Richmond Atheltics Ground Should Stop Putting Cyclists At Risk

RAA is planning to extend its car parking, and make some very minor tweaks to the entrance where a cyclist died a few years ago, and where many others are put at risk every day.

With this planning application - https://www2.richmond.gov.uk/lbrplanning/Planning_CASENO.aspx?strCASENO=24/0585/FUL&DocTypeID=51#docs - and a firehose of incomprehensible documents - the RAA thinks that some new paving and minor changes to visibility will make this junction safe.

Anyway, while I have patience, here’s what’s wrong with the application.

1. The total number of current visitors peaks at 60 per day according to the transport statement:

   

   This seems a reasonable level to be able to use the access to the Pools on the Park exit, rather than directly onto the A316.

2. Peak time for arrival, according to the same document, is 8am. This is already facilitated through the Pools on the Park exit, and we can infer that departure times differ from this, removing the likelihood of congestion at this point.

   

3. In 4.2 the document suggests that one would choose to park at RAA to access Richmond Station. This is unsupported by data, because there’s already a car park behind Richmond Station which is rarely at capacity, so it’s hard to believe that this statement has any merit.

4. When you get to 4.4.1, you get to the meat of it: there is an economic impact to RAA if they can’t raise money from car parking. I think it’s fine for them to be doing this, but they should not be risking the safety of people walking and cycling as a result.

5. Finally in section 5 we get to discussion of the exit. This appears in 5.4.2 “While visibility at the site egress accords with contemporary design standards for approaching vehicles, both along Twickenham Road and for vehicles emerging from the ‘Pools on the Park’ road, it is evident that for visibility to cyclists travelling in both directions is restricted for drivers emerging from the egress by the present of both parked vehicles and boundary walls.”

6. In section 5.5.2, they briefly discuss and then abandon the possibility of an exit using the Pools on the Park traffic lights. The exit shown here with the black arrow is wide enough for two way movement, and would mean delays when the parking is very busy, but otherwise means that traffic on the A316 (Twickenham Road) is all controlled by traffic light.

   

7. Their proposal is basically to improve the railings for more visibility, remove six parking spaces for the same effect, and to raise it to a Copenhagen-style crossing.

8. According to the document, this proposal is compliant with LTN 1/20 which describes how to provide for cycling. However, this isn’t explained, and I don’t believe this is the case. If matchday traffic is too much for the traffic light controlled crossing not far away, how is it suitable for a Copenhagen crossing where walking and cycling is meant to have priority?

9. This - page 30 - is the meat of it. The assumption in this design is that drivers will stop at the dashed line, then be able to see enough through the new fence in order to avoid cyclists and oncoming traffic.

So my objections are these:

a) If you’re going to have the exit there, it must at least be a ‘stop’ and not a ‘give way’.

b) I don’t believe drivers will look left for cyclists, meaning it will always be on cyclists to manage the safety of this exit: the most vulnerable users will constantly have to take account of cars.

c) Insufficient effort has been given to examining the capacity of the Pools on the Park traffic lights. I believe there is sufficient capacity here for match day traffic, and this is the only appropriate exit for this car park.

d) I don’t object to the provision of the car parking, just the woeful provision of safety: someone has died at this junction, and since we actively aim to have more people cycling in the borough, we cannot carry on with unsafe junctions like this being signed off.