Showing posts with label Richmond. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richmond. Show all posts

Saturday, November 14, 2020

The Royal Park movement strategy for Richmond Park isn't working


Traffic chaos in Richmond Park has shown how badly wrong the situation has become. It's time the Royal Parks get the park in line with its 'movement strategy' survey findings:
  • Approximately 80% of our visitors get to the park by walking, cycling or public transport
  • 78% of all survey respondents strongly agree or agree that park roads should not be used as commuter routes for motor vehicles. 

And yet, what we've seen over and over is long queues caused by rat running and congestion around car parks every sunny week end in summer and sunny days during lockdown.

The parks should:
  • close the park to through traffic, period. Many agree with this.
  • adopt charges with a steep increase after 3 hours in each car park –except for blue badge holders
  • allow vehicular access from the gate adjacent to Robin Hood, Sheen, Kingston and Roehampton gates 
  • reopen Ladderstile gate for access to Broomfield Wood parking 
  • instigate a one way from Ham to Richmond for access to Pembroke lodge, looping via the car park (to discourage through traffic) and also to Isabella's plantation disabled car park 
  • close Pen Ponds car park except for disabled parking
Other options won't work: the Richmond Society is suggesting a fee to enter the park for instance. It's technically feasible, but expensive. The infrastructure costs are non-trivial and the operating fees for boundary pricing can be eye watering: for instance, the London congestion charge operating costs are 36% of its revenues.

And so, given only 20% of park users come by car, it makes sense to simply ban cars and charge parking.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

10 reasons why the Mortlake Stag Brewery redevelopment consultation is a con

The ex-Watneys, ex-Budweiser Stag Brewery has closed in December 2015, putting an end to 6 centuries of brewing in Mortlake.

The site is going to be redeveloped, a great opportunity to revitalise the Mortlake riverside and link it to East Sheen. However, as it now seems to be the norm, developers are making a mockery of the consultation process and the council seems happy to wag its tail to prevailing winds.

Here are 10 points you won't find in the consultation.


1. Once more, the consultation process is abused by the use of unpractical surveys (why no online poll on the council's page?), lack of real alternatives (which shade of grey do you prefer?) and closed questions.

2. The size of the development is H.U.G.E. Nine hundred and eighty dwellings. 980. That’s way over 1700 people in the best case (1.8 soul / home). That’s 400 cars and probably as many kids.

3. The traffic plans are just laughable. Chalkers corner is widely known as a local bottleneck, yet no mini-tunnels or drastic changes -just one more filter lane. It can take as much as 12 mn for a pedestrian to cross it and about as much for a car to pass it from Mortlake onto the A316 (on a Sunday morning!!!!). What do they propose? An extra filter lane.
Great. 
- No cycling lane. Zero. Nits. Oh, and on cycling, no mentions of bike sheds in the development.
- No more “staking” capability on Westbound A316. They highlight that as a problem, don’t suggest a remedy. What that means is that cars will still be stuck as soon on Lower Richmond road (Mortlake side) BEFORE reaching the A316.
This Mickey Mouse city planning has unfortunately become a local trademark.

3. No cycle lane, did I write this already?

4. Not any more provision of extra transport of course. How are those people going to commute? The trains are already full in Mortlake...

5. Nothing about the playing fields, they seem to have vanished in the school playground. 

6. No ice rink either of course. (there was an ice rink of international fame in Richmond, which was developed over and the council promised to erect a new one with the proceedings of the land sale. That was back in 1992...)

7. No mention of high-environmental, sustainable building capability. But lots of 6 and 7 storeys designed to max developers ROI. 

8. Primary schools? The council is once more adopting a fairy land approach: build new houses, only to discover there’s no primary school places, then no secondary school places. Surprise…

9. Speaking about school, the space for the secondary school looks tiny. And with no parking.

10. Parking? Is CPZ the answer to all traffic issues for the council?

Yet ANOTHER smash at black spot junction

Residents are up in arms after another smash today Saturday 13th May 2017 around 1830 at the junction of Bicester road and Somerton avenue, in North Sheen.

Following years of discussions with the council, double yellow lines were painted only a few weeks ago but according to residents, this is not satisfactory.

Two black Fords were seen on the crash scene, badly damaged and with airbags deployed, proof of the violence of the crash.

The two drivers, ironically going to a wedding and hen party, as well as a young passenger girl were shocked but unharmed.

A Met police car showed up but stayed less than 2 mn onsite after pushing one of the car which was obstructing the junction.

This junction has seen a number of crashes as cars fail to give way. Deficient signage could be a factor and Richmknd council has been working, for a while, on upgrading the painted yield lines into a stop sign.

On the crash site, Ludovic, a resident and witness to the crash commented:  "yellow lines actually make the problem worse as cars now travel faster across the junction. What we badly need is a raised junction."

According to another residents who preferred to remain anonymous, there are complaints that this junction and roads are "used as a rat run around Chalkers corner". In addition, local garage Westlake Motors, was mentioned as upsetting locals by frequently using roads to test their cars at speed.


Thursday, October 16, 2014

What's up with TfL and shared spaces?

Saw Richmond Cycling Campaign's draft response to TfL’s consultation on changes at Manor Circus.
 
This consultation is a stark reminder of TfL's absolute incompetence when it comes to designing cycle lanes ; as well as its the fact those consultations are absolute farce since they fail to advertise them to users (no posters on the junction in question) or canvass local residents by way of letterbox flyers.
 
Thankfully they found out and their observations are mostly spot on.
This junction is a danger zone for cyclist, interrupting an important cycle path. As a result, many cyclists use the roundabout.
There's some merit to the proposals in the removal of the 3rd left filter lane on the Westbound A316 and the pavement widening, but the toucan crossings are ill conceived indeed and shared spaces are a recipe for disaster.




https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/a316-manor-circus

 

Here's my response
1. This is a masquerade consultation: why hasn't TfL bothered to post signs on the junction itself to the attention of its users? Why have residents not been leafleted?
2. The intent is laudable: this roundabout bisects an important cycling route and offers no provision for cycling. As a result, many cyclists use the roundabout. In particular, the removal of the Westbound filter lane goes in the right direction.
3. However the execution is ill conceived on many aspects.
3.1. Shared cycle-pedestrians space is in general not safe and should be eliminated ; which should be possible with the filter lane removal and pavement widening.
3.1. Cycle lanes should have right of way to private land entrance -specifically to the BP petrol station and Sainsbury's
3.2. Toucan crossings will introduce much delays and therefore will be ignored -scrap them ; They are set too far back from the roundabout and impose a detour.
3.3. Scrapping those toucan crossings won't impose a widening of the central reservation and thus allow wider pavements -see 3.1.
3.4. Bicycles should not have to give way when merging into Sandycombe road and Manor road
3.5. The cycle lane should have right of way on North road, just like it was decided on Elsinore way.


Previous posts on similar subjects:

Saturday, July 05, 2014

Pizza firms leaves crashed driver alone (but not the pizze)

We witnessed a pretty shocking behaviour from pizza delivery firm Papa John today. After one of its delivery man was knocked off, it sent another employee to collect its pizza's, leaving his colleague behind as he was being attended by three ambulance crew.

The accident happened at junction reported repeatedly by residents as dangerous at 1545 today. A high-powered white BMW M3 travelling South on Bicester road collided with the scooter going East on another branch of Bicester road, leaving slid marks 6.50 metres long.

A paramedic arrived ten minutes after on a bicycle, followed shortly by two police officers in a car. It took a full 30 minutes for an ambulance crew to be on site.

This crossing has seen several accidents and many near misses and reported as dangerous to the council by residents demanding a raised junction.
Police car and ambulance on the scene of the crash in Bicester road, Richmond

The high-powered BMW M3 sports car bearing signs of the impact

The Papa John's pizza delivery scooter after the crash

Monday, January 20, 2014

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).

Monday, January 06, 2014

Alice in Holland, or the tale of crap cycle lanes in Richmond

The Richmond Cycling Campaign (aka RCC, on Twitter at @RichmondCycling) has a great post on the A316 here:
The A316 – a correspondent writes …

I've wanted to write about that a long time ago, as this cycle path was redone a few years back, but to very low standards -a complete waste of taxpayer money IMHO. Some additional observations to what the RCC posted:
  • Shared paths are a stupid idea, period.
  • At the start, they had put bus stops across the path, and moved them after when it became obvious that it was a potential risk as bus users would just cross the cycle lane to board. This shows that TfL has absolutely no idea about cycle lanes best practices. Changes of course cost money.
  • I discussed those priorities to cars turning with the TfL engineer at a Richmond May fair and he mentioned that drivers "were not expecting to yield on turning." Obviously, they're not there to change minds and improve attitudes.
  • Lastly, the cycle lane surface isn't smooth at all and doesn't drain well -no one likes a bumpy ride and puddles aren't great either when you're cycling. Oh, and it's not cleaned very well -there were two Xmas trees obstructing it yesterday for instance.
See some pictures below. Oh, and don't forget to check this page from the Cycling Embassy on Crap Cycle Lanes (credit to the Warrington Cycling Campaign).

This other RCC post is also a must read: What the Cycling Strategy Should Say…


Cycle land on Lower Richmond Road, interrupted by Manor Grove ; see also bus stop dangerously close.


Cycle land on Lower Richmond Road (A316) interrupted by Sainsbury's entrance
Cycle land on Lower Richmond Road (A316) interrupted by Sainsbury's entrance.


Cycle lane stops at Manor Circus, where you need it most. Shared path with pedestrian is very narrow. At that point, the A316 is 3 lane + 2 lanes wide (left filter lane into Manor Road)

Richmond Circus approach -the A316 cycle lane ends there and there are no provisions to merge into traffic to get into the city centre.


Related post:

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Mini-Holland or mini-Neverland?

So, here we go, the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (LBURT) has gone forth with its proposal to apply for a cycling scheme funding.

Given the shoddy work they've done on cycle path in the past, no doubt they'll excel this time around. Call me a cynic, but shouldn't they have done this anyway?

Here's the application:
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/mini_holland_proposal_stage_two.pdf

And my comment on this article, reacting to grumpy residents:
http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/10882680.Twickenham__mini_Holland__scheme_on_its_final_lap_for_funding
Clearly, no one reading this thread (probably not even the LBRUT planning committee members) have been to the Netherlands.

Doing school runs and any other short journeys by car, as it is the norm in our borough, is not sustainable. It is about time to provide safe facilities for cyclists -and yes, that means reallocating space.

Looking at the A316 for instance, it is quite clear that space is mostly designed for cars. The Richmond roundabout is a great case in point of that flawed approach: when it was redesigned, another lane was added for cars but cycling is still on a shared space with pedestrians -a recipe for disaster. Not one single cycling approach provides a safe and continuous passage to bicycles.
In a nutshell, it's designed for through (non-local) car traffic, at the expense of (local) pedestrians and cyclists.

Why should we allocate highways to folks passing through?


PS: see also this RCC post

Tuesday, June 04, 2013

Richmond council planning schizophrenia

The council and Lord True is frankly disingenuous in those RTT article citations: Richmond loses out on planning rules appeal.

  
Just last year, they've approved 300 flats in North Sheen, with no provision for "vital infrastructure such as schools" or transportation.
 
In the process, retail and office space was also added to the already vacant stock on the same stretch of Lower Richmond road.   See also:

Friday, May 31, 2013

Richmond Council Planning Department: for developpers profits only

Here's what happens when the council and their deranged planning "policy" allows developpers to pack low standards, non-eco friendly in what was orchards and then cottages before they turned it into a light industrial estate:

Long-suffering residents at wits' end with Garden Road flats (RTT)


It would have been nicer if they had pushed for normal density terraced houses, but when fools run the asylum this is what is to be expected.

See my previous post on the subject:
The lost orchards of North Sheen and Richmond Council's cunning plan to impose a new tax?

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Richmond park given a rebuke on parties

The park is a very special place indeed, but it seems not everyone is in agreement on what that means.

The Friends of Richmond Park like it quiet. Very quiet. This time, they were not ranting about cyclists but had a gripe about a party held by Range Rover at the Royal Lower Ballet school. I actually quite agree this was way over the top we should leave deers and runners alone in the dark...  Good that they got their way. Mind you, they hold late night weddings at Pembroke Lodge -the extension disfigured it it to increase the capacity, not something the Friends care about apparently?

Royal Ballet School Range Rover Launch - YouTube

Monday, July 02, 2012

Cyclist fatalities increase in London -I squarely blame TfL for not providing adequate infrastructure

Cyclists in the City just came up with this Boris-seeking missile:  Outrageous: 33% more pedestrians killed, 60% more cyclists killed and 21% more cyclists seriously injured. Boris Johnson - your traffic smoothing policy is killing people.

Personally, I'm not sure Boris or Ken made much improvements -or to put it correctly, they slowly gave in to pressure but both failed to redesign the city to put bikes first. Because you see, this is what the Dutch have done, something that even the LCC don't really recognise.

In essence, the infrastructure is still grossly inadequate -something I've blogged about previously. In a nutshell, I think TfL has absolutely no idea whatsoever on what a "cycle track" is. I don't think any of their engineers actually cycles. Can't be. Or that would be an all time height for ineptitude.

And those sad numbers? As far as I am concerned, the fact there's been a huge increase in cycling can not play a contributing factor. Many of those cyclists are not that proficient either, nor are the drivers.

Related posts:



Wednesday, March 07, 2012

At long last, Dutch-style cycle parking and repair shed in Richmond?

The Richmond and Twickenham Times reports today that Richmond station gets (is to someday) new cycle hub

Transport Minister Norman Baker has announced Richmond station as one of four London locations set to undergo a cycle refurbishment this year.

The hub will be manned by staff, who are able to help fix broken bicycles, and will also be a place to hire and store bikes and have them cleaned.

Refurbishment of the station's cycle facilities are part of a £30m package of developments aimed at helping connect communities, reduce carbon emissions, and get people active.

No date is set, but it's encouraging to see some progress. Now, they should really get to work to fix those dangerous roundabouts on the Lower Richmond road...

Pictures:

Related post:



Wednesday, February 22, 2012

The lost orchards of North Sheen and Richmond Council's cunning plan to impose a new tax?

It seems the Richmond Planning department nowadays is quite liberally (and not very democratically) letting through semi-high-rise in North Sheen, with little consideration for the neighbours and terraced houses fabric that presently constitutes North Sheen. There seem to be no limits to empty offices on Lower Richmond road apparently).  As usual, concerns expressed during public consultations (like the lack of parking spaces in the new developments) were ignored.

North Sheen wasn't always like this, it was actually full of orchards (see Orchard road) as the maps below from the London Orchard Project show.


More reading:
  • Planning application for the redevelopment of the Shakespeare pub, where the council totally ignored objections received on the parking aspects
  • Planning application for "The Works", showing 77 new flats and 3,000 m2 office space and…. 85 parking spaces only.
  • Planning application for the former Dairy Crest distribution centre, for 45 flats and 2,000 m2 of office space
  • Planning application for the redevelopment of the former petrol station on 293 Lower Richmond road, 52 flats and only 35 spaces

See the trend?  I should add that North Sheen is the only ward that still hasn't got a controlled parking zone (CPZ), and is bordered  by Richmond, East Sheen and Kew –where parking is regulated indeed.  Of course, a CPZ is not free for residents: once established, the council can increase it pretty much at will, and it's very hard to prove that the CPZ permits fees only cover the administration costs.

After a few checks, it's quite obvious that the (previous Lib Dem) council had a policy of restricting car spaces, presumably to impose a CPZ tax to unsuspecting residents.

What's that got to do with orchards? During the public consultation, when the change of use was questioned, residents expressed anger that (at least some of) the land could not be changed back to agricultural or green space.

Since the play area located in the block formed by Bicester road, Lambert avenue and Manor road, there are no play areas for instance South of Lower Richmond Road.

Greed, a Capital sin for the Borough -but seldom punished...

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Curing the symptoms: plod in a van at the level crossing

After realising red  light jumping at levels crossing is rife and having established that people running in front of trains isn't exactly the best for health and safety statistics, Network Rail has shelled out £60k on a high-tech camera van. 
The sixty grand mobile enforcement control room comes complete with PC Chris Sheppard watching herds of commuters and vehicules running across the railway as light flashes.

Check this video, mostly filmed at Mortlake station (the van is parked on a double yellow line..): BBC: New spy camera to check level crossings.

It's worth pointing out that the Sheen lane crossing does have a pedestrian bridge, allowing school children to cross instead of running across unlike at North Sheen station.

My take on this? Once more, they're trying to cure the symptoms rather than tackling the issue. Which is quite simply that a level crossing on a busy line (translate: closed for 15+ mn at a time) is archaic in a densely populated connurbation. The line should be buried or a tunnel dig, or else. 
 
Final thought: the story doesn't say if the plod-van comes with a toilet?

Monday, October 11, 2010

North Sheen level crossing: don't miss the public meeting on the 21st

As posted todat on the Facebook group: Stuck at North Sheen Level Crossing, there will be a public meeting about the level crossing with Zac Goldsmith, Network Rail and local councillors at DUKE STREET CHURCH in DUKE STREET, RICHMOND on THURSDAY 21st OCTOBER at 7.30pm. Bring your tales of misery and woe!

See my previous posts on the level crossings:


  • Near miss at North Sheen level crossing




  • Some news on the level crossing: consultation next Thursday!



  • At last: the North Sheen footbridge is coming... alas, this is not what you expected!



  • Richmond Transits: Join the Facebook group "Stuck at North Sheen



  • Richmond Transits: Airtrack and North Sheen Crossing


  • Richmond Transits: Monday Mayhem at North Sheen level crossing




  • Richmond Transits: Update on the North Sheen station footbridge




  • Richmond Transits: Here's the new camera at North Sheen level crossing




  • Richmond Transits: Update on the update on the North Sheen station




  • Richmond Transits: Susan Kramer's progress on North Sheen Station





  • Richmond Transits: Another train tragedy in waiting at North





  • Richmond Transits: Still waiting at the level crossing...





  • Traffic pandemonium: just a sign of things to come?




  • More on Manor road and Heathrow



  • Richmond Transits: Level crossing tragedy in Barnes



  • Richmond Transits: Update on the North Sheen station footbridge



  • Richmond Transits: Preliminary plans for North Sheen footbridge rebuffed




  • Richmond Transits: Campaing for suppressing level crossings




  • Richmond Transits: Richmond and Twickenham Times: Commuters see red over level crossing




  • Richmond Transits: Susan Kramer's progress on North Sheen Station footbridge




  • Richmond Transits: Time to remind Susan Kramer about the North Sheen Station footbridge



  • Recommended reading:

    Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,

    Friday, May 21, 2010

    And here's how Richmond council enforces parking...

    With a mobile camera car (an all new Toyota IQ, probably replacing the Smart cars?), parked on a double yellow line.

    This is of course timed to cash in on parents dropping kids at school.

    Note that there's no lollipop man at Marshgate school, the council's priority is clearly revenue generation rather than safety...
    Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

    Wednesday, May 12, 2010

    Quote of the day

    Map of London boroughs changingSometimes I like how a quote can be just flipped on its head, like that one:

    Tessa Jowell, Minister for London, said: "The people who came out and voted Labour are the people who use public services and know their importance and their value to their lives." (souce: Labour takes control of eight more London town halls, Evening Standard, 10/5/10)
    And taking the contrarian view, those who voted Conservative are the ones paying for those services?
    This isn't really a stretch from the imagination, especially considering that Richmond for instance gets less per head than other boroughs:
    It explained that we get less than £150 a year per resident from central government – less than any other borough - compared to the outer London average of over £400 a head. Neighbouring Wandsworth for example gets over £500 a head.  This means that our residents have to pay one of the highest Council Taxes in the country, despite having an efficient, low-spending council. (source: Extracts from Cllr Stephen Knight’s speech to council on 2 March 2010: recommending 0% increase tax increase)




    , , ,