Live from 5pm today (4th September)
Link to website HERE
A lot more exciting offers than on previous occasions and all have at least considered cycling (although one seems to have steps on what they call a cycle route.
Hounslow are consulting on proposals to improve the existing cycle route.
Our Response :
This is a useful N-S link suitable for all cyclists that has recently been considerably improved by the removal of through traffic from the Church Street area.
Regarding the current proposals for improvement :
1) Ivy Bridge to South Street :
Whilst the current speed humps could certainly be improved it seems a pity that the route continues to rely on them. A permeable road closure between Dawes Avenue and Napier Road would remove through motor traffic whilst allowing vehicular access to all properties.
2) South Street
This is currently the busiest section and we can see the need for changes. Nevertheless shared use of even a widened footway beside a carriageway is sub-optimal and risks conflict. A discrete cycle track would be a better solution.
3) Syon Park
Some sensible adjustments.
It is strongly to be hoped that the 4 gate chicane that has recently appeared will be removed ( it does not seem to be marked on the plans) The chicane is highly discriminatory towards less able cyclists using wider vehicles and is totally unacceptable.
Overall we are happy with the ambition to improve a valuable route but feel that some approaches are less than ideal.
Burtons Road has long been an important route for cyclists enabling them to avoid the busy Park Road. Unfortunately has a long history of rat-running which has been aggravated by the use of sat-navs. Due to the narrowness of parts of the road that can make cycling effectively impossible at peak times. Road humps have been deployed to reduce speeds and there have been previous failed attempts to filter out through traffic.
The current proposals for two road closures and a one-way section should be enough to frustrate determined rat-runners whilst allowing vehicular access. That will return Burtons Road to being a pleasant place to walk and cycle at all times and should encourage a shift to active travel in accord with the mayor’s policies. This will be all the more important in the light of the decision to move Turing House School to Heathfield. It does seem to have local support and
RCC is thoroughly in favour.
Could we also note that the shared use section enabling cycle use of the informal crossing of Uxbridge Road at the end of Burtons road is marked by corrugated paving alone ;signage was never installed. Perhaps some signs might be erected as part of the proposed works.
Perhaps I should include the map showing (potential) connections.
20mph is one of London Cycling’s six core ‘asks’ from the recent elections. Six things that we believe would make London’s boroughs better places for cycling.
So it’s a shame that the council is so clearly hell bent on doing virtually nothing about it.
If you want to know what an anti-20mph policy looks like, you just need to read the cabinet papers for the meeting this week. You’ll need item 6 here, and the linked PDF. But to save you the effort, here’s how the conversation will likely go with the officers unfortunate enough to have to deal with this:
You “Hello, a lot of people in my road would like it to be 20mph.”
Council “A majority? Like in more than 50% of all households?”
You “Well, a majority of the people I spoke to.”
Council “Look, just because no councillor here has more than about 10% of the people in their area actually vote for them, they still need you to collect a majority of everyone.
“But I’m feeling, nice, so we’ll skip that stage. Did your, haha, majority also understand that 20mph means traffic calming measures, signs, speed humps, etc., will also be needed? Did you know that under council rules, we’re not interested in consultation responses at this stage if you can’t demonstrate you’ve explained just how awful 20mph zones really are? ”
You “Err. No? Department for Transport guidance says you don’t need all that, doesn’t it? I mean, Bristol has a city wide 20mph limit without all that, doesn’t it?”
Council “Does this look like Bristol. If you want 20mph, then the Richmond way is to make it almost impossible, but to over-engineer it if we do go ahead.”
You, some time later “Ok, they’re happy with all that. Can we have 20mph now?”
Council (guffaws) “No, no, not yet! First we’re going to see whether it’ll affect any other roads nearby. If it does we won’t do it. Then we’ll make something up about whether it can be enforced. If it can’t, or we won’t make the effort to, then we won’t do it either.”
“And then, we’ll check if it’s a conservation area, because we wouldn’t want to clutter a conservation area with cars moving through too slowly.”
You “And then we can have 20mph?”
Council “No. Then we’ll do a traffic survey. If average speeds are over 24mph, then we won’t give you a 20mph zone. And if they’re under, we probably won’t either, because people are already going slow enough, innit?”
Council “Oh, and if you’re still giving us grief, we’ll review the accident data for at least three years to decide if we think it’s appropriate.
“After that, we’ll think about whether we can fund it, and since so few people will get to this stage, each one of these will need signing off by the cabinet member. And then we’ll do a full consultation.”
You “But I’ve already got people to agree, haven’t I?”
Council “Ah yes, but we’ll consult over the whole area, and all the streets around will need to approve your 20mph zone. Did we mention that someone who doesn’t respond is a ‘no’?”
You “What about outside all the schools in the borough, then?”
Council “They’ll all have to go through the process above. Although we might be magnanimous and include a random rule about how we can do it if we want, without any consultation at all.”
Footnote: You might think we’ve made this up, but it’s all supported by the papers going to council on the 9th. We don’t think Richmond wants to implement 20mph anywhere, based on those papers. And if they do, they’re going to be sure to do it in the most expensive, un-popular fashion possible. Feel free to check the DfT guidance, and see how much of it has been ignored. (PDF link.)
Once upon a time there were two narrowish advisory cycle lanes down this rather nasty ( high speeds and traffic volume) between Kingston Bridge and Hampton Court Bridge. LB Richmond decided that these were ineffective and decided with little consultation to put a 2-way cycle track on the north side from Church Grove but ending about half way down the road. If you were crossing Kingston Bridge you would have to cross somehow to the north side and re-cross with even less assistance half way to Hampton Court. Unsurprisingly cyclists tend not to do that but were continuing on the north footway to the annoyance of local residents.
We have just had a communication suggesting the possibility of further action :
We have given initial though to widening the footway on the northern side of the road, as a continuation to the existing off road facility to the Chestnut Avenue junction. This will reduce the road width to 7.0m but would provide a general 4.0m shared footway (some variations in places). In order to implement this, it would be necessary to remove the two existing on road cycle lanes. We will also be looking at crossing cyclists at the Chestnut Avenue zebra, with continued shared use to the HCR roundabout. The road width reduction would be beneficial in reducing vehicle speeds as there is an issue with vehicles travelling well above the 30mph speed limit.
As part of this project we will also be giving consideration to how we link the roundabout to the existing off road facility further along HCR, past the green and the Esso garage. I would like to stress that this is only being considered at this stage and is not yet out to public consultation. Your initial views would be welcome.
My initial view was that this was some improvement on the current situation whilst still wistfully thinking that if Richmond and Surrey could get their act together we could have a continuous track on the south side from Kingston to Esher. Comments from users welcome.
The council is looking to re-design the roundabout which leads on to the Richmond gate entrance to Richmond Park (streetmap view here), and RCC committee members are hoping to talk to council officials in the next couple of weeks about this, so we’d like your input!
The roundabout has seen a number of incidents in the last few years (LBRuT have reported 10 collisions in the proximity of the gate with 8 of them involving cyclists – you can use http://www.cyclestreets.net/collisions/ to see some of them), and they’re considering a number of options.
Our view is that this is a typically poor bit of infrastructure for cycling: there’s no way to access the park or leave the park on a bicycle without potential conflict with traffic that can be sometimes very heavy or very fast-moving,
If Richmond Park is to be a destination for everyone who wants to cycle, then it’s great news the council is looking to improve this crucial junction. Our hope is that changes made here can set a template for making our borough much friendlier for people seeking to access key facilities by foot and bicycle. Options under investigation include moving the traffic island, and resurfacing, among others. What would you like to see happen here? Let us know via our email email@example.com or contact form.
A local member wrote to us recently, to ask about what’s happening with the A316. The short answer is nothing, although it now features heavily in the mini-Holland bid. Here’s what she said:
Wonder if you can help me? I am a cyclist using 316 to commute to and from work.Most of the times I use cycling lines but I find it very difficult to do that just after Richmond roundabout when the cycling line moves to the right side of the road, when cycling towards central London. The stretch between the two roundabouts has 10 junctions with extremely poor visibility for cyclists and drivers. I had had 3 accidents there in the past year and have witnessed at least 10 accidents. Since I cycle on the pavement on the left knowing that I commit an offence. What I find very frustrating is the fact that that in the widest and most cycle friendly part of that pavement where hardly ever there are as many pedestrians as on the other side of the road, the cycling is prohibited but in the narrower bit where there are shops and junctions the cyclist can share the pavement with pedestrians. Have you ever made any attempts to increase the cycling lane on both sides of 316 post Richmond roundabout? Can you also advise me who should I contact to express my views. Also do you know when we will know if the Mini-Holland bid was successful?
We’re aware of a number of issues with the A316, and we’ve endeavoured to highlight some of them on Cyclescape – see http://richmondlcc.cyclescape.org/tags/a316. Sadly, there’s nothing happening right now: it’s a feature which is very frustrating, because while it’s great to have a clearly built, off-road cycle lane along such a busy road, it’s rendered very annoying because of the choice to require cycling to give way to cars at every junction. As our correspondent writes, this makes it both feel unsafe, and be unsafe.
The stretch identified is especially problematic for cycling. We hear regularly of Police Liaison Groups fielding complaints about cycling on the north side of the A316 between Richmond Circus and Manor Circus. And yes, cycling along here is not allowed. Yet people continue to do so. And why? Because this is not an easy road to cross, with just two controlled crossings throughout this entire section, and traffic routinely passing through at more than the 30mph limit. In terms of relative risk and actual danger, a check of the road statistics for this section indicate pretty clearly from whom pedestrians are at risk along these roads, and it isn’t someone on a bicycle.
More and more people are using this facility, so it’s to be hoped that something’s going to happen soon – if we win the mini-Holland bid (http://www.richmond.gov.uk/mini_holland_bid), then the A316 is going to get a very substantial upgrade that could address almost all of these concerns.
Post Updated – 13 October 2013
We reported in our 6 August update below that despite overwhelming support for closure of this notorious rat run, TfL had decided to proceed with a partial closure. We were aghast, and many of you joined us in writing to TfL to share your feelings. Well, we can now happily report that TfL have decided to go back to the original proposal and implement a full closure. A great result and in no small part down to the many of you who emailed TfL.
Dear sir or madam,
We wrote to you on 17 July and 5 August about this proposed closure and the consultation we have conducted. Generally there was strong support in the consultation for some action to prevent rat-running along Cole Park Road (backed by almost ninety percent of responses), but opinion was divided on whether a full or partial closure would be preferable.
Since August we have assessed options for a partial closure. Compared with full closure, this would have significant safety disadvantages for pedestrians and cyclists on Chertsey Road. We have also looked into the possibility of testing a temporary closure before making permanent changes to the road layout. However, this would cause problems for large vehicles such as refuse collection, which would have to reverse for a considerable distance.
We have discussed these findings with the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, and the Cabinet Member for Highways and Streetscene has agreed with the other Ward Councillors that we should close the junction completely on a permanent basis.
We are now continuing with the detailed design of the scheme and preparation of the necessary traffic orders, and aim to start implementation of the scheme in Spring 2014.
Post Updated – 6 August 2013
After feeling good that after significant support a notorious rat run that cuts across the A316 cycle lane and causes many near misses would be closed off, we were brought down to earth when TfL announced that after consulting with LBRUT they would only implement a partial closure, leaving those cycling along the path at risk to left hooks from vehicles exiting the A316 into Cole Park Road at speed.
You can see the TfL letter and our responses below, we’re asking everyone who cares about this important route for mums and dads to cycle to school with their children to email TfL to object as soon as you can STEngagement@tfl.gov.uk
Email from TfL
Dear sir or madam,
I wrote to you on 17 July to report on the consultation on this proposed closure.
Following the consultation, discussions with the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames and further investigatory work, we propose to implement a partial closure of the junction, with a left turn in (entry only) permitted for eastbound vehicles on the A316. This was proposed by 24 respondents to the consultation. The detailed designs are being finalised in preparation for a safety audit, with a view to implementation of the scheme in Spring 2014.
Transport for London, Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NJ
Response from Paul, local CTC representative and RCC Committee member
Dear Mr Howard
I would protest in the strongest terms at this design however detailed. A “left hook” is known to be a major cause of cycle casualties and an eastbound vehicle travelling at speed along the A316 swinging across the cycle track here, probably coming from behind an unsuspecting cyclist, is the worst manoeuvre that you could allow to happen. Counting respondents does not guarantee a safe choice – the original proposal showed more evidence for professional judgement.
CTC Representative for Richmond
Response from Tim, RCC Campaigns Coordinator
Dear Mr. Howard,
I write concerning your recent letter about the Cole Park Road consultation, and the apparent decision – in consultation with LBRUT – to abandon the decision to make this a safer junction for pedestrians and cyclists, and a more pleasant road for residents.
The original proposal, as per page 9 here – http://is.gd/WsWt9e – would have provided:
1. A safe place for cyclists to continue their journey, after the still very sub-standard London Road roundabout
2. A safe place for pedestrians to continue their journey – they and cyclists would not need to play chicken with cars taking the current apex at the high speeds usually seen on this road.
3. A quieter road for residents.
Over half of the respondents gave at least partial support for full closure, and the vast majority sought action on rat-running. Yet you’ve now cooked up an idea with LBRUT which would effectively render the scheme pointless There’s really no reason for this road to egress onto the A316 at all, because only in the very worst of peak periods traffic would people need to take this as an exit to the main road.
It’s a matter of very great disappointment to Richmond Cycling that TfL and LBRUT are once again prioritising the movement of motor traffic – and often high speed motor traffic – over the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. To be honest, it also renders this entire consultation process an expensive and pointless exercise if you’re going to ask for views and then mostly ignore them, don’t you think?
Campaigns Coordinator, Richmond Cycling.
Email from Twickenham resident Aniello
Dear sir or madam,
My name is Aniello and I commute to work every morning on my bike.
I do not see myself as a cyclist. I see myself for what I am: a person on a means of transport. Same way as people driving a car or a motorbike. I don’t drive, I ride and that’s where all differences stop.
Still, I feel, no, I correct myself, I am SURE that you are
prioritizing and making the road safer ONLY to people who are already safe in their car, surrounded by huge amounts of steel and loads of research to help them make safe while using an unsafe means of transportation.
Even when TfL and the Mayor of London are pushing for safer means of sharing the roads among ALL the users (people walking, driving, riding) you clearly are still aiming at making the roads unsafe to everyone just for the sake of “smoothing traffic” (which, however, you are totally failing to do).
Last morning I was riding my bike to work, I was 1 minute away from my destination, and yet I was close to NOT making it to the office or even back home alive due to a person driving her car thinking (as you suggested her) that the road is all her. She sped past me on the right (despite me riding fast in a primary position, i.e. at the center of the lane so to discourage drivers from passing in that particular stretch of road in Chiswick), with her “left” light blinking and as soon as she passed me, she cut me on the left to make a “left” turn on a road (which, moreover, was busy due to a vehicle maneuvering). I had to force my brakes to avoid hitting her or, worse, being caught up under her car.
Now I hear that there was a consultation for closing Cole Park Road to left turning vehicles from the A316 and that lots of people were happy with the solution, but still you dropped it following consultation with the LBRUT council.
I am, again and again and again, disappointed. Hugely disappointed. You keep claiming you are making our roads safer, and yet at every opportunity you create the ideal conditions for motor traffic to speed and you are actually encouraging people driving their cars into making dangerous actions that could potentially (and are actually) killing people walking or riding. You are clearly aware that the major reason people die on bike is because of left turning vehicle. And yet, you favor it. While still claiming that that is safer for all of us.
Could you please tell me why is that? Why you think that NOT closing access to Cole Park road would make it safer for people living in the area, for people walking in the area, for people riding in the area or even for people driving in the area? And could you please tell me why you dropped the original proposal EVEN IF people LIVING in the area (and thus clearly those who KNOW more about that junction than everyone else) were in favor?
At least that would be appreciated.
Aniello, a guy on his bike.
Original Post – 1 August 2013
We reported back in our May newsletter that TfL were proposing to shut off a notorious rat run on the A316, near to London Road roundabout. Cutting across a well used off road cycle lane, it was the scene of many near misses.
TfL have now published the findings of the consultation, and we’re happy to report that aan overwhelming proportion were in favour of removing the rat run (85%). TfL will now work with the local ward councillors to decide on how the change will be implemented. Thank you to everyone who responded to the consultation.
The report from TfL is worth a read, if only to see the response from the Alliance of British Motorists! Cole Park Road Consultation Report
We continue to push for improvements to the A316 cycle lane, including getting priority for cyclists across junctions, improving Chalkers Corner and sorting out the London Scottish car park exit.
A special guest post from Walton on Thames cyclist Parimal highlighting an important consultation for anyone who cycles in through that town, or in fact anywhere within Surrey CC’s remit.
Surrey County Council are, at the time of writing, consulting on implementing some cycling facilities in Walton-on-Thames to act as a link to the shiny new bridge that has been installed.
The full consultation including plans can be found here (deadline to respond Monday 19 August). In summary, the proposals being consulted upon involve:
On superficial analysis the plans appear to be very good in separating cyclists from motorised traffic, providing a subjectively safe space for existing and would be cyclists to go about their business. But that would be superficial analysis indeed.
From the overview of the plans we can see that the shared paths run through the shopping areas of Walton-on-Thames, pavements that are heavily used by pedestrians to go shopping. These plans deliberately put cyclists in conflict with pedestrians because they fail to recognise that shared paths only ever work when there are very few users of vastly different speeds. In these plans at each junction along the main road, cyclists do not have right of way posing a further danger to them and pedestrians.
The plans appear to have been designed to get cyclists out of the way of motorists and put them into direct conflict with pedestrians in an area heavily used by pedestrians.
This excellent video by WokingTrafficSafety shows a walkthrough of the pavements in Walton-on-Thames that these plans are for.
Surrey County Council are willing to take away some road space in an attempt to widen the pavements. However, the use of shared pavements in this area is completely inappropriate. There is enough room on the roads in question to have pavements, wide separated cycle lanes, which have same priority as adjacent roadway, and two way roadway for motor traffic. However, it requires the will to reallocate space properly.