Unfortunately the Chiswick councillors continue to oppose Cycleway 9 while being unable to propose any viable alternatives that would achieve the benefits of the proposed plans.
Their leaflet and press release contain many myths and mistakes and it is highly disappointing they are continuing to mislead the public, who deserve better from their elected representatives.
Here are the flaws in what they are saying – and what they aren’t saying.
|What the councillors say||The reality|
|“devastating plans”||A bike lane.|
|“cycle superhighway”||A bike lane with a kerb to protect people from motor vehicles.|
|“A fast through route along the A4”||Detailed information from TfL why a cycle route along the A4 is a flawed idea (section Route Alignment and Connectivity)|
|“A local cycling scheme that brings our community together”||The councillors have failed to provide any proposals to enable safer cycling along Chiswick High Road.
They provided no input on a "local cycling scheme" for the Borough Transport Strategy.
They did not support a borough Liveable Neighbourhoods bid (Chiswick has subsequently been awarded funding despite this).
|“TfL has ignored the clearly expressed views of the residents of Chiswick”||TfL Response to Consultation document responding to the views of residents (139 pages)|
|“Seriously damage the viability of Chiswick’s shops and businesses”||Bike Myth Number 4.
|“Remove the street’s highly prized wide pavements”||This is a misleading statement; pavements are not being removed.|
|“Significantly increase traffic congestion and journey times”||TfL traffic modelling predicts a reduction in most journey times.
Signalising pedestrian crossings and banning turn from Dukes Ave should improve traffic flow.
|“Reduce this busy road to a single carriage-way at points”||Chiswick High Road is already single carriage-way at points.
|“Destroy much loved mature trees”||Plans are to remove three trees and plant nine trees for a net gain of six trees. One tree has already been removed because its roots fractured a water main.|
|“Fail to address air quality on London’s most polluted roads”||The councillors previously claimed that TfL figures showed pollution would increase. This was factually incorrect.
The councillors now claim that CW9 “fails to address” air quality. This claim is based upon data in a TfL air pollution report showing no significant change in pollution. This analysis assumes no change in how people will travel in order to establish a baseline for comparison with today.
Anyone cycling instead of taking a polluting mode of transport will be helping to address air pollution.
See also Bike Myth Number 1.
|“Force pedestrians to cross a high speed two way cycle route”||Bike Myth Number 5.
|“Drive more traffic onto Chiswick High Road because of road closures”||It appears the councillors believe that traffic driving through the area should be using residential streets instead of main roads like Chiswick High Road and the A4.
The councillors haven't said this to residents of streets afflicted by rat-running traffic that would be addressed by CW9.
|“Remove essential parking spaces used by shoppers and businesses”||TfL report on surveys of shopping and parking.
|“Create a frustrating stop/start route for commuter cyclists”||The councillors state that the route will be “stop/start” and “high speed”. This is contradictory.
CW9 has priority over all side roads (except signalled junctions) and some traffic lights for motor traffic won’t apply to the cycle lane.
Chiswick High Road is already by far and away the most used cycling route in the area and CW9 will make it even more popular.
|“Traffic gridlock for up to two years during construction”||The councillors should look for ways to support local businesses during construction, such as rates relief.|
In addition to what the Chiswick councillors say about cycling, it is perhaps more revealing what they don’t say.
Considering all the issues they could address, it is highly disappointing that the Chiswick councillors are spending so much time and effort just to try and stop a bike lane.
- Cycle lanes increase congestion (and thus pollution)
- Hardly anyone uses them
- They’re only used by white, middle-class men/commuters
- They’re bad for business
- They’re dangerous for pedestrians
- Cyclists just break laws, so they shouldn’t get lanes
- How do I carry work tools/a fridge on a bike?
- We’re not the Netherlands/Denmark
- They cost too much
- There’s no need
Also see a point-by-point rebuttal of their press release.
9 July 2019