Where's the segregation? Ex-councillor who led Kingston's Mini Holland bid on revised plans

section A is segregated, kingston bound, though how any one would turn right remains unclear if it is possible.

section B is just slightly wider bike lanes.

Section C has armadillo to segregate, again its unclear how one would turn right, from the bike lane.

Section B is the weakest it's also best part of 50% of the total distance.

in fairness compared to most of Kingston's cyclepaths due to the very low bar set it will be a improvement that isn't saying much though.

Great change is made in small ways. In my opinion a lot of cycling schemes have been over-engineered.

Honest translation = Richard Lewis doesn't know what he is talking about. Small incremental improvements lead nowhere.

The project should not be permitted to use the term "mini-Holland", at the very least. This final plan bears no resemblance to any build in Holland, or the Netherlands as a whole, in the past 40 years.

This is a classic case of huge promises being made by politicians for self-aggrandisement, but which are all lies.

Once the lanes are created in nought but paint, users will see that they become a combination of ad-hoc extra car lanes and car parking, with drivers continuing not not give the first shit about whether bike riders live or die, mirroring how the politicians and planners behind the travesty also do not care whether bike riders live or die.

Every time the very highest-ups, Boris and his ilk, start wiffling on about "mini-Hollands", someone in the audience should start shouting "bullshit" over and over.

For those above who mention riding on this road, and everyone else that either lives in or visits Kingston, do please remember to respond to the consultation if you haven't already done so.

It ends this Wednesday -

http://kingston-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/planning/mini-holland/por...

Having cycled the Portsmouth Road for the last six years I cannot see how the painting of white lines is going to have an effect on segregation beyond what is currently there already. There already is a cycle lane, marked out with white lines. The problem comes when both cyclists and motor vehicles approach traffic islands and are forced into using the same space - pinch points that would not be an issue if physical segregation was in place.

We all know the benefits of physical segregation and there is space to implement it, as shown in the original proposal. Having a debate about whether to go ahead with it through a public consultation seems to me to be a way of reducing costs through 'public approval'. What will get built will be the usual compromise, ineffective and a total waste of money. The funds should have been awarded to another borough.

A real shame.

Quote:

Segregation isn't the overall solution.

Utrecht: segregation and 33% of journeys made by bike. UK: no segregation and 2%. Yes it is.

This is very poor. It's a fairly busy stretch of road that presently has a painted cycle lane which isn't much fun to ride down.

Richard Lewis's point seems to forget that the whole point of the mini-Holland scheme is to attract people to cycling who don't currently ride a bike. This scheme won't do that. People who ride bikes already week continue to do so, people who don't won't be persuaded by now magic paint. What doesn't help is that the consultation craftily doesn't ask how you feel about this element of the scheme....

I have heard that the engineers overseeing the project may have not been aware of the mini-Holland ideals so will give them some benefit of the doubt pending any revisions. That said, please do fill out the consultation. If you'd like to make it easy, I've posted my responses here:
https://stuffrichwrites.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/response-to-portsmouth-...

This is hugely disappointing.

The picture from the original bid looks just great. I cycle along Portsmouth Road and although for much of the route it has a white line separating the narrow cycle lane from motorised traffic it's just not good enough. It's really unpleasant and dangerous.

Don't call it a "mini-Holland" if it just going to be the usual crap! RBK traffic engineers should all go to the Netherlands and see for themselves how it should be done and then come back here and do the job properly.

I heard Richard Lewis speak at an event. He came across as an dinosaur traffic engineering type and seemed to think that the only thing needed was people to follow the laws (hence all the white lines...) and didn't seem to appreciate the role of infrastructure to actually improve safety.

He admitted that he had never been to the Netherlands to see the type of cycling infrastructure implemented there.

It sounds like a good idea to see what the real Holland is like before implementing a mini-Holland...

I hope TfL withhold their money.

“Studies have shown that removing the central line in the road makes drivers pass cyclists much more slowly

Personal experience has shown that this is a crock. Oncoming traffic attempts to bully the more vulnerable traffic (me) out of the way on such roads when the obstruction is on the oncoming vehicles side.

Segregation isn't the overall solution.
Just feeds the drivers view that cyclists don't have a place on the road, and as segregation isn't going to happen everywhere it'll just make things worse overall.

However, the Mini Holland project’s benefit and realisation manager, Richard Lewis, defended the new design, saying: “Great change is made in small ways. In my opinion a lot of cycling schemes have been over-engineered.

I'd love to make an articulate and erudite comment about this but i think ill just stick with my usual.

What. A . Dick

Waste of money.

Should have the money taken off them as this clearly is not what was proposed