Forum Topic

The new enemy ...

People who eat brunch in Chiswick. You really couldn't make this up.

Carl Wynne ● 1907d104 Comments

I am guessing that what the Chiswick councilors meant was that the ruling Labour elite in Hounslow only ever visit Chiswick for brunch and that they have waived C9 through over the wishes of the elected representatives of ChiswickIt is the only explanation of "people who eat brunch in Chiswick" that makes any sense to me.The reality is that the ruling Labour elite have no interest in Chiswick, they are happy to trash (we are allowed to use that word even if Councilors are not!) Chiswick High Road unless of course it impacts on the Council Tax received - that is the joy of local democracy.Whilst I have had long standing issues with the misuse of statistics employed by TfL and LBH to justify C9, the second reality is that we need at least 12 months of traffic data to reach any firm conclusions as to whether C9 has been worth it

Justin Stephenson ● 1906d

I live in Chiswick and had brunch on the High Road just last weekend (which by the way is as busy as I can ever remember seeing it).Am I being represented or not? Schroedinger's Chiswickian?When are the local council elections? Certain representatives do seem to have somewhat lost the plot.

Chris Jenkins ● 1906d

'When are the local council elections?'May 2022.

Vanessa Smith ● 1906d

The "evidence" being used to justify success of the cycleway seems to rest on the fact that a lot more people cycled in June than February.Nothing to do with the wettest Feb on record and the sunniest June on record.

Richard Potts ● 1906d

May was the sunniest on record, not June. But it’s not just a spike in one month: there’s been over 2000 cyclists a day on average along the High Road since the beginning of April, some way above the prepandemic count.

Tom Pike ● 1906d

But .... absolutely no modal shift. No one it would appear is switching from cars and buses to bikes and shoe Leather.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 1906d

And so what? It appears you style yourself as a 'counsellor'. What sort of leadership is that, a shrug of the shoulders? When you know full well we need to make a just such a shift to more active, less polluting transport. Roll on May 2022 and seeing clowns like you off. 

John Hall ● 1906d

"there’s been over 2000 cyclists a day on average along the High Road since the beginning of April, some way above the prepandemic count."Isn't that to be expected as cycling has risen across London during the pandemic? The last Department for Transport count in September of last year was over 2,500 so what evidence do we have that there has been an increase in cycling on Chiswick High Road that can be attributed to C(?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1906d

No, at the last traffic count before the pandemic bikes were 15% of the total  counts along the High Road. TfL reported its increased to 20% since C9 opened, and there’s a continuing upwards trend in cycle counts since then.What evidence do you have of no modal shift?

Tom Pike ● 1906d

I suppose all chiswicken guardianestas,will be out in force to put this dreadful, Labourlot back in

James Dow ● 1906d

The latest count was over 2300 for June as a whole, while the September figure was just a single day. Early deployment of C9 is about trying to  maintain as far as possible the high levels of cycling reached during the pandemic, and Chiswick High Road had the largest growth of all of outer London.

Tom Pike ● 1906d

What is your source for the claim that Chiswick High Road has the highest growth in outer London?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1906d

TfL cycling data (search that phrase). The growth is for last September compared to prepandemic levels, and so the High Road has the highest target of Outer London to maintain bike counts at that level.

Tom Pike ● 1906d

So the people who brunch have displaced cycling jewel thieves. We’re fortunate that we have alert councillors able to identify the most important threats Chiswick faces.

Tom Pike ● 1906d

Not sure James I can vote labour again. The local lib dems have soiled their own beds over LTNs. I think that only leaves the Greens now for us Champaign socialists?

John Hall ● 1906d

Those brunch people. Send them back.

Stewart Jones ● 1906d

Chiswick brunches are for locals. Or outsiders who drive. No brunches for non-driving outsiders.

Paul Campbell ● 1906d

It would be helpful if you provided a link rather than sending people on a search engine hunt.To be clear you are saying the data showed that Chiswick High Road had the highest growth in cycling before C9 was opened?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1906d

It is hard to make it up. Tonight we had Trevor, who founded the Chiswick Appeals site with Jackie Elton, vehemently opposing restrictions on cars on the Hounslow Streetspace meeting while sipping beer in a car-free piazza somewhere more enlightened than these shores. The scenes behind him of people living in a nice car-free zone were far more eloquent and in-tune than he could ever hope to be.

Paul Campbell ● 1906d

Some interesting opinions… according to one person, the reduction of traffic in Hartington Rd means that it is now “spooky” and the problem is that the emergency services are now driving too quickly.

Michael Robinson ● 1906d

More people cycled in June 2021 versus February 2021.Apparently nothing to do with the seasons but all down to the cycleway?

Richard Potts ● 1906d

Even more interesting is the opinion of Michael Robinson who claims the closure of Hartington Road means that cut through traffic now goes all the way to Hogarth Roundabout and waits at the tediously long traffic lights before turning left onto the A4 - and does not take the quicker, shorter route of Staveley Road and Burlington Lane  (past the school, station, shops etc) onto Sutton Court Road.The school had a "quiet school street" before the LTN turned it into a rat run.

Richard Potts ● 1906d

Richard, stop making things up, please show where I said this.Firstly, the data will show if the ANPR on Hartington is effective or not. Despite there being about 6 signs, I wouldn’t be surprised if large numbers of drivers ignore them all and drive through.Secondly, in the 2019 traffic survey, Burlington Lane had almost 2,500 vehicles per day with an average of a vehicle every 10 seconds during the peak. That isn’t a “quiet school street” whatever way you look at it.

Michael Robinson ● 1906d

The scornful laughing, head shaking and thumbs down on the video cameras of known Onesies whenever Jefferson Nwokeoma talked about the bigger picture issues of the climate emergency, pollution, health and road safety gave a useful insight into why they are finding it so hard to accept change. Jefferson was very calm and assured throughout. He listened and his answers were thoughtful and well-articulated. He said that the majority of the Streetspace schemes will proceed from the interim reviews to the final review stage. Good news for those of us who care about the bigger issues he raised.

Paul Campbell ● 1906d

The route of C9 was originally chosen as it was both already carrying a significant number of cyclists and had potential for further growth. Some might argue that routes that already carry more don’t require further encouragement while there’s little point in putting improved infrastructure along less used routes. Hence no improved infrastructure is ever required, whatever the transport mode, though the argument is more often restricted just to cycling.

Tom Pike ● 1906d

Our local Conservative councillors have told us that Chiswick is ghettoised, resembles Belfast at the time of The Troubles, and is like Berlin during the Cold War. It’s a weird place to come for brunch then.

Edward Seaton ● 1906d

MichaelI do not make things up.You though, seem to have a problem in accepting the obvious when it contradicts the plan that you have spent so much time lobbying for.The South Chiswick LTN has simply re-routed cut through traffic from Hartington Road to Burlington Lane. You don't need to wait for questionable data to know that cars will take the quickest easiest route. Why can't you admit that?The only options are to block all left turns from the A316 or to accept that traffic has to go somewhere (as Jefferson Nwokeoma has admitted) and put it back to how it was originally.

Richard Potts ● 1906d

But if you put together jewel thieves, pastries and cold-war division, I think Chiswick is rather reminiscent of post-war Vienna. All we now need is a zither soundtrack.

Tom Pike ● 1906d

Chiswick already has Betty's, Gail's, Megan's and Angies so the next brunch venue could be Joanna's.

Michael Robinson ● 1906d

Yes, you make things up. You haven't produced any proof that I said what you claimed. You are also making up that Burlington Lane was a "quiet school street" previously.  Not with almost 2,500 vehicles 7am to 7pm and a vehicle every 10 seconds at the peak hour.(I made a mistake with my previous posts, it was 2,500 vehicles 7am to 7pm, not daily).

Michael Robinson ● 1906d

This seems modus operandi for some particular people who don’t want the truth getting in the way of their ideology.

Richard Potts ● 1906d

That Michael Robinson using data again to prove a point. I hope you report him for his bullying ways. And that way he admitted he made a mistake in a previous post and corrected it. So offensive.

Ed Saper ● 1906d

I've finally had a chance to look at the TfL data on cycling. The way it was presented makes it very difficult to reach any firm conclusions and I can't begin to work out how Tom Pike can make the claim that Chiswick High Road growth was the highest in outer London post pandemic (but prior to C9).As the data only seems to go up to last September and has been collected in quite a patchy way I'm not really sure how it can help make the situation clearer. There does seem  to have been an increase in 2020 but getting to a percentage was beyond me.The two patterns which are undeniable are that cycling falls sharply when it is wet and the low proportion of female cyclists. I don't know how Chiswick High Road compares to the rest of London in regard to female cycling but it would be a key argument in favour of C9 if this was shown to have increased.Overall as far as I can work out the latest contention is that C9 has not increased cycling in Chiswick that significantly but it was working off a very high base given the sharp increase in the previous year.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1906d

Richard, if you believe being asked to provide proof of a claim is "bullying" then there really isn't much point in you posting here. Do you seriously think you can say anything you like without being challenged?Let's face it, you made things up, were challenged to provide proof and were unable to do it.

Michael Robinson ● 1906d

Most women are not interested in cycling, reasons given on googlewe're not having the stamina, although electric bikes would rectify that,other reasons were they would not want to cycle to work, clothing etc.,some think it's not good for them and can cause some kind of medical problems and increase back problems, many did cycle for exercise same as I do for short distance within a park, rather than to travel from A to B.they don't see it as a method of transport for many different reasons.Think start them cycling from a young age, many women have nevergone cycling at all.

Janice Evans ● 1906d

To draw any conclusions, you need to segregate the data by location and year. This can be done in Excel using a pivot table. When you sort the results by the increase in counts between 2019 and 2020, you'll see that the High Road comes top of all outer London. As far as the relationship with the weather is concerned, the average counts in wet conditions was 80% of the overall average. I'm not sure if 20% is that sharp a fall. You're right that there is a low proportion of female cyclists in these figures, though it's higher and growing on the High Road, last year reaching a third of the total during the day. We don't have a breakdown since C9 opened.Overall the June counts of cyclists on the High Road with C9 are higher than from 2015 to 2019, but still 16% below the count in September 2020. In comparison, cycling nationally is down 32% for the same period according to the DfT (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/transport-use-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic).

Tom Pike ● 1905d

Janice on women cycling:"some think it's not good for them and can cause some kind of medical problems"Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al-Lohaidan on women driving:"women who drive risk damaging their ovaries and bearing children with clinical problems"Janice: most women are unable to cycle due to "not having the stamina", but can do a small amount:"many... cycle for exercise same as I do for short distance within a park, rather than to travel from A to B."Dr A Shadwell, Literary Review 1897:"Here is a case. A girl, healthy... learns to cycle. She rides with her friends and rather enjoys it. To all appearances she can do as much as anybody in short flights. One day they go farther, nothing much, perhaps ten miles: the result, utter collapse, with bed for several days."

Ed Saper ● 1905d

Ed, my point was start them cycling at a young age 😏

Janice Evans ● 1905d

Ed, you are so on the defence it's become a way of life for you it seems 😉

Janice Evans ● 1905d

I felt a bit bad replying because you're always so nice on here - even if I disagree with you on quite a lot!  However, I did think you'd gone a bit far.  I did read it out to my wife.She found it offensive and really didn't think you were in a position to speak for her or other women.  Any point that you wished to encourage girls to take up cycling at an earlier age was likely drowned out by assertions about women that were discredited in the 19th century.  Sorry Janice, but I think you need to rethink this one.

Ed Saper ● 1905d

Ed, most people don’t bother engaging with Janice

Carl Wynne ● 1905d

The info I gave was from Google, maybe take a look Ed, I would nevermake up things for the sake of it, you have to be realistic and find out thereasons women don't want to cycle as a form of transport.

Janice Evans ● 1905d

Carl, most people don't bother with you do they .....

Janice Evans ● 1905d

I don’t know about that Janice, but we do teach girls to cycle. We begin with tricycles and progress to using stabilisers and then off they go. Generally, stamina increases with exercise and it’s a way of avoiding medical problems. Maybe you’re thinking of Laura Kenny and Katie Archibald winning their gold medal on the cycle track, or Bethany Shriever and Charlotte Worthington winning their BMX golds. Absolutely brilliant to see but a bit too much for the rest of us, male or female!

Kerry Chandler ● 1905d

And Ed, most people disagree with me.

Janice Evans ● 1905d

Kerry, girls may cycle more now, but many older women never have sowould expect there to be more women cyclists in the future.

Janice Evans ● 1905d

I think you are sincere in your beliefs, but that you overestimate how many other people share them. One of the main reasons women don’t cycle is because it feels unsafe. Not because they feel they are incapable and suffer from a lack of stamina compared to men. Safe cycling infrastructure would reduce the gender imbalance - as it has in the counties where it has been provided. We need to stop pretending that women are genetically or temperamentally unable to ride a bike and use that as an excuse not to provide infrastructure.

Ed Saper ● 1905d

Fewer women cycle than men, that much is clear.But I wonder how many women have exercise bikes, and/or use them in the gym (spin classes etc)?

Richard Cathcart ● 1905d

Ed, once again you see it as an excuse not to build infrastructure ratherthan the reason there are less women cycling.  Although i cycle in parkswould not cycle on the roads or in a cycle lane as don't feel myself to besafe enough to do so.  if you cannot understand that we will just go roundin circles with this conversation.

Janice Evans ● 1905d

It would be interest to see the full data on your workings showing the increase in Chiswick compared to the rest of London.What the Department of Transport figures seem to suggest is that motor vehicle use is back to where it was pre-pandemic but that car use is still down but HGV and LGV journeys are up. Cycling seems to have had its biggest boost at the height of lockdown and is being sustained above historic levels because public transport use remains well below the norm. The problem going forward is that cycling may fall further as confidence grows in using public transport and  Working From Home falls. This is likely to mean that cycling on CHR will show a fall since the opening of C9. I'd agree with the contention that the high base means that a fall in cyclists doesn't mean C9 is a failure but it might be better if TfL didn't keep making claims about usage that are patently misleading.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1905d

I understand you do not wish to cycle on the roads for any reason, including that you do not feel safe, even when separated from other vehicles in a cycle lane. My point, or rather my wife’s, is that you don’t speak for her or other women with what are quite comically outdated views of women, which include your belief that women suffer medical issues from cycling for transport and also, unlike men, lack the stamina to cycle. Again, I don’t dispute that you sincerely hold these views. As we often do, we find we have different perspectives on the world and I don’t doubt there are some on this forum and on the internet who agree with you and not with me.

Ed Saper ● 1905d

Ed, these were reasons given on Google for women not using cycling as a form of transport, so you seem to change the subject to make some kind ofpoint, and said I don't feel safe or confident enough to cycle on roads orcycle lanes, nothing at all to do with the actual lanes.  I get the feeling thatIit's a waste of time looking into why women don't want to cycle so youdon't seem interested at all as to the reasons.

Janice Evans ● 1905d

Overall cycling numbers in outer London were up by 17%, comparing all locations with counts in 2019 and 2020. Chiswick High Road was up 27%.I'm sure usage of public transport will rise, and WFH fall. However, that does not imply a drop in those cycling. In fact in 2020 cycling numbers during the commuting hours were very comparable to 2019. As overall commuting numbers were down that indicates a higher proportion of those not working from home, which included key workers, were cycling in. It's more likely that a higher proportion of those commuting will continue to avoid public transport for some time in favour of cycling, especially with improved infrastructure.

Tom Pike ● 1905d

It’s not a new enemy they have always been there and they’re called your loony liberal lefties your joe biden/nancy pelosi supporter brigade. It’s your namby pamby liberals who have wrecked social and infrastructural havoc in the UK for decades. They are dangerous people. One lone cyclist, amongst the endless traffic jams on the high rd, in his cycle lane, screamed his liberal head off at me the other day for no reason whatsoever, as I was legitimately observing, indicating and turning right by the Metro bank. These are the types of people that are teaching your kids in school screaming heart liberals; screaming over nothing a bit like the labour controlled council.

Carl Johns ● 1905d

"Telegraph casts doubt on the scale of use of C9T (and obliterates TG ward!): https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/07/cycle-lane-hailed-shining-example-no-10s-low-traffic-scheme/amp/"

Loraine Pemberton ● 1905d

Just let it all out Carl. Feel better now?

Ed Saper ● 1905d

This is excellent work, Carl. David Lesniak has been getting a little tired recently, and you’re offering a rather fresher transatlantic perspective. Aligning by direct implication the opponents of C9 with Donald Trump is a new twist. And similarly implying that Boris Johnson who is financing and feting these “loony left” schemes is stagecrafting worthy of Putin. If you can keep this up, you’ve got a good chance of landing this gig.

Tom Pike ● 1905d

Ouch, Tom. That one super hurt.

David Lesniak ● 1905d

Sorry, David, but you’ve got to tighten up. Just repeating the same old lies is not going to take the Onesies with you. Carl’s got a different angle and is rather showing you up, I’m afraid.

Tom Pike ● 1905d

Tom, maybe I'm missing something but what lies has David told on this thread ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1905d

The Telegraph journalists might have considered why neither DfT nor TfL base evaluation of their transport schemes on traffic counts taken midweek in early August.

Tom Pike ● 1905d

I’m no supporter of Boris Johnson either or have any political leaning whatsoever. I observe politics from outside the ring as I do; it doesn’t mean to say I am “this that or, the other.” But as an observer, Trump had the most appalling deal from the corrupt media; now the we have the stammering, stumbling, biden clown in power and you rarely here any US politics on mainstream tv & written media nowadays in the UK & US - Trump was roasted 24/7 by the biased partisanship of the liberal left media of the US & UK, absolutely shocking.

Carl Johns ● 1905d

Are you the same Karl Johns who in his last post said that loony liberal lefties and namby pamby liberals are the enemy? And then said teachers are screaming heart liberals?And now you claim to have no political leanings and that you merely observe,  unsullied and untouched.

Stewart Jones ● 1905d

yawn, yawn, yawn,

Carl Johns ● 1905d

His latest is saying he’s never been consulted on C9, when his response to the consultation is noted at some length in TfL’s consultation report.

Tom Pike ● 1905d

Did the current temporary cycle lane go in without consultation?

Maggie Dodge ● 1905d

But that's not on this thread is it ? Did you get your threads and replies confused Tom ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1905d

And you and they, might consider the validity of traffic counts over an extraordinary period ? Just asking

Loraine Pemberton ● 1905d

No, and I didn’t claim it was on this thread either.

Tom Pike ● 1905d

Wriggle all you like, but it's evident you posted incorrectly on this thread ! Most people would say words to the effect 'oops wrong thread' but not you 🙈

Loraine Pemberton ● 1904d

No, I didn’t. Reread what I posted originally, which clearly referenced Carl. It’s rather odd that you suddenly believe every post should never refer to any comment made on any other thread.

Tom Pike ● 1904d

As I've posted on another thread, Tom, using info from the link you provided Outsider Tart does not appear on TfL's List of Stakeholders Emailed and Consulted. Black and white. Proof positive.And yet you claim we were. Sqauring that circle is gonna be a bitch. I'd recommend stretching first.

David Lesniak ● 1904d

Not odd at all, it's logical especially when there's zero reference that you were responding to a different thread !

Loraine Pemberton ● 1904d

Maggie, there is no Temporary Cycle Way as there is no way Hounslow will remove it now and I am amazed that they intend to make "amendments" to the existing. I suppose I should give them some credit for realising their design faults but as they were so obvious from the start I can't.BTW there was a longish article in one of the Sunday papers disputing TfLs C9 cycle count with comment from a local councillor.I must say I find it quite sad the extent both 'sides' have been preforming statistical gymnastics to count numbers.Frankly they are all  meaningless hot air created by people who are, as my geography master used to say when he caught someone copying, " you're only fooling yourself lad".

Adrian Irving ● 1904d

Does a temporary cycle lane require full consultation ?  Would have thought a permanent one would.

Janice Evans ● 1904d

The current cycleway on CHR was installed under an experimental traffic order (ETO). There was no public consultation because it was argued by Hounslow Council that the scheme was essentially the same as the far more expensive tone hat had received planning consent before the pandemic and the collapse of TfL's finances.This was not true. The scheme introduced under the ETO was very different from the one for which planning permission had been granted e.g. key elements floating bus stops and bus gates were not in any previous TfL scheme.The current experimental cycleway was authorised by a senior officer's decision and so it was not even discussed by the Hounslow Cabinet. The senior officer who made the decision is no longer employed by Hounslow Council.Following an interim review of the cycleway introduced under the initial experimental traffic order it was clear that it was a deeply flawed scheme and that serious modifications were required. Bear in mind that this was the third substantive attempt by TfL to design a cycleway for CHR. One really does have have to serious doubts about TfL's design capabilities. They just do not understand how Chiswick High Road works. In order to extend the "trial" period for the experimental traffic scheme Hounslow Council has decided to withdraw the existing experimental traffic order and replace it with a new one that can be in place for a further 18 months.As with the original ETO there has been no public consultation. Instead Hounslow Council is engaging in three weeks of public engagements exercises. Most people of course know nothing about this. We are meant to be grateful for these cosmetic charades because as Hounslow Cabinet members keep reminding us they do not have to do this.There is no commitment by Hounslow Council to carry out a full public consultation at either an interim review stage or before making an experimental scheme permanent.I would suggest that in May next year you think very hard before putting a cross against the name of any candidate who has not personally committed themselves to fighting for a full public consultation before any scheme is made permanent. We were told that we were all too stupid to understand the benefits of a two-way segregated cycleway on Chiswick High Road BUT that once we had seen it in action that we would come to love it. Okay we all know what a cycleway on CHR looks like - can we please now have our full public consultation that includes genuine options such as one-way cycleways on both sides of the road.  We know that a currently figured the cycleway has not delivered - there has been no modal shift from cars to bikes, the evidence that air quality has improved is slight, traffic remains snarled up and the anger and frustration of those simply trying to go about their normal lives and make the London economy work is palpable.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 1904d

And neither were any of the other businesses whose responses were included on that list. You were given a chance to give your views, you gave them and they were noted. As I said, that’s the very definition of being consulted.

Tom Pike ● 1904d

Sam, you are repeating yourself like a stuck record.  It is difficult to tell if you genuinely don't understand that you are repeating nonsense or you have agreed a party line and are determined to parrot it out at every opportunity.There is a full public consultation lasting a minimum of 6 months with the experimental traffic order.I appreciate that you don't like consultations based upon what happens in the real world and would prefer to rant about what might what happen.To remind you what your own government requires "Engagement, especially on schemes where there is public controversy, should use objective methods, such as professional polling to British Polling Council standards, to establish a truly representative picture of local views and to ensure that minority views do not dominate the discourse."You are also displaying your ignorance with the statement "genuine options such as one-way cycleways on both sides of the road."There is no such thing as a "one-way cycleway" in UK traffic regulations. Space defined as bike lanes are like footpaths, they are two way.  If there were bike lanes along both sides of Chiswick High Road then people could cycle in both directions along both sides.So really you are asking for two two-way cycleways on Chiswick High Road instead of one.That would be great but of course it would need more road space, not less, bus stop bypasses on both sides of the road and remodelling the junctions at Turnham Green Terrace and Goldhawk Road to hold left turning traffic while cycles went straight on.Given you are objecting to the existing cycle lane, you would likely spontaneously combust with the impact of lanes on both sides of the road.You are like Cllr Biddolph in that your tactic is to ask for something that isn't being done then if it is done, oppose it.I suggest in May of next year people think very hard about putting their 'X' against the names of people who have done nothing but oppose measures to enable more active travel and who provide no constructive input whatsoever.

Michael Robinson ● 1904d

"There is no such thing as a "one-way cycleway" in UK traffic regulations. Space defined as bike lanes are like footpaths, they are two way."Are you seriously suggesting that the cycleways along Twickenham Road in Isleworth, or the one in King Street, Hammersmith, are intended to be used by cyclists going in both directions ? If so, then whoever designed them ought to be locked up in the interests of public safety.

Richard Greenhough ● 1904d

I am saying that legally they can be used by people cycling westbound.Those lanes were designed sometime in the 1990s I think and wouldn't pass muster today in terms of the space provided.Designers will assume that the majority of people using the lane will be going one way, or two ways, and design accordingly.  So if the assumption is one way, the width may be 2m to allow overtaking space.  If the assumption is two way, the width may be 3m as that will also allow overtaking space.Two "one-way" lanes will therefore generally take up more space than one "two-way" lane.However as mentioned, legally, people can still cycle both directions on a "one way" lane.  No difference from people being able to walk both ways on a footpath.It exposes Cllr Hearn's ignorance.  He is complaining that the bike lane takes up too much space and is too disruptive and says he wants an alternative that would take up even more space and would require even more changes.I don't know if he knows that and is just indulging in political game playing askingfor whatever isn't there.  He is being just Cllr Biddolph saying there should be north-south cycle links then objecting to schemes like Fishers Lane that provided them.  Or objecting to a bike lane because it took space from the pavement, then objecting to a bike lane because it took space from the road.It really doesn't matter what the plans are, I am sure Cllr Hearn and Cllr Biddolph will always find a reason to object to them.

Michael Robinson ● 1904d

Politically speaking, I am not on the same page or even book as Cllr Sam Hearn.However, I find myself defending him against unfair accusations of politicising the Cycleway9 by Mr Robinson. In fact, judging by his response it seems it is Mr Robinson who is seeking to politicise the argument.The Cycleway is a pigs ear of job. And Mr Hearn was asking for open debate on it via a full public consultation. Unless there is some hidden message in his words what is wrong with that?I’ve just had an email from Fraser MacDonald of TfL, telling me that the feedback is that a small majority of people support a protected cycle lane. (47% v 43%) But his incorrect conclusion is that this equals support for C9.For those of us who support the need for a segregated cycleway, it is so disappointing that C9 is so bad. It’s even more disappointing that both sides of the debate seem closed to any idea that could make it better and work for the community.Sadly, the public debate is dominated by vociferous supporters for the current cycleway who seem more motivated more by how it stops traffic than how it encourages cycling and the anti-group which seems driven by an illogical hatred of all cyclists and some particular “lefty” individuals.My questions & comments which never get answered are:-Why couldn’t the cycleway have been accommodated without sacrificing the east-west bus lane? It would probably have meant sacrificing some pavement space, but there is surplus pavement (for example: on the south side opposite M&S, between Metro bank &TGT, and between the Catholic Church and Turnham Green). Was this just the easiest option to plonk it on the bus lane?If the cycleway was a single way on both sides – could it be easier to accommodate? For instance, on the pavement side of the trees between the Church and Green).It’s dangerous. I cycle regularly on CHR to shop. If I’m shopping on the north side I cycle on the road. I’d rather get shouted at by the odd loon than try to turn across 2 lanes of traffic. Have you ever tried the diagonal connection from CHR to King Street cycle lane? Terrifying.And at every junction I am terrified that a car is going to pull out in order to get onto the road – I don’t have the same problem when cycling on a normal road.But back to my first point. Sam Hearn was merely saying that there should be a proper debate via a full public consultation instead of one of these closed groups for those “in the know”. What’s political about that?

James Mcconnell ● 1903d

That cyclists can cycle either way along a 'one-way' cycle track will come as a surprise to many. The Tfl guidance on cycle track design makes a clear distinction between 'one-way' and 'two-way' tracks, which would be redundant under this interpretation.  The guidance says that 'Fully segregated lanes are one-way, in the same direction as adjacent general traffic lanes, unless signed otherwise' though it does mention that 'If a facility is created as a cycle track (under Section 65(1) of the Highways Act (1980) or under section 3 of the Cycle Tracks Act 1984.. then it is two-way unless made one-way by a Traffic Order.' which presumably for practical purposes and to avoid confusion, most are.

Peter Evans ● 1903d

I suggested the Lane be on the path one side, they don't think there is room.

Janice Evans ● 1903d

Of course Sam Hearn has politicised the Cycleway.  Him and his councillor colleagues stood outside M&S wearing their Conservative rosettes every weekend 2 summers ago collecting signatures against it.  Take a look at the party political leaflets they produce and shove through out letter boxes. Just about every one over the last 4 years has led with their opposition.The project was initiated by a Conservative Mayor, progressed by a Labour Mayor and has been supported by a Conservative government who currently oversee TfL's budget.  It is our local councillors who are completely out of step with this cross-party consensus.When you look at today's news about climate change, the fact that our local representatives have spent more time over the last 4 years trying to stop a bike lane than anything else is a damning indictment of them.To answer your specific questions:- the original design for C9 consulted upon in 2017 and 2019 did retain a bus lane but meant losing some pavement space.  Implementation of that design would have needed a major construction project digging up the kerb line and associated civil works for large sections of Chiswick High Rd.  This is what would have happened if it wasn't for Covid.- Covid changed the picture as it did for so many things.  Construction projects taking the best part of a year involving digging up most of the street weren't going to happen so the Cycleway was implemented using  materials such as construction of bus islands using rediweld kerbing.- the design options were all covered as part of the original 2017 consultation.  A bike lane along both sides of Chiswick High Rd wasn't a preferred option because it would have required significantly more changes to the street.  It would have needed more space so that means less road space and/or more use of pavement space.  It would have meant construction of bus islands on both sides of Chiswick High Rd rather than one.  It would have mean more significant changes to the junctions at Turnham Green Terrace and Goldhawk Rd to hold left turning traffic while cycles got green. While you may not agree with it, a bidirectional lane on one side of the road was seen as providing advantages without as much disruption and impact as lanes on both sides. All engineering projects involve compromise.- The diagonal crossover at King St will be removed soon when LBH&F extend the C9 route along King St.  In a perfect world all the work would have been done at the same time but the boroughs don't proceed at the same pace.Sam Hearn is just trying to deploy every delaying tactic he knows to try and avoid anything happening.  Take a look at the consultation responses from 2017 and 2019.  The contribution of the Turnham Green ward councillors was opposition to the Cycleway because of "cycles used for snatch thefts and for planned heists from high-value retailers such as jewellers".That really added to the public debate, didn't it?

Michael Robinson ● 1903d

! 'If a facility is created as a cycle track (under Section 65(1) of the Highways Act (1980) or under section 3 of the Cycle Tracks Act 1984.. then it is two-way unless made one-way by a Traffic Order.' which presumably for practical purposes and to avoid confusion, most are."If you can find any cycle lane anywhere in the UK that has been made one-way by a traffic order, please let me know.... I have spoken to a couple of professional traffic engineers and they weren't aware of any.  They certainly didn't do this for any projects they worked on.For a start, they didn't know what signage could be used to indicate this.

Michael Robinson ● 1903d

Have you looked at the plans for the original approved CW9? This was fully consulted on and subsequently amended in the light of responses. Councillor Hearn would be justified in pushing for rapid deployment of these plans, but rather he wants to start from scratch and this is just a delaying tactic - that is his not-so-hidden message. These approved plans incorporate just about all of your suggestions, though only the Kew Bridge section has been implemented as planned. However, the amended scheme that’s now been approved essentially reproduces the original plans east of Chiswick Lane.The temporary scheme was undoubtedly a compromise resulting from central-government guidance that required rapid deployment of segregated cycle lanes to secure future funding. Although a compromise, it has brought a significant improvement in air quality on the High Road and the June week-day average of 2316 bike counts is significantly above prepandemic levels and above national trends in cycling numbers.

Tom Pike ● 1903d

Some areas just have a white line on the path to sperate them from pedestrians, there is no need for a lot of work to do it.

Janice Evans ● 1903d

Thank you Sam Hearn, clear information without the waffle.

Maggie Dodge ● 1903d

"And neither were any of the other businesses whose responses were included on that list."Got there in the end. Tom Pike agrees no local businesses were consulted on CS9. Something we all knew yet he firmly denied. Despite TfL evidence to the contrary.

David Lesniak ● 1903d

"If I’m shopping on the north side I cycle on the road. I’d rather get shouted at by the odd loon than try to turn across 2 lanes of traffic."

Philippa Bond ● 1903d

No, like you all those businesses responded to the consultation and their views were noted. You were all consulted.I’ve no doubt you will continue to claim that you were never consulted, just as you claimed to the Mail that a pro-cycling campaigner put together a video of a missile attack on your shop. Both are demonstrably false but that clearly doesn’t trouble you.You’re really better off sticking to post-its of imaginary buses hitting each other.

Tom Pike ● 1903d

and around the obvious elephant... It's funny but I thought instructions from Downing Street with cycle lanes generally was to put them in without consultation and then ongoing consultation during their use as otherwise the argument and obstruction of any change would be never ending...  and all while Rome was burning...

Philippa Bond ● 1903d

That makes no sense. You'll cross two lanes of traffic to shop on the North side regardless of using the cycle lane or not, either on your way there or home, depending which way you approach along CHR. Why not just use the cycle lane, dismount at the nearest crossing and walk to the other side?

John Hall ● 1903d

I thought the Sam Philippa.

Janice Evans ● 1903d

Same that should read.

Janice Evans ● 1903d

Don't blame the messenger, Tom.Your evidence clearly has a list of those emailed and consulted. No Chiswick business is on that list. Nor are many if not all of the neighborhood associations. A list of which, I might add, is easily attainable from LBH. But do keep taking your swipes.

David Lesniak ● 1903d

Why not just use the cycle lane, dismount at the nearest crossing and walk to the other side?Not gonna happen.This morning I was first at the Chiswick Lane light waiting to turn right. As the light changes to green I begin to roll. With that, a cyclist passes me on the right from out of no where. I expect him to turn into the cycle lane. Nope. He crosses in front of me in the middle of the intersection to get to the north side. A bit later he turned into Ennismore presumably headed home. Per your suggestion he would have crossed at either Chiswick Lane or the bus garage.

David Lesniak ● 1903d

These are the ravings of a lunatic.

Jack Turnbull ● 1903d

So you’re upset that you weren’t personally invited to respond to the consultation. But you still responded with your views, as did hundreds of businesses and thousands of residents who were also consulted despite not being personally invited. What’s more as the consultation report notes you sent further emails sharing more points and had a meeting with TfL I understand you also met up with Ruth Cadbury and Will Norman and I’ve no doubt you shared your views with them as well.Rather than claiming you’ve never having been consulted, you can probably make a claim to be the most consulted person ever on C9!

Tom Pike ● 1902d

TP:- "But you still responded with your views, as did hundreds of businesses and thousands of residents who were also consulted despite not being personally invited."Tom, please provide the PROOF of the names of the hundreds of businesses and thousands of residents who were consulted, time to put up or shut up ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1902d

The numbers come from the consultation report. You can read it here, including the response to the consultation from Outsider Tart. It also gives a breakdown of resident responses by postcode. https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/cs9/user_uploads/consultation-report-cs9.pdfIf you want further information, you should contact TfL.

Tom Pike ● 1902d

I do believe that this is a "put up". So who should now "shut up"?

Carl Wynne ● 1902d

Indeed, a tad deranged. Thought it was Mr Brown at first.

Russell Pearson ● 1901d

Loraine, be forewarned, this is the same consultation report where the list of those consulted and emailed do not include any local businesses nor residents associations.Tom seems to think receiving an unannounced email soliciting one's input is the same as having to contact local MPs and Will Norman asking for a chance to speak.Tom will never get it. If he can't figure out Canary Wharf is no where near CS9 and should have no say in the matter, how can anyone expect him to grasp the concept if a name isn't on a list, then that name wasn't included. It's called an omission but in this case it should go by commission.

David Lesniak ● 1901d