Forum Topic

Cycleway 49 Fishers Lane

I think I am right in saying Hounslow Council was set to consider some future proposals for Cycleway 9 at a meeting last night. I don't know what the outcome was but one of them was to replace the Zebra crossing at the end of Windmill Road with a signalised crossing with a parallel crossing for cyclists.While I understand the arguments in favour of zebras, particularly at this spot, the plan would be an important missing link for cyclists north of the High Road who at the moment face a lot of challenges trying to join Cycleway 9.Notionally there is a Cycleway 49 that links with Cycleway 9 at Windmill Road but nobody actually goes this way or anywhere else for that matter on this largely made up route. However, a proper linkage at Windmill Road which doesn't require a dismount or a scary crossing with traffic coming at you from six different directions would be a win.Obviously something would have to be done about the road surface on Windmill Road which I don't use my best bike on but there are other problems. The main one is that the stretch of Chiswick Common Road between Fishers Lane and the back of M&S is very bad for cycling. With parked cars it is very narrow and you often come face to face with delivery lorries.The alternative seems to be a route across Chiswick Back Common. I thought previously it wasn't allowable to put a cycleway across common land but Cycleway 49 goes over Acton Green (even though staying on the road is probably safer and better). The problem there is that there is a blind corner at the south east part of the Rocks Lane centre. If something could be done to improve sightlines there, there would be a safe convenient route from the north of Chiswick to the High Road for the first time since Cycleway 9 opened.I was pleased also to see that the council were following up suggestions on how linkages at the bottom of Prebend Gardens could be improved. These could make a significant difference.

Mark Evans ● 1108d74 Comments

Francis, a turn into Goldhawk Road, either westbound or eastbound is best executed on a bike by joining the general traffic lanes. Going east, for certain destinations, sorting out the linkage with Prebend Gardens would provide an alternative safe route.The method suggested by the signs for cyclist on C9 at this junction as well as Turnham Green Terrace is ridiculously complex and would result in a significant delay. I've never seen a cyclist actually follow the recommended steps.On the suggestion of lanes going each way, I'm sure that this would have been the preferred method but the simply wasn't the necessary road space. The choice was a bi-directional route or no cycleway at all. There is no point in pretending the bi-directional design has not come at a cost across the length of the cycleway in terms of serious injuries to cyclists and this risk hasn't been reduced by piddling measures taken by LBHF.For the benefits to outweigh these costs we need to see continued growth in usage. I've been consistently saying that C9 has boosted the number of people who cycle significantly and far more than the number of cyclists using it on a daily basis i.e. there are far more occasional cyclists than there used to be but fewer daily cyclists. The latter have declined because of increase WFH and slow journey times on C9. Better linkages with the north of Chiswick is key to boosting numbers because, as it stands, it remains tricky to join C9 from this side and I think this discourages a large number of potential 'occasional cyclists'.

Mark Evans ● 1107d

Peter, history shows that you need to make it a policy to make cycling safer if you want more people to cycle, not just rely on drivers to take more care. In 2003, the National Travel Survey showed cycling mileage was less than 2% on driven mileage in London, just 1.7% compared to 1% for the rest of England. But all three London  mayors have had specific policies that led to investment in safer cycling routes. By 2019 cycling miles had climbed to 5.4% of driven miles in London,  more than three times higher compared to 2003. In contrast in the rest of England, the increase was very much more modest, from 1% to 1.5%. With the pandemic cycling soared while driven miles fell back, especially outside London: In 2020 cycling in London peaked at 11% of driven miles, while outside it climbed to just over 3%, so doubling in both cases. With the pandemic London took the lead in rapidly implementing measures to prevent a resurgence of car use and encourage people to keep cycling. The latest figures show cycling in London in 2022 was 9% of driven mileage in London, retaining most of the gains seen during the pandemic. In contrast in the rest of England cycling has fallen pack to prepandemic levels.In 2019  all of my commute was on unsegregated road. Now two thirds of it is on protected cycle lanes. I’m seeing many more cyclists than four years ago, and the cycle counts locally, as well as the National Travel Survey confirm my observations.If people are serious about more people cycling rather than driving, then they should be backing the proven success of C9 and all the other measures that have ensured that London is leading the way in shifting people out of cars and on to bikes.

Tom Pike ● 1106d

Jeremy, the ONS report that motoring costs have increased by 31% since the pandemic, while TfL fares have gone up by 16% so the greater shift to cycling in London has not been motivated simply by a larger increase in transport costs here, quite the opposite. Similarly public transport mileage in London, as well as car mileage, has also sprung back faster than in the rest of England, both in absolute and relative terms. On that basis we'd have expected a larger drop in cycling in London than the rest of England as more people returned to their previous mode of travel.  It is therefore very reasonable to argue that the measures taken in London have encouraged a greater retention of the shift to cycling from the pandemic, certainly more plausible than the alternatives you suggest.Looking more locally, the big increase in cycling on the High Road came in 2020, before C9 was deployed at the end of the year, with an additional 700 cyclists a day in counts on the High Road. The rapid deployment was aimed to retain as much as possible of that increase, not just in counts, but more importantly in the shift in cycled mileage. That increase in cycling mileage will be down to a combination of more people cycling and people cycling further.In terms of C9's contribution to the retention of most of the shift to cycling, TfL's monitoring report for C9 gives an increase in cycling mileage of 47% between 2021 to date, while for London as a whole it dropped by 7% from 2021 to 2022. C9 therefore seems to be doing more than its fair share in encouraging people to keep on cycling, which was precisely the aim of the rapid deployment of such measures.

Tom Pike ● 1105d

I wasn't an advocate of the Cycleway and have mixed views about it still but it is here to stay. If a large amount of money has been spent on it then the focus should now be on how it can be improved. One of my main objections was how it made it more difficult to approach the High Road from the north. The latest proposals are looking to address this problem and reducing the amount of time that cyclists need to dismount can be achieved without any impact to other road users.More generally, nobody has been prevented from getting into their car by the Cycleway. The monitoring report indicates that journey times have not risen considerably in the area. CHR is obviously moving more slowly than before but traffic is avoiding the area and finding alternative routes which appear to be only marginally slower. You are right, I don't really care if car journey times have increased slightly in the area.The main concern would be for bus journeys, which don't have the flexibility to be changed and I would say that as a general principle cycling provision should not have a significant impact on bus travel times. Far more people use buses than bikes and it is a mode of public transport we should be encouraging as much as possible. However, TfL numbers for buses show that both east and west on the High Road, the impact on journey times on average over the course of the day is not very large. On Chiswick Lane there is a bigger impact but Hounslow is proposing more measures to help speed up buses again.

Mark Evans ● 1102d

I doubt very much whether there was a contingency fund to pay for removal of Cycleway 9 and the cost of doing so would be much the same as putting it in.As far as I am aware not a penny of Hounslow Council funds was spent on the project. It has been grant funded by TfL with money for Active Travel ultimately provided by central government.The sunk cost is so high that you have two basic choices: carry on complaining about it or look at ways it can be improved to benefit everybody.As I said previously, the evidence that it has seriously delayed motorists across Chiswick is not strong. The common belief that this is the case is due to the works on the A4 around the same time. There are points of congestion that weren't there before and the capacity of Chiswick High Road has been reduced but this doesn't seem to have unduly delayed journeys which can be made by alternative routes.I'm not unaware that for people whose work requires them to drive or need to use a car for mobility reasons any further increase to the cost of driving can be very painful but there simply isn't a case to be made that C9 has had a material effect in this regard.I'm not a fan of the Fishers Lane closure which I believe it is also bad for cyclists in the area as it makes moving along South Parade and Acton Lane much more difficult than it used to be but it is a separate scheme from C9.Nobody is saying bus times haven't slowed, TfL's data shows they have but on CHR the impact is probably too marginal to justify the multi-million cost of tearing up C9 and mitigation measures are being looked at to reduce the impact on buses.

Mark Evans ● 1101d