Tag Archives: A316

London Road Roundabout – Did They Start Without Us?

Posted on by
Reply

TfL promised to review 100 of the worst junctions for cyclists last year, and you may have seen that work has begun on places like Waterloo Roundabout. But now someone’s told us that work has begun on the London Road junction in Twickenham (Streetview and map).

London Rd / Chertsey Rd from Google Maps: http://goo.gl/maps/DPIbH

RCC has looked at this before, (as has the local Green Party) as the junction doesn’t currently work for either walking or cycling, so it’s very worrying that work might be going ahead on this junction with no consultation and no documentation available. In our view it would be better to do nothing than to bridge the work on this junction, considering the volume of potential and actual use by all transport types.

So if they have started work on this, it’s a matter of some concern, and we need to find out what’s going on straight away. If you have a moment, ask your local GLA members (list here - Tony Arbour is member for the area, but others  have London-wide responsibility, like Stephen Knight), and email TfL (use this form or email Enquire@TfL.Gov.UK).

You can also ask your councillors to enquire as well, since it’s their borough …

Do let us know what you find out (at campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk) and we’ll keep this post updated.

A316 Cycle Route

Posted on by
Reply

This post has been updated [again] on: 21st February 2012

Nothing new in the Mayor’s answers to these cycling questions, except being told work won’t begin until after the Olympics: no surprise there but maybe an opportunity to seek another review after the Mayoral Elections on 3rd May?

A316 cycle route (1) Question No: 200 / 2012 Jenny Jones

Will you look again at the past recommendations for light controlled crossings on the A316 cycle route at London Roundabout?  A constituent informs me that the recent changes by Transport for London to help cater for pedestrians and cyclists travelling east/west along Chertsey Road, crossing both arms of London Road, are minimal and ineffective.

Written response from the Mayor

A feasibility report into the signalisation of London Road Roundabout was completed in 2008.  At the time it concluded that it could be technically feasible to replace the roundabout with signalised crossings, but there would be costs close to £1m to divert the statutory undertakers’ equipment within the roundabout.  The cost benefit ratio of these changes is therefore deemed to be too high.  TfL is currently progressing an option to provide refuge islands for pedestrians and cyclists on the northern and southern arms of the roundabout.  These will alert motorists to the presence of crossing pedestrians and cyclists and will provide a safe waiting space to cross in two phases.  It is anticipated that these works will be constructed after the Olympics.

A316 cycle route (2) Question No: 201 / 2012 Jenny Jones

Will you make public Transport for London’s data for the predicted use of the London Road roundabout on the A316 and the judgement criteria that they used to decide that providing a continuous cycle route via a signalised crossroads at London Road/A316 would result in increased queuing and displacement of traffic?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

Yes, and we’re looking forward to reading it.

Continue reading →

London Road roundabout – the last word?

Posted on by
Reply

It took time but we have a written response from Transport for London following the site meeting on 15th July.

2 documents stand out from the 18 sent:

1. 2008 report on the feasibility of replacing the roundabout with a traffic light controlled junction [conclusion: it's not, p17-18]

2. TfL reply to the series of questions we asked both in writing and in person at the site visit.

Dr Vince CABLE, MP for Twickenham, Teddington, Whitton & The Hamptons, told TfL on 14th July he was familiar with the report but wrote:

“I have received a number of emails…about the [London Road] roundabout and the omission of a crossing from TfL’s latest plans.  My understanding is that in the original scheme there were plans for a signal controlled crossing across the northern arm of London Rd when it was concluded that full roundabout signalling could not be done.  This also included closure of the Cole Park Rd/Chertsey Rd northern entrance.  It is not clear to me why it is now being said that such a crossing would not be feasible. If you have visited the roundabout yourself, then you will know that it can be virtually impossible at times to cross the road because of the heavy flow of traffic and its speed.  Enlarging traffic islands will still mean people have to take their chances and cyclists will still have to run across the road with their bikes to and from the cycle lanes. The only solution to make this roundabout safe is a crossing and I hope TfL will now revert to the earlier proposal.”

TfL replied on 10th August:

“TfL investigated the signalisation of the roundabout in earlier work undertaken between 2006 and 2008.  We concluded that provision of signals on each arm would reduce the overall capacity of the junction to accommodate traffic flow, resulting in increased queuing and displacement of traffic to adjacent parts of the network (potentially to residential side roads).  A further option that has been investigated but which was not feasible on cost grounds was to convert the roundabout to a signalised crossroads.  There is a large gas main in the centre of the junction, and TfL would need to pay for it to be moved in order to accommodate a crossroads.  This has an estimated cost of £870,000, in addition to the costs of other civil engineering and design.  The total cost could not be justified in relation to user benefit.  The provision of a stand-alone ‘Toucan’ crossing sited away from the junction cannot be provided due to several vehicle accesses for adjacent properties, and it is the Mayor’s policy to limit the number of traffic signals in London, given their operational and maintenance costs, in addition to their impact on capacity.  Whilst we recognise that some respondents would prefer an alternative scheme, we frequently need to balance competing demands from road users and carefully prioritise available resources.  The response to our recent consultation on the scheme was largely positive and for this reason we will progress it.

We are however investigating as a separate scheme a proposal to close the northern entrance to Cole Park Road and relocate the existing Toucan crossing to the east of the roundabout.  This has the potential benefit of achieving a cycle crossing closer to existing desire lines, increasing the exit capacity of the roundabout through providing additional queuing space and reducing rat-running traffic on Cole Park Road, which is primarily residential.  We do however need to carefully consider both the impact of the proposal on pedestrian desire lines at the junction and its costs.  In the event that we are able to identify a viable option, we will proceed to undertake public consultation on this proposal before determining a way forward.  Work is still at an early concept stage, and we are working closely with the London Borough of Richmond during the design process.”

Key statements are repeated in TfL’s response on 18th August:

“…signalisation of the roundabout would have caused severe delays.”

“…the presence of several dropped kerb accesses nearby mean that we are not able to provide stand-alone toucan crossings in locations that are close to the pedestrian and cyclist desire lines.”

“…the current Mayoral policy is that there should be no net growth of traffic signals on the network.”

“…St Margaret’s roundabout was signalised in 1995 prior to TfL’s formation, the introduction of the 2004 Traffic Management Act and current Mayoral policy to limit the growth of signals in London.” [i.e. we wouldn't do it now]

So, what’s the evidence to support the statements:

  • reduce the overall capacity of the junction to accommodate traffic flow
  • increased queuing
  • displacement of traffic

Nothing specific to London Road but we’ve been given the Traffic Modelling Guidelines and Model Auditing Process MAP so we’ll read through them to see if they answer questions like:

  1. Is a numerical value ascribed to“severe delays” e.g. time taken to travel a set distance?
  2. Does a numerical value trigger the classification “severe“ e.g. twice as long to travel a set distance?
  3. How is “capacity“ expressed and calculated?
  4. Does a numerical value trigger the classification “unacceptable“ e.g. twice as long to travel a set distance during peak compared to off-peak?
  5. How is “increased queuing“ measured, expressed and predicted?

Thanks to:

Dr Vince CABLE for writing to TfL  [Read more about his views on cycling in Twickenham in his recent column in Richmond Informer although we'd ask what "well appointed safe cycle routes" there are in the Borough];

Caroline PIDGEON, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group and Chair of the Transport Committee, London Assembly, for her persistence in asking about the roundabout at Mayor’s Question Time;

Monica SAUNDERS, Richmond and Twickenham Green Party, and Phil JONES for writing excellent letters to Richmond and Twickenham Times on 1st and 8th July respectively;

Radio Jackie for giving us air-time at the beginning of July.

Last, but certainly not least, Tim Harris, who, because he cycles the route to work and knows what he’s talking about, has repeatedly challenged TfL: a true veloteer.

More to follow on other parts of the A316 cycle route.

TfL, Terrible for Listening

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Bridge of sighs

Posted on by
Reply

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]:

  1. “SCC will carry out structural inspections and repairs with the costs being shared equally between LB Richmond and SCC;
  2. 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;
  3. 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;
  4. 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.

The most dangerous cycle lane in Richmond?

Posted on by
Reply

The A316 is the busiest road passing through the Borough of Richmond upon Thames and comes under the responsibility of TfL. Running along side it for most of it’s length are cycle lanes but, as often is the case, there are significant gaps and problem areas along the way that don’t make cycling in our borough as inviting as it could be. These need to be overcome if we’re to see a much greater uptake of cycling as a means of getting about the borough instead of driving, particularly for families with children. We’ve previously highlighted our struggles to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists on the London Road roundabout, but there are other key concerns along it’s length, for example the notorious Chalkers Corner.

One key area that we’ve been aware of and trying to have resolved since TfL carried out works in 2010 is where the cycle lane crosses the exit from London Scottish Rugby Club car park, located on the A316 between Richmond Circus and Pools on the Park. As we took the photograph below, a lady was nearly knocked off her bike by a car exiting the car park, clearly illustrating how dangerous a section it is.

Sadly, earlier this month, a mother and her young son were knocked off their bicycle at this exact point by a car exiting at speed. Fortunately the child was not hurt but the mother required medical attention. Serious though it was, they were lucky not to have been knocked onto the dual carriageway and hit by the passing traffic.

As the photo below taken from the car park shows, cars exiting are supposed to Stop – or is it Give Way – or perhaps its both, as the sign says Stop, but the road markings are for Give Way! Either way, the priority is for pedestrians and cyclists passing by, but as this incident and our photo above show, this is not happening.

The problem is further compounded by cars exiting the Pools in the Park car park using the rugby ground car park as a rat run to skip past the traffic lights. This route is shown in the photo below and cars are frequently observed turning left into the London Scottish car park to then immediately exit onto the A316. The sort of person impatient enough to execute this manoeuvre certainly isn’t going to take the time to check for cyclists or pedestrians.

The simplest and safest solution is for the exit from the London Scottish Rugby Club car park onto the A316 to be closed and for cars to exit the car park via the Pools on the Park slips road (where the entrance is already located). In the short term, the signage needs to be corrected and the addition of a speed bump at the exit (something that could be ordered and installed immediately at little cost) would stop cars making a dash for it without giving way (or is that stopping). What is not a solution is to put up cyclist dismount signage. These are not in compliance with the TfL London Cycle design standard and when was the last time you saw Motorist Dismount signs? Doing this states providing safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists is not a priority.

As already said, this is a key route in the Borough, and is used by many families cycling to Pools on the Park and the Thames path. It is also adjacent to Deer Park where Richmond Council are holding the Strictly Cycling Bike Fest on 19th June. Hundreds of cyclists will be cycling past this point on Saturday for the event, if it’s you, take care.

Boris Johnson was in Richmond last week, promoting the council’s efforts to boost cycling. Perhaps next time, he’d like to take the opportunity to look at this dangerous situation and have TfL resolve it. As with Blackfriar’s Bridge, TfL needs to recognise the needs of more vunerable road users.  Otherwise, next time we may be reporting a more serious incident.

Round and round and round we go…

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Cycling Liaison Group 29th March

Posted on by
Reply

The next meeting of the Cycling Liaison Group will take place at 630pm next Tuesday, 29th March, in the Terrace at York House, Twickenham.

Paperwork circulated ahead of the meeting includes:

An update of the Cycling Budget 2010/11 with an estimate of how much money will be spent by the end of the financial year on 31st March;

Draft Transport for London Cycling Programme listing planned works on the Chertsey Road [A316] and the South Circular [A205]

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.     

E-mail campaign@richmondlcc.co.uk if there’s something in the paperwork, or anything else, you want raised at the meeting.

TfL Consultation to Improve Safety on the A316 London Road Roundabout

Posted on by
Reply

After a lot of hard campaigning by a local cyclist, TfL have opened a consultation to improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists crossing the southern and northern exits of the London Road Roundabout on the A316. Read the details below and pass your feedback to the email at the end. The deadline is Friday 1st April. A big word of thanks to Tim for pursuing this – check him out on Twitter at https://twitter.com/treesandweeds

Transport for London (TfL), is currently developing a proposal to improve crossing facilities on the roundabout at the junction of the A316 Chertsey Road and A310 London Road.

The scheme will provide safer crossing points on the northern and southern arms of the A316 Chertsey Road / A310 London Road roundabout junction in the London Borough of Richmond and in addition will remove the current gap in the London Cycling Network route 169 which runs east / west across the roundabout.

Shared footway use will be extended for both pedestrians and cyclists at the proposed crossing points which will provide continuation of route for cyclists. In summary, the proposed measures include the following:

  • Provision of crossing points on the northern & southern London Road for pedestrians/cyclists
  • Provision of new tactile paving at crossing points
  • Shared use footway areas for pedestrians and cyclists extended to the proposed crossing points
  • Provision of re-aligned & widened footpath on the north-eastern footway section of the roundabout junction
  • Chertsey Road eastern approach reduced from three lanes to two lanes

If you have any comments with regard to this proposal please contact us at STEngagement@tfl.gov.uk by Friday 1 April 2011