Forum Topic

I think David’s right that working from home has had a big impact on local retail - people are in their local areas more. While lockdown sent everyone online, it also gave many a new appreciation for their local stores, especially the independents. It was always a bit daft to suggest that cyclists don’t spend anything or that a cycle lane would drive local stores out of business because they can’t carry anything. Makes you wonder how Oxford Street survived when most people turn up by tube or bus! Apart from being able to carry more on a bike than a pedestrian, most local trips aren’t “the big shop” or buying a wardrobe. You don’t need to carry anything to go out for coffee and grab a sandwich while you’re working from home.If cycling locally you can do a mile in 5 minutes and not have to worry about parking or traffic - it makes it easy to get to your local stores. Research from Copenhagen suggests that cyclists spend more in stores than pedestrians, but less than car drivers, but are more loyal, visit more frequently and being Copenhagen, there’s more of them. Those establishments which happen to be next to the cycle lane and benefit from extensive cycle parking which is highly visible (so you can keep an eye on your bike), can expect to do well from an influx of cycling customers, many of whom will be local. Establishments that look to encourage visits from cyclists might be able to get an edge. For instance, renting out / lending heavy bike locks or even alarmed ones, providing bike storage, providing packaging suitable for panniers, offering delivery and marketing this. The C9 ride that happened today had a big mix of people and a lot of people wearing jeans - not Lycra. Taking a bike to the shops or to a cafe or pub is already pretty normal and more and more “normal” people are doing it.

Ed Saper ● 1740d

Language Loraine! You're usually the guardian of polite discourse on here (although I did hear you swear like a sailor on occasion, but I dismissed as scurrilous rumours promoted by the Gardening Lobby!) Last time you challenged me was when I said that Councillor Biddolph was amplifying Maggie Dodge's extreme views. You suggested I was on drugs (I don't do drugs, just don't have the time). That same evening it turned out that Maggie was part of a group advocating violence against other women. Maggie's frequent interventions to accuse me and others of being part of the Gardening Lobby (much to my wife's amusement....I don't garden, just don't have the time), or the Cycling Lobby (I do cycle, I just don't have the time to drive), calling us zealots and worse, are echoed by Councillor Biddolph. If anything, Councillor Biddolph was first to set the narrative as this tweet from 2017 demonstrates.
The cycling lobby would like to ban all cars. Buses are great and carry a lot of locals around as well as to and from Chiswick.— Joanna Biddolph (@JoannaBiddolph) November 26, 2017 Mandy asked the question: "Are you suggesting the good people of Chiswick are being lied to by Hounslow Council and Transport for London?? They insist this £3,300,000 version is temporary - for a period of 18 months." Mandy isn't alone in focusing on the word "temporary" to have a legally enforceable meaning, that at the end of the period there is a legal obligation to remove the cycle lane and replace it with a road. The Hogarth Flyover was temporary — I believe because they expected to build the London Ring Road motorway system that was cancelled.  It has been there for 50 years now, but built to last about 5. The temporary C9 was put in during the pandemic and links to the permanent C9 at the Gunnersbury end and is being upgraded in parts to match the permanent design. If you are hoping that C9 will disappear in 18 months then one might ask the question: "have you had several too many or been on wacky baccy?" Unless OneChiswick's claims that all retail will disappear and many cyclists and pedestrians will die as a result of the cycle lane, which hasn't happened so far, then there's no reason to expect that C9 is anything else but permanent, like the Eiffel Tower, London Eye and Hogarth Flyover.

Ed Saper ● 1740d

There should be some sympathy for the position that Hounslow finds themselves in. The alternative to not proposing schemes such as Cycleway 9 is no funding at all. This is what has happened to Ealing borough since they ditched there LTNs whereas millions have been given to Hounslow and H&F for the ongoing 'temporary work'.A proportion of these millions can be attributed to the council budget to cover officer time but as they need to be employed anyway Ealing still need to pay them and therefore their overall budget gets squeezed.What is happening is that central government is micro-managing local transport policy in an unprecedented way. While I don't believe this is benefiting us, it has to be acknowledged that this is a democratically elected national government implementing a policy in partnership with a democratically elected local government. Trying to get them to stop what they are doing based on legal technicalities is not going to work.As someone pointed out on another thread, the new arrangements can't be judged until they have been allowed to operate for an extended time in normal conditions. That means that once the Cycleway reopens properly next April it will be at least the end of the year before we have any data that sensible conclusions can be drawn from - unless there is another variant of Covid causing lockdowns. I'd agree that it is bus journey times that are critical here - if they have risen by more than a few percent then it is hard to justify retaining the cycleway (far more people use buses than cycle and they are less white, less wealthy, less male, less mobile and less well-off than cyclists on average).If they cycleway hasn't resulted in increased bus journey times then it does raise the interesting question as to how far London could rip up bus priority schemes to build more cycleways.That said, the Cycleway probably only lasts as long as Boris Johnson. UK politics is hard to predict but I can't see any good news on the horizon for him with huge energy bill increases, the consequences of yet another delayed lock down and tighter Brexit related trade restrictions yet to hit. These would be problems for a competent leader but Johnson's ineptness will generate more for himself.It is hard to see him surviving after the May elections and that would probably mean the end of the Cycleway as well. We could end up with the highly ironic outcome that councillors who campaigned relentless for the removal of the Cycleway were ousted just a few weeks before their wish came true.

Francis Rowe ● 1735d

Tom, your recollection of what I have posted in the past on this forum is probably better than mine. I may well have said in the past that I thought issues with traffic delays would require the removal of the cycleway. Two things I didn't anticipate was the extended nature of the pandemic and the revisions that are being made to the scheme (which would you not concede indicates I was right about traffic being a problem?).You are right that councils can't be compelled to put in or take out bike lanes by central government but this current administration is the most pro-cycle infrastructure that any Tory government has ever been and is ever likely to be. There is likely to be a pronounced change of tone when Johnson goes. It is easy for a council to be a true believer when the main government transport advisor is rabidly pro cycle lanes but when funds are allocated on a more traditional basis it may be that outlooks change.The change will also be felt at TfL where buses have fallen right down the priority list but must gain in importance in an era when investment in tubes and trains is set to fall significantly. Cuts to TfL funding which may reduce the number of buses in operation make it even more essential that the service that remains runs effectively. If there isn't the same flow of active travel funding from central government the balance of power at TfL shifts to those responsible for the buses and they won't be prepared to support temporary schemes which are delaying their services.

Francis Rowe ● 1735d

Tom, with all due respect that is nonsense. When I looked in this in detail based on pre-pandemic figures only 60% of journeys down Chiswick High Road were by private car. Since then the use of such vehicles has fallen significantly - by as much as half according to figures you yourself have published. At the same time journeys by LGVs have risen significantly.I've tried hard to determine whether the TfL data on length of car journeys are based on a round trip or a single leg of the same trip. If we assume what favours your argument more i.e. that these are round trip figures then the maximum figure you could get to is 20-25% for 'unnecessary journeys'  of under 3 miles. This will not represent the proportion of cars on the High Road because shorter journeys means a car is on the road for less time so for argument's sake lets call it 15% of car journeys are unnecessary by your definition.A high proportion of these will be made by people who are transporting something heavy or by a driver or passenger for whom a cycle or walk of up to three miles is not practical - the elderly the disabled or small children. You need to include people for whom short car trips are part of their job i.e. carers, district nurses, estate agents, sales reps, private cars acting as delivery vehicles.Taking all these factors into account then, even by your very broad definition of 'unnecessary' such journeys make up less than 10% of the traffic on Chiswick High Road.You need to consider why, with car journeys overall having halved on CHR, we are still seeing traffic jams in the area. My view is that the problem is more complex than you are presenting it as being.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1730d

From a recent NY Times article written by a member of their board:It turns out that Uber rides do spare the air from the high amount of pollutants emitted from starting up a cold vehicle, when it is operating less efficiently, researchers from Carnegie Mellon University found. But that gain is wiped out by the need for drivers to circle around waiting for or fetching their next passenger, known as deadheading. Deadheading, Lyft and Uber estimated in 2019, is equal to about 40 percent of rideshare miles driven in six American cities. The researchers at Carnegie Mellon estimated that driving without a passenger leads to a roughly 20 percent overall increase in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions compared to trips made by personal vehicles.The researchers also found that switching from a private car to on-demand rides, like an Uber or Lyft, increased the external costs of a typical trip by 30 to 35 percent, or roughly 35 cents on average, because of the added congestion, collisions and noise from ridesharing services. “This burden is not carried by the individual user, but rather impacts the surrounding community,” reads a summary of the research conducted by Jacob Ward, Jeremy Michalek and Constantine Samaras. “Society as a whole currently shoulders these external costs in the form of increased mortality risks, damage to vehicles and infrastructure, climate impacts and increased traffic congestion.”Take urban congestion. Uber and Lyft envisioned a future in which software algorithms would push each car to host three or more passengers, easing traffic and providing a complement to public transit options. Instead, passengers have largely eschewed pooled rides and public transit in favor of private trips, leading to downtown bottlenecks in cities like San Francisco. The duration of traffic jams increased by nearly 5 percent in urban areas since Uber and Lyft moved in.Tie that into the recent stories of Uber not conforming to labor laws and workers rights and fare pricing escalating for no reason undermining their very reason for existence.But has also to do with roadways being halved and reduced traffic using half the once available space to create "pre-pandemic traffic levels" even though we all know the work force has yet to return to work in full force. If and when that happens, the road network will collapse. Take any incident around the city (the recent tube strike in late November) and you'll see grid lock where it didn't used to be. It happens in Chiswick as Philippa says, with one delivery. But Philippa neglects to mention the same happens when the buses idle during a swap over, or to correct scheduling, or when any two businesses might get a simultaneous delivery and the loading bays are insufficient.  The delivery vehicles don't even need to be that large to make it happen. The other day on King Street a private car driver stopped dead by the mall. Traffic lined up behind him. He seemed a bit helpless so he just sat there doing nothing. Cars and buses started honking. Nothing. Until people got behind his vehicle and started to push him. Is that really the best urban transit solution?

David Lesniak ● 1730d

Pity Tom but absolutely no surprise to me that you aren't able to equate building construction to that of urban infrastructure. I'd say urban design but we all know that isn't happening even though you are a new convert albeit a parklet doesn't urban design make. Baby steps...But one wonders why a project done to benefit the environment is not beholden to environmental design leadership standards. Why isn't it doing what it says on the tin? Why does it get a free pass going in? How much of a carbon footprint does the construction of the cycle network generate? What is the offset? Is it offset?Interesting reading:https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/access-to-carbon-data-central-to-net-zero-infrastructureThe crux of it:The NZIIC said access to good carbon data “is essential in understanding how to plan, design, deliver, and operate infrastructure”.“Without understanding carbon within a project it is not possible to assess climate impact, and furthermore, we cannot understand the cumulative impact of all projects,” the coalition said in its report, ‘Is our carbon wallet empty? The embodied carbon of the national infrastructure pipeline’.“This project has found significant issues with data availability, quality, and transparency across sectors that needs remedying from both top-down and bottom-up… You can’t manage and reduce what you can’t measure.”Now Tom, does this make me even more anti given I'm asking why infrastructure projects aren't being done in a climate-friendly way? Are we not all trying to reduce emissions? Wouldn't it go a long way toward achieving that goal if 1.) we designed twice and built once versus the current trial and error method most likely to generate three tries of implementing non-LEED compliant methods to get the job done?It would seem to me this would all factor into the equation. Cars and drivers aren't the only enemy you should perceive. You should look at the bigger picture though I doubt you'll like what you see. Sustainable concrete is a thing. Shouldn't you be lobbying the government and TfL to use it? Otherwise you're a bit of a hypocrite.

David Lesniak ● 1729d