Response to Summer 2016 Consultations, Part Two

Here’s the follow-up to yesterday’s post. This covers the Kingston Go Cycle (was Mini Holland) consultations for the Kingston Station and the Surbiton-Kingston schemes. There’s a bonus response to the proposed road closure on Surbiton Crescent.

My initial thoughts on the schemes are here. This is going to be a long post, but please do respond to these consultations. Feel free to copy, adapt and share these responses: these schemes are promising but need work to make them truly useful.

 

Kingston Station

Link to consultation

My responses

To what extent do you support the scheme as a whole?

Somewhat favour

How likely are you to use the area for walking and cycling following the improvements?

Extremely likely
Further comments

The segregated cycle routes to the south side of Wood Street are a welcome improvement to the current mix of shared space and pedestrian only space. Similarly, the widened bridge alongside the railway station is welcome and provides a useful link for riding.

As a regular pedestrian in this area I have grave concerns about the use of shared space. This lack of clarity feels dangerous for pedestrians and is unwelcome for cyclists. This needs to be addressed.
The route under John Lewis along Horse Fair needs to be clearer: a separated cycle track should be provided.
The route through the bus stops outside John Lewis should be separated: the current mix of cycles and buses is dangerous, particularly given that buses and taxis are pulling out into cycle routes.

Station Forecourt

To what extent are you in favour of the proposed improvements to the station forecourt?

Neutral
Further comments

It is difficult to endorse this given that all the schemes within this box contain Shared Space.

The Wheatfield Way cycle route must continue to be separated past the station and into both the Wood Street routes and under the railway bridge. This is easy to achieve. The current station forecourt shared space is awful and should be removed. A “tiger crossing” will help pedestrians.
The shared space in Fife Road is unclear. Does this mean cycles, pedestrians and motor vehicles all sharing space? Given that HGVs use this road for deliveries, cycles must be separated from motor vehicles.
The 20mph restriction is welcome but the street layout must be such that this is a speed drivers naturally choose.

Hub and Storage

To what extent do you agree with the provision of the hub and storage facility within the station forecourt area?

Agree

Further comments

More parking at the station is welcome, as is a hub. However, the indicated size of the hub leaves little room for pedestrians and cyclists when heading toward the cinema. This is likely to cause pedestrian overspill onto the cycle route.

Green Link

To what extent are you in favour of the proposed improvements and the making of the Green Link to the riverbank?

Agree
Further comments
The two directional routes and separate pedestrian space are welcome, both north and south of Wood Street.
The bridge is likely to be popular with cyclists as well as pedestrians: space should be provided for separate cycle and pedestrian space.
The green link is a pleasant idea but the route should not be completely shielded from the road: visibility is important for subjective safety for all users.
The junction treatment from Wood Street to Fife Road (at the Bentalls end) is unclear. The cycle and pedestrian routes should continue, with inbound traffic ceding priority. Given that the inbound traffic will be joining from a 20mph road this should be achievable as traffic should already be slow.
The 20mph restriction is welcome but the street layout must be such that this is a speed drivers naturally choose.

Gateway to Kingston Bridge

To what extent are you in favour of the proposed improvements to the gateway to Kingston Bridge?

Disagree
Further comments
These proposals offer little to cyclists. There is no improvement to the shared route with buses and taxis pulling into the carriageway. A separate cycle route would be welcomed by both cyclists and motorists not having to worry about approaching cyclists.
The use of road space under John Lewis should be re-examined. With a rigidly enforced 20mph limit it may be possible to move lanes closer and fit a cycle lane under here. Removal of the road divider should also make the 20mph limit more self-enforcing.
The Horse Fair crossing to the west of the scheme should be single stage so that pedestrians and cyclists are not penalised: it is a nuisance to have to wait for two separate stages.

 

 

Surbiton to Kingston Area

Link to Consultation

My responses

Palace Road

To what extent do you agree with the proposals for Palace Road? (NB the Portsmouth Road junction improvements are already under construction)

Somewhat oppose
Do you have any comments on the proposals for Palace Road?
These proposals do not help cyclists.
While this is marked as a “Quiet Road”, the closure of Surbiton Crescent may very well increase traffic down here. With the road being open to motor traffic, there is nothing to prevent such an increase. Before stating the cyclists can share with motorised traffic, we should be very clear about both quantity and speed of that traffic.
The on-road cycle markings do little to add to cyclist safety and road bumps are an unwelcome distraction: they are difficult to cycle around (as the gaps are in the gutter and centre of the road) and awkward to cycle over, particularly when towing children.
Cycling provision should be made here: sharing space with motor traffic with no traffic reduction is inappropriate.

Claremont Road

To what extent do you agree with the proposals for Claremont Road?

Somewhat favour
Do you have any comments on the proposals for Claremont Road?
The two lane cycle route is welcome.
However, the junction treatment at Maple Road needs to have separate pedestrian, cycle and motor vehicle space. Creating shared space for cyclists and pedestrians does not help pedestrian safety nor convenience or safety for cyclists.
Along Claremont road, we need to see separated cycle tracks and pavement for pedestrians. Shared space should not feature in such a scheme; if necessary space should be allocated to the pavement from Claremont Road or narrowed motor vehicle space.
Specifically, the route past the bus stand and at the Surbiton Station end need separate space rather than shared space.
The space at the Surbiton Station end of the scheme is poor. Cyclists are directed over the road to nothing – not even an advisory cycle lane. This will not entice usage. At the least, the scheme should continue to the station rather than abandoning people just before it.

St Mark’s Hill

To what extent do you agree with the proposals for St Mark’s Hill?
Somewhat favour
Do you have any comments on the proposals for St Mark’s Hill?

The segregated cycle lane is welcome, as is its position between parked cars and the pavement.

The lack of a segregated route down the hill is of concern. On road cycle markings frequently do little for safety; some kind of cycle priority is required here.
The junction over Adelaide Road needs to have a continuous pavement and cycle route, with motor traffic being clearly obliged to cede priority.
As with the Surbiton – Kingston route, this should continue to the roundabout outside Surbiton Station.

Avenue Elmers

To what extent do you agree with the proposals for Avenue Elmers?

Somewhat oppose
Do you have any comments on the proposals for Avenue Elmers?

As the scheme stands, there is little to make things safer for cycling. Surbiton Hill Road is the main road for motor traffic; this road could be made far safer for cyclists by simply removing through motor traffic (cycle and pedestrian permeable). There would be little inconvenience for residents (max 5 minutes driving), but cyclists using this route would not have to share with rat running traffic.

This would make the complete lack of useful cycling facilities on this route understandable; the motor traffic would be low enough to justify this.

Overall

To what extent do you support the scheme as a whole (Palace Road, Claremont Road, St Mark’s Hill and Avenue Elmers?

Somewhat favour
Your comments

The segregated routes are welcome, but must include segregated junction treatment. The shared pedestrian and cycle space must be removed; it is not acceptable to mix these modes.

The routes down the “Quiet Roads” must be supported by removal of through traffic. Mere paint on roads and speed humps do not make cycling safer and will not attract people who wish to cycle but who do not feel supported by the current facilities.

How likely are you to use the area for cycling following the improvements?

Neutral
Your comments

As they stand, I would not use the facilities when on my road bike, nor would I feel protected enough when out with my children.

My four year old can ride a bicycle competently. He would be fine on the separated sections; however, the route does not extend anywhere useful so I would not let him use the present proposals.

How likely are you to use the area for walking following the improvements?

Unlikely
Your comments

The shared space with bicycles does not appeal to me as a pedestrian. The lack of pavement along Claremont Road is unhelpful.

As a pedestrian I welcome segregated cycle routes: these increase the distance between my family and motor traffic.

Bonus Questions: Surbiton Crescent

Do you have any comments on the trial bus / cycle / access only section for Surbiton Crescent (between Surbiton Road and Anglesea Road)?

This is an excellent plan; however this should be reproduced on Palace Road to prevent through traffic using that designated Quiet Road as a rat run.

If successful, this approach should be used elsewhere. Residential routes such as this should not bear through traffic.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Author: Stuff Rich Writes

Cyclist and Product Manager. I blog about both.

1 thought on “Response to Summer 2016 Consultations, Part Two”

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s