Truly underwhelming heap of crap.
This scheme is a travesty. This replicates many of the mistakes of the LCN. Cyclists offered substandard provision, treated like pedestrians, mixed with pedestrians, painted cycle symbols instead of infrastructure, no use of Home Zones or filtering, cycle lanes that should be cycle tracks, raised tables used as a panacea but not incorporating continuous pavement / cycleways, cyclists expected to switch sides of the road, no use of 20 mph.
And the reason why this is all so crap? Look at the priorities. Many of which require no changes that might inconvenience 'vehicle' (meaning motor vehicle) access, parking, speeds, etc. Such requirements mean designers have an impossible task and can't possibly achieve the requirements of a 'transformational' Mini Holland scheme.
The idea that these proposals would have even been considered in Holland is laughable. The Dutch wouldn't dream of sticking Toucan crossings at the end of a major cycle lane/track. The designers should be creating plans that meet Dutch CROW standards.
Being grateful for crumbs doesn't encourage anyone to give you a cake they'd rather hide away. I don't think we should support this scheme at all. It is fundamentally flawed and can't be fixed with a few tweaks. There is no way in hell these designs can deliver a cycle environment fully accessible to disabled, young, old, new or nervous cyclists.
Whilst it might be tempting to offer partial support for the bits of segregation I think that would be a grave mistake. 'Partial support' gets presented as part of overall 'support' when consultation responses are analysed. Rejecting them whilst acknowledging there are one or two good bits is the only way to get the message accross.
It is totally unacceptable to have roads with a segregated lane on one side and bike symbols on the other or to mix cyclists and pedestrians at busy junctions. The council and designers don't see bikes as being vehicles - their choice of wording is telling. The designs will deliver the failed dual provision of previous failed schemes. The two-way cycle lane with a Girrafe crossing at one end and a series of Toucan crossings at the other will see a minority of cyclists being willing to behave like pedestrians and use them. Many cyclists will simply move into the main carriageway instead so as not to be delayed unnecessarily. This will cause conflict with drivers.
If there was at least one or two streets done well, we might be able to give partial support. As it stands none of the streets will be altered sufficiently to meet the London Cycle Design Standards and none come close to Dutch standards.
Does anyone seriously think it would be wise to do anything other than oppose the plans and demand that they are completely reworked to treat cyclists as vehicles, enable accessible 5-105 cycling, have high-quality provision in both directions on each road, have close to zero use of shared space and designed to Mini Holland standards.
We owe much to Waltham Forest, who have delivered many high-quality schemes. If this were a scheme in their borough, it would include an area-wide 20 mph and filtered zone covering the minor roads and fully segregated two-way provision on the through roads, probably using stepped tracks.
Either LCC comes back with an alternative scheme or we have to just say 'no' detailing what is wrong with this one. It worked with Portsmouth Road. Kingston seems to be a case of a Conservative council trying to get away with doing next to nothing and then backing down when pressured.
What do others think?
