Priory Lane Consultation

mattsaw

I noticed this on the road forum and though it was relevant cross-posting it here

https://haveyoursay.citizenspace.com/wa ... iory-lane/

Priory Lane forms part of both the Borough and the National Cycle Route Network catering daily for over 1000 pedal cyclists. It is also a busy route for traffic as it runs parallel to Roehampton Lane, providing an alternative link between two main roads, Upper Richmond Road (red route) and the A3 Roehampton Vale.

Priory Lane is long and straight with a footway on only the northbound side of the road. In some parts of the road, peak mean speeds can reach up to 28mph which can make cycling intimidating. A cycle track therefore occupies half of the footway for much of its length so that cyclists, particularly those cycling more leisurely or with less confidence, are segregated from motor vehicles.

However, the current arrangement raises several issues, namely:
the remaining footway is unsatisfactorily narrow for pedestrians
many cyclists remain in the carriageway, as well as being observed in the cycle lane
Priory Lane’s character as a cycling route where speeds should not go above 20mph is not clear to drivers
the diversion of the cycle route through Bank Lane and Roehampton Gate is not practical, most cyclists choose to continue along Priory Lane as it is a more direct route
Moreover, in the three-year period to December 2016 sixteen personal injury collisions were recorded in Priory Lane, twelve of which involved cyclists.

The proposals aim to improve pedestrian facilities by removing the cycle track from the footway and providing a constant footway width of 2.0m. Likewise the introduction of a northbound advisory cycle lane along the entire length of Priory Lane and associated changes to the highway layout aims to assist cycling and safety. Installation of cycle friendly speed tables/junctions are also proposed in this scheme to accentuate the 20mph speed limit in Priory Lane. Southbound cycles will be integrated with motor traffic. Road markings with the cycle symbol will be installed to raise awareness of the presence and legitimacy of cyclists on the carriageway.

It is important for the Council to know the views of local residents and businesses before progressing with any improvements.

We urge you to respond to this consultation by reading the consultation material here, then completing the online survey below. If you require a paper copy of the consultation document or the questionnaire please contact us at consult@wandsworth.gov.uk

rhodrich

Hmm.... half of me thinks that this is a good idea. The other half says that it's bad, as it negates the two reasons for putting the cycle lane in in the first place (back in the '90s if I remember correctly), these being:

The

full segregation of cyclists from motor vehicles, for those who are less confident

Providing a way for cyclists to bypass the motor vehicle queues that build up at the traffic lights going north at busy times (prior to the cycle lane being put in, you either had to queue with the traffic, or overtake on the offside, which was extremely dodgy owing to the narrowness of the road, and the difficulty in ducking back in between the cars).

london-red

This is well overdue - I avoid that stretch completely now, taking Clarence and Roehampton Lanes instead, first because I want the extra climbing but primarily because I feel totally uncomfortable on there...

I know heading into town if I'm on the road all drivers will think I should be on the cycle path, with punishment passes and engine revving common. If I'm heading out of town, some drivers will think the same... And the cycle path is shite, and half the time has peds in it. Neither does it run the whole stretch.

Needs sorting..

rhodrich

I have now submitted my response. Thinking about it further, the removal of segregation is a real problem. It fails the 'would I be happy cycling on it with my 6 year old daughter' test, and when the traffic backs up at the traffic lights, you'll get cyclists cycling on the pavement to get past, with all the problems that that causes.

I'm very pro the road calming measures. Perhaps they need to just put signs in to tell drivers that the cycle lanes are not compulsory......

cgfw201

Struggle to see how any of these count as improvements. Don’t think there’s any way to make the road wider to accommodate a CSH style segregated two lane for cycling which would be the best solution.

Shame for vulnerable/less confident cyclists who use the current path to get to and from the park, as they will either not visit the park or be forced to take cars which is totally counter productive.

Painting some bikes on the road will do nothing apart from annoy the ignorant motorists who speed down there all day anyway.

Guessing this won’t be cheap to implement, whatever they do and seems like a waste to present a solution that neither makes it more appealing to cycle down nor less appealing to drive down.

london-red

tbh, I mis-read the original post and didn't see that the bike lane will be removed completely, which seems like a step back. That said, I still believe clarity and traffic calming will improve things.

I'll continue to use Clarence no matter...

mattsaw

The biggest issue with Priory Lane is that essentially it is a narrow back street that has ended-up being a major route for drivers using the park as a shortcut at rush hour - and all of the pent up frustration, anger, and need to get to the back of the next queue of traffic as quickly as possible that comes with it.

I don't really see any changes in isolation making any significant positive impact on the use of the road.

The 'best' solution would be to close RP to through traffic at rush hour. There is a marked difference in using Priory lane when the gates are shut before dawn and after dusk.

Having said that I'm not sure I'm comfortable with disrupting so many people because of a few select idiots. I guess you also have to consider the impact of the extra traffic on surrounding roads.

Secondary to that I guess a 20mph limit and to improve the quality of the cycle lane for those that don't 'want' to use the road.

tgotb

Mattsaw wrote:

The 'best' solution would be to close RP to through traffic at rush hour. There is a marked difference in using Priory lane when the gates are shut before dawn and after dusk.

I disagree; at this time of year it's rammed during the evening rush hour. Apart from a few local residents, that can only be traffic using Clarence Lane and Priory Lane as a cut-through between Roehampton and Sheen. Even when the park's open, the vast majority of cars heading South turn left into Clarence Lane, and the vast majority of cars heading North have come out of Clarence Lane. That's why the junction is so dangerous for Southbound cyclists, you have to avoid getting left-hooked *and* avoid someone pulling out in front of you...

veronese68

Mattsaw wrote:

Secondary to that I guess a 20mph limit and to improve the quality of the cycle lane for those that don't 'want' to use the road.

I think it's already a 20mph limit, yet sometimes the average speed is 28mph. That would seem to indicate where part of the problem lies.

mattsaw

Veronese68 wrote:

Mattsaw wrote:

Secondary to that I guess a 20mph limit and to improve the quality of the cycle lane for those that don't 'want' to use the road.

I think it's already a 20mph limit, yet sometimes the average speed is 28mph. That would seem to indicate where part of the problem lies.

Is that a new limit? I remember when the Jason Wells shitstorm kicked off it was highlighted then that it was 30mph.

If it has changed in the meantime then it's not exactly a visible change.

I would say I regularly get passed at 40mph+ along there.

veronese68

Mattsaw wrote:

Is that a new limit? I remember when the Jason Wells shitstorm kicked off it was highlighted then that it was 30mph.

If it has changed in the meantime then it's not exactly a visible change.

I would say I regularly get passed at 40mph+ along there.

Not sure when but the text of the consultation seemed to say it's a 20, I wasn't sure so just had a look at streetview images and there are 20 signs along there. Don't go that way very often but I know people do get quite a speed up along there.

ricky_h-2

It needs to be turned into a one way road with a segregated two way cycle lane if it is ever to work. It's just awful as it is (hence numerous Jason Wells style incidents) and as pointed out, the changes being proposed just make it worse for the nervous cyclist.
Meanwhile, all hail the single occupancy car in transport policy. It's actually my route of last resort if I am headed north/south in that area.

kingstongraham

It's been 20mph for about a year, I think. Never enforced, and never obeyed.

If they enforced the limit (both north and south), then I wouldn't be against widening the road and having a cycle lane on road both ways. The pavement isn't wide enough for the two way cycle lane as it is now.

anonymousblackfg

The consultation ignores that a good part of the clusterfcuk is down to Ibstock place 4x4's. I read it as they keep the segregated lane northbound, my worry being whatever they do, they'll lot lay a proper surface and just like the majority of the Portsmouth Road lumpy crapness.

kingstongraham

anonymousblackfg wrote:

The consultation ignores that a good part of the clusterfcuk is down to Ibstock place 4x4's. I read it as they keep the segregated lane northbound, my worry being whatever they do, they'll lot lay a proper surface and just like the majority of the Portsmouth Road lumpy crapness.

I read it as there will be an on-road cycle lane northbound (advisory), and nothing southbound. "Southbound cycles will be integrated with motor traffic."

inbike

Average speed cameras and "no overtaking cyclist" signs would help.

Advisory lanes do help make it easier to filter, as cars do keep them clear(er). Stationary traffic is only really a problem heading away from the park, though, because of the traffic lights at the junction. And there won't be an advisory lane southbound, so it's going to slow cyclists down a great deal.

wolfsbane2k

Surely the answer is to ban motor vehicles entirely from this route then, giving people a nice traffic free route... That passes the 8-88 test

tgotb

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

Surely the answer is to ban motor vehicles entirely from this route then, giving people a nice traffic free route... That passes the 8-88 test

Nice for us, but slightly unfair on the people who live at the South end of it...

mattsaw

Veronese68 wrote:

Mattsaw wrote:

Is that a new limit? I remember when the Jason Wells shitstorm kicked off it was highlighted then that it was 30mph.

If it has changed in the meantime then it's not exactly a visible change.

I would say I regularly get passed at 40mph+ along there.

Not sure when but the text of the consultation seemed to say it's a 20, I wasn't sure so just had a look at streetview images and there are 20 signs along there. Don't go that way very often but I know people do get quite a speed up along there.

Yes you're correct.

Maybe the starting point should be to actually enforce the 20mph limit.

veronese68

Mattsaw wrote:

Maybe the starting point should be to actually enforce the 20mph limit.

Indeed, I reckon that would solve most of the problems instantly.

roger_merriman

Veronese68 wrote:

Mattsaw wrote:

Maybe the starting point should be to actually enforce the 20mph limit.

Indeed, I reckon that would solve most of the problems instantly.

to a extent, slower cyclist will be 10mph ish which is still quite a speed difference, has to be said Priory and Clarence lane are both fairly vile on a bike, there is at least a work around for Clarence.

There are too many cars attempting to go too fast at these lanes. so to solve that cars need to be restricted in some means

rick_chasey

You'd have though the volume of bicycles round there is restriction enough.

Having said that, I like how we're all going nerr cars need to stick to 20, but a lot of us on here will bomb round over 20mph ourselves.

cjcp

The starting point should be to deal with the volume of traffic, then play around with the road layout.

As it stands, it looks like you need to cross over the road to go southbound on the bike lane , and then rejoin the road (again, crossing the road, this time in the other direction) at the RP end, just as the road starts to bend and line of sight for both drivers and cyclists may not be ideal.

Sounds like a terrific idea.

There are 1,000 cyclists (including school kids) travelling along there every day and they still need to increase awareness of cyclists? Right.

The closure of RP until after the rush hour would help to a certain extent, but the use of Clarence Lane as cut-through to get to Roehampton Lane (or to the URR, if travelling in the other direction) would still need to be addressed.