Forum Topic

Transport Secretary admits new cycle lanes are leaving roads 'backed up' with traffic

Transport Secretary admits new cycle lanes are leaving roads 'backed up' with trafficGrant Shapps warns he is 'not prepared to tolerate' badly designed closures and cycle lanes, imposing 'sweeping changes' to communities. The Transport Secretary has admitted too many cycle lanes are being left “unused” with traffic “backed up” as a result of his green transport revolution, The Telegraph can reveal.In a strongly worded letter sent to councils, Grant Shapps has warned he is “not prepared to tolerate” badly designed road closures and new cycle lanes which are imposing “sweeping changes” to entire communities.And in a move that will infuriate cycling and green campaigners, he has declared the Government is not anti-car, explaining: “No one should be in doubt about our support for motorists.”Mr Shapps announced a £250 million Emergency Active Travel Fund in May intended to promote walking and cycling as the country emerged from lockdown. Councils were invited to apply for the cash by drawing up projects intended to entice people away from their cars and take more active forms of travel.However, critics have complained that badly designed road closures and new cycle lanes have in fact increased traffic and pollution on main roads, as well as reduced the number of people visiting high streets at a time when small businesses are desperate to recover from lockdown.Private residents have even launched legal action, claiming that because the schemes were introduced under emergency Covid powers, disability groups, local residents and businesses were not consulted, and consequently, normal local democratic procedures have been ignored.Meanwhile, so-called ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhoods’, where bollards and planters close off residential streets to traffic, have resulted in delays to 999 emergency response times as police, paramedics and fire crews encounter newly shut roads.The letter, sent on Friday to local authority transport bosses and local highways authorities and seen by The Telegraph, warns how a “notable number of councils used their funding poorly and were simply out of step with the needs of the local communities.”Mr Shapps continues: “I saw or heard from the public and parliamentary colleagues about far too many instances where temporary cycles lanes were unused due to their location and design, while their creation left motor traffic backed up alongside them; of wide pavements causing unnecessary congestion in town centres; and other issues that many have, rightly, reacted angrily to.”He explains how he had ordered his staff to “engage” with those councils where he had “concerns”, because badly thought out road closures and cycle lanes had been introduced.“Since then, numerous schemes have been scaled back and revised,” he wrote. “I am pleased with this, but the work will continue where local residents continue to have concerns.”He warns the second round of funding in the scheme could see some town halls receiving “considerably less” money if they fail to “embrace good design” or “consult their local communities”.He adds: “We all want to see the benefits that active travel brings to be realised, but poorly implemented schemes will make no friends for the policy or more broadly for active travel…“The crucial test is, does it deliver for the community it serves, and has it been done with their consultation.“Schemes must balance the needs of cyclists and pedestrians with the needs of other road users, including motorists and local businesses.“Only authorities which have passed these key tests will receive the funding they have asked for.“I want to be absolutely clear: we are not prepared to tolerate hastily introduced schemes which will create sweeping changes to communities without consultation, and ones where the benefits to cycling and walking do not outweigh the dis-benefits for other road users.”With The letter comes after thousands of people have held demonstrations and signed petitions forcing some town hall bosses into a series of humiliating U-turns after they introduced schemes with little or no public consultation.Last week, the Telegraph revealed how some councils were making hundreds of thousands of pounds in fines from motorists driving on newly closed roads.Projects in some parts of London have proven so divisive that planters have been daubed with graffiti and bollards ripped from the concrete. In one West London borough, opposition has been so vehement that police have had to attend to support council workers as they installed planters and bollards to close roads.So far, a total of £42,102,454 has been secured by 111 councils in England, including many London boroughs where opposition has been most vocal.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/17/transport-secretary-admits-new-cycle-lanes-leaving-roads-backed/

Mark Perry ● 2204d43 Comments

Need to get him along CHR, TGT, Fishers Lane & Devonshire Rd a bit quick to see what a khazi Hounslow & Ealing councils have made of our once lovely area whilst ruining many businesses in the process.

Mark Talbot ● 2204d

I agree, if traffic restrictions and new cycle lanes are doing more harm than good, they should be reversed. In Chiswick so far we’re seeing significantly improved air quality. The new cycle lane along the High Road will also be part of a protected cycling route though Hammersmith to the excellent new cycle lanes on Kensington High Street. These then connect into the extensive network of segregated cycle lanes in central London. During the morning peak, the latest traffic counts show bikes are more than half the number of cars travelling in along the High Road. Improved interconnected cycle provision is only going to push those numbers higher and we will all feel the benefits of cleaner air and reduced emissions. This should deliver precisely the green revolution that the government was hoping to fund.Our councillors wrote to Grant Shapps more than five weeks ago asking him to intervene. Apparently he ignored them. Maybe they could write to him again sharing the good news on the pollution figures. They might get a more appreciative response.

Tom Pike ● 2204d

There goes the loud minority again. Ever get the feeling more of the silent majority might just about have had enough of this and start to make their voices heard ....... let’s hope it’s not too late.

Mark Talbot ● 2204d

Our councillors don’t get listened in our local council, what hope will they have of anyone in govt listening to anything they have to say. Just don’t see the point of them.

James Smith-Jones ● 2204d

Tom, you do yourself as a supposed scientist and your broader cause a huge disservice with your willful mispresentation of data. As I posted on your air quality thread, there is no causlity between the cycle lane and air quality. It has imroved because:* We have been in lockdown for half the year. Still no sports events at local stadiums, Heathrow deserted, cinemas empty* Traffic is again falling due to new restrictions and a likely further lockdown will reduce traffic more* 27 bus removed and ongoing shift to hybrids, electric and more efficient vehicles* CLosure of TGT, Fishers Lane and moves to restrict traffic at either end of the High Road reduce the number of vehicles* Background pollution also probably falling, reduced traffic volumes on A4There is no monitoring on roads that are seeing more congestion and pollution. Hounslow and the cycling lobby simply do not care, they are collateral damage.The improvement in air quality has nothing to do with the cycle lane. How can it, its not even operational. Please share the data that shows half of the journeys are by bike. And if that is even remotely true, then what purpose is the cycle lane.The biggest farce is as your post indicates, CS9 allows you to cycline into central London and all the routes there. Hardly anyone is doing this long distance commuting, and we may see a permanent reduction in the long term. There are no local cycle routes it connects to, not one. So it is of v limited benefit to the community.

Paul Green ● 2204d

The complete logical flaw at the heart of the pro closure lobby is exposed by the following posts from Ken:Ken Munn: 'Traffic congestion in and around W4 is no new thing. It's been that way, from time to time, for decades'Ken Munn: 'Much discussed here and elsewhere. Traffic evaporates. But I'm not going around that endless loop again.'These posts cannot both be true. We have had 20 plus years of measures to restrict through traffic, close rat runs and help buses with longer 24 hour bus lanes, bus gates etc etc. Yet he admits traffic has still been terrible. Traffic evaporation is the biggest con of the cycling lobby. Yes traffic volumes are falling, but so is road capacity, even more now in W4. Even if journeys fall as people divert, give up or modal shift, its not enough to compensate. We know this, bus speeds fall every year. There is no formal measure of the resultant congestion but the bus speed is the best indicator.

Paul Green ● 2204d

Well put Paul, sadly too many people who think what you say don’t have the time or inclination to get involved letting the noisy minority appear to speak for most.I wonder what Hounslow will do when come 01 April and business rates are back any retailer who’s survived this nonsense appeals their RV on the back of a fundamental change to the road system killing trade?

Mark Talbot ● 2204d

Paul, the pollution monitors on the High Road and Devonshire Road both are showing significantly larger improvements in air quality, 38 and 35% reductions from last year, compared to measurements on the A4, down 23%. Chiswick is breathing significantly cleaner air than can be explained by changes in background pollution and traffic levels.I agree, traffic restrictions have very likely helped contribute to these additional falls, and that was part of their aim! Of course the cycle lane has not played any part yet, but certainly we have seen an increased uptake in cycling. The traffic counts were from TfL on the CS9 plans. Opponents of better cycling provision can always claim that if the bike numbers are low that shows there’s no demand, while if they’re already significant there’s no need for improvement. In fact what should be driving new infrastructure of any kind is both the potential for growth as well as the improvement for current users. As the cycle lanes are now connecting into a much more extensive system of protected cycling routes, thanks to RBKC, that potential is clear. The cycle lanes along Kensington High Street are a very significant improvement that’s already attracting more cyclists.In a few years time the biggest question is likely to be why didn’t we make these improvements sooner, but it’s great to see at last alignment from across the political spectrum to make these changes a reality.

Tom Pike ● 2204d

Traffic evaporation is the biggest con.Nope.

Tony Smart ● 2204d

Tom, more utter gibberish and misinformation. Firstly, there is no air monitor on DR, much traffic pollution is v localised. No doubt it has improved as there are less vehicles, including due to lockdown. The same is true with the High Rd, no 27, more electrics, lockdown plus measures to actually restrict traffic flow. BUT CHISWICK as a whole is not seeing breathing cleaner air, other than due to the reduction in overall traffic on the A4. IN fact, many are breathing dirtier air as a direct result of these measures. The other streets that see more congestion and pollution? Deafening silence. Many of these streets that are classified as A and B are largely or entirely residential. Take the western end of the High Road, where the crazy new bus gate has created more queues. Lots of new apartment blocks, literally thousands of residents. No monitoring there, do they not deserve clean air? It is not acceptable to create pollution hot spots and then shrug your shoulders.As for 'alignment from across the political spectrum', I think the letter from the transport secretary and the clear and insightful questions from the Ealing MP show that is another lie.Stop digging Tom, you embarrass yourself.

Paul Green ● 2204d

The Embankment cycle lane means Embankment as a whole is carrying a greater proportion of traffic through the city than before it was built. The City has also seen the largest improvement in air quality, particularly along the new cycle routes. We’re shifting to more sustainable and active transport, to the benefit of the air we breathe, our health and our impact on the planet. The government, at the national, city and local level, should be applauded for coming together to make this possible.

Tom Pike ● 2204d

And if there were pollution monitors on South Parade we’d be able to see how much up pollution is along there .... but sadly there are no such thing.

Mark Talbot ● 2204d

It was John Todd who brought the monitor on Devonshire Road to my  attention. You can find it here:  https://www.breathelondon.org/It’s good to have two independent pollution monitors to crosscheck, and they are in agreement they we’re currently seeing significantly improved air quality at these locations in Chiswick compared to the nearest monitor on the A4.

Tom Pike ● 2204d

Mark, I live a couple of blocks to the north and very regularly cross S Parade at the eastern end. I have not seen it backed up. Certainly parking along it has been lighter over the last few months, even though it offers easy access to Turnham Green Terrace across the Green. There were claims that the High Road was choking on fumes. Quite the opposite is in fact the case, and the Devonshire Road monitors show the improvement in air quality is wider than just on the High Road.

Tom Pike ● 2204d

Tom, I can assure you there are many roads that are seeing more traffic, if you want I can send pictures. So lets be clear, I fully accept that less traffic on DR means better air qaulity, even without a local air monitor. But by the same logic, air quality must have worsened in these other locations. Also, the key question is causality and the counterfactual. What would happen to the air quality in these locations without traffic displacement. It would have been better. Again, feel free to dispute the logic here. It is interesting that many of the local proponents of these schemes live on roads that have benefited from local restrictions, but simply do not care about the impact on others. Finally, your claim that all of Chiswick has better air is nothing to do with the closures, but rather the drop in background pollution from the A4 and other sources.Ken Munn has rightly pointed out that traffic has been terrible in chiswick for years, despite many closures and traffic management schemes going back over 20 years. Last year it was terrible, then we have all the new flats and a stadium on Chiswick roundabout. With thousands of vehicles looking to park in W4. What does that do for air qaulity?

Paul Green ● 2204d

When someone says they haven’t seen traffic backing up on South Parade you know it’s simply not worth the debate. Please get real and honest.

Mark Talbot ● 2204d

Paul, you are missing the point that we are seeing significantly larger improvements at the two Chiswick pollution monitors compared to the A4. That can’t be explained by lower background or traffic levels. As you cannot accept the reality of traffic evaporation, I can see you’ll have difficulty understanding these measurements, but it is possible that what we are seeing is simply less people driving as a result of these measures. So far it’s been mostly stick, and I can understand railing against that. But now we’re increasingly seeing the carrot of improved provision for active travel. That should help maintain the gains we are already seeing, and I certainly hope provide further improvements.

Tom Pike ● 2204d

Mark, very sadly the vocal lobbyists are so entrenched in their views that lies and disinformation is part of their operating model. They seem blind to the damage this does to their cause. It would not matter so much if they did not have the ear of the decision makers in Hounslow who choose not to question it, nor worry if consultations are distorted by people who live nowhere near W4 and will never come here.

Paul Green ● 2204d

Tom, I have a few questions if I may. What’s your methodology please? You posted a chart, how does the data correlate with the design of an LTN? Do you have any data on the correlation of economic activity and levels - on this, any data on the ‘shopping boom’ that you claimed was happening in Chiswick in the letter to Shapps that you added your name to?

Russell Pearson ● 2204d

Indeed Russell. To have faith in any of Tom's supposedly data based claims, one would want to see all the evidence for the claim that the High Road is 'booming'. I am sure he must have a lot. He must also have comparison data to show the counter factual, i.e. with the shift to WFH and stay local, how much of any benefit (if there is any) is due to the road closures and not the COVID impact on lifestyle patterns.

Paul Green ● 2204d

Of course I've seen traffic queues on South Parade. I cross at the bottom of Newton Grove and the parking means buses have to alternate to get past. But I haven't seen gridlock the length of the Parade in the last few months. That's not to say it hasn't happened, just that it's certainly not the norm.

Tom Pike ● 2204d

Tom, why do you keep ignoring the questions from myself and Russell, it is really quite central to your credibility. I think you should have ventured a little further west to get a sense of the congestion in recent months. It is interesting that as well as being fit enough to cycle you are also in easy walking distance of TGT, and fit enough to do so. Those with health and mobility issues seem to have no input into your brave new world.

Paul Green ● 2204d

Tom, of course I can accept that if you significantly reduce traffic on a road and remove some of the most polluting vehicles, pollution falls. YOU are the one ignoring the clear implication, that if you displace traffic onto already busy and congested roads, pollution WILL increase there. What reality of traffic evaporation? You are willfully misrepresenting data. Your claim re Hammersmith bridge was fully exposed. TELL ME TOM: WHY HAVE BUS SPEEDS FALLEN EVERY YEAR FOR 10 YEARS. This is central to your deception, yes overall traffic volume are falling but congestion on remaining routes is increasing.Its interesting also that when I suggested traffic in Chiswick generally was still below pre COVID levels, you and your team rushed to rubbish that with London wide data. But the falling pollution on the A4 clearly shows traffic is down there, but despite this many roads around Chiswick have seen more congestion due to displacement. When life returns to normal it will be chaos

Paul Green ● 2204d

Russell, I'm looking at monthly averages this year compared to the same period last year at these locations. Comparing the Chiswick results to the A4, which I'm pleased you suggested, allows common factors such as weather and traffic makeup to be factored out to a large extent.I'm not sure if you can draw conclusions about the design of a specific LTN from this. It does show the traffic restrictions that might affect the High Road, on TGT, Devonshire Road and Fishers Lane, are not having a negative impact on the air quality on the High Road or Devonshire Road. As Paul said, this should be unsurprising, but I know people have been arguing the opposite, that the restrictions would lead to higher pollution levels. These measurements certainly show that is not happening. We should shortly be getting more traffic data from the sensors both Hounslow and Ealing have installed to monitor flow on roads around Chiswick. These will provide objective measures of how the LTNs are working in practice in Grove Park, and whether the traffic restrictions to the north are significantly displacing traffic onto other roads. If the overall result is more motor traffic, which necessarily means more pollution and more emissions, then no doubt these measures should be reversed. The drop in recorded pollution at both our monitoring stations is however very encouraging, and I hope even those who currently oppose these measures would see the case for continuing them if they are delivering a cleaner and greener Chiswick.The letter I agreed to sign to Grant Shapps was simply saying that contrary to the "hammer blow" to retail that the councillors said Chiswick felt from these restrictions, the High Road had one of its best retail days ever from the Flower Market, and shop vacancies have fallen, about 30% down from July last year. The letter was careful not to claim these were direct results of traffic restrictions. Rather our letter was suggesting that the picture of doom and gloom painted by the councillors was not an accurate reflection of how our retailers have been actively taking on the challenge of operating in these difficult times, and the support they have enjoyed from the broader community.

Tom Pike ● 2204d

Interesting thread. The denial of traffic evaporation is a bit silly but why would you believe something you have never looked into. I would never have believed you could rest a pint of lager on the top of Kim Kardashian's arse but there you go.Let's say a percentage of traffic is displaced. Would you rather have less pollution where there are loads of people and a small increase  where there are few or the other way round?I reckon i know where my money would go for the overall health of the community.

Tony Smart ● 2204d

Tony, again you clearly like Tom know lots and we just simpletons. I reviewed in detail the information presented by Tom around Hammersmith bridge. I would have given it a D if presented in an A level class. So Tony, tell me, why are bus journey times falling every year in London. Because the concept of traffic evaporation would imply that they must increase, especially with more bus priority measures. Or is it simply that channeling traffic onto ever more restricted road space reduces throughput (i.e. volumes fall) but increases congestion (i.e. travel speeds fall).  After 20 years of traffic reduction measures in W4 and surrounds, why was congestion pre-COVID so bad? Traffic evaporation would imply it must get better? Or do we rely on 10 years for things to 'settle down'

Paul Green ● 2204d

> I reckon i know where my money would go for the overall health of the community.Yes, a properly planned scheme based on full consultation with local residents and stakeholders. Something woefully missing in the Chiswick LTNs. And a key litmus test for Shapps. Before someone mentions it, the Commonplace survey site is totally inadequate for this task, and is at best a useful preliminary tool for identifying hotspots on a map, where a thorough consultation can then progress to explore various solutions in detail and in partnership with the community.

Russell Pearson ● 2204d

So Tony, tell me, why are bus journey times falling every year in London. Because the concept of traffic evaporation would imply that they must increase, especially with more bus priority measures.Don't belittle yourself like that. You make some good points sometimes and are far from being a simpleton.I would think you are intelligent enough to work out there is a limit to what is acceptable to a persons journey time and if that limit is exceeded then they will try to find another way. People will still try but the worse it gets the more people will change habits. You are still fighting against other forces such as population growth but you can make some serious dents when you give people a legitimate choice and that can lead to a strong change in culture.Or you can add another lane in the road and watch it get filled up by a whole new load of cars thus digging yourself even deeper into a hole.Of course the third option is the favourite one of most people on this forum who protest against anything that encourages not driving 800m. Do nothing and let someone else worry about the consequences after they have long gone.

Tony Smart ● 2204d

Please get real and honest.I completely concur.When a scientist refuses to acknowledge how a pandemic and global economic shutdown has not played a part in fewer people out and about (dare I mention the bit where government shielded an entire sector of the population) it simply isn't worth the energy. He is myopic. He always will be. What we do know for sure, he is not fit for redesigning the urban environment. He has zero credentials for it.

David Lesniak ● 2204d

"shop vacancies have fallen, about 30% down from July last year"Apologies in advance, folks.Bullshit.

David Lesniak ● 2204d

Tony, its you that seems to belittle others. 'There is a limit to what is acceptable... then they will try to find another way'.THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. It is clear that much traffic will be displaced, and then people will avoid Chiswick ONLY if the A4/ North Circular are faster. But it means near permanent congestion on certain local routes for this to work. We know just how congested the main routes are already, before trying to funnel more traffic along them.WE HAVE HAD 20 YEARS OF THESE SCHEMES, WHAT IS DIFFERENT NOW?'fighting other forces such as population growth'. Not at all, car use is falling, but not faster than reductions in road capacity. You are IGNORING key forces such as an AGEING POPULATION, who are ignored in the cycle-first, everyone else second schemes.'Or add another lane'. GROW UP WITH THE STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS. No one is suggesting this, so why even bring it up. Embarrassing'third option is favourite of most people on this forum'. NO ITS NOT. STOP LYING. Nothing is further from the truth.

Paul Green ● 2204d

At the risk of getting a lot brickbats thrown at me, I am going to insert myself into the debate on air quality.At the moment we only have data from 2 monitors, one on a road that is effectively closed to traffic and the other on a road that has been crippled by roadworks.Statistically the data is obviously insignificant if what you are trying to argue about is air quality in Chiswick as a whole.Similarly comparing 2019 data against 2020 data is statistically absurd given the effect of Covid on traffic volumes and the effect of LTNs etc on traffic patterns.It may be that that when we have enough data from enough parts of Chiswick we can make an assessment as to whether the road changes have improved air quality in Chiswick generally or whether it is simply a function of lower overall traffic volumes.  Right now it is too early to tell ad any argument based on the current data is misleading at best

Justin Stephenson ● 2203d

Justin, what you've written seems to make good sense to me.

Andrew Jones ● 2203d

Ok I tried to explain and you clearly don't want to listen so there why bother asking a question?You have no interest in understanding how traffic evaporation works and and you are really struggling to understand how it can work and why a road can still be busy. It's my job to understand this stuff so I'll just crack on and leave you stay in the do nothing camp and to enjoy writing your capital letters.

Tony Smart ● 2203d

how a pandemic and global economic shutdown has not played a part in fewer people out.Probably should have been the main focus of your top hat blame post.

Tony Smart ● 2203d

Agree, Justin, but we need air quality monitors on Chiswick Lane, Acton Lane, South Parade, Burlington Lane and all other routes in the vicinity that have significant traffic going through (a lot more than previously) in order for a proper evaluation of air quality to be made, say every two months for a year or more as the Covid horror continues to unfold.  We won't really have a true picture until we get that under control, and no decisions about permanence should be made until well after that has happened.

Claire Moran ● 2203d

100% David, utter and complete tosh re 30%, can now see how the other claims are arrived at.

Mark Talbot ● 2203d

Tony, on reflection what do you think this post achieves? Other than to look like another smug cylcing lobbyist. No one denies the pandemic is the main problem. But that is also the point, when business is already under the cosh, why make life even harder for them. Why implement a scheme without asking local traders and then refuse to engage with them. What is the criteria for 'success' of these local schemes. In no other walk of life could you implement something without having any idea how you judge its success. I guess that the problem when you are spending other people's money.

Paul Green ● 2203d

No one denies the pandemic is the main problem.Tell that to Robin, Loraine and David.

Tony Smart ● 2203d

LP/18th/18.23/Top Hat thread: "After the Covid-19 lockdown you really think longstanding businesses could survive another 'hit' ?"Wrong again Tony - try and keep up

Loraine Pemberton ● 2203d

Indeed, Tony. Try and keep up.You are doing nothing more than furthering your agenda at all costs.Paul is absolutely correct. Businesses currently have both hands tied behind their backs and you opt to support schemes that now tie their feet together without and engagement with these businesses. And you opt to completely ignore how once one business domino falls the others will follow. It is a nasty equation. And all you want to do is sweep it under the rug.So I'll leave you with this. Apologies as it may sound a bit condescending:"It's my job to understand this stuff so I'll just crack on and leave you stay in the do nothing camp."

David Lesniak ● 2203d

Just been reading the letter Shapps sent to local transport leaders on the 16th. Looks like he might significantly reduce what they expect to get if the schemes don’t balance different needs, and/or there’s not been consultation. Hounslow fall foul of both of these criteria. Wonder if he will hit their coffers. Could they can use the PCNs to finance a shortfall in expected govt money if that happens?

Russell Pearson ● 2203d

I was talking to some visitors from York in TGT yesterday.  They were admiring the lady attempting to save drivers the fine.  In York there was a similar situation with access over a bridge, and eventually the council had to retract their new rules as it hadn’t been implemented properly with local consultations etc, and they had to pay back everyone who got fined.  So perhaps our local councillors are preparing for that situation with their £half a million Fines fund?

Lucy Chambers ● 2202d