Forum Topic

"I can't claim to have looked at the detailed data but what is clear is that the reliable data points in the past are more limited and it is difficult to find comprehensive data sets to provide a convincing like for like comparison."Sorry, Jeremy, but that is simply not true. As Michael says, there are two datasets from TfL and DfT that provide bike counts prior to 2020. The TfL counts have been taken annually since 2015. Here are the totals from 6 am to 10 pm:2015 21302016 16862017 23072018 21782019 21142020 27622021 28892022 2655These manual counts are taken on one week day of each year, so will have more variability than the averages from continuous camera counts, but these provide data taken on a consistent basis over eight years, even if the date of the count was not necessarily representative. For example the count day in 2022 corresponded to the period of the upgrade of C9 that partially closed the cycle lane. This particularly affected the daytime counts compared to 2021, and therefore it's better to take an average of 2021 and 2022 to get a more consistent picture of the changes. The average growth after C9 was implemented, 2021 and 2022, compared to the prepandemic years before it was installed, 2015 to 2019, is 33%. Looking at the hourly figures over these two periods, 2021 to 2022 compared to 2015 to 2019, the average changes were:6 am to 9 am: +1%9 am to 4 pm:  +94% 4pm to 7 pm: +27%7 pm to 10 pm: +45%There are more delivery cyclists, but these are seen mostly in the evening, while the four largest hourly growths are from 10 am to 2 pm. The evidence is that C9 has been particularly successful in encouraging people to cycle during the day. This is not likely to be leisure cycling, rather people using bikes to go about their shopping and other tasks. Given that the most common use of cars is not for commuting, but rather shopping, this is just the shift that we need to see.Here's the extracted hourly counts so you can check for yourself. The data is not murky if you take a look!Year 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 212015 85 246 276 156 68 53 77 66 62 75 125 237 266 189 86 632016 60 164 215 95 22 21 23 23 89 92 141 226 267 159 59 302017 106 266 336 134 51 51 57 52 79 90 157 258 322 184 100 642018 95 235 311 142 56 61 61 63 63 94 139 315 269 162 71 412019 114 228 329 141 87 73 79 74 53 61 94 169 294 161 109 482020 108 268 270 151 100 114 99 103 122 177 238 307 311 207 121 662021 85 200 248 180 120 105 152 151 124 192 247 300 314 214 160 972022 111 283 310 129 89 69 102 102 122 125 176 315 310 190 139 83Source: https://cycling.data.tfl.gov.uk

Tom Pike ● 545d

Ah, so you haven't looked at the detailed data but that doesn't stop you making sweeping and incorrect statements about it.The cycle data gathered in cycle surveys prior to C9 has the same information as the current cycle counts - numbers of people cycling in each direction during 15 minute periods throughout the day.The difference with the current camera counts and the cycle surveys are:- the cameras also record motor vehicles and even pedestrians on the pavement while the cycle survey is for cycles only - the cameras have been recording data 24x7 continually since early 2021It is very straightforward to do a like for like comparison between the pre-C9 cycle surveys and the camera surveys.  The cycle count detail is the same.I suppose some will complain that for pre-C9 there isn't over 2 years worth of continuous 24x7 data as there is from the cameras.  However that would have meant using technology that didn't exist at the time, so I don't know if they expect time travel.Yes, the claim made that commuting cyclists are avoiding CHR is clearly incorrect.  That claim appears to have been only based on some anecdotes anyway further demonstrating the unreliability of opinions based solely on this.  Further evidence is from the DfT surveys on the A4 which only show slight increase in cyclist numbers with overall numbers about 10% of those on C9.  There hasn't been an increase in traffic on the eastern section of Wellesley Rd.  The traffic data was published as part of the C9 consultation report and there was a survey location at the mini-roundabout near Heathfield Terrace.While vehicle numbers along Wellesley Rd have reduced, there are still too many for what is designated a cycle route based upon TfL's own guidelines."Nobody is disputing that there are fewer vehicle movements up and down the High Road but as  they are progressing more slowly there are more vehicles on the High Road at any given point in time during rush hour."This is just complete and utter nonsense.  You are claiming there are both fewer and more vehicles at the same time.

Michael Robinson ● 545d

Michael, I can't claim to have looked at the detailed data but what is clear is that the reliable data points in the past are more limited and it is difficult to find comprehensive data sets to provide a convincing like for like comparison. No new magic trove of data based on camera observations has been discovered recently to change this situation. This means both sides of the argument pick the base point that suits their cause best. As, based on my observation, I tend to agree with the interpretation of the figures you support, you might want to reconsider your claim that I am making incorrect assumptions.One assumption that I did make which, from what you say appears to be incorrect, is that the highest level of growth in cycling since C9 has been out of peak hours and at the weekends suggesting that leisure cycling has increased more than commuting cycling. If you are correct it rather blows out of the water the claim made by some here that growth in cycling on Chiswick High Road is understated because journey-time sensitive commuting cyclists are avoiding it.The proportion that delivery riders make up of the cycle traffic on the road is important to know and statistically more significant than other forms of transport you mention. This is because their numbers have exploded over the period since the cycle lane was introduced. I'm aware of the changes that have been made at Wellesley Road and Stile Hall Gardens and obviously this has led to an overall fall in traffic on Wellesley but on the eastern section of the road there has been an increase in traffic as  vehicles seek to avoid the queues back from the Acton Lane bus gate. The strong evidence that you seek for this happening is an acknowledgement of the problem in a Hounslow Council report proposing the removal of the bus gate. Strong evidence of delays on Chiswick Lane exists in the form of TfL's data showing their impact on the 190 bus route. I can't give you any particular piece of data showing that CHR is more congested but can point out that your use of terminology is incorrect. When you say 'less traffic' you should say 'fewer vehicles'. Nobody is disputing that there are fewer vehicle movements up and down the High Road but as  they are progressing more slowly there are more vehicles on the High Road at any given point in time during rush hour. In other words, you may have data but it doesn't show what you claim it does. Once again, if you go back to the council's traffic officer's report it shows that, although these delays are not quantified, they are causing sufficient concern for the reintroduction of bus priority to be considered.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 545d

Jeremy,I'm assuming that you haven't actually looked at the detailed data given the number of incorrect statements and incorrect assumptions you have made.There is good data available from TfL annual cycle survey which goes back to 2015 and more data available from the DfT annual survey which goes back to 2000 although some years in the DfT data are estimates rather than actual counts.It is therefore incorrect to say "no proper attempt to measure before and after".The cameras doing hourly counts on CHR is new technology using AI-based image recognition.  From the website of the company producing the equipment, their first deployment was in 2020 in Manchester.  This equipment can produce a level of detail over a long period of time that wasn't available with previous survey methods but it is still possible to do a like-for-like comparison with previous surveys hence 40% increase between 2019 and 2023.Analysis of the detailed data does show that the biggest absolute increases in cycling numbers are during peak commuting times.  I'd say it is possible to disprove a claim that commuting cyclists avoid CHR unless you have an alternative explanation why the biggest increases are during peak commuting times.Knowledge of the number of delivery riders may be interesting to know but it is hardly a measure of success or failure of a bike lane. You could equally ask how many vehicles are delivery vans for online shopping services or how many cars are doing a school run.There are increases in cyclist numbers across the board but the increase later in the evening when there are more delivery riders is still less than earlier during commuting times.More cyclists than cars is absolutely a victory.You claim there is "strong evidence" of roads "obviously more congested" but the data for Wellesley Road shows less traffic using it now than prior to C9. You appear to have forgotten that both Wellesley Rd and Stile Hall Gardens used to have queues from the S Circular all the way back past the Pilot.  This shows the problems of making statements based upon an unreliable memory.I assume you don't have any data to prove the rest of your claims.

Michael Robinson ● 546d

I say the data is murky because, although there seems to be more information being collected the historical data on which to base comparisons is much more limited. People who argue C9 hasn't been a success just pick a different basis for comparison to you and come up with a different and lower number.I'm quite happy to accept your higher range for growth as it does chime with what I see on the High Road. However, it has to be admitted we don't fully understand what is going on as no proper attempt was made to measure before and after and set benchmarks for success (understandable perhaps give the hurry in which the initial scheme was implemented).We don't for instance know how much of the growth is down to delivery riders and how much is due to a general increase in cycling which is made more pronounced in an area like Chiswick with a high proportion of middle class people who WFH. By the same token there is no way to prove or disprove the contention of some that the growth in C9 usage is understated because commuter cyclist now avoid the High Road because journeys take longer.Whatever is behind the growth in cycling on the High Road, I think it is a mistake to hail periods when the number of people on bikes exceeds the number of cars as a victory. It rather draws attention to the reduced capacity of the High Road for traffic and the greater congestion which is causing people to avoid the area either directed by Sat Nav or their own local knowledge of traffic conditions.Once again, because insufficient data was collected before these changes were made, we can't reach firm conclusions about their impact. I'm sure some will claim the fall in motor traffic (i.e. the number of vehicles not the level of congestion) is all good because it shows evaporation. There may be an element of this but there is strong evidence that there is a significant amount of displacement with roads such as Wellesley Road, Bollo Lane, South Parade, Chiswick Lane and Acton Lane obviously more congested that they were previously. If vehicles have been displaced from the High Road to local residential streets because they are progressing much more slowly on the High Road, this isn't a good outcome.Even if there is an exceedance of cyclists over cars at certain times, this doesn't 'clearly' show that cycling is mainstream. As it is a subjective term you could argue that it already is mainstream. Although cycling remains a minority activity, so does driving a car on a regular basis so there is a danger here in getting into a pointless argument on semantics.The recent survey on the Grove Park Piazza showed that 9% of people were regular cyclists and over 40% were car users. Given the relatively high incomes in the area and the relatively poor local transport provision, you would expect this area to be above average for cycling but even if you round up to 10%, this remains very much a minority pursuit.The important ration to consider though is not necessarily car users vs bike users but bus users vs bike users. It is hard to get accurate numbers but a rough calculation based on latest data for average loading and the number of buses going up and down the High Road suggests that, even using the more recent high counts for cyclists, the ratio of bus passengers to cyclists is around 10 to 1. I would agree lots of people in Chiswick love cycling up and down the High Road but lots more people, often on lower incomes, need to use the same road to get to and from work.A choice has been made to rip up bus priority measures for a segregated cycling route. As far as I can see no convincing case has been made that this has had such a bad effect that it is encouraging modal shift locally away from buses but ultimately if you take roadspace away from cars it is all but impossible not to take roadspace away from buses so any future changes should be considered with this in mind. It is pleasing to see that Hounslow Council have at least recognised the issue and are looking to reinstate some of the lost bus priority.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 546d

Yes, it is probably a bit unfair to the Japanese soldier to compare him to David Kerr.  If the internet had been around at the time and the Japanese soldier had access to it, he may have given up long before he did.  David Kerr has no such excuse.Anyway, back to C9.  Prior to the Hounslow cabinet decision on C9, OneChiswick did their usual thing of spamming Hounslow councillors with anonymous emails objecting.  I don't know why they never put a name to their emails as they must know that anonymous spam gets ignored. Maybe because the main Onesies actually live in Ealing and other boroughs rather than Hounslow.The Conservatives then 'called in' the cabinet decision, and for their objection, they just copied and pasted the OneChiswick anonymous email and presented it as their work.I don't know who actually put their call-in submission together.  Maybe it was a political assistant who does this type of work and was just lazy and the easiest thing was to copy and paste the Onesie email rather than do some research themselves.  I also don't know if Cllr Thompson who presented at the call-in committee was aware of where their call-in response had come from.The whole thing call-in thing from the Conservatives seemed somewhat perfunctory anyway.  Maybe they did it as they would be nagged incessantly by Cllr Biddolph if they didn't.Anyway, not a good look to present information that was just a copy and paste of an anonymous spam email from people who are just an abusive Facebook group.

Michael Robinson ● 547d