Ham Quietway (Richmond Park to Teddington Lock) Consultation

Richmond Council’s latest consultation on its sections of the Wandsworth to Teddington Quietway closes on Monday 12 February.  This consultation focuses on revised proposals for the section of the quietway route in Ham, running from Richmond Park to Teddington Lock on the River Thames.

Linkies to Richmond Council’s relevant pages and documents:

  1. Consultation overview page;
  2. Detailed PDF document with drawings and descriptions (this is a 10mb PDF); and
  3. Survey form to complete – survey closes on Monday 12 February.

Some other linkies to background information:

This post has some photos taken along the route to help illustrate Richmond Council’s proposals.  I’ve included some comments that I’ll submit to the consultation questions.  I’m not claiming to be authoritative, just providing a view of someone that this sort of scheme is supposed to attract.

Route of the Ham Quietway

The quietway uses the established route of National Cycle Network (NCN) 4 between Richmond Park’s Ham Gate and the bridge over the River Thames at Teddington Lock.

HamQW#3Route

(Note the use by Richmond Council of a graphic of someone on a racing bicycle to illustrate a proposal aimed at enabling children and people less confident on bicycles).

A ride along the route, cycling westbound from Richmond Park towards the Thames

Route starts at Richmond Park’s Ham Gate, which is a single carriageway gate and open to motorised traffic

HamQW#4HamGate

Once through the gate, you then cross in front of any waiting vehicles to join the shared-use path running alongside Ham Gate Avenue.

Richmond Council says the current shared-use path will be widened to 2.5m and resurfaced.  The current path is badly degraded and is uncomfortable for people walking or cycling.  The path will have priority at the driveways/ side-turnings, an improvement to today.  Note that 2.5m is narrower than the guidelines on shared-use paths provided in Chapter 4 of the London Cycling Design Standards or Sustrans design guidelines.

HamQW#5HGA

At the junction of Ham Gate Avenue / Petersham Road / Ham Common (the road running westbound from the traffic lights), the proposal is to tidy up the existing crossing, and widen the shared-use pavement on the corner.  It is not clear whether the current markings showing a link to the westbound ASL in Ham Gate Avenue will be retained – this is useful for people turning left/ south into Petersham Road.

HamQW#6junction1

Once over the crossing, the quietway route drops off the shared-use pavement and into the westbound carriageway of Ham Common (road).

HamQW#7junction2

The current drop kerb is unsatisfactory, as it leaves use waiting for eastbound motorised vehicles to clear the junction.  The proposals look unsatisfactory too: the plan shows people cycling westbound crossing the eastbound ASL to continue westbound on the carriageway.  This does not look to me to be safe, as motorised vehicles will be turning into Ham Common from Petersham Road.

HamQW#8junction3

On Ham Common (road), the junction with Martingales Close will be tidied up, and this looks like a good improvement as it forces better sightlines on drivers.  The other intervention is to paint lots of cycle logos on the road to remind drivers that people ride bicycles on roads.

HamQW#13martingales

The route continues into Lock Road, which is a narrow residential street with speed humps.  The current road surface is very poor – there is no indication in the proposals that the road will be resurfaced.

HamQW#9Lock

To get from Broughton Avenue to Hardwicke Road and then to Riverside Drive, the quietway reuses the NCN4 route using off-street shared-use paths.   The paths themselves are OK, and the quietway proposals to a lot to improve the junctions with the roads.  The pavements will be extended to narrow the road carriageways, with the benefit of shortening the crossings, forcing drivers to slow down, and improving sightlines for all.

HamQW#10paths

West of Riverside Avenue, the quietway uses the current NCN4 route to link to the bridge at Teddington Lock over the River Thames

HamQW#11riverside

HamQW#12thames

Survey questions – and draft response

My comments below are just mine – and not intended to be any body’s official response – so pick and choose as you wish.  Skipping the social profile questions, the meatier questions are:

  1. Thinking about the proposed Quietway route from Wandsworth Common to Teddington Lock overall, do you support the route in principle?

Please be advised that you will have an opportunity to comment on the specific elements later in the survey.

  • Yes, fully support
  • Support in part
  • No, I don’t support
  • Not sure
  • No opinion
  1. Do you support or oppose the final proposal for Ham Gate Avenue (Location 1)?

The proposal for Ham Gate Avenue (Location 1) has not been changed from the November 2016 consultation.

Existing shared path to be widened to 2.5 metres and resurfaced, to improve levels of comfort for pedestrians and cyclists.

  • Fully support
  • Support in part
  • Oppose
  • No opinion/can’t say
  1. What aspects of this final proposal for Ham Gate Avenue (Location 1) do you particularly like? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Like – NA
  1. What aspects of this proposal for Ham Gate Avenue (Location 1) do you particularly dislike? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Dislike – At 2.5m, the widened path will be below the minimum width for a shared-use path specified in the London Cycling Design Standard. The decision to build a narrow path here means there is a risk of increased conflict between people walking and cycling, particularly with people walking dogs.
  1. Do you support or oppose the final proposal for Ham Gate Avenue (Location 2)?

The proposal for Ham Gate Avenue (Location 2) has not been changed from the November 2016 consultation.

Existing shared path to be widened to 2.5 metres and resurfaced, to improve levels of comfort for pedestrians and cyclists.

  • Fully support
  • Support in part
  • Oppose
  • No opinion/can’t say
  1. What aspects of this final proposal for Ham Gate Avenue (Location 2) do you particularly like? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Like: the shared-use path will have priority over the side turnings and driveways.
  1. What aspects of this final proposal for Ham Gate Avenue (Location 2) do you particularly dislike? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Dislike – As with Q6, at 2.5m, the widened path will be below the minimum width for a shared-use path specified in the London Cycling Design Standard. The decision to build a narrow path here means there is a risk of increased conflict between people walking and cycling, particularly with people walking dogs.
  1. Do you support or oppose the final proposal for Ham Gate Avenue/ Petersham Road?

The proposal for Ham Gate Avenue/ Petersham Road has not been changed from the November 2016 consultation.

Existing shared path to be widened and resurfaced, to improve levels of comfort for pedestrians and cyclists.

  • Fully support
  • Support in part
  • Oppose
  • No opinion/can’t say
  1. What aspects of this final proposal for Ham Gate Avenue/ Petersham Road do you particularly like? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Like: Widened corner on Ham Common/ Petersham Road, although this needs to be wide enough to reflect expected numbers of people walking and cycling to avoid further erosion to green space.
  1. What aspects of this final proposal for Ham Gate Avenue/ Petersham Road do you particularly dislike? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Dislike: It is not clear from the plans if the link to the westbound ASL in Ham Gate Avenue will be retained. This link should be retained, as it provides a clear route for people on bicycles to turn left/ south onto Petersham Road.
  • Once across Petersham Road, and on the proposed wider corner of Ham Common, the crossing on the carriageway for people cycling westbound is not satisfactory. The proposal mimics the current dropped kerb, instead (from the drawings) crossing the eastbound ASL to continue west.  I do not think is safe as (a) it creates risk of conflict with bicycles and vehicles waiting in the eastbound ASL, (ii) it requires anyone crossing to be mindful of vehicles turning into Ham Common from Petersham Road.  In the end-to-end proposals for this quietway route, this junction is the one issue where I think a better design is required.  In my experience, it fails my test of whether an 8 year-old can safely use it unsupervised.
  1. Do you support or oppose the final proposal for Martingales Close/ Ham Common?

The proposal for Martingales Close/ Ham Common has been amended since the November 2016 consultation.

The amended elements of the proposal are as follows:

  1. Footway has been widened into unused carriageway space
  2. Corner radii has been reduced to reduce speed of vehicles entering Martingales Close
  • Additional greening and planning has been incorporated into scheme

A map highlighting this section of the quietway and illustrating the proposed changes can be found on page 7 of the consultation document.

  • Fully support
  • Support in part
  • Oppose
  • No opinion/can’t say
  1. What aspects of this final proposal for Martingales Close/ Ham Common do you particularly like? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Like: improves sight lines for all road users to, hopefully, improve safety.
  1. What aspects of this final proposal for Martingales Close/ Ham Common do you particularly dislike? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Dislike: NA
  1. Do you support or oppose the final proposal for Lock Road?

The proposal for Lock Road has not been changed from the November 2016 consultation.

Introduction of cycle logos to emphasise presence of cyclists.

A map highlighting this section of the quietway can be found on page 8 of the consultation document.

  • Fully support
  • Support in part
  • Oppose
  • No opinion/can’t say
  1. What aspects of this final proposal for Lock Road do you particularly like? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Like: NA
  1. What aspects of this final proposal for Lock Road do you particularly dislike? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Dislike: It is not clear from the proposals whether the road will be resurfaced and the current speed bumps replaced. The road surface is badly degraded with lots of potholes –these need to be fixed.  The position of the current speed bumps forces people cycling away from the centre of the road into the “death zone” of car doors.   New and cycle-friendly speed bumps need to be installed.
  1. Do you support or oppose the final proposal for Broughton Avenue/ Hardwicke Road crossings?

The proposal for Broughton Avenue/ Hardwicke Road crossings has been amended since the November 2016 consultation.

The amended elements of the proposal are as follows:

  1. Build out tapered at connection to shared use path in Broughton Avenue
  2. Table has been adapted into one-way priority table on Hardwicke Road to slow traffic travelling along road

A map highlighting this section of the quietway and illustrating the proposed changes can be found on page 9 of the consultation document.

  • Fully support
  • Support in part
  • Oppose
  • No opinion/can’t say
  1. What aspects of this final proposal for Broughton Avenue/ Hardwicke Road crossings do you particularly like? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Like: Better sight lines for all road users, hopefully, improving safety for all.
  1. What aspects of this final proposal for Broughton Avenue/ Hardwicke Road crossings do you particularly dislike? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Dislike: NA
  1. Do you support or oppose the final proposal for Riverside Drive crossing?

The proposal for Riverside Drive crossing has been amended since the November 2016 consultation.

The amended element of the proposal is as follows:

  • Parallel zebra crossing to be introduced on existing raised table to provide safe crossing for pedestrians and cycles

A map highlighting this section of the quietway and illustrating the proposed changes can be found on page 10 of the consultation document.

  • Fully support
  • Support in part
  • Oppose
  • No opinion/can’t say
  1. What aspects of this final proposal for Riverside Drive crossing do you particularly like? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Like: Support the proposal for a parallel zebra crossing.
  1. What aspects of this final proposal for Riverside Drive crossing do you particularly dislike? Please tell us using the space below:
  • Dislike: NA
  1. If you have any final comments you would like to make regarding the proposed Quietway, please tell us using the space below:
  • Looking at the consultation documents, and the council’s social media feeds, I am very disappointed by the council’s use of “racing cyclists” in the form of photographs, cartoons and GIFs to illustrate these proposals. Quietway schemes are aimed at children and people who are less confident cyclists.  I would expect the illustrations to be of children, families and returning cyclists, most likely dressed in normal clothes and riding a variety of bicycles.  The council’s choice of racing cycles and cyclists is either (i) ignorant of the intended audience, or (ii) deliberately chosen to fuel anti-cycling complaints from local NIMBYs.  I urge the council to think more carefully in future.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s