Chelsea bridge - TfL proposes sub-standard cycle lane

Tlf Have now responded to our original comments on their Chelsea Bridge proposals.
Here is the text of their response any my preliminary reply.

The plans can be seen from the original post on Chelsea Bridge.
What do you want to do about this - let us know...

On 29/03/11 11:28, Murthwaite Paul wrote:

Dear Mr Grahn

Your email below has been passed on to myself, many thanks for your comments please find our response as follows:

1) What was sent through first was pre-consultation only sent to the emergency services and other people requested to be contacted by the Borough. Public consultation on the order begins with the publishing of the public notice of intent in the local media and London Gazette, at the same time the notice is published in the media, street notices will also be hung on site. These notices give a 21 day period where members of the public may view the orders, plans, etc either at the Borough of Wandsworth or TfL. Within this time responses and objections to the scheme are all logged and addressed prior to the order being signed off and made. Statutory guidelines are strictly adhered to.

2) The documentation has now been amended to 1.5m, originally the design was to provide a 2m facility. The design was changed to provide adequate space on the northbound carriageway, in order to achieve this the southbound cycle lane had to be narrowed from 2m to 1.5m. The new design now provides a 4.5m bus lane on the northbound carriageway which allows cyclists to be overtaken comfortably at any time. Additionally, the wider bus lane means that cyclists are able to position themselves in the outside part of the lane in order to move over to the right hand lane to turn right at Grosvenor Road. 

Dear Mr Murthwaite,

Many thanks for your response to my comments.  I take the point that this was a pre-consultation, but do still have concerns that the consultation was carried out with contradictory and out-dated documentation. 

We have very significant concerns regarding the narrowing of the mandatory cycle lane to sub-standard dimensions.  The reasons given - to allow cyclists to be 'comfortably' overtaken by a bus - do not in our opinion balance the loss of comfort and increased risk of collision resulting from the narrowing of the southbound lane.  The particular design of the bridge, whereby the cycle lane is bounded by the solid bridge abutments which gives cyclists no possibility of escape when coupled with a relatively narrow 3.1m running lane will lead to a facility whereby cyclists are squeezed in a very narrow zone between passing vehicles and the bridge wall.  This will be neither comfortable or safe and cannot be considered compatible with any form of cycle route, let alone a 'super' highway. 

I will be circulating your response to our members and we will formulate a considered objection as soon as we can.

In the mean time we would welcome an opportunity to discuss the layout of lanes on the bridge with the design team.

Regards,

Mike Grahn
Wandsworth Cycling Campaign

Clapham Junction Station access on St Johns Hill

In connection with the new pedestrian and vehicular entrance to Clapham Junction Station at Brighton Yard on St. Johns Hill, the Council are proposing to upgrade the entry to Brighton Yard by constructing a new raised table entry, narrowing the entry and possibly introducing a new bus stop to the east of the entrance.  The plans are here. 

WCC are likely to support the entry treatment, particularly the narrowing of the entry which will reduce speeds of vehicles entering and leaving the station yard.  We have concerns about the safety of cyclists making an uphill right turn into the yard and also about the bus stop requiring cyclists to move out into the main traffic lane.  Please let us know what you think before we respond just after Easter.

AMENDMENT TO WAITING RESTRICTIONS AND PARKING PLACES IN TOOTING GROVE SW17

In Traffic Management Order 1202 the Council proposes to amend parking places and waiting restrictions in Tooting Grove to ensure that access is maintained for refuse collection vehicles.

Several lengths of parking are proposed for removal to be replaced by 9:30 to 5:30 weekday yellow lines. 
It is suggested that WCC have no strong views on these proposals, though they could be said to reduce the risk of 'dooring'.

WAITING RESTRICTIONS IN DANEBURY AVENUE, HARBRIDGE AVENUE AND PORTSMOUTH ROAD SW15 AND MOYSER ROAD AND NIMROD ROAD SW16

In Traffic Management Order 1203 the Council propose to introduce double yellow line waiting restrictions operating “at any time” at the following locations to deter obstructive parking and improve sightlines for 'motorists and pedestrians'. 

• At the junction of Harbridge Avenue and Danebury Avenue;
• On the south-east side of Portsmouth Road at either side of the south-western vehicular exit from Highlands Heath and to the north-east of the north-eastern vehicular entrance to Highlands Heath.
• On the north-west side of Portsmouth Road at the junction with Telegraph Road; and
• At the junction of Moyser Road and Nimrod Road
  
  
  WCC will support these proposals and point out that cyclists also benefit from improved sightlines!

20 mph speed limits on Old York Road, Podmore Road, Ferrier Street, Edgel Street and Morie Street SW18

As part of the work for Cycle 'Super' Highway 8 Transport for London (TfL) are consulting on the introduction of 20 mph speed limits on Old York Road and the streets to the immediate north.

At the same time they also propose to introduce a 7.5 tonne weight restriction except for access.

We propose strongly supporting these proposals.

New southbound cycle lane on Chelsea bridge

As part of the works for Cycle 'Super' Highway 8, Transport for London are proposing to introduce a mandatory southbound cycle lane on the bridge itself leading into a 2 metre wide advisory cycle and at the Wandsworth end.

The general nature and effect of the Order will be to facilitate the passage on the road of cycle traffic by introducing a new cycle lane on Chelsea Bridge in the London Borough of Wandsworth. 

The section of Chelsea Bridge that would be affected by the Order extends southwards from the borough boundaries of Wandsworth and Kensington & Chelsea on Chelsea Bridge. The cycle lane would be 2-metres wide measured from the pedestrian footway kerb edge into the carriageway parallel to the bridge wall on the east side to a point opposite the middle of the junction of Queenstown Road and Carriageway Drive North, 21metres short of the pedestrian crossing on the southbound carriageway.

We propose to support this proposal, but will note that the accompanying plans show only a 1.5 m lane whilst the text of the traffic order properly states that the lane should be 2m wide.  See the plans here.

Before you ask, there are no proposals to allow 'shared use' cycling on the wide pavements on either side of this bridge because of Kensington and Chelsea Council have totally opposed any suggestions and regularly set the police to fine cyclists on the pavement.   Please contact the leader of that Council if you wish to complain.

Our response is shown as a comment.

Northen end of Blackfriars Bridge Consultation - Respond by 15 April

Transport for London (TfL) are now re-consulting on their plans for the road layout at the northern end of Blackfriars Bridge in the City as part of the new rail station development.  This new consultation has come about because of protests from cyclists and others when they tried to slip the scheme through earlier this year.

Please have a look at the proposals and respond to TfL by the deadline of  April 15th.

The official response page is here.

The Cyclists in the City blog has lots of background on the proposals and the campaign to alter them.

For our part, Wandsworth Cycling Campaign together with Merton Cycling Campaign and Wandsworth Living Streets will be putting our case to the TfL engineers at a meeting this Wednesday that was set up with the help of Richard Tracey, our representative on the Greater London Assembly.

Susie Morrow has posted her notes of this useful meeting on the WCC Yahoo group.

Totterdown Road SW17 through (motor) traffic reduction scheme

The Council is consulting on proposals to reduce the volumes of through traffic using Totterdown Street.  The proposals comprise:

A new central island in Tooting High Street to deter traffic from entering Totterdown Street.

An entry treatment on Totterdown Street at the junction with Fransciscan Road to narrow the entry.

The planting of trees at intervals at the edges of the roadway between the parking spaces in order to improve the street scene and break up the straight alignment.

The plans can be seen here.

We are now looking at the plans in detail.  If you have any comments, particularly if you use Totterdown Road, please let us know what you think so that we can take your views into account.  We will post our response here.

Broadwater Road SW17 Traffic Management Scheme

The Council is consulting on a traffic management scheme that aims to reduce through traffic and improve conditions for pedestrians in the Broadwater Road area.  The proposals comprise:

The reversal of the current one way working between the junction with Rogers Road and Kharma Road, including reversal of the cycle contra-flow.

A morning and evening peak-time banned left turn from Kharma Road into Garratt Lane.

The introduction of a road closure between Fishponds Road Broadwater Road with cycle access.

You can see the plans here

We are currently looking at these proposals in detail.  Please let us know what you think so that we can include our views.  Our response will also be posted here.

URGENT! Consultation on Dover House Road and West Putney 20mph speed limit scheme

For some time the Council have been developing a 20 mph limit scheme in West Putney and around Dover House Road.  This is important because it is seen as a test bed for area-wide 20 mph limits in Wandsworth.  WCC has strongly supported the idea of 20 mph limits because they can help reduce the speed differential between cyclists and motorised vehicles and so increase the safety and comfort of cyclists.

In the past, the Council has always combined 20 mph zones with traffic calming including chicanes, humps and speed cushions, which can often be dangerous and uncomfortable for cyclists.  However, the residents in the area said they wanted the speed limits, but not the traffic calming.

In response the Council are proposing to put in the 20 mph zones with no physical measures, using only 20 mph signs and painted road markings designed to look like speed cushions but without any humps or other physical measures.  The residents are being consulted again on whether they want the 20 mph limits to be put in with these painted virtual speed cushions, with actual speed humps, or not at all.

Given the cost and problems of physical humps and speed cushions WCC is proposing to support the introduction limits with the painted markings, provided that their effectiveness is properly monitored, but we would like to hear from as many cyclists as possible before we make a formal response.

Please give us your comments here.  We need to forward responses to the Council by the end of Sunday March 13th.  This was done and our response is shown as a comment to this post.

AMENDMENT TO PARKING PLACES IN FREWIN ROAD SW18, ST JAMES’S DRIVE SW17 AND ERPINGHAM ROAD SW15

TMO 1200 proposes to amend parking places in the above locations to accommodate new vehicle crossovers over the footway to No. 44 Frewin Road, No. 89 St James’s Drive and No. 78A Erpingham Road.

WCC has no comment to make on these.

AMENDMENT OF LOADING BAY AND PAY AND DISPLAY PARKING PLACES ST JOHN’S HILL SW 11

TMO 1201 proposes to amend parking places in St John’s Hill in order to accommodate a loading bay for large delivery vehicles outside the new Sainsbury’s store at Nos. 165 to 167 St John’s Hill. It is also necessary to re-designate the existing loading bay outside No. 161 St John’s Hill as a pay and display only bay, in order to replace the space lost to visitors due to the introduction of a larger loading bay outside Nos. 165 to 167.

WCC has no objections to these proposals