Thanks for that. Most points seem pretty fair and reasonable (although I’d argue only reasonable if tackled in the mid to long term with more thoughtful and considerate changes).However, it appears the hypothesis behind these changes is that an introduction of massive pain to drivers will pressure people into giving up cars for journeys that are close enough to walk or cycle, and that taking up a significant space dedicated to cycling will improve it as an option for such journeys.This hypothesis makes a lot of assumptions about how people actually use their cars (I.e. overwhelmingly for short distances) and that the cycle space improvements are actually integrated in a way to fulfill the promise of making it more appealing for the replacement of said journeys.I have not seen any data on the first assumption. In my own experience of car use, I could not reasonably trade walking and cycling for my journeys given both time, distance and load. I only visit the high road by walking, but I need to navigate through W4 for longer journeys. Of course, many people are not very close to the high road and need a car, bus or tube to get in. It appears via anecdotal evidence and the scale of uproar, this is likely true for most of our traffic in the area. In any case, we should understand this before making massive changes as it’s key to the hypothesis.On the second assumption, I won’t repeat all the criticisms of how bidirectional lanes on one side of the road are not advisable as they are all over this forum.I’m afraid rushing these specific changes into Chiswick will not accomplish your goals given these poor assumptions. Why not take the time for proper consultation and revert back to the original cycle lane proposal (which I oppose, but it at least had some deliberation)?
Albert Davies ● 2185d