Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:31 PM
Subject: Feedback on Chase Cross to Hilldene Cycle Route
Dear Mr Padam,
Following our conversation today, I am writing to record my feedback on the proposed cycle route between Chase Cross Road and Hilldene Avenue.
Taking the route as presented in the drawings, my first observation is that there appears to be no provision for cyclists in Chase Cross Road other than the signage. There is ample room to accommodate cycle lanes but I note that the council is unwilling to remove the hatching in the centre of the road to allow this to happen.
At the traffic signal-controlled junction with Havering Road, I see that there are Advanced Stop Lines but without feeder lanes which I'm sure you realise, greatly reduces their value - unless the cyclist happens to be first in the queue anyway, they cannot be used.
Onto Lower Bedfords Road and although the speed limit now rises to 40 mph, there are still no cycle lanes because the road is too narrow. The possibility for a shared use path on the footway is prevented by bushes and trees which again the council is unwilling to move.
At the junction with Straight Road and the cyclist has a choice of using the main carriageway to negotiate the traffic signals with ASLs, (again no feeder lanes), to make a right turn, or mounting the pavement, dismounting and crossing at the zebra/toucan crossing into Straight Road. Apart from the requirement for the cyclist to dismount, I have no specific complaint about this except that if the cyclist has been assertive enough to run the gauntlet of riding along the busy, fast and narrow Lower Bedfords Road, he or she will be unlikely to need facilities to avoid using traffic signals.
On to Hilldene and although we did not go through this in detail on the telephone, again I note that there are no facilities other than the signs, even though the road width could accommodate cycle lanes if the central lane hatching were removed.
In summary, my opinion is that if none of the existing infrastructure can be altered to accommodate any meaningful cycle facilities, then I do not see how this can be called a cycle route and that the either the council needs to muster the will to make at least some minor changes, or the proposal is simply not worth pursuing.
To avoid future wasted planning efforts I ask that before plans such as these are published, that the planner walks, or ideally, cycles the proposed route with the proposal in mind to see what the plans mean to the cyclist.
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards
Terry Hughes
On behalf of Havering LCC
Offline 
Send Email