Forum Topic

That's a useful dataset, and is being regularly updated. I'm getting slightly different numbers:  for 1 January to 31 October each year:2021: 152020: 42019: 62018: 52017: 12If I take the entire period from 1/1/2017 to 31/10/2021, I get 57 collisions, which agrees with your total but you should only be including 1 January to 31 October for each year. That interface sometimes takes time to update a search. That means I actually see a more significant increase for 2021! However, the total counts are for three quite different sections of the High Road, the length that has not been changed, where C9 will continue without major modifications, and where C9 is being upgraded. The overall numbers will also reflect the change in the number cycling along the High Road, and their relative experience. In 2021 injury collisions on the unchanged length are up 140% compared to 112% along C9. Along the length from Heathfield Terrace to Chiswick Lane that will not be heavily modified, injury collisions are up 14%, so considerably lower than the unchanged length. However, I don't think that necessarily means that length of C9 is reducing injury collisions compared to the unchanged length - the numbers are too small to draw any firm conclusions. I do think the pattern of the collisions indicates there might have been a particular issue on the stretch of C9 between Chiswick Lane and Goldhawk Road. The upgrade, with raised roadway and offset cycle lanes, reflects best practice and published research shows such measures should significantly reduce the collision risk.So overall we agree there has been a significant increase in injury collisions along the length of the entire High Road, but there's no evidence that's down to C9, and may be the result of more, less-experienced people cycling. In fact the preliminary numbers on the length from Heathfield Terrace to Chiswick Lane are slightly encouraging, but more time is needed to draw any firm conclusions.Also worth noting, there have been no reported injury collisions between pedestrians and cyclists since C9 opened up to the end of October.

Tom Pike ● 1678d

It won't surprise you that I disagree. I am much more optimistic and think that it is not just practical but a categorical imperative to reduce car volumes in London roads and the authorities agree. Why private cars? Because that is the biggest and most practical category of motor vehicles to target for reduction. Reduce private car use substantially and we reduce road deaths and injuries, improve air quality, improve public health and reduce emissions. It is a no-brainer.  Yes imperfectly designed pop-up cycle lanes were mandated by the government during the pandemic. As we've all agreed from the beginning one indisputable benefit of the imperfect model of trial and experimentation imposed by the Conservative government on TfL and LAs is that it enables lessons to be learned before more expensive infrastructure is implemented. More experiments, more cycle lanes being made permanent and more funding for cycle lanes will result in continuous improvement of design. That will be part of the answer to encourage more people to substitute their local private car journeys for bikes.  More investment in PT of course is a big part of it too. I'm not entirely convinced that lots more investment in PT locally would persuade everybody to eschew their private cars for their short local journeys though. My view is that a big driver of transport mode choice in an area like Chiswick that is relatively well-served by public transport is attitude and behaviour based and it will take a long time for that to change. But that isn't a reason to do the things that begin and accelerate the change by making private car use relatively unattractive to alternatives. And how long is it going to be really before we start doing much more radical things than have exercised people on this forum so far to reduce car use like this announced in Paris?    Or this being proposed for the centre of Oxford? Not very long at all I think .........

Paul Campbell ● 1678d

Is there not a logical contradiction in what you've said there Paul?More investment in Public Transport won't see a mode shift, but more investment in cycling infrastructure will?Parts of Chiswick are well served, parts are not & with further consolidation of buses routes by TfL, that isn't going to improve.So far, evidence suggest that the extra investment in cycling infrastructure isn't having an effect in shifting people from cars, private vehicle journeys are, much to TfL's chagrin, remaining stable.This is not to say that short local journeys shouldn't, where possible, be made on foot or on a cycle, just to indicate that current strategies just don't seem to be working.On the Government guidance - was it not the instruction to reallocate carriageway space meaningfully and rapidly, rather than do it badly enough that trial and error was needed?When looking to compare London with other cities, it is important to identify, for example:The actual area covered by the Parisian scheme is less than 0.9% of the area of London & still allows for residents, buses, taxis, delivery vehicles, shop owners, professionals (I assume tradespeople?), blue badge holders, to travel through in and within it. Travelling North to South, East to West or any combination of them through Central London is not the typical route of choice for any motorist who isn't a big fan of sitting in traffic, so I really don't see how much of a difference implementing a scheme like that would make & it also relies upon viable public transport alternatives, which for many London journeys, there simply isn't a viable option.Or to take note of the fact that Oxford has been a city hostile to cars for a minimum of 20 years, so further anti-driver measures are hardly out of place, or going to make a vast difference.

Mark Warburton ● 1678d

No I don't think there is a contradiction because we haven't had any viable cycle infrastructure in West London that would make a difference to modal shift until now. We have had, in my view, access to a quite extensive viable PT network for many decades. Right now there isn't even a connected cycle lane in the short distance between Heathfield Terrace and Goldhawk Road and we haven't yet seen the link up to King Street in effect. So yes I think creating some safe protected cycle routes and forming a network that actually links together can and will make a difference. Another way of expressing that would be that I think we are a lot further away from reaching the potential capacity of cycling as a mode than we are from PT.  I wholeheartedly agree that we aren't seeing enough of a shift away from cars but I think that is because we haven't invested nearly enough in cycle infrastructure in London. It's better in the centre and TfL says cycling is 11% of trips there but it's 8% in inner London and then reduces. Investment in cycling as a proportion of transport spend is a tiny fraction in this country as a whole and it needs to be much higher. Boroughs like RBKC are currently acting as a barrier to creation of an effective network that would encourage and enable more people to choose bikes for their journeys into and out of the centre from places like Chiswick. Whereas The City has been bold and its positive experience of making big changes not only to make cycling easier and safer but also to reduce cars encourages it do much more. It is also much more politically and financially free to do so of course.  I saw the Paris scheme overlaid on a map of central London and I was quite surprised at the area it covered. Obviously we'd have a scheme designed to reduce the maximum number of substitutable private car journeys to fulfil the same objectives. The exemptions are good and the London taxi trade should be lobbying hard for a scheme like that.I'm not an expert on Oxford transport but I do know that it has been very hard for the City Council to make progress with new schemes to reduce cars. Also Oxfordshire County Council has been very hostile to active travel and is now aligning itself with these proposals. Similar schemes are coming into play in many other cities because the government is dictating that they need to happen to improve air quality.The government's process meant LAs had to apply in a very short space of time for small funding amounts for experimental schemes or receive no funding at all. TfL had limited funding under each funding arrangement and has had to take incremental steps on already approved schemes that it controls like Cycleway 9. I didn't expect that to lead to implementation of schemes that wouldn't require any changes or further investment to make permanent. Maybe some people did. I think the pop-up lane in Chiswick has been good for cycling but I am really pleased to see the much improved and much more expensive permanent design taking shape now between Chiswick Lane and Goldhawk Road and I am looking forward to the gyratory being completed in Hammersmith so we have a much better cycling route to Olympia.

Paul Campbell ● 1678d

Paul, this all comes from the fundamentally wrong position that there are millions of people just waiting for a cycle superhighway to be built and then they'll just be champing at the bit to cycle everywhere. It's out of the same nonsense mould of LCC's claim of a £5bn per annum cycling industry just waiting to happen & TfL's fantasy cycling increase figures.It's plainly nonsense. You know it, I know it, Government know it, but still they plough ahead to be seen to be doing something, regardless of how ineffective it actually is, because it is cheap.So, RBKC resist the imposition of a cycle lane on a busy road that isn't really suitable for it & no-one in the cycle world has the wit to re-route a cycle lane? Isn't that a failure of imagination there? Or is it only that cycle lanes can only go on main roads, which in itself is counter-intuitive to transport strategies of forcing all traffic onto A roads?There needs to be a move away from the fallacy that causing greater delays on arterial roads is going to get people to cycle. It's not. Unless you like wasting time, you don't drive down Kensington High Street unless you need to, reducing the capacity isn't going to affect that need.You're really comparing apples with piano's when comparing The City with any other part of London & you know it. The City is unique in that is has virtually no population, for example, it has barely 6% of RBKC's population. The lack of population makes for a very different political and policy environment.You're ignoring the point, that for journey's that pass through Central London, there aren't that many substitutable journey's. If they were substitutable, no-one would suffer the pain of driving through Central London. It's shit. On a huge scale. It's a route you only take if you really need to.The same exemptions applied to London would make such a scheme pointless. As you know, allowing taxi's through (& there's little prospect of it only being Black Cabs, not without a long and expensive legal challenge that TfL can ill afford) means that you're not removing many vehicles from the road. The explosion in private hire numbers and delivery vehicles is what has driven the increase in miles driven. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.Oxford has been nightmarish for a driver since at least 2002, which is the first time I visited it, so I'm not surprised that the City Council is struggling to make it harder.I know how the Government funding worked, and there was absolutely no requirement to put in bad designs, or in fact, to put in any cycle lanes at all.The waste of money from badly thought out designs, that were immediately obviously wrong, is unforgiveable.Some people, and potentially more fool them, believed it when the Government brought in time-limited arrangements to "fight Covid" instead of recognising the outright dishonesty that was attached to those schemes.A tiny fraction of London's population are benefiting from this work & it will remain a tiny fraction, no matter what the pipe-dreams of the cycle enthusiasts are.

Mark Warburton ● 1678d

Glad to see that nobody has taken the bait of Paul Campbell's 'dead cat on the table' of proposing an impractical solution to the problem while repeating the mantra that there are too many cars. I'm sure many of us would be happy to debate the merits of closing the Dukes Avenue at the junction with the A4 on a new thread but a measure that will increase the number of vehicles turning right into Dukes Avenue from CHR is not the right way to reduce the risk to cyclists being hit by vehicles turning right into Dukes Avenue from CHR.I'm not sure I would go as far as saying that Cycleway 9 is not fit for purpose because people have to wait longer at the lights. What it has done is encouraged more leisure cyclists to use the High Road particularly at the weekend. However, commuters and people wanting to get somewhere quickly are faced with long waits and this is causing frustration and sometimes makes people take risks. Not sure there is a solution to the issue that is arising with the Dukes Avenue junction.The original Cycleway 9 design actually claimed to speed up cycle journeys along CHR as far as I remember. I don't know hat the differences are with the temporary design which has made it slower but maybe that is something that could be looked at. I think it has to be accepted now that the original permanent design will never be implemented because TfL will not have £72million to spend on schemes like this for a long time. The collision data seems to suggest that the main issue is with the junctions on the Chiswick Lane to King Street section and if this continues it will have to go so ultimately it may be worth seeing if the central section can be salvaged with tweaks to enhance safety.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1673d

There is a much broader problem with collisions and risks at the western end of the High Road and around Turnham Green. Someone has raised the issue of collisions on the western end of the High Road and side roads such as Oxford Road North and Burlington Road. The data shows collisions becoming more common here, as well as along Wellesley RoadThis is due to the bus gate postioned on the High Road outside the Italians. It has cut road capacity eastbound here by well over half. So what happens? You can believe in fairies and the magic of traffic evaporation, or it goes elsewhere. Remember this is a key route, given the tube lines there are few north-south routes in W4, and most eastbound traffic on CHR at this point was turning north up Acton Lane. There was a dedicatated left turn lane specifically for this, although one that has been halved in length and made less effective by the bus gate.The answer as to where the traffic goes is two routes, and you can check this yourself if you ask Google maps for directions. Traffic either joins CHR from Chiswick roundabout and then prompty turns down Oxford Road North to reach Wellesley Road, before turning up Sutton Lane at the Rhythm and Brews roundabout to get to Acton Lane. Some traffic stays longer on CHR to turn down Burlington, then along Arlington Gardens to reach Sutton Lane then Acton Lane. You even see vehicles doing U turns on the High Road when they see the bus gate queues to get back to one of the side roads.The second route is to use A4 and turn off by the Porsche garage up Heathfield Gardens, then via Heathfield Terrace and the roundabout to reach Sutton Lane and then reach Acton Lane.Grab a coffee at Rhyhthm and Brews most mornings and what the vans and lorries heading up Heathfield Gardens. Usually a few cement mixers and large contruction lorries in the queue. And the constant stream of traffic coming along Wellesley Road, all of which has cut down from CHR. So traffic actively being diverted by the bus gate, onto residential streets. The cut through to Wellesley Road barely existed in the past, why bother when the CHR route was more direct and the left turn filter lane for Acton Lane meant traffic generally flowed.The cut through from the A4 up Heathfield Gardens is a long standing one, but is attracting more traffic including larger vehicles due to the use of mapping apps.This is all non-local traffic, and none of this is going to be shifting to bikes. THis is even before we consider Heathrow that is still at around a third of normal capacity and generates a lot of through traffic around W4. It is beyond ironic that TFL faces funding cuts and may scrap some schemes such Direct Vision which aims to protect vulnerable road users from lorries. But in W4 it has implemented a schme that is actively diverting vans and lorries onto minor residential roads and past nureries and infant schools. TFL are fully aware of what is happening but are refusing to do anything. Making Heathfield Gardens access only northbound  would be an immediate and simple fix, and removing the 'temporary' bus gae would stop traffic diverting onto Wellesley Road and keep traffic on a major 'A' road.The rest of the CS9 route is being built in full, such as Kew Bridge, which widened the roadway. The bus gate was not part of the original CS9 plan, has not been subject to consultation and no modelling was undertaken on the wider issue of traffic displacement. Given the funding issues there is a danger that this will become a permanent feature of west Chiswick, despite the traffic displacement it causes and risks to vulnerable road users.

Bill George ● 1673d

Bill, I deliberately used the word throttle for the desired function of the bus gate. I don't dispute that a certain proportion of vehicles will avoid the queue by using back streets to circumvent it. SatNavs will be instructing people to do this as the queue develops back towards Chiswick Roundabout.If the bus gate wasn't there vehicles would proceed more quickly into the centre of Chiswick and traffic would be static there which would be more dangerous because there are more pinchpoints due to C9.There is no dispute from me that traffic is being displaced from the High Road onto residential streets to the south as a result or that this is not a good thing. However, my point was that the bus gate is integral to the management of traffic in the centre of Chiswick since the changes implemented by Cycleway 9. I don't believe filtering or LTN type restrictions in these streets will be considered by TfL because the queue of east bound traffic on CHR already can reach close to Chiswick Roundabout. Logjam would result more quickly  if a certain proportion of that queue was unable to turn off and the queue was stopping traffic exiting Chiswick Roundabout.What possibly happened this morning due to the problems on the A4/M4 is that the phase at the bus gate going east was lengthened leading to a short queue on CHR but long queues on Sutton Lane North. If the lights operated this way more often it would discourage cars cutting through to get to Wellesley Road so perhaps your best bet is to encourage the authorities to manage this more proactively. I remain convinced that the bus gate will be with us as long as Cycleway 9 is with us and with a huge investment having just been made that may be some time so campaigning against it in isolation is futile.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1672d

Hi JeremyIts a bit hard to explain without us both sitting in front of a map. But afraid your point is wrong. Traffic diverting away from the bus gate is NOT trying to reach central Chiswick, its trying to reach north Chiswick and beyond. How do I know this? Some mornings there are 100 yard queues of traffic down Heathfield Gardens, nearly all of which is attempting to turn left onto Heathfield Terrace and then reach Sutton Lane and onto Acton Lane. Very little of this traffic turns right to reach CHR. Similarly, there are no queues northbound on Sutton Court ROad and most tellingly, no queues at the junction of Heathfield Terrace and CHR. Similarly, if you observe the bus gate in action, you see 90% of the non-bus traffic is trying to get to Acton Lane, not central Chiswick. There are normally few vehicles queueing eastbound on CHR at the lights and junction by Waitrose, despite the much shorter green phase for eastbound traffic.So the bus gate may have been felt necessary to throttle traffic back from central Chiswick. But actually the closure of FIshers Lane and reduced green phases through central Chiswick means little traffic now makes that journey.So to simplify it, the bus gate was designed to address a problem that simply does not exist, but is now creating massive new and dangerous problems. Traffic data that was used to justify the bus gate predated the closure of Fishers Lane for example, so will have overstated the amount of traffic heading eastbound on that stretch of CHR.I can also assure you there have been no changes to bus gate light phases and these queues as seen on Monday have been ongoing since the bus gate was built. There incidence fell during lockdowns, worsened materially between lockdowns, and are now back and will only worsen. On Monday we saw long queues and construction vehicles cutting down Marlborough Road and via Arlignton Gardens to reach Sutton Lane and then Acton Lane. So no there was no shorter queue at the bus gate, it was as bad as ever.IF the bus gate persists (which remember it was not consulted upon or part of the original CS9) then the roads around Turnham Green and feeder roads like Wellesley, Heathfield Gardens etc will see hours of queues and pollution. It is not in any way required for the rest of CS9. The only solution is to remove it.

Bill George ● 1672d

Hi PaulCan we please have a constructive problem solving discussion and not retreat into tribal responses and abuse. I fail to understand the hostility you bring to this. Option 1 is not acceptable, and as a cyclist I dont see you can accept it either if you want CS9 to work. You have previosuly acknwowledged the collision hot spots emerging along the western stretch of CHR where cars divert onto Wellesley off CHR, and we are seeing more collisions also on Wellesley itself. Is it OK if large aggregates lorries drive down small residential streets, serious question...?Option 2: sit outside the Italians with a coffee at 8.30am and see how the bus gate operates. You can see nearly all the non-bus traffic is trying to get to Acton Lane, not stay on CHR eastbound. So can you please explain what the bus gate is meant to do? You can see its not stopping traffic carrying on to the central stretch of CHR as few vehicles want to do this. You can also see all the traffic coming up Sutton Lane, 99% is carrying straight on to Acton Lane and only 1% turning right to CHR and central Chiswick.Having done that, if you can explain why the bus gate will not be removed, it would be most hepful to understand. It is classic piece of remote decision making by people with zero local knowledge and using just 'data'.3. Many local residents have been doing this and trying to get the issues addressed. But we are met by either silence or indifference from TFL and LBH, as well as now fairly dismissive and insulting responses from local cyling campaigners. As to your final point, what a frankly insulting comment to make to someone you have never met and know nothing about. Are you posting here as a member of Hounslow Cycling or in a purely personal capacity?

Bill George ● 1672d