Forum Topic

Cycleway9 Open at Hammersmith Gyratory

Opened this afternoon with signals all operational. And it is a thing of beauty. There is now a safe route for cyclists across the Gyratory. Wonderful stuff.

Paul Campbell ● 1544d73 Comments

I wonder if cyclists will continue to ignore the 4 (as in four) yellow "no cycling" signs posted in Lyric Square.I wonder if they will continue to ride from the cycleway onto the pavement at the crosswalks. I'm waiting for them to do it in front of the pub to avoid the odd bendy bit that Paul is calling a safe route.I wonder how much longer Dott can get away with putting their equipment in front of the Boots as opposed to across the street in the designated area. Displayed, with pricing. Make no mistake, it is an advertisement. Something any business is forced to pay for. Except them.

David Lesniak ● 1543d

That's Dott Rental E-bikes I presume?If it is, what's the problem with the promotion of a business that results in fewer cars being on the road and presumably more space being available on public transport.Loss of revenue to TfL and the exchequer?

Andrew Jones ● 1543d

"Wonderful stuff."A wonder indeed that this grinding slow, inept, mismanaged  budget busting construction has managed to complete a small section of the project.A slow hand clap is surely more appropriate.

Adrian Irving ● 1543d

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Maggie Dodge ● 1543d

An independent business is required to pay for use of the pavement. Should that business contravene that license, they will be penalized. That same business could easily support your agenda entirely.A multi-billion (insert monetary unit here) backed by venture capitalists who, let's be honest, aren't aligning with your agenda in toto as you presume/pretend they are, pays nothing and as can be seen are able to contravene with impunity. It wouldn't surprise me one iota if some of these venture capitalists are behind the recent Supreme Court decisions including the one that just gutted the EPA. Now what's crazy is your steadfast refusal to see that there should be, at a minimum, an entry fee to the market which would then go towards financing your goals. In a way, it's like the gas tax funding alternate means of energy. You'll note the misplacement of these e-bikes has also reduced the pavement width outside access to a busy premise by more than half. Otherwise what you're supporting is one charge for one, and another (or no) charge for others. Discriminatory and punitive by definition.  

David Lesniak ● 1542d

My agenda David? What do you think my agenda to be? My earlier comment in this thread was about Dott having to pay for advertising like any other business.Not having been along Kings Street recently (I would have passed there yesterday evening but there was a significant queue of cars waiting to go that way so I drove on the A4 instead) I've never seen the designated area for Dott bikes that you provided a photo of.Yes, I totally agree with you on this, they should be in the designated area and not parked on the pavement outside Boots making it more diffcult for pedestrians.

Andrew Jones ● 1542d

Chiswick is become more like the Netherlands every week and the cravats hate it.

Edward Seaton ● 1542d

We're still a LONG way off becoming like NL (or even BE for that matter).The gyratory solution is brilliant, I must say. Now if one's going East-West and vv. there's no more need to go in with the Wacky Races going on in the gyratory, and that's amazing. I know some here open up a thread every time a cyclist does something that's not kosher - and I don't condone those cyclists - but the things I've witnessed in the big Hammersmith roundabout while on my bike... Not anymore though, and that's great. As much as I have misgivings about the rest of CS9, it has to be said, skipping Chiswick Roundabout and the solution at Hammersmith will undoubtedly save lives.Now if only I could have Old Street roundabout fixed before my office relocates to Holborn...

Francis Sheehan ● 1542d

Maggie. No wonder you're deaf to what's going on!

Philippa Bond ● 1542d

Fewer bikes on the pavement would be a major step forward. This morning, using a walking stick, on the pedestrian pavement, I was abused by a woman cyclist, to "get out of her way" . Cyclists are part of the problem; their arrogance is unbearable,
\

Michael Preece ● 1542d

No you weren’t. Every time you post you report a run in with yet another female who apparently decided to pause their personal errand, commute, shopping trip or school run to abuse and, on occasion, physically assault an elderly man in the street. That’s not credible. Either you are harassing women in the street or you are making this up.

Ed Saper ● 1542d

E-bikes and e-scooters pay nothing to the councils for use of the pavement. Nor are they held to account for geo-fencing contraventions. This is why we see Dott and Lime bikes blocking the pavement in Chiswick where said cycles are banned.The pavement on the mall side of King Street has become an obstacle course with poorly placed seating and planters shoved amongst the existing bike racks, telephone booths (why these still exist are a mystery), trees and fixed street furniture. A bit of planning and foresight wouldn't go amiss. Nor would enforcement. All too often as you walk in either direction its safer and easier to walk in the cycle lane vs veering completely across the pavement to find a clear path that is often already being used by a bike or scooter in motion or otherwise.

David Lesniak ● 1541d

There are pavements which are marked as shared between pedestrians and cyclists and these are often just marked with signs on posts with no difference evident on the pavement itself.  These could be better marked but for those with poor and declining sight this is increasingly difficult to do successfully.  I rarely cross except at lights or pedestrian crossings myself and would never encourage children to chance their luck crossing elsewhere - and as for parents/carers who push buggies ahead of them onto crossings...  what a terrible risk and example.There is most definitely a problem with cyclists, scooter riders and motorcyclists completely thoughtlessly overtaking without considering that there is a reason for the vehicle/s  in front to stop - and that the road may be blocked not just by that queue of traffic they are so keen to pass - but by pedestrians crossing or cars turning into or across the road..  It is a problem for us all!

Philippa Bond ● 1541d

"or even BE for that matter" People here don't realise that those lovely places they visit on their holidays or work trips that are nice because of the absence of cars used to be saturated with them just like Chiswick. And then people changed things. 

Paul Campbell ● 1541d

The people who regularly report confrontations with cyclists on this forum might just be confrontational people looking for confrontations.

Paul Campbell ● 1541d

I'd be honest, though, a few years working with - and in - Flanders and lower Netherlands made me appreciate Chiswick and London in general a great deal more. I envy their cycling infrastructure and, in Belgium, the abundance and cheapness of mussels. Apart from that... There isn't much else I'd import wholesale over here.A bit OT but hey ho.

Francis Sheehan ● 1541d

Ed Saper suggested" Either you are harassing women in the street or you are making this up. "Ed, might I humbly suggest that you consult Google beforeshooting your mouth off, and making what are clearly defamatory remarks about other posters ? As it happens Ed, Michael Preece's experience mirrors my ownand that of many others, in terms of the general attitudeshown by errant cyclists. But I won't bore you with details as I'm sure you won't believe me, either.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1541d

E-bikes and e-scooters pay nothing to councils ... if there's sufficient pavement to accommodate them, I don't see a problem. You do, and as someone who has probably paid the council for pavement usage I respect your view. We'll just agree we have different viewpoints.I take your point that the operators are profit generating businesses, but charging them is likely to result in additional costs to the users which perhaps makes take up slightly less likely.Geo-fencing contraventions - there should be more accountability for that. If there was willingness from the affected councils (and an incentive from them to enforce) perhaps something could be done to improve things.I can't comment about the pavement on the mall side - haven't been there recently.

Andrew Jones ● 1541d

There has always been sufficient pavement space for all manner of signage for SMEs not to mention seating. Yet these businesses are charged extortionate fees to do so. Annually. Or in the case of Hounslow, twice yearly. They are paid for by the hard work of the proprietors or, in the case of something like High Road House, the billionaire owner/investor. Lime/Dott pay zero. Yes, charges to vendors often appear in the cost to the end user. Shocking. Commercialism. Consumerism. Been around for ages now. That "take up" trope is just that, a stale trope. The cigarette tax didn't really stop people. Nor did the gas tax. Plus, most cyclists are convinced they and they alone are saving the planet so I doubt with that conviction they'd start driving again if they were to be charged more for an e-bike or an annual fee for certification and registration. But cyclists do like free stuff. That we know.

David Lesniak ● 1540d

My significant other and tested out the new cycleway infrastructure this weekend on our first visit to the new Livat centre to take a chance to buy some stuff from Ikea we will stick in a cupboard and never use.The trip was very enjoyable and using the sections of Cycleway 9 that were open we made stately progress to the centre of Hammersmith. We were in no hurry so the regular stops to negotiate barriers and wait at traffic lights were not a great inconvenience. We made our way all the way to Hammersmith Road with only a few slightly hairy moments including a delivery van emerging from a side road and pedestrians wandering in front of us on King Street.When you get to the end of King Street and emerge onto Hammersmith Road, it is a bit confusing but generally seems to be a nicely put together bit of infrastructure.We lingered in Hammersmith longer than we should have and needed to get back more quickly so, starting at Hammersmith Road we made through Brook Green, cut through the Trussley  Road underpass, up Hammersmith Grove to Goldhawk Road. This was far quicker and, in the opinion of my partner who isn't a very confident cyclist, felt a bit safer although she found going through the Trussley Road tunnel a bit intimidating.I don't know the area west of Shepherd's Bush Road particularly well but most of the roads seem to be bottlenecks and it occurs to me there would have been a lot of scope for opening up safe cycle routes in this area. It seems to me that making the spending priority to develop safe cycle routes following the same way that most cars do isn't necessarily the right approach.On the basis of this one trip I don't think that we would use Cycleway 9 to get to Hammersmith again. However, this is mainly because, starting from a point north of Chiswick High Road, there are good options that run parallel to CHR/King Street. If you were starting south of the High Road, as far as I am aware no such alternatives exist unless you count the A4 so I can see how C9 could be of significant benefit to people not in a hurry starting from that area.In overall cost benefit terms, traffic seemed to be flowing okay other than were there were roadworks and I didn't see any buses being held up. What is a possible concern is the new pinch points created on King Street for traffic which may cause problems for bus travel times. If that doesn't prove to be the case then I would say this is a positive addition to local transport infrastructure.

Mark Evans ● 1540d

Worth the money Mark?

Maggie Dodge ● 1540d

That remains to be seen but I think that the main benefit will be seen longer term because it will encourage less confident cyclists to cycle more. Therefore if the case for retaining it is unclear after the first year of operation, we should stick with it to allow these benefits to become apparent.

Mark Evans ● 1540d

"I don't know the area west of Shepherd's Bush Road particularly well but most of the roads seem to be bottlenecks and it occurs to me there would have been a lot of scope for opening up safe cycle routes in this area. It seems to me that making the spending priority to develop safe cycle routes following the same way that most cars do isn't necessarily the right approach."There are no possible quiet routes into the centre of town between Holland Park Avenue and Kensington High Street. The bridge on Addison Rd gets you as far as Holland Park, but at that point there is no bike route through the Park and RBKC have opposed any protected cycle routes along either KHS or HPA. Heading up to Trussley Road bridge and then meandering through to Ravenscourt Park is very much the long way round compared to taking the bike lane along Kings Street. That length of the bike lane, at least as far as the Park, has stayed open. C9 is by far the fastest and now safest way up to KHS from Bedford Park, and the new route around the gyratory was full of cyclists taking that route this morning.

Tom Pike ● 1540d

I would just add that the route via Trussley Rd westbound involves a right turn from Hammersmith Rd into Brook Green so in busy traffic that means getting out of the bike lane and waiting in the middle of the road.Then to get to Trussley Rd itself, that involves crossing Shepherds Bush Rd, again, not for the faint hearted in lots of traffic.I would use Trussley Rd eastbound myself if heading for Holland Park Avenue area but crossing Shepherds Bush Rd isn't good.I don't see Trussley Rd westbound attracting many people now that the gyratory lane is in place.LBHF are looking at low traffic neighbourhood options for the Brackenbury Village area so maybe there will be some improvements as part of that project.

Michael Robinson ● 1540d

Mark, didn’t you say your less confident partner, opted for a different route home, or did I misunderstand ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1540d

Not saying it is optimal but going back via Trussley Road was significantly quicker and felt just as safe to a reasonably competent but not over-confident cyclist. Shepherd's Bush Road wasn't that busy and we were doing a circular route so didn't head onto Ken High Street but there is always the option of dismounting and crossing at pedestrian crossing at the worst points if you are intimidated. The delays would be no more than some of the long phases along C9.Brackenbury Village is already good place to cycle through but it still leaves you the wrong side of Hammersmith Grove. Where real improvements could be made is in the section between Hammersmith Grove and Shepherd's Bush Road but, as far as I can see it is a maze of dead ends and Tom is telling us that there is nothing to be done there. Maybe longer term some of the light industrial space will be redeveloped in a way that allows improved pedestrian and cycle access.I do the trip to Hammersmith quite regularly and, even prior to C9 would have gone via Bath Road and Goldhawk Road etc. When C9 was operational to Goldhawk Road I did experiment with the CHR route a couple of times and it was considerably slower. However, probably not to the extent that someone starting south of CHR would find it worth their while to go via Bath Road.

Mark Evans ● 1540d

It's not the fastest.  Use Bath Road, Goldhawk Road, and Paddenswick Road.From Bedford Park, you have to negotiate TGT and get across the lights to reach the cycle lane, which is on the wrong side of the road going East.  By that time you will probably already be past the Seventh Day Adventist church on Bath Road, and possibly further on than that.You avoid the Chiswick Lane junction on the High Road, the Goldhawk Road junction, the delay when the cycle lane crosses the road to get you back to the right side of the road, and a whole bunch of other junctions.There is no way that the cycle lane is the fastest route. I'm not one of the anti-cycle lobby on here.  I estimate that I've cycled around 35,000 miles in London, but I have to say that if you want to be taken seriously, then don't make statements like that.  And don't pretend that the cycle lane is wonderful.  It is a seriously flawed design.  It's probably a marginal improvement on what was there before, but there is no denying that it is seriously flawed.

Al Webber ● 1540d

Most roads are fine cycling when there isn't much traffic. Crossing Shepherds Bush Rd isn't good when there is lots of traffic and your advice to get off the bike and walk demonstrates just how bad,Hammersmith Grove is also a significant southbound rat-run during the week.

Michael Robinson ● 1540d

Could it be that there is a bit of a male obsession with "the fastest route"?If you are heading north east then the fastest route will be to cycle north east but then Goldhawk Rd, Shepherds Bush roundabout and Holland Park Avenue are all pretty horrible to cycle in traffic.

Michael Robinson ● 1540d

Al, you missed I was talking about the route from Ravenscourt Park onwards where C9 has always been open. My route from Bedford Park is down Prebend/Vaughan, across Goldhawk Rd to Ravenscourt Gardens and then across to C9. C9 now with the gyratory lanes is much more than a marginal improvement to get to the bottom of KHS. Then the trouble begins….

Tom Pike ● 1540d

'Could it be that there is a bit of a male obsession with "the fastest route"?'Actually, in this particular instance it wasn't me but my partner who was keen to get home more quickly. I don't think generally there is any difference between male and female cyclists wanting to complete a non-leisure journey as soon as possible.

Mark Evans ● 1540d

The barriers are all gone and it is there ready for all the gorgeous people of Chiswick to enjoy it in the sunshine. Go on. You know you want to. Mwah.

Paul Campbell ● 1536d

Basically even cyclists can’t agree on the best routes, or whether C9 works. Got to smile

Maggie Dodge ● 1536d

The best route depends on what your points A and B are and what your cycling proficiency/fitness level is etc. The best route is going to differ from person to person. I think C9 being open for a whole of 2 hours is a bit too soon to see if it works.

Babs Doodkorte ● 1536d

C9 was under utilised at lunch time, maybe it is just too hot.However, it is good that it is finally open, no doubt that will last a good fortnight before some organisation decides to dig up the road again.Whether it is worth the money only time will tell.  However, it is pretty clear that C9 has not only managed to improve cycling along its route but also managed to create serious accident black spots.  For me the classic is the Duke's Avenue/CHR junction: theory is that it is safe with the lights including a cyclist only time, practice is that I have already seen 2 near misses in 4 days when a car turns from CHR onto Dukes Avenue and a cyclist, ignoring the fact that the lights for the cycle lane are on red, attempts to cycle straight into the turning car.

Justin Stephenson ● 1536d

How many accidents have there been vs the past?

Francis Sheehan ● 1536d

Agree with Babs that we prefer to travel a chosen route, not that I cycle on roads but know it's also true of driving, some areas I avoid unless of course a road has been closed and I'm forced in another direction.  I was pleasedchildren were using the cycle lane but now it's concerning if there are black spots.

Janice Evans ● 1536d

The section of road between Fishers Lane and Dukes Ave was the worst for cyclist casualties on CHR. Closure of Fishers Lane should improve pedestrian and cyclist safety on CHR with a reduction of vehicles using this route. A traffic survey showed that 90% of vehicles turning from CHR into Dukes Ave were driving straight through the area, mainly to the A4 but also cutting the corner to get to Sutton Court Rd avoiding the lights at Heathfield Terrace. If this route was closed off, the volume of traffic using Dukes Ave would be reduced substantially and there may not even need to be traffic lights at the junction of Dukes Ave and CHR, just as there aren't traffic lights at junctions with other residential streets that aren't through routes to the A4.

Michael Robinson ● 1536d

I agree Dukes Avenue needs looking at but the obvious answer, closing off access to the A4 may not be the right one. Sutton Court Road (which is also a residential road) will be put under even more pressure and you will have to work out how you deal with vehicles cutting through along Wavendon and Barrowgate to jump queues on SCR.The meatgrinder that was the Fishers Lane junction has been made safer by the banning of right turns out of Duke Road but less safe by the positioning of the bus island which means you always need to be wary of vehicles travelling at speed to get around any bus at the stop. Delivery drivers are the worst but, as a cyclist crossing CHR at this point, your view of traffic on the cycleway is obscured by the bus and eastbound traffic so it is an uncomfortable place to join the cycleway and I avoid it whenever possible.On safety, my interpretation of the very limited data that was available was that the central section of CHR became safer but Chiswick Lane to King Street was more dangerous as the bi-directional cycle way was poorly marked. The reason for the closure is that many of these side junctions were being made safer so, if the changes work, then the Cycleway will have achieved its primary objective of reducing risk for road users.From what I am told this 'reopening' is just a brief interlude when we will actually be able to use most of the cycleway without interruption. Apparently next month work will commence on safety improvements at junctions in the central section in Chiswick which will require more closures.

Mark Evans ● 1536d

Yes, addressing rat-running along Dukes Avenue would need to address both the A4 and people trying to "jump the queue" getting to Sutton Court Rd.  Closing this off may also improve flow of traffic on SCR which is disrupted by vehicles trying to force their way out of the side roads like Barrowgate.Dukes Ave isn't meant to be a relief road for Sutton Court Rd just as Homefield, Airedale and Netheravon  aren't relief roads for Chiswick Lane. Access to the A4 or cutting the corner to Chiswick Lane isn't possible from those streets, so why should there be access to the A4 and cutting the corner to SCR via Dukes Ave?It will take several years of data to reach conclusions about safety plus the other factor is the number of people cycling.As a hypothetical example, a road with an average of 2000 people cycling every day and 15 casualties per year is safer than a road with 1000 people and 10 casualties per year.  So the number of casualties can go up but the chance of being injured goes down.

Michael Robinson ● 1536d

It's definitely worth looking at but it will be a difficult challenge. Redirecting traffic from Dukes Avenue to SCR isn't necessarily a win in terms of improving the environment where people live as there are far more residents on the latter. ANPR enforced residents' access may not be viable so close to a commercial centre and TfL may not be keen to put more pressure on the problem SCR/A4 junction. I fully understand your point about casualties as a percentage of road use type. I think at this stage all we can say is that there is no clear picture as to whether the cycleway has reduced collisions but there is no argument that it has made the area much more dangerous. What it very evidently has done is increased the perception of safety in central Chiswick as there are far more families using this bit.

Mark Evans ● 1536d

So was it, will it, all be worth it, when they finally stop tweaking.  This is not just about cyclists is it?

Maggie Dodge ● 1536d

Let’s hope the Tories elect someone sensible who can cap the funding on these mad cap gyrations.

Russell Pearson ● 1536d

is banging. I took my own advice and checked it out several times this evening (gotta keep those counts up at every opportunity). It sets a high water mark for quality design of a cycle lane in London. We are very lucky to have it. I for one say if this is what we can expect in the next section to get the full permanent treatment between Chiswick Lane and Heathfield Terrace then bring it on. Also it is already fully-funded so not even Steve "anti-net-zero-hero" Baker or Suella "stop the woke rubbish" Braverman could save the bewildered surviving Onesies who crawl out blinking in the sunlight and praying for a deus ex machina.

Paul Campbell ● 1536d

>Also it is already fully-funded so not even Steve "anti-net-zero-hero" Baker or Suella "stop the woke rubbish" Braverman could save the bewildered surviving Onesies who crawl out blinking in the sunlight and praying for a deus ex machina.Anyone any idea what this warble is about?

Russell Pearson ● 1536d

The mot juste in your case dear Russ is the same as it has always been since our very first exchange on Nextdoor when you were unable to understand the maths behind the idea that reducing the volume of vehicles on SOTG might result in fewer of the reported incidents of damage to parked cars on it and Thames Road - "bewildered". Don't change.

Paul Campbell ● 1536d

He’s the plot yet again Russell? Screen shots of peoples posts. Remembering first exchanges,  is just sad. Needs to get out more. Maybe in his car 🤷‍♀️

Maggie Dodge ● 1536d

I think my fifth vintage of Onesie tears will be the best yet.

Paul Campbell ● 1536d

For cyclists it may be a good thing; for pedestrians, particularly the elderly, it's a nightmare. When crossing the Highroad many cars, buses, lorries slow or stop to allow you to cross. The cyclists mostly get heads down and power on. Many are abusive.

Michael Preece ● 1536d

Michael, honest, normal cyclists are still identifying problems. So after all the time and money spent, the disruption we’ve endured, the fact remains that C9 is a failure. It was built because the cycle lobby demanded it. They get what they want, and are too embarrassed to admit it’s a failure. The abuse you hear is because the cycle lobby will only really be happy when they have the roads all to themselves. That means no pedestrians and no motor vehicles.Sounds crazy,  but who would have thought they could have demanded and got what they have so far. Inappropriate  LTNs, no go areas,  bi directional cycle lanes, parklets. Massive parking charge hikes. Fines for everything but breathing just  about. If you read Paul Campbell posts you will understand that they are not like normal people.  They are a minority but these bullies have infiltrated some important posts. Mayors, Councillors, Prime Monsters 😂. Let’s hope they crumble from the top down.

Maggie Dodge ● 1535d

"high water mark for quality design"I'm guessing Paul had his eyes closed. Often we here don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In the case of CS9, it's more like don't let the crappy be the enemy of the disastrous.In terms of anything remotely resembling urban design which it is and should be, it's appalling. Nothing graceful. Nothing aesthetic. In some places the pavement has been reduced by 75% and then those idiotic e-bikes and scooters get left in what pavement remains. Raised pavers delaminating??? Why weren't they replaced with actual pavers instead of a cheap retrofit? Horrible, inconsistent graphics which have already been touched up, new swaths of macadam where pavers used to be (just take a look at Netheravon and Brtish Grove intersections) overgrown weed patches which should have been planted and not a new bike rack nor bench in site. Crossings leading the visually impaired into a building facade? WTF? Pardon me as I can't recall who always goes on about low branches along the A4...guess what, now you've got them on CHR!There was no design. No quality. Just reactive box-ticking. Chiswick deserves better. Indeed, so do cyclists.

David Lesniak ● 1535d

Three cyclists sped past me on the pavement in Hammersmith yesterday and I wasn’t there for long.

Vivienne Cox ● 1535d

Vivienne, not where the cycle lane is ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1535d

No - the cycle lane seemed to be empty,  They were on the pavement

Vivienne Cox ● 1535d

Yesterday i cycled the length of the new cycleway from Chiswick to Hammersmith. Im a very experienced London cyclist btw. I have a bike that a vicar might like and i was wearing cotton shorts and t shirt ( lol). I had a car pull across me and he apologised, a van pull out on me,  he told me to f off when i said 'well done mate' and 2 pedestrians walk straight out in front of me. All of which i had anticipated and many more that i anticipated but didnt happen. It should be there, we need multiple ways to get around. But it is quite dangerous. I think its badly thought out by someone who cant ever cycle. Please be careful. Next time you pour hate on someone who chooses to cycle rather than pollute the roads, remember the cyclist who runs this gauntlet every day.

Tony Mansell ● 1535d

As someone who constantly has to confirm that I don’t dislike cyclists. That sounds like a terrible experience. Is there a better design that could have worked? Why do the cycle lobby insist on saying it’s wonderful? when ordinary cyclists,  from the beginning have said the Chiswick section is dangerous, and now the Hammersmith extension. What a waste. Perhaps the cycle lobby should not have been in charge, they’ve got blinkers on, and are clearly making poor decisions even for their cycling friends but still they gloat , well PC certainly does, as the least mature of the bunch.

Maggie Dodge ● 1535d

The heat seems to have got to Mr Campbell. He is more comfortable with cold weather activities.I cycled the length of it this morning to King Street. Like Tony I am very stately on a bike but I didn't have any near misses. Progress is quite slow but if you are not in a rush it is actually quite a pleasant trip on a day like today.Perhaps everyone can agree that it is a good thing it is now open because a closed cycleway is bad for all types of road users. If you think it is a good idea a sustained period of operation will demonstrate is needed to prove you right. If you think it is a bad idea bringing it into full operation will accelerate its removal. I remain sceptical but, a lot of money has been spent on it, and it deserves at least six months before it gets canned.

Francis Rowe ● 1535d

Good to get feedback from cyclists. Can we just remember that everyone other than cyclists need to be considered, when deciding if this should stay. No one seems truly delighted by the journey by bike as I read the comments. Many people are put out by it. Paul Campbell will of course laugh at the suggestion that it will be removed.

Maggie Dodge ● 1535d

Closing off of the Duke's Avenue exit onto the A4 was, from memory, considered as part of the original proposals.  Not sure if it was ever more than an interesting suggestion though.The problem with closing the Duke's Avenue exit is that unless there is almost total traffic evaporation - ie that those using Duke's Avenue to get to the A4 no longer take that journey, then there are very limited options to get onto the A4 travelling east: Chiswick Lane or SCR.  SCR already grinds to a halt on a regular basis because of the amount of traffic (especially on Friday afternoons during school times), someone who lives on Chiswick Lane would need to comment on that road.The other problem with putting more traffic on SCR is that the SCR/A4 junction is a notorious accident blackspot.I am guessing something along those lines is why the original proposal/suggestion to close the Duke's Avenue exit was dropped

Justin Stephenson ● 1535d

“ Closing off of the Duke's Avenue exit onto the A4 was, from memory, considered as part of the original proposals.”Your memory is failing you. It wasn’t. Changes were at the junction of Dukes Ave and CHR, there were no proposals to stop ratrunning along Dukes Ave to the A4 and SCR.

Michael Robinson ● 1535d

Maybe Justin has got bored with imagining futures that will never happen and is now inventing pasts that never occurred.

Paul Campbell ● 1535d

He does make me laugh Maggie. 🤪

Russell Pearson ● 1535d

Maggie. It needs better education of how to use these multi use roads and people need to relearn how they cross streets, whether thats by car, bike or walking.It is a learning curve, i find myself looking each way about 4 x, like i do when  i'm abroad, as i walk cross CHR.But that not anything impossible  is it? Ill get better at it, its new thats all. Cars/vans and lorries only took over our cities in the 1950s creating what are now horrendous noise and health issues. 45% of Londoners do not even own a car. Some balance both in the comments on here and what is safely available for different modes of transport. You'd not ask a pedestrian to walk on CHR after all and there are 2 'bike lanes' for pedestrians.

Tony Mansell ● 1533d

Well I suppose at my age Tony, and those older and more vulnerable, its not a great prospect to relearn how to cross the road, just so that cyclists can have their way. I think the worry about safety, coming from cyclists is being ignored by those that don't want to hear it. This is still a temporary cycle lane I believe and further safety improvements are planned for later in the Summer.  This confirms to me that there are some safety issues still to be addressed. Am I right?So its been a difficult process and still ongoing inconvenience for pedestrians, buses, emergency vehicles and motorists. It'll get better? , how long do we have to give it? Is it worth it. No, not in my opinion. I think that the constant tweaking proves to me anyway, that it was never a good option but certain people can't back down and would now look silly after the enormous expenditure.Can we at least have some signs asking cyclists to stop jumping red lights (for their own safety ) and riding on pavements.  Lets have some consideration for people other than cyclists Tony, is that too much to ask?I can't help it I'm afraid I just don't see it from your point of view, you don't see it from my mine. We can agree to disagree, in an orderly fashion.  After all you're winning the battle, so no skin off your nose as the saying goes. Have a good evening .

Maggie Dodge ● 1533d

Sometimes google is your friend.  A quick search reveals that in May 2020 there was indeed a proposal that Dukes Avenue exit to the A4 should be closed.What I got wrong was that it was not a proposal by Hounslow Council but effectively a proposal to the Council (or to be strictly accurate a call to people to comment directly to the Council and Cllr Sam Hearn to get the Dukes Avenue/A4 exit closed) in an article written for the Chiswick Calendar by a Guest Blogger.The name of the Guest Blogger appears to be a certain Michael Robinson!So lets call it an interesting suggestion (as per my first post) rather than a definite proposal.  I have to admit to being a regular user of Dukes Avenue by car, by bike and on foot so I feel I do have experience of most of the modes of use for this road.  If I were a resident of Dukes Avenue I think I would look favourably on the suggestion as it would certainly seriously reduce road use on what is at best a heavily congested road with parking on both sides.  The problem, and I am assuming this is why Michael's May 2020 suggestion went nowhere is the knock on effects of closing that exit would be SCR and Chiswick Lane

Justin Stephenson ● 1533d

To Maggie's point, yesterday I was walking west past the Best Western late afternoon. As I approached the intersection with Chiswick Lane, where the pavement was recently severely reduced in width, I noted an e-bike left across the pavement. Then I noticed a cyclist on my right in the cycle lane (fair enough) but then out of nowhere came a cyclist on my left. I had no place to go so just stood there. There is nothing right about having to stand still on the pavement because cyclists and cycling is left to run amok.

David Lesniak ● 1532d

David, you just need to learn to walk differently, apparently. By the way it isn’t  really my point. It’s Hounslow Council who are saying they need to make yet further adjustments to increase cyclists visibility, I think that was the wording in their email to me, confirming the further tweaking. Not to be carried out until late Summer. So issues identified. but they probably have to wait for further funds before doing this further work on safety. Or is that they just desperately had to get this cycle lane open come what may. I’m not sure

Maggie Dodge ● 1532d

Talking of safety the observant will notice that the cream coloured surface, as opposed to black tarmac,that is laid at road junctions with the intention of highlighting the intersection only exists west of Goldhawk Road.Not that they do much good, you would have thought there was a standard finish from start to finish but sadly and unsurprisingly not.We are told C9 is completed baring minor tweaks but I note no mention is made of the promised bus shelters. Why? Don't bus passengers matter?It is a historical fact in my family that the lovely people of King St Hammersmith are notorious for blithely stepping into the road. My Dad would always remark on it. Being one way probably has a lot to do with it.The worry is that because there is little to distinguish the pavement from the two way cycle lane I fear it won't take long before someone unwittingly steps in front of bike.

Adrian Irving ● 1532d

"The worry is that because there is little to distinguish the pavement from the two way cycle lane I fear it won't take long before someone unwittingly steps in front of bike."People have been crossing the road away from pedestrian crossings without looking, on King Street, for as long as I've been cycling on it. Or they do look, see a bike coming and cross anyway. It happens to me every single day. Frankly, it is the same the world over. Here is a street in Antwerp that I used to walk on very frequently to see a client: https://goo.gl/maps/mMfYYSSCSQLSaeJA7 same setup as CHR (with the exception that the lane is on bi-directional and on BOTH sides of the road). Cars give way to pedestrians and bikes before turning, pedestrians stay on the sidewalk and bikes stay on the lane. No one has, to my knowledge, been flattened like a pizza.

Francis Sheehan ● 1532d

I think there are major differences between the link you have given, Frances, and Chiswick High Rd and King St Hammersmith.Our roads are comparatively narrow, the area is a local high street and pedestrians are used to crossing from one side to another to shop: we also have numerous crossovers from residential streets, the closure of which is unacceptable as there is no other exit OR where traffic has been redirected journeys have been lengthened causing more pollution. Maybe no-one has been flattened like a pizza in Antwerp but accidents are up in Chiswick High Rd. In your link  pedestrians cannot cross from one side to another as there is a subway in the middle. I'm sure you know that bi-directional cycleways are not recommended in situations such as we have in Chiswick High Road. http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html?m=1 And to quote from the article "If someone advocates infrastructure like this and actually believes it is good, they probably shouldn't be advocating bicycle infrastructure".

Mandy Waters ● 1532d

You haven't mentioned that the author of the quote and owner of the website, Mikael Colville-Andersen is a consultant who makes a living promoting how great Copenhagen is for everything.  So he really doesn't like when other cities do things differently from Copenhagen and he was taking a pot shot at the Dutch cities where they have lots and lots and lots of bidirectional cycle lanes.Given you have quoted Colville-Andersen, can I take it that you agree with the rest of his philosophy given he absolutely detests cars and wishes to see them banned from almost all urban environments?

Michael Robinson ● 1532d

Mandy, I'm afraid you're going a bit beyond the point I wanted to make, which is that cycle lane and the pedestrian sidewalk are side-by-side in many other places throughout the world.If BOTH sides (as in both cyclists and pedestrians, before the usual suspects pipe up) exercise a little bit of caution, then everyone's the winner and we are all doing swimmingly. I mean, further up the road in my Antwerp example there's a place where a large pedestrian piazza is crossed by tram tracks AND two bike lanes. Somehow, it doesn't descend into Jurassic Park.

Francis Sheehan ● 1532d

As Mandy likes quotes from Michael Colville-Anderson, here are some more (he has used all capitals and I'm not re-writing them...)"IF YOU DON’T SEE THE BICYCLE AS PART OF THE SOLUTION, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.""“THERE IS NO SPACE FOR BIKES“ IS A FLAWED ARGUMENT. THERE IS LOADS OF SPACE. WE CALL IT “STREETS” AND STREETS ARE PUBLIC SPACE.TRYING TO SQUEEZE BICYCLES INTO THE EXISTING ROAD DESIGN WON’T WORK. THE ONLY WAY FORWARD IS RE-ALLOCATING STREET SPACE FOR PROTECTED BIKE LANES.""EXPECTING CYCLISTS TO ADHERE TO TRAFFIC RULES AND STREET DESIGN INVENTED TO SERVE THE AUTOMOBILE IS NAIVE. IT’S LIKE EXPECTING SQUASH PLAYERS TO USE RUGBY RULES WHILE PLAYING.""NO, BICYCLE USERS SHOULDN’T “TAKE ANOTHER ROUTE“ DOWN SOME OTHER STREET OR “AWAY FROM TRAFFIC“. THEY ARE TRAFFIC AND THEY HAVE PLACES TO GO, JUST LIKE YOU. ""INCREASING NUMBERS OF BICYCLE USERS IN A CITY IS A SIGN THAT THE CITY IS MODERNISING THEIR TRANSPORT ANDPREPARING FOR RISING URBANIZATION - ALL WHILE IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL CITIZENS. KIND OF WEIRD TO HATE ON THAT, ISN’T IT?""IF WE WERE RATIONAL, ALL CARS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE HEALTH WARNINGS PLASTERED ALL OVER THEM, LIKE CIGARETTE PACKAGING. ALMOST ALL OF THE AILMENTS CAUSED BY CIGARETTES ARE ALSO CAUSED BY CARS.""WHEN BIKES WERE INVENTED THEY FIT PERFECTLY INTO CITIES ALL OVER THE WORLD. WHEN CARS WERE INVENTED, THEY BECAME THE RAGING BULL, COMPLETELY OUT OF SCALE WITHTHE URBAN ENVIRONMENT."Plenty more of a similar ilk where those came from.  As a fan of his writings, I'm sure Many agrees with them.

Michael Robinson ● 1532d