any thoughts about planned work at Cross Deep and Heath Road campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk
2. Cycling Budget 2010/11
A March posting noted ”Concern about underspend in my previous post looks unfounded with some schemes overspent [1,2,3,7,8,12] and Riverside Drive now up to £153,000. Not sure how many of these schemes have been done, or even started, so I’ll ask at the meeting if ”spent” means money committed rather than work done.”
The answer is not recorded in the minutes but the Integrated Transport Planning Manager said money can be carried over from year to year because they work to a three year spending plan. So, it’s not “use it or lose it”, which is good as the intended works at South Worple Way/Sheen Lane
and Woodlands Road/Rosslyn Avenue
haven’t started, although Riverside Drive is well on the way to being finished to the roundabout at Ashburnham Road.
So, if money’s not spent and work’s not done is the draft budget meaningful or meaningless? Well, it’s helpful to know what the plan is so we’ll go on asking for updates because something’s better than nothing, even if it’s indicative or aspirational, may or may not happen and may cost so much, more or less.
And the problem at Sheen Lane? “The introduction of the scheme to open up the road closure to cyclists [has been delayed] as the Cabinet Member for Traffic has asked Officers to relocate the existing Business Bay in South Worple Way (adjacent to the road closure) to an alternative position. A Traffic Regulation Order will need to be published to allow cyclists to legally use the road closure and relocate the business bay.”
3. Car Parking
On the subject of parking, Section 7 Richmond Town Centre – Improved cycle route permeability records ”Proposals had not been taken forward as the introduction of cycle contra-flows would probably result in a net loss of on-street parking provision.” While this may refer only to Richmond Hill ["some members had expressed their personal view that a cycle contra-flow is needed for Richmond Hill as the poorly signed alternative route is lengthy and indirect"] it may also be an indication of a policy against contra-flow in general using loss of parking space as the primary test. If it is then it’s consistent with the car-centric 2nd Borough Local Implementation Plan for Transport LIP2
E-mail your thoughts to campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk
No Comments
Barnes Common, again
May 10, 2011 by nick, under All Posts, Campaign, Consultation, Cycling Liaison Group Meeting.
Not for the first time Barnes Common was discussed at the Cycling Liaison Group The minutes say:
“A Public Inquiry held in year 2000 found in the Council’s favour regarding the widening of existing paths across Barnes Common (Public Rights of Way FP10&16) under the Greater London Parks & Open Spaces Act 1967. However, they still require conversion using the Cycle Tracks Act before the paths can be widened and cycling formally allowed along them. If there were objections to the Cycle Tracks Act this could potentially lead to another Public Inquiry. The Cabinet Member has instructed officers to undertake a feasibility study in 2011-12 to consider several alternative options that may be easier to introduce than the previously agreed alignment across the middle of the Common.”
It’s listed under Scheme 4 Greenways in the Council’s latest Draft Cycling Budget 2011-12 £10k is allocated to ”Cycle route feasibility study of options with costings/timescales” and fits with ”Substantial completion of the Borough’s Greenways Network” in the Cycling Action Plan, Priority Area 1 “Cycle Friendly Road Network“ [2nd Borough Local Implementation Plan for Transport, Section 11 Draft Cycling Strategy]
A map of part of Barnes Common was handed out with various routes shown in different colours. You may remember a scheme in last year’s plan to cross the Common on the Putney side of Rocks Lane that was dropped after oppostion from the Conservators and the money returned to TfL. This time it’s the Barnes side and while RCC wants to look at the whole Common we welcome an opportunity to sort out difficult bits on the existing route [black line on the map] that are not safe or convenient, like the requirement to dismount at the end of Laurel Road
the narrow bridge over Beverley Brook
the dangerous right turn out of Cedars Road on to Mill Hill Road and the double level crossing in Vine Road. Proposed options include:
“widening of the footway on west side of Rocks Lane and designation to shared cycle and pedestrian use [thin red line] This would include the provision of a Toucan crossing at Mill Hill Road/Rocks Lane junction (West side);
north east-south west route across Barnes Common between the existing Rocks Lane/Ranelagh Avenue Toucan crossing and the Mill Hill Road/Cedars Road junction [blue line] This would require an informal crossing point of Mill Hill Road before continuing across the Common to the junction of Station Road/Vine Road. It would also require conversion of existing public rights of way footpaths being converted using the Cycle Tracks Act.”
The thick pink line looks like the intended London Cycle Network&LCN+ route.
The options don’t deal with crossing the railway so we propose:
- Installing wheeling channels on the footbridges at Barnes railway station, which are all around 2.5metres wide like Barnes Bridge station which already has them
- Designating shared use on at least one of the paths off Vine Road, either opposite Woodlands Road because that leads over Beverley Brook into Rosslyn Avenue and on to White Hart Lane and Mortlake
and/or the junction with Upper Richmond Road where the existing path is already 1.5 metres wide and links to Priory Road and Richmond Park, a key route for visitors to the Olympic Road Race in 2012.
The RCC Priority List identifies barriers to the cycle journey from Richmond to Putney through Barnes and these proposals provide some alternatives.
Share your thoughts on cycling through Barnes and the proposed options campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk
