17th November 2016
The Malden Independent Community Organisation exists to encourage sustainable development in New Malden, including protecting the heritage and community nature of our town, and campaign against overdevelopment. Our full aims can be found in our constitution site achat viagra. We are supported by hundreds of residents in New Malden, and our governing committee exists to represent the views of our members. The Malden Independent Community Organisation is not in any way ‘anti-cyclist’ but believes that any improvements must be to the benefit of all road users – the Fountain Roundabout proposal certainly did not benefit all road users. With this in mind, we consulted with a number of residents who shared a number of common key concerns regarding the ‘Kingston to New Malden’ scheme. Below, we outline our response to the GO Cycle Consultation for ‘Kingston to New Malden’.
Question 1 – What are your views on the proposed design of Cambridge Road – from London Road to Gloucester Road?
We somewhat oppose the proposed design of Cambridge Road – from London Road to Gloucester Road.
Question 2 – Comments on Question 1
We came to the view of somewhat opposing this section of the scheme as residents have serious concern over increased journey time and congestion as a result of the bus lanes being removed. In addition, residents have told us they are strongly against the use of shared space at the pedestrian crossings, which is dangerous to those who are visually impaired. Finally, we are opposed to the use of continuous footway crossings, which we see as an accident waiting to happen – for the blind, how will guide dogs know that this is a pedestrian crossing? For vehicles, how will they know, turning into a road, that pedestrians have priority? This section of the scheme does not improve the situation for bus users, drivers or pedestrians.
Question 3 – What are your views on the proposed design of Cambridge Road/Kingston Road – from Gloucester Road to Dickerage Lane?
We strongly oppose the proposed design of Cambridge Road/Kingston Road – from Gloucester Road to Dickerage Lane.
Question 4- Comments on Question 3
We came to the view of strongly opposing this section of the scheme for a number of reasons. First of all, there is widespread concern that the removal of the right-turn filter lane into Gloucester Road will result in large amounts of congestion on the road and traffic backlogs. In addition, the well-used bus lane is removed, which is not viewed on favourably by local residents, as stated above. Furthermore, we feel that this section of the scheme has not been properly thought through – vehicles will be allowed to park/unload in the segregated cycle lane, so then cyclists are allowed to use the pavement? Surely this brings 17th November 2016
into question the very purpose of having a segregated cycle lane. This does not improve the situation for pedestrians and could lead to conflict and confusion. We also oppose the use of continuous footway crossings.
Question 5 – What are your views on the proposed design of Kingston Road – from Dickerage Lane to South Lane West?
We strongly oppose the proposed design of Kingston Road – from Dickerage Lane to South Lane West.
Question 6 – Comments on Question 5
We came to the view of strongly opposing this section of the scheme as there are a large number of concerns that were raised. Firstly, we have concern that this scheme will be the death of our local businesses. A key example of a business that will be severely affected by this scheme is TAMLeisure. TAMLeisure sells gas bottles, and is one of few businesses that is surrounded by roads with permit only parking – they rely on customers being able to park on the Kingston Road. The removal of the parking (replacing the yellow lines with double yellow lines) will mean that customers will no longer to TAMLeisure as there is nowhere to park (and they won’t carry a gas bottle home!). Secondly, there is a proposed seven lanes of traffic at the bridge near South Lane West – this simply will not fit and will cause traffic chaos. This is not sustainable. In addition, the pigeons are a health and safety issue under the bridge, and any scheme must work with Network Rail to board up the bridge. We also oppose the use of continuous footway crossings. Finally, we do support the new right-turn filter lane into Dickerage Road – this is a welcome step to reduce congestion.
Question 7 – What are your views on the proposed design of Kingston Road – from South Lane West to Fountain Roundabout?
We somewhat oppose the proposed design of Kingston Road – from South Lane West to Fountain Roundabout.
Question 8 – Comments on Question 7
We welcome the new zebra or ‘green man’ crossing that is positioned very close to the Fountain Roundabout, as this will provide a crossing facility for those on Kingston Road. We do however have a number of concerns with this section of the scheme. We oppose the use of continuous footway crossings, and in addition we feel that pedestrian crossing points have not been well thought through. The removal of pedestrian crossings at Penrith Road and by the BP garage, which are well used by local residents, will encourage jaywalking. This does not improve the situation for pedestrians. In addition, there are two crossing points within 100m or so of each other – one at Montem Road, one at Cleveland Road – this will surely cause more traffic congestion and backlogs. In addition, the double yellow liens outside independent businesses are a concern once more, as they will the death of our independent traders in New Malden. We do however welcome the retained parking bays for the businesses between Elm Road and Albany Road. 17th November 2016
Question 9 – To what extent do you support or oppose the Kingston to New Malden scheme as a whole?
We somewhat oppose the Kingston to New Malden scheme as a whole.
This scheme will undoubtedly improve the situation for cyclists and does improve a number of the pedestrian crossing points. In addition, the new right-turn filter lane into Dickerage Road is particularly welcome. However, any improvements made must be to the benefit of all residents. This scheme will make the situation worse for buses, bus users, drivers and pedestrians, for reasons listed above. We are campaigning for more work to be done, and amendments to be made, before we can support the scheme as a whole.
Our response has been formulated following consultation with a number of residents in New Malden and seeks to address as many of the issues with the scheme, that have been identified, as possible. We do hope that RBK will take these views on board and make the appropriate amendments. If suitable amendments are made, we will not hesitate to reconsider our position on the various elements of the scheme; we must, however, respond to what is presented to us. We cannot support the current proposal, but hope that we can work with RBK to get the best deal for New Malden residents. We also encourage as many New Malden residents as possible to make their views known and also to join MICO.
James Giles, Chairman
on behalf of MICO members and committee.
17th November 2016