New Malden to Raynes Park Mini Holland Cycling route

[mercalia]

petition and meeting in LONDON -

"Our petition with over 1640 signatures, both paper and electronic, in favour of the proposed New Malden to Raynes Park Mini Holland Cycling and walking route is to be debated at the Council meeting on Tuesday 13 October at 7.30pm, members of the public can attend"



https://www.change.org/p/royal-borough-of-kingston-upon-thames-support-proposed-new-malden-to-raynes-park-mini-holland-cycling-and-walking-route/u/13624780?tk=BOR53KMosFEDMiWkSDKfx2Ke6y1vYhqM1Lz9Z6CNF9g&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email

[MikeF]

But it seems there is concern about the route going through an SNCI, and hence a petition against it. http://epetition.kingston.public-i.tv/epetition_core/community/petition/3110 This is not good for the image of cycling, unless this can be resolved.

[mercalia]

But it seems there is concern about the route going through an SNCI, and hence a petition against it. http://epetition.kingston.public-i.tv/epetition_core/community/petition/3110 This is not good for the image of cycling, unless this can be resolved.

well that one of the few good issues. If you read some of the other ones they are hilarious - WW2 bombs, refugee squatting, kids going there with guns and shooting the birds, fly tipping, lycra louts, cyclists being hit by straying golf balls( ah there we have toff land), light pollution,terrorist attacks from disaffected groups or individuals’ given the Thames Water pipes - it is being run by a self publicist. I think the antis just don't really like cyclists in THEIR AFFLUENT patch.

Also it isn't just a cycling path suppose to be for pedestrians also ( wouldn't fit into the title)

[jgurney]

The sections of proposed path running parallel to Taunton Ave and Alric Ave are of little real use, as both of those are quiet dead-end roads which do not need bypassing for cyclists. The section linking those two roads would be a valuable connection. The part between Tudor Ave and the A3 bridge is already a paved access route for Raynes Park Recreation Ground, and use by cyclists as a through route seems unlikely to have any impact upon wildlife. The section between the A3 bridge and the end of Alric Ave would involve laying a hard surface along what Google Earth shows as currently a grassy track, presumably used occasionally by water authority vehicles, running between the railway line and the golf course.

It is possible that laying a hard surface and having pedestrian and cycle traffic along the edge of the golf course beside the railway might have a harmful effect on wildlife, but the petitioner does not produce any evidence that it would. Surely some research could be done to predict the likely impact?

[MikeF]

But it seems there is concern about the route going through an SNCI, and hence a petition against it. http://epetition.kingston.public-i.tv/epetition_core/community/petition/3110 This is not good for the image of cycling, unless this can be resolved.

well that one of the few good issues. If you read some of the other ones they are hilarious - WW2 bombs, refugee squatting, kids going there with guns and shooting the birds, fly tipping, lycra louts, cyclists being hit by straying golf balls( ah there we have toff land), light pollution,terrorist attacks from disaffected groups or individuals’ given the Thames Water pipes - it is being run by a self publicist. I think the antis just don't really like cyclists in THEIR AFFLUENT patch.

Also it isn't just a cycling path suppose to be for pedestrians also ( wouldn't fit into the title)

I don't know the area or scheme so cannot really comment, but those reasons sound absurd, and as you say anti cyclist for the sake of being anti cyclist. Perhaps the golfer should try something else if he's that bad! Hopefully you've got someone who can put forward your case in a non confrontational way. Maybe point out how the cyclists are easing traffic congestion? For example would the antis like another 1600 cars on the roads in their area?
From what I understand if it were in Holland pedestrians and cyclists would be separated (not just by a white line). Is it really a "mini Holland"? Good if it were!

Edit -- Just had a look on web. Kingston does seem to be trying to embrace ideas from Holland. Looking at Google maps satellite I can see the concern if the SNCI (Site of Nature Conservation Importance) is just that narrow strip adjacent to the railway. I think I would have reservations too depending on what's there. It's a pity the end of the golf course isn't included in the SNCI and managed as such ie not as a golf course, although that may mean loosing a couple of holes to the course, but it would also take away the problem of straying golf balls. That proposal might gain the support of those concerned about the SNCI, but not the golfers!

[aspiringcyclist]

Derailing this thread slightly, I'd like to request that members of the who live in London respond to the A105 consultation as there are a few businesses who would want to see the money sent back and who have organised an anti campaign "Save Our Green Lanes". As of now, the schemes are no where near good enough, and ECC/LCC will be trying to develop better communication with the designers and council to get them up to scratch as is the case in Waltham Forest. However, we still need positive responses. You can of course ''partially support'' like I did and point out the flaws.

http://cycleenfield.co.uk/have-your-say ... sultation/

[661-Pete]

Derailing this thread slightly, I'd like to request that members of the who live in London respond to the A105 consultation as there are a few businesses who would want to see the money sent back and who have organised an anti campaign "Save Our Green Lanes". As of now, the schemes are no where near good enough, and ECC/LCC will be trying to develop better communication with the designers and council to get them up to scratch as is the case in Waltham Forest. However, we still need positive responses. You can of course ''partially support'' like I did and point out the flaws.

http://cycleenfield.co.uk/have-your-say ... sultation/

More on that topic here:
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/ ... reen-lanes
Has anyone had one of those nasty yellow leaflets or posters, as depicted in the article, inflicted on them yet? And how does one counter this nonsense?

[MikeF]

More on that topic here:
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/ ... reen-lanes
Has anyone had one of those nasty yellow leaflets or posters, as depicted in the article, inflicted on them yet? And how does one counter this nonsense?

Oh dear! I don't know how you counteract the rubbish put out. "Our solution: Use alternative cycle routes."That's not a very constructive comment, and it's so easy to be negative with no a commitment statement. . Positive input would describe these alternative routes - perhaps they mean cycle on pavements like some do around here? . There are not that many cyclists on the streets around here, but those that are seem to cover a wide spectrum.

[aspiringcyclist]

More on that topic here:
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/ ... reen-lanes
Has anyone had one of those nasty yellow leaflets or posters, as depicted in the article, inflicted on them yet? And how does one counter this nonsense?

Oh dear! I don't know how you counteract the rubbish put out. "Our solution: Use alternative cycle routes."That's not a very constructive comment, and it's so easy to be negative with no a commitment statement. . Positive input would describe these alternative routes - perhaps they mean cycle on pavements like some do around here? . There are not that many cyclists on the streets around here, but those that are seem to cover a wide spectrum.

The suggestions are predictably bad. Back street rat runs and the 'New River' which is unlight, away from the town centres, too narrow in certain locations, and involves 12 crossings with roads. Oh, and Thames Water doesn't want it built.