Forum Topic

Cycle lanes can be used by emergency services.

There are currently consultations ongoing about the new stretch of cycle lane on Boston Road connecting from the current cycleway in the Hounslow Borough section (south side).Now’s the time to have your say about what type of cycle lane you want. If you want emergency vehicles to pass quickly and easily, then a cycleway in place of car parking is an optimum solution. The C9 cycleway through Hammersmith, Chiswick, and Brentford, for example has been used by emergency services.Here are some examples in London:https://youtu.be/uFMmKP7qDkI?feature=sharedhttps://www.hdcf.org.uk/emergency-vehicles-and-pop-up-cycle-lanes/https://cyclingindustry.news/no-evidence-emergency-services-held-up-by-cycle-lanes-finds-foi-request/https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/about-us/what-we-do/advice-on-what-to-do-as-a-motorist-if-you-encounter-an-ambulance/This is particularly relevant due to the close proximity of Ealing Hospital.

Dominik Klimowski ● 127d59 Comments

Thanks. I will keep looking.

Dominik Klimowski ● 124d

Much of the post implementation traffic count data from TtL is also now inaccessible. Hopefully tis is temporary.

N V Brooks ● 124d

Woohoo, with respect. Lucky you.That suits you, however for many more motorists it doesn’t,This forcing & demanding peyhave to walk, cycle or use public transport.It doesn’t work.So greane/james whatever guise you are lieing under, anything you say is totally irrelevant due to your hypocritical actions & fantasies.Ruined any vague positive comments from cyclists

Peter Yale ● 124d

I would gladly have done that Dominik and would have pointed you towards the posts made by Professor Tom Pike of Imperial College. Tom was posting two or three times a day on the Chiswick version of this forum. However he doesn't seem to have posted much in the last couple of months and a few earlier posts seem to have been masked or withdrawn. His specialism was producing metadata concatenating multiple sources about CS9 I am damned if I can find a single ruddy link now which is actually quite worrying as although I didn't agree with many of his conclusions his insightful data was always very useful.

N V Brooks ● 124d

Nigel, could you point me in the direction of the C9 count you referred to please. I can’t find it anywhere despite my best efforts.Also, do you know the daily numbers of motor vehicles using that route (Chiswick Hugh Road)?Thanks

Dominik Klimowski ● 124d

Sadly not, there is no where to drop off a wheelchair bound passenger immediately adjacent to the station the one bay is shared use and if full you are stuffed unless you can wheel yourself around the wall and into the entrance from where you can seek help to buy a ticket ) board a train. As someone who needs a frame to walk (around 15 metres max) I do wish that it was not the case, I really do.

N V Brooks ● 124d

Oh yes, the famous station where there’s no proper drop off space for people with mobility problems but lots of cycle storage for those super fit cyclists (who could, of course, cycle the whole way to where they are going!)

Simon Hayes ● 124d

Ealing Broadway?

Dominik Klimowski ● 124d

No one is beyond salvation Simon and the help that Paul so obviously and desperately needs is out there if he asks for it. It will be freely given.

N V Brooks ● 124d

One fully accessible underground station in The borough would be a start.

N V Brooks ● 124d

How about using some of that money to make all TfL stations fully accessible? That would be money well spent.

Simon Hayes ● 124d

>Only meeting your abuse in kind.My abuse? I asked you this before, a few times, you constantly abuse others on this forum in quite nasty ways. When have I done this to you or anybody else in here?Examples please, cos I got plenty of you being abusive towards others, especially me.

Paul James ● 124d

He would say you are beyond salvation Paul.You blathering about inefficiency and the rest of it is just nonsense. Bus journey times have got slower because of the messing about with the road network to accommodate cycle lanes.

Simon Hayes ● 124d

Only meeting your abuse in kind.I pray that He would try to help you ease your troubled mind. Perhaps you should turn to Him for guidance and help.A number of local churches hold mental health prayer sessions, would you details?Plenty of other Christian resources online.

N V Brooks ● 124d

Ah, resorting to abuse. Standard Nigel. What would Jesus say.

Paul James ● 124d

Really don't give a toss about your money wasting fantasies Paul/ Mary / whoever you are at the moment.You have the facts, deal with them. Watch out for the skip lorries and take your meds dear.

N V Brooks ● 124d

I see you've breezed over my points about how reducing car journeys by just a few can have a massive impact on available road space for cycling and public transport (and emergency services).70 people in cars Nigel, compared to 70 people on a bus?It's just three people on a bus that take up less space than three people in three cars.So, get a few more people cycling rather than driving and it has a massive impact.Like I said, money well spent.

Paul James ● 124d

According to TfL 27% of journeys are made on foot (over five times the level made by cycle). It would seem equitable to slash cycle infrastruture expenditure and spend it on make walking more pleasant and certainly safer for ALL users.

N V Brooks ● 124d

Really pointless wasting time placing facts before you Paul. You are obviously too obtuse to comprehend them, enjoy yor life, regards to your schizo alter-ego

N V Brooks ● 124d

May I suggest Dominik that you read TfLs Cycling Action Plan which aims, and I am being generous, for under 6% of journeys by cycle by 2030! This after the network has been quadrupled in size and £50MILLION spent since 2019.Imperial's counts are credited to Professor Tom Pike, a cycling advocate who only measured the counts on the busiest (Chiswick High Road) part of CS9If you are advocating, as you claim,  an evening out of resources then the overwhelming percentage of expenditure should be on pavements (27% of journeys are made by foot according to TfL) which would benefit far more road users.

N V Brooks ● 124d

>Paul, it has thus far taken  £50 MILLION and a quadrupuling in network size  to raise cyling levels to their current dizzying height of 4.4% of journeys (source TfL). That was FIFTY MILLION POUNDS to achieve a less than a 1% increase (from 3.6% in 2019: source TfL).Money well spent as it's shown a that spending on cycling is actually a big return on investment.>TfLs own target (source TfL Cycling Action Plan) for 'end 2030' is a 30% increase on existing levels. Lets round that up shall we  (4.4% x 1.3) to a generous 6%;  150% less than my VERY generous forecast of doubling volumes.We're planting trees Nigel, you and I will be long gone before  cycling reaches levels we see in other European cities.>How much more should Londonders spend to accommodate your minority transport interest?Again, spending on cycling is not a cost, it makes money.>Give it a rest, only the most selfish velophile, with no sense of balance, would expect expenditure to meet a fractional target like 6%....or councils and local government.

Paul James ● 124d

The point is to make cycling safer and easier, to increase the numbers of people choosing to cycle their journeys when possible.You would agree, would you not, that many more people cycle since the cycleways have been installed all over London, than did before?As for percentages, if people who would otherwise drive switch to cycling, then not only does the percentage of cyclists go up, but the percentage of drivers goes down. There would therefore be a greater increase.However the greatest increase of all would be roadspace. Think of the amount of roadspace a car takes up compared to a bike. If one solitary driver used a bike instead, they would free up at least 6-8 times more roadspace for other motorists. I am being generous here, as some studies equate one bike to 14 cars* I would be interested in seeing the Imperial figures you referred to, as my understanding is the counts show over 3,000 cyclists a day, however I can't find the original source online. Do you know who is responsible for the counts?I am not advocating for an all-out swap, simply an evening-out of resources. We all pay for the roads, after all. We also all pay for the damage caused to roads, incidentally. *(source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Space-efficiencies-of-car-tram-bike-and-walking_fig5_232847647#:~:text=Context%20in%20source%20publication&text=It%20is%20estimated%20that%20a,moving%20bike%20(Figure%207).)

Dominik Klimowski ● 124d

Paul, it has thus far taken  £50 MILLION and a quadrupuling in network size  to raise cyling levels to their current dizzying height of 4.4% of journeys (source TfL). That was FIFTY MILLION POUNDS to achieve a less than a 1% increase (from 3.6% in 2019: source TfL).TfLs own target (source TfL Cycling Action Plan) for 'end 2030' is a 30% increase on existing levels. Lets round that up shall we  (4.4% x 1.3) to a generous 6%;  150% less than my VERY generous forecast of doubling volumes.How much more should Londonders spend to accommodate your minority transport interest?Give it a rest, only the most selfish velophile, with no sense of balance, would expect expenditure to meet a fractional target like 6%.

N V Brooks ● 124d

Well, it has to be said that much of Paul’s ‘thinking’ seems to come from a black hole.So how does he reckon those doing longer journeys in and around Ealing will get around? Magic carpet? Does he knock on his neighbour’s doors if he sees them making an unnecessary journey?What he doesn’t understand is that cycling is unattractive to people for a variety of reasons. Lack of safe infrastructure isn’t the main one. Ironically, the regular cycling commuters I know dislike the cycle superhighways because they are badly designed and often make their journeys more difficult. Go figure.

Simon Hayes ● 124d

If it is 4.7% journeys made by bike, as Nigel claims, what needs to be done to get that figure higher? Without question more people who would cycle if the roads were safer and in better condition. Drivers overtaking too closely coupled with too many potholes are just two reasons that I commonly here from people on why they avoid cycling.I am sure it was The AA who did a survey of drivers and found that something like 60%  of drivers (I can't remember the figure but it wa more than half, and I was surprised at the figure) believed that if roads were safer for cycling then mosre people would use a bike to get from A to B. Have you ever thought that it might be poor driving on the need to have segregated cycle lanes in the first place? How do you stop drivers overtaking too closely?

Ben Owen ● 124d

>Even if the number of journeys made by cycle doubled, this would still represent LESS THAN 9% (THAT'S NINE PERCENT)  OF JOURNEYS!Why do you keep saying doubled, we need to more than just double them.And of course, freeing up road space by there being just a few less car trips means buses will get about quicker so bus ridership will be up too.You're still not getting the incredible inefficiency of people moving around using private cars (most with just a driver in) either are you?

Paul James ● 124d

Paul/ David/ Mary / whoeverEven if the number of journeys made by cycle doubled, this would still represent LESS THAN 9% (THAT'S NINE PERCENT)  OF JOURNEYS!Even the most paranoid schizophrenic is surely not so obtuse as to ignore this fact (that figure is cited by the LCC/ Imperial College and TfL). Obviously this simple fact cannot permeate your pulsar-like intellect. I cite pulsar as that is the densest thing known to man.Therefore disproportionate spending on speculative numbers is totally unwarranted.

N V Brooks ● 124d

>not to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a solution used by only a tiny percentage of road users.Are you still not getting this Nigel. Council stated aim is to INCREASE the amount of journeys made by bike so there is less driving.

Paul James ● 124d

Apparently Deliveroo riders count as commuters.Any cost-benefit analysis will indicate that the cycle lanes aren’t a sensible use of money. It’s only the rabidly keen cyclists who claim it is.What Dominik doesn’t understand is that what suits him doesn’t necessarily suit anyone else, least of all tradespeople. It’s that smug middle class outlook yet again. It’s what’s called the luxury beliefs mentality.

Simon Hayes ● 124d

"Thousands of people use this route".  Have you considered a career in stand-up Dominik?Perhaps over a few days or a week but the statistics from Imperial, often cited as justification for the capital of expenditure, even at their most optimistic do not show thousands using CS9 over a daily period on a regular basis.Times are indeed tough Dominik which is why it makes sense to sweat the resources we have and not to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a solution used by only a tiny percentage of road users.

N V Brooks ● 124d

Aside from the link to the article reporting a fire engine using C9, the reason I keep 'banging on' about it is that the point of these Cycleways is to connect them, to make regular (and occasional) travel easy around London.Last Saturday I cycled from Custom House as the Elizabeth Line and DLR where out of service. I had never cycled this route before, so was amazed at the ease and connectivity of the route. There were many other cyclists, and it was only when we got to Kensington that the Cycleway suddenly vanished (you could see the markings of where it used to be). This didn't make congestion any easier, it just meant drivers were impatient when cyclists were in front of them. Some drivers, I hasten to add.The same happens in Ealing. Going via the C9 through Brentford and then up Boston Manor Road is a roundabout way for me, but I often use it for its safety and ease of use.The C9 is packed at 'rush hour'. Thousands of people commute via this route, and therefore to connect it to Ealing via Boston Road makes sense, as it will give people the opportunity of not having to navigate Ealing's other streets which are often very unpleasant to cycle down (for various reasons). People want the opportunity to cycle safely particularly in the winter months when it is dark during commuting hours, and the weather makes roads extra hazardous. There are also more motor vehicles around as people like to use their car to stop themselves getting wet.Cycling isn't just something people do for fun. It is a way of commuting and getting around as evidenced by the many people I cycle with daily despite the poor autumn and winter weather. Many people choose this form of commuting purely for economic reasons. It is cheap and reliable. That is what convinced me to do it. I know I will get to work on time, and I will save a load of money. Times are tough, and every little helps.

Dominik Klimowski ● 124d

It's true that ambulances have a lot more equipment in them and their operatives are far more trained. They make a lot of observations before they leave and more decisions are made ahead instead of just racing off to  the nearest hospital.  Hospitals specialise and ambulances have to be prepared for long waits outside them.  They can also communicate ahead so the hospital is more prepared which they couldn't years ago.  It no longer is just  about their speed in getting to hospital.

Philippa Bond ● 125d

‘The ambulance had some difficulty in departing due to congestion on the High Road. A fire engine was also driving in the direction of Hammersmith using the bike lane’.https://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conaccident169.htm

Dominik Klimowski ● 125d

Wholly irrelevant as, for the umpteenth time, it is not a cycle lane proposed for Boston Road. Also, you keep banging on about CS9, no stretches of that could be used by a Fire engine. What is your point if it is not relevant to the local situation?

N V Brooks ● 126d

What about the fire engine in the first link in my post? I haven't seen one bigger than that.

Dominik Klimowski ● 126d

The reason that ambulances are so much bigger now according to my son's friend who is a senior paramedic, is that they carry so much more kit now they are a little like a mobile Hospital. The old days of them being simply a conveyance from your home or the scene of an incident to the hospital our long gone. When we had to call an ambulance for my wife after an allergic reaction to her asthma medication they had all kinds of oxygen equipment, nebulizers, test equipment ECGs and the like. As a result she didn't even have to attend hospital before they stabilized her condition.

N V Brooks ● 126d

Cycleways are not wide enough for most emergency vehicles. Fire Appliances are now so wide that they cannot fit down roads without restrictions.Two way use means that a rider with the obligatory ear bus and no mirrors may not be aware of an emergency vehicle approaching from behind, or risks ploughing in to pedestrians or into traffic.Emergency vehicles used to be deliberately designed to fit the smallest of roads and were allocated appropriately .New design Ambulances are now also wider and cannot negotiate Chiswick High Roads cycle lanes. Plus there are safety bollards dotted about and razor sharp kerbstones which, apart from being a pain for cyclists, ruin ambulance tyres at £220. each. Not to mention risk the equipment, patients and crew on board. Quite why emergency vehicle are being made so large and unsuitable for the environs they are to be employed in is quite bizarre given the history of design to fit the working environment.Similarly no shortage of very oversized cars in streets which cannot really accommodate them. I really don't understand why such large non working vehicles are need for such minimal use.

Raymond Havelock ● 126d

Those of us who pay a great deal for our metal boxes, get taxed at every turn, moan about being stuck in traffic to foolhardy schemes.Ltns, 2 lane roads reduced to 1 etc.So those of you who “just get on with it”, do the complete opposite.Demand special lanes at unlimited cost & blow anyone else

Peter Yale ● 126d

Ah that lovely big comfy metal box that I don't have to share with the great unwashed. Luxury

N V Brooks ● 126d

Some people just can't deal with the idea of change, surprising since we live in a country with themist changeable weather.  Maybe that's it they just want to hide in their huge metal box clogging the roads to hide from it and moaning about the traffic while others just embrace it and get on and go and enjoy it!

Philippa Bond ● 126d

"No vehicle can ‘simply move out of the way’ of an emergency vehicle if there are parked cars in the way, instead of a cycle lane" Yes they can as it is not a solid 'wall' of cars. people simply pull into the numerous gaps which will all disappear when the shared pavement is implemented unless you are advocating illegally driving on the pavment.How many more times Dominik? There is NO CYCLE LANE OPTION!Boston Road is not and extension to C9 which is an east-west route wholly outside Ealing so irrelevant. I would love though  to see it extended to Hounslow as it would totally obviate the need for the largely unused, pollution creating and emergency services vehicles delaying wanded lanes by West Middlesex Hospital.

N V Brooks ● 127d

If the road isn’t appropriate for a cycleway you can’t fit one in. Not hard to understand Dominik. It’s the case on Boston Road.If the road is narrowed to accommodate a cycle way then you are creating a bottleneck. As discovered on Twickenham Road in Isleworth. Not hard to understand.Why don’t you make a film about it? You could film yourself driving around. Probably win an Oscar!

Simon Hayes ● 127d

I agree the shared pavement is inappropriate for emergency vehicles, which is why I’m advocating cycleways, which allow them to pass freely.No vehicle can ‘simply move out of the way’ of an emergency vehicle if there are parked cars in the way, instead of a cycle lane. The C9 Cycleway is heavily used, and makes cycling safer for all cyclists, not just the confident ones. That’s why I think extending it is a good idea.A win for people who can’t drive and a win for emergency vehicles. Cars can still use the road.

Dominik Klimowski ● 127d

Profuse apologies. This time with hte spellchack ON."Emergency vehicles warn against cars moving into bus lanes or cycle lanes for the very specific reason that it hinders them from using those very lanes themselves to get to/from the emergency."Forgive me, but are you being deliberately obtuse?The proposed design of the Boston Road infrastructure absolutely precludes upon either a driver moving over or and emergency services vehicle moving into that 'lane' as it is actually the pavement! Either you envisage blue light responders driving at speed on the pavement to pass traffic of you acknowledge that the design is wholly inappropriate.I am in no way adamant that cycle lanes should be parking spaces. The existing painted lanes alongside residential parking works perfectly adequately. It does not hinder emergency services vehicles as ALL other road users can simply move over as happens currently. Why do you advocate spending money to 'fix' something that so evidently is not broken? Funds which could be spent on Active Travel to far wider benefit by attending to the atrocious state of pavements.

N V Brooks ● 127d

Design not desing!

N V Brooks ● 127d

"Emergency vehicles warn against cars moving into bus lanes or cycle lanes for the very specific reason that it hinders them from using those very lanes themselves to get to/from the emergency."Forgive me, but are you being deliberately obtuse?The proposed desing of the Boston Road infrastructure absolutely precludesupon either a driver moving over or and emergengcy services vehicle moving into that 'lane' as it is actually the pavement! Either you envisage blue light responders driving at speed on the pavement to pass traffic of you acknowledge that the design is wholly inappropriate.I am in no way adamany that cycly lanes should be parking spaces. Theexisting painted lanes alongside residential parking works perfectly adequately. It does not hinder emergency services vehicles as ALL other road users sand simply move over as happens currently. Why do you advocate spending mpney to 'fix' something that so evidently is not broken? Funds which could be spent on Active Travel to far wider benefit by attending to the attrocious state of pavements.

N V Brooks ● 127d

Emergency vehicles warn against cars moving into bus lanes or cycle lanes for the very specific reason that it hinders them from using those very lanes themselves to get to/from the emergency.Here are the details from the London Ambulance Service (you may have already seen this): https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/about-us/what-we-do/advice-on-what-to-do-as-a-motorist-if-you-encounter-an-ambulance/Here is a video of how a fire engine uses a cycleway. Please watch it and tell me what you think. It's very short:https://youtu.be/uFMmKP7qDkI?feature=sharedYour 'adamant' stance that cycle lanes should be parking spaces hinders emergency access. Please explain why you are so adamant. (Without starting your sentence with 'Because cyclists...)Thank you.

Dominik Klimowski ● 127d

DK, so I would have left everything as was, we all share roads.If as PJ will scream & stamp by insisting this isn’t safe, then a shared foot & cycle way - preferably with dolly’s to segregate reckless cycling.1 way North, 1 way South. That’s if he uses itI do not expect or want anything which is detrimental to drivers, which is usually the case.It’s obvious people (for whatever reasons) DONT want to cycle or be forced to, which is what’s happening.For example Ruislip Rd East, perfectly workable before.Now the pavement is wider than the road!!!You see lots of cars, who have option to cycle, but obviously they don’t want to.I see very few bikes along there.Dominik, do you cycle?I sometimes do & don’t expect any additional measures, just jump on with lights & helmet & puff away.TfL/khan can’t run a bath so public transport is a bad joke.Tines I used bus lately & it stops half way with nonsensical excuse & passengers moaning at driver

Peter Yale ● 127d

"Incidentally it’s not permitted to break traffic regulations to allow emergency vehicles to pass."Absolutely correct, moving into a segregated cycle lane or bus lane  is not one of the 'presecribed reasons' so to do.

N V Brooks ● 127d

This is the link to the proposed design: https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/20030/boston_road_improvement_maps.pdfPrubsvly more useful than propaganda from cycling interest groups. There’s no option on the council website to suggest designs. Indeed the consultation closed months ago.Dominik seems to have a very limited grasp of how consultation works in Ealing. Rather than follow the very clear guidance laid out by the Local Government Association, which states that consultation should be carried out with all affected parties at a FORMATIVE stage. Instead it’s used as a rubber stamp of plans they were formulated months or years before after discussions with selected groups of supportive individuals. This applies to planning as well as transport. The LTNs so gleefully thrust upon us in 2020 had zero consultation with the ambulance service. Julian Bell lied about this only to backtrack when he was found out. None of the emergency services like road closures and other obstacles hindering their operations, but are told not to complain by managers. This has been well documented in recent years.One group excluded from the formative discussions about Boston Road were residents on Boston Road, who face the loss of parking spaces (not just for them but also for visitors and trades), as well as the prospect of negotiating the cycle lane from off-street parking avoiding inattentive cyclists. Still, if there’s an accident we know who will be shouting about it.It’s very clear from the diagrams in the consultation pack that there are long stretches where it is a shared footway, particularly at the northern end. Quite how an emergency vehicle will navigate that is anyone’s guess. But if they take out a few pedestrians and cyclists on the way at least there’s a hospital round the corner.Incidentally it’s not permitted to break traffic regulations to allow emergency vehicles to pass.

Simon Hayes ● 127d

It was not only I that was not able to comment. Did you see the 'consultation' One was asked to comment upon a pre-conceived design not alter it. As to a cycleawy, no, I would not. The ridiculously wide (almost 6.5 metres) shared pavement proposed is total overkill and creates further bottlenecks by imposing 'island bus stops'. There is absolutely no need for dedicted infrastructure as anyone who knows the road will attest. To build a stretch of cycleway that extends for 800 metres at the expense of so much residential parking, the loss of worshippers casual spaces at two local churches verges on criminal ineptitude. The proposed infrastructure has the break at Townholme Crescent, by Rosedale Cottages and again by Rosebank Road as Boston Road is simply too narrow to accomodate any restriction or epansion of the footpath at those points. Once you get to Lower Boston Road (a vital link to Ealing Hospital and a primary route from London Ambulance Service West Area HQ on Boston Road then to restict this route at all with wanded lanes or ANY form of segregation is utter nonsense Dominik.There has to be a better solution and I cannot believe that this is the best that 'professional' transport planners can do.

N V Brooks ● 127d

I'm sorry you weren't able to comment on the design. Out of interest, would you have suggested a cycleway rather than shared pavement?

Dominik Klimowski ● 127d

I'm not entirely sure I understand some of what you've written Peter, but the links have very clear photos of how emergency vehicles use cycleways. One is even a video. I would not post in here without providing evidence. I can only assume you've overlooked it.

Dominik Klimowski ● 127d

Consultations are ignored., made as awkward as possible to access.There’s kind to be a kerb, dolly’s to separate darling cyclists. So no not feasible for emergency services.Boy am I sick of the cycling age d.Forced up.on by a vocal minority, against wishes of majority

Peter Yale ● 127d

The supposed "consultation" did not allow one to comment on the design merely the extent of the cycle path. The design was predicated by the limited width of the road in many places but the shared pavement concept was already pre-determined. If you honestly believe that you can influence the design of the cycle path that this stage or indeed were able to do so from the initial concept given Ealing's track record on totally ignoring public input then you are terribly terribly naive.

N V Brooks ● 127d

You have to decide what you really want, Nigel, and why. You had your chance during the consultation to put forward your views. A proper cycleway, rather than shared pavements, would mean emergency services could use it too. If you prefer allocating that roadspace for parking spaces, then emergency services won’t be able to use it, because it’s impossible to drive through a parked car.Even though the cycleways are designed for cyclists, they have other positive consequences, such as providing access for emergency vehicles, which is what this forum topic is about.

Dominik Klimowski ● 127d

Absolutely adamant that the parking spaces shouldn't be removed as they are only being removed to accommodate a cycle lane used by under 5% of road users. Madness and only supported by the absolutely selfish minority.If you're naive enough to believe that you can influence the design of the cycle at this stage then I must group you in with Paul and Ben as being one of The Three Stooges.

N V Brooks ● 127d

That's why I wrote'Now’s the time to have your say about what type of cycle lane you want'.A cycleway like C9 will better serve emergency vehicles.You have been adamant on this forum that parking spaces shouldn't be removed. Parked cars will not allow emergency vehicles to move at all, and will not give space to vehicles on the road to move out of the way.A cycleway will allow emergency vehicles to travel unhindered, as can be seen in the links I provided.

Dominik Klimowski ● 127d

An absolute and total red herring from someone who doesn't understand the first thing about transport planning. The proposed Boston Road cycle lane and any number of other cycle lanes in the borough are shared pavement and cycle paths. These cannot, repeat cannot, be used by emergency services vehicles.The simplest way to ease the path for emergency services vehicles is not to dedicate valuable Road space to a tiny minority of road users in the first place. The only part of your post that is at all relevant is the proximity to Ealing Hospital, transit to which will be affected by the selfish reallocation of Road space

N V Brooks ● 127d