Forum Topic

Cycleway 9 Consultation - why the rush?

Well done to ChiswickW4.com for a good piece of investigative digging to give some clarity about what is actually going on with Cycleway 9.One question that wasn't answered was why TfL and Hounslow are so keen to kick on with the consultation. Would it not be perfectly legitimate for them to say there is no point in asking for people's views about the scheme this year because a) it isn't finished b) the A4 roadworks c) Christmas. From their point of view this would also give more  people time to become accustomed to its existence.It will be very hard to assess any comments from local people or organisations in the current situation.I'd be interested to hear if anyone has an insight into what they think is going on. It would be great if people could avoid rehashing the old arguments about the Cycleway itself (although I'm not holding my breath) as we already know what most of you think.

Francis Rowe ● 578d41 Comments

Francis says  “is a statutory part of the process of these kind of traffic orders.”Just fake that then, much like they did with the ‘LTN’ for Grove Park and the Commonplace ‘survey’.

Russell Pearson ● 574d

. "I don't know what specifically came out of the initial round but the reintroduction of the left turn at Chiswick Lane, the improved safety measures at junction, better provision for disabled people to be dropped off near the high road were all incorporated afterwards." If the changes you refer to were made as a result of a public consultation I despair. It was blinding obvious from the start that these were essential elements of the scheme.Was it just good old fashioned stupidly or, as I suspect, Hounslow were so desperate to grab the cash they bulldozed through an awful temporary lash up? Probably a combination of the two resulting in more expence, congestion and inconvenience.

Adrian Irving ● 574d

I’m out. That’s waffle and maybe’s and possible suggestions you might put forward, but you can’t say what they are.  They consult because it’s part of the process , exactly . Experts designed it, why is it still not right? Let’s ask the public but we won’t take any notice. Nope not seeing any sense in that

Maggie Dodge ● 574d

You may think the consultation is a waste of money but it is a statutory part of the process of these kind of traffic orders.The first consultation brought about lots of changes in the design. I don't know what specifically came out of the initial round but the reintroduction of the left turn at Chiswick Lane, the improved safety measures at junction, better provision for disabled people to be dropped off near the high road were all incorporated afterwards.There is no specific plan for bus islands. As someone who has walked, cycled and got off a bus on these road features in Chiswick I might be able to make some suggestions on how they could be improved. It is up to TfL to decide if they make sense. Can I just make an observation that you seem to have some very strident opinions on the subject of consultations even though you appear to have a limited understanding of them? Perhaps if you took a step back you'd realise these things are a bit more nuanced than you believe.

Francis Rowe ● 574d

Francis, if you don’t think the consultation is fake, or in my opinion a waste of money, briefly can you explain what can we expect it to achieve? “There is no point adopting a head in the sand approach or sulking about this inevitability. There are still improvements that could be made for instance around the bus islands.”Inevitability? So the result is inevitable? What changes around bus islands are planned? This is good news hopefully

Maggie Dodge ● 574d

Nobody is faking anything. You are under the misconception that a majority opinion against the cycleway should necessarily mean that it is to be scrapped. That's not how the process is meant to work - this was a scheme conceived by a democratically elected Conservative Mayor (his name escapes me), implemented by a democratically elected Labour Mayor in partnership with a democratically elected Labour council with the encouragement of democratically elected Conservative government all of whom made clear their committment to active travel and this sort of cycle infrastructure.That can't and shouldn't be wound back by a consultation which will probably only be responded to by a few thousand people and would be very easy to manipulate.If you are going to say that the cycle lane causes more congestion and pollution in the area, delays buses and holds up emergency service vehicles and that there is no convincing evidence that it has boosted cycling more than the increases seen generally in the capital, I would tend to agree with you.However, the evidence for all of this is very obfuscated by the unusual conditions that have prevailed since the cycleway was built and it will continue to be through the trial period. No individual or public body is going to be able to present a convincing, robust case based on data that the cycleway is causing harm, therefore the consultation won't lead to its removal.There is no point adopting a head in the sand approach or sulking about this inevitability. There are still improvements that could be made for instance around the bus islands. TfL will probably structure the consultation to avoid any yes/no questions about the popularity of the scheme and phrase questions with the intent of providing numbers that they can quote which indicate widespread support. If you don't like the scheme there will probably be ways that you can indicate opposition, and I wouldn't discourage you from doing that but don't expect an immediate result in your favour.

Francis Rowe ● 574d

Anyone can fake these things. What astounds me are those who defend them as genuine.

Russell Pearson ● 574d

Francis or anyone , what further tweaks are there available?  Will  it ever be really safe for cyclists? Are the delays to traffic ever going to be acceptable? Are the dangers to pedestrians ever ok in the name of giving the cycle lobby what they want, when other cyclists don’t want  it?  You picked up on mypoint that too much money has been spent  for it to be scrapped. What a shame it was ever installed.  When does it stop being temporary? Should we waste money on a consultation when no one much thinks its genuine? The end

Maggie Dodge ● 575d

Chris, it will take a while to get the horrible image you have conjured up out of my mind.While I agree that there is zero chance that this consultation will lead to the cycle lane being scrapped it could lead to changes being made. It remains an experimental scheme operating on a trial basis. Inertia protects it as neither TfL or Hounslow are likely to want to scrap a scheme they have invested millions of our money in and would be expensive to dismantle.It also has to be said there isn't a real killer argument against it. Lots of people will probably reply to the consultation basically saying 'I hate it, I am stuck in traffic so much more often since it was built please scrap it.' They may be correct but proving the actual impact it has had on congestion and pollution in the strange times we have had in recent years is fiendishly difficult.Other cycle lanes have been removed because of the impact they have had on bus journey times and I'm pretty sure as a regular bus user these have risen on the High Road but can I make a convincing case for that allowing for distortions such as A4 roadworks and Covid - no I can't. Perhaps the bus operators have data that shows the effects more clearly but that gets us back to the short time that local roads will be operating normally during the period of the consultation.Just because responding to the consultation isn't going to lead to a scrapping of the cycleway isn't a reason not to respond to it. There no reason by tweaks suggested by local people who are observing the operation of the cycleway won't be taken seriously by TfL.

Francis Rowe ● 575d

"if the entire population of Chiswick were to turn up naked at Hounslow Town Hall to voice their opinions"You're right but can you please do it anyway.

Paul Campbell ● 575d

A correct prediction! Hallelujah! Occam's Razor .....

Paul Campbell ● 575d

Exactly my point Chris ,  but very well put and people may listen to you as you’re nearly more intelligent than me. . It’s a bonus  that you are also a cyclist

Maggie Dodge ● 575d

Oh Paul you are such a tease!Actually I think Jeremy is right and you know nothing.In asking the question originally, I was seeking to do my homework as you put it but there really is no obvious answer out there as why TfL and Hounslow are rushing this through potentially compromising the whole project.Some possibilities are that they hope that the A4 roadworks can be used to obfuscate negative traffic data including a serious slowdown in bus journey times.It could be a financial year thing and the process needs to be substantially complete before a certain date otherwise unused funding could be withdraw.It could be something to do with Andrew Gilligan still lingering on the board of TfL until he gets his resignation honours peerage and perhaps having some ability to ensure the bus division doesn't get too bolshy.It could represent a change of policy by the Department for Transport in which funding for schemes enabled by experimental traffic orders is more constrained and planned further improvements require the cycleway to be made permanent as quickly as possible.It could be that there is another majorly disruptive set of roadworks ahead in the area that makes delay pointless.It could be that there is a more benign explanation that won't cause us any concern which you know about and will explain to the rest of us. My prediction is that this won't happen.

Francis Rowe ● 575d

Francis - I think the mistake that most people make is assuming that a consultation will change anything. Somebody has clearly decided that what we all need is a cycle lane and I suspect that even if the entire population of Chiswick were to turn up naked at Hounslow Town Hall to voice their opinions it would make no difference.For the record I am not anti cycle lane, just this particular one.

Chris Blackwell ● 575d

I didn't say I had a secret and I don't. I said I know.  Anybody can know. They just have to think. And I've given plenty of clues already. I've grown bored of telling the opponents of the cycle lane stuff that they can find out for themselves. To be honest I've grown bored of opponents of the cycle lane full stop.Do your own homework.

Paul Campbell ● 575d

The whole 'I have a secret but I'm not telling you' schtick is very juvenile and getting a bit tiresome. It is also not true - if there was a considered and justifiable reason for doing things this way it would have emerged in the FoI request. Not to record discussions of this nature would be very dubious from a legal point of view. FoI exists precisely to avoid decisions being made by an unaccountable group of people with no scrutiny.Also, Francis makes no prediction but does point to an obvious flaw in the way things are being done.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 575d

The current scheme is good for neither cyclists generally, as can be gathered from the accidents reported, and negative feedback from average cyclists. Nor for motorists including buses.  This has been the feedback from the beginning, why is anyone expecting a different outcome now?  So much money has been spent and trees removed, embarrassing to say the least. It was easily as good,  if not better before, in my opinion . Cyclists did not attract the attention they do now. Neighbours would not be arguing about why some have  a quiet street, while others take the extra traffic. Who is going to be brave enough to admit the mistake?

Maggie Dodge ● 575d

No it isn't a concern for supporters who tend to be more knowledgeable about cycling-related matters for obvious reasons and know why the consultation is timed as it is. It is even less concerning now that you have started speculating about threats to the cycle lane's permanence. A Francis Rowe prediction on the cycle lane is like a cosy warm hug on a chilly morning for its supporters.

Paul Campbell ● 575d

Paul, never clever to be too clever. Just answer the question.

Adrian Irving ● 575d

The hope that the two fringes of this debate wouldn't miss the point of the question and revert to restating points they've made here a million times before was always going to be a forlorn one.The issue should be a concern for both those in favour of the cycleway and those against it. If I were an enthusiastic proponent of it I would like the consultation to be done robustly so that it wasn't subject to challenge. That would be best served by a delay which would allow the safety enhancements to be fully implemented and give more time for the infrastructure to bed down with a full six months of uncompromised data to allow robust conclusions on its impact to be reached.The danger for the Cycleway in rushing the consultation in the way that it has been done is that the emergency services, the security services or the bus companies could respond by saying that only being able to analyse a few weeks of data on the impact of the changes to Cycleway 9 makes it impossible to rule out that it doesn't critically compromise their operations. This would put TfL and Hounslow in a difficult situation which, as far as I can see, they could have avoided with a bit of patience.

Francis Rowe ● 575d

For ‘there’ please read their in my post

Maggie Dodge ● 575d

Adrian , I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding you.  I don’t know why your looking for logic, there is none, never has been where the cycle lane is concerned. It’s anti motorist, nothing to do with safety, as has been proven. The consultation  is, I’m pretty sure, a tickbox exercise. They have stupidly proven it by their rush to get it done,  at what we agree is an inappropriate time, but they can then say, “we have consulted  the residents”.  That’s how  I see it, it’s just my opinion, which I think I’m allowed. I’m accused of being stupid so who knows. On the other hand maybe I’m not and can see through there stupidity. 

Maggie Dodge ● 575d

People who know know but it's an interesting experiment to watch and time long-time opponents of the cycle lane who have had years of practice at this stuff try to figure it out by themselves without being fed the information. Tick tock.

Paul Campbell ● 575d

Maggie, your response may well be the thinking behind the timing but I asked what the logic is. Quite a different thing.It seems that no one can fathom the logic possibility because there is none.Still listening.

Adrian Irving ● 575d

The guys on the stall say it’s quite a regular occurrence, cyclists in accidents, on the High Road, didn’t they Chris ?

Maggie Dodge ● 576d

Adrian said: "Dark mornings and afternoons, bikes with no lights, pedestrians in dark clothing, multiple side turnings on a two way cycle lane is a completely different proposition to what we have had during the summer."Absolutely. By the way there was a cyclist knocked off his bike yesterday by a car pulling out of Duke's Road. Bright, sunny afternoon too.

Chris Blackwell ● 576d

In a nutshell, Maggie.

Claire Moran ● 576d

In a nutshell, Maggie.

Claire Moran ● 576d

“It's interesting that no contributor to date has been able to explain the logic behind the timing.”I think I have Adrian, they’re not interested in feedback and no negative will be entertained. What else can it be?

Maggie Dodge ● 577d

"when nobody can claim there wasn't sufficient opportunity to make a proper assessment?"Let me rephrase that.  Everyone, for and against, should categorically state, there wasn't sufficient opportunity to make any meaningful assessment.It's interesting that no contributor to date has been able to explain the logic behind the timing.As to the section between Goldhawk and Chiswick Lane I think people should wait until it has been through dark wet winter days and nights before a proper assessment can be made.Dark mornings and afternoons, bikes with no lights, pedestrians in dark clothing, multiple side turnings on a two way cycle lane is a completely different proposition to what we have had during the summer.

Adrian Irving ● 577d

If they don't care about the outcome, why not postpone the consultation so that it takes place at a time when nobody can claim there wasn't sufficient opportunity to make a proper assessment?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 577d

It seems likely that they don’t care about the outcome, otherwise they would have timed it better.

Maggie Dodge ● 577d

It's early days but I think the junction treatments between Chiswick Lane and King Street are doing their job. It is too early for any data to be published but I haven't heard of any collisions and they were happening too often with the previous configuration.To the best of my recollection there haven't been that many collisions involving cyclists in the section running through the main shopping centre other than a couple at Brackley Road which was problematic before the cycleway was installed. If this part of C9 continues to be incident free during the consultation period then concerns about safety would have to show that the new designs have made things more dangerous which would be a big ask.However, the timings are very problematic. If the consultation were to start at the beginning of October and the final phase of C9 was completed at the end of January with the spring half term and the Easter Holidays you would only get around 5 weeks of normal operation to assess the scheme. This is clearly too short but TfL and the council must be confident that it is within the rules.

Mark Evans ● 577d

I think the other competitors might overtake the early lead you will have when you get to the general knowledge questions.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 578d

Was that aimed at me Jeremy? I merely repeated  a comment that Paul makes frequently,  and which I thought was appropriate to the topic. It was alongside other points, that Matthew totally ignored and only focused on PC, but you don’t comment on that? So who is focusing on Paul here,  me, you or Matthew ? It is also well known, and has been commented on by others, that Paul is rather sadly obsessed with me, storing my posts, and repeating my comments endless here, on Nextdoor and Twitter,  in the hope of embarrassing or ridiculing me. My comment about the referenda was nothing to do with Paul either. I’d ask you to reconsider your comments but I doubt you will

Maggie Dodge ● 578d

A great deal of what you post focuses on Paul Campbell. If you ever get on Mastermind consider making him your specialist subject.He is right that these consultations are not referenda (referendums? - even the BBC seems confused on this point). There is no point saying simply you are for or against as this will be discounted. The idea is that people make comments with the aim of improving the scheme or give convincing reasons why it should be scrapped. You could make a 'negative' comment about a fault with the design but be in favour of the project overall. There is in fact very little point in responding saying that the scheme is perfect in every way so generally people won't.As for the haste with which the consultation is being done, I agree it is way less than ideal. If someone raises concerns about safety they may be dismissed by saying the new design will address the problem, if bus companies say they are being delayed, reference will be made to the A4. Best guess would be that there are funding advantages to the scheme being made permanent (in a technical legal sense, it clearly is permanent in reality) and so they want to move to that stage as quickly as possible. To be fair, the new junction treatments at the eastern end do seem to have reduced the number of accident. Or at least I haven't heard of any happening recently.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 578d

Agreed . Matthew ignored my relevant points and focused on  Paul Campbell

Maggie Dodge ● 578d

Forget Paul Campbell and let's stick to the question why consult before the very pertinent points raised by the OP.If someone  a lot brighter than me can coolly and logically explain then I am listening.

Adrian Irving ● 578d

Does that means he’s banned .

Maggie Dodge ● 578d

Paul Campbell is enjoying a lot of rent free headspace from across the ultra minority onsie population.

Matthew Swain ● 578d

I heard one Council say that “a consultation is not a referendum”.can’t remember which but I think it was in relation to cycle lanes etc.  Paul Campbell assures us the Cycleway is here to stay. Why are they wasting money on a consultation ? now or in the future

Maggie Dodge ● 578d