Forum Topic

council details here to tell them how you feel about the cycle lane!!

Many people have already commented on a separate thread how they agree that this cycle lane is dangerous and a waste of money - we did not need a commuter lane via CHR as commuters can cycle along the A4 and they could have spent money improving that pathway ...  join the onechiswick  facebook group of you want to help and stay informed ... contribute to the legal fund to reverse this horrible scheme and/or write to the relevant people and express your distaste at such a waste of taxpayer money   You can help now by the following:Comment on the Hounslow consultation on the future of Chiswick town centre; sign the petition about Turnham Green Terrace and Fishers Lane; and email your views to the relevant Hounslow cabinet members and officers and Ealing councillors - see the links and email addresses below; one email sent to all is fine.• Hounslow streetspace feedback: https://haveyoursay.hounslow.gov.uk/traffic-and-transport/streetspace-feedback/• Hounslow consultation on the future of Chiswick town centre: https://bit.ly/3mll9nI• Petition about the closure of Turnham Green Terrace and Fishers Lane: https://www.change.org/p/hounslow-and-ealing-councils-petition-against-closure-fishers-lane-and-turnham-green-terrace-in-chiswick-to-cars• Petition about South Chiswick Traffic Measures: https://www.change.org/.../hounslow-council-south...Email addresses• Cllr Hanif Khan, Hounslow cabinet member for transport, traffic and parking: hanif.khan@hounslow.gov.uk• Cllr Guy Lambert, Hounslow cabinet member for highways: guy.lambert@hounslow.gov.uk• Cllr Katherine Dunne, Hounslow cabinet member for communities and climate emergency: katherine.dunne@hounslow.gov.uk• Mark Frost, Hounslow transport officer: mark.frost@hounslow.gov.uk• Cllr Andrew Steed, Lib Dem member for Southfield ward: SteedA@ealing.gov.uk• Cllr Gary Malcolm, Lib Dem member for Southfield ward: MalcolmG@ealing.gov.uk• Cllr Gary Busutill, Lib Dem member for Southfield ward: BusuttilG@ealing.gov.uk• Traffic department (from which you should get a reply): traffic@hounslow.gov.uk; covidtransport@ealing.gov.uk; Please write to COVIDtransport@ealing.gov.uk and TrafficNotices@ealing.gov.uk make sure you include your full address for the complaint to count.• and copy your three ward councillors (Hounslow email format: firstname.lastname@hounslow.gov.uk and Ealing email format: firstname.lastname@ealing.gov.uk)Collect Data: keep travel diaries/logs, fill in the incident log, take and keep video/photo evidence, handout the delivery forms to any harassed delivery drivers. Send to our email.Keep sending emails to both Hounslow and Ealing Council, TfL, DoT, London Assembly copying in the other councillors. Make the messages personal, highlighting your own issues, challenges, ask for data under FOI, ask for how the scheme will be evaluated.Offer to Help - we need volunteers willing to keep journey diaries. Please let us know if you have specific experience/guidance that you think could make a difference. Any ideas on other activities please share. We are likely to need personal stories to post on the website, so get writing. Any budding journalists out there, please let me know.Our email address is onechiswickw4@gmail.comInvite others who object to join this group.Talk to businesses, neighbours share the information, get them to write to the council. If you can co-ordinate your street contacts please let me know,Donate if you can to https://uk.gofundme.com/f/onechiswick-united-against-streetspace-changesEVERY LITTLE HELPSXMA Header ImageStreetspace Feedback - London Borough of Hounslow - Citizen Spacehaveyoursay.hounslow.gov.ukAaXMA Header ImageStreetspace Feedback - London Borough of Hounslow - Citizen Spacehaveyoursay.hounslow.gov.uk

Margie Frew ● 2141d45 Comments

Sadly, we do not need to wait to know it is dangerous - the EU guidelines on cycle lanes state that bidirectional cycle lanes be used away from crossroads and intersections on places like the embankment where one side of the road has no shops etc -Some other studies also tried to find the relationship between cycling safety and street direction, given that bidirectional streets could increase the complexity of the interactions because drivers must scan more directions in a short period of time. In addition, there are some indications that, for bidirectional streets, the likelihood of frontal crashes between cyclists increases (Methorst et al., 2017;Schepers et al., 2017). ... Created by designers with far greater experience than our idiots this explains how to install safe cycle lanes and where. Ours on CHR breaks all the rules.  Note the key area of design safety — Exceptionally, two-way tracks can be justified. To cross a street with cycle tracks, the cyclist has to make a detour via an intersection. Cyclists may even attempt to cross illegally and dangerously. In such cases, a two-way track can eliminate the need for crossing maneuvers by cyclists. It can also make the network more direct and attractive. Intersections must then be carefully designed in order to present conflicts clearly and unambiguously. Whole report here https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-projects/files/projects/documents/presto_fact_sheet_cycle_tracks_en.pdf In the article below the author references that Danish cities got rid of bidirectional lanes 20 yes ago because of the inherent danger with the use and the successful cycling cities only use them away from traffic, as highways connecting city to suburbs but not within the city and only in exceptional circumstances within the city http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html?m=1 This article gives specific examples in London ( such as the embankment) where bidirectional cycle lane makes sense because of less intersections and no shops etc for road crossing then it looks at a location inside London with shops and junctions and says it must be separate cycle lanes https://pedestrianiselondon.tumblr.com/post/78135174762/bi-directional-vs-single-direction-cycleways Here is more from Denmark. Key to note : Two way cycle tracks are cheaper to install than one-way cycle tracks. Two-way cycle tracks along the road should not be installed where there are many side roads or entrances and exits across the track, (for example, in cities). Safety issues arise when a two-way cycle track crosses a side road because drivers often overlook cyclists coming from the wrong direction. The solution in this situation is to install a one-way cycle track on each side of the road if the road is wide enough.  https://cyclingsolutions.info/two-way-cycle-tracks/Southwark cyclists own analyzation says :  Summary The LCDS sums it up: Segregated lanes/tracks should generally be one-way, on either side of the road. Most of the points made by Southwark Cyclists favour one-way tracks. A two-way track may be suitable where activity and side roads are entirely or largely on one side and/or where flow is very tidal. A problem here is how we decide that activity is “largely” on one side.      They wanted two one directional lanes with possible integration of two way lanes where it was deemed safe or necessary but the LCC lobbied for two way lanes the whole way because they are the few who commute long distances and wanted an fast track - hence, this cycle lane on CHR will not benefit shoppers who want to cross the road to get to other shops, or exit opposite side of the street to visit friends - it is made for commuting - which should have been done on the A4 - not in a neighbourhood with multiple intersections, bus stops, buggies, kids and leisurely local cyclists    https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/one-way-or-two-way-cycle-tracks/I do not need to wait to see it open to know it is dangerous - study after study says bidirectional lanes in cities should not be implemented but LBH ran out of money and took the free cash to do it cheaply and with no real foresight into the impact and benefit vs the danger and downside it is my opinion backed up by reasonable fact and if others agree then they can join the fight - if they do not agree they can opt out - I am just providing information

Margie Frew ● 2141d

Hi Margie, The GoFundMe page you've listed mentions that over 90% of people in Chiswick oppose these changes. Can you detail where this statistic has been obtained from? I can see that the GoFundMe page has been open for over two months and has only had 192 donations (as of today) in that time. As the population of Chiswick is in the tens of thousands and is overall quite a wealthy part of London I would have expected a lot more donations to your cause given the stated 90% of people agree with OneChiswick's view. Do you have a view as to why these two don't seem to correlate?Given you're addressing several issues that relate to traffic within this can I ask why there's no mention of the following:- trying to encourage people from using their cars for short journeys where they are able to use alternatives such as walking? I recall seeing something that mentioned a significant portion of car journeys in London are less than two miles. I'm afraid I can't remember where I saw this and am happy to correct myself on this if proven wrong. Also I fully accept that using alternatives to cars isn't an option for everyone however I have noted the number of active dog walkers on this forum that quite often seem to make a point of detailing their regular dog-walking-exercise but then mention elsewhere some car journeys they've made around Chiswick that seem quite short. - trying to encourage thru traffic to use the A4 instead of coming along CHR-  discourage the substantial amount of "white van" traffic that has resulted from a veritable explosion in deliveries from online shopping Many thanksAlex

Alex Dee ● 2141d

Alex - in reply to your other questions it’s not my job to find other ways to encourage people to leave cars behind but offhand - providing safer bike storage / parking for those who live in flats- treating bike theft as a proper crime so if people invest it does get investigated ( I know from experience we are told to write it off) - possible incentives if your mileage use goes down from one year to the next at annual MOT - acknowledgement that the myth of ‘driving for pleasure’ does not exist. People drive because they are time poor or have multiple kids of multiple ages going to multiple sport’s or activities or are physically unable etc- telling people not to drive does not stop them from making necessary car journeys.  I cycle and walk 75% of the time but if I have heavy packages, weather is intolerable or need to go a distance further away or at 5 am etc. - Legislation for flexible working, legislative help for families caught between ageing parents and young kids to give people time but recognising not everyone is physically able of walking or cycling distance. This is a bigger problem and driving too much is a symptom of other things.  We need to address this with more fuel efficient and electric cars.  The reason pollution has gone down in the city is largely due to more eco friendly buses on the roads.  But taking road space away from buses and causing a 15 min journey to take 45 min because of blocked roads is just causing more issues.  We can’t implement a lane of space for 400 people that then delays thousands and creates more pollution as cars are forced to be on roads longer.  We need to expect better from our council.  A longer term solution not a halfway done cheaply implemented dangerous idea.  I love cycling I love walking I am not pro car but I am aware not everyone is fortunate like me to have time and storage of a garden for bikes etc Thx for reading

Margie Frew ● 2141d

Ken , leaving the EU has nothing to do with years of successful cycling countries policies and findings from dedicated and experienced engineers.  Leaving the EU does not mean we cannot read and benefit from previous studies done on this matter.  Being clairvoyant has nothing to do with it and in an open dialogue the nasty sarcasm lowers your argument.  It’s not clairvoyant to read and research published studies on single way cycle paths vs bidirectional and learn from history and experience.  It’s just intelligent research.  I am not an engineer but I have the intelligence to research and discover good code of practice by those who are engineers.  It’s ok if some people disagree. That’s great to have discussion.  I represent a viewpoint that many people share and I am providing information for those who want it.  Finally, the lane may be closed but I have tested some of the longer stretches out and I am not clear how I would manage with oncoming headlights coming directly st me at night, how to safely exit and enter the lane through the wands into on coming traffic or how to wait at a traffic crossing with my bike stopped in the lane as I wait to cross without causing all other cyclists behind me to stop or risk veering into the oncoming side of traffic in the bidirectional lane.  Those points from the cyclist aside, pedestrians are more likely to accidentally step into the way of an oncoming cyclist when not realising its bidirectional as are cars more likely to turn into a cycle lane not realising its bidirectional.  This design requires EVERY user of the road to be extra vigilant in a space that has kids, distracted parents and elderly and disabled as well as busy intersections.    We have had very few cycle accidents on CHR the last ten years.  I love encouraging cycling and exercise but it has to be done correctly and Sadly, This lane is dangerous by placement and design.  ( not just my opinion but backed up by multiple research articles and cycle design experts) as expressed above if anyone wants some light reading

Margie Frew ● 2141d

Ken , leaving the EU has nothing to do with years of successful cycling countries policies and findings from dedicated and experienced engineers.  Leaving the EU does not mean we cannot read and benefit from previous studies done on this matter.  Being clairvoyant has nothing to do with it and in an open dialogue the nasty sarcasm lowers your argument.  It’s not clairvoyant to read and research published studies on single way cycle paths vs bidirectional and learn from history and experience.  It’s just intelligent research.  I am not an engineer but I have the intelligence to research and discover good code of practice by those who are engineers.  It’s ok if some people disagree. That’s great to have discussion.  I represent a viewpoint that many people share and I am providing information for those who want it.  Finally, the lane may be closed but I have tested some of the longer stretches out and I am not clear how I would manage with oncoming headlights coming directly st me at night, how to safely exit and enter the lane through the wands into on coming traffic or how to wait at a traffic crossing with my bike stopped in the lane as I wait to cross without causing all other cyclists behind me to stop or risk veering into the oncoming side of traffic in the bidirectional lane.  Those points from the cyclist aside, pedestrians are more likely to accidentally step into the way of an oncoming cyclist when not realising its bidirectional as are cars more likely to turn into a cycle lane not realising its bidirectional.  This design requires EVERY user of the road to be extra vigilant in a space that has kids, distracted parents and elderly and disabled as well as busy intersections.    We have had very few cycle accidents on CHR the last ten years.  I love encouraging cycling and exercise but it has to be done correctly and Sadly, This lane is dangerous by placement and design.  ( not just my opinion but backed up by multiple research articles and cycle design experts) as expressed above if anyone wants some light reading

Margie Frew ● 2141d

essage:Ken , leaving the EU has nothing to do with years of successful cycling countries policies and findings from dedicated and experienced engineers.  Leaving the EU does not mean we cannot read and benefit from previous studies done on this matter.  Being clairvoyant has nothing to do with it and in an open dialogue the nasty sarcasm lowers your argument.  It’s not clairvoyant to read and research published studies on single way cycle paths vs bidirectional and learn from history and experience.  It’s just intelligent research.  I am not an engineer but I have the intelligence to research and discover good code of practice by those who are engineers.  It’s ok if some people disagree. That’s great to have discussion.  I represent a viewpoint that many people share and I am providing information for those who want it.  Finally, the lane may be closed but I have tested some of the longer stretches out and I am not clear how I would manage with oncoming headlights coming directly st me at night, how to safely exit and enter the lane through the wands into on coming traffic or how to wait at a traffic crossing with my bike stopped in the lane as I wait to cross without causing all other cyclists behind me to stop or risk veering into the oncoming side of traffic in the bidirectional lane.  Those points from the cyclist aside, pedestrians are more likely to accidentally step into the way of an oncoming cyclist when not realising its bidirectional as are cars more likely to turn into a cycle lane not realising its bidirectional.  This design requires EVERY user of the road to be extra vigilant in a space that has kids, distracted parents and elderly and disabled as well as busy intersections.    We have had very few cycle accidents on CHR the last ten years.  I love encouraging cycling and exercise but it has to be done correctly and Sadly, This lane is dangerous by placement and design.  ( not just my opinion but backed up by multiple research articles and cycle design experts) as expressed above if anyone wants some light reading

Margie Frew ● 2141d

Indeed, Ken offers his usual gormless comments. As for safer, is he having a laugh? So the bus gate before Acton Lane does exactly what it is designed to do. Hold back traffic to stop the main stretch of the High Road grinding to a halt. So what happens, lots of vans, lorries and cars divert down to Wellesley Road (CS9) and then up Sutton Lane. Others stay on the A4 and come up Heathfield Gardens. So a mass of construction vehicles and lorries diverted onto residential roads and the non segregated section of CS9. You would have to be a complete amateur to approve such a scheme, sound like any decision makers in Hounslow you know?One of the other posters mentioned stopping traffic coming off the A4. That has been a problem for decades and neither TFL or Hounslow have chosen to do anything about it. Nor have they now. Some of the money wasted on closing TGT and DR could have been spent solving actual problems. There is also the small fact that 20,000 plus people live in W4 north of the A4, plus a load of businesses. That generates a lot of traffic. Then you have the question of when is someone local traffic and when is someone 'through' traffic? Its a hard thing to do.Yes we have too much traffic in W4. But the current schemes are simply diverting it around in order to force through CS9. It is dangerous and will cause accidents, whether all the traffic crossing it in the segregated section or the traffic that TFL are intentionally diverting onto the non segregated section.

Paul Green ● 2141d

Sorry but the A4 can’t take more traffic, as someone suggested above. It is a residential road in Chiswick, full of family homes, schools and playgrounds, and the pollution is already way above legal limit. To give you an idea, the NO2 level at St Mary’s School before the 150m green  was installed, was 56 (vs 40 legal limit by the WHO). Another diffuser placed off the A4 (on an empty 2 lane street nearby) showed 45 NO2 in 2019, still above legal limits. There is diverted traffic from Hammersmith Bridge on the A4, só that there is tail back from Hogarth Roundabout going well past Black Alison Lane South every day schools are on - heading to Chiswick Bridge as alternative to Hammersmith Bridge. On the Westbound lanes we now have 3 lanes at standstill every single morning including during the month long lockdown, from Sutton Ct Rd well past Chiswick Roundabout. And very heavy beyond Sutton Ct Road. In the evening it’s Westbound chocobloc. Every single day. Several hours a day. It got worse with Southbound a chiswick LTNs, and worse with the various diversions and standstill traffic on Chiswick High Road. To add salt to the injury, our walking way to the high road, buses and tube, is by walking and cycling through the corner of CHR and Goldhawk Road, that is at standstill for a few weeks now, with the odd cycle lane crossing diagonally to the opposite side of the street, exactly at that intersection, causing more mayhem.Add to this the news we got just yesterday:1) an inquest confirmed that a little girl called Ella who lived by a main road on the South Circular, had pollution contribute to her death at 9 years of young age2) the Supreme Court authorised the 3rd runway at Heathrow to move forward. How will people get there: by car/Minicab through the A4, or on public transport? Heathrow had 30 million passengers in 1985, and about 75 million nowadays, approximately. From memory over the last 10 years, the increase was 18%. How much traffic and pollution can the A4 (and its local residents take)?3) government just announced a rail price increase. How is that an incentive for people get off their vehicles? The A4 is in Chiswick, and has to be an integral part of Chiswick’s liveable neighbourhood policies. We pay council taxes in Chiswick, we vote in Chiswick. It’s no dumping ground. To begin with, pollution needs to be measured appropriately. Then, we need to stop shifting traffic and pollution to neighbouring / main roads, just like some people do fly-tipping. And lastly, we need clear alternatives to vehicles. Not just walking and cycling (time constraints and children in tow is a reality for most), but looking at public transport. Just pick up the TfL tube map: no N-S connections from Turnham Green tube or Stamford Brook tube. Yes rail infrastructure is neither quick nor cheap, but there are buses. What is the bus network in Chiswick, where does it take us to (and now without a bus lane)? Most places we go, would involve changing buses twice or walking 20 min each way (for a 5-10min bus journey). Note: I actually signed the petition that I would like less traffic, and safer options for walking and cycling - because I though I had equal rights to it. I had no idea this would then be used, for politicians to say that LTNs are a great idea. They only shift traffic to the A4 and other main roads, ringfencing pollution on specific roads, that politicians seem to deem it’s ok to be polluted. Equal rights to life???

Fabiana Eggers ● 2140d

I wouldn't worry too much about the A4 suffering from displacement.There is a conflict between the policies of local and national governments in the way that the A4 is managed. TfL has always seen it as of primary importance that the A4 is kept flowing as much as possible. The traffic jams that used to occur in Chiswick before Covid were more often than not down to a change in the phasing of the lights to clear the A4 which caused a washback from Chiswick Roundabout and Sutton Court Road.LTNs and Streetspace are really a government policy and strategically they aim to do the exact opposite of what TfL does with the A4. Chiswick High Road is stuck in the middle classed as a distributor road from both sides so much more traffic is being displaced onto it. At the same time there has been a significant reduction in its capacity due to the Cycleway. The original project was TfL but they did model the permanent route with a view to minimising increases in journey times on CHR. The temporary cycleway and similar projects are driven by Andrew Gilligan who has the support of Johnson and who holds the trained engineers at TfL in contempt. No proper attempt has been made to model the traffic impact but we can all take a good guess as to what it is likely to be.The TfL's engineers know that it is a terrible idea implemented at the wrong time but they also know under the present government only terrible ideas are going to get funding in London and their continued employment is dependent on them going along with them. They are looking forward to keeping their jobs a bit more when funding starts to be given out to clear up the mess.

Paul Corcoran ● 2140d