Twickenham "mini-Holland" scheme on its final lap for funding

Richmond and Twickenham Times: Plans: Richmond Council was ambitious in its submission to TfL Plans: Richmond Council was ambitious in its submission to TfL

Twickenham is still vying to become a “mini-Holland”, with final plans for the cycle-based proposal submitted to Transport for London (TfL).

Richmond Council is bidding for £36m to improve cycling routes and facilities in the borough.

Earlier this year the Mayor of London and TfL announced a pot of £100m to share between up to four outer London boroughs to transform cycling in town centres.

Eight out of 20 London boroughs have made it to the final round of the competition.

In the past few weeks the council has worked with stakeholders, including Richmond Cycling Club and South West Trains, to enhance the proposals.

Richmond Council cabinet member for highways Councillor Chris Harrison said: “Our original bid and this follow up application presents an ambitious proposal for residents and cyclists in this borough.

“We are already investing millions to regenerate Twickenham with work now well under way and cyclists will soon start to benefit from the changes that are being made.

“However, we know that significant improvements still need to be made in the borough to create a cohesive cycle network that will encourage more people to cycle.

“If we are successful in this bid, I know that each element will make a big difference and will complement the other cycle improvements taking place across the borough.”

If approved, the council proposes to improve cycling through Twickenham town centre and a new commuter route on the A316.

It also includes the construction of rail-side cycle routes from Hampton to Twickenham as well as a new route between Kew and Putney to provide an alternative to the A205.

Richmond Cycling Campaign co-ordinator Tim Lennon said: “We’d be delighted if the borough received the mini-Holland money it’s asking for - our area could be a beacon for cycling for all ages and all abilities, whether this is getting to school or going to the shops.

“However, it’s really disappointing to hear about some fabulous sounding plans for Twickenham that will only go through if the mini-Holland money comes in.

“If the council is really committed to cycling in the borough, it can best show it by fixing the Twickenham Action Plan now, rather than waiting a year or more for the new funding.”

The winners, to be announced early next year, will be selected from the boroughs of Richmond, Bexley, Ealing, Enfield, Kingston, Merton, Newham and Waltham Forest.

If the bid is successful, further consultation will take place.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:39pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Concerned_Resident says...

I really hope they don't get this, as many of their ideas are daft and will result in nothing but gridlock and inconvenience for everyone who does not cycle. Seeing as cycling is still overwhelmingly the minority mode of transport, making things more miserable for the majority is just wrong. No bus stop outside the train station annoys commuters getting to and from it. No bus lane annoys those stuck on a bus trying to get into/through Twickenham. All the vehicles using the bus lane on the bridge (buses, taxis and motorbikes included) will all be shoehorned into a smaller space.

Then we have the magic roundabout on the A316/London Road junction. From what I can see, this will mean drivers having to pull out twice - once into the path of cyclists, once more into the path of other traffic. How is this going to be safe? More accidents will result - I guarantee it. And the tests they did on these roundabouts in Reading showed that cyclists forget how vulnerable they are, with some even going the wrong way round the roundabout as a result of this type of road feature! Utterly stupid set of proposals, aimed at benefiting 5% of people to the detriment of the other 95%. It's just wrong.
I really hope they don't get this, as many of their ideas are daft and will result in nothing but gridlock and inconvenience for everyone who does not cycle. Seeing as cycling is still overwhelmingly the minority mode of transport, making things more miserable for the majority is just wrong. No bus stop outside the train station annoys commuters getting to and from it. No bus lane annoys those stuck on a bus trying to get into/through Twickenham. All the vehicles using the bus lane on the bridge (buses, taxis and motorbikes included) will all be shoehorned into a smaller space. Then we have the magic roundabout on the A316/London Road junction. From what I can see, this will mean drivers having to pull out twice - once into the path of cyclists, once more into the path of other traffic. How is this going to be safe? More accidents will result - I guarantee it. And the tests they did on these roundabouts in Reading showed that cyclists forget how vulnerable they are, with some even going the wrong way round the roundabout as a result of this type of road feature! Utterly stupid set of proposals, aimed at benefiting 5% of people to the detriment of the other 95%. It's just wrong. Concerned_Resident

6:30pm Wed 18 Dec 13

metis says...

When you have a limited space like the public highway and you try to carve it up for the many and different users - it makes for a very inefficient use of that space. It also makes people feel very territorial about their dedicated patch leading to road rage and cries of unfairness as we have indeed witnessed in recent years.
A genuine 'shared space' scheme is the only way to go on these busy suburban roads.
When you have a limited space like the public highway and you try to carve it up for the many and different users - it makes for a very inefficient use of that space. It also makes people feel very territorial about their dedicated patch leading to road rage and cries of unfairness as we have indeed witnessed in recent years. A genuine 'shared space' scheme is the only way to go on these busy suburban roads. metis

7:29pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Twickenham resident says...

The only thing I like about this article is the idea of rail side cycle lanes! What a brilliant idea. That way cars, cyclists and pedestrians are completely separated which will lead to fewer deaths, injuries and road / cycle rage.

However they would have to create fast lanes for the lycra lot, middle lanes for the keen lot and slow lanes for the plodders or they'll all end up tangled up in each others spokes.

There is simply not enough pavement and road space to turn Twickenham Town Centre into a "mini Holland".

I do think though that cyclists should contribute towards the huge cost of all this infrastructure purely for their benefit.
The only thing I like about this article is the idea of rail side cycle lanes! What a brilliant idea. That way cars, cyclists and pedestrians are completely separated which will lead to fewer deaths, injuries and road / cycle rage. However they would have to create fast lanes for the lycra lot, middle lanes for the keen lot and slow lanes for the plodders or they'll all end up tangled up in each others spokes. There is simply not enough pavement and road space to turn Twickenham Town Centre into a "mini Holland". I do think though that cyclists should contribute towards the huge cost of all this infrastructure purely for their benefit. Twickenham resident

1:45am Thu 19 Dec 13

Twickenham Bob says...

The land besides the railway tracks are a green chain - and are vital links for wildlife.

The council are planning to rip up habitat next to Whitton Station which links Hounslow Heath to Central Twickenham. Its home to numerous animals and plants that will be lost under these plans
The land besides the railway tracks are a green chain - and are vital links for wildlife. The council are planning to rip up habitat next to Whitton Station which links Hounslow Heath to Central Twickenham. Its home to numerous animals and plants that will be lost under these plans Twickenham Bob

10:32am Thu 19 Dec 13

Ludovic says...

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?
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? Ludovic

11:24am Thu 19 Dec 13

lucullus says...

If the council is able to make the changes it is proposing to Twickenham and to other areas, the increase in cycling should have a very healthy knock off effect in a number of areas: less congestion at busy times, cleaner air in the borough, a healthier borough population, safer roads for all (cycling, walking and driving), and more pleasant urban spaces.

Improving facilities for cycling is not about the 5% of journeys which we cycle at the moment, nor is it about the 24% of the borough who don't have access to a car, it's about giving everyone a real transport option that is convenient, pleasant and safe: even if only a small proportion of those currently driving these short journeys choose to bike instead, the effects across the borough will be profound.
If the council is able to make the changes it is proposing to Twickenham and to other areas, the increase in cycling should have a very healthy knock off effect in a number of areas: less congestion at busy times, cleaner air in the borough, a healthier borough population, safer roads for all (cycling, walking and driving), and more pleasant urban spaces. Improving facilities for cycling is not about the 5% of journeys which we cycle at the moment, nor is it about the 24% of the borough who don't have access to a car, it's about giving everyone a real transport option that is convenient, pleasant and safe: even if only a small proportion of those currently driving these short journeys choose to bike instead, the effects across the borough will be profound. lucullus

5:16pm Thu 19 Dec 13

pluton says...

metis wrote:
When you have a limited space like the public highway and you try to carve it up for the many and different users - it makes for a very inefficient use of that space. It also makes people feel very territorial about their dedicated patch leading to road rage and cries of unfairness as we have indeed witnessed in recent years.
A genuine 'shared space' scheme is the only way to go on these busy suburban roads.
Where you have shared space the risk is that the biggest and heaviest act as bullies. Most of Europe has a default liability assumption to balance things up. Where you have really low speeds and traffic volumes it is possible to have a fully shared space including pedestrians. At the other extreme segregation is needed to allow everyone to enjoy the health benefits of cycling. As for inefficient use of road space the single occupancy SUV takes the biscuit.
[quote][p][bold]metis[/bold] wrote: When you have a limited space like the public highway and you try to carve it up for the many and different users - it makes for a very inefficient use of that space. It also makes people feel very territorial about their dedicated patch leading to road rage and cries of unfairness as we have indeed witnessed in recent years. A genuine 'shared space' scheme is the only way to go on these busy suburban roads.[/p][/quote]Where you have shared space the risk is that the biggest and heaviest act as bullies. Most of Europe has a default liability assumption to balance things up. Where you have really low speeds and traffic volumes it is possible to have a fully shared space including pedestrians. At the other extreme segregation is needed to allow everyone to enjoy the health benefits of cycling. As for inefficient use of road space the single occupancy SUV takes the biscuit. pluton

7:54pm Thu 19 Dec 13

metis says...

Pluton; "Where you have shared space the risk is that the biggest and heaviest act as bullies". Actually, the practice and experience of these schemes proves the exact opposite. Drivers have to focus on other users rather than lights, signs and other restrictions leading to a 40% reduction in accidents - even on busy routes in central London where these have been implemented.
I cycle because it is relatively cheap and free from restrictions. But with all the hectoring and demands from the bike lobby and their health/eco pals it is unlikely to remain so for long. The backlash hints at bike registration, compulsory helmets etc etc - At that point I will give up on cycling altogether.
Pluton; "Where you have shared space the risk is that the biggest and heaviest act as bullies". Actually, the practice and experience of these schemes proves the exact opposite. Drivers have to focus on other users rather than lights, signs and other restrictions leading to a 40% reduction in accidents - even on busy routes in central London where these have been implemented. I cycle because it is relatively cheap and free from restrictions. But with all the hectoring and demands from the bike lobby and their health/eco pals it is unlikely to remain so for long. The backlash hints at bike registration, compulsory helmets etc etc - At that point I will give up on cycling altogether. metis

10:56pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Sparkythecat says...

When are the cycling lobby going to start putting their money where their mouth is? They are full of grandiose ideas to suit them which may or may not work but until they start contributing by way of cash why should they have so much say let alone sway.
When are the cycling lobby going to start putting their money where their mouth is? They are full of grandiose ideas to suit them which may or may not work but until they start contributing by way of cash why should they have so much say let alone sway. Sparkythecat

11:48am Fri 20 Dec 13

reesmf says...

Firstly, let's deal with the money thing. Cyclists pay the same taxes as everybody else so they are already paying for roads etc. that they do not use to the same extent as motorists.

Secondly, you only have to look to the other side of the river to see what can be done. There the German community, attracted by the school, cycle all over the place. This is what we want to encourage.
Firstly, let's deal with the money thing. Cyclists pay the same taxes as everybody else so they are already paying for roads etc. that they do not use to the same extent as motorists. Secondly, you only have to look to the other side of the river to see what can be done. There the German community, attracted by the school, cycle all over the place. This is what we want to encourage. reesmf

6:19pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Sparkythecat says...

To say that cyclists pay the same taxes as everybody else does not wash with me. How about a licence for their bike; how about lessons and a test to prove they can cycle safely and sensibly; how about insurance; how about an MOT or something similar to ensure the bikes are roadworthy when they reach a certain age?
To say that cyclists pay the same taxes as everybody else does not wash with me. How about a licence for their bike; how about lessons and a test to prove they can cycle safely and sensibly; how about insurance; how about an MOT or something similar to ensure the bikes are roadworthy when they reach a certain age? Sparkythecat

9:21am Sat 21 Dec 13

dellboy twick. says...

Sparkythecat wrote:
To say that cyclists pay the same taxes as everybody else does not wash with me. How about a licence for their bike; how about lessons and a test to prove they can cycle safely and sensibly; how about insurance; how about an MOT or something similar to ensure the bikes are roadworthy when they reach a certain age?
The Vehicle Excise Duty, VED, is measured on the emissions, some cars don't pay any VED, nor would cycles. There is no charge for no/low emissions but the cost comes off the overall monies raised. All net money goes into the general pot, if it all went on the roads ours would be superb. So we all pay taxes therefore that includes cyclists whether it washes with you or not
[quote][p][bold]Sparkythecat[/bold] wrote: To say that cyclists pay the same taxes as everybody else does not wash with me. How about a licence for their bike; how about lessons and a test to prove they can cycle safely and sensibly; how about insurance; how about an MOT or something similar to ensure the bikes are roadworthy when they reach a certain age?[/p][/quote]The Vehicle Excise Duty, VED, is measured on the emissions, some cars don't pay any VED, nor would cycles. There is no charge for no/low emissions but the cost comes off the overall monies raised. All net money goes into the general pot, if it all went on the roads ours would be superb. So we all pay taxes therefore that includes cyclists whether it washes with you or not dellboy twick.

5:36pm Sun 22 Dec 13

metis says...

dellboy twick. wrote:
Sparkythecat wrote:
To say that cyclists pay the same taxes as everybody else does not wash with me. How about a licence for their bike; how about lessons and a test to prove they can cycle safely and sensibly; how about insurance; how about an MOT or something similar to ensure the bikes are roadworthy when they reach a certain age?
The Vehicle Excise Duty, VED, is measured on the emissions, some cars don't pay any VED, nor would cycles. There is no charge for no/low emissions but the cost comes off the overall monies raised. All net money goes into the general pot, if it all went on the roads ours would be superb. So we all pay taxes therefore that includes cyclists whether it washes with you or not
Which kind of begs the question - if everyone pays for roads out of general taxation, why do drivers of motorised vehicles pay twice.
[quote][p][bold]dellboy twick.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sparkythecat[/bold] wrote: To say that cyclists pay the same taxes as everybody else does not wash with me. How about a licence for their bike; how about lessons and a test to prove they can cycle safely and sensibly; how about insurance; how about an MOT or something similar to ensure the bikes are roadworthy when they reach a certain age?[/p][/quote]The Vehicle Excise Duty, VED, is measured on the emissions, some cars don't pay any VED, nor would cycles. There is no charge for no/low emissions but the cost comes off the overall monies raised. All net money goes into the general pot, if it all went on the roads ours would be superb. So we all pay taxes therefore that includes cyclists whether it washes with you or not[/p][/quote]Which kind of begs the question - if everyone pays for roads out of general taxation, why do drivers of motorised vehicles pay twice. metis

8:12pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Sparkythecat says...

dellboy twick: It wasn't just the VED I mentioned in my post. There were other things to be considered.

metis: Couldn't agree more.
dellboy twick: It wasn't just the VED I mentioned in my post. There were other things to be considered. metis: Couldn't agree more. Sparkythecat

10:52pm Sun 22 Dec 13

dellboy twick. says...

Sparkythecat wrote:
dellboy twick: It wasn't just the VED I mentioned in my post. There were other things to be considered.

metis: Couldn't agree more.
any member of the LCC, London Cycle Campaign, is covered for 3rd. party insurance, bike shops have leaflets advertising insurance. As for tests, schools used to do them, i believe they are being re-introduced. any copper can pull over a cyclist and inspect their bike, if dissatisfied can charge them with riding an unsafe bike etc. All the things you highlight except a test have laws covering them now, it's just a matter of them being policed
[quote][p][bold]Sparkythecat[/bold] wrote: dellboy twick: It wasn't just the VED I mentioned in my post. There were other things to be considered. metis: Couldn't agree more.[/p][/quote]any member of the LCC, London Cycle Campaign, is covered for 3rd. party insurance, bike shops have leaflets advertising insurance. As for tests, schools used to do them, i believe they are being re-introduced. any copper can pull over a cyclist and inspect their bike, if dissatisfied can charge them with riding an unsafe bike etc. All the things you highlight except a test have laws covering them now, it's just a matter of them being policed dellboy twick.

1:08pm Tue 24 Dec 13

denisbrowne says...

Never mind the bikes - let's boost business with a few Dutch-style coffee shops!
Happy New Year one & all
Never mind the bikes - let's boost business with a few Dutch-style coffee shops! Happy New Year one & all denisbrowne

2:00pm Tue 24 Dec 13

pluton says...

Metis - why do drivers of motorised vehicles pay twice.

As has been pointed out VED is based on emissions -so they pay part of the cost of their pollution. That is also roughly proportional to the bulk of the vehicle. If you took all the big metal cages away from a congested road the congestion would vanish.
Metis - why do drivers of motorised vehicles pay twice. As has been pointed out VED is based on emissions -so they pay part of the cost of their pollution. That is also roughly proportional to the bulk of the vehicle. If you took all the big metal cages away from a congested road the congestion would vanish. pluton

9:49pm Thu 2 Jan 14

metis says...

pluton wrote:
Metis - why do drivers of motorised vehicles pay twice.

As has been pointed out VED is based on emissions -so they pay part of the cost of their pollution. That is also roughly proportional to the bulk of the vehicle. If you took all the big metal cages away from a congested road the congestion would vanish.
As I have pointed out before; CO2 is not pollution.
[quote][p][bold]pluton[/bold] wrote: Metis - why do drivers of motorised vehicles pay twice. As has been pointed out VED is based on emissions -so they pay part of the cost of their pollution. That is also roughly proportional to the bulk of the vehicle. If you took all the big metal cages away from a congested road the congestion would vanish.[/p][/quote]As I have pointed out before; CO2 is not pollution. metis

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree