Cycle Forum highlights issues to be addressed

An overview

The first part of our report on the January 2017 Sutton Cycle Forum appeared in Inspiring vision and then…. the reality.

Here, in part two, the emphasis is on highlighting specific issues that that arose from the meeting, in the hope that lessons can be learned. This first section provides a summary of the issues, along with some potentially good news. This is followed by a more in-depth discussion section, before concluding with updates on current projects.

CycleForumJanuary2017_StationRoad_CycleParking_P1270699_v1

What are the issues?

It was clear from the January 2017 Cycle Forum meeting that:

  • There is a certain lack of communication between Sutton Council staff, council officers and members of the Local Committees, and opportunities to put cycling on the agenda are still not being taken
  • Nothing much has changed outwardly in terms of process or delivery during the last twelve months since the borough’s Cycling Strategy (LBS, November 2015) was adopted, and the majority of the commitments produced in the Cycling Strategy have not been taken forward
  • Current cycling schemes continue to disappoint, and many LIP funded project proposals essentially ignore cycling

So what needs to be done?

Some recommendations….

To help address these issues, the council needs to stand by the commitments outlined in the Cycling Strategy.

We strongly recommend that, in the short term, the council delivers on two of the Cycling Strategy’s pledges:

  • to establish an internal Cycling Advisory Group
  • to ensure (and declare) that all officers involved with the commissioning and designing of highways, transport and public realm schemes, are fully aware of current cycle design standards

…. and a reminder

The ‘current cycle design standards’ relate to the London Cycling Design Standards (TfL, November 2014), and here is a reminder of what Sutton’s Cycling Strategy has to say about these:

The London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) set out best practice design for cyclists in line with the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling [March 2013]. To meet the standards, any newly designed cycle facility should adhere to the following outcomes: Safety; Directness; Comfort; Coherence; Attractiveness; Adaptability.

The standards also include a set of guiding principles:

  • Cycling is now mass transport and must be treated as such;
  • Facilities must be designed to accommodate a large number of cyclists;
  • Bicycles should be treated as vehicles, not pedestrians;
  • Cyclists need separate space from volume motor traffic;
  • Separation can be achieved using low traffic streets;
  • Routes must be direct, logical and intuitive;
  • Provision must be consistent and planned as part of a network;
  • and Reallocating road space can influence mode choice.

Some potentially good news… 

  1. With the facilitation of shared services between Kingston council and Sutton council continuing to develop, it appears that ideas are being shared too. In Kingston, the engineers responsible for designing cycling schemes regularly liaise with campaigners, and this approach is now expected to be more commonplace in Sutton.
  2. As reported in September, Sutton now has three engineers whose work encompasses cycling. Lynn Robinson, who continues as the Sutton lead on cycling for the whole borough, has been joined by Hitesh Wadher and Yinka Danityan. Whereas in the past Lynn was responsible for cycling, walking and road safety across the whole of Sutton, we now understand that Lynn’s work has been expanded to encompass all traffic related projects but is focused on just two local committee areas (Cheam North and Worcester Park; and Sutton South, Cheam and Belmont). Hitesh and Yinka each work on cycling projects in other local committee areas (Hitesh in Sutton and St Helier, The Wrythe and Wandle Valley; Yinka in Beddington and Wallington, Carshalton and Clockhouse). It is hoped that this more holistic approach will help deliver better outcomes.
  3. It has been proposed that at the next Cycle Forum meeting in April there will be a discussion on the Sutton Town Centre Masterplan (part of the Local Plan, Sutton 2031). Our hope is, of course, that cycling will be robustly entrenched into the framework of the Masterplan. Cycling should, as a matter of principle, have featured strongly in the draft version. However, as noted in Sutton 2013 – planning for our future and Sutton 2031 – is cycling part of the picture?, the draft plan disappointed. So it will be great to discuss this further in April. It has subsequently been noted that the Final Sutton Town Centre Masterplan (June 2016) does include some additional references to cycling (although one of the maps included in the final version has fewer cycle routes marked on it than the draft versions).

Discussion

Now for more detail. Let’s take a look at each of the issues highlighted in the overview section. The first of which is…

It’s a communication thing, with opportunities not always being taken

Where is the evidence that there is a certain lack of communication between Sutton Council staff, council officers and members of the Local Committees?

Tharp Road (Open Street Map | Google Streetview), and how the issue regarding the concern of residents to traffic issues has been progressed, is an obvious example.

CycleForumJanuary2017_TharpRoad_P1270283_v1

From the minutes of the Beddington and Wallington Local Committee meetings held in June 2016 and October 2016, it would appear that members of the committee, along with Senior Professional Engineers tasked with resolving the traffic issues on this residential street, were not to aware about Tharp Road’s status as a signed cycle route. However, when we highlighting this at the Forum meeting today (10 January 2017) we were told that a council officer had advised engineers and committee members on several occasions that Tharp Road was a cycle route. So what went wrong?

Then there is the Recommendations Tracker, a tracker that does not always track.

The Recommendations Tracker of interest here is that pertaining to the Beddington and Wallington Local Committee, and the ‘tracked item’ originating from the meeting in December 2015: “Item 9 Proposed cycle facilities on the Transport for London highways network” that first appeared on the Tracker in June 2016. At this time, members were told that officers were still awaiting the outcome from Transport for London, and that the results of a meeting with TfL over the summer would be fed back in the October meeting of the Committee. All to the good….

…. However, at the following committee meeting in October 2016, the item had simply disappeared from the tracker. Nothing was said about it, nothing reported.

Intriguing. So what was going on? After all, whether there is anything to report or not, it does not seem to be particularly useful, or transparent, for items to simply disappear from the Tracker without some sort of explanation. Otherwise, what is the point of a ‘tracker’? But in actual fact there was something to report in October. We know this because a month earlier, at the Cycle Forum meeting held in September 2016, we had been told that the council had sent an informal report to TfL, and that TfL had responded saying that there was no funding available for such schemes. So why was this not reported on this ‘tracked’ item the following month? The fact that that it was not mentioned tends to suggest a lack of communication, or an oversight. Either way, it’s not really good enough.

It is hoped that lessons can be learned from these lapses in communication. It is not a major issue, but we can do better.

NOTE: Subsequently, at the Beddington and Wallington Local Committee meeting on 10 January 2017 (the evening of the same day as the January Cycle Forum), Cllr. Neil Garratt (Conservative, Beddington South) questioned the absence of this ‘tracked item’, saying that he did not remember there being a conclusion to this. As a result of Neil’s intervention, for which we are grateful, Victoria Jeffrey, Head of Local Place and Engagement, gave an update on the item. She advised that she had met with TfL “a couple of months ago now” and as a result of the change in Mayor (May 2016) TfL had put on hold plans until the new mayor’s priorities were known. She did not know when there would be an update, so the item had been taken off the tracker, adding “but of course we can put it back on”. It was agreed by the committee that the item would be put back on the tracker. Ironic really, as the update from Victoria (which presumably could have been given the previous October, had the communication channels been open), in a sense, signaled the conclusion of the item.

The missed opportunity highlighted by traffic issues at Tharp Road, to put sustainable transport (healthy streets) on the agenda, is not an isolated case. Teachers and parents of Highview Primary School in The Chase (Open Street Map | Google Streetview), and residents of Clyde Road (Open Street Map | Google Streetview), have asked that something be done about traffic cutting through their streets. In these cases too, the council appears not to be using these concerns as an opportunity to further council policy, but rather acquiesce to the vocal few who do not wish anything to change (generally in regard to parking).

Stone Place (Open Street Map | Google Streetview), the gateway to the Waitrose store in Worcester Park, is yet another example of a missed opportunity. In 2016 residents asked about the possibility of making changes to general access arrangements for the store (largely associated with delivery vehicles and parking). Stone Place is currently one-way to all traffic, allowing vehicular access from Central Road to the store but not egress from the store to Central Road. This means that anyone leaving, other than on foot, does so by the Windsor Road exit. For those cycling, this involves an up-hill climb and potentially an unnecessary detour, and may well act as a deterrent for people to cycle to Waitrose in the first place. The concerns raised by residents therefore provided the council with a useful opportunity to revisit the cycling options for Stone Place. At the very least, there could have been a discussion around the option to instal an ‘Except Cycles’ sign, so as to enable anyone who cycles to the store to be able to legally exit on to Central Road.

So what happened when residents raised their concerns about Stone Place? A report was written, but the opportunity to include cycling was not taken. When we raised our disappointment about this at the January Cycle Forum (not, it has to be said, for the first time) we were told that the remit of the recent report had not been about introducing a cycling contraflow. As if by way of explanation, we were reminded that at the time of the Outer London Fund improvements for North Cheam and Worcester Park in 2012, when Stone Place had a makeover, the focus had been on pedestrians and footfall. Although a contraflow had been considered, the decision had been taken not to go ahead with it.

But why would that scenario, over four years ago, prevent the opportunity to reconsider the options for Stone Place now? The fact that the opportunity has not been taken, would tend to suggest that the objectives of the Sustainable Transport Strategy (LB Sutton, June 2015) and the Cycling Strategy (LB Sutton, November 2015) are not yet imbedded in council thinking.

Moving on to the second issue…..

What impact has the borough’s Cycling Strategy had, a year after its approval?

Given that it is now just over a year since the borough’s Cycling Strategy was approved and adopted, it was disappointing to note that the agenda to the January 2017 Cycle Forum, received as an email attachment on 3 January, did not include an item to provide an update on this.

After all, the assurance that “an annual update report will be produced” had been made in response to our request for a quarterly update on the progress of the strategy (see Cycling Strategy Consultation Comments, reference 45), and at the time of the strategy’s adoption in November 2015 “an annual monitoring report will be published every year setting out progress towards meeting the strategy” (as reported in Notes from our January 2016 meeting). Also the citation that accompanied the publication of the document in February 2016 included: “The Strategy includes an Action Plan setting out a series of actions aimed at meeting the objectives and targets. We aim to report annually on the progress of this action plan” (see Strategy published, promotion awaited).

So we replied, the same day, to suggest that it would be useful to include an agenda item on the Cycling Strategy so that the aims outlined within this ‘live’ document could be discussed. In our reply, we gave some examples of the sort things it would be good to hear about:

  • What has happened, or been done differently, in the last twelve months as a result of the publication of the Cycling Strategy?
  • Has an internal Cycling Advisory Group within the Council been set up (one of the thirty, short-term, actions stated in the strategy)?
  • Are all officers involved with the commissioning and designing of highways, transport and public realm schemes were fully aware of current cycle design standards and best practice (a stated aim)?

Despite giving this heads-up on our interest in the Cycling Strategy, when the points were raised at the meeting no one was able to give us an answer.

From this we assume that:

  • nothing has been done differently in the last twelve months as a result of the approval of the Cycling Strategy;
  • an internal Cycling Advisory Group within the Council has not been set up;
  • all officers involved with the commissioning and designing of highways, transport and public realm schemes, are not fully aware of current cycle design standards and best practice.

We need to do better than this. See our recommendations above.

One of the quick wins for the Cycling Strategy could have been the delivery of cycle parking for evening visitors at the venues used for the local committee meetings (as noted in Destination North Cheam!, and requested at various Cycle Forum meetings since). Has anything happened about this? No. (Instead of which, a surfeit of stands have been installed in Hackbridge, and we know of two new stands in Belmont – see Project Updates below).

The finally…

Current cycling schemes continue to disappoint

A Projects Update document, in printed form, was distributed at the January 2017 Cycle Forum. Although very much appreciated (in terms of its provision, rather than its content) there was some disappointment that this had not be received prior to the meeting, as is usually the case. The full update is provided below (with additional comments), but there is one scheme on the list that stood out. Unsurprisingly perhaps, that scheme was Green Wrythe Lane (Middleton Circle to Bishopsford Road).

Despite being told at the September 2016 Cycle Forum that this northern section of Green Wrythe Lane would not include shared use footway, “unless people want it”, the Projects Update issued in January 2017 stated “Proposal to include more shared use footway”.

CycleForumJanuary2017_GreenWrytheLane_P1270835_v1

So why, after that reassurance, and especially considering all that has already been said about footway conversion on Green Wrythe Lane, is ‘more shared use footway’ a possibility? Who wants it? What is going on? The answer we were given at the Cycle Forum was to wait for the consultation and see what is proposed.

It is worth reminding ourselves that at the full council meeting held in January 2015 (so two years ago now) Cllr Colin Stears (Liberal Democrat | The Wrythe) said, in response to a question from Cllr Neil Garratt in regard to the conversion to shared use footway that was being proposed elsewhere on Green Wrythe Lane at the time, that “future schemes would be designed in accordance with the London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS), in close consultation with cycling groups and TfL, in anticipation of an increase in cycling rates”. A few months later, TfL advised that the conversion to shared use footway on Green Wrythe Lane could not be incorporated into the borough’s cycle network.

Of course, there is no chance of the Middleton Circle to Bishopsford Road section forming part of a cycle route either, because it looks as though Middleton Circle (the difficult bit), part way along Green Wrythe Lane, is to remain untouched.

Furthermore, in November 2014 we had been told that the borough’s Cycling Strategy would “act as a statement of policy, complement the Council’s forthcoming Sustainable Transport Strategy, and provide ‘top-down’ policy to help direct decisions that councillors make at Local Committee meetings”. The Cycling Strategy states: “All new schemes or improvement works should be designed and delivered in accordance with TfL’s Design Standards (LCDS), with clear adherence to the guiding principles”.

Despite all of this, the council appears to be going full-steam ahead with shared use footways, in total disregard to the LCDS, best practice, and emerging schemes elsewhere in London. So, is it any wonder that the latest Green Wrythe Lane scheme disappoints?

CycleForumJanuary2017_GreenWrytheLane_P1280042_v1

A week after the Cycle Forum, on 17 January 2017, an invitation to respond to the informal consultation on proposals pertaining to the northern section of Green Wrythe Lane was received. The letter, that accompanied the draft plan, confirmed that the Council proposed “to convert the western section of footway between Middleton Road and Bishopsford Road to a shared use footway” as “part of a continuing scheme to introduce an off-road cycle facility along the length of Green Wrythe Lane”.

Get Sutton Cycling sent a reply to this on 31 January (see forthcoming post The last word on Green Wrythe Lane?). On 7 February, confirmation was received that our comments had been received and that all responses, together with comments, would be summarised and put forward to the local ward members for a decision. We would be contacted again once a decision has been reached. (It is thought that this decision may be announced at the St Helier, The Wrythe and Wandle Valley Local Committee meeting on 27 April 2017).

That’s enough about Green Wrythe Lane. What about elsewhere?

In addition to listing cycling specific schemes, the Projects Update also details Local Implementation Plan schemes that either do not mention cycling at all, such as…

  • Mill Lane / Butter Hill: Improved crossing facilities – to improve safety of pedestrians crossing Mill Lane

..or attempt to include cycling as a adjunct to something else, but do not do it very well, for example…

  • All Saints Road / Sutton High Street / Rose Hill Junction: Pedestrian Facilities – to provide a safe route to All Saints School, Benhilton [Note: more correctly Angel Hill junction]

In the case of Mill Lane / Butter Hill (Open Street Map | Google Streetview), this is all about improving crossing facilities for people on foot. That’s welcome of course, but there is no provision for cycling on these busy roads that are being used as short cuts and which therefore carrying inappropriate levels of traffic. We have been told that road schemes need to consider all users, so a more holistic approach is required (and it is hoped the Healthy Streets approach will move this forward).

In the case of All Saints Road / Sutton High Street / Angel Hill  (Open Street Map | Google Streetview), the plan drawing for this pedestrian scheme was marked with “proposed shared surface footway for cyclists and pedestrians”. In other words, some totally inadequate provision for cycling factored in to a pedestrian scheme. In this case, cycling was not exactly ignored but, like Green Wrythe Lane, treated as a marginalised activity.

CycleForumJanuary2017_AngelHill_t30094_v1

For more on this see forthcoming post Angel Hill and staggered crossings.

Given the emerging healthy streets approach, whereby the movement of people takes priority over the movement of vehicles, then staggered pedestrian crossings, like shared Toucan crossings, should really be consigned to history.

Then, of course, there is Felnex (Get Sutton Cycling, June 2016), which in terms of cycling looks like it will be a disappointment. It also looks like it has been a missed opportunity, indicating that the borough’s Cycling Strategy (LB Sutton, November 2015) and Sustainable Transport Strategy (LB Sutton, June 2015) may just as well not have been written.

On the promising side of things, Sutton’s first Quietway is under development and has potential. But the proposals so far do not look particularly compelling. Community engagement, along the lines of the healthy streets approach, will certainly be required for this to be a success.

CycleForumJanuary2017_GrennellRoad_20170220_P1280428_v6


Projects Update (9 January 2017)

The Projects Update provides the description and progress of schemes relating to the 2016-17 LIP corridors programme. All the comments detailed here were not part of the original document, but have been added by the author of this post.


Brighton Road / Cotswold Road (Belmont)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Feasibility study to look at how this junction could be improved. Also to investigate traffic and road improvements around the Sutton Hospital site. To improve safety at the junction. To improve pedestrian facilities. To have a proposal that could be funded from future development in the area.

Work programme progress: With consultants.

Funding 2016/17: £30,000

Local Committee: Sutton South, Cheam and Belmont

Officer: LR

Comment: With a new school planned, and the London Cancer Hub expected (as part of Sutton 2031), there are opportunities here for big improvements. They will be needed, given the anticipated expansion in trips in the vicinity (Sutton 2031 – is Cycling part of the picture?) Meanwhile, employees of the Royal Marsden Hospital have told us how their daly commute could be transformed if robust cycling infrastructure was constructed on Brighton Road. All of that, though, will cost orders of magnitude more than £30,000. 


Seaton House School, Banstead Road South (Belmont)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Raised table at the existing refuge crossing point and flashing school warning signs. To improve safety of children going to school.

Work programme progress: Completed (except school signs)

Funding 2016/17: £25,000

Local Committee: Sutton South, Cheam and Belmont

Officer: LR


Overton Park T30101 (Belmont)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Extend cycleway to connect Overton Grange School to Chipstead Close. To create a safe route to Overton Grange school for cyclists and pedestrians

Work programme progress: Completed

Funding 2016/17: £50,000

Local Committee: Sutton South, Cheam and Belmont

Officer: LR

Comment: Approximately 150 metres in length (effectively linking Overton Road and Chipstead Close). This is a shared-use path, rather than a cycleway, wholly within a gated park or recreational area. The path has been designed to link directly with the footway at Chipstead Close, and then interface with the carriageway through the use a dropped-kerb. As would be expected from such a design, the usability of the infrastructure can be compromised (as shown in the photo below). The reference in the description to ‘extend’ a cycleway is believed to refer to the proximity of another shared-use path that was constructed through Overton Park (Overton Road and Moore Way) towards the end of 2014. For this earlier path, it is hoped that improved access and egress for cycling at Moore Way (without the need to dismount) can be facilitated (as mentioned at previous Cycle Forum meetings). For more on this, including a discussion as to why cycle path in a gated park is not a cycle route, see Ideas for boosting Sutton’s cycling aspirations (Get Sutton Cycling, August 2016).

CycleForumJanuary2017_ChipsteadClose_OvertonPark_P1270759_v2a


Mill Lane / Butter Hill Junction (Carshalton Central)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Improving crossing facilities. To improve safety of pedestrians crossing Mill Lane.

Work programme progress: Design stage

Funding 2016/17: £25,000

Local Committee: Carshalton and Clockhouse

Officer: YD

Comment: As discussed in the main section of this post, this is all about improving crossing facilities for people on foot. That’s welcome of course, but it is disappointing that proposals for improving cycling here are not included. Mill Lane and Butter Hill are busy roads that are being used as short cuts and which therefore carrying inappropriate levels of traffic. Mill Lane and Butter Hill also form part of the National Cycle Network Route 20 and Avenue Verte (although only a few people are probably aware of this). We have been told that road schemes need to consider all users, so a more holistic approach is required (and it is hoped the Healthy Streets approach will move this forward).


Stanley Park Road Phase 1 and 2 (Carshalton South and Clockhouse; Wallington South)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Corridor Scheme. To complete works commenced in 2015/16.

Work programme progress: Completed

Funding 2016/17: £30,000

Local Committee: Carshalton and Clockhouse; Beddington and Wallington

Officer: YD

Comment: Little, if anything, that will make this busy road more attractive for cycling.


Ruskin Road (Carshalton Central ward)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: New zebra crossing and upgrade path in the Ornamental Gardens. To provide a link between Carshalton Park to Talbot Road for cyclists and pedestrians.

Work programme progress: Design stage – parallel crossing being proposed

Funding 2016/17: £30,000

Local Committee: Carshalton and Clockhouse

Officer: YD

Comment: An informal crossing already exists here (with a refuge island in the centre of the carriageway). Although a parallel (tiger) crossing is a welcomed improvement over a shared crossing, context is everything. If it is poorly designed, or not in a suitable place, or not part of a coherent network, or then it really is not good enough. This proposed crossing will link a public footpath with a gated park, and so is not expected to be extensively used for cycling (despite this link forming part of a proposed route alignment mentioned in the borough’s Sustainable Transport Strategy). Meanwhile, all the surrounding residential streets, including Seymour Road, Talbot Road and The Square, are subject to inappropriate levels of traffic as people use these as cut-throughs. The Space for Cycling ‘ward ask’ for Carshalton Central in 2014 was all about endeavouring to bring calm back to these roads. Unfortunately, this idea has not been progressed by the elected councillors of the ward Cllr. Jill Whitehead, Cllr. Hamish Pollock, or Cllr. Alan Salter (to 2016), Cllr. Chris Williams (from 2016).   

A plan of the proposed crossing was subsequently received on 19 January, and this showed the cycle section of the crossing placed inline with a tree. Our CTC reps have sent a response, expressing concern about this hazard, back to the council for consideration. In late February the council advised that ward councillors and local residents had rejected an earlier proposal to change or widen the footpath.

CycleForumJanuary2017_RuskinRoadPlan_v1


Carshalton Road/Sutton Countryside Walk (Carshalton South and Clockhouse)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Provide a short length of footway on the east side of Carshalton Road adjacent to the Sutton Countryside walk. To provide a safe area on Carshalton Road linking to the Sutton Countryside Walk.

Work programme progress: Under construction

Funding 2016/17: £20,000

Local Committee: Carshalton and Clockhouse

Officer: YD


Woodmansterne Road Footpath (Carshalton South and Clockhouse)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: New shared use footway from Metcalfe Avenue to the entrance to the Diamond Riding Centre. To provide a link between Metcalfe Avenue and Oaks Park.

Work programme progress: Design stage

Funding 2016/17: £45,000

Local Committee: Carshalton and Clockhouse

Officer: YD

Comment: A welcome footway extension to Metcalfe Avenue. But not a robust cycling facility, in any shape or form. 


Westmead Road / Ringstead Road Junction Footpath (Carshalton Central)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Junction improvement. Anti skid surfacing to Westmead Road, entry treatment in Ringsted Road, kerb works. To improve road safety. To improve facilities for pedestrians.

Work programme progress: Proposed r-a-b consultation undertaken r-a-b to progress to implementation. Cyclists comments have been noted and will be added to the detailed design where possible. [Note: r-a-b is a lazy way of writing ’roundabout’]

Funding 2016/17: £44,000

Local Committee: Carshalton and Clockhouse

Officer: YD

Comment: This scheme had been notified to some stakeholders on, or around, 2 December 2016, (although Get Sutton Cycling only saw a plan a week or so after the January Cycle Forum, so the reference in the progress section to “cyclists comments” was not from us). The information provided with the plan was as follows: “The scheme aims to provide for better traffic flow and safer crossing facilities at the junction of Westmead Road and Ringstead Road, by the way of implementing a mini-roundabout. The proposal will require some amendment to the existing waiting and loading restrictions in the area, the slight relocation of an existing parking bay”. Although Westmead Road forms part of the London Cycle Network, there was no specific mention of how this scheme would be a benefit for those who choose to cycle. The plan included two “New Traffic Cushions” on Westmead Road, situated close to a central traffic island. These vertical deflections will definitely will not be of benefit to cyclists, and so on 11 January 2017 Get Sutton Cycling responded (comment deadline had been 16 December 2016): “Traffic calming that uses cushions (which probably have little effect especially when situated between a traffic island and the kerb enabling drivers just to straddle them) are a form of vertical deflection that has an impact on those cycling. The London Cycling Design Standards (TfL, December 2014) reflects this in Chapter Three ‘Streets and spaces’, section 3.5 ‘Physical Traffic calming’. “… methods of traffic calming that a problem to cyclists should be avoided….”. These include “..vertical deflections such as rumble-strips and speed humps that destabilise cyclists or force them to lose momentum”. Westmead Road forms part of the London Cycle Network route 75, and so to propose cushions here is particularly not acceptable.”

CycleForumJanuary2017_WestmeadRoadPlan_v1


North Cheam to Worcester Park Cycleway Phase 1 and 2 (Worcester Park)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Extend the cycleway from Boscombe Road to green Lane Phase 2. Include street lighting

Work programme progress: completed

Funding 2016/17: £100,000

Local Committee: Cheam North and Worcester Park

Officer: LR

Comment: Contrary to the description containing the phrase “include street lighting” and progress declaring the scheme is “completed”, for clarity it should be noted that lighting has not been included. There have been numerous requests by Get Sutton Cycling for consideration to be given to upgrading the link path at Boscombe Road so that this connecting path is suitable for cycling. The story began in 2014, or earlier, see Worcester Park footway: improvements and designation as cycle route.


Kimpton Industrial Estate Phase 1 and 2 (Stonecot)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Improve traffic movements on the estate. Measures such as minor widening at junctions. To maintain parking provision, ease flow of traffic and ensure reliability of bus service.

Work programme progress: Design stage

Funding 2016/17: £25,000

Local Committee: Cheam North and Worcester Park

Officer: LR


Church Hill Road / Malden Road (Nonsuch)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: New pedestrian refuge island in Malden Road by Church Hill Road. Modifications to existing refuge in Church Hill Road by Malden Road. To reduce accidents.

Work programme progress: Design stage

Funding 2016/17: £20,000

Local Committee: Cheam North and Worcester Park

Officer: LR


Green Wrythe Lane (Wandle Valley)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Corridor scheme between Middleton Circle and Bishopsford Road. To improve facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

Work programme progress: Design stage – informal consultation to be undertaken soon. Proposal to include more shared use footway.

Funding 2016/17: £100,000

Local Committee: St Helier, The Wrythe and Wandle Valley

Officer: HW

Comment: See comments on Green Wrythe Lane in the ‘Overview’ section above


Throwley Way at Benhill Avenue junction (Sutton Central)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Safety Scheme. Remove some red surfacing and bus lane markings. To reduce conflict between vehicles turning right into Benhill Avenue and buses using the bus lane

Work programme progress: completed

Funding 2016/17: £30,000

Local Committee: Sutton

Officer: HW


All Saints Road / High Street/ Rose Hill junction (Sutton North)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Pedestrian Facilities. (Study being carried out in 2015/16.) To reduce pedestrian casualties. To provide a safe route to All Saints School, Benhilton

Work programme progress: Consultation underway. LCC to consider design consulted on

Funding 2016/17: £100,000

Local Committee: Sutton

Officer: HW

Comment: This should refer to the Angel Hill junction (rather than, confusingly, Rose Hill junction). For more, see comments on All Saints Road / High Street / Angel Hill in the Overview section above


Lower Road (Sutton Central)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Speed tables and improved pedestrian crossing facilities. To improve crossing facilities for pedestrians.

Work programme progress: Design stage – one option is a roundabout at the junction with Benhill Road

Funding 2016/17: £35,000

Local Committee: Sutton

Officer: HW

Comment: Lower Road is  part of the London Cycle Network route 75. In theory, it is being considered as a future Quietway. On some Quietways, the preference is to replace mini-roundabouts with conventional crossings.


Northspur Road (Sutton North)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: New link to Public Rights of Way 11. To create a shorter route for pupils to Westbourne Primary from the Oldfield Road area.

Work programme progress: To be constructed in February

Funding 2016/17: £15,000

Local Committee: Sutton

Officer: HW

Comment: Welcomed, and worthwhile (all relative, of course). Essentially this is just about taking down a fence. It would be interesting to know why the fence was installed in the first place! 


Beddington Industrial Area (Beddington North)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Beddington Lane Improvements. Progress land acquisition improve carriageway drainage, footways etc. To improve facilities for residents and businesses.

Work programme progress: Included in Major scheme

Funding 2016/17: £150,000

Local Committee: Beddington and Wallington

Officer: Ian Price

Comment: All part of ‘Beddington Gateways’, a borough-led, major, LIP project. It remains to be seen whether this will be major enough when it comes to transforming the area for cycling. Subsequently advised that a Beddington Travel and Transport Survey was taking place (or rather, two surveys, one for Beddington businesses, and another for residents and people who worked in the Beddington area) between 20 February and 13 March 2017.  See Beddington Gateways: Beddington TfL Major Scheme from Opportunity Sutton. (In a paper prepared as an agenda item to a meeting of the TfL Programmes and Investment Committee on 8 March 2017, Healthy Streets Programme, Beddington Gateways is one of the transformational projects detailed “to deliver Healthy Streets outcomes including safety, modal shift and better urban realm”). For more on Healthy Streets, see Healthy Streets for London (Get Sutton Cycling, February 2017).


Beddington Gardens junction with Shotfield (Wallington South)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Kerb Build out/crossing point/dropped kerbs. To improve crossing facilities for pedestrians

Work programme progress: Design Stage

Funding 2016/17: £20,000

Local Committee: Beddington and Wallington

Officer: YD


Stafford Road / Woodcote Road (Wallington South)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Safety Scheme Investigation. To reduce pedestrian casualties.

Work programme progress: Design Stage

Funding 2016/17: £20,000

Local Committee: Beddington and Wallington

Officer: YD


Minor Cycle Facility Improvements 2015/16 and 2016/17

Description:

Work programme progress: NCN 20 signs removed from Peterborough Rd

Funding 2016/17: £20,000

Local Committee: All

Officer: LR


Cycle Parking

Description: Boroughwide

Work programme progress: Design stage

Funding 2016/17: £5,000

Local Committee: All

Officer: LR

Comment: We were advised that two new cycle stands had recently been installed in Station Road, Belmont (Open Street Map | Google Streetview). The costs associated with installing one stand is, apparently, £400. As noted above, the delivery of cycle parking at the various venues used for the local committee meetings across the borough would be welcomed. This was first requested at the Cycle Forum in March 2016.

CycleForumJanuary2017_BikeStandForBelmontVillage_v1


Schemes carried over from 2015/16

Two schemes were listed as carried over:

Netley Close T300 c857 (Cheam)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description:

Work programme progress: completed

Funding 2016/17:

Local Committee:

Officer: LR

Comment: See Another path in another park.


Green Wrythe Lane (The Wrythe)

Open Street Map and Google Streetview

Description: Carried over

Work programme progress: completed

Funding 2016/17:

Local Committee: St Helier, The Wrythe and Wandle Valley

Officer: LR

Comment: Enough said (although if you would like to read more, you could start here). 

Advertisements
Posted in Cycle Forum
One comment on “Cycle Forum highlights issues to be addressed
  1. I genuinely cannot fathom the rabid, illogical obsession the Council has with shared footways. How many times must they be told they simply do not work? All they do is engender conflict between cyclists and pedestrians and undermine the safety of both. Understandably, non cycling pedestrians don’t ‘get’ the shared footway concept. As far as most pedestrians are concerned if it isn’t a carriageway with the inevitable motorised priority then the footpath is an exclusively pedestrian domain.
    This even applies where the cyclists and pedestrian space is clearly delineated, such as the A217 cycle track. Every day I see pedestrians, often accompanied with children, walking in the middle of the clearly marked cycle track. In recent weeks I have suffered verbal abuse up to and including threats of violence, because it was assumed I was illegally cycling on the footway. What hope do we have with shared space on crowded footways, which as the article highlights, are also used to store vehicles when not in use?
    What we need is a recognition from both Councillors and officers that cycling is a legitimate and non polluting form of transport that could be used to replace car journeys, reduce pollution and obesity related illnesses. Tinkering at the edges with half baked ‘tick in the box’ schemes just wastes money and achieves nothing.

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

Follow us on Twitter

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 825 other followers

Support Space for Cycling
%d bloggers like this: