Proposals for Kew Bridge, Kew Bridge Road and Duke Road (Chiswick)

Response to issues raised July 2019

1 Cycleway 9

Executive Summary

We consulted on our proposals for Cycleway 9 in autumn 2017. We published our analysis of the responses and our responses to the issues raised in January 2019 at tfl.gov.uk/cs9. The scheme is an important part of the Mayor’s Healthy Streets Approach, which aims to make London greener, healthier and more pleasant through encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public transport. The feedback we received was valuable in helping us to further develop our proposals. Overall, we are progressing our plans for the scheme as outlined in the January 2019 Response to Issues Raised report.

In response to the feedback received, we carried out a further consultation on two parts of the route between 30 January and 26 February 2019:

• Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road) • Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue’s junction with Chiswick High Road

This report provides our response to the issues commonly raised during the further consultation and explains the changes we are making to the proposals to reflect the feedback received. We produced this report in collaboration with the London Borough of Hounslow.

Overall responses

We received 1,490 responses to the consultation. 37 of the responses were from stakeholder groups, which comprised politicians transport and road user groups, businesses and employers, local interest groups and schools. There were 12 campaign style responses from owners of properties at Kew Bridge, 8 Kew Bridge Road, these were broadly based on the response from the Key Bridge Owners Association. These have been included in the overall responses.

Conclusion and next steps

The feedback we received was invaluable in helping us to further improve the scheme. Section 1.2 of the report includes a summary of the proposed design changes made following the responses received to the consultation.

Following feedback from consultees and the Mayor’s announcement of a new unified brand for London’s growing network of high-quality cycle route, this route will no longer be called a Cycle Superhighway. Moving forwards our existing and new cycle routes will be combined into a single unified network, known as Cycleways. The network will offer a consistent and high-quality cycling experience across London.

Subject to the remaining stages of decision-making process, we currently intend to commence construction later this year.

Cycleway 9 2

Contents

1. Response to consultation and next steps ...... 5 1.1 Response to consultation ...... 5 1.2 Summary of design changes following consultation ...... 6 1.3 Next steps for Cycleway 9 ...... 6 2. Responses to issues commonly raised ...... 7 2.1 Overall proposals ...... 7 Principles of the scheme ...... 7 Route alignment ...... 7 Alignment of the route along the A4 ...... 8 Motor vehicle and cycle counts on the A4 vs A315 ...... 9 Pedestrian and cyclist casualties on the A4 vs A315 ...... 11 Uptake of cycling ...... 11 Cycle infrastructure ...... 12 Two-way cycle tracks ...... 12 Impact on bus users ...... 15 Bus stop bypasses ...... 15 Environmental impacts ...... 15 Air and noise quality ...... 15 Green infrastructure ...... 16 Congestion ...... 17 Safety ...... 17 Local businesses ...... 18 Equalities Impact Assessment ...... 19 Consultation Approach ...... 20 Clarity and quality of consultation materials ...... 20 Consultation publicity ...... 21 Concern about the process ...... 21 Drop-in events ...... 22 Alternative route options ...... 22 2.2 Issues relating to individual sections of the route ...... 23 Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road to Wellesley Road ...... 23 Principles of the Scheme ...... 23

3 Cycleway 9

Impact on pedestrians ...... 24 Impact on motor Traffic ...... 25 Junctions ...... 26 Impact on cyclists ...... 29 Cycle Infrastructure ...... 29 Impact on bus users ...... 30 Congestion ...... 31 Signage ...... 31 Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junctions with Chiswick High Road ...... 32 Principles of the scheme ...... 32 Impacts on pedestrians ...... 35 Impact on motorists ...... 37 Junctions ...... 40 Impact on cyclists ...... 43 Cycle infrastructure ...... 44 Impact on buses ...... 45 Impact for emergency vehicles ...... 45 Impact on Our Lady of Grace & St Edward Church ...... 45 Environmental ...... 46 Safety ...... 46 Congestion ...... 48 Construction impacts ...... 48 2.3 Issues raised by individual stakeholders ...... 49 Politicians ...... 49 Transport and road user groups ...... 50 Businesses and employers ...... 52 Local interest groups ...... 53 Schools ...... 54

Cycleway 9 4

1. Response to consultation and next steps

1.1 Response to consultation We consulted on our proposals for Cycleway 9 in autumn 2017. We published our analysis of the responses and our responses to the issues raised in January 2019 at tfl.gov.uk/cs9. The scheme is an important part of the Mayor’s Healthy Streets Approach, which aims to make London greener, healthier and more pleasant through encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public transport. The feedback we received was valuable in helping us to further develop our proposals. Overall, we are progressing our plans for the scheme as outlined in the January 2019 Response to Issues Raised report.

In response to the feedback received, we carried out a further consultation on two parts of the route between 30 January and 26 February 2019:

• Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road (High Street Brentford to Wellesley Road) • Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue’s junction with Chiswick High Road

The further consultation materials are available at tfl.gov.uk/kew-duke

We asked for feedback on the proposals in these two areas from residents, businesses, employers, transport users and other relevant stakeholders. We publicised the consultation using letters and leaflets distributed across a wide area, targeted email campaigns and via news stories in regional and local media.

We received 1,490 direct responses to the consultation. 37 of the responses were from stakeholder groups, which comprised politicians, transport and road user groups, businesses and employers, local interest groups and schools. There were 12 campaign style responses from owners of properties at Kew Bridge, 8 Kew Bridge Road, these were generally based on the response from the Key Bridge Owners Association. These have been included in the overall responses.

We have produced a consultation report which explains the processes of the consultation, and a summary of responses. Many of the responses provided detailed feedback which we analysed in depth to ensure we understood views raised on the scheme.

This report provides our response to the issues commonly raised during the consultation and the changes we are making to the proposals to reflect the feedback received. Where the same issue was raised as in the previous consultation, we have reiterated the previous responses to be consistent. We have produced this report in collaboration with the London Borough of Hounslow.

5 Cycleway 9 1.2 Summary of design changes following consultation Our planned changes are summarised below and described in more detail in Section 2.2. Where no changes are described, we are intending to proceed as per the design consulted on.

Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road to Wellesley Road

• No changes are proposed to the design which we consulted on.

Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junctions with Chiswick High Road

• We proposed reducing the eastbound approach to the junction of Duke’s Avenue from two lanes to one. We are no longer proposing this due to feedback received during consultation. • We are proposing to reduce the width of the cycle track from 3m to 2.5m outside Our Lady of Grace and St Edward’s church. This would provide space for two traffic lanes on the eastbound approach to the junction of Duke’s Avenue improving traffic capacity at this junction, whilst maintaining pavement space outside the Church. • We proposed to convert Duke’s Avenue to entry only. To respond to concerns raised during the consultation, we are no longer proposing to make Duke’s Avenue entry only and the design has been altered to allow cars and vans to exit the road. • Due to space constraints on the exit of Duke’s Avenue we are unable to accommodate large vehicles as they will not be able to make the turn onto Chiswick High Road safely. We are therefore proposing to introduce a weight restriction on the access to Duke’s Avenue from the A4 for vehicles over 7.5tonnes. • We are proposing to remove one medium sized tree outside no 229 Chiswick High Road to provide an improved road alignment for motor traffic and keep more pavement space. We are still proposing to plant two new trees in the area.

1.3 Next steps for Cycleway 9 The feedback we received was invaluable in helping us to further improve the scheme.

Cycleway 9 6

Subject to the remaining stages of decision-making process, we currently intend to commence construction later this year.

2. Responses to issues commonly raised We have worked closely with key stakeholders including the London Borough of Hounslow on our response to the issues raised during public consultation, which are set out in this section.

2.1 Overall proposals

Principles of the scheme

Route alignment Some people suggested alternative routes for the alignment of this scheme, including along the A4 or to avoid certain roads such as Chiswick High Road.

The route alignment was considered at length by ourselves and the local boroughs over many years with detailed assessments undertaken to inform this. The aim of the scheme is to encourage more people to choose sustainable travel over motorised options to contribute towards the Mayor’s aspiration for 80% of trips to be made by cycling, walking and public transport by 2041. To be successful, the scheme must be an attractive route for cyclists with useful connections to local amenities, such as shops, restaurants and places of work, health and education facilities and connections to public transport facilities, including train and underground stations, and address current barriers such as safety. It must also contribute to the Heathy Streets approach to improving streets for the benefit of all road users including pedestrians and access to public transport. The chosen alignment, which connects a number of town centres along the A315 and A3000, is integral to achieving these outcomes as it allows Healthy Streets interventions to be used to achieve the biggest benefits by being targeted at those road users most likely to switch to more sustainable modes, on those routes with the highest levels of potential for growth in travel by sustainable modes.

Our Strategic Cycling Analysis (SCA)1 supports this route alignment. It sets out potential corridors and locations where current and future cycling demand could justify investment and where demand for cycling, walking and public transport is most needed to improve all sustainable transport modes together. Extracts from the SCA data shown below demonstrate that current and future potential cycling demand along the route alignment are within the top 5-10% for the majority of the route.

1 Strategic Cycling Analysis, TfL, June 2017 – available: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/strategic-cycling- analysis.pdf

7 Cycleway 9

Moreover, the route includes a number of junctions with collision rates above the London average as well as taking in areas of high current walking demand.

Current cycling demand along the route alignment is within the top 5% to 15%. Junctions with poor safety records and current walking demand are also shown1.

Potential cycling demand along the route alignment is within the top 5% to 15%. Walking potential is also shown – much of the route falls within areas where walking potential is within the top 20%1.

Alignment of the route along the A4 We considered a route alignment along the A4 during early stages of the project. While geographically a close parallel alternative, low demand for cycling and high motor vehicle traffic along much of the alignment mean that the A4 would make an unattractive end to end route between Olympia and Hounslow. Connectivity to the A4 is also relatively poor and cyclists would be forced to cross six lanes of traffic at some points to get to the other side of the road leading to long waiting times at junctions. Additionally, unlike the A315, the A4 does not connect multiple town centres or offer the same opportunity to connect with local services and amenities. The feasibility of routing this cycle scheme along the A4 alignment has been revisited since the consultation in light of queries raised, however the route continues to lack fundamental elements integral to an attractive cycle route and a Heathy Streets scheme (see the following sections for more detail). Notwithstanding the

Cycleway 9 8 above, the MTS sets out the Vision Zero target for addressing collisions in London and TfL is aware of concerns with the quality of current cycling facilities on some sections of the A4, and is committed to reviewing these separately in partnership with the local boroughs. This includes improvements between Hammersmith town hall and Hammersmith gyratory, including links into Black’s Road.

Motor vehicle and cycle counts on the A4 vs A315 Despite there being some facilities along the footways for cycling, the A4 is a hostile and unpleasant environment and cycle counts reflect this. Along the A4, cycle counts decline considerably to the west while along the A315, demand for trips remains strong around Isleworth and Hounslow. Latest cycle counts for 20172 show that current levels of cycling are still significantly higher on the A315 than the A4 with cycle flows up to 20 times higher on some sections of the route (e.g. Hammersmith Road) than parallel sections of the A4.

Motor traffic counts along the A4 are also still significantly higher than along the A315 with traffic flows up to 13 times higher on some sections of the A4 compared to parallel sections of the A315.

A315 R oute A 4 R oute Town C entres

The eastern section of the route alignment connects Hammersmith, Chiswick and Brentford town centres. Dots on map refer to graphs below geographically left to right.

2 Department for Transport traffic counts (2017) available here: https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/

9 Cycleway 9

Daily Average Cyclist Flows -2017

3000

2500 A4 Route 2000 A315 Route

1500

1000

500

0 Ealing Road Burlington Road Airedale Avenue St Peter's Square Colet Gardens

Annual average daily flows of pedal cyclist on the A315 with the equivalent section on the A4. Each pair correspond geographically left-to-right with the map above.

Daily Average Motor Vehicle Flows - 2017

140000 A4 Route 120000 A315 Route 100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0 Ealing Road Burlington Road Airedale Avenue St Peter's Square Colet Gardens

Annual average daily flows of pedestrians on the A315 with the equivalent section on the A4. Each pair correspond geographically left-to-right with the map above.

Designing a continuous safe and connected cycle route along the A4, sufficient to attract the large numbers of cyclists required to achieve more sustainable levels of cycling, walking and use of public transport would require significant interventions including segregation.

It is likely that upgrading existing facilities on the A4 to a standard appropriate for wider uptake of cycling would lead to a significant loss of capacity for general traffic, which in turn could result in more traffic on local roads. The primary function of the A4 as a means of facilitating the movement of vehicular traffic needs to be taken into consideration when assessing its suitability as a route for high levels of cycle

Cycleway 9 10 movements. The A4 is a multi-lane carriageway, with a speed limit of 40mph. This suggests that the impact on local roads of introducing cycle facilities on the A4, and the resultant reductions in capacity for motorised modes that would arise would be far higher than the proposals on the A315.

Furthermore, designing a route along the A4 would require significant reallocation of space which could result in a series of issues including: loss of pedestrian access to subways, loss of traffic lanes, removal of parking in front of residential buildings, compulsory purchase of residential land, and / or loss of a significant number of trees and verge.

Pedestrian and cyclist casualties on the A4 vs A315 Addressing existing safety issues is a key objective of the scheme. There were 55 collisions involving pedestrians and 81 collisions involving pedal cyclists along the A315 route alignment in the three years to December 2017. This compares to 21 and 32 on the equivalent length of the A4 route. This collision data is illustrated below. When considering the higher cyclist flows on the A315, the number of collisions per cyclist is higher on Chiswick High Road and Kings Street. This shows that a greater road safety benefit for cyclists can be achieved by improving facilities on the A315 than the A4. As set out above, the MTS sets out the Vision Zero target for addressing collisions in London and TfL is aware of concerns with the quality of current cycling facilities on some sections of the A4, and is committed to reviewing these separately in partnership with the local boroughs. This includes improvements between Hammersmith town hall and Hammersmith gyratory, including links into Black’s Road.

Map of pedestrian and cyclist collision data along A315 and A4.

Uptake of cycling Some people supported the cycle route as it will increase levels of cycling. Others were concerned the cycle route will be ineffective at increasing levels of cycling.

11 Cycleway 9

A lack of segregated cycle routes is often identified as a key barrier to cycling which is being addressed by this scheme. Data from segregated cycle routes that have recently opened shows that uptake from cyclists is high in terms of the numbers of the cyclists using routes and the proportion of traffic they make up. Where segregated facilities are provided, we have also observed very high proportions of cyclists using these compared with those remaining in the road. Cycle counts undertaken in the autumn of 2017 on Blackfriars Road show that during the peak hours, the number of cyclists has increased from 1,995 to 4,462 since 2014; a rise of 124 per cent.

Overall, there has been an increase in cycling of over 150 per cent in the capital since 2000 with new cycling infrastructure playing a key role in this transport mode change. To build on this cycling growth further, it is clear that dedicated facilities are a key factor.

High volumes of cyclists currently use the eastern sections of the proposed route where there are no protected facilities for them and providing segregated facilities will help remove barriers, and build on these volumes by encouraging new and less confident cyclists. Our Strategic Cycling Analysis shows high current and future potential demand along the route alignment. This scheme would also help work towards the ambitious target set out in the MTS, for 70 per cent of Londoners to live within 400 metres of the cycle network.

Cycle infrastructure

Two-way cycle tracks Some people were concerned the two-way cycle track is a safety risk, particularly at side roads.

Two-way cycle tracks are proposed along the majority of the route as they provide significant advantages over with-flow tracks in this location. A two-way track on one side of the road allows for more efficient use of road space than with-flow tracks which would require twice the amount of segregation and more space for the cycle track as kerbs on both sides reduce the usable width of the track. Among other disbenefits, this would mean less space for vehicles and therefore greater delays to journeys, including buses.

Two-way cycle tracks provide further flexibility where cycle flows are tidal for morning and evening peaks. Cyclists going in the ‘peak’ direction would have more available space compared within a two-way track compared to a one-way track. A two-way track allows cyclists to overtake whilst remaining segregated from motor traffic, which is important when providing for different types of cyclists of different abilities. We have considered current and potential future flows of cyclists along each part of the route to inform the width of the cycle track.

Cycleway 9 12

It is also more efficient to manage cycle movements through signalised junctions with a two-way cycle track. The two-way track contains cyclists in one area, making it easier to hold left turning traffic back for example, reducing the number of signal stages required. Cyclists can also receive a green light at the same time as ahead traffic which increases the amount of green time they get as the ahead traffic is generally the larger flow. Making signalised junctions work as efficiently as possible has benefits to all road users.

A number of measures are proposed at all uncontrolled side roads, to address concerns raised over the potential conflict between cycles and motor traffic. These include:

• Raising the carriageway of the junction to footway level (known as a side road entry treatment), to reduce motor vehicle speeds, and provide a level crossing point for cyclists and pedestrian. • Contrasting surface materials and cycle logo road markings across the cycle track part of the junction to highlight the presence of cyclists to motor traffic. • Tightening of junction radius, and reduction of junction width where possible, to reduce vehicle entry and exit speeds and minimise crossing distances for cycles and pedestrians. • Give Way markings where motor traffic meets the cycle track to provide clarity over priority at the junction.

The London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) states that two-way tracks on one side of the road have practical advantages for some street types where there are many more side roads and/or greater levels of kerbside activity on one side than the other, or where that condition can be created.

Areas where two-way tracks are proposed along the route exhibit these characteristics. Pedestrian flows are also significantly higher on the north side of the road which remains relatively untouched by the proposals. Also, one-way tracks would mean impacting up to 80% of the trees on the north side. There are also practical difficulties as to how to provide space for cyclists and pedestrian at bus stops, which are significantly reduced through the use of a two-way track.

Despite two-way tracks being on one side of the road, local access is maintained at the majority of junctions and side roads and we will continue to look at ways to improve links to and from the route from side roads during the detailed development of the design. At signal junctions, cyclists turning movements will be accommodated with separate signal staging, two-stage turns or toucan crossings. To access uncontrolled side roads on the north side of Chiswick High Road, there will be gaps in the segregation island for cyclists to wait to cross the road. These gaps are wide enough to accommodate waiting cyclists while not blocking the track for others continuing ahead. In some locations, it has not been possible to provide access to or

13 Cycleway 9 from certain side roads and cyclists would need to join or leave the route via a nearby side road.

It is our view that this risk factor at side roads is reduced with two-way cycle tracks as opposed to the current situation. For instance, on Chiswick High Road, cyclists are currently at risk of collision at side roads and are mixing with traffic without segregation. Cycleway 9 would provide a segregated cycle track, and, introduce additional measures at side roads such as up to 5 metre set-backs and raised tables to alter driver behaviour. Additionally, cyclists currently travelling on the northern side of the highway, would now be able to cycle safely using a two-way cycle track on the south side of Chiswick High Road. It is our view that the overall safety benefits of Cycleway 9 support proceeding with the scheme.

Segregated cycle tracks will be separated from pedestrians with a kerb upstand similar to kerbs used to delineate the edge of the footway and carriageway, or via means of a delineator strip, a kerb edging with a ridged finish. The delineator arrangement will be used to minimise the need for pedestrians to change levels to move between, for example, bus stop waiting areas or parking bays, and the main footway. The cycle tracks will also be clearly marked with cycle logos particularly where pedestrians or motor vehicles need to cross the cycle track. Crossing points over the cycle track will be provided for pedestrians as signalised crossings, zebra crossings or informal crossings. At formal crossings, cyclists will be expected to stop and give way to pedestrians. At informal crossing points, the cycle track will be raised to footway level to provide a flush crossing point for pedestrians and highlight the crossing to cyclists so that both users can look out for one another.

Two-way cycle tracks have significant practical advantages over one-way tracks, and clear signage would be in place to delineate the cycle tracks from the footway with crossing points provided to allow people to cross them safely. Just as pedestrians look left then right to cross the road, they would also look left then right when crossing the cycle track. Traffic lights along the route would also break up the flow of cyclists so there should be sufficient gaps for pedestrians to cross.

We aim to make the cycle facilities clearly recognisable through defined infrastructure and road markings to reduce the likelihood of vehicles mistakenly driving or parking in the cycle track. Where we have installed two-way tracks in other locations such as the Cycle Superhighway 6, cycle logo markings and ‘cycle only’ signs have been installed at all entrances and exits. We are aware of isolated instances shortly after commissioning where some drivers were mistakenly entering the cycle track however this has decreased over time as drivers have become more accustomed to new layouts. Cycle tracks provide right of way for cyclists under Section 65 of the Highways Act (1980) and anyone that is found to be parking within a designated cycle track can be issued with a fixed penalty notice as this is prohibited.

Cycleway 9 14

Impact on bus users Some people were concerned the proposals will negatively impact bus users. Some were concerned the proposals will negatively impact bus journey times and/or reliability. We undertook detailed traffic modelling on the consulted proposals to understand how the route could affect journey times for all road users, including bus passengers. Bus journey times see a minimal increase in the morning peak, while bus journey times see a reduction in the evening peak on the route as a whole.

Bus stop bypasses Some respondents were concerned bus stop bypasses are a safety risk for cyclists and pedestrians.

Bus stop bypasses have been introduced across London on segregated cycle routes to avoid the need for cyclists to enter the adjacent traffic lane to pass a stopped bus and enable continuous segregated cycle routes.

Bus stop bypasses operate by directing cyclists behind the bus stop within a segregated cycle track. Bus passengers can access the bus stop island where the bus flag and shelter (if present) are located to wait for a bus by crossing the cycle track at a marked crossing point. The bus stop island will always be at least 2.5 metres wide, which enables wheelchair users, and those with pushchairs to safely get off the bus before crossing the cycle track to the footway.

Following engagement with stakeholder groups such as the RNIB, Guide Dogs for the Blind, London Travel Watch, London Cycling Campaign and Living Streets, we recently introduced zebra crossings at a number of bus stop bypasses. Depending on the layout of the footway, zebra crossings would be at the back of the bus stop bypass or one at each end. The crossings would have tactile paving and would be raised to footway level to create a flush surface.

Our research has found that bus stop bypasses are safe for all road users, including bus passengers. Routing cycle traffic away from the road is an effective way to create safe, attractive cycling facilities along bus routes. The risk of conflict between cycles and pedestrians has been found to be very low, while providing a dedicated crossing point for bus passengers and design features that encourage slower cycling help to make the bus stop area more comfortable for everyone to use.

Environmental impacts

Air and noise quality Some people supported the proposals as they would improve air quality. Others were concerned the proposals will worsen air quality.

15 Cycleway 9

Air pollution is one of the most significant challenges facing London. A number of schemes aimed at improving London's air quality are planned including taking steps to reduce air pollution from our bus fleet and reducing emissions from taxis and private hire vehicles. This includes setting up ‘Low Emission Bus Zones’ and expanding the electric vehicle charging network. We have also implemented the T- Charge, and introduced the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in April 2019. We are investing to make London’s streets healthy, safe and attractive places to walk and cycle. We hope that enabling more journeys to be made on foot or by bike will encourage people to choose more sustainable modes of transport in the area.

Although not a traffic generating scheme, our proposals would change how traffic moves around the area, which may result in some associated and localised changes to air quality and noise levels. We have undertaken independently assessed environmental evaluations of the impacts of our schemes including Noise and Air Quality Assessments. Based on current levels of mode share, these indicate that noise and air quality are not expected to change significantly. Some improvements in noise and air quality are predicted along the route including along Chiswick High Road where there are high pedestrian flows. We hope that enabling more journeys to be made on foot or by bike will encourage people to choose more sustainable modes of transport in the area.

Green infrastructure Some people raised concern about the negative impacts on trees and greenery. Others suggested adding more trees and greenery.

We do not take removal of green infrastructure lightly and have made every effort to retain them along the route. On Chiswick High Road between Duke’s Avenue and Duke Road we are proposing to remove one medium sized tree outside no 229 Chiswick High Road to provide an improved road alignment for motor traffic and keep more pavement space. We are also proposing to plant two new trees in the area.

The planting of new trees is subject to site investigations and conditions and we will be undertaking assessments to determine where this is possible. We have attempted to reduce the need for the loss of any trees, but this has been necessary in some locations to facilitate the provision of the cycle track, maintain appropriate footway and carriageway space and minimise the impact on bus journey times.

As part of the development of the project we carry out ecological surveys to determine where local green infrastructure and habitats are and use these to inform our construction methodologies and practices.

Cycleway 9 16

Congestion Some people supported the proposals as they would reduce congestion. Others were concerned that the proposals would increase congestion, particularly in the Kew Bridge and Chiswick area.

We expect the impact on journey times between Ealing Road and Kew Bridge to reduce through our consulted design for Kew Bridge.

Our proposal includes a second southbound traffic lane on Kew Bridge and a two- way cycle track instead of a with-flow cycle track. As a result of these changes we would expect to see improvements to traffic flow. These changes would also address the existing bottleneck at Kew Bridge junction and it is anticipated there will be an increase to capacity. The journey time results support this overall, the Kew Bridge to Chiswick Roundabout section sees substantial reductions in journey time of up to six minutes in both morning and evening peaks westbound and also evening peak eastbound. The morning peak eastbound and approach from Ealing Road to Kew Bridge for both peaks expects minimal increases to journey times of under one minute.

Some reallocation of the space from traffic is required in order to make improvements to facilitate new cycle tracks. In addition, at junctions, we have needed to carefully balance the signal timings for pedestrians, cyclists and traffic flows and as a result this will mean that for some users there may be longer waiting times at some junctions.

In response to issues raised at consultation we have revised the design at Duke’s Avenue. We have updated our traffic modelling based on these revised designs.

The modelling has indicated that the journey time increases on Chiswick High Road will be less than a one minute compared to the consulted journey times. It is the view of our traffic modelling experts, that the design change is localised, unlikely to result in significant traffic reassignment and effectively mitigates the risk of increasing rat running on residential roads.

We actively monitor and manage traffic conditions on the roads following the delivery of schemes, and aim to mitigate and manage traffic reassignment following implementation. We are investing in advanced traffic signal technology to allow us to better manage traffic depending on differing conditions at any given time, and we are working to improve road user information so people can make informed journey choices before they travel.

Safety Some people considered the proposals would improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. Others were concerned that the proposals would pose a safety risk to cyclists and pedestrians.

17 Cycleway 9

The scheme aims to improve safety for all road users through a number of interventions. Collision data has been assessed and proposals focus on addressing safety issues along the route. As with all schemes of similar nature, we will monitor the completed route to ensure it is operating as expected, and to understand whether any further changes may be required.

All schemes are also subject to a thorough Road Safety Audit (RSA) process at each stage of the design and post implementation. An RSA considers the road safety implications of all measures proposed, their safety impact on the network under all anticipated operating conditions, and their road safety implications on all types of road user. Fundamental to the principle of an RSA is ensuring that due consideration is given to the effects on any scheme on all road users including pedestrians and vulnerable user groups. This is a continual process throughout the design and construction process.

When we launch new cycle routes, officers from the Metropolitan Police along with TfL Ambassadors promote adherence to the Highway Code by all road users and encourage responsible cycling and driving.

We are also working with the Metropolitan Police Service and London Boroughs on our Vision Zero ambition to tackle danger across the whole transport network, and eliminate death and serious injuries from London’s transport by 2041.

Local businesses Some respondents were concerned that the proposals would have a negative impact on local businesses. Others were concerned the cycle track would deter pedestrian footfall, particularly on Chiswick High Road, impacting local businesses.

Our proposals would help connect town centres including Hammersmith, Chiswick and Brentford, linking important amenities and facilities in the heart of these town centres, and making them more pleasant places to live, work, shop and spend time. People who cycle, walk or use public transport to access their local high streets are likely to visit more often, resulting in higher spend per month.3 Streets which are easier to cross, less noisy and have cleaner air draw shoppers to spend more time there and cycling improvements can also bring more people visiting or travelling through an area, which means a supply of new potential customers and opportunities for businesses. For more information about the economic benefits of investment in walking and cycling, including reports, studies and evidence packs see here.

Pavement café licences are granted to food premises such as cafes, restaurants or bars to allow them to place tables and chairs on the public footpath to sell refreshments. In developing our designs, we have reviewed locations along the route where outdoor seating is provided. At the majority of these locations along the route

3 http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycling-and-economy

Cycleway 9 18

there would not be any changes. Where we have proposed to change footway widths, we have ensured that this does not impact outdoor seating space currently used or the ability for people to walk along the adjacent footways. Overall, we hope that by converting more of the highway to non-polluting transport modes, our proposals will make dining outside at these restaurants more attractive than it currently is, helping to stimulate business.

We promote policies such as freight consolidation or retiming deliveries to reduce businesses reliance on road network space. This can also benefit businesses by sharing the cost of deliveries and creating a more pleasant street environment for their customers. Restrictions on loading during peak times reduces the interaction between deliveries and peak traffic, pedestrian and cycle flows, encouraging businesses to schedule their deliveries outside of these times. Improved infrastructure proposed as part of this scheme would also aid businesses in switching to using cycle freight for local deliveries which can provide considerable competitive advantage with faster and more reliable deliveries and estimated cost savings of between 34 and 64% against the cost of using a van4.

Equalities Impact Assessment TfL is subject to the general public sector equality duty set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires us to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations by reference to people with protected characteristics. The protected characteristics are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. As part of our decision- making process on the proposals for this scheme, we have had due regard to any impacts on those with protected characteristics and the need to ensure that their interests are taken into account and any adverse impacts mitigated as far as reasonably possible.

An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) has been updated for the Cycleway 9 designs. The EQIA was reviewed following the most recent consultation to ensure that it reflects the most up to date proposals. The EQIA shows positive impacts on the following protected characteristics: age, disability, gender, race, and religion or belief. Positive impacts have also been identified for disabled pedestrians, as the scheme involves a number of improvements to pedestrian facilities, including wider footways and new and improved crossings. Some negative impacts have been identified where footways are cut back, shared-use footway or bus stop bypasses are introduced. However, the minimum pavement widths have been maintained to allow wheelchair users to pass safely.

4 https://www.london.gov.uk/file/1994

19 Cycleway 9

We will continue to have due regard to the matters set out in section 149 of the Equality Act and continue to update the EqIA as the project progresses and will mitigate adverse effects to the extent that it is possible and reasonable to do so.

Consultation Approach

Clarity and quality of consultation materials Some respondents expressed concern that the proposals lacked detail (or had too much detail), were unclear, misleading or biased, or insufficient modelling information was provided, or that a wider map of the area should have been included. Some respondents felt the materials were misleading on the impact of trees to be removed.

We are satisfied that we provided adequate information to allow consultees to understand and form an opinion about the scheme. We asked a question about the quality of the consultation and 73 per cent considered this to be very good, good or acceptable (22 per cent, 27 per cent and 24 per cent respectively).

Before we launch a consultation we carefully consider what information to publish, aiming to find the best balance between transparency and not providing a confusing amount of information.

Our experience is that consultees vary in how they like to receive information, with different preferences for written information, diagrams or maps, discussing face to face or a combination of these. We are satisfied that we provided a range of methods about our proposals, however we will always be open to ways of improving these.

We carried out detailed traffic modelling in order to understand the expected impact of our proposals on road users. A text summary of the modelling work was included in the public consultation materials, along with tables of predicted journey times, and longer text descriptions of the predicted impacts. We provided a wider map of the area at the drop-in sessions.

We have listened to the concerns raised by residents in the Glebe estate and as a result we have changed the design at Duke’s Avenue junction so that vehicles under 7.5tonnes can enter and exit Duke’s Avenue from Chiswick High Road. This in turn will reduce the traffic that would be using local roads.

Our proposals for the two areas did not require the removal of trees, and for Duke Road would have seen two new trees planted. It may have been that respondents were considering the proposals for the whole of the scheme rather than the further consultation in the two areas. We published our detailed Response to Issues Raised report for Cycleway 9 in January 2019 which included details of the impacts on trees. We do not take removal of green infrastructure lightly and have made every effort to

Cycleway 9 20

retain this along the route. On Chiswick High Road between Duke’s Avenue and Duke Road we are now proposing to remove one medium sized tree outside no 229 Chiswick High Road to provide an improved road alignment for motor traffic and keep more pavement space.

Consultation publicity Some respondents expressed concern that we had not publicised the consultation widely enough.

We are satisfied that the consultation was well publicised. The channels we used to publicise the consultation are detailed in Section 2 of our Consultation Report, and included leaflets, emails, social media, two drop-in events, and press coverage. We sent out over 12,000 letters to nearby addresses and 73,000 emails to people who live locally or use our transport services in the area. The 1,490 responses that we received compares favourably with consultations on other similar sized infrastructure projects, and we are satisfied the responses provided us with a strong understanding of the issues about the scheme.

Concern about the process Some respondents expressed concern that we were not listening to local people and businesses, and/or listening too much to people who lived outside of the area. Some respondents were concerned that we would implement the proposals regardless of the consultation. Some respondents expressed concern that the consultation period was too short.

We put considerable effort into publicising the consultation near the scheme, because we recognise that local people possess highly useful local knowledge. However, respondents from outside the area can also contribute valuable information. Consultation is intended to highlight issues relevant to the scheme, which might not have been revealed during our feasibility stage. Anyone can highlight a valid concern, suggestion or opinion about a scheme, alongside people who live near a scheme.

We are satisfied that the consultation took place at a time when the proposals were still at a formative stage. The feedback received was very useful and has resulted in further revisions to the scheme in response to the feedback received at Duke’s Avenue and Duke Road.

The public consultation was open for four weeks from 30 January and 26 February 2019. Of the 1,490 responses received 37 were submitted by stakeholders. We are satisfied that sufficient time was provided for individuals and stakeholders to consider the proposals and formulate their responses.

21 Cycleway 9

Drop-in events Some respondents were critical of the venue for the Chiswick drop-in session and the information available.

Representatives from TfL and officers from London Borough of Hounslow attended drop-in sessions and were fully briefed on the proposals. Most of the negative comments received were about the session at the Clayton Hotel in Chiswick rather than the session at the Museum of Water and Steam in Brentford. The session at the hotel was very popular and we estimated that approximately 220 people attended, with nine staff from TfL and London Borough of Hounslow in attendance. It is possible that not everyone would have had the opportunity to speak to staff, particularly technical staff for as long as they would have wished. The hotel was the closest accessible and largest venue available during the consultation period.

Alternative route options Some respondents suggested that the route should be along the A4 rather than Chiswick High Road.

A significant amount of work was undertaken during the development of the scheme to choose the route alignment, details of which can be found in our detailed Response to Issues Raised report for Cycleway 9 published in January 2019 and in Section 2.1 in this report.

Cycleway 9 22

2.2 Issues relating to individual sections of the route This section sets out our response, in collaboration with the London Borough of Hounslow, to the issues commonly raised in consultation relating to individual sections of the route. Please see Section 2.1 for responses to issues relating to the overall proposals. Some issues were raised across a number of sections of the route and our response to these are included in Section 2.1 and referenced in each section below for clarity and completeness.

Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road to Wellesley Road Following feedback from the consultation at Kew Bridge and Kew Bridge Road to Wellesley Road, we are not proposing any further changes to the design on this section of Cycleway 9.

Our detailed response to issues commonly raised is set out below. Some respondents raised concerns about the wider scheme within this section. Responses to these topics can be found in Section 2.1.

Principles of the Scheme

Uptake of cycling Some people were concerned the cycle route will be ineffective at increasing levels of cycling. See Section 2.1 for our response regarding the uptake of cycling.

Additional traffic lane on Kew Bridge Some people were concerned that adding a traffic lane on Kew Bridge would decrease safety and worsen congestion. We have carefully considered the option of adding an extra traffic lane on Kew Bridge. We are proposing the additional lane to improve capacity through Kew Bridge junction. The proposed design assists all traffic modes at the junction by resolving the existing bottleneck there and providing an increase in capacity, which would improve journey times and help reduce congestion along Kew Bridge. See Section 2.1 for our response regarding safety.

Some people suggested that the additional traffic lane is extended south of Kew Bridge. We explored the possibility of extending the additional traffic lane south of Kew Bridge, however this would require widening the road. The area south of Kew Bridge is a conservation area, which restricts any land take that would be required for an additional traffic lane. As there is limited space south of the junction it was felt that the dedicated right turn from A205 Kew Road into Kew Green should be retained.

Some respondents opposed the proposed additional traffic lane on Kew Bridge as it prioritises motor traffic. Our modelling predicts that cyclists travelling eastbound and westbound would experience a reduction in journey times in both morning and

23 Cycleway 9

evening peaks compared to the current situation. Eastbound buses also see a reduction in journey times compared to the current situation in both morning and evening peaks. Westbound buses would see a minimal increase in journey times. Accordingly, the additional traffic lane does not prioritise general traffic or give it a disproportionate amount of extra time but assists all modes at the junction by resolving the existing bottleneck at Kew Bridge junction and providing an increase to capacity.

Some people suggested the additional traffic lane on A205 Kew Bridge is made a bus lane. The addition of a traffic lane will benefit all traffic modes, including reduced journey times for buses. A dedicated bus lane would detract the benefits for all other modes through the junction and therefore not provide any additional benefit for buses. This is because the capacity increase through the Kew Bridge junction is achieved by the additional traffic lane allowing more vehicles to clear through the junction.

Impact on pedestrians

Pavements Some people were concerned about the loss of pavement on Kew Bridge and on the A205 at Kew Bridge station. We are proposing to increase footway space in a number of locations along this section of the route. At Kew Bridge junction, footways would be much wider on the southern arm. We are also reducing the length of some crossings making it quicker to cross. Traffic islands between staggered crossings also have much more space than they do currently. On Kew Bridge, footways are relatively free from street clutter, maximising the usable footway space. We have undertaken pedestrian comfort level assessments to assess whether the designs of the footways are appropriate to the volume and type of users within the street environment. Assessments take into account the usable width of the footway accounting for street furniture, outdoor seating and clearance around buildings and kerb edges.

On the western side of Kew Bridge, where we are proposing to reduce the footway widths and remove shared use space, the pedestrian comfort level is A-, this represents a comfortable street environment with plenty of space for people to walk at the speed and route they choose.

Crossings Some suggested that the light phasing/”green man time” minimises waiting time for pedestrians and cyclists.

The pedestrian crossing sequence at signal controlled facilities consists of two parts - the “invitation to cross” or green man, and a “clearance period”. The latter is calculated to be sufficient to allow pedestrians to cross. This is calculated based upon the distance pedestrians need to cross and average walking speeds.

Cycleway 9 24

A speed of 1.2 metres per second is conventionally used to calculate timings for crossings. Pedestrian countdown would be installed at most crossings along the route, this indicates the length of time remaining after the green man in which people can finish crossing the road.

Some people suggested improved crossing facilities at A315/Green Dragon Lane junction. Due to the proximity of the Kew Bridge junction which provides a crossing facility, we have not proposed a crossing facility at this location as it would have negatively affect the operation of the Kew Bridge junction increasing queuing at this location.

Shared use Some people were concerned about the proposed shared use footway on the east side of Kew Bridge. Others raised a concern about the loss of shared use footway on the west side of the bridge. Some suggested a shared use footway to be retained on both sides of the bridge.

Currently there is shared use footway on both, east and west side of the bridge. We are not proposing any changes to the footway on the east side of the bridge. As mentioned previously in the report, we are proposing to introduce a second southbound traffic lane on the bridge to address an existing bottleneck at Kew Bridge junction. In order to do this, we need to remove shared use space on the west side of the bridge to provide sufficient space for the additional traffic lane. Cyclists would be able to cross Kew Bridge in two ways; either with traffic in the carriageway or via the eastern shared use footway. Lane widths will be narrower, encouraging cyclists in the carriageway to adopt primary (central) position meaning that they would be more visible to vehicles.

Some people suggested clear signage or a physical barrier to avoid conflict between pedestrians and cyclists on the shared use footway on Kew Bridge.

A combination of methods are proposed to clearly delineate areas for cyclists and pedestrians. These will include using different surfacing, indicated either by colour or texture, placing delineated strips between the pavement and the cycle track, building the pavement and track on different levels, painting cycle logos on the track, providing cycle wayfinding signs throughout the route in line with London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) and ensuring crossings are clearly marked with tactile paving. Providing a physical barrier on the shared used footway on Kew Bridge would reduce the effective width of the footway and as such was not considered as appropriate measure.

Impact on motor Traffic Some respondents raised a concern the proposals would make motor vehicle journeys more difficult for local residents. Some people suggested traffic calming

25 Cycleway 9

measures instead of closing motor vehicle access to the A205 South Circular from Wellesley Road and Stile Hall Gardens.

In summer 2016, the London Borough of Hounslow carried out a survey on traffic issues with residents and businesses in the Wellesley Road and Stile Hall Gardens area. The responses received indicated high levels of concern at the volume of through traffic – 73% responded that there is too much non-residential traffic in the area - and the impact of this on several issues including road safety, attractiveness of the road for walking and cycling and pollution. In late 2016, London Borough of Hounslow consulted on proposals to reduce through traffic in the area. The majority of respondents (55%) were in favour of a closure or no entry to restrict access, and closing access to the South Circular from Wellesley Road and Stile Hall Gardens was the favoured change option. For further details about this consultation see here.

These measures form part of the design of this scheme and are expected to reduce traffic on roads through the area, including Wellesley Road, Stile Hall Gardens and Heathfield Terrace. According to surveys carried out in summer 2016, up to 75% of vehicles travelling through this residential area is non-residential through traffic. Reducing traffic volumes on these roads would reduce congestion at peak periods, improve access for residents, make it easier for pedestrians to cross these roads and significantly improve conditions for those who want to cycle. We will work closely with local boroughs to review the traffic impacts of the scheme on surrounding roads and further measures may be considered where appropriate, post implementation.

London Borough of Hounslow plans to introduce a 20mph on Wellesley Road, to reduce vehicle speeds to the benefit of pedestrians and cyclists.

Some people were concerned the proposals would make parking more difficult for local residents on Still Hall Gardens and Wellesley Road. We are not proposing changes to any parking or parking restrictions along this section of the route as these are not considered necessary as part of the scope of the scheme.

Junctions

Wellesley Road and Stile Hall Gardens Some respondents supported the proposal to ban the motor traffic from exiting Wellesley Road onto A205 South Circular. Others opposed this proposal. Some people opposed the proposal to ban motor traffic for exiting Stile Hall Gardens onto the A205 South Circular. As noted above, the closure of these two roads was consulted on previously by the London Borough of Hounslow and was shown to be supported by local residents. Access would be possible via alternative routes. The impact of this closure will be monitored and further measures considered if necessary.

Cycleway 9 26

Some people expressed concerns about the closure of Wellesley Road and Stile Hall Gardens with the North Circular and concerns that bottlenecks may be caused as a result particularly on Oxford Road. Others were concerned this will result in rat run traffic at Marlborough Road and Burlington Road. Traffic management measures to manage changes in flows of traffic in neighbouring roads will need to be kept under review, and TfL, together with London Borough of Hounslow, is committed to supporting monitoring the impact, and developing schemes to mitigate these impacts where appropriate. Neighbouring roads includes all roads adjacent to the route, including Green Dragon Lane and all those between Wellesley Road and Chiswick High Road.

Some people suggested the possible introduction of a barrier controlled by an automatic vehicle registration number system that would allow residents with CPZ parking permits to exit (and enter) via Stile Hall Gardens. The London Borough of Hounslow has a very strong position to resist the use of automated bollards to allow variable vehicle access to and along the highway. It is considered that the ongoing maintenance of these features would place a very significant ongoing cost on the council. There are also significant concerns around precedent. This position has been informed by recent experience of the feature on the private highway at Brentford Great West Quarter which frequently fails and causes significant disruption for residents, businesses and bus users. Whilst the council may consider an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) ‘virtual access permit’ arrangement for smaller areas such as around schools they would not currently consider that the system could robustly provide a solution for an area of this size given the number of potential records that would need to be stored. Whilst this is something the borough can review in time as technology develops, they also note that the flows with such an arrangement in place may also be higher than recommended for a cycle facility without any segregation. Segregation would remove resident parking which they would not support.

Strand on the Green Some people suggested that the A205/Strand on the Green junction is controlled by traffic signals. Due to the proximity of the Kew Bridge junction, we have not proposed traffic signals at this location as it would affect the operation of the Kew Bridge junction. We are proposing to include “Keep Clear” marking at this junction which would assist vehicles wishing to pull out of this junction to find a gap in the traffic on the bridge. We are also proposing to increase the footway widths at this junction and to introduce a raised entry treatment.

Kew Green Some respondents suggested banning the right hand turn from the A205 South Circular into Kew Green. We considered banning this turn, however there was no benefit to this scheme as there is insufficient space on the exit of the junction to have two

27 Cycleway 9 straight ahead lanes. It was therefore felt that the right turn should be left for those wishing to access Kew Green.

Lionel Road South While it was recognised that access into other existing elements of the cycle network has been improved, some people raised a concern that the other links, such as to Lionel Road South, are non-existent and mean that the full potential of this cycle route will not be reached. Others called for improvements at Lionel Road South junction and suggested the road should reopen so that the traffic heading for the A4/M4 can be removed from Chiswick Roundabout bottleneck.

The London Borough of Hounslow is working with developers and TfL to secure improvements to this junction via the planning process to improve pedestrian priority and reduce vehicle speeds. Lionel Road South is currently closed but TfL are committed to working with the Borough to explore opportunities as part of the wider redevelopment of the area.

Green Dragon Lane Some people raised a concern that the introduction of a two-way cycle lane will cause vehicles entering and exiting the Kew Bridge residential flats opposite Green Dragon Lane difficulty, because currently the single cycle lane causes a hazard, and to introduce two-way cycle traffic will increase the risk of someone being injured. Some people also raised a concern that the “Keep Clear” markings are often not honoured. Others said that the vehicles exiting and entering the development on the Kew Bridge Road would have a difficulty navigating though the traffic and would need to look for the cyclists coming from two directions.

We are proposing to retain “Keep Clear” marking to assist vehicles turning in and out of the development on the Kew Bridge Road. The cycle track is proposed to be painted in a contrasting colour with cycle logos and give way markings to highlight priority for cyclists. We promote the message that the Highway Code must be adhered to by all road users, and we are strongly in favour of promoting the ethos of mutual respect between cyclists and other road users. This means working to eliminate offences such as not honouring “Keep Clear” marking. We will monitor how the junction operates and we have also undertaken an independent Road Safety Audit on all our proposals. See here for more information about safety and Road Safety Audits.

Some people were concerned that the proposed bus stop on the south side of Kew Bridge Road will cause a vision reduction for vehicles exiting the block of flats. We are proposing to combine two westbound bus stops S and T – Kew Bridge Station into one bus stop. The location of the new bus stop would be in the middle of existing two bus stops, moving the bus stop slightly closer to the junction and away from the development access. We are confident that our proposals will not cause a reduction

Cycleway 9 28 in visibility for the vehicles exiting the block of flats when the bus waits at the bus stop.

Impact on cyclists Some people raised a concern that cyclists would need to cross the A205 twice to use shared use footway on Kew Bridge.

Cyclists who are travelling from the south side of Kew Bridge towards Brentford Town Centre will be encouraged to use the toucan crossing on the south side of the bridge and use shared space provided on the eastern side of the bridge. They can join the cycle track on the east side of Kew Bridge junction. Whilst we acknowledge cyclists would need to cross the A205 twice, the change is necessary in order to accommodate the additional traffic lane on Kew Bridge and the accompanying benefits for all transport modes. The change to the junction operation will decrease waiting time and cyclists will be able to cross the junction faster. The additional traffic lane will also improve traffic flow at the Kew Bridge junction, reducing journey times for buses and other road users.

Cyclists would be able to cross Kew Bridge in two ways; either with traffic in the carriageway or via the eastern shared use footway. Lane widths will be narrower, encouraging cyclists in the carriageway to adopt primary (central) position meaning that they would be more visible to vehicles.

Some people suggested “green man time” is generous at cycling crossing allowing ample time to cross. The green man time is calculated using a clear methodology. Once the scheme is implemented the green man time would be reviewed and any adjustments made to reflect the situation on the street.

Some people raised a concern that the proposals do not help cyclists exiting Strand on the Green. Cyclists who wish to exit Strand on the Green can use a shared used widened footway on the eastern side of Kew Bridge junction to join the cycle track.

Cycle Infrastructure

Cycle track on the Kew Bridge Some people suggested making the proposed additional traffic lane at Kew Bridge a two-way cycle track instead. Some respondents suggested segregated cycle lanes on Kew Bridge. Providing a segregated cycle lane on Kew Bridge would not help traffic movements through the bridge. This would not resolve the existing bottleneck at Kew Bridge which is required to make the junction operation efficient for the onward cycle route. Providing a segregated cycle lane on Kew Bridge would also detract the benefits for all the other modes though the junction.

29 Cycleway 9

Crossing facility at Green Dragon Lane Some suggested improved cycle crossing facilities at A315/Green Dragon Lane junction. Due to the proximity of the Kew Bridge junction which provides a crossing facility, we have not proposed a cycle crossing facility at this location as it would affect the operation of the Kew Bridge junction.

Connectivity with other cycle routes Some people suggested linking cycle route with other cycle routes in the Kew Bridge area. Cyclist connectivity throughout the route has been considered in detail to ensure that local access to residential areas and amenities is provided. We continue to work with the London Borough’s to improve the cycling network across London. While extending the cycle tracks over the bridge does not fall within the scope of this scheme, cyclist connectivity throughout the route has been considered in detail to ensure that local access to residential areas and amenities is provided. The route would connect to planned cycle routes at Beavor Lane and Bridge Avenue along King Street providing cycle links to Putney Bridge (providing connections to Hammersmith Bridge, the Thames riverside) and Chiswick station. We are also working with London borough of Hounslow to connect the route into their proposed cycle network with the borough. The route would connect to a proposed cycle route through Syon Park to Isleworth and ultimately Twickenham. London Borough of Hounslow are also proposing a connection from the route to the existing segregated cycle facilities on Boston Manor Road, and are committed working with TfL to develop connections to and from the route in the years to come.

Safety Some respondents expressed concern that the two-way cycle track is a safety risk. See here for more information about two-way cycle tracks and here for more information about safety.

Impact on bus users Some people suggested relocating the bus stops around A315/A205 Kew Bridge junction. Some respondents were concerned the proposals would negatively impact the operation of the bus stops in the scheme area.

We are proposing to combine two westbound bus stops S and T – Kew Bridge Station into one bus stop. In addition, we are proposing to relocate eastbound bus stop W Kew Bridge Station, which serves the route 65, 105 metres further west. We are not proposing to relocate any other bus stops in the area. We are expecting that these changes will reduce the impact of the scheme on local bus routes. It is expected that the bus routes will experience journey time improvements through this area.

Cycleway 9 30

Congestion

Change in congestion Some people were concerned that increased traffic from new developments has not been considered in the proposals.

We are working closely with our borough partners and developers along the route to ensure that new developments are fully incorporated in our proposals. We have established significant experience working with developers on previous cycle schemes, and are building on this expertise in the delivery of this route. We will continue to engage with these stakeholders and developers throughout the development of the scheme. In addition, our traffic models take into account expected future growth and nearby committed schemes.

Engagement with local developers for this consultation includes, but is not limited to, proposals for Brentford FC.

The changes proposed as part of Brentford FC development are subject to separate planning consent and transport assessments however we are working closely with the developers to ensure that our adjacent proposals are aligned.

We are also aware of upcoming development to the nearby Waterman’s Centre which would see a relocated access point on Brentford High Street. This change would be taken into account within our designs as appropriate.

Existing congestion Some people commented on existing levels of congestion at Kew Bridge, Stile Hall Gardens, Chiswick roundabout and Chiswick High Road, Kew Bridge Road and Wellesley Road.

We actively monitor and manage the road network throughout the day to ensure that impacts are balanced. This includes flexible management of traffic signal timings depending on changes in demand throughout the day.

See Section 2.1 for more information about congestion.

Signage Some people suggested clear signage and enforcement at banned turns and no- entry roads. A combination of methods are proposed to clearly delineate areas for cyclists and pedestrians. These will include using different surfacing, indicated either by colour or texture, placing delineated strips between the pavement and the cycle track, building the pavement and track on different levels, painting cycle logos on the track, providing cycle wayfinding signs throughout the route in line with London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) and ensuring crossings are clearly marked with tactile paving.

31 Cycleway 9

Duke Road and Duke’s Avenue junctions with Chiswick High Road Following feedback from the consultation, we are proposing changes to the design of this section of Cycleway 9. These include:

Our detailed response to the issues commonly raised and any design changes made in this section are set out below. Some respondents raised concerns about the wider scheme within this section. Responses to these topics can be found in Section 2.1.

Principles of the scheme

Quality of life Some people were concerned the proposals would damage quality of life in the area.

As set out earlier in this report, there is high current and future demand for cycling along the proposed route, including along Chiswick High Road. There are also a high number of collisions involving pedestrian or cyclist casualties. The designs for this area look to transform the street to provide the right balance of space for cycling, walking and use of public transport and tackle issues of safety to encourage mode shift.

While we appreciate the importance that the history and aesthetics of an area can have, we must also provide appropriate infrastructure for the needs of those using it.

Cycleway 9 32

In order to provide high quality cycle facilities along Chiswick High Road, changes to the road layout are essential. This includes reallocation of road space, particularly on the southern side where the cycle track is proposed. When designing the scheme, we aim to maintain elements of local importance that contribute to the aesthetics of the area.

We are aware that Chiswick High Road (between Chiswick Lane and Heathfield Terrace) was designated a recognised Conservation Area in 2015 and we have consulted with conservation officers at Hounslow Council on the proposals who have, so far, raised no objections.

Key characteristics that led Chiswick High Road to be designated as a Conservation Area are set out in Hounslow Council’s Chiswick High Road Conservation Area Appraisal and include “its development as a shopping street in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the survival of the buildings from this age…with a strong and consistent parapet line, high quality detailing and use of materials.” As our proposals are limited to the layout of the highway, it will not alter any of the buildings however choice of materials such as surfacing, and street furniture will be in keeping with the conservation status of the area.

Within the highway area, the report notes that “The High Road itself is an extremely busy road but the wide pavements lined with trees serve as a buffer for pedestrians” and “The trees that line the road are an essential part of the character of the conservation area and help buffer pedestrians from the busy traffic on the main road.” We are proposing to plant up to nine new trees along Chiswick High Road alongside removal of just four. We are also proposing to retain all of the existing planters.

We have proposed the cycle track on the outside of the trees for the majority of the length of the route which would further separate pedestrians from the busy High Road. Only at the west end of the road by Heathfield Terrace where pavements are very wide is the cycle track proposed to go between the tree line and footway however this does not decrease the overall distance pedestrians would be from traffic, and a buffer between the cycle track and the carriageway would increase the distance between pedestrians and general traffic. As such, the provision of a cycle track reduces the overall space within the street taken up by motor vehicles and our noise and air quality assessments demonstrate that this would lead to improvements for people in the area.

We have considered the local café culture by ensuring that every outdoor licence along the street has been considered in the design and accommodated for within the layout of the footways. We have retained or relocated existing street furniture such as benches and cycle stands and proposed new street furniture where appropriate. We are also looking to de-clutter unnecessary street furniture by consolidating signs onto fewer posts and removing redundant pieces. We have recognised that the north

33 Cycleway 9

side of the street has a higher pedestrian demand and have limited our proposals on this side of the road. Our proposals would upgrade dated infrastructure such as signals and signs and bring new, low energy alternatives with benefits such as pedestrian countdown systems which show how much time there is left to cross the road. We have also engaged with local businesses and retailers to understand their loading and servicing requirements to ensure that this is accommodated within the designs and the retail and economic function of the street is maintained.

We feel that the scheme will likely enhance rather than diminish the amenity value of the area and help towards creating a ‘village feel’. We would continue to engage with conservation officers throughout the continued development of the scheme to ensure any impact on specific amenity assets is minimised.

See Section 2.1 for our response about air quality.

Uptake in cycling Some respondents supported the cycle route as it would increase levels of cycling. Others raised a concern the cycle route would fail to increase levels of cycling. See Section 2.1 for our response regarding uptake of cycling.

Public Transport Some people suggested improving public transport on Chiswick High Road.

Our proposals aim to work directly alongside public transport to create a more comprehensive network in London and reduce the reliance on private vehicles. The scheme enhances links to existing public transport networks such as tube and rail stations and proposes to minimise negative impacts on public transport – particularly on the bus network.

See here for more information regarding impact on bus users.

Traffic capacity Some respondents were concerned the proposals retain too much motor vehicle capacity/access on side streets off Chiswick High Road. We have reviewed our proposals with the borough officers and carefully considered where the access is required for residential roads. The design treatment proposed at each side road is dependent on local conditions such as traffic and pedestrian flows, one-way or two- way nature of the street and visibility. Clear road markings such as give way lines and cycle logos are proposed at all side roads to highlight priority for cyclists and the requirement for motor vehicles to give way.

Cycleway 9 34

Impacts on pedestrians

Pavement space Some people supported the proposals because pedestrian space would be retained. Others were concerned at the loss of pavement areas on Chiswick High Road.

Along Chiswick High Road, the majority of space for the cycle track is being taken from road space. In some locations it has been necessary to adjust kerb lines leading to some localised reductions in the width of current footways. In other locations we have extended kerb lines out into the road converting road space to footway. In addition, further pavement space is provided in the form of segregation islands between the footway and cycle track, for example at bus stop bypasses and some crossings. On the south side of the road, pedestrians would also be further away from traffic than they are under the existing layout as the cycle track provides a further buffer between the pavement and the road.

Demand for pedestrian space along Chiswick High Road was assessed during the design development of the scheme by looking at pedestrian flows along the route. Pedestrian count surveys undertaken for the scheme show there are significantly more pedestrians on the north side of the road than the south side with peak hour flows on weekday or weekends being at least double and in some cases, up to nine times higher on the north side than the south.

Our proposals for a two-way cycle track on the south side of the road mean that the north (busier) side is substantially unchanged with no significant changes to footway widths. On the south side, the cycle track replaces road space for much of the route however some kerb line changes have been necessary which lead to increased or decreased footway space in some locations.

35 Cycleway 9

Peak hour pedestrian flows on Chiswick High Road 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 North side South side North side South side North side South side North side South side Between Heathfield Between Linden Between Annandale Between Chiswick Terrace and Linden Gardens and Road and Chiswick Lane and British Gardens Annandale Road Lane Grove Tuesday Saturday Sunday

Footways are only proposed to be reduced where it is not possible to take space from the road without impacting upon the safe operation of the road network and then only where the remaining footway widths are sufficient for the flow of pedestrians who use them.

Pedestrian comfort level assessments have been undertaken to inform the design of the scheme and all locations where footway cut backs are proposed along Chiswick High Road remain within recommended levels of comfort for high street activity. This provides enough space for people to walk at the speed and route they choose and as such pedestrian congestion is not expected to be an issue. In addition, we have ensured that all footways are at least a minimum of two metres wide to allow two wheelchairs or strollers to pass comfortably.

Crossings People raised concerns that the proposals would make it more difficult for people to cross Chiswick High Road.

There are currently 13 pedestrian crossings (10 signalised and three zebra) along the 1.2km section of Chiswick High Road within the scope of the Cycleway 9 scheme. This equates to a crossing roughly every 100 metres, or every minute and a half based on average walking speeds. All existing signal-controlled crossings would be retained at or near to current locations and we are proposing to convert all existing zebra crossings to signalised crossings. Pedestrian average wait times are not generally predicted to change and have been improved in some locations. Other improvements to crossings along Chiswick High Road include:

Cycleway 9 36

• Nine of the crossings would be widened which would improve capacity and decrease the potential for the rest of the footway to be blocked by those waiting to cross • Four of the crossings would be shortened, reducing the distance pedestrians need to walk to cross the road • Two of the crossings at Chiswick High Road and Heathfield Terrace junction would be simplified including reducing the number of crossing movements required to cross

We are also proposing to make the following crossings signalised across both the road and cycle track rather than just the carriageway:

• Chiswick High Road between Mayfield Avenue and Thornton Avenue • Chiswick High Road between Homefield Road and Airedale Avenue • Chiswick High Road between Cleveland Avenue and Ravensmede Way

We do not expect the ability for pedestrians to cross the road to be compromised by the scheme or the inclusion of a cycle track and at some crossings, this experience would be improved. The wide pavements, trees and cycle track would provide a buffer from traffic for pedestrians along this road, however there would still be plenty of opportunities for pedestrians to cross from one side of the road to the other safely.

Some people suggested keeping zebra crossings rather than installing pelican/toucan crossings. Zebra crossings reduce the efficiency of the traffic flow because the traffic is required to stop for pedestrians wishing to cross the road as soon as they arrive at the crossings. At the locations where pedestrians flows are high, this means that demand for the crossing is high as well and traffic stopped at the crossing may not be able to proceed trough. This increase waiting times for other traffic and causes congestion.

Continuous footways Some people suggested more continuous footways across side roads adjoining Chiswick High Road. Continuous footways are pavement spaces that continue over a side road without a step or change in visual design. Their aim is to establish pedestrian priority across side roads and reduce vehicles speeds when turning across them. We have proposed continuous footways at some side roads along the route where the number of vehicles per hour is low and the relative risk of pedestrian / vehicle conflict is therefore low. TfL is currently monitoring the use of continuous footways and the results of this will inform our future design proposals.

Impact on motorists

Traffic capacity Some people were concerned roads would be too narrow for high volumes of traffic, specifically for Duke Road, Glebe Road, Glebe estate, Devonshire Road and

37 Cycleway 9

Annandale Road. Other people were concerned that Bourne Place, Duke Road, Glebe Street and Glebe estate are too narrow for HGV’s to traverse safely from Duke’s Avenue to Chiswick High Road.

At consultation we proposed to ban the exit from Duke’s Avenue onto Chiswick High Road. Following feedback received regarding the need to retain exit from Duke’s Avenue area, and to avoid placing additional traffic in Duke Road and the Glebe Estate area we are no longer proposing to ban this turn for general traffic. We have revised the design and method of control at the junction to accommodate this. We are proposing weight restrictions on the exit from Duke’s Avenue onto Chiswick High Road and restricting access to Duke’s Avenue from the A4 for vehicles over 7.5tonnes. This would mean that larger vehicles would need to use Sutton Court Road, Devonshire Road or Chiswick Lane, which are more suitable roads for vehicles of this size. Vehicles under 7.5tonnes accessing Duke’s Avenue will still be able to use Duke’s Avenue to turn left or right onto Chiswick High Road. Vehicles using Duke Road will be able to turn left onto Chiswick High Road. Access to the east would be via Annandale Road or Chiswick Lane.

Some respondents were concerned that the proposals would reduce traffic lanes/motor vehicle capacity, specifically on the Chiswick High Road outside Our Lady Grace & St Edward’s church. At consultation we proposed to reduce the eastbound approach to the junction of Duke’s Avenue from two lanes to one. Following feedback received regarding the traffic capacity we are no longer proposing to reduce the number of traffic lanes at this location. We are now proposing one straight ahead lane and one right turn lane on the eastbound approach to the junction. Our traffic modelling experts have tested the proposed design changes to the Duke’s Avenue junction in response to issues raised at consultation.

The modelling indicated that the journey time increases on Chiswick High Road will be less than a one minute compared to the consulted journey times. This is to be expected as the new traffic movements out of Duke’s Avenue results in less green time being allocated to the Chiswick High Road. It is the view of our traffic modelling experts, that the design change is localised, unlikely to result in significant traffic reassignment and effectively mitigates the risk of increasing rat running on.

Traffic signals Some were concerned that traffic lights at Annandale Road have only a short green phase for vehicles travelling north onto Chiswick High Road.

At junctions, we have needed to carefully balance the signal timings for pedestrians, cyclists and traffic flows and as a result this will mean that for some users there may be longer waiting times at some junctions. We actively monitor and manage the road network throughout the day to ensure that impacts are balanced. This includes flexible management of traffic signal timings depending on changes in demand

Cycleway 9 38 throughout the day. We would monitor the network in this location and make adjustments throughout the day as appropriate.

Parking and loading Some people were concerned at the loss of loading bays / freight parking capacity on Chiswick High Road. Some people were concerned the proposals would make parking more difficult for local residents.

Parking on Chiswick High Road is subject to controlled parking zone (CPZ) restrictions Monday to Saturday 7am to 7pm. There are currently 27 pay and display bays where motor vehicles can pay to park during the day. Outside of these times, vehicles can park for free in these bays or on single yellow lines. Additional parking is found in the car park set back on the south side of the road or on nearby side roads where a mixture of single yellow line, pay and display bays and residents’ parking is found.

Businesses often over estimate the number of customers who arrive by car. A survey conducted with visitors in summer 2016 showed that on Chiswick High Road, the vast majority of trips are made from within 2 miles (77 per cent), and that the percentage of trips by visitors made by car is as low as eight per cent. This suggests that there is scope to redress the balance of road users locations like this in order to provide better facilities for cycling and walking, without unduly impacting residents and businesses.

To inform the design proposals we carried out parking surveys to understand the demand for parking along Chiswick High Road and nearby side roads. Our surveys show that only about a quarter of the current single yellow line provision is currently being used at any one time in the evenings, once the CPZ is lifted, with peak parking between 9pm and 10pm. Before 7am, demand for parking on single yellow lines is very low. On Sundays, when the CPZ is not in operation, demand for parking on single yellow lines is highest in the middle of the day and surveys show that up to half of the capacity currently provided is vacant at any one time.

Demand for pay and display bays on the main road was found to be fairly consistent throughout the day and across different days of the week however we found that supply of bays outweighed the demand for at all times with at least ten bays vacant at any one time. The results of these surveys indicate that there is scope to reduce the provision of single yellow line and pay and display bays along the main road.

All changes to parking restrictions will be subject to further statutory consultation (traffic orders).

Some people suggested reducing parking capacity/permitted parking hours on Chiswick High Road to discourage local driving.

39 Cycleway 9

We are committed to working with the council to conduct a review of parking restriction operational periods in the Chiswick High Road area. With regards the number of spaces provided, we seek to strike a balance between providing amenity for some access by car, whilst continually seeking to improve levels of access by more sustainable modes of transport.

Access and through traffic Some people were concerned that the proposals would make motor vehicle journeys more difficult for local residents. Some respondents raised a concern the proposals would restrict the mobility of elderly/mobility impaired people who rely on motor vehicles. Others suggested the direction of Bourne Place is reversed and some suggested the road is made two way and that exiting Duke's Avenue onto Chiswick High Road is permitted.

We have worked closely with the borough officers to review the Duke’s Avenue design with a view to continuing to allow traffic to exit onto Chiswick High Road, to minimise traffic volumes in Duke Road and the wider Glebe Estate, retaining residential exit from Duke’s Avenue and surrounding roads. The revised proposal seeks to address the resident concerns and achieve the exit from Duke’s Avenue.

We have considered reversing the one way on Bourne Place, however this would remove access to the Duke Road and wider Glebe Estate area from Duke’s Avenue junction, significantly restricting access for residents, and it was as such not considered appropriate.

We considered making Bourne Place two-way, however this would require removing all existing parking bays, in turn allowing increased traffic movements potentially contributing to higher levels of traffic in the wider residential area.

Some respondents suggested closing the Duke's Avenue junction with the A4. We will work with the council to review transport issues in the wider Chiswick area post implementation of the scheme. This includes the Duke’s Avenue area, and will include consideration of measures to reduce through traffic movements on residential roads.

Junctions

Duke Road Some people supported the proposal to ban right turn out of Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road. Others opposed this proposal.

Vehicles turning right from Duke Road would need to give way to cyclists on the cycle track before proceeding to pull out onto the main road and giving way to traffic in both directions. While visibility of oncoming eastbound traffic is good, visibility of oncoming westbound traffic, especially approaching in the offside lane, is reduced

Cycleway 9 40

due to the location of the westbound bus stop to the right of the junction. This means that right turning vehicles would need to wait for a long time to find a suitable gap and whilst waiting, would block the cycle track. The proposal to make Duke’s Avenue one-way in would result in an increase in vehicles wishing to exit at Duke Road which would compound this problem. Even with the exit from Duke’s Avenue retained, removal of the right turn at Duke Road is considered necessary, together with a ban on vehicles entering. This will address existing collision issues at the junction, where there is a pattern of collisions involving right turns.

Some people suggested the Duke Road / Fisher’s Lane junction with Chiswick High Road is controlled by traffic lights and that right turns out of Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road are permitted and controlled by traffic lights. Many people raised a concern that the banned turn from Duke Road would cause congestion in surrounding roads. Others were concerned at vehicles exiting Fisher’s Lane onto Chiswick High Road conflicting with traffic exiting Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road.

We looked at the possibility of signalising Duke Road, however this would require the removal of the nearby westbound bus stop (as there is not a suitable place to relocate it) to accommodate the junction layout, as Fisher’s Lane would need to be part of the junction due to its proximity to Duke Road. The resulting wide and staggered layout of the junction would introduce an additional set of traffic lights along Chiswick High Road in very close proximity to the junction with Duke’s Avenue. This would introduce delay to all traffic including buses and cyclists and reduce the amount of road space for traffic to wait when held at a red light. As such, signalising Duke Road is not being proposed.

If left and right turns out of Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road remain, vehicles turning right from Duke Road would need to give way to cyclists on the cycle track before proceeding to pull out onto the main road and giving way to traffic in both directions. While visibility of oncoming eastbound traffic is good, visibility of oncoming westbound traffic, especially approaching in the offside lane, is reduced due to the location of the westbound bus stop to the right of the junction. This means that right turning vehicles would need to wait for a long time to find a suitable gap and whilst waiting, would block the cycle track. Left turning traffic would be able to turn left more easily as they only need to give way to the nearside westbound traffic whereas right turning traffic would need to give way to all three lanes of oncoming traffic. In addition, if a bus is stopped in the westbound bus stop, traffic would be able to pull out in the shadow of this. Traffic wishing to travel east along Chiswick High Road from Duke Road or Duke’s Avenue could use alternative routes such as Annandale Road or Chiswick Lane.

Some people suggested making Duke Road one way only. At consultation we proposed to make Duke Road one-way only north of Bourne Place and to ban a right turn for traffic exiting Duke Road to reduce the likelihood of congestion, improve

41 Cycleway 9

safety and simplify the movements at this junction. The changes to the proposals at Duke’s Avenue, to allow exit at this junction, mean that we do not anticipate increase of traffic on Duke Road. We are not proposing any further changes at Duke Road as a result of consultation.

Some people suggested Duke Road is made entry only from Chiswick High Road. Others were concerned at Duke Road becoming exit only onto Chiswick high Road.

We considered the options thoroughly and felt it best not to make Duke Road entry only onto Chiswick High Road as it would make it more difficult for resident to access Chiswick High Road. We are proposing to make Duke Road one-way only north of Bourne Place. Vehicles wishing to access Duke Road will be able to do so using Duke’s Avenue and Bourne Place. Making Duke Road left turn exit only also reduces conflicting vehicles movements at this junction.

Some respondents suggested banning right turns out of Fisher’s Lane onto Chiswick High Road for all traffic except buses.

We looked into the option of banning the right turn out of Fisher’s Lane into Chiswick High Road for all traffic except buses. Banning this movement would deter traffic to even less suitable residential streets such as Belmont Road, which has more difficult westbound access to Chiswick High Road. The existing collision issues at the Duke Road/Fisher’s Lane junction are largely centred on both right turn movements from Duke Road, and right turns from Fisher’s Lane immediately turning left in Duke Road. The proposals remove these movements.

We are proposing to ban the right turn out of Duke Road for all traffic except cyclists in response to safety and congestion concerns with additional traffic using Duke Road as a result of becoming one-way. Traffic would be able to use Annandale to exit east onto Chiswick High Road instead.

Some suggested cyclists are not permitted to turn right out of Duke Road onto eastbound general traffic lane of Chiswick High Road.

We encourage cyclists to use the cycle track instead of the traffic lane. Cyclists are able to join the cycle track at this location and are encouraged to do so.

Duke’s Avenue Some people supported the proposal of making Duke’s Avenue entry only from Chiswick High Road. Others were concerned about this proposal. Some suggested the exit from Duke’s Avenue to Chiswick High Road is permitted and controlled by traffic lights. Other people suggested traffic lights are retained at Duke’s Avenue junction with Chiswick High Road. Some people suggested Duke’s Avenue is made exit only onto Chiswick High Road.

Following the feedback received during consultation we are no longer proposing to make Duke’s Avenue entry only. We are only proposing to ban the exit out of Duke’s

Cycleway 9 42

Avenue into Chiswick High Road for vehicles larger than 7.5tonnes. We will retain all traffic movements at this junction. We looked into the possibility of making Duke’s Avenue exit only onto Chiswick High Road, however this would have a negative impact on the residents accessing this area. As a result, we are not proposing to make Duke’s Avenue exit only.

Some people were concerned eastbound traffic turning right from Chiswick High Road to Duke’s Avenue would block the eastbound traffic flow on Chiswick High Road.

At consultation we proposed reducing eastbound approach to the junction of Duke’s Avenue from two lanes to one. Following feedback received regarding the traffic flows at this location we are no longer proposing reducing two lanes to one. We are now proposing two traffic lanes, one ahead and one for vehicles turning right into Duke’s Avenue. As a result, we are not expecting that vehicles turning right would block the eastbound traffic.

Some people suggested continuous footway at Duke’s Avenue / Chiswick High Road junction.

As with all side roads we considered the use of a continuous footway but felt that this location was not suitable due to traffic volumes. More information on the use of continuous footways can be found here.

Impact on cyclists Some people were concerned that the cycle track outside Our Lady of Grace & St Edward church would be blocked by churchgoers.

We are not proposing any footway changes outside the church. The cycle track at this location will be at carriageway level and there will be a kerb separating footway and cycle track. We are also proposing to retain the guard rail at this location, which will prevent pedestrians to step on the cycle track.

Some people suggested traffic light phasing is generous at cycling crossing allowing ample time to cross.

43 Cycleway 9

Cycle infrastructure

Cycle crossings Some people suggested providing cycle crossings to allow safe access to the cycle track from north of Chiswick High Road.

Despite two-way tracks being on one side of the road, local access is maintained at the majority of junctions and side roads.

At non-signalised side roads, there will be gaps in the segregation island for cyclists to wait to cross the road. These gaps are wide enough to accommodate waiting cyclists while not blocking the track for others continuing ahead. In some locations, for example Fisher’s Lane it has not been possible to provide direct access to or from certain side roads and cyclists would need to join or leave the route via a nearby side road.

Two-way cycle tracks Some respondents suggested cycle track should be with-flow on Chiswick High Road rather than two-way. See here for more information regarding the location of the cycle track.

Cycle parking Some people suggested increasing cycle parking to encourage cycling to local shops.

We are proposing to provide new cycle parking where there is demand for it and to encourage people to use the new cycle track to reach local shops and amenities. We would position cycle racks away from the main pedestrian desire lines and in line with existing street furniture so that it does not reduce the effective width of the footway. In some locations, we would install cycle parking on the islands between the cycle track and the carriageway, away from the pedestrian footway.

Cycle track positioning We received a suggestion for using a »centreline« cycle track in the middle of the traffic lanes instead of two-way cycle track.

Within guidance we have considered all possible configurations for accommodating the cycle track. Having the cycle track in the middle of the carriageway would be good for cyclists traveling from point A to point B. However, access to this cycle track would be limited along the links as cyclists would have no means to join or leave the track. In addition, at signal-controlled junctions the central cycle track would create more conflicting movements between all road users. Therefore, more staging would be required in the signal cycle to address these conflicting movements. As a result, these junctions would become less effective introducing delays for all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians and impacting on the reliability of buses.

Cycleway 9 44

Moreover, a cycle track in the middle of the carriageway would require a minimum segregation of 0.5 metre and a minimum of 1 metre at junctions on both sides of the track reducing the space for traffic lanes. This would result in reducing more footway space on each side of the road. Having traffic on both sides of the track may reduce the cyclist safety perception, making them feel more vulnerable limiting the potential attractiveness of the route to new cyclists.

Side road access for motor traffic making a right turn out of or into uncontrolled side road would be more complicated and potentially more likely to result in conflict. The proposal would move the point of conflict between cyclists and traffic at such junctions to the centre of the carriageway increasing the safety risk. In comparison a two-way cycle track on one side of the carriageway provides clear priority for cyclists. A central positioned cycle track would also result in more delays for cyclists waiting for the traffic to clear the junction. It would also introduce additional signal stages at some junctions resulting in increase of delays for all traffic.

Impact on buses Some respondents suggested extending bus lane operation hours (to be in operation on Sundays).

Following a review of bus lane operational timings against likely bus passenger benefits, we are not proposing to extend the end of the weekday evening peak operation from 7pm to 8pm. At weekends, we are proposing for bus lanes to be operational during the peaks (7am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm) on Saturdays but not operational on Sundays. These operating hours are appropriate to ensure consistent bus journey times in the peak hours, whilst allowing for off-peak loading opportunities and evening and Sunday parking for businesses and visitors.

Impact for emergency vehicles Some people were concerned the proposals would lead to delays for emergency vehicles on Chiswick High Road and when accessing areas south of Chiswick High Road.

Traffic modelling results suggest reductions to journey times along this section of the route which indicate delays for vehicles would be decreased. As such we are not expecting any delays for emergency vehicles.

Impact on Our Lady of Grace & St Edward Church Some respondents were concerned that the revised proposals address concerns raised by the church at the expense of other road users. Some people supported the proposals retaining the footway space outside the church. Others suggested no footway space should be lost outside the church.

45 Cycleway 9

We’ve taken a balanced view of all road users and having listened to the feedback we received made further changes to Duke’s Avenue to accommodate all road users. These include retaining the exit out of Duke’s Avenue, retaining proposed parking bays on Duke’s Avenue and retaining the footway outside the church.

Some respondents raised a concern at proposed parking / loading arrangements outside the church. Some people supported retaining single yellow line parking on Duke's Avenue outside the church.

We are proposing to retain the existing single yellow lines on the west side of Duke’s Avenue. This would allow for parking and loading during off peak times and funeral cars would be able to park as required with a funeral exemption that can be obtained from Hounslow Council. Blue badge holders would also be able to park here at any time of the day.

Environmental

Green infrastructure Some people were concerned that trees would be removed along Chiswick High Road.

Air quality Some people supported the proposals as they would improve air quality. Others were concerned the proposals would increase noise pollution.

See Section 2.1 for our response regarding air and noise quality.

Safety Some people mentioned the proposals would pose a safety risk at Chiswick High Road junctions as motorists cross the two-way cycle track to enter/exit Chiswick High Road. Some people were concerned specifically about the safety at Duke

Cycleway 9 46

Road/Chiswick High Road and Duke’s Avenue/Chiswick High Road junctions as motorists cross the two-way cycle track to exit Duke Road and enter Duke’s Avenue. Some people mentioned that when there is a bus in the bus stop on Chiswick High Road, drivers exiting Duke Road will not be able to see and will pull forward across the cycle track.

At the junction of Duke’s Avenue and Chiswick High Road, cyclists will be separated in space and time from the traffic. This means that cyclists will not be crossing the junction at the same time as traffic. Our proposal to make Duke Road left turn exit only onto Chiswick High Road means left turning traffic would be able to turn left more easily as they only need to give way to the nearside westbound traffic. In addition, if a bus is stopped in the westbound bus stop, traffic would be able to pull out in the shadow of this.

See Section 2.1 for more information regarding safety.

Others were concerned that vehicles would block the cycle track while queueing to exit Duke Road onto Chiswick High Road.

When designing for side roads we aim to eliminate the conflict and, where this has not been possible minimise the conflict. It is felt that we have done all that is reasonably practical to highlight to drivers the presence of cyclists and mitigate against the conflict and would rely on driver judgement to proceed safely over the cycle track.

Some people raised a concern that the proposals would pose a risk to mobility impaired people crossing the cycle track on Chiswick high Road.

When considering the design of our streets, we closely consider the needs of all users throughout the design process, in particular to ensure we have accounted for the needs of those with mobility issues. As part of our design and decision-making process, we have undertaken an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) which seeks to take into account potential impacts on those with protected characteristics and the need to ensure that their interests are taken into account. This is a continuing duty and as such we will keep any impacts on protected groups under review as the scheme progresses. In addition, we comply with established national guidance which includes detailed requirements for disabled people. See here for more information about crossings and here for more information about bus stop bypasses. Some people were concerned that the cycle track design outside Our Lady of Grace & St Edward’s church is a safety risk to cyclists due to narrow width of track. We have “softened” the curve enough for cyclist to feel comfortable using the cycle track. 1.5 metre width of the cycle track is also wide enough for a cyclist to navigate the alignment of the cycle track.

47 Cycleway 9

Congestion Some people commented on existing levels of congestion.

See Section 2.1 for more information about congestion.

Construction impacts Some people were concerned about disruption during construction period.

Construction will be planned carefully to minimise disruption to those who live, work and travel through the areas. We will also aim to minimise construction impacts as much as possible. We will carry out communication and engagement with local residents, cyclist groups, businesses and other stakeholders to ensure they have the information they need to plan ahead and adapt their travel arrangements where necessary, reducing any impact on their journeys and operations during the construction period. We also provide road traffic information to help people better plan their journeys and make informed choices about how, where and when they travel.

Cycleway 9 48

2.3 Issues raised by individual stakeholders Our responses to individual stakeholder concerns not addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 are outlined below.

Politicians Caroline Russell Green Party member of the Greater London Assembly

She called for trial of the cycle tracks across the bridge. Providing a cycle track across the Kew Bridge would not address the existing bottleneck problems. We have reviewed the design at this location and there is not enough space on the bridge to provide a cycle track and an additional traffic lane. Without the additional traffic lane we would not be able to alleviate the congestion at Kew Bridge junction. The provision of this traffic lane is key to providing the onward cycling link towards Brentford Town centre as it allows the Kew Bridge junction to operate more efficiently.

Chiswick Liberal Democrats

They raised concerns about the footways widths between Linden Gardens and Annandale Road. We are proposing only minor kerb realignments (less than 0.3 metres) to the footway along this section of the route as the existing footway is constrained. The presence of a rear footway, directly fronting the shops and businesses in this section, provides a parallel route for pedestrians.

Hounslow Conservative Councillors Group

They expressed concern that the removal of existing bus lanes will cause increase in congestion. We have proposed to remove some sections of bus lanes to accommodate the segregated cycle track, but modelling results indicate that bus journey times on Chiswick high Road will not be significantly affected Elsewhere we have maintained or proposed new sections of bus lane.

Hounslow Green Party

All concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

Ron Mushiso, Local Ward Councillor, Turnham Green

All concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

Ranjit Gill, Local Ward Councillor, Turnham Green

All concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

49 Cycleway 9

Transport and road user groups Ealing Cycling Campaign

They called for filtering measures at Wellesley Road junction to accommodate a wide variety of human-powered mobility aids. We are proposing to provide bollards at this location to mitigate against unauthorised access by motor vehicles. The space between bollards will be sufficient to accommodate a wide variety of cyclists including tandem bicycles, wide cargo tricycles and two-seated tricycles.

Hounslow Cycling Campaign

They called for longer traffic light phasing to enable cyclists and pedestrians to cross Kew Bridge junction in one phase rather than as currently in multiple phases. Cyclists will be able to cross Kew Bridge junction in one movement. The island in the middle of the junction has been proposed for additional safety in case a cyclist has cause to stop while crossing the junction, and in case someone wishes to join the cycle track from the triangular pedestrian island. Due to the width of the roads it is not possible to allow for pedestrians to cross the junction in one movement. There would also be insufficient time within the junction green time for a pedestrian to cross the whole junction in one phase. Giving an extended green signal to pedestrians in order to cross in one phase would have a significant impact on buses and general traffic, impacting the balance between all modes at the junction.

They suggested consideration should be given to the ease and safety of the bike crossing to Turnham Green Terrace. Westbound cyclists are encouraged to use two stage right turn to access Turnham Green Terrace. Eastbound cyclists are encouraged to use the access road between Devonshire Road and Annandale Road to access the Advanced Stop Line (ASL) on Annandale Road and proceed ahead to Turnham Green Terrace. Cyclists travelling from Turnham Green Terrace are encouraged to use the gap provided in the track.

London TravelWatch

They were concerned that cyclists making local journeys will have to dismount or get out on the lane to cross to local destinations and routes such as Green Dragon Lane. Cyclists wishing to use Green Dragon Lane are able to use the right turn pocket provided.

They asked how eastbound cyclists would continue towards Chiswick Roundabout at Wellesley Road. Cyclists wishing to continue their way towards Chiswick Roundabout would be able to cross the road at this junction using the provided cycling crossing. They could then continue their way towards Chiswick Roundabout using the carriageway.

Cycleway 9 50

London United Busways

They raised concerns about the right turn from Strand-on-the-Green. We have reviewed banning the right turn out of Strand-on-the-Green. However, residents on Strand on the Green would have a long diversion to access Kew Bridge if this movement was removed.

They noted that bus the westbound bus stop K (Brentford Leisure Centre) on Chiswick High Road has a double height kerb. We have reviewed the designs at this location to make the bus stop accessible, however due to the existing basements we are unable to alter the kerb heights.

Richmond Cycling Campaign

Concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

Road Haulage Association

They raised a concern about reducing the length of the proposed loading bay on the north side of Chiswick High Road west of Fisher’s Lane. As part of the scheme consideration is given to all road users. The scheme aims to provide a balance. In order to achieve a balance and maintain the seating for the local cafes/shops, the loading facility provided is 18 metres. We are confident that the length provided is sufficient.

Sustrans

They raised concerns about the small size of some waiting areas for cyclists at Kew Bridge potentially accommodating very few cyclists. Cyclists are expected to cross Kew Bridge junction in one movement. The island in the middle of the junction has been proposed for additional safety in case a cyclist gets stopped while crossing the junction and in case someone wishes to join the cycle track from the triangular pedestrian island.

They called for Advanced Stop Lines (ASL) on Kew Bridge Road outlined in the initial proposals to be reinstated. During initial consultation we were proposing with- flow cycle facilities and proposing to provide an ASL to give northbound cyclists on the bridge space and time to join the eastbound cycle track. Our revised proposals include the shared use footway on the western side of the bridge which cyclists wishing to travel east can use to access the fully segregated two-way cycle track. Therefore the ASL at this location is no longer required.

They called for a bus gate at the junction of Duke’s Avenue and Chiswick High Road to reduce bus journey times. Due to the space constraints there is not enough space to provide an additional traffic island that would be required for traffic signals if a bus gate was provided. Therefore, a bus gate has not been proposed at this location.

51 Cycleway 9

They called for the initially proposed reduction to one lane of traffic on Annandale Road as it would reduce crossing distance for pedestrians and discourage the use of private vehicles. We are proposing to keep two lanes on exit at this junction to facilitate additional motor traffic movements as a result of the removal of the right turn at the Duke Road junction. Traffic displaced from Duke Road would now need to use Annandale Road to turn right onto Chiswick High Road. Providing the extra lane would mean that there will be less queuing traffic in Annandale Road.

They expressed concerns that the modelling reports provided contained no information regarding pedestrian and cyclists journey times through the staggered crossings and new junctions. Cycle journey times have been provided for the whole route. We have reviewed pedestrian wait times from the model at two key junctions of Kew Bridge/Kew Road and Chiswick High Road/Wellesley Road. Due to the changes in the operation of the Kew Bridge/Kew Road junction, our proposals improve pedestrian waiting times for all movements except the southwest to northwest movement (from no 10 Kew Bridge Road to the Kew Bridge Station); where pedestrians will need up to 90 seconds longer in the morning peak and up to 30 seconds longer in the evening peak. This is due to increased green time for cycles. Overall, the junction operates more efficiently and improves the experience for pedestrians and cycles. Due to changes at Chiswick High Road/Wellesley Road junction to reduce rat running traffic on residential roads, pedestrian wait times are expected to increase for all movements by up to 150 seconds. Overall, our proposals improve the experience in the area.

Businesses and employers Active 360 (Kew Bridge based paddleboarding company)

They have not raised any negative comments.

Bedford Park Estates Ltd

Concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

Da Vinci Properties Ltd

Endorsed concerns from Kew Bridge Owners Association.

Devstars Ltd (Chiswick based web design company)

They have not raised any negative comments.

Esta Charkham Associates (acting representation agency based at British Grove)

They commented on the proposals for Cycleway 9 scheme, rather than the proposals at Kew Bridge and Duke Road.

Cycleway 9 52

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)

Concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

Kew Bridge, at 8 Kew Bridge Road Residential block of flats – response by the Development Manager

Concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

Kew Bridge Owners Association

All concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

Ksubaka (retail technology company based in Turnham Green)

They have not raised any negative comments.

London & Quadrant

They have not raised any negative comments.

Outsider Tart

All concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

Regatta Point directors (Residential Development Kew Bridge Road)

All concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew

All concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

SKY

They have not raised any negative comments.

Stone & Wood Gallery (flooring contractor based in Chiswick)

All concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

Local interest groups Chiswick Village Community Group

All concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

Glebe Estate Residents' Association (GERA)

They called for a banned right turn movement from Chiswick High Road onto Clifton Gardens. Due to the physical barrier this turn is not currently possible. We are proposing to remove this island and we are proposing to ban right turn movement

53 Cycleway 9 from Chiswick High Road onto Clifton Gardens. This will be subject to statutory consultation (traffic orders).

Resident opposed to GERA submission

They have not raised any negative comments.

Kew Neighbourhood Association

They called for bus stops to be moved closer to the Kew Bridge Station. We have carefully considered the location of bus stops along the route. There are circa 50 bus stops along the route and the position of the majority of these will remain unchanged by our proposals. We are proposing to make some changes to the road layout which impacts the location of some bus stops. This includes moving or consolidating some stops and introducing bus stop bypasses. In locations where we are proposing changes, including at four bus stops in the Kew Bridge junction area, we have considered the impacts carefully and are satisfied that minimum spacing between stops and access to local services would be maintained.

Linden Gardens Residents Association

All concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

Our Lady of Grace and St Edward's Catholic Church

Concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

The Kew Society

They expressed concerns that additional traffic lane on Kew Bridge will cause a bottleneck on the south side of the bridge and they called for a long right hand turn lane to mitigate this issue. We have considered the proposal of making a long right turn lane, and to this effect we are now proposing arrow markings to encourage drivers to move to the desirable lane well in advance of the junction in the south side of Kew Bridge.

W4 CS9 opposition group

Concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

Schools Kew House School

They raised a concern that Lionel Road South should be access only and coupled with the same status for Capital Interchange Way. They said they noted a significant increase in the speed and volume of traffic using Capital interchange Way as a shortcut to the A4 passing the school at speed. The London Borough of Hounslow has recently implemented a 20mph limit on Capital Interchange Way and Lionel

Cycleway 9 54

Road South. In light of the comments received during the development works, a review of traffic movements on both Capital Interchange Way and Lionel Road South may be carried out in due course. Any changes would be subject to further, separate consultation and discussions with local stakeholders.

St Mary’s Primary School, Chiswick

Concerns raised are addressed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this report.

55 Cycleway 9