| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:FOLLY OF CS9 ON CHISWICK HIGH ROAD. 2nd Consultation findings | |
| Posted by: | David Lesniak | |
| Date/Time: | 20/03/19 14:09:00 |
| Ruth- Thank you for your response. As I have mentioned many times, I believe CS9 is not fit for purpose here in Chiswick. I have advocated for improved local cycling provisions that should be sustainable and flexible so they may evolve easily in concert with any other transit trends. Toward that end, I have suggested using a version of TfL's own parklet schemes using components to occupy a lane in the roadway to create cycle lanes and provide community amenity. I even dubbed it The Emerald Mile - something infinitely more catchy than Cycle Superhighway - because I envisioned it as a necklace park of greenery and color weaving along the High Road. I've also posited a single lane of traffic in each direction on CHR but maybe you missed that whilst in Holland. Do you operate a business everyday? If so, does your business require daily deliveries both incoming and outgoing? If not, might I remind you whilst you're cycling on infrastructure, it is these businesses that help pay for it. In terms of you never being rude, I'd say when I fell flat on my ass and you whipped out your mobile to take a picture of me rather than extending a hand...well, I'd say that was rude, but I digress. I'm sure it provided you a chance to chuckle so you're welcome. Having studied and worked in the urban design realm, I read the link you shared with great interest. Please may I ask you read through Parliament's report on High Streets 2030 to better understand the circumstances local businesses face: https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/housing-communities-and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/high-streets-and-town-centres-in-2030-inquiry-17-19/ With regard to Weetman's article I did see a few of his examples in person when I cycled with Ruth Cadbury and Will Norman. For those who might not take 30-45 minutes to read through it, Weetman compares/contrasts UK streets and cycling provisions with Dutch models. So Ruth, a few things to point out if I may, so please bear with: 1.) Junctions combine the narrow Dutch carriageways leaving lots of public space and wide open areas for city life to thrive - a brilliant idea gone missing in CS9 2.) I couldn't help but notice in the photos/videos Weetman includes, all show plenty of parked cars. Dutch design leaves plenty of space for parking - again, gone missing in CS9 3.) The concept of local access street not urban through streets (currently CHR is both). Weetman talks about road typology which is something TfL also struggles with. I've mentioned being able to limit traffic to local residents and businesses and know other cities have tried to do the same with technology (think localized Congestion zone). Today I think what if Bath Road and CHR became one giant one-way zone for locals? Just a thought, folks, just a thought. 4.) Most examples in the article are for residential streets, not those with any commercial premises. Brick pavers are lovely as are the free-standing benches and planters, but CHR is not a mews street like some pictured. If TfL plans on pavers and plantings, etc., they've been remiss in demonstrating that. I agree with Weetman it is a shame folks don't take more pride of place and "ownership" of the streets and sidewalks. You see a smattering here and there, and I can see where strategically placed bike racks/docking stations would go a long way toward animating the streetscape. Again, gone missing in the CS9 scheme and Mobikes just fly in the face of that initiative altogether. There is no pride when abandoning a borrowed bike. 5.) CS9 minimizes the footpath as does other TfL cycle infrastructure projects. This is in direct contradiction to the Dutch model you've shared in Weetman's article. 6.) Weetman states "UK changes to introduce segregation for cycling often fails miserably due to design compromises at at side roads." CS9 on Chiswick High Road has the most number of intersections with side roads versus along the A4. Fact. He continues "changes to main streets to support cycling MUST include changes to side roads" and "Dutch segregated cycling tracks work because of the design of nearby residential streets." I can easily see where this would be the case. Better regulation and allowances for parking on residential side streets would help when re-distributing parking from CHR to make way for any cycle improvements. Take a look at how people park on side roads and you will always see folks parking inefficiently or discourteously which means less space available for others to park. In NYC, if you take up more than the allowable space, you get a ticket. Straddle a line, wham, a ticket. Here it is nothing more than a suggested zone. I think even in those Dutch photos each and every parallel parking space on a side street is defined. But again, all of that due diligence and strategic town planning is missing with CS9. Some of that is down to Hounslow having zero vision for urban design especially in Chiswick. Remember when CHR was designated a Conservation Area? That should have come with street scene improvements, the Heritage Lighting upgrades it took ages to get approved, benches, planters, signage - all of it. But no. Not in Hounslow. 7.) Dutch design emphasizes trees. Alas, CS9 mows many mature specimens down. Additional planting beds? Nope. 8.) Weetman says of Dutch street design "overall parking levels can be maintained, even if parking is changed on a main through street." CS9 do that? Nope. 9.) I think this is my favorite bit, one that supports a holistic and beneficial approach for everyone. Might I remind you this comes directly from the article you asked that I read. It comes toward the end of the article: "But most of all, if we work this way [holistically] it means that the biggest effects of the overall changes in streetscape are to improve the quality of life of local residents, with improvements to the safety of 'cyclists' being only one part of a whole unified scheme." My point? CS9 is not a unified scheme per Weetman's many examples. CS9 improves only one part at the expense of a whole unified scheme. You fund it, maybe then we can talk. But when we all fund it, then we all get a say on what that unified scheme can and should be. Ruth, I look forward to hearing from you. Enjoy the Parliamentary Report on High Streets 2030. It can be a bit of a slog. Savills puts in a particularly interesting submission. You might want to re-read Weetman's article, too, as there is a lot of pertinent info in there that should apply to CS9 and Chiswick but, alas, at present does not. Oh, FYI, we keep a stash of china for folks who are too posh for paper. That said, you should know take-away is the largest growth sector for the cafe/restaurant industry. People beg us to have our coffee available via Deliveroo. Hard to do with china, though. You could also bring your own as is de rigueur at the moment. You know where to find me... |