Suggested response to Mini Holland Consultations July 2016

Kingston Council have four consultations open until 18 July 2016 on their Go Cycle or Go Programme (previously Mini Holland).

The schemes need real improvement. So please complete all four and call for the routes to be completed and cycles to be separated from both motors and pedestrians.

These are our brief suggested responses which please feel free to use as the basis for your own responses. Do complete the “comments” sections – the questions asked are closed and will not allow you to seek what cyclists really want.

Fountain roundabout

  • Broadly “Somewhat oppose” these proposals including conversion of roundabout to crossroads as we can only support this if big improvements are made
  • Too much shared space; need separation of bikes and pedestrians avoiding conflict
  • Need Simultaneous Green signals for pedestrians and cyclists for all arms of the junction
  • Need more space on East side of junction to avoid conflict
  • Need segregated approaches and exits for cyclists on all arms of the junction

Consultation Question 1 (overall convert to crossroads) “Somewhat oppose”.

The Green Link proposals

Our detailed response:

Kingston Station area (above)

  • Broadly “Somewhat favour”
  • Support 20 mph limit for Wood Street
  • Need for segregation of cycles and buses/taxis on Clarence Street and Wood Street between John Lewis and Bentalls Centre
  • Support the Green Link segregated two way cycle routes north and south of Wood Street
  • Support the Western Gateway proposals and the segregated cycle route along the Horsefair under John Lewis but need to retain, or replace, existing cycle parking

Consultation Question 1 (overall) “Somewhat favour”; Qu. 3 (station) “agree”; Qu. 4 (hub) “neither agree nor disagree”; Qu. 5 & 6; “Strongly favour”.

Our detailed response:

Surbiton to Kingston

  • Claremont Rd is only worth doing if the route is completed to Surbiton station; ie safe cycle routes are provided past Waitrose, the bus stops and the roundabout
  • The junction of Surbiton Crescent, Maple Rd and Claremont Rd needs revision and direct cycle routes across it
  • We welcome the segregated cycle lane on the uphill on St Mark’s Hill but this is a busy road and protection is needed on the downhill
  • Avenue Elmers needs a 20mph limit throughout (currently only part 20 mph)
  • The schemes for Penryhn Rd and Ewell Rd, including Surbiton Hill Rd junction, must be implemented or these schemes are pointless; alone they go nowhere

Consultation Questions 1 (Palace Rd),  “Somewhat favour”. Qu 3, 5 & 7 (rest) “Somewhat oppose”

Our detailed response:

Wheatfield Way

  • Broadly “Somewhat favour” but needs improvement
  • Segregated Cycle tracks must be continuous from College roundabout to the station
  • Need to reduce shared space at junctions as it creates conflict between people on bikes and foot
  • Need safe protected link to Castle Street
  • Welcome 20mph limit and raising of carriageway but limit will need enforcement

Consultation Questions 1,5,6,7 & 8 (overall scheme and sections of scheme) “Somewhat favour”; Qu. 4 (20mph limit) “Strongly agree”.

Our detailed response:

More details are available in our discussion on Cyclescape which please feel free to join;

4 thoughts on “Suggested response to Mini Holland Consultations July 2016

  1. SimonS says:

    A very good article, that identifies the main flaws and suggests better alternatives.

    The big problem is recommending that we reply ‘somewhat support’. This will not be interpreted as anything other than ‘support’ when responses are analysed. The comments will most likely get shunted into an appendix or grouped together and mentioned as an afterthought.

    Yes, we should welcome the few good ideas, but that doesn’t mean we should support such appalling schemes.

    The designs are a blatant attempt to use Mini Holland cycling funding for general public realm improvements with a few bits of shared use footpath. When the starting point is this bad, doing anything other than opposing them cannot be right can it?!

    What good can come from saying we support these plans. Obviously, pretty much everyone in favour of space4cycling supports there being a Mini Holland programme, but we aren’t being asked if we support that, but these schemes that it is exceptionally hard to describe in polite language.

    Having read almost every cycling consultation report by TfL over the past few years, I strongly believe that lots of people saying they ‘support’ or ‘somewhat support’ the plans will not be taken to be criticism, no matter what comments are added. The two will end up combined into an overall ‘support’ figure and used to justify ignoring the very valid points of concern outlined above.

    Being grateful for crumbs has never got us a cake. Only by being bloody minded and protesting in huge numbers did we get the segregated superhighways.

    Something is seriously wrong with these plans. Opposition is the only valid response from supporters of space4cycling in my opinion.

    I really hope you reconsider your advice on this as I truly believe that it will lead to most of your excellent suggestions being ignored.

    Thanks for all you do to make our streets safe.

  2. Stewart says:

    I have to be honest, I think you are being too generous on these designs. On the whole, they force cyclists into shared space conflicts with pedestrians, fail to alter the racetrack-like carriageway design, include no information about cycle track widths (when a quick look on Google maps shows they are just planning to carve them out of already narrow footways) and fail to segregate through key junctions.

    The only thing worth the money, in my view, is the new bridge and surrounding landscaping. The rest is window-dressing.

Comments are closed.