Earlsfield against Quietway Q4

I live on Tranmere road which is already an extremely busy road, due to there being two schools at either end. There are already very busy junctions between way fleet/Isis St and Tranmere road, which a large number of young school children need to cross, and this proposal would send even more traffic down the surrounding roads. There are problems with cars having to reverse down the road for oncoming vehicles, and there is a lack of passing places. This proposal would also make this worse.

if the council think garratt lane will become a 'quiteway' for cyclist then are sadly mistaken. with the proposed springfields and dog track residential developments imminent they should be looking at sorting out the lights around realsfield station. garratt lane is a main traffic artery and will remain so even if this ill thought out scheme goes ahead. a better idea would be to vastly improve the cycling route by the river wandle itself.

The side streets will become rat runs, and earlsfield is already grid locked.

This proposal shows a significant lack of understanding about the traffic dynamics of the surrounding area. 1. Adding a 3rd set of traffic lights with in 350M will add to the already congested traffic up and down Garret lane 2. Indeed this will congest southbound traffic even more as phasing of lights will need to be tightly controlled - evidence of the current 2 lights lack of phasing suggested this will not be controlled with the introduction of the 3rd 3. Cyclists using QuietWays will be fairweather cyclists by defintion. The other 50% of the year that is non-cycleable will leave lasting impact of the surrounding area with such permanent and overarching changes 4. Northbound traffic will further cut through during rush hour there by overloading cross traffic on Tranmere already heavy with school run traffic and highly pedestrianised with both Burntwood High School and local Primary School traffic. Overall this feels to much like a desktop planning process rather than any empirical study of the actual area. I challenge SusTrans to publish the data leading to this concluded route against alternatives considered.

As a pedestrian, driver and grandparent the roads that will be affected are already dangerous for pedestrians and in particular children and elderly. The narrow roads and hidden turns (due to parked cars and sloping roads) will only become more dangerous with backed up traffic leading to an inability to pass and therefore increasing dangerous turning / pulling in of cars and people trying to squeeze through/beat the oncoming cars. These plans are very very concerning. Please reconsider, especially for the safety of pedestrians (and therefore cyclists) and in particular children and the elderly.

I think that a cycle way is a great idea but the surrounding roads are already only suitable for single lane traffic and very busy at the time of children going to and from school. Additional unintended traffic would be a genuine safety concern as well as reduce the quality of life for residents.

The area / streets suggested are already congested with traffic. The changes will only make this worse and particularly where there is a school and children at peak traffic times. Also adding further lights will just cause Garrett Lane to become more chaotic than it is. I query whether the people who have suggested these changes live in the area or have knowledge of the issues already faced by residents. This is just mad.

10 years ago Featured

This proposal will make Isis Street a through-street which will make an already challenging situation more difficult due to the narrow streets in the area. If there are cars coming in both directions, we already have to reverse to the end of the street to let them through and this will aggravate that situation

There are already parking issues in the area, therefore, reducing the availability of parking spaces further will add to the issues. It will also add to the traffic coming down Isis street, which is already chaotic due to the narrow road and bumper to bumper parked cars on either side.

As a cyclist and resident I object! Another set of lights causes more traffic jams and more vehicles racing up single width streets to avoid it. Dangerous to residents and children. At least consider making the streets alternate one way to avoid head on traffic meeting and the stand off it causes? Or let cyclists take responsibility for themselves on streets that are perfectly safe to ride on?

This would be a disaster. And it had clearly been thought up by people who are pro-cyclists and who have no idea what it is currently like for drivers in earlsfield. There is already a huge problem for cars moving around earlsfield. The roads are narrow and have cars parked head to toe on both sides. Any further restrictions, brought about by benefits for cyclists, will cause uproar in an already congested areas I assure you. And will probably be incendiary between car drivers and cyclists, which is down right dangerous. The roads between earlsfield and Clapham are not dangerous for cyclists and there is no justification for needing to cut through prime residential areas with an unnecessary cycle route. There are also a multitude of green areas nearby where cyclists can have 'quiet time' if they want it. You're not talking about open highways, the traffic in earlsfield is already a disaster. And by cutting off a tight turn into waynflete you'll be exacerbating and already terrible problem. Please think before you even consider this, and then realise it would be w disaster.

What a joke as if we dont have enough traffic in earsfield, adding traffic lights when they arnt needed will Just create more traffic. With regards to removing parking spaces if anything they should add some as there arnt enough as it is.tipical spending money were it is not needed rather help the nhs system and give the money to a worth While cause.

I strongly object to these proposals on the grounds they fail to serve the interests of both local residents AND cyclists. Wandsworth residents have spoken. It is niw for the council now to take the fight to TfL and uphold as it must the objections and interests of those residents mostly impacted by these ill-conceived proposals.

I object to the Quietay proposals in Earlsfield.

Traffic on Isis street is already extremely heavy, combined with the fact only one car can drive down at a time, it is a nightmare for residents and already unsafe. The impact of the proposal would be totally unacceptable for residents, another solution must be sought or the plans cancelled.

Stupiidity on the part of those who are requesting this project. If necessary cyclists should comedown Magdelene Road to bottom, turn left at lights and right int Summerley Street and along the quiet road to Trewint and then carry on as suggested. No problem to turn right as the traffic would be at a standstill in Garratt Lane and there is a keep clear sign which would let cyclists through (providing they obey the lights).

There is a cycle route up Burntwood lane. This will cause gridlock on the residential streets, be dangerous to children and put pressure on parking which is already at a premium

1. I am against the proposal. 2. Who (members of the public) has asked for a quiet way? At the stand at the Skylark Cafe, the response was "we" thought it would be a good idea - is that the Council? Well, no it isn't a good idea. 3. Has anybody thought about the impact upon retailers south of Trewint Street (on that side of Garratt Lane)? The removal of the pelican crossing at the Post Office will be tough on them. 4. Has anybody thought about the impact on traffic? 5. Has anybody thought about the loss of car parking? Can Earlsfield afford that? 6. Have the proposers considered that they might be trying to show goodwill to a small minority that has not requested the proposal, to the detriment of the folk who actually live in the area? I am a cyclist, a driver and a pedestrian. So far as I can gather, this proposal is not wanted; it is not needed and is definitely not beneficial to the Earlsfield community.

This proposal places the needs of cyclists above those of the many families who live in this area. It makes no sense.

Where is the demand for this facility and who has made it a priority for public money? The proposal seems to be poorly thought through with little evidence of tangible benefits to be delivered. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Earlsfield's peak weekday traffic would understand the impact this will have on Garratt Lane and the already overcrowded and narrow residential roads around it.