Elsinore and the A316 breadcrumb cycle path

Some more on the 316...

Transport for London has sent us another consultation, to re-re-re-do a portion of the A316.
To cut a long story short, they re-did a while back a cycle lane on the Lower Richmond Road. They got several things wrong, and fixed some a few month later -for instance they moved the bus shelters where the cycle path was between a shelter and the road (duh) or sign posts right on the middle of the path. Or the turning space discussed below which meant cars had to do a 2 or 3 point turn in lieu of a U-turn (re-duh).


In the process of that shoddy workmanship, what they did not fix were manholes in the middle of the cycle path (which utilities love leaving open), continuous yield at intersections (read here) or the infamous "dismount" signs at junctions where cyclists precisely need a little help (Manor circus for instance) -making this cycle lane in practice a bumpy, discontinuous path. It feels the TfL Hansel and Gretels have dropped some cyle lane breadcrumbs along a dual carriageway.

Anyway, they decided to soldier along and for no apparent reason (no data is supporting the change request) launched a consultation to make more space for a U turn by Big Yellow Self Storage near Elsinore Way, still on the aforementioned A316. This would have meant cutting into the cycle lane, which was opposed by local residents and the Richmond Cycling Campaign.

TfL has now revised their plans and submitted their application -link here.

It seems that at long last, common sense has prevailed on the need to giving yield to bicycles on that cycle lane. However, I'm still unconvinced on the rationale to giving more space to vehicles to turn around. Where is the data supporting this requirement? It is logical to move the U turn West, but then the filter lane should not be reduced since the traffic light phasing is causing much congestion. Finally, the kerb should not be cut on the East of Elsinore way, to the opposite it should be restored to reduce the speed of vehicles coming into the cycle lane. The ghost island should be a real island or otherwise there's a greater risk of collisions. Finally, the kerb should be cut further back on the East side to give more space to turn around in case there's traffic: the proposed design is impractical and will be unsafe as cars have no 'refuge' to stop and let traffic go by after U-turning and before getting onto the A316. In summary, I welcome this change but it's still not well thought through.

 

 

Read also all the posts tagged "A316" on the RCC website.

 

More on the A316 on this blog:

• Alice in Holland, or the tale of crap cycle lanes in Richmond
• Mini-Holland or mini-Neverland?
• Chaos in Chalkers Corner
• Sustainable transportation in Richmond?
• When plan B is not an option either