Forum Topic

Cycle Lane works

I’m flabbergasted to see that works are “progressing” after all of the negative feedback given by local residents. At a time when food and fuel poverty are real issues happening to people all around us, shouldn’t money available be diverted to helping people who are finding things really tough right now?

Nicky McKenna ● 1562d65 Comments

This latest round of 'works' has cost far more than the £3,300,000 that we are told was budgeted. We have also seen 3 100 year old trees felled with no sign of any promised replacement, distressed residents who may be pedestrians, bus users or drivers yet absolute silence from our MP and council leader. If it is indeed a new beginning at Hounslow House, the least residents deserve is an explanation.

Mandy Waters ● 1562d

From Brentford Today & TV:Last week the new Council Leader Shantanu Rajawat said: "It is my number 1 priority to change the way we work, to improve the way we engage and consult with you, to ensure that the Council works with communities on the decisions that matter to their areas and have your voices heard in everything we do from planning to parks. This will be the Council of the people, for the people, by the people."Well, let's see now if these are just high falutin' words or a real commitment?

Vanessa Smith ● 1562d

Where were the trees felled and was it to accommodate the cycle lane? Asking as i don't know, but i thought some local trees (eg Fauconberg Rd) where cut down due to disease. 

Rob Reynolds ● 1562d

One tree was outside the Best Western. Healthy, mature, cut down for cycleway. No replacement nearby.Another in front of Prebend Gardens. Less healthy, less mature. Replaced in situ. Since it was dying, one wonders why it wasn't removed prior to cycleway construction in order to make that section better. Instead it weaves around when it didn't need to. The third I believe is the one further west by Marlborough Road that got conflated with the cycle issue. Not sure why it was removed. Not sure where its replacement may or may not be.

David Lesniak ● 1562d

I’m sure I heard the Best Western tree was removed to accommodate motorists 😂👍. Definitely not for the  cycle lane😂

Maggie Dodge ● 1562d

Best Western was for a filter lane for motorists.

Philippa Bond ● 1562d

Reinstatement of the left hand turn was part of the Cycleway 9 worksNo Cycleway no removal of the tree Twist it anyway you like Philippa, everyone knows the truth

Maggie Dodge ● 1562d

Indeed, Maggie. The filter lane was in situ functioning well with the tree just beside it for, how do you all say it, donks. Then came the cycle lane. Then went the tree.

David Lesniak ● 1561d

Reading between the lines it looks like the cycleway works are being accelerated so that there are no lane closures on the High Road ahead of the weekend closures of the south circular by Kew Bridge station which are likely to be hugely disruptive. In addition there are the train strikes which it is probably a safe bet will run all through the summer.Whether this means that the cycleway will actually properly open remains to be seen but those in the know on these matters don't seem to be able to give a date for it starting. The King Street section does seem to be making quicker progress though.

Francis Rowe ● 1561d

Regardless of views on its role, the story of CS9 through Chiswick is one of farce and mismanagement. A pointless and rushed 'temporary' scheme that involved an awful lot of permanent looking works. Then its obvious flaws needed lots more digging and construction. A couple of years on we still dont have a fully open scheme, and also are still getting a slimmed down version on the cheap, unlike the rest of CS9 route across west London, which creates lots of pinch points and potential blockages which further add to the congestion in W4. Why W4 deserves the cheap scheme and the rest of LBH and LBHF get the full scheme does not even seem to be a question. We have lost a key westbound stretch of bus lane past the bus garage, and the new narrow carriageway for the right turn up Goldhawk from King St just another narrow pinch point that will create more delays for buses and other traffic, to add to all those through central Chiswick.North-south traffic (trade, local and commuter) is funnelled onto fewer routes, all of which have seen capacity cut. Chiswick Lane northbound now one lane not two, TGT hard to get to given the above constraints, Fishers Lane closed, bus gate that cuts eastbound capacity on the High Road before Acton Lane. No coherent planning or oversight.Whatever the proponents say, CS9 does nothing to stop the daily flows of traffic to and from the M4/ A4 and north circular through W4 in both the morning and evening peaks, which are the main source of congestion and pollution in the area. What it does is increase the vulnerability of the local road network to gridlock.

Bill George ● 1561d

It's hard not to agree with at least parts of your post, Bill.I'm a cyclist, I've said a number of times, and in my opinion the problem with traffic is not the fact that a cycleway has taken a bit of road, but that the a lot of vehicles on the road seem to be having one occupant and, as stats show, are driven on very short distances. I also believe, having had more than my fair share of close shaves with cars (and having been run over) that a segregated cycle lane is needed. I try my utmost to be a careful road user but there's a limit when, to name but one thing I see every single day, cars don't give you right of way.At the same time, though, this CS9 scheme is just not what was needed. The King Street portion is so badly designed that it's comical, between the fact that it's often at the same level as a very busy sidewalk, or that ridiculous jump from one side of the road to another. I haven't had the heart to check out what they've made of the Hammersmith gyratory yet but I expect it to be mayhem. The CHR bit is as bad: you can't turn into Turnham Green Terrace when coming Westbound, there's plenty of intersections with blind spots and the traffic lights... There's THIRTEEN traffic lights on the corner where Outsider Tart once was and I'm still not sure of who does what when. Going forward, the Kew Bridge intersection works only if one is coming from Chiswick. I want better infrastructure, and I'm glad something is being done as there are cities in Central Asia with a better network of cycleways than post-Olympics London, but this doesn't mean that anything goes.

Francis Sheehan ● 1561d

The Kew Bridge section of the Cycleway is excellent in my view other than the very poor connection with Kew Bridge itself. The road closure schedule for near this point has now been postponed again so the article in this week's newsletter is now out of date. That could be because TfL remembered there is a train strike or maybe the suspension of work on the Cycleway on Chiswick High Road can't be implemented on time. Either way we are still in the dark as to whether or not the cycleway will be operational at this point.

Mark Evans ● 1561d

"The Kew Bridge section of the Cycleway is excellent in my view other than the very poor connection with Kew Bridge itself."Sure, everyone's entitled to their opinion but...If you're coming from Strand on the Green and wish to use the cyclelane towards Chiswick you either mount on the pavement or... don't know.If you're riding eastward on Kew Bridge Road and thus want to join the cycle lane to avoid Chiswick Roundabout you either use 3 pedestrian crossings or... you don't use it. And if you're using it to commute someplace, well, you need something fast and you might as well take your chances on the road.If you're coming from Richmond, you either cut through two lanes of traffic to reach the pedestrian crossing, or you don't use it. I showed it on Google maps to my Belgian colleagues and their puzzlement was, shall we say, palpable.

Francis Sheehan ● 1561d

https://energysavingtrust.org.uk/Reducing the cost of your transport and that of your family to yourselves and to the environment has to be an integral part of this surely?  It's changing all over the world if you stop to take a look.  We have an increasing use of food banks in the UK and Councils have grants to help with heating and cooling costs for the most vulnerable.  Many though are able to help themselves to reduce their costs.  There are high tech and low tech solutions.

Philippa Bond ● 1560d

Where is it on Google Maps? The latest images I could find were for 2018.The original design had lanes on each side of the road but that left a nasty pinch point in which cyclists were forced to move into general traffic by Kew Bridge station due to a bus stop. Also the phase needed to allow the northbound cycle traffic to cross the South Circular into Wellesley Road was deemed too long and would have caused queues back to the A4. So what we have is a compromise. It works better than what was there before because it gives a much better route from Chiswick to Brentford and Kew (even allowing for the poor linkage by the bridge).The approach from Kew Bridge Road and Kew Bridge is meant to be sorted in the next phase although there appear to be some major issues with this section so it may never be done. In the interim, I agree, if you are in a hurry then it is best to progress to Chiswick Roundabout but that was the situation before this new section so there is no net loss.Personally, if I was on SotG I wouldn't head west to get to Chiswick. Going east is a bit further but not by much and is much more pleasant as long as you are happy to use and underpass. Generally though I agree that in the majority of cases they haven't though through linkages with feeder roads. I live north of the High Road and it has become more difficult to access it so I tend to use it less. My experience isn't universal so I'm not saying the Cycleway isn't working but, if it is retained, it should be seen as the start of a process of improving cycle links not the culmination.Your continental colleagues may be puzzled by these designs but I'm sure experienced and knowledgeable people have worked on them and if compromises have been made they are necessary. The seemingly endless delays with Cycleway 9 may be a result of some of the design challenges it raises being more complex than originally thought.

Mark Evans ● 1560d

Hi MarkGoogle Streetview has the latest situation I think. Their car was here last in August 2021. https://goo.gl/maps/cerjaiR76pJzhEMo9 is the link.Don't get me wrong, when going TO Brentford or Kew the current layout is brilliant, especially with the Stile Hall Gardens solution. But when you're coming FROM Brentford or Kew the layout is, well, vastly inferior."Your continental colleagues may be puzzled by these designs but I'm sure experienced and knowledgeable people have worked on them and if compromises have been made they are necessary. "I'm not disputing that whoever designed CS9 has got a wealth of knowledge and expertise, and I'm sure many hours of thought have gone into it. But at the same time we have an infrastructure that gets pedestrians and cyclists awfully close together (Hammersmith end of King street, where indeed they resorted to put some barriers a while back), has a very weird 90 degree turn from one side of the road to the other (again Hammersmith), doesn't allow left-hand turns into Turnham Green Terrace when travelling eastbound, is very tricky to reach from North of CHR (as you say) and is substantially subpar when coming from Brentford or Kew if compared with the other direction.Sure, it's better than what was there before, i.e. nothing, but considering that we have so much wealth of knowledge to draw from and we had quite a large budget... it feels like a wasted opportunity. It is a bit sad to think that, these days, I'd rather cycle on Goldhawk road even though its cycle lane is nothing but a painted line with (always the same) cars parked on it as it's faster and more straightforward than CS9 for my needs.

Francis Sheehan ● 1560d

Thanks for that. Strangely Google Streetview didn't give me the latest map when I looked first but now it is there.See what you mean about access to the Cycleway from SotG. A bit of shared pavement here would be very useful. The poor linkages for cyclists along the route which this typifies are probably a result of budget constraints and a desire to avoid 'mission creep'.I agree with every point you make. I also now habitually use Goldhawk Road rather than CHR as it is far quicker with progress on the latter now painfully slow.The design priorities of the cycleway appear to have changed as it originally was a 'superhighway' that would have allowed cycle commute times superior to public transport or cars. Now its primary purpose is safety with the aim of encouraging inexperienced cyclists. Just because it is not built for us doesn't mean it is a bad idea though.

Mark Evans ● 1560d

Just a quick update on the closure by Kew Bridge - I was wrong to say that the closure on the weekend Friday 24-27 June had been postponed. The Roadworks.org site changed the works to the following day but it has now changed back. When I contacted the editor of this site I was told that TfL have confirmed the 24-27 June closure and that provisionally there will also be a closure the following weekend if the work isn't completed.

Mark Evans ● 1559d

"experienced and knowledgeable people have worked on them and if compromises have been made they are necessary"TfL and the government spent untold sums on developing cycling infrastructure design and guidance that TfL and the goverment then contravened. In this instance, not to put a cycle lane where they have due to the site specific conditions and not adhereing to the minimum width stipulated for a bi-directional cycleway. This cost goes missing when calculating the cost of implementation and correction. So if they aren't following their own advice from their own experts, failure is sure to follow. No?

David Lesniak ● 1559d

Think you will find the majority of people are already doing that, there are some journeys that are just not practical to cycle or use public transport. We must stop this hatred of cars it’s appalling.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1559d

This is very much a two way street Jayne.  As I've said previously,  these discussions are made up of the same people shouting at each other.  There's a lot of hatred of cyclists shown here too (said for balance).  Maybe if people actually had a discussion rather than a shouting match they might have more empathy for each other.  Unfortunately this subject is toxic.  Hence the reason why most of us avoid it.  Please don't have a go at me for having an opinion (this is a general comment and not aimed at you Jayne).  I'm happy to have a discussion,  but I don't need any more of the nasty trolling.

Nora Watkins ● 1559d

If corners were cut it was probably because of the nature of the way that they were implemented through an experimental traffic order rather than a wanton disregard of the rules by traffic engineers. As I understand it Andrew Gilligan was adamant that it must be built and therefore the existing guidelines became irrelevant.This may of course cause problems later on but of all the complaints we have heard about the cycleway, it being too narrow is not one of them.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1559d

I shared The Energy Saving Trust article - I didn't write it.  It covers all sorts of energy saving methods.  If you can only see one you need to look further.

Philippa Bond ● 1559d

I agree, I don't personally find it too narrow. Sure, you could also make it larger so that it's easier to overtake those who are going a bit too slow but... can you imagine the uproar from other road users!?Still, I read on the Calendar that the current works should finish by July 8th but then there's more in store for the 'central' bit of CHR... ouch.

Francis Sheehan ● 1558d

Flabbergasted? The decision to install the permanent cycle lane was taken by Hounslow Cabinet in September 2019 and by Hammersmith and Fulham Cabinet in December 2019 after the lengthy consultation. The campaign to stop it failed. All subsequent campaigns have been noise and fury. While it is of course more frustrating for cyclists than anybody else that the roadworks have taken so long, this one is absolutely delighted that the permanent design will progress soon in phase 3b. The design is great in the section between Kew Bridge and Wellesley Road, it looks great in the section between Chiswick Lane and Goldhawk Road, and I look forward to it being as good in this middle section.Francis is right that it may not be ideal for speedy cyclists but that's not a bad thing. My experience of cycling in places that get this right is that these types of lanes fill with people of all ages, genders and abilities on utility bikes and they are used to get to shops, cafes and restaurants, schools and work. They facilitate use of bikes for short everyday trips. The original campaign against CS9 focused heavily on the dangers of "pelotons of lycra-clad loons mowing down pensioners and children as they pedal furiously through Chiswick on a superhighway to get to their fancy offices in the City". Well everybody who supported that campaign should be quite pleased with how things turned out. And don't worry Francis this is just the start. We'll get plenty more cycle lanes installed. It just might take a bit of time to unwind 70 years of urban design centred on private motor vehicles. And a great deal more noise and fury ...

Paul Campbell ● 1558d

I've noticed that some of the side roads coming onto Chiswick High Road have give way markings for the cycle lane and then again give way markings for Chiswick High Road. If cars have to give way for the high road they block the cycle lane.  Was that in the original cycle way design or will it change?  It seems a bit odd.

Kieran Fox ● 1558d

It is hard to see how you could design a bi-directional cycleway without this happening and it is another reason why cyclists wanting to progress more quickly will often choose to stay in the general traffic lanes. Personally I find that it is only really at Linden Gardens that this is consistently an issue.The next phase of works looks as though it is to improve the layout of all these junction side roads and this will take place in August. No matter what they do a vehicle emerging from a side road will also lay across the cycleway when it is trying to enter Chiswick High Road. Whether this requires the cycleway to be closed again remains to be seen. Paul's view of the inevitable advance of cycling infrastructure is slightly undermined by the announcement yesterday of the removal of the Euston Road segregated cycleway. The reason given was the delays caused to buses and that will probably the key factor in deciding if Cycleway 9 is retained. My guess would be that part of the reason for the delays in completion are ensuring that the equipment installed to manage traffic light phases is the most effective possible. Buses are clearly being delayed a bit but that may be within a tolerable degree for the authorities given the embarrassment of having to rip up an expensive scheme so soon after construction.

Mark Evans ● 1558d

Mark,You didn't mention that the TfL announcement also said "HS2 will need to use road space on the Euston Road as part of their construction plans."  Euston Rd wasn't part of TfL's plans for cycle lanes pre-Covid while C9 has been part of these since the beginning.If TfL can agree a longer-term funding deal with the government then then next phase for construction will be C9 between Kew Bridge and Brentford as this has been consulted upon already and is basically 'shovel ready'. The section between Brentford and Hounslow had an initial consultation earlier this year and there will be a subsequent consultation on a revised design either later this year or 2023.The works on CHR are essentially putting in place a scheme similar to the design agreed by Hounslow in September 2019.  Traffic modelling for this showed some aspects of bus journeys improved, some reduced, some the same.  Modelling is useful but not the real world so changes based upon the real world are always needed.I believe that the delays are associated with the signals as this involves a specialist subcontractor for the signals themselves plus BT Openreach for the comms infrastructure they need.

Michael Robinson ● 1558d

The scheme being put through central Chiswick differs in many key respects to the scheme that was consulted upon, with narrower carriageways and new pinch puts that reduce the capacity through central Chiswick. Some may like the fact that stretches of pavement have been kept, but its definitely not the scheme that was consulted on and we see traffic displacement as a result. Traffic modelling is indeed a difficult art and generally fails to account for the real time algorithms behind most mapping apps. Much of west Chiswick has been gridlocked every evening for the last few weeks. Although certain road works are the catalyst, TFL's long standing desire to prioritise the A4 traffic at peak times is an important factor. Its ironic that in doing so traffic floods parts of W4 and means a key stretch of CS9 is blocked in both directions by traffic. More generally it highlights that most key junctions and roads are operating at capacity. A more salient question for traffic planners might be when are there not road works on key routes surrounding W4 given most of the infrastructure is creaking and at our beyond its shelf life. I wonder how much more cycle infrastructure our key roads can take while functioning at even a basic level. Buses are aready being intentionally sacrficed for cycle lanes as on the westward stretch by Stamford Brook bus garage. Longer term an expanded congestion charge seems inevitable to manage traffic flow and keep roads moving. Cycling has a role but IMO its hugely exaggerated by its proponents. A larger stick to get people of out of cars is needed than just creating congestion, and history (and rest of Europe) shows us that extensive, accessible and attractively priced public transport is key to provide the alternative. Unfortunately the current govnt prefer to treat TFL and its Labour mayor and mainly Labour councils as a political football. So we price people off tubes and buses, cut services, then wonder why the roads are solid.

Bill George ● 1558d

"A larger stick to get people of out of cars is needed than just creating congestion, and history (and rest of Europe) shows us that extensive, accessible and attractively priced public transport is key to provide the alternative."Better public transport in itself isn't a 'stick' at all, it is a 'carrot'.Evidence from Europe shows that better public transport on its own does NOT get many people out of cars.You are conflating two different objectives.Improving public transport will increase the number of people who use public transport.Making driving and parking more inconvenient will reduce the number of people driving. You may think they are the same but they aren't.Better public transport can just increase the number of journeys made by people who take public transport already. That isn't the same as getting people out of their cars. Cheaper public transport can mean more people taking public transport but fewer people walking and cycling as there is no longer a price advantage.  That isn't the same as getting people out of their cars. Better public transport can provide more opportunities for people.  For example, the Elizabeth Line may mean that someone in, say, Maidenhead might go for a job in Canary Wharf as it is now viable to commute there.  But they wouldn't have driven there either, so that isn't the same as getting people out of their cars.I think you are ignoring how much driving is habitual and in general 'carrots' on their own aren't a good way to get people to change habits.  A 'stick' is more effective way to get people to re-evaluate their habits.

Michael Robinson ● 1558d

Yesterday I sat on Euston Road under the overpass during morning commute. I'm there five times a week. A cop car came rushing up behind me, lights on, but there was nowhere to go. Not even for the police. So we sat there as the traffic inched forward. Nobody using the cycle lane. No cyclists. No motorbikes which usually ride in the cycle lane illegally. Nor the police as we are promised they do in an emergency.Mark, would you kindly share that announcement? I searched but only found results for when they removed the cycle lane on the other side of Euston Road shortly after it was installed during Covid lockdown #1.

David Lesniak ● 1558d

Michael, I am not conflating the two objectives, they are inexorably linked. Its you because of your single focus on one mode of travel that you refuse to acknowledge that. I have to be 100% clear in my ealier and other posts stated that a stick component is needed too, but it needs to be more than just creating queues. As David notes everyone suffers in queues, its bad for the economy and also emergency services.Numerous UK cities have made it very hard to park in city centres but offer free park and rides. We have no joined up strategy for London. So we have many boroughs talking up LTNs and active travel, whilst at the same time making streets available to commuters. We have a large business park in W4 encouraging thousands to drive to Brentford stadium, despite as others note there is lots of public transport in the vacinity. So you agree on parking restrictions, which when I mentioned this before you made some wierd comment about moaning about everything.Surely there are other things we can agree on, or do you believe your cause is best served by disagreeing? There is I suspect some truth in the fact that the govt likes promoting cycle lanes as compared to running buses and trains they are v cheap, so you may feel a winner from the new age of austerity. Whether they work is not really relevant to BoJo and his mates.Plenty of people do choose public transport as its easier and quicker, even if its not cheaper (and getting ever more expensive). For a large number of people its also the only realistic choice.

Bill George ● 1558d

What surprises me of your anecdote, David, is that it automatically defaults to the cycle lane rather than looking at the real reason why the police car couldn't move, i.e. the presence of cars. I've been riding my bike on my way back to Old Street for 6 years, including before the installation of a bike lane. That street has been always clogged with cars, more often than not with just one or two people tops, in spite of the fact that there are at least 5 Tube stops for as many as 4 lines (Plus overground and rail) on its length. And I'm not talking about vans, or taxis/Ubers, I'm talking about cars.Maybe that's the issue. It's the same towards the end of Chiswick High Road, by the A4 roundabout. Every day at 5PM it's a mess of bumper-to-bumper traffic. No cycle lane there, and yet it's full of cars - most with only one occupant - and no space for emergency vehicles.

Francis Sheehan ● 1558d

Francis I tend to agree. As you note we see the flow of traffic like a tide in and out of London on our doorstep, the A4/ M4. A flow that TFL bizarrely still prioritise even if it means gridlock on local routes. Sutton Court, the High Road etc all solid every night. These are the problem, but realistically a cycle lane does nothing to stop it. Bigger and coordianted action is required. Small things might help, like taxes on business parking and those that offer car parks for events in favour of park and ride schemes. A real focus on public transport is key, with commuters forced to pay more to drive.

Bill George ● 1558d

Bill, just as a matter of information employees that are provided with "free" parking are taxed as a benefit in kind.

Adrian Irving ● 1558d

From what i can see that isnt the case, its free. From HMRC:'The parking space tax rules state there is no income tax liability where parking is provided “at or near” their workplace, directly or indirectly by payment/reimbursement. It is defined as workplace parking'.Also from a tax advisor:'A few years ago HMRC suggested that they might start taxing car parking spaces, making all employer-paid-for parking a taxable perk. Fortunately, this never came to fruition. Therefore, providing parking spaces for your workers isn’t taxable or liable to NI. There is nothing in the tax law explicitly, or by implication, which suggests the parking space must actually be used by an employee or director to park for work. It’s possible to come to work by a different mode of transport (bike), and use the space at weekends for leisure'

Bill George ● 1558d

fyi Hounslow have a proposal for a workplace parking levy which would mean an additional charge for each parking space owned by a business within a defined area.  The charge would go towards public transport improvements.  I understand this needs to be a specific project rather than general improvements and in this case it is a passenger rail service between Brentford and Southhall to connect with the Elizabeth line (there is an existing freight rail line which would need to be upgraded).  However funding for this type of project is all up in the air following Covid.

Michael Robinson ● 1558d

David, I heard the news on a TV news bulletin. It doesn't seem to have been widely reported online but here is one link I found confirming the news:https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/euston-road-cycle-lane-will-be-scrapped-after-bus-journey-times-and-congestion-concernsTo be fair even the most ardent cycling advocate isn't likely to be that bothered that it is going because it wasn't used very much.

Mark Evans ● 1558d

Maybe I should have been clearer. Tax is payable if the employer pays the cost of the employee's parking space as opposed providing a space.

Adrian Irving ● 1558d

The relocation of GSK and Sega has led to a significant reduction in the potential for a work place levy in the area so it may no longer be viable.This is a shame because a rail link could have been transformative in the area. Although Michael may be able to quote research that claims to show better public transport doesn't reduce car use I don't think that has led to that view becoming part of the decision making process which still accepts the received opinion that if you give drivers a good alternative some of them will use it. Hopefully other ways will be investigated to resurrect the scheme although in the current hostile environment for transport spending in London this seems unlikely.Please to see the Cycleway 9 extension may be getting funding in the latest government package for TfL. As it is 'shovel ready' are the designs available anywhere? I'd be very interested to see how they have dealt with the pinch points on Kew Bridge Road and Brentford High Street.

Mark Evans ● 1558d

The cycle lane is also very dangerous for pedestrians; on crossing the motorway part of the high road, I often get cars stopping; never cycliston the cyclway.Michael Preece

Michael Preece ● 1558d

It's a shame, Frances, ignorance and rhetoric have gotten the better of you.Euston Road, the ring road, is reduced to a single lane. You know, the ring road which encourages people to avoid driving through the city itself. The only way to clear a path for emergency vehicles - using your logic, of course - would be to eliminate all vehicles. Indeed cars are vehicles. So are Ubers, black cabs, white vans, HGVs, buses, tour buses, those enormous Royal Mail trucks that are always on Euston Road, things like flat bed trucks delivering steel for all that housing sprouting up, concrete mixers, private ambulances, Amazon vans, hospitality deliveries...gosh, the list is endless. But by all means, advocate for the removal of all those to clear the path. Otherwise removing cars won't do the job. But you knew that. So much so you even contradicted yourself without realizing what that meant. Enjoy the Kool-Aid. Nice day for it.

David Lesniak ● 1558d

"To be fair even the most ardent cycling advocate isn't likely to be that bothered that it is going because it wasn't used very much"Agreed. But I had to laugh because the one thing I found was from the London Cycling Campaign which was annoyed cyclists would then have to travel a tad out of the way to get to better provisions on Tavistock, I think. Made me laugh. All the bits from folks in Chiswick saying tough sh*t to drivers who might need to travel a bit out of the way and yet the cyclists are crying foul for having to do the same.

David Lesniak ● 1558d

It's Francis, David. Frances might suggest I have a lot less fur than I've unfortunately been saddled with!As for the rest, I don't understand the acrimony in your tone. You see, unlike many (including you, I daresay) in this forum I try not to sit in one of the trenches of the car-vs-anything else diatribe. I try and see the points in either side, and it pains me to be automatically cast in the other camp just because I'm not a 100% believer in whichever Gospel's being heralded as the Truth at the moment.The world is neither black or white, this I firmly believe, it's grey. And its greyness means that I don't pretend to believe that all cement mixers can be mounted on a cargo bike, the Amazon delivery drivers can ride a unicycle, the steel rebars can be flown via drone and Pimlico Plumbers will start using mopeds. I've actually said so.But on the other side I don't find it controversial if I point out that Euston road has ALWAYS been gridlocked at certain times of the day, and that a LOT of the traffic we see in London - including and especially Chiswick, see it every single day on CHR and elsewhere - is made of individuals in one car. And that ought to change, if nothing else for the sake of the environment and air quality.Finally there's also an argment for cycling safety but knowing full well that this gets short shrift on this forum I'll save the effort.

Francis Sheehan ● 1557d

Its good to see from Michael's last post that we can now talk about improvements in public transport, not just cycle lanes. A train link to the Elizabeth line would be great, but TFL likely to be subject to cuts year on year under the current govnt so dont expect any new investment. We can I think also agree that commuters driving into London and the heart of Chiswick (1500 spaces at the business park) is not a good thing? A tax on these spaces to fund public transport would be excellent, maybe at a London wide level. Despite pushing LTNs and claiming to want to reduce car use, LBH approved 500 match day spaces at the business park. Something that was not part of the stadium planning application. We also have LBE and Sainsburys offering spaces to commuters, so hugely undermining CPZs. Can we agree that as a minimum it would be nice to see a consistent policy approach from the boroughs, rather than the current complete contradictory stuff? It would be informative to have air quality monitoring on the High Road by the business park or on Sutton Court Road by the A4. Now that traffic has been diverted away from central Chiswick we may then get a better view of the impact.

Bill George ● 1557d

David, this reminds me of the lovely Ruth , who doesn’t want to cycle on the A4 because there are no coffee shops there. As if she couldn’t possibly detour a few minutes from there to the High Road, or heaven forbid walk tothe High Road, possibly with a shopping trolley . Will Norman is being paid a huge sum to convert people to walking. Cars are demonised but there are a growing number of people frustrated with cyclists. How about leaving the bikes at home, for the short trip to the local shops for a coffee ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1557d

"Despite pushing LTNs and claiming to want to reduce car use, LBH approved 500 match day spaces at the business park. "Chiswick Business Park is private land.  The owners can rent out parking spaces if they want. There is nothing for the council to approve as it has nothing to do with them.The stadium planning documentation did state that they would be looking to rent parking spaces for match days.If you look at www.justpark.com so can see Chiswick residents who are renting out parking spaces on their property as well.  Nothing the council can do about this either.Perhaps CPZ permits should be charged at these market rates rather than the current charges from the council.

Michael Robinson ● 1557d

Yes, the workplace parking levy work was all pre-Covid and as you say, the local economy has changed since then.My point was that public transport improvements on their own are not sufficient to reduce driving and there also needs to be some 'stick' that causes people to re-evaluate their driving habits in the first place.C9 material are available here https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/cycle-superhighway-9TfL seem to have removed the plans from 2019.  I think they are still on the Hounslow website but would need to look.  The section through Watermans Park has been done as this was part of the park improvements but is waiting for electricity supply for lighting to be completed.

Michael Robinson ● 1557d

Hi Michael, I fear as ever we are getting lost in the weeds. Its good if we focus on finding common ground as to solutions that can benefit everyone, including public transport.  People can of course rent out drives but at least the boroughs can be consistent, not least given their regular pronouncements on the topic.Regarding the business park, there was a planning application required for stadium event parking and approved by LBH, despite much opposition. Reference is  P/2021/0205. May of been hard to refuse but its the lack of coherence that is a real problem. One event and the pollution/ congestion can far outweighs local households to reduce car use, to say nothing of the daily commuter traffic.

Bill George ● 1557d

Apologies, Francis.I've been traveling Euston Road for roughly eight years now. Traffic moved better without the missing lane. That's not rocket science. Emergency vehicles never had issues because there was always a place for any/all vehicles to shift to. Now they are locked in. Somehow engineering and flow get short shrift in this country and then people wonder why traffic builds. Let's see, light phases that allow one or two vehicles on major thoroughfares? During rush hour? Should it take 25 minutes to inch along by the Library because of it (and that's just on Midland Road)? Or should phasing by more synchronized? Maybe control phasing entirely and take out the unknown in pedestrians activating a button? That test has yet to be tried. So as long as it's all trial and error, why not throw that into the mix?Cycling safety is important. But when a cycleway sits idle for over a year, strewn with leaves and litter and weeds, then it's time for the next experiment. Is it not?Your logic, Francis, must make you insane when you see all the vans with only one guy driving them. I drive an estate car. I "present" as one of those you criticise. Yet I'm on a supply and distribution run. And I'm not the only one using a car as required. I believe that's the grey you say you embrace. Evidence to the contrary.

David Lesniak ● 1557d

Last time I bumped into Ruth she said how she'd cycled to meet up with a ride starting in Cobham. Do you think she should have taken the car to cover that distance, perhaps stopping at a coffee shop along the way?

Anne England ● 1557d

Will Norman wouldn't know a pedestrian improvement if it bit him in the ass.When I cycled with him and Ruth Cadbury, RUth pointed out a raised pedestrain crossing creating a speed bump of sorts as a side street intersected with a main road. Hammersmith has some prior to all this mess and now Chiswick has the "new and improved" version which is worse than what Ruth was banging on about. The one by Netheravon floods. Ooops. All that money and trail and error and still didn't learn. Then you have the new chamfered edge at the curbstone which is a tripping hazard. One doesn't expect that edge to go missing an yet it does. And the stupid hump edging between the cycle way and pavement meant to do what exactly? CS6 has a sinmple, elegant solution that works for the hordes of pedestrians in the center of town. Surely, surely, it would apply out here in W4. It has square corners as you'd expect. So another new risk to pedestrian safety. Good luck out there, folks.

David Lesniak ● 1557d

I am sure there is common ground Bill but the trouble is, you keep getting things wrong and your belief that the council needs to approve a private land owner renting out parking space on their land  is just one example.The planning application for the Brentford stadium defined the number of parking spaces provided at the stadium and developments around it.  The council did limit these spaces based upon policies but contrary to what you think, it can do nothing about Brentford FC or London Irish making their own arrangements with private land owners.Brentford also made an arrangement with a local school to use car parking but this fell through as many parents in the school didn't want the school to be used for this.  The owner of the business park (Enjoy Work plc) is in business to maximise return for its shareholders so you'd need to find a way to convince them that they shouldn't rent out space on their land because it isn't something the council controls

Michael Robinson ● 1557d

It's hard to make the perfect the enemy of the good if you keep piping up with facts Michael.

Paul Campbell ● 1557d

Did you read my post Anne?

Maggie Dodge ● 1557d

David, your point below"Your logic, Francis, must make you insane when you see all the vans with only one guy driving them. I drive an estate car. I "present" as one of those you criticise. Yet I'm on a supply and distribution run."makes me think you're not really reading what I wrote. I wrote what follows:"And its greyness means that I don't pretend to believe that all cement mixers can be mounted on a cargo bike, the Amazon delivery drivers can ride a unicycle, the steel rebars can be flown via drone and Pimlico Plumbers will start using mopeds. I've actually said so."At the same time, though, how many of those around you while you're on delivery run are actually doing a trip that could be avoided? TfL themselves say this:"Six in ten car trips are made for shopping, leisure and personal business purposes and a fifth for work purposes. A third of car trips are shorter than 2km."https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-travels-by-car-in-london.pdfI don't think it's revolutionary to say that if there were less of those then it'd be easier for you to do your supply run, the ambulance to go where it needs to go and the police to do what they need to do.

Francis Sheehan ● 1557d

I did! Very good idea for people to leave their cars and bikes at home and use shopping trollies. Perhaps Hounslow Council could provide a thousand or so along CHR? Also, not enough coffee shops on the A4. Just developing your ideas - if all the CHR buses were diverted to the A4 then anyone wanting to shop could make the brief walk to the high street and carry their shopping in one of Maggie’s zero emission trollies. Give up a lane of the A4 for parking and you’ve got a Park ‘n’ Trolley solution to Chiswick’s traffic congestion - and entrepreneurial opportunities for those coffee on cargo bike guys.

Ed Saper ● 1557d

The Brentford Stadium parking at Chiswick Business park was challenged by local residents and the council confirmed to them it was change of use and would require planning permission. I guess a car park for an office campus can’t automatically become stadium overflow parking without permission.

Ed Saper ● 1557d

Ed, in order for there to be overflow, there must be flow. They built a stadium without parking. And now they are scrambling because it's needed. Duh.  And as I understand it the new Ballymore parking garage sits idle. You'll have to ask Guy Lambert who approved it why that might be.

David Lesniak ● 1557d

I saw an article posted by the LCC on the Euston cycle lane removal . The picture they posted showed nose to tail traffic for some distance, with just one lone cyclist in an otherwise empty cycle lane!  Thanks for that fir once it appears to be a genuine photo

Maggie Dodge ● 1553d

That lone cyclist is a cargo delivery. I love LCC couldn't muster up a picture with let's say two or three actual commuters. You know, the ones who supposedly will be greatly inconvenienced by having to cycle a block or two in another direction (which will, ostensibly, make them even healthier!).To get to the section shown it usually takes a minimum of 15 minutes from Great Portland Street tube where the queue begins to that junction which is just past St Pancras Church. It's usually faster to stay on top versus using the underpass. That said, I've found it even quicker to turn off on Albany Street, head up to Camden and come back down past the post office on Eversholt Street with a drop off at Euston Station thrown in. Absurd a ring road doesn't function as intended.

David Lesniak ● 1553d

"Bicycle is the slow death of the planet."A banker made the economists think this when he said:“A cyclist is a disaster for the country’s economy: he doesn’t buy cars and doesn’t borrow money to buy. He don't pay insurance policies. Don't buy fuel, don't pay to have the car serviced, and no repairs needed. He doesn't use paid parking. Doesn't cause any major accidents. No need for multi-lane highways.He is not getting obese.Healthy people are not necessary or useful to the economy. They are not buying the medicine. They dont go to hospitals or doctors.They add nothing to the country's GDP."On the contrary, each new McDonald’s store creates at least 30 jobs—actually 10 cardiologists, 10 dentists, 10 dietitians and nutritionists—obviously as well as the people who work in the store itself."Choose wisely: a bike or a McDonald's? It's something to think about.~ Emeric SilloPS: walking is even worse. Pedestrians don't even buy a bicycle”

Steve Taylor ● 1539d

BG: "Despite pushing LTNs and claiming to want to reduce car use, LBH approved 500 match day spaces [for Brentford Community Stadium] at the business park."RC: Football and Rugby matches at the BCS are held at the weekend, or occasionally on a weekday evening i.e. when road traffic is ordinarily light and public transport is also less busy.Meaning that the extra traffic the new stadium is generating should surely be considered acceptable when well managed (which it is) and set against all the other benefits which the stadium brings to the Borough. Note that I say "extra" traffic, since many of those who drive to the BCS also drove to GP previously and had to park up nearby anyhow.As for allowing parking in the Business Park, if you didn't do so, then drivers would look to park in nearby streets instead, which would annoy local residents a great deal more.Finally, I think there is quite a hefty charge for parking at the Business Park, which deters cars with only one or two passengers, while most fans attend matches with friends and family etc, meaning you're not likely to get many single drivers using the Business Park.All of which argues for the compromise so eloquently expressed by Francis Sheehan elsewhere on this thread.

Richard Cathcart ● 1539d

Richard, you seem to be conflating a few things. I have no problem with the stadium or the broader benefits. But some seem to fall into the same logical inconsistencies. LBH (and many posters on here) want to promote active travel (and I assume public transport) and reduce car use, it should also apply to all, including commuters who travel into London daily but so far no real mechanism exists for that. But why does that disinective to use cars to apply to your neighbour wanting to go the shops or cinema, but not someone from outside the area wanting to watch football or rugby? Why allow even more match day parking in the heart of W4 by approving a planning application for use of the business park car park?The stadium is surrounded by transport options, and CS9 passes next to it. The club could play their part by discouraging local parking in favour of park and ride from locations further out. As to some of your points, traffic is hardly light at 6.30pm midweek or 2.30-3pm on a Saturday, have you ever been near Chiswick roundabout at that time? Nor is public transport light in midweek evenings, its actually the peak commute home. As to saying people used to park in GP, well that is very easily remedied by extending CPZ operating hours to include matches. Within W4 there is a small zone by the stadium with match restrictions, but much of GP and west Chiswick is open for free on street match parking if spectators wanted. The Brentford match day restrictions are far more limited in area than most other major London stadiums, which LBH could easily sort if they were serious. Lets hope Brentford success continues but it means regular sell outs which I doubt was the realistic expectation when the new stadium was planned.If you really are focused on two outputs, namely air quality and Co2, then a single match can offset all the credits by local residents over the preceding week. Of course, if you are just virtue signalling and choosing the things that suit aspects of your lifestyle or personal preferences, then its a different story (thats not aimed at you Richard). As ever its about being honest about the pros and cons, and not just pretending the cons dont exist.

Bill George ● 1539d

BG: "Why allow even more match day parking in the heart of W4 by approving a planning application for use of the business park car park?"RC: Some fans will travel to the BCS by car, if only because they have to (mobility, family etc). Just as the same fans went to Griffin Park by car. That said, the BCS is much better served by public transport than GP, while the club has imposed mitigating measures (eg cycle racks, road marshalling etc).Further, parking those cars in an otherwise unused business park has to be far preferable to having fans park in local streets, as happened at GP.Meaning that even if there was some way of banning all visitors to the BCS from coming by car - and I can't think of one - then you should accept that the stadium will attract a reasonable, manageable amount of motor traffic. Just like bars, restaurants, cinemas, gyms  and other non-essential amenities. Or do you accept that a percentage of their clientele drive cars, too?BG: "As to some of your points, traffic is hardly light at 6.30pm midweek or 2.30-3pm on a Saturday, have you ever been near Chiswick roundabout at that time?"RC: I am a Season Ticket holder at BFC. I always take the bus from CHR to the BCS for games, since it is quick and reliable. Though I usually walk back if the weather's fine and/or I'm stopping off for a pint. I've never noticed excessive traffic delays, otherwise I'd walk to the stadium as well.BG: "The Brentford match day restrictions are far more limited in area than most other major London stadiums, which LBH could easily sort if they were serious."RC: I'll take it that you've checked all the restrictions eg around eg the Olympic Stadium, New Den or Selhurst Park, so can assure me that that is so.And then point out that (a ) the BCS is further from central/built-up London than most other stadia, and (b ) that it is half or even a third the size of the major stadia you talk about, meaning that there is correspondingly less need for extensive restrictions.Which is why there have been surprisingly few complaints about match day traffic/parking at the BCS by local residents, that I've noticed, at any rate.BG: "a single match can offset all the credits by local residents over the preceding week."RC: Taken to its logical conclusion, then the stadium would never have been built. Was that something which you advocated? Hell, why not just ban football (and rugby) as spectator sports altogether? At least until after 2030, when we'll all be driving electric cars.

Richard Cathcart ● 1539d