Kingston's Portsmouth Road cycle tracks finally complete

Bluebug wrote:

@bikebot the bridge is only useful for someone like me who lives in North Kingston so can cycle along the river to get onto it without crossing the dual carriageway.   

However there is a busy round about at the Hampton Wick end and there is no cycle path to get you around that roundabout.   Basically as with most cycling infrastructure in the UK where cycle paths are most needed e.g. at roundabouts, junctions they disappear. 

I've already responded on the bridge point. Read earlier reply.

dottigirl wrote:

Well, at 11am yesterday, I tried to use this again. And failed to get on, as cars weren't allowing me to pull out and cross onto the tracks. One car actually shadowed me, planting itself too close to risk pulling out.

There were also lots of people walking where I would have been cycling. But I can't blame them, as it was their pavement first.

Decided to turn off down Catherine Road and continue south on Maple road instead.

You were blocked from using the parrallel crossing by The Anglers?

bikebot wrote:

dottigirl wrote:

Well, at 11am yesterday, I tried to use this again. And failed to get on, as cars weren't allowing me to pull out and cross onto the tracks. One car actually shadowed me, planting itself too close to risk pulling out.

There were also lots of people walking where I would have been cycling. But I can't blame them, as it was their pavement first.

Decided to turn off down Catherine Road and continue south on Maple road instead.

You were blocked from using the parallel crossing by The Anglers?

When a vehicle is that close to my rear wheel and not budging, I don't really want to pull across in front of it to take primary in preparation for a turn. There was a solid flow of traffic in the opposite lane, so we would have had to wait for a while.

I also had two friends following me who couldn't get across either. 

Drivers didn't appear to be expecting cyclists to be pulling out to cross over, as two cars had steamed past shortly before, when I had tried to signal.

I've cycled for a few years now, but I can imagine inexperienced cyclists, after a relatively smooth trip into town, would not enjoy this part of the return. I wonder how soon we'll have the first incident?

dottigirl wrote:

When a vehicle is that close to my rear wheel and not budging, I don't really want to pull across in front of it to take primary in preparation for a turn. There was a solid flow of traffic in the opposite lane, so we would have had to wait for a while.

 

I also had two friends following me who couldn't get across either. 

Drivers didn't appear to be expecting cyclists to be pulling out to cross over, as two cars had steamed past shortly before, when I had tried to signal.

I've cycled for a few years now, but I can imagine inexperienced cyclists, after a relatively smooth trip into town, would not enjoy this part of the return. I wonder how soon we'll have the first incident?

You don't have to, you go left on to the shared use area via the dropped kerb that's before it. There's an arrow there pointing you onto it and the bike lane on that side ends.  Then by entering the parallel crossing you have the same priority as pedestrians do to cross. If you try to turn into it directly while in the traffic lane, technically you don't have priority (disclaimer, may need to double check on that).

It's a "jug handle", and there are better arrangements that I could point to but I think there the engineers have decided to be cautious about how quickly drivers can learn new infrastructure. CS6 for example does have a direct diagonal crossing by Farringdon, but it's signal controlled.

bikebot wrote:

You don't have to, you go left on to the shared use area via the dropped kerb that's before it. There's an arrow there pointing you onto it and the bike lane on that side ends.  Then by entering the parallel crossing you have the same priority as pedestrians do to cross. If you try to turn into it directly while in the traffic lane, technically you don't have priority (disclaimer, may need to double check on that).

It's a "jug handle", and there are better arrangements that I could point to but I think there the engineers have decided to be cautious about how quickly drivers can learn new infrastructure. CS6 for example does have a direct diagonal crossing by Farringdon, but it's signal controlled.

A-ha, had only watched the northbound video.

I'd seen the sign, and glimpsed the arrangement, but on Sunday I was travelling too fast to figure out how to negotiate it, and yesterday had forgotten about it.

I'd have preferred a roundabout. Smoother corners at speed. The current arrangement is certainly not for those travelling at 20mph.

And that bit around Laithwaites is just...mental. 

I often take out rides from Market Square, heading south. Not sure whether we'll opt for the tracks or stay on the road. Morning traffic can be unpredictable and impatient.

arfa wrote:

Kingston doesn't have to be a dump but it would require tackling the dual carriageway and an attempt at something more than the piecemeal approach we have had so far (which I can't support I am afraid). 200 yard sections of unlinked and inadequate lanes don't cut it as you still have to find ways to link and integrate at a later date after an endless cycle of consultations. It pains me to hear London portrayed as the "village idiot of urban innovation" but it's correct. We don't even have to entertain original thought and just copy what works from our near neighbours. But we won't, as we're wedded to those consultations that dilute worthy into at best only partially worthy. So that's why I don't support diluted "flagship" projects. Sorry to those who feel otherwise but we're not on the same page. I'll just leave this here for those interested: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2015/02/the-village-idiot-of-urban-innovati...

You've seen that the new consultations do actually form continuous routes?

Let's not go over the problems again, you can do that by responding to the consultation, but they are continuous and the only way to argue for them to be improved rather than diluted is to argue for them (with criticism).  The only other page available, is the status quo of the last 40 years which some people are quite happy with, but the share of cycling will never increase.

Beecho wrote:

What I forgot to say is that Kingston's a shithole. All lanes should lead out of there, none in. And I'm allowed to say this as I'm from there 

Everyone that's driven on the gyratory, wishes all the lanes did lead out of there!

arfa wrote:

Bikebot, There's nothing wrong with the images you show of the cycle lane over the bridge but there's everything wrong with the entry and exit. To disabuse you of one incorrect inference, I believe money should be spent on infrastructure for the benefit of those who say they would cycle but won't (usually because it's too dangerous). I do not for a moment believe it should be targeting existing cyclists, so forget whether it is right or wrong for me personally. I come at infrastructure from the angle of the parent with 2 children under 12 who wants to cycle but won't. The question is will it work for them ? On the north end of the bridge cycle lane, your images don't show the lane spitting you straight back out on to the dual carriageway. On the Bentall's lane, it spits you out into a bus lane where they turn left and worse still, the end of the lane is concealed by a low wall, not exactly great for seeing young children. So here we have danger designed in, hence my description of "half baked". So whilst "cyclists who argue against protected infrastructure" might "test your patience more than a little", I will only argue in favour of infrastructure that addresses the needs set out above otherwise we're wasting money and time.

Fair enough, but note that you've now filled in the details of your complaint and it sounds like you don't actually have a problem with the bridge itself. Criticism without context is constantly being picked up and repeated to oppose it.  So yes, you're first statement does test my patience. 

I would criticise the lack of continuation on Hampton Court Road first, which is 40mph, has very narrow bike lanes but wastes masses of space down the middle. That's not something Kingston can solve directly, it's Richmond's road. Second, I'd cricise the crossing at Bentall's, but it seems that Kingston are looking for a way to extend that lane as protected space all the way under John Lewis.

Now it sounds like you'd support that, and there are other changes that can be argued for, but naming the bridge as a problem makes that more difficult to achieve. Basically, words are weapons.

arfa wrote:

Unfortunately Kingston already has a fair amount of half baked infrastructure, have a look at the pointless lanes outside Bentalls or the lane over the bridge. 

What's your complaint about the bridge?

I'd obviously prefer it if the lanes were the widths now recommended by LCDS, but do you think these two would be happier sharing with the cement mixer?

Images via streetview.

For the curious, the bridge has a bidirectional track on one side and a narrower one directional track on the other.  The whole structure was widened in 2000 to accomodate them and the bus lane.

arfa wrote:

Unfortunately Kingston already has a fair amount of half baked infrastructure, have a look at the pointless lanes outside Bentalls or the lane over the bridge. As I said, I sadly don't share the enthusiasm as unused infrastructure is counter productive in my humble opinion, people look at it and say "we spend money on it and they don't use it". It then becomes part of the argument against spending (the already paltry sums) on cycling. We can get it right, the embankment and oval/vauxhall are examples of this but the video above does not fill me with hope. I'll be happy to be proven wrong if it turns out otherwise.

I use those "pointless" cycle paths every day. I find them very useful. But then I use my bike just for getting around, not racing around.

Will racing cyclists ever be happy with a bike lane which is also being used by slower cyclists though? To keep up their high speeds they appear to prefer the main roads I've noticed. Not bashing the lycra brigade, but I can see how trying to squeeze in bike paths that suit all the different type of cyclists is nigh on impossible in London.

arfa wrote:

Fukawitribe, top video, 13-29 seconds various narrowing points due to trffic lights/street furniture.

1.44, a bus stop with limited space for people waiting for the bus.

1.53 pedestrian on path, not clear if shared use or not. 

2.10 ditto

2.17 ditto

2.27 ditto

2.59 ditto

As I said, maybe I have missed something and bikebot suggests it isn't finished (which I hope it isn't).

I do know that this particular road is used by numerous club run types and I can't seem them using it due to the reasons set out above. It therefore has the potential to be another priory lane (Roehampton), i.e. visible infrastructure that isn't used because it's half baked so expect lots more youtube videos of Mr Angry (aka Mr Jason Wells) losing their shit because a bicycle isn't in the cycle lane.

Sorry it doesn't accord with your views but riding around London over the last 20 years, the biggest and most consistent sources of conflict are where there's a perceived provision of cycle lanes and cyclists not using it. I sincerely hope this will not turn out to be one of these but a straightforward viewing of that video rings alarm bells for me.

I'm not knocking your concerns, everyone has some with this one, merely that you saying you wouldn't build it at all seems extreme and some of the criticism seems at odds with some comments from a local cycle concern and some people that have ridden it. It's also not finished as you mention and others have said and whilst I understand the valid issue with 'perceived provision', whether or not it's suitable for a club run comes across as missing the point about new cycling infrastructure  

nil wrote:

Half of this route is bascially just cycling on the pavement.  If the route gets enough traffic to "justify" the 2-way segregated part, then surely there will be too many cyclists for the pavement section?

I hate shared space. It's generally a "can't be arsed" solution.

The only section that is shared use is by the junction with the Toucan crossings and immediately around the pedestrian crossings further up. The scheme doesn't feature any shared space.

arfa wrote:

Maybe I have missed something but if you are going to do infrastructure, do it properly or don't do it at all.

So, if it were up to you this wouldn't be have been built then. I wonder how Kingston Cycling Campaign, the people on here who have used it and others might feel about that... perhaps you could educate them as to why that would be an improvement on what they now have ?

arfa wrote:

I wish I shared the enthusiasm of others here. Watching the video, there are pinch points, street furniture and a merging from segregated into shared pedestrian use along the route where it looks like potential flashpoints have been designed into the route rather than designed out. As for heading southbound and having to cross the road several times, I really don't know where to start. I see lots of aggro from drivers when roadies who want to chug along at 20mph+ (it's a pancake flat section of road after all) stay on the road for all the reasons outlined above. Maybe I have missed something but if you are going to do infrastructure, do it properly or don't do it at all.

The shared use section is actually quite small, just around the junction.  The pedestrians further up will in future be using the riverbank path which is still underconstruction (because the claim about the project being finished isn't exactly true).  All of the sections marked with bike symbols are not shared use.  You don't have to cross several times,  when approaching from Thames Ditton you don't have to cross at all and you bypass the traffic lights.

There are issues, most can be resolved. I'm going to keep mentioning red asphalt until enough people catch on to how brilliant it is. But I don't support the "do it properly or don't do it at all" view as I'm a pragmatist. The Dutch and the Danes didn't have a secret lab where they grew best in world highway engineers overnight, their old infrastructure is also full of flaws (as is some of the new stuff)

bikebot wrote:

But I don't support the "do it properly or don't do it at all" view as I'm a pragmatist.

Haven't used route this so I'm not venturing an opinion, but I would say that you aren't using the word 'pragmatist' correctly! "Do it properly or not at all" and "pragmatism" are not mutually-exclusive. The whole point of the former position is the belief that poor infrastructure makes things worse, i.e. it doesn't work, which means the pragmatic approach would be to oppose it.

Perhaps you mean you are an 'incrementalist'!