Forum Topic

"consideration of a petition about the A4 at Sutton Court Road"

As mentioned in the headline article about the Area Forum Meeting what was the gist of this petition? Thanks!

F Coyle ● 313d71 Comments

Michael, you say similar but the A4 sheep pen crossing is unusually wide and much easier to navigate than the one say that use to exist at the bottom of Wellesley Road. I know recumbent bikes can be a bit longer than standard bikes but I don't think I have ever seen one that was so long that it couldn't be comfortable ridden across the A4 at this point. Can you recall how long the bike was that your friend was using?We finally seem to be getting to the actual position on what is being planned here - improved crossing at the A4 was on the aspiration for the SCLN but at present there are no actual designs or even proposals for a cyclist phase across the A4 and this is really just a case of you playing Fantasy Traffic Engineer.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 304d

I think the cyclists of Chiswick need  to man up a bit I cycled along this route with my mate when I was 9 on my way to Jones Brothers from Grove Park every week and even waited at the lights at the Great West Road. There is no need for a cycle lanes along Sutton Court Road.

Brian Green ● 305d

Jeremy, I have been with a disabled recumbent cyclist using similar sheep pen crossings on the A4 and A316 and both were impassable without an able bodied person to “man handle” the bike around the 90 degree turns. A recumbent just doesn’t have the turning circle and doing multiple forward / reverse movements reversing back into traffic wouldn’t be advisable.LTN 1/20 has the latest DfT guidance for the “envelope” of non-standard cycles the designers should accommodate. You could put your tape measure to good use and measure the spacing at the crossing and say if it meets the guidance.The other point about this crossing is there are no signals to get over to the crossing and back again if travelling N and on the W side of SCR for a crossing on the E side.As to policy documents, suggest you read the borough transport strategy and note references to reduce the number of private car journeys and increase journeys by sustainable modes. I’ve already told you that improvement of the crossing was a stated objective of the S Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood programme when announced in 2019. Budget has been reset and it is only recently TfL have been able to provide longer term funding and even then only up to  2024. I haven’t seen what Hounslow are looking at for the 23/24 FY and anything beyond that will depend on what longer term funding there is for TfL.

Michael Robinson ● 305d

On your question of light traffic, this is a subjective one. Traffic on a residential road always feels more intrusive but my impression is that at most times of day the flow on Barrowgate Road is light. I'm unlikely to be there at the morning or evening rush when it is going to be much busier but at other times there is fewer than one vehicle going both ways a minute.I'm a bit confused about your points about the 'sheep pen' crossing at SCR. There is ample space to turn even for a tandem bike and there are pedestrian phase signals. We have already heard from a mobility scooter user on this thread that he can use the underpasses and the access at this crossing is much wider. I don't see any basis for your claim that non-standard cycles would find this crossing unusable but it would be interesting to hear from user of non-standard cycles.Your hints that there is a plan to introduce a cyclist phase on the A4 appear to have been quite carefully worded. As far as I can tell from the opaque language used a non-detailed plan has been drawn up by an unnamed consultant in which this suggestion has been included and this has been copied to TfL but TfL has given no indication that it is under consideration. Every other indication is that TfL regards the flow of traffic along the A4 as something that should be protected as a primary aim of policy and that therefore they would be extremely unlikely to cause even a marginal delay for what would be a very questionable net benefit to cyclists. Is there any design or policy document from Hounslow Council or TfL that you can point to that shows a cyclist phase here is under active consideration?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 305d

Sam, it may have escaped your attention that the junction with Stile Hall Gardens and the S Circular is now a single lane section of road, so can you explain how it would be turned back into 2 way operation?  Would you want an additional set of traffic lights installed in the S Circular so traffic would be held on the S Circular while it exited Stile Hall Gardens? Or perhaps you would want the newly installed pavement build-outs to be ripped up and turned back into roadway?You can dream on, it isn't going to happen.Given your contemptuous and patronising responses to Stile Hall Gardens residents who said they liked the changes, I can't help but think your failure to keep the street as a ratrun must rankle with you every time you need to drive via Chiswick roundabout to the S Circular.My advice is to get over it.  You win some, you lose some.  In this case, your failure means a quiet and peaceful street for residents.You can focus instead on something else where your opinion has won, such as enjoying all those benefits of Brexit.

Michael Robinson ● 306d

Stop flogging dead horses Sam. That's another battle you lost a long time ago and you will never win it. Nobody needs to go back over all the reasons you lost. Don't you think it's about time the Chiswick Councillors got on board with the way things are changing and stopped fearmongering and stoking division over matters that are long settled. Put your petty grievances at your failures as a Councillor aside and move on.

Paul Campbell ● 306d

I agree that this is just the sort of feedback that needs to be communicated to TfL. I would add that the original TfL design for re-configuring this junction was completely nuts. Fortunately as a result of the public consultation they saw sense and the current layout is the result. As a local councillor (at the time) I took two TfL road engineers to the area and pointed out the problems that the original design for the junction would cause. I was extremely frustrated at their arrogance and the belief that there was nothing wrong with the scheme that could not sorted out with proper sequencing of traffic lights. Fortunately wiser counseld prevailed - eventually. We should also be asking TfL and LBH to look at the vehicle access from Stilehall Gardens on to the A406 (North Circular). Currently you can drive into Stilehall Gardens but not out. The past problems with rat running could be easily resolved with an ANPR camera. The partially blocked exit is total overkill for a problem that lasts for only a few hours a day. Emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles and taxis have only one circuitous exit route from this enclave. The views of residents of the area who drive have been completely ignored.

Sam Hearn ● 306d

Bernard, this is exactly the sort of detailed constructive feedback that our local Councillors should be hearing and taking to the Council for discussions with TfL to keep improving accessibility for people using mobility vehicles, bikes, adapted bikes, cargo bikes, trikes etc. Please email the Riverside and Gunnersbury Councillors.

Paul Campbell ● 306d

This just an observation of new newly designed Kew Bridge Junction.I have one of the largest mobility Scooters on the market at the moment.But I’ve tried four or five times to cross this junction from Thames Road/ SOTG.Which ever direction you pick the scooter cannot negotiate the up slope and turn at 90% right, then in two scooter lengths along the island turn  90% left to the down slope. So basically the islands are not wide enough to to enable a large mobility scooter to cross safely. I would imagine it would be the same for the cargo bikes to cross this junction in any safe manner and like me would hav to resort to using the road as a means to get from SOTG to Kew Bridge station .I have altered my route to cross at the Wellesley Road cycle crossing towards  Capital Interchange Way, which does get me across, but with a slight problem at the slip road into CIW. Because of the steep slope at the that corner I have to slow down to a snails pace in order to negotiate the slope and turn onto the pavement, by this time the cycle lights phase times out and it’s bit concerning When the vehicles waiting to turn into CIW start pulling away when your only Halfway up the slop.I haven’t tried SCR crossing yet as I can use the underpass to cross this junction, when I exit I turn towards the Chiswick roundabout as there are no barriers at the top of this slope.So in trying to make travelling safer, so far it’s made it more dangerous for me, Or though for some it maybe ok.

Bernard Allen ● 306d

Do keep up Bill.This was all announced back in 2019 as part of the South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood project.  A stated objective of the project was to improve links between the area S of the A4 and cycleway 9 and a design was commissioned as a result.Events were then overtaken by Covid, budgets reset etc.If you had bothered to read the consultation material at the time or attended the several events organised then you could have asked the officers themselves.

Michael Robinson ● 306d

This is a fascinating discussion. So a cycle only traffic light phase is 'in the design'. Which design is this, who asked for it? Because noone other than some small group seem to be privy to this. Who paid for the report, who was consulted on it? Noone seems to know. TFL have installed new lights recently with the promise of better managing traffic, but as we saw with the roadworks what that means is they use the lights merely to shut down SCR more regularly.So a cycle only phase means less green phase for vehicles, both those north-south route where the green phase is already inadequate and the north stretch of SCR is overloaded and gridlocked. Which in turn means the Heathfield (CS9) and SCR junction is horrible and dangerous. The reason SCR green phase is too short is that TFL prioritises the A4. So are they going to stop this? Of course more queues on A4 mean that inbound traffic uses the rat run up Heathfield Gardens, again onto CS9 and more dangers there. Or more queues westbound and delays at the Hogarth roundabout/ A316, already polluted and congested and harder for residents and trade to reach GP.It would also mean closing the signed rat run off the A4 into Barrowgate and then SCR to reach GP. Which would mean a full redesign of the A4 junction. A good thing but is there money for that? I doubt it.A cycle lane along SCR would mean banning the right turn out of SCR to reach the A4, which would mean the only westbound exit from W4 becomes CHR to the Hogarth roundabout, a route which is already very congested and a roundabout beyond capacity already and even more oversized development planned there. More traffic then diverts onto Wellesley (also CS9). Or you close all of these... then have about two roads open in W4 to enter and exit. What could go wrong... So who is this for? If the criteria now is to make all major junctions cargo bike friendly while we cant deliver a reliable bus service to GP then something is going badly wrong and priorities are being distorted by single issue lobby groups.Its not about taking space away from motor traffic, its how to bus services function but also how does the traffic that we all contribute to get around. If you need a taxi or an ambulance or a delivery or a builder, how do they get to you? We cannot keep squeezing road space without looking at reducing the number of vehicles, which in turn means a congestion charge. We also need to place public transport at least on equal footing with cycling. But most of all we need transparency and all the community being involved in decisions on how we use public roads.

Bill George ● 306d

I understand the design including traffic signal changes was discussed with TfL as TfL are responsible for managing all traffic lights in London.As I have mentioned before, this is all moot without budget to progress the project and I don't know where it sits in plans for 23/24 and 24/25 financial years.'censor driven traffic lights' is an interesting idea but I assume just a slip of the keyboard rather than using sensors.You are making the assumption that nothing can ever be done to take time or road space away from motor traffic but this just isn't the case any more.

Michael Robinson ● 306d

Michael, is the design which you refer to one made by TfL or the one from the unnamed consultant referred to earlier?I'm all in favour of censor driven traffic lights but not sure it would be much help in this case as demand from cyclists is likely to coincide with peak traffic on the A4.

Mark Evans ● 306d

"these streets are generally experiencing light traffic"Please give your definition of "light traffic" in terms of peak vehicles per hour or cars over a 12 hour period 7am to 7pm.  I have the traffic survey result so will be able to tell you if the traffic is "light" according to your point of view."the option remains to use the pedestrian crossing at the SCR junction"So you are referring to the 'sheep pen' crossing on the E side of SCR. If travelling N on SCR, that involves crossing over to the E side of the road, with no signals to assist with this, then navigating 2 90 degree turns between the narrow 'sheep pen' barriers then at the N side, trying to cross over to the N bound lane, again with no signals to assist with this.  I am confident this crossing would be very difficult or impossible on many non-standard cycles."Any suggestion that TfL would extend this phase to accommodate them is pure wishful thinking."Providing a cycle-only phase is in the design.  As I have mentioned previously, sensors can detect cycles so this could be scheduled when needed rather than always part of the signals sequence.Just like your pronouncements on traffic speeds you are providing yet more examples why so many of your opinions can't be treated seriously.

Michael Robinson ● 306d

Assuming I am a usual suspect, you have to recognise that the issue with SCR is that it has a limited capacity due to the junction with the A4 and is prone to congestion that reaches back to the High Road causing gridlock across Chiswick.It is obviously not optimal that some traffic goes through residential roads but I really believe you are exaggerating the impact of this and these streets are generally experiencing light traffic. Don't forget also that SCR is primarily a residential street so it is grossly unfair that  pollution and congestion should be redirected your way. This road has more social and private rented housing compared to the streets crammed with multi-million pound houses you want to protect more.Where I do agree with you is that traffic should be redirected away from the western section of Barrowgate Road.  The signs pointing the way to Grove Park from the A4 are not consistent with the idea of protectiong residential streets and traffic should be directed to stay on the A4.On the issue of access for bikes used by people with restricted mobility, I didn't address this because I thought other people had done so. If the barriers at the underpass mean that they are impassable for particular kind of bikes, the option remains to use the pedestrian crossing at the SCR junction. This is wider than any cycle lane would be and, has been pointed out, may get you across more quickly that crossing with the rest of the traffic. It would be interesting to hear from people who use these bikes what they think but having observed some of them, I don't believe that some move quickly enough to have time to comfortably cross the A4 on the short phase of traffic lights at SCR. Any suggestion that TfL would extend this phase to accommodate them is pure wishful thinking.If groups lobbying for better access for disabled cyclists were supporting your plans I'd obviously be prepared to concede they might have some validity but I think you are distorting their requirements to support your argument.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 306d

There wouldn't just be advantages to residents on Barrowgate.  If Dukes Avenue isn't a ratrun to the A4 and SCR then the volume of traffic using it may be reduced to the extent that signals are no longer needed at the junction of Dukes Ave and CHR.  That would be a benefit to pedestrians and cyclists on CHR.  The Dukes Ave junction could be remodelled to provide continuous footway along CHR.Of course, the usual suspects will say that is impossible because they think Dukes Ave, Barrowgate etc. should be a "relief road" for SCR.

Michael Robinson ● 307d

Yes I am talking specifically about how the residents of Barrowgate E of SCR would feel about removal of that secondary ratrun.

Paul Campbell ● 307d

The source of Barrowgate traffic is different between Barrowgate W and E of Sutton Court Rd.E of SCR, Barrowgate is a secondary ratrun between Dukes Ave and SCR for cars avoiding the lights at the junction of CHR and Heathfield Terrace and looking to jump queues of traffic on SCR.  A Hounslow traffic survey from 2019 showed 90% of vehicles turning into Dukes Ave from CHR were driving straight through the area.  Most of these were heading for the A4 at the other end of Dukes Ave but Barrowgate was a secondary rat-run.Barrowgate W of SCR is a signposted route from the eastbound A4 to Grove Park.

Michael Robinson ● 307d

It's interesting how many of the usual suspects who claim to be regular cyclists feel the need to divert any discussion about creating safer and more inclusive cycling conditions on SCR and in the area between it and Dukes Avenue. I wonder why the same people as usual are so exercised by people having the opinion that we can do more to make these roads safer and more accessible for everybody instead of just themselves? I'm curious now as to what the residents on Barrowgate Road think about the idea of living on a safe quiet street and seeing an overnight increase in their property values of 10-15%. Perhaps we should ask them Michael?

Paul Campbell ● 307d

Except I didn't say that cyclists never us it did I Andrew? I said it is not safe for families or for a variety of other cyclists. I didn't deny that it is used by men like me and the mansplainers on this forum who are comfortable riding a bicycle on a dangerous high-speed rat run. But you are free to create strawmen arguments and call them "bonkers" if it helps you to feel superior. It won't make you right though.

Paul Campbell ● 307d

I was a bit sceptical of the claim that nobody cycles on Barrowgate Road having often done that myself and been far from alone in doing so. If you look at Streetview on Google Maps the current of the road was taken in June 2021. There are three cyclists in this picture including one with a child seat on his bike. Further up the road there is a fourth cyclists outnumbering motor vehicles. There are admittedly many more cars and no bikes on the western end on the otherside of Sutton Court Road. The notion that the eastern section of Barrowgate Road isn't safe for cyclists and that they never use it is simply bonkers.

Andrew OSullivan ● 307d

Well Jeremy, you were the person who were making claims about numbers of vehicles of speeding.  I'm simply pointing out your dismal track record in this area.  A point that you have been unable to answer is the gradients and chicanes in the A4 underpasses are simply not suitable for non-standard cycles (cargo bikes, recumbents etc.) and they need a surface crossing.Your response to this is to simply dismiss this requirement.  Fortunately your opinion is not shared by all levels of government.You have a track record of getting things wrong and you are wrong about this as well.

Michael Robinson ● 307d

Jeremy, you and your friends who oppose every single actual meaningful attempt to make streets safer for cycling and who have done so consistently for many years on this forum, thus building up an easily auditable track record of your positions, may hope that people with influence in decisions are taken in by your transparently phony efforts to present yourselves as reasonable objective observers with genuine concerns for safe cycling but I can assure that they are not. Hence your lack of success. Nobody is listening to you. You always confidently state an opinion based on nothing but your personal observations which are refracted through the prism of your bias and ignorance and detachment from today's universally accepted transport policies and engineering principles. The reality is these opinions are just as worthless as Maggie's regardless of how couched they are in more careful language because you never provide any evidence to support them, they always get proven wrong when the evidence emerges and you are oblivious to both that and how out of touch you are. Prove that family groups are frequently cycling along Barrowgate Road or continue to assert in vain that your opinions have more worth than those of people who, unlike you, actually do cycle locally with their young families. The absence of collisions on local high-speed rat runs is actually testimony to how hostile they are to local cycling. But maybe that is the real goal of the forum's brain trust - no cyclists = no collisions. Genius.

Paul Campbell ● 307d

Paul, you are starting to become hysterical in every sense of the word.The problem with your argument is that neither Justin, Mark or I have been consistent opponents of cycling schemes and, in Mark's case at least, have advocated for better facilities for cyclists although perhaps not sharing your orthodoxy on the best way to do this.If you care to check, my own previously stated view on the C9 for example is that the trial should be extended for another year and it should only be removed if clear and obvious evidence emerges that it is delaying bus services or has compromised cyclist safety. I'd suggest this is not consistent with the views of a petrol-head motorist committed to the continued dominance of the private car.Your extreme concern for safety on our residential back streets, on which collisions are almost unheard of, contrasts somewhat with your willingness to ignore data which suggested possible problems with an increase in collisions at junctions (which thankfully do seem to have tailed off since the implementation of phase 3b of the Cycleway project).Your contention that roads like Barrowgate and Wellesley Road are unsafe for cyclists including family groups continues to be contradicted by the number of them actually using them on a daily basis.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 307d

Where's my name check Paul.

Maggie Dodge ● 307d

I think it's rather more irresponsible for people who have consistently opposed every single local attempt to make streets safer for cycling, and who have never given a second thought to the wide range of cyclists who are not like them and who deserve to be accommodated on our roads, to claim that dangerous high-speed rat runs like Barrowgate Road or Wellesley Road are safe for parents to take their children cycling on or for people with adapted bikes and trikes to use, just to try to shore up their failing efforts to oppose any and very scheme that makes cycling safer for everybody. It is shameful actually but fortunately completely transparent to the people who actually make the decisions.How tiresome life will be for you, Justin, Mark, Francis et al to continue to oppose in vain each of the many changes that will be made to our roads in the next decade to make roads safer and more accessible for people. But you've all been doing it for at least seven years to no effect so I guess you'll never learn better.

Paul Campbell ● 307d

These arguments about the precise level of speeding are starting to resemble the 'how many angels on the head of a pin' discussions of medieval monks.The important point to remember is that cycling on these roads remains safe and this is evidenced by a significant number of people using them. People who claim to be advocates for cycling really should avoid putting themselves in a position where they are discouraging people from getting on a bike as part of a quixotic attempt to justify pie-in-the-sky projects that are simply never going to be implemented because they are impractical and provide little or no net benefit to anyone.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 307d

Justin, I knew you had 'previous' for claiming your eyes were traffic sensors and with a quick search, I found one of your previous posts about traffic on Staveley Rd (18/09/20 18:14:00)You claimed the street had 'virtually none of the 25+ mph traffic'.The actual figure was 29% of vehicles on the street exceeded 25mph.You claimed "the traffic that does goes above 25 mph are mostly mopeds"The actual figure was 3.9% of all vehicles on the street were two wheelers (which included bicycles) so your claim was a mathematical impossibility.Your eyes really don't have a very good track record.  It isn't just your inability to judge speed and vehicle type, more important is that you'd need to spend some time in the street in question, actually recording the results.  A quick visit doesn't cut it. I'm sure you'd agree that the council should trust in traffic sensors measuring 24x7 for multiple days (if not chewed by foxes) rather than the unreliable eyes and mind of Chiswick retirees.  Even if they have a tape measure.

Michael Robinson ● 308d

"whereas those people who actually live there ... have at least the, admittedly subjective, impressions from their eyes that there is little speeding"Is that right Justin? And did they appoint you as their spokesperson? Or have you surveyed them? How else would you know what the people who live on Barrowgate Road think about the high volume of speeding drivers using their residential road as a rat run?Anyway this is about a cycle lane on SCR and we have now established that a surface route that is accessible for all cyclists is both desirable and practical.Barrowgate Road will be inside a LTN anyway when Dukes Avenue is closed at the A4 and Alwyn, Wavendon and Barrowgate are all filtered. Traffic measurement will of course establish the case for these changes and people claiming there are no issues with traffic will be proven to be as correct as they were in Grove Park. Drivers are after all the primary cause of all new traffic management schemes.Cycle lanes on main and boundary roads and removal of through-traffic on residential roads is the future and Bromley will provide sanctuary for anybody who can't tolerate it.

Paul Campbell ● 308d

So far neither you nor Paul have provided any data to demonstrate your increasingly hysterical proclamations of speeding down Barrowgate Road whereas those people who actually live there or, like me use it every day, have at least the, admittedly subjective, impressions from their eyes that there is little speeding.  Of course that does not mean there is no speeding, there will always be the odd idiot.  Every adult who has working eyes has a built in speed sensor.  Of course, as science shows, it is not a particularly accurate sensor but it can tell the difference between a car at c. 20 mph and 40 mph and despite the proclamations of Paul about the hoards of death dealing motorists speeding along Barrowgate at 40mph, this rarely happens.But I am happy to support LBH laying traffic sensors on Barrowgate, I am willing to bet such sensors will show the majority of traffic travelling at no more than 25 mph (above the speed limit of 20 mph) and the number of vehicles travelling at above 35 mph to be vanishingly small and mostly late at night

Justin Stephenson ● 308d

"of course I am not a traffic consultant, just a lay person with eyes"Not just eyes Justin, they appear to be eyes with in-built speed sensors so you can determine the speed of vehicles along the road all day, every day for several weeks with a mere glance!Why does the council bother with laying out automatic traffic counters and risk them getting damaged by foxes when they could just ask you?I seem to remember that you made similar pronouncements about speeds along a street where there actually were traffic measurements and your opinions were basically, a load of bollocks. Maybe your eyes aren't so good.However I think your biggest challenge is your brain simply can't comprehend that streets can be changed to reduce the dominance of motor traffic.  I think it is probably too late for you to understand this.I'm reminded by the quote from physicist Max Planck about how science progresses “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Michael Robinson ● 309d

I'm pretty sure that assessment would be shared by more or less every cyclist who uses these routes. I tend to chose Barrowgate because it is prettier and shadier when it is hot but there is little difference.There is no denying that some vehicles go down both roads too fast at times but, as you say clear sightlines negate the risk. Exceeding 20mph happens alot and closer to 30mph is not unusual but over that is rare. The risk of a speeding car can be managed by resisting the temptation to pull in towards parked cars and going in the opposite direction towards the middle of the road making sure you are leading if you are with children or less confident cyclists. If the fast approaching car doesn't slow down, squeeze the space further. Most people driving too fast tend to be in larger cars which I suspect is due to them having less appreciation of the speed at which they are travelling and they invariably decelerate when they notice you approaching.

Mark Evans ● 309d

Having cycled regularly in the area for years including routes for which Barrowgate and Wavendon are alternatives I can assure people they are both safe. Barrowgate is busier but if speed is your concern Wavendon probably suffers from it more precisely because there is less traffic, the sightlines are clearer and it appears to be wider. The chance of coming face to face with a car traveling at 40mph on Wavendon is small and, because it is a long straight road even if a car is speeding the risk of a collision is vanishingly small and that is why none have ever happened as far as I am aware. The chances of being injured here are certainly less than those during a skiing trip.

Francis Rowe ● 309d

"it is widely and safely used for cyclists of all ages including by families heading for Chiswick House Gardens."No it isn't. The eastern side of Barrowgate Road between Dukes Avenue and Sutton Court Road is a high-speed dangerous rat run. Families are not cycling along it because rat runners are driving at 40mph along it and they do not give space to cyclists. Cyclists with real local knowledge use Wavendon Avenue.:If there is one subject I do know something about it is cycling north and south in Chiswick across the A4"Not really. You clearly know nothing about and are unable to even imagine the daily experience of parents using cargo bikes to cross the A4, people using recumbents or other adapted bicycles or trikes. We are not designing accessible routes for you Mark. We are designing them for everybody.

Paul Campbell ● 309d

Congratulations Justin in joining me in being accused of having a lack of imagination.The mis-characterisation of Barrowgate Road is very counterproductive. Aside from the fact that at its western side it is not a rat-run but a designated route for traffic heading to Grove Park, it is widely and safely used for cyclists of all ages including by families heading for Chiswick House Gardens.The attempt to persuade people that white elephant projects like a cycle lane on Sutton Court Road are necessary because cycling without segregation is unacceptably dangerous is going to discourage people from cycling. Chiswick is blessed with a wide network of residential streets which can be cycled by people of all ages with close to zero risk. These are widely used which is part of the reason why cycling is popular in the area.Just like the presposterous arguments about the 'othering' of cyclists. these notions exist in the heads of a tiny proportion of people who have ever mounted a bike. I'm not against segregation and I think the main value of C9 is that it gives an impression of safety encouraging people to take up cycling but the data continues to suggest that it has done nothing to reduce casualty rates so it shouldn't be introduced mindlessly at every opportunity. SCR shares the main drawback of CHR with lots of traffic emerging from side roads.If there is one subject I do know something about it is cycling north and south in Chiswick across the A4 - I've been doing it for years and if I was ever on Mastermind it would probably be my specialist subject. There is no ideal way to do it and improvements could be made for instance consideration might be give to segregating pedestrian and cyclists in the underpasses although I can see this might be tricky.Ultimately though its is very easy to get across the A4 although at points you may choose to dismount if your cycling skills are insufficient or your ride is too big to negotiate the barriers at the underpass. If you want to cross overground at the SCR junction, using the pedestrian crossing rather than going straight over may actually save you time if you arrive at the right moment.The point to stress is that cycling from one side of Chiswick is safe and easy and you should not be discouraged from doing so by people who tell you otherwise. For people living in the north of Chiswick it would be tragic if assets such as the riverside and Chiswick House were considered to be inaccessible due to some ill-informed nonsense by people peddling a fantasy agenda.

Mark Evans ● 309d

Oh dear Justin you have such a lack of imagination. You can't even dream of the idea of moving a bus stop northwards on a road as you are so fixated on the status quo. How sluggish are some of our local elderly minds. Society is fortunate that people who are much less limited in imagination than yourself are designing the streets of the future. "the bus blocks one complete lane" - indeed . This the future of urban design. It's not my idea or a bonkers utopian dream. It is happening now on streets very close to the one in question. It is amusing to see how difficult a group of mansplainers of a certain age is finding the dismantling of car-centric urban planning. What I am talking about will happen : )

Paul Campbell ● 309d

Congratulations Paul you have definitely proved you have never been anywhere near either Barrowgate Rd or SCR (I am sure there must be a road somewhere in Chiswick that you haven't accused of being a speed magnet).  I didn't accuse cyclists in general of not going anywhere near Barrowgate or SCR, as I am a regular cyclist who uses those roads daily (not on bike in winter) that would mean accusing myself, what I said was it was clear neither you nor Michael have been anywhere near them.Your suggestions of dealing with with SCR cycle lane are laughably inept.  Take the pinch point at the shops, there is parking on one side of the road only.  Remove the parking and replace with a 2 way bike lane you actually reduce the available road width.  Similarly your proposal for floating bus islands means less road width so the road becomes utterly unsuitable for fire engines, the bus blocks one complete lane. And that is before you consider that a floating bus lane to serve the north bound Barrowgate Road bus stop would inevitably cause a tailback onto the A4 so would be positively dangerous, or to be strictly accurate consider the danger of the A4/SCR junction, even more dangerous.  As for the lack of need for right turns, try looking at a map of Chiswick, you will find there are lots of streets that connect to SCR, are you suggesting that vehicles (including emergency vehicles) should not be able to go down those roads?The SCR cycle lane is not likely to happen any time soon, not because of lack of cash but because it is a seriously stupid idea

Justin Stephenson ● 309d

"But of course I am not a traffic consultant, just a lay person with eyes"Don't give me the false modesty. You have an in-built speed gun. You should be more proud."It is pretty obvious that neither main proponent, Michael and Paul have ever been anywhere near SCR or Barrowgate Road"Yes very unlikely that cyclists who have to use these roads every day might have been anywhere near them. You get much more credible with every post. "if we removed all on street car parking - which is not a bad idea - a bike lane would still need to deal with 4 bus stops, a central pedestrian island, 2 central right turn lanes, and a pinch point at the shops"The removing of all on street car parking deals with the pinch point at the shops issue so you could have been more concise. You'll get better marks next time. The bus stops - well you've seen how they get dealt with on the High Road - wakey wakey? Bus sits in the road and cars wait patiently behind it. Central pedestrian island - it goes. It's gone. It's no longer necessary due to the deprioritisation of flow of cars in transport policy and the effects of all the other changes that will be made to the street. Ta da! Handy and convenient street-parking for residents - nope sorry but we have more pressing priorities than that. Right turn lanes - unnecessary at Heathfield junction and subject to massive redesign at A4 junction. Unleash your imagination. I agree you've done an excellent job of being "a lay person with eyes".

Paul Campbell ● 309d

It is pretty obvious that neither main proponent, Michael and Paul have ever been anywhere near SCR or Barrowgate RoadI use both every day, sometimes walking, sometimes by bus, sometimes by bike and sometimes by car.Despite what Paul thinks Barrowgate is not a high speed rat run. There are of course some vehicles that speeds (as is true everywhere), but generally the level of car parking (which is getting worse) means, that speed is not excessive, somewhere around 20-25 mph (and I do realise that the limit is 20 mph) although due to current road works a lot of the time it will be closer to 2 mph than 20 mph.As for SCR bike lane even if we removed all on street car parking - which is not a bad idea - a bike lane would still need to deal with 4 bus stops, a central pedestrian island, 2 central right turn lanes, and a pinch point at the shops which would make it very difficult for a fire engine to pass at speed if a bus was coming in the other direction, and of course there are a number of homes on SCR which have off street car parking and need to be accommodated to allow them to turn into their off street parking and from that parking back onto SCR.But of course I am not a traffic consultant, just a lay person with eyes

Justin Stephenson ● 309d

"I think some people have lost all touch with reality when they advocate these obviously ridiculous ideas."Stick around Diane because you are going to have your mind fully blown over the next ten years.

Paul Campbell ● 311d

I've been crossing over the A4 at this point on foot and by bus for decades and have never seen a cargo bike crossing. If I saw one with small children in it, I'd be inclined to call social services.You rarely see any sort of push bike cross the road here. It would make no sense to delay the far larger number of people travelling by bus to facilitate people who could easily cross at the pedestrian crossing. If more traffic was being held up on the A4 to give them time to get over by using the road that would just make air quality worse for residents and children at schools by the A4. I think some people have lost all touch with reality when they advocate these obviously ridiculous ideas.

Diane Brown ● 311d

"I'm not saying nobody ever has crossed the A4 on a cargo bike but the number of occurrences is vanishingly rare and anybody doing so with small children on board would be foolhardy."Ah the old "nobody is swimming across the raging river so we clearly don't need a bridge" argument. Classic NIMBY stereotype. Very good parody Jeremy. Lol.

Paul Campbell ● 311d

What you can't seem to comprehend is that 'car is king' no longer applies in London.Car parking spaces can be removed.  Green time for other traffic can be reduced for cycle phases.  Sensors in the ground can detect when cycles approach so the phases don't need to be permanently programmed.You haven't mentioned the upside that underpasses are a barrier to other people in non-standard cycles, not just cargo bikes.  It's funny when cycle lanes are mentioned the standard whinge is "whatabouttheelderlydisabledpeoplecarryingheavyloads" but when it is people on cycles who are elderly, disabled, carrying heavy loads, they don't give a toss.Please give us the results of your measuring and your traffic survey which has determined the number of people using the crossing would be 'once in a blue moon'.And after all that, the facts remain that designs have been commissioned by people who do know what they are doing, and you are just a blowhard posting on an internet forum.

Michael Robinson ● 311d

I'm not saying nobody ever has crossed the A4 on a cargo bike but the number of occurrences is vanishingly rare and anybody doing so with small children on board would be foolhardy.To accomodate this kind of use of the junction you would need an additional cyclist only phase to make it safe which would shorten the phase for all other traffic crossing the junction causing delays to buses. There possibly would need to be a longer hold on traffic on the A4 and even a marginal change would have a significant impact over time on congestion and air pollution.Those are the downsides. The upside is that someone on a cargo bike would be able to cross on the road rather than at the pedestrian crossings where they could get to the other side without even the need to unload passengers. So on the one hand we save a once in a blue moon user a couple of minutes making the crossing. One the other we have additional delays to hundreds of bus users every day and potentially thousands of vehicles on the A4. It may just be me but I'd say the disbenefits outweigh the benefits in this case.Neither of us can claim any detailed knowledge of guidelines used by Highway Engineers but, unlike you, I have at least looked up recommended widths for roads like SCR and cycle lanes. Even at the minimum recommended widths there are certain points at which SCR is not wide enough on this basis. I suggest you buy your own tape measure and check this out for yourself. You should be able to get a decent one in Robert Dyas.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 311d

So your logic seems to be that if you have never seen something, then it never happens.  As well as cargo bikes with kids never crossing the A4, you can add mobility impaired people on a recumbent and a visually impaired person on a tandem bike as the 'stoker'.  I've seen these several times in Chiswick over the last couple of weeks but you haven't so in your mind, they don't exist and would never want to cross the A4 using a surface crossing.Your logic also seems to be that because you have decided it is impossible, the council officer who knows a lot more than you should never have commissioned the report, and the report by consultants who also know more than you is wrong.All because you say you own a tape measure.Why on earth would anyone believe you? Why don't you get out there and use your tape measure rather than blustering on this internet forum.  I don't know what particular laws of physics you will be using (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Navier Stokes equation...?) but I'd suggest a knowledge of the guidelines used by Highway Engineers for design of roads would be more useful.  Something you don't appear to have.

Michael Robinson ● 311d

"I fully accept that it would be highly challenging to travel by cargo bike through the A4 underpasses without unloading and pushing it through."Yes so the underpasses present accessibility challenges for some people who use bikes and are not adequate connections between GP and North of the A4. We're getting closer to defining the problem."It would also be similarly difficult to guarantee crossing the A4 on a cargo bike with two five year olds before the short phase for traffic on Sutton Court Road particularly travelling north where the slope is against you."Yes the current single option for surface crossing by bike is unsafe and also inadequate. Closer still."Transport policy shouldn't be driven by seeking to accomodate this"Incorrect. Transport policy is now driven by seeking to provide solutions that make bikes a safe and practical alternative to cars in London. Safe routes accessible to all cyclists are absolutely part of transport policy now. Flow of cars is no longer the priority. That has been explained many times on this forum and is surely no longer up for debate as it has proven to be manifestly true hence all the bleating from OneChiswick."they have the option of accessing the junction on parallel routes via Barrowgate Road as previously explained."Barrowgate road is a dangerous high-speed rat run that does not provide a safe, accessible route for some cyclists like the parent with the cargo bike or indeed any child on a bike. More help with that problem definition.The issue that you and Mark are having here is one of imagination and a lack thereof. Mark is right that parking spaces would be sacrificed for a cycle lane and that is no longer considered by transport policy decision-makers to be a red line. There would of course be the usual outcry and despair about the death of retail but again that debate has been well and truly put to bed in Chiswick. And the crossing of the A4 would be materially redesigned to accommodate a cycle lane that would be safe for a parent to use to cross the A4 with a cargo bike or for somebody with a mobility impairment to do so on a recumbent or adapted bicycle or trike. The world is changing.

Paul Campbell ● 311d

Okay, so we are getting a bit closer to the truth of the matter.You haven't seen the report so can't say that a cycle lane on SCR is practical only that it is desirable. If the report (based on the use of tape measures) concluded that it was practical, it can be assumed that you would have told us.The borough's traffic officers deserve the upmost respect and I have always striven to give it to them but I can't say this attitude is reflected in the commissioning of a report by external consultants that the officers could have said from the outset was impractical.I fully accept that it would be highly challenging to travel by cargo bike through the A4 underpasses without unloading and pushing it through. It would also be similarly difficult to guarantee crossing the A4 on a cargo bike with two five year olds before the short phase for traffic on Sutton Court Road particularly travelling north where the slope is against you. It would be extremely unwise for any parent to attempt this and I have never seen a cargo bike crossing the A4. Transport policy shouldn't be driven by seeking to accomodate this and beside, even if the kamikaze parent insisted on crossing the A4 with their little ones this way, there would be little net benefit to them from the Sutton Court Cycle lane as they have the option of accessing the junction on parallel routes via Barrowgate Road as previously explained.Much as you may decry them, tape measures and the laws of physics do matter and we can't always get what we desire.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 311d

Yes, Jeremy, I believe a Sutton Court cycle lane is desirable.If you believe other crossings of the A4 are better, I suggest you borrow a cargo bike from Fudges, see if you can find a couple of unruly 5 year olds to sit in it then try and navigate the chicanes and gradients of the A4 underpasses (if they aren't flooded).Please point out where I said I had seen the report?  It is amazing what council officers will discuss if you aren't abusive, rude and patronising to them.  Of course, this rules out OneChiswick and a good proportion of people on this forum from ever having a sensible discussion with council officers.The rest of your post is just pompous uninformed blathering.  Anyway, why are you wasting time on this forum - you should be out on Sutton Court Rd with your tape measure!

Michael Robinson ● 311d

So Michael, let me sum up. You believe a Sutton Court Road Cycle Lane is both desirable and viable based on a report you have read produced by a consultant on behalf of Hounslow Council. Your reading of this report was so thorough that you can be confident my reservations about such a proposal are without merit but not thorough enough that you remember the name of the author of the report. Although it has been paid for by the Hounslow taxpayer, it hasn't been published and only a small number of people such as yourself have been allowed to see it. Despite this you can no longer access a copy to answer some basic questions about it.Furthermore, the people who paid for this report that they have never got to see are not allowed to know how much it cost. The claim of commercial confidentiality is spurious as this is a bespoke report for which no market sensitive information needs to be released for the overall price paid to be made public. The lack of transparency here over the way public money is being spent (very possibly misspent) is setting off alarm bells.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 311d

It would be helpful to settle the debate on whether you could physically fit cycle lanes onto Sutton Court Road if you could provide a link to the report that says it is possible. That must have some drawings showing measurements.In the absence of that and presuming that a two way operation is being proposed that would require an absolute minimum of 3 metres, Jeremy is right to be sceptical that there is enough room. There are several pinchpoints and you would have to remove all the parking including outside the shops near the town hall.The other obvious objection is that it would slow further the two bus routes that use this road for no real net gain to cyclists. I've been cycling from north to south Chiswick for decades and would never choose Sutton Court Road as a route even if there was a cycleway because it doesn't lead to an underpass. There are parallel routes which are quicker. If you are coming from the east you can use Duke Road and Dukes Avenue and if you are coming from the west you can use Heathfield Gardens.Most cyclists crossing the A4 prefer to use the underpasses rather than the SCR junction overground but if you did prefer to avoid the underpasses you can do so from either of the alternative approaches by joining SCR via Barrowgate Road.I find it inexplicable that a report was commissioned to look into this when any regular cyclist in Chiswick could have pointed out that it was a waste of money.

Mark Evans ● 311d

Rachel Aldred was on our first 100 Women in Cycling list, you can read more about her research on Rachel's website

Maggie Dodge ● 312d

"has recently been awarded over £1.5 million to lead a the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the research partner of the NHS, public health and social care, study into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in London."Another waste of money to state the obvious!

Steve Taylor ● 312d

I can't recall the name of the consultancy.  It was one of the big ones like Steer but could have been someone else.  You or I aren't going to get how much they charged because that is commercial in confidence.  You could always contact Hounslow and ask to be considered for future opportunities and tell them you will charge 50% and you have all the qualifications needed with your tape measure.  What sort of tape measure is it? One of the mechanical roll-out jobs or will you impress them with one of the latest laser measurers?I know enough about the engineering involved to know what I don't know.  You clearly aren't as inhibited to make pronouncements with zero knowledge.Perhaps you can produce a plan showing all the relevant dimensions along the route with reference to standards for cycle lane and roadway lane widths as specified in LTN 1/20, DMRB and other relevant references to prove your claim a bike lane is unviable (the reference to LTN here doesn't mean Low Traffic Neighbourhood, but I'm sure you knew that already)It really is a dilemma, on one hand there is an experienced engineering consultancy who have done a design that was viewed as viable and on the other hand, someone posting on the internet who says it isn't because he has a tape measure (he hasn't actually used the tape measure at this location, he just has one)  Do you plan to contact the various professional bodies like Institute of Civil Engineers and related specialist groups to say they are all pointless as all anyone needs to do their job is a tape measure?Who to believe? It's a tough one.

Michael Robinson ● 312d

University of Westminster to lead major £1.5m new study on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in LondonA research team led by Professor Rachel Aldred, Professor of Transport at the University of Westminster, has recently been awarded over £1.5 million to lead a the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the research partner of the NHS, public health and social care, study into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in London.

Maggie Dodge ● 312d

No name for the consultancy? How much were they paid?Michael, you have delighted us with your armchair traffic engineering on this forum for many years so I am surprised you now think it is necessary to have formal training to have an opinion on the design of roads that you walk, cycle or drive along on a regular basis. If your notion that traffic engineers are infallible is correct, we could be saving lots of consultations.An engineering degree is not required to show that a SCR cycle lane is unviable - you just need a tape measure. Even if you assume narrowed pavements, the removal of pedestrian refuges and all parking spaces there would still be insufficient space at certain points particularly at the northern and southern end which would be too narrow. The idea isn't being progressed due to lack of funding but because it is presposterous given that there are a number of alternative north south routes already available to cyclists and very few would switch it using Sutton Court Road. If public money has been spent on investigating this obvious dead end, I'd regard that as a scandalous waste given the shortfalls being experienced in vital services.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 312d

But any reasonably frequent poster on OneChiswick would know that the group is urging its members to go to CAF to dish out the same treatment to Council Officers that they had the displeasure to receive at the Vision for Chiswick meeting. OneChiswick tell us that they represent all of Chiswick and an overwhelming majority against every single change to street space. Are you saying that isn't true and that it will just be a small number of the same old faces who will be shouting angrily at Officers at CAF?

Paul Campbell ● 312d

How very true Julian.

Adrian Irving ● 312d

Hounslow contracted it out to an engineering consultancy who have done other cycle lane and road design.  It is no secret this was part of the original scope of the S Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhoods project as one of the  objectives listed was cycle connections to Cycleway 9.  The funding provided was used to do the design work.As I said, there would be lots more work to implement a design and I don't know where this sits with current funding and priorities.

Michael Robinson ● 312d

I know a few people off the top of my head who are against LTNs and the cycle lanes and a few who are in support of them and some are directly affected.I can tell you that all of them most likely never look here or anywhere on social media over these subjects. Have no idea what the council is doing and have no idea who anyone in other places are. Most likely don't know who their local Cllr is and don't know about any pressure groups.I'd say the majority are just that. It is just a number in a bubble that believes what goes on here and in other places are the voice of the majority.I'm not voicing what's good or bad over these long arguments but most have no clue as to what goes on. They just support or don't support and go about the Chiswick daily way of life without the help of social media as a ch for news and debateYou, those who constantly post are indeed the minority who know what's going on and what's being debated locally as a local resident You have to keep that in the back of your mind when posting

Julian Pavey ● 312d

"The second thing the council must understand is that subject-specific expertise built up through a lifetime of education and research doesn’t mean much unless you are also able to make exaggerated claims that stoke fear and resentment, ideally combined with a kind of faux-folksiness that harkens back to an age that never existed. Am I impressed that you have a Ph.D. in city planning or education or environmental science and are using your expertise to make the commons more equitable, livable, just, and human-centered? I mean, maybe. But the thing is, you haven’t frightened me with your expertise. There has been no “Oh God, the Other is taking over and we must stop them from inflicting their strange ways on our all-American life” moment tonight. And so, I’m afraid, you have wasted all of our time."

Paul Campbell ● 312d

Who did the design for this proposed Sutton Court Road cycle lane?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 312d

"The Sutton Court Road bike lane is a fantasy"A design has already been done (pre-Covid) as it was part of the funding provided for the S Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood project.Of course, funding then vanished because of the pandemic and implementation would have been complex given changes to signals at A4 junction.  I don't know where it is in terms of funding availability and priorities now.Yet another example of the amateur traffic engineer brains trust on this forum pronouncing something is "impossible" or "fantasy".  Who needs detailed engineering studies and extensive expertise designing cycle lanes along busy roads when there is an inexhaustible supply of retired elderly people with lots of opinions but no actual experience?

Michael Robinson ● 312d

I don't really know much about the A4 cycle lane proposal but there seems no substance to the notion that it isn't viable because of traffic turning into Sutton Lane North. The Sutton Court Road bike lane is a fantasy as the road isn't wide enough to accomodate it and there are too many side roads from which traffic is emerging. There is no actual demand for it anyway as there are better alternative routes for cyclists to get to the A4 such as Dukes Avenue and Duke Road.What would much better is to duplicate the route already taken by many cyclists by down Heathfield Gardens - a quietway rather than a cyclelane would work due to the lack of traffic. If this linked in to an upgraded cycle lane along the A4, I struggle to see how anyone would think this is a bad thing.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 312d

"there seems to be no active lobby in favour of restricting access off the A4 at Sutton Lane North"You are forgetting about the Onesies who want to have a proper cycle lane along the A4 footpath.  Clearly for all those high speed cyclists who they don't want on Chiswick High Rd, there can't be a junction where cyclists need to stop, turn around 180 degrees to check traffic behind them then guess if that car not indicating left is in fact planning to turn left into Sutton Lane North.  A proper cycle lane along the A4 footpath would mean closing Sutton Lane N, closing Dukes Avenue and putting in a signalised crossing at Sutton Court Rd reducing green time for vehicles crossing the A4 and/or on the A4.  The Onesies say they want a proper cycle lane along the A4, this is what it means!In my opinion, the route to Grove Park via Barrowgate would only be re-examined as part of an overall review of the area , basically a low traffic neighbourhood treatment, which may include improved cycle link and bike lane on Sutton Court Rd providing a link to C9.However I don't think that is on the horizon anytime soon as there is no funding.

Michael Robinson ● 312d

I don't think it is - they've effectively argued with me against the idea defending the redirection of traffic from the A4 along Barrowgate Road.Closing access to Grove Park from the east on the A316 means that there are now two ways to access the are when arriving eastbound on the A4 - the Barrowgate Road diversion to cross at Sutton Court Road or a loop around the Hogarth Roundabout.TfL seem keen to discourage the latter and there seems to be no active lobby in favour of restricting access off the A4 at Sutton Lane North.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 312d

Finally a successful driving petition! The angry mob of rude and condescending drivers can celebrate this victory over the Council at the CAF.

Paul Campbell ● 312d

Petition signed by 19 people according to the Hounslow website.The ePetition page no longer seems to show who has signed so no opportunity to ask the person who created it what it means.

Michael Robinson ● 312d

Understood Jeremy, but I'm pretty sure it's on the to do list of the usual suspects!

Bruce Hammal ● 313d

I don't think people were proposing the closure of the route along Barrowgate Road into Grove Park, rather they (including me) were pointing out that it was inconsistent of TfL and Hounslow to direct traffic down a residental road when they were implementing restrictions on the other side of the A4.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 313d

I can only assume this is in response to the stated ambition of some to prevent traffic using the current Barrowgate Road route into Grove Park.

Bruce Hammal ● 313d

Is there a proposal to prevent cars crossing the A4 in one or both directions using Sutton Court Road?

F Coyle ● 313d

Here is the text: "We the undersigned petition the council to Continue to allow all W4 residents to drive across the A4 at Sutton Court Road traffic lights If those who live north of the A4 (especially to the west) are prevented from crossing A4 at Sutton Court Road traffic lights, they will have to drive along A4 (or up Barrowgate Road) to Hogarth Roundabout then back along A316 in order to access Dukes Meadows and Thames riverside. Chiswick residents do not want to be divided into restricted enclaves without access to facilities and amenities in other parts of the W4 area (see also petition from those who live east of A316)"It makes no sense to me.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 313d