War of Words Continues Over Cycleway Plan

Cycling group issues rebuttal after petition against scheme promoted on High Road

Chiswick councillors and residents campaigning on the High Road

With a decision on the segregated cycle path through Chiswick expected this Autumn both sides of the debate have been seeking to gain support for their point of view.

Claims about the negative aspects of the scheme to persuade people to sign a petition against it have been hotly disputed by a local cycling group who are strong supporters of the scheme.

For the last two weekends local Conservative councillors and residents have set up stall outside Marks and Spencer on Chiswick High Road and collected signatures against the plan to build what was originally called Cycle Superhighway 9 (CS9) and is now to be called (CW9). They intend to be there every Saturday for the next few months.

The petition will be sent to Hounslow Council to try and persuade them not back the scheme. The petition reads: “We deplore the way that TfL has ignored the clearly expressed views of the residents of Chiswick and urge Hounslow Council to reject TfL's proposal to build a segregated two-way Cycle Superhighway (CS9) along Chiswick High Road.”

Cllr Patrick Barr said, “We had a superb response and collected hundreds of signatures in only a few hours. If you haven’t yet signed, pick up your pen or access the link on your phone, tablet or computer and add your name. The more of you who sign this petition, the more Hounslow Council is likely to listen.”

The anti-CS9 campaigners dismiss the notion that cycleways help reduce congestion by encouraging a significant ‘model shift’ from cars to bikes. They also say that the proposal will impact on pedestrians, by taking away pavement space particularly on the south side of the High Road, actively conflicting with TfL’s policy of encouraging walking.

They claim that policies to encourage cycle have met with limited success and that, for instance, the Embankment cycle highway CS3 cost over £47m yet its daily use has only increased by 754 since it was built.

They believe that the current proposal will cause more congestion on Chiswick High Road because traffic will be reduced to single file in places and say that TfL’s own predictions are for more congestion and increased journey times. They claim that similar schemes in other parts of London have led to gridlock on roads with the cycleways virtually empty.

It is also pointed out that with a possible two years in which construction of the pathway is taking place there will be significant extra delays from construction in the area.

CS9 opponents marked pavement space they say is to be lost. Picture: @W4resident

In addition it is asserted that the impact on businesses, particularly on the south side of the High Road where there are more locally owned and managed businesses will be negative and they say, “Our small independents must not be forced to fail because of the wishes of a tiny minority of people, many of whom don't live or work in Chiswick but who are passing through. “

Cllr Joanna Biddolph said, “We want safe cycling in Chiswick so residents and visitors can reach the High Road safely and travel along it safely. We don't want TfL's madcap linear scheme in a town that is far from linear. It will destroy our retail and leisure economy which is a significant factor in Chiswick's desirability as a destination for visitors and as a place to live, work and spend leisure time. Chiswick High Road is a destination and not a thoroughfare. As for congestion, loss of trees, loss of parking, loss of loading bays, failure to address air quality, numerous junctions and the very important safety risks posed by having to cross a confusing single-track two-way channel, it's a triumph of fanatical dogma over common sense.”

The Hounslow Cycling Campaign have issued a point by point rebuttal of the claims made by local councillors saying the petition is based on ‘scaremongering, erroneous and misleading statements’.

Michael Robinson, Co-ordinator, Hounslow Cycling Campaign said, “The most disappointing aspect of the Chiswick councillors’ position is their complete failure to address the issues affecting us all - air pollution, climate change, health and safety of people on the roads. Statements such as ‘we need to promote cycling’ are meaningless without infrastructure that actually enables people to cycle safely. Other boroughs have seen measurable reductions in air pollution and increases in life expectancy for residents after investments in safe cycling infrastructure, but the Chiswick councillors continue to ignore evidence-based public health justifications for this investment.”

They dismiss the notion that the 60% opposition to the scheme from respondents to the consultation from W4, W6 and W14 postcodes undermines the viability of the scheme by pointing out that Cllr Barr and Cllr Biddolph don’t live in these post code areas and that the views of the wider population of London should be considered.

They counter the concerns raised by the impact on pedestrians by pointing out the scheme is being supported by Living Streets a UK charity which aims to encourage people to walk more.

With regard to figures published by councillors claiming to show a decline in cycling over the last decade in local boroughs, the pro-CS9 group says no source has been given for these numbers and Department for Transport data shows an 88% increase in cycling in Chiswick from 2009 to 2018. Similarly they query the source for claims made about usage of CS3 saying figures show a 200% increase in cycling since it opened.

It is also pointed out that Chiswick High Road is already single file at certain points and that TfL’s predictions for journey times show that the cycleway will actually reduce travel times for motorised traffic at certain times of the day.

TfL has yet to publish the outcome of its second consultation, changes to Duke Road/Dukes Avenue and Kew Bridge. It is expected to do so in the near future and to publish its final proposals which will then go to Hounslow’s cabinet for decision, perhaps on 3 September or in October.

The petition against CS9/CW9 is here.

July 18, 2019