Forum Topic

A4 cycle lane

Why didn't they make the cycle route along the A4.  There is a completely unused footpath on both sides of the A4 in most places all the way from chiswick to hammermith.  From the A4 a cyclist can get to the part of the high road they wish within a minute or so.And if they are travelling distance they can actually pick up speed, without having to stop for pedestrian crossings, traffic lights and would dodge all the other hazards of a busy high street.The pavement could of been split in two with a painted line to accommodate cyclists and the occasional pedestrian.I cycled my kid from hammersmith to near the turnham green church every day for a week.  originally i used the high road but it was so slow with the crossings and lights etc.  So I started using the A4 pavement, it was much quicker and really easy.

Nik Solomon ● 2147d33 Comments

Absolutely. I used to cycle that way and on the odd occasion there were pedestrians, I would move onto the grass verge.

Vivienne Cox ● 2147d

It's not a great set up for cyclists along the A4 currently. I got knocked off my bike a decade ago by a car shooting at speed out of one of the smaller side roads to join the A4 - the driver claimed not have realised there was a pavement and cyclepath there. A few broken bones and a ruined bike but could have been much worse. I still use it but I've seen many cars swing off the A4 and into the side roads at speed as well which would have left a pedestrian or cyclist with no chance if they'd been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Visibility is poor for cyclists and drivers at those junctions between smaller roads and the A4 - to make it a safe cycle route would probably require banning some exit and entry from the A4 into the smaller roads and some fairly major reconfiguring of the others to make it much safe and more visible.The A4/Sutton Court Road Junction should be made considerably safer and faster for pedestrians and cyclists to cross as well.The A4 is fine if you are commuting from Brentford to Hammersmith but if you actually want to go shopping, visit a local restaurant, pub, doctor's surgery, church etc - it's not much use since those things are not there. It is - much like the road for cars - a way of getting through Chiswick at speed and not for actually spending your time (and money) in ChiswickIt's also dark, scary and there is no one else there if you are riding along it at 11pm so not an appealing route for women at all.

Sarah Smith ● 2147d

This has been covered exhaustively over the last 3 years and more.See documentation for cycleway 9:https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=111821#mgDocuments specifically 03-09-19 report and the response to issue raised reports.

Michael Robinson ● 2147d

Sarah - a couple of things. Not that it helps but I'm pretty sure that a decade ago the footpath alongside the A4 was precisely that - for pedestrians not for cycling.That aside I agree that as things are it's not ideal but it could be so much better had it been adopted as the route for CS9.Secondly in its original objective as a "Cycle Superhighway" CS9 wasn't supposed to be there for meandering shopping trips etc - it was precisely, to use your words,  for "commuting from Brentford to Hammersmith much  like the road for cars - a way of getting through Chiswick at speed and not for actually spending your time (and money) in Chiswick" The ultimate aim was to provide a cycle commuting route all the way from Hammersmith to Hounslow. Basically under it's current incarnation cycleway 9 as 8 believe it is now called is the wrong thing in the wrong place.

Bruce Hammal ● 2147d

typo - not 8 but I

Bruce Hammal ● 2147d

Couldn't agree more. My family and I also cycle along the pavement of the A4 if we are heading into town - very quiet and quite wide. Any of the concerns posted about this as an option could easily have been rectified at a fraction of the cost of building it along Chiswick High Road, and (possibly even more importantly) without causing all the chaos and damage to the High Road that the current solution has caused. Let's hope someone sees sense and puts everything back the way it was...

Mark Edwards ● 2147d

Sarah... when I cycle and my cycle path crosses a side road or pavement - I slow down. I do. I realise there may be other road users - motor vehicles or pedestrians or other cyclists - crossing my way. And I'm prepared to deal with the situation, including giving way to them.It is very unreasonable to expect to have a cycle lane where one could cycle from A to B, keeping momentum and not slowing down or stopping. It is just part of cycling in town. Please note that any cycle lane along Chiswick High Road would have more crossings with side roads and more potential for pedestrians being on it than a cycle lane along A4.

Alex Shpinkov ● 2147d

Thanks for deeply patronising response, AlexI am a 68 year woman on a an "old lady" style upright bike, not some sort of MAMIL speeding along the pavement (which also definitely way a shared cycle/pedestrian path when I was knocked off)But there are junctions to that road where cars will exit and enter at great speed because they either have been doing 40mph on the A4 and are turning off it or are speeding up in anticipation of joining a high speed road.And it is dark and at various junctions, visibility is highly restricted by walls/buildings/fences/treesI don't think cyclists should expect to be able to cycle without stopping at 30mph - but the balance on the A4 is weighted the wrong way where cyclists (and pedestrians) on that path are making all o the sacrifices (to speed and safety) to their journey while cars can zip out of the junction unhinderedAnd that road is still not an attractive route for a woman to cycle home at 11pm on. It is creepy and dark - I would choose to cycle along the high road where it is light and there are people.I happen to think its not an either or - we should have  a safe route along the A4 and along the high road.

Sarah Smith ● 2147d

"So I started using the A4 pavement, it was much quicker and really easy"What even with the poor pedestrians that have to keep jumping out of your way because you haven'y got the guts to ride in the road?

Charlotte Kasner ● 2147d

Because Hounslow Cycling lobbied very hard against an A4 route, and as HC have councillors who are members of said party, it was in the end, an easy one to win. Michael Robinson can explain more.https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=111821#mgDocuments%20specifically%2003-09-19

Russell Pearson ● 2147d

Wrong on both counts Bruce.Firstly the pavement alongside the A4 is shared walking and cycling.Secondly, Cycleway 9 is just a bike lane. It can be used by people going to work, the shops, cafes and other amenities. The route connects and goes through town centres for this purpose.It’s just a bog standard  bike lane that would be completely unremarkable in many European cities but for some reason, there are some people in Chiswick who completely lose their shit about it.

Michael Robinson ● 2147d

Tinfoil hat stuff again Russell.  You really should avoid OneChiswick, you are all just frothing each other up into increasingly bonkers conspiracy theories.Cycleway 9 route has been along Chiswick High Road since the original programme was launched by Boris Johnson in 2009.  Somewhat embarrassingly for the Chiswick councillors, there was even a Conservative /independent administration in control of Hounslow at the time.The only change to the route was to go along Heathfield Terrace and Wellesley Rd instead of the length of CHR which was for cost savings and challenges getting across Chiswick roundabout.Of course, al of this is documented in council papers at the time but boring facts would just spoil your fantasies.

Michael Robinson ● 2147d

Gosh, I’d better get some better tin foilhttp://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=community&link=http://appasp.ChiswickW4.com/server/app/forum/default.asp?site=1http://chiswickherald.co.uk/hounslow-cycling-campaign-cs-statement-p7633-95.htmhttps://hounslowcycling.org/why-the-a315-is-the-best-route-for-cs9/Just a few examples...

Russell Pearson ● 2147d

How many of you are becoming sick and tired of the objectionable and rather ignorant nature of Michael Robinson's interventions in any discussion about cycleways and cycling.  The louder he protests the weaker is his position.  He is totally wrong about the A4 - it was not exhaustively examined and the LBH officer's report to Hanif Khan and others in September 2019 simply dismissed any discussion of it as an alternative without any depth of study.  Brief mention was made about crossing side roads being too difficult, the A4 being a busy road (yet any with flow lane would be segregated) and that the underpasses were all rather unpleasant to use to get from one side to the other - basically showing the the officers do not understand the extent to which they are used by Chiswick residents and visitors. It was a stitch up report, lacking in technical rigour or objectivity. Wait for the responses to this - like a moth to the flames!!

David Kerr ● 2147d

Not sure what your point is.As I said, the route has been along CHR since the start. There are good reasons for that as explained in the Hounslow and TfL documents.All you’ve done is provided links to some Hounslow Cycling documents that support those reasons.  At the time there were some claims that the route should be along the A4, a lot of which was a barely disguised position of ‘just get those cyclists away from here’. But that didn’t stand up to a rational analysis.I know that it is convenient for you and your chums in OneChiswick to invent an enemy of the evil cycling lobbyists, it’s classic Trumpian tactics to create an “out” group.  The boring truth is the plans are the product of policy supported by Conservative and Labour elected mayors and Conservative / Independent and Labour elected councils. A fine example of cross party alignment.

Michael Robinson ● 2147d

Michael, you could do better than echoing the Twitter troll and sock puppet accounts, who pipe up exactly the same points. Can you ask them to get a bit more original please?

Russell Pearson ● 2147d

David,To keep things objective and ensure a discussion based upon facts and evidence rather than ignorance, can you provide your point-by-point objections to the justifications for the A315 route contained within sections 3.43 to 3.66 of the Report to Cabinet document and section 2.1 of the TfL 'Response to issues' document.I trust that you will provide lots of technical rigour.

Michael Robinson ● 2147d

Given there appears to be quite a few people who passed the OneChiswick entrance examination so they could have a titter at discussions there, it can hardly be a surprise that some have reached similar conclusions.

Michael Robinson ● 2147d

What is OneChiswick?

Ken Munn ● 2147d

Related to this interesting question there has been some interesting social media and posts on the issue of the incident on Chiswick High Road today which are quite revealing. From an earlier post on a different thread and from discussing with a number of people who witnessed the incident the following came to light: 1. The lady was riding a Honda motorcycle.  2. The motorcycle had a learner plate.  3. It is unclear whether there was a collision, no coming together was seen by numerous witnesses.  4. The van driver did stop, and came over to check on and with the female motorcyclist.  5. However they should have stayed at the scene.Yet the original article on this site was alarmist and factually incorrect.  It is good that it has been corrected. In particular it was incorrectly reported that a cyclist had been involved.  A question arises as to who briefed the Editor and team that it involved a cyclist?  Why was it important to get the message out there so quickly that it was a cyclist who had been involved?  Surely the facts should have been checked?Hounslow Cycling also took to twitter at 13.31 with a picture to proclaim by both inference and comment that a cyclist was injured at this “notorious hotspot”, implying that it would not have happened if the cycle lane would have been opened and then asked the question “how long til the anti-cycling campaigners blame the cyclists for this injury too?Not sure how any of those points stack up.  It seems the post was “fake news” and sought deliberately to deceive.  Why?  Whilst wishing the lady on the motorcycle a speedy recovery, it would be good to see all contributors on this post, even those from Hounslow Cycling,  applaud the lady who flagged down an Ambulance to get help.  Well done her.

Chris Soze ● 2147d

"Firstly the pavement alongside the A4 is shared walking and cycling"Not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China. Safe to say not a lot of people walk along the A4."Secondly, Cycleway 9 is just a bike lane"How very odd.  It was originally called Cycle Superhighway 9. Sadly, Michael, loads of folks aren't as stupid as you want them to be. They know a leopard doesn't change its spots. Same shitty design. Different name. Uh, no. The route doesn't connect to anyting now, does it?"It's just a bog standard bike lane that would be completely unremarkable in many European cities"Except for the fact this bike lane contravenes the very European standard of cycle lane design. Oopsy daisy, there, Mike. Gross generalizations can bite you in the ass.

David Lesniak ● 2146d

Its beyond ironic at this point. The A4 is built for cars to travel at speed. If you are in a car travelling the length of the highroad or up to Hammersmith, it is you who should be using the *purpose built* A4. It's been proven time and time again that highstreets benefit from less vehicle traffic. More pedestrians and cyclists will only be beneficial for the local area.Honestly words fail me at this point, take every argument you have made in this post and replace the word cyclist with driver and your problem is solved, no more money needs to be spent and no more tears need to be shed.

Jack Turnbull ● 2145d

I cycle to Hammersmith and beyond from Chiswick most days and usually use the A4 road or pavement depending on traffic density.  It is by far safer and quicker (in my humble opinion) than using the high road and king street.  The pavements are empty most of the time and really wide.  If you take care at the few junctions and slow down and look carefully they are safe.  If you spent the money they will have spent on the cs9 on improving cycling on the A4 or beside it, it would be even safer and quicker.Complete madness what has happened to the high road.  The accident with moped and van can’t have been helped with the frustration caused by the almost permanent standing traffic,  confusing  road layout and number of obstacles everyone needs to negotiate when turning right at any point on the road.I now spend less money on the high road because it is slow and difficult to use.  I suspect others are will have similar experience and in the end this can’t help the shops.  Why are we messing with it.  Chiswick High Road is one of the reasons I love Chiswick and I’m sure others feel the same.

Charles Carr-Jones ● 2145d

This is why I have been posting so heavily on this topic, having tried to avoid contentious posting in the past, because I feel so strongly about it. I had to make a brief journey to CHR earlier to pick up a parcel, and the road is truly a nightmare - not just slow moving and unsightly, but also incredibly confusing. I managed to park on Linden Gardens, but when coming out and trying to turn left on to the high road, you now have to cross the cycle lane, keep an eye on the traffic coming up, which is now further away and so less obvious, and keep any eye on the zebra crossing. This is just one example of an accident waiting to happen.And the mess! Just have a look at street view on Google maps for how it used to look. No wonder so many people are up in arms about this. And yes, I try and avoid the high road as much as possible now, so it does indeed impact on our local shops, as the shopkeepers have have made very apparent many many times.

Mark Edwards ● 2145d

IMO Sarah Smith made some very valid points about why the cycle way should not be on the A4.  However it is also a fact that on the north side of the A4 there are very few roads for  a cycleway to cross between Chiswick & Hogarth Roundabouts - I think there are 3 and of those 3 only one could be dangerous - Sutton Lane North.  The other 2 should not be provided that the cyclist was sensible.  Against that it should be noted that there are houses on the north side of the A4 that pedestrians require access so there is a possibility of cyclist/pedestrian collisions that need to be taken into account.

Justin Stephenson ● 2145d

"It's been proven time and time again that high streets benefit from less vehicle traffic. More pedestrians and cyclists will only be beneficial for the local area."Sorry Jack this is just not true and even TfL did not make this claim in the documentation supporting their original Cycle Superhighway consultation. TfL claimed that there would be an increase in cycle journeys if the cycleway was built - but nothing on the kind of scale that could be called modal shift. So no big increase in shoppers. Supporters of the Cycleway claim that cyclists shop more and buy more on average than people using other modes of transport. Again TfL's own research shows that this is not true. Then there is the little problem that Chiswick High Road is a "high road" and not just a destination "high street". It is part of a complex road network that carries road traffic through and across this part of west London. Chiswick High Road is as important to the smooth flow of traffic in the whole area as the A4/M4. TfL should not be vandalising it.As we have seen removing traffic lanes to build a two way cycle lane has not caused motorised traffic to "evaporate" instead it has often caused grid-lock. Floating bus stops have been a big hit with bus drivers and motorists alike (not). We eagerly await the opening of the Cycleway later this week to see what if any difference it makes.To the lady cyclists who run into whilst cycling on the A4 cycle lane - would she like to comment on the potential hazard that users of the new cycleway will face at the 41 junctions shared with other road users.

Thomas Samuel hearn ● 2144d

In what way is our High Street suitable as a major through road? Is that really what we want? That's what the A4, A 406 and A 316 are for. Where in the country/world is funnelling traffic through town centres seen as a benefit?

John Hall ● 2144d

John, firstly Thomas is 100% correct, any modest local shift in transport modes will not compensate for the loss of road and junction capacity. TFL recongise this, so we have a new bus gate and changed traffic light phasing. This is designed precisely to create queues and hold traffic back to protect the central part of the High Road.The major problem in W4 is through traffic. We saw with the sudden closure of Sutton Court Road the mass of commuter and trade traffic exiting London that was stuck with nowhere to go, along with trade traffic that was simply on a set route.The definition of through traffic is also tough. If an Acton Lane resident wants to get to Heathrow, are they 'through' traffic as they journey to the A4/ M4. What about someone at Acton borders... its hard to define where the cut off is. W4 is a victim and beneficiary of its high road connectivity.How do you stop that? You can seal W4 off to prevent 'through' traffic entering, but then local residents cannot enter or leave, nor can the tradespeople that local residents and business desire. The only long term solution will be an extended congestion charge.In the interim, we have the worse of all worlds. No restrictions on through traffic, but key routes and junctions seeing less capacity which means creating queues to prevent gridlock. This is exactly what the design of temporary CS9 entails. Unfortunately, traffic will only shift if someone wanting to get somewhere up Acton Lane finds their satnav directing them up the north circular and not via W4. But delays need to even worse in W4 for that to happen.

Paul Green ● 2144d

Try asking The Great Leader of Hounslow Council - he knoweth all!

Jennifer Selig ● 2144d

Cllr Hearn demonstrated yet again that he has learned nothing over the last 3 years of debate about bike lanes.From 2019 figures, CHR had an average of about 14k vehicles per day (12% of which were bikes) The A4 had about 97k.  I hope that Cllr Hearn recognises that drivers using CHR as a through route contribute nothing to the area except congestion and pollution.He also shouldn't believe Cllr Biddolph's claims about TfL's research and he should read it for himself.  It certainly shows that people using cars are behind other modes of transport when it comes to spend on high streets.I'm not sure where Cllr Hearn gets his 41 junctions from but he doesn't mention that the cycleway has priority over all of them (except for signalised junctions).  The bike path along the A4 has priority over no junctions.  I trust that Cllr Hearn would support improved cycling facilities along the A4, such as closing off Sutton Lane North and a east-west cycle/pedestrian crossing at Sutton Court Rd.  Of course that would mean people driving eastbound on the M4  to Grove Park would go via Hogarth roundabout and there would be reduced time for north-south traffic on SCR, but I'm sure he would support this.The cycleway by Kew Bridge appears to be well used and is a big improvement to the area.  Predictions of doom don't appear to have materialised.I'm glad to see that Cllr Hearn is eagerly awaiting the completion.  I look forward to seeing him using it.

Michael Robinson ● 2144d

Michael, its hard to tell what your points are here and see to be also trotting out the same arguments. The idea that cyclists outspend all other shoppers who use cars or buses remains fantastical to me. If something smells like s**t and looks like s**t, it probably is. I dont need some commissioned and carefully crafted piece of research to tell me something that does not hold up to scrutiny.The most ardent cyclists I know would never do their main shop by bike. Of course, a few people do. Even the largest cargo bike cannot match the boot capacity of an estate or similar size vehicle The trouble with your argument about 'through traffic' whilst in theory is true, who determines what it actually is. I know you are keen to police your neighbours, but someone driving from Norwich or Swansea to watch a Brentford match and park in W4 apparently is fine.As I posted above, what is the cut off for someone going to an airport through W4, where they switch from a resident to a trespasser. Or someone going to a shop or restaurant on the western end of King St via Chiswick High Road. Should they be turned back at a barricade? If you seal off most of the routes you create more log jams and trap traffic with no escape route.I would note that the Kew bridge cycleway was built to its original spec and has not significantly reduced capacity at the junction, though how that area copes with all the new flats and for large crowds at Brentford remains to be seen.We see clearly now how the new bus gate and new traffic phasing is designed to hold traffic back from the segregated section of CS9, in turn creating queues, pollution in the impacted area, and diverting traffic onto residential streets.

Paul Green ● 2144d

Paul - don't forgot - TFL reckon when the cycle lane goes live this Friday, all the traffic will calm down and disappear. Well I just got off the bus a stop earlier on King Street to get back to my house off Chiswick HIgh Road as there is (as predicted and as has been the case for many months now) gridlock at the Goldhawk Road and Chiswick High Road junction. The traffic might calm down a bit by Friday as most schools will have broken up and we'll be in Tier 3 lockdown - so I am sure that they'll trot the figures out as being a success. It is truly bonkers what is happening to our High Road.

J Morse ● 2144d

J, the gridlock at either end of the High Road is the inevitable product of CS9. It has been engineered by design at the westen end to hold traffic back whilst allowing buses through. At the eastern end there is not even the option for buses due to the loss of bus lane. Its a terrible outcome for local residents who are surrounded by pollution and for bus users, some of the most vulnerable groups and also a very effective means of mass transport.

Paul Green ● 2144d