Forum Topic

Chiswick Cycle Lane - Missed Opportunity

What a missed opportunity this cycling lane through Chiswick looks like it is going to be.To start with, nobody hates people on bikes.  Most people have bikes, some use them more than others.With that in mind a new cycle lane that works well and does not unduly inconvenience other road users would (I think) be welcomed.One that has been properly funded and looks at the whole infrastructure, roads, footpaths, parking spaces, (tree removal and replanting if required).We could have ended up with a high street that was a model for the whole country.But what we have now has dragged people into one of two camps.  Both focused on what they believe is best.One group suggesting the other are like a bunch of Trump supporting conspiracy theorists, but it seems that applies to both groups.There are now two scenarios:We keep the cycle lane and the pro cycling group hope that over the years the resentment fades and we get used to it.As I now think we will never get a properly funded cycleway and will be stuck with what we have. I think resentment and push back will always be there.Alternatively,  after a recognition of failure, the “cheap” cycle lane will be remove and chances are we will never have a well designed and implemented one.I think this realisation is why the pro cycling group will defend the implementation whatever the outcome.As I say, what a missed opportunity.  Would it have been better not to have grabbed whatever was on offer now and waited (even if it took a number of years) for a cycle lane that really works.

Kieran Fox ● 2156d86 Comments

I agree. As a resident, cyclist and driver, keen to use local shops etc, I was bitterly disappointed at the implementation of this cycle lane. I know some cyclists will say that I should have been more involved in the first consultation. I think that the whole mixing up of the cycle lane, road closures and implementing of LTNs around Chiswick  has confused the whole issue. The only outcome now, whatever happens is that one half of Chiswick will feel aggrieved for years to come.Such a shame to have split this lovely community into fighting factions

Alex McDevitt ● 2156d

It's just possible that this is all a cunning ruse to make the people of Chiswick wish that the "full-fat" CS9 had gone ahead. Despite the loss of trees and pavements it would have been better that this abomination. However given the state of TfL's finances I fear that if it stays in operation for any length of time the  "temporary" cycle lane will turn out to be like the emergency prefab houses that followed WW2 - some of them were still around 70 years later.

Bruce Hammal ● 2156d

The cycleway is designed according to a very specific set of parameters laid out by the government. They want a radical approach to cycling in London but don't want to give TfL much money so this is the inevitable result. Unless by some miracle there is a dramatic transformation of government finances this will not change so the permanent scheme will never be built. Personally I buy into the idea that borough transport engineers designed this scheme with a view to keeping their jobs. They were underwriting their continued employment by having a scheme built that six months later they would have to remove.

Mark Evans ● 2156d

Mark your last para can be the only explanation for such a bodged design it is not fit for purpose and actually endangers lives. The only sensible option is to remove it and then peace will be restored.

Jayne Thorburn ● 2156d

There is already a cycle lane alongside the A4 - ample room, few side roads to cross.  With some adjustments this could have been an ideal place to put the main cycling lane for east/west/east commuting.  Chiswick Hi Rd, short of demolishing the buildings all along one side is simply NOT wide enough for wide boulevards for pedestrians, 2 bus lanes with safe and easy access for pedestrians and disabled etc.,  2 segregated cycle lanes, ideally 2 dual carriage ways for motorised traffic, incl., motor bikes, cars, vans, delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, and HGVs.  Ideally this wide new road would have to be extended all the way into Hammersmith and on to - WHERE exactly??  Where is it to start from in the west, from Chiswick Roundabout?  Or from Kew Bridge itself bearing in mind of course that the Bridge itself is narrow and the developers have already predetermined the road width along to Chiswick Roundabout.No wonder the magicians at Hounslow Council or is it TfL were and are not keen to undertake such a highly desired project - is it in fact highly desired?  By whom?

Jennifer Selig ● 2156d

Another reason why this cycle lane won't be used is the apparent setting of the traffic lights at the CHR/Dukes Avenue junction which I watched this afternoon. I know the track isn't open yet, but proper traffic lights do seem to be installed here, with extra units for the benefit of cyclists.  I was surprised to see that, while the main East/West traffic on CHR was flowing through on green, E/W cyclists would still be held on red, possibly to 'protect' them from traffic turning into Dukes Avenue.  When Dukes Avenue traffic was on green, CHR cyclists were held on red as you'd expect, and during the pedestrian period, CHR cyclists were also held on a red. CHR cyclists eventually appeared to have their own green phase, which lasted for about three seconds. Maybe these timings will be altered when the cycle lane is in use, but the present arrangement, with such an extended red period for cyclists, will cause understandable frustration and misuse and avoidance of the whole scheme. We've yet to see what the proposed left turn for cyclists into TGT involves, which according to the sign has to be done 'in two stages'.

Peter Evans ● 2156d

The full-fat version wouldn't be demonstrably different for cyclists. The turning issue remains a huge obstacle that can't be overcome unless you simply remove intersections altogether. Pedestrian amenity would suffer given reduced pavement width.I think what we're seeing is a blessing in disguise. It proves it doesn't work and no amount of additional funding can fix that.

David Lesniak ● 2156d

I don't fundamentally disagree with you David. However I think the big losers under the "temporary" scheme are bus users. Not so long ago with the "greening" of bus fleets this was seen as the responsible mode of mass transport. The arrival of smart phones and apps also transformed the attractiveness of bus travel. To have removed bus lanes to provide cycle lanes frankly makes no sense. The assumption that every cyclist is a reformed motorist is wrong - I think a high proportion of people cycling would probably otherwise walk - or take the bus. Of course until the pandemic has passed it would be foolish to make any firm judgement about all this, let alone spend money on major infrastructure.My worry is that the CHR cycle lane has become totemic and no matter how demonstrably poor it might turn out to be in its current form there are those (some in positions of power) who will never concede the point and we will end up stuck with this mutant for years to come.I have to say that I find it quite ironic that the current hold-up in completing the cycle lane appears to be the installation of the traffic lights. The notion that we will see armies of cyclists patiently waiting for a cycling green is frankly laughable. I would be happy to be proved wrong but the evidence of my own eyes over many years tells me I won't be.

Bruce Hammal ● 2155d

Duke's Avenue ... the lights that are meant to hold cyclists are ridiculous. What will happen is a cyclist will approach the red light in the cycle lane, see the green light in the main traffic lane and slip out of the cycle lane into the main traffic in order to cross the junction, exactly as a cyclist would have done had the cycle lane not been there.There is nothing to stop a cyclist doing this and it isn't illegal. It's going to be very interesting watching how this unfolds when the cycle lane is open, especially when you start to consider the other huge problem - the Chiswick Lane junction.

Chris Blackwell ● 2155d

Are we the only people with a brain cell, just looking at this design on paper would highlight how difficult it was to create a cycle lane on the Chiswick High Road. Everyone’s comment are well made and real issues with this design. It doesn’t work for anyone in fact it is worse it is actually significantly more dangerous than the original road. I am surprised that the health & safety executive approved such a scheme. I wonder how many incidents will happen before the idiots at Hounslow council accepts they have caused more harm to life.

Jayne Thorburn ● 2155d

Sorry, Bruce, I forgot to mention buses.That wouldn't change either between temporary or permanent schemes as bus lanes were always scheduled for removal. The only change would be better bus islands at the expense of wider pavements. So no one benefits in either scenario. Which gets me to my point why spend more money to acheive the same result?

David Lesniak ● 2155d

David to my eternal shame I didn't really take nearly as much notice of all this as I should have first time round - and I don't think I was alone. I was aware of the argument over stealing pavement space but I hadn't appreciated that even then the bus lanes had to be compromised. This is utter nonsense and the fact that things have come this far indicates the massive flaw at the heart of CS9 in both current incarnations. I still just fail to see why the High Road route won out over the A4 option except that the latter didn't make nearly enough of a statement as far as London Cycling and chums were concerned.Whatever, we are in a pretty pickle. This won't end well.

Bruce Hammal ● 2155d

"Most people have bikes"...er no. Even in the pedestrian hell that is Cambridge, only 20% of people ride a bike. That drops to much lower percentages elsewhere and that only when its not raining in mid-summer.https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/walking-and-cycling-statistics-england-2018It does not matter how many Draconian measures are bulldozed through once-pleasant town centres and elsewhere, cycling will only ever attract a tiny minority of people for a minority of journeys, the reasons for which are blatantly obvious. Instead of wasting millions of pounds when councils are going bankrupt and will be spending years dealing with the consequences of Covid-19, why don't people who want to cycle get trained, pay for insurance, be readily identifiable and learn to cope with the 21st century as it is, not try to drag us back into the 19thC because they are too scared to ride in the road.So-called cycling and walking officials have actually made life a misery for pedestrians while continuing to do nothing about broken, leaf and litter-strewn pavements where they have given cyclists caret blanche to ride through not prosecuting them for breaking the law.Cyclists can always chose another mode of travel but everyone needs to walk at some point and shouldn't have to risk their safety because of it.

Charlotte Kasner ● 2152d

Totally agree with everyone a missed opportunity to improve infrastructure, poorly thought through, too much politics the A4 was always the most efficient use of space. The Chiswick High Road losing the bus lane a massive step back for public transport  I can’t believe TFL agreed to this. The whole scheme is a mess and everyone involved should put their hands up.

Jayne Thorburn ● 2152d

It appears that the segregated cycle lane is designed for cycling through Chiswick, not for local commuting, in fact I could not work out how to join the cycle lane safely from Fisher Lane or Windmill road travelling East. I have also noticed that if travelling West to East and wanting to turn left at Turnham Green Terrace, the sign at the traffic light says "no left turn except in two stages". Does it mean that one has to turn right into Annandale Road first, then across CHR to TGT?As mentioned by many others, the A4 should have been upgraded for long distance travelling and have conventional cycle lanes/bus lanes for local travelling in CHR. I think that would have been the best compromise for all, cyclists, bus users, pedestrians (not so much increased pollution) car drivers and delivery drivers.Last week a huge lorry was delivering outside Pizza Express ant taking up most of one the lanes.A delivery space has been created outside Robert Dyas which takes part of the pavement space. The other morning the space was taken up by a lorry used by builders currently working at the Carluccios old site thus not leaving much space for pedestrians to walk trough. So much for social distancing!

Aldo del Bottegone ● 2152d

For the XR ideologues and their fellow travellers supporting the cycle lane and associated road closures, it’s a seized opportunity. Their aim is not to create a solution that works for all the community, but to discourage any driving, or to “disincentivize“ it to use their doublespeak jargon. Until we address that, all attempts to create a more rational alternative will fail.

Russell Pearson ● 2152d

Turning issues across raised crossings are much safer. Pedestrian amenity is much much better with raised crossings and signalised crossings replacing zebras. You actually couldn't be more wrong. The permanent scheme is far superior to the temporary. Still would have preferred with flow though.

Tony Smart ● 2152d

Russell  You have not tackled the problem of intransigents with no vision.  The ones who can't and won't deal with any change.  That also has to be tackled.

Philippa Bond ● 2152d

That vision you speak of Philippa needs to accommodate the basic function of residents' lives and the variety of local businesses.To Aldo's point, simply watch the new loading bay in front of the vet. It is a singular bay. Throughout the day you will see lorries that don't fit in that bay and more than one lorry at a time. The road has a slight bend at that point so west bound traffic can't see what is in front of the lorries so traffic veers into the east-bond lane. And then you get another lorry double-parked on the north side of CHR. This brings traffic to a halt especially when the buses jockey one another in both directions.So while you prat on about getting things delivered and thus undermine local businesses in doing so, you forget to think it through with the increased amount of delivery vehicles being unable to conduct their rounds. You also forget that LBH and Hammersmith and Ealing should all be coordinating their efforts for many reasons. But relative to delivery, a united initiative would enable logistics companies to streamline and maximize efficiencies. Something their algorithms will determine. All deliveries are part of a route. Chiswick is one stop on that route. If Hammersmith has a future delivery hub for last mile services, LBH better get its head out of its ass to develop the same and connect with the neighbors. For my money, there should be one hub servicing all three of these boroughs instead of three hubs each servicing its own. So Philippa, check  your own intransigence before pointing it out in others.

David Lesniak ● 2151d

Really not sure who they are Philipa - most people want change, one they can have a say in and which works, on balance, for most of us. But those voices are not being listened to. A lot of people in the southern borders (GP) for example, could accept some of the measures, they’d compromise, but they don’t understand the sheer range of road closures in such a tiny area with so few roads going in and out. That’s what I hear anyway, but only actual full consultation and dialogue would bring that to the fore.

Russell Pearson ● 2151d

You're right about the benefit (need) of a consultation prior to instigating these sorts of changes. The Stilehall/Wellesley road changes were consulted on a number of times over 3 years or so. It ended up with a scheme that the vast majority or residents were happy with. It arrived at a good balance between increased provision for cyclists and a reduction of rat-running, which residents understood it would lead to some inconvenience to car journeys etc but that was a relatively small price to pay for the improved living conditions etc.  The council suggested a number of possible schemes before instigating the current one. Some of these would have been a complete and utter nightmare, but the consultation allowed those to be avoided — because it included those who live there etc and understand the dynamics of a particular area, rather than being based on some road planners ideas based on some theory, drawings and data.  Not all road changes are bad and some are positive as Stilehall/Wellesley demonstrates. But rushing them through like the more recent Grove park schemes etc is a recipe for disaster. 

Rob Reynolds ● 2151d

Very well said Charlotte! Agree with every word!

Alex Shpinkov ● 2151d

Likewise Alex. Not everyone owns a bike and can just jump on one. Many people in London simply do not have anywhere to store bikes and hence many more people use public transport (i.e buses). The traffic on Chiswick high Road now between King Street and Chiswick Lane is more or less constant at all times of the day (not just rush hour) and anyone needing to use a bus needs to add on at least an extra 20 mins to their journey coming from Hammersmith. Living close to the High Road I can immediately sense the change in the air quality and equally the noise, honking of horns and emergency vehicles trying their best to get through the traffic. Why can't we have our High Road back to what it was, with a bus lane and busy times restricted to rush hour, which everyone understood and could live with.Chatting to my hairdresser the other day - who commutes to his place of work by bicycle every day (last 30 years or so), I asked him what his thoughts were on the bike lane - 'complete waste of money and not on the right side of the road me to get to work, won't ever be using it'. He also got chatting to the workmen who were doing some work on it and asked them their thoughts - 'dangerous and waste of money' was their comment. Yes ,everyone agrees we have to save the planet etc etc, but by ruining a small London suburb with increased traffic levels due to lane restrictions, its only making it worse.

J Morse ● 2151d

There isn’t one person who thinks the cycle lane is an improvement, we all love change if it makes everyone’s life better, improves the environment for all. The cycle lane does completely the opposite, it’s dangerous for everyone and the fact that buses take 20 mins longer to do the same journey is shocking. Surely the idea should be to reduce journey times to save the planet.

Jayne Thorburn ● 2151d

I understood that a lot of lorries are already not allowed through London as they are regulated.  Perhaps some of those regulations need revisiting by the London Councils?  You can also have time restrictions for when lorries can travel on roads.  Heavy marketing with an increase in sub-contracting can cause problems.Councils have to be careful that their contractors for waste collection do not try and use vehicles that are too large for the streets. That happened in Ealing some time back.  I've complained a couple of times - about a large Council lorry in TGT driving over the pavement and a large Royal Mail van in Ealing which regularly did a U-turn over the pavement.  I've reported countless dislodged kerbstones, knocked over bollards and cracked and rocking paving stones caused by poor building practices and cars, vans and lorries riding over the pavements.Residents have made a big fuss about the look of their pavements but I'm not sure that they have taken as much interest in the damage that vehicles do to pavements which for anyone who falls can be life changing.  Are they also as good as reporting potholes and broken pavements on www.fixmystreet.com?H&F started doing deliveries for the last leg of journeys using cargo bikes in 2019. This article is interesting for several reasons: https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/articles/news/2019/09/hf-council-launches-pollution-free-delivery-serviceIt's good to see H&F are now starting food waste collections. I've been asking them for years about it!

Philippa Bond ● 2151d

https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20053/transport/1985/cycling_in_hounslowCheck out cycle parking on the above page.  You can request it.There are also e-scooter trials to come and pedestrians do not want to have to share the pavements with racing bikes and e-scooters either.  The heavier traffic also damages and makes both pavements and roads more dangerous.  They also damage the services underneath the roads

Philippa Bond ● 2151d

Listen 37m in to about 41.20mhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000pw7k

Hans Lund-Sorensen ● 2150d

"They were underwriting their continued employment by having a scheme built that six months later they would have to remove."100% correct.

Steve Taylor ● 2149d

"So-called cycling and walking officials have actually made life a misery for pedestrians while continuing to do nothing about broken, leaf and litter-strewn pavements where they have given cyclists caret blanche to ride through not prosecuting them for breaking the law."100% correct.

Steve Taylor ● 2149d

Apparently some think we should be picking up the leaves ourselves.  If you contact the Council for a bag, they will drop it off, you then contact them and they will collect it.  OR they could just do the job they are paid for.

Maggie Dodge ● 2149d

I try not to read this forum too often at the moment because it raises my blood pressure 😆 but I’ve been reading the comments here, earlier of course I agreed with the OP that these changes are a missed opportunity. I wanted to answer Philippa’s point about people not liking change because although I’m sure she’s a lovely person this comment felt to me not only wrong but also a bit patronising. It is true some people don’t like change of course, although living in London it’s difficult to avoid change. What has been proven is that people don’t like to feel a lack of control over their lives. I’ve previously worked on multi million pound (and euro) projects making huge changes to people’s lives and my experience is that unless you work with the people involved then Your project is doomed to fail, or worse than that you cause a proportion of people so much stress it can cause illness. So I don’t think the issue here is a resistance to change but a genuine feeling of being controlled by a small group of people, often not local, who don’t understand the nature of the project, worse still haven’t done the pre project work to understand what success looks like. They have implemented multiple changes in too quick a timeframe, which means they have no idea what works and what doesn’t, which means they will never be able to convince the majority of local residents that any of these changes are good. They could have made the changes over time, I know people will say that they had a timeframe for the money from the government, no excuse I’m afraid, if they really want to develop a less car centric society they’re never going to be able to implement that fundamental change in the space of a few months. So Philippa this is why people are unhappy not because we’re unable to accept change but because we’re unable to accept these mass changes, because they’ve been poorly “planned” and poorly implemented. Chiswick is full of intelligent professional people, we know when something has been poorly managed - and this has been poorly managed

Alex McDevitt ● 2148d

Alex, your post is spot on. People feel utterly powerless (not surprising as Hounslow have disenfranchised them) and a small lobby group are driving their own agenda. Changes are having real and significant impacts on both residents and local business, but all complaints are sneeringly dismissed. By people who dont personally suffer from any of the negative impacts. They are typically middle class professionals who can happily WFH and certainly do not live on roads that are seeing much more pollution and traffic. In fact, the opposite is true.From a broader traffic perspective, even a material shift in local habits to bikes cannot compensate for the loss of road capacity and the fact that so much traffic in W4 is either commercial or through traffic. Of course, there is simply no planning for this. So each new disruption causes chaos, and Guy Lambert who a couple of months ago was sharing pictures of empty streets is nowhere to be seen. Funny that.

Paul Green ● 2148d

https://mindthezag.com/featured/cheeky-junctions-cyclings-best-kept-secret/

Hans Lund-Sorensen ● 2143d

Here is another good reason for Micromobility infrastructure.Poor girl.standard.co.uk/news/london/air-pollution-contributed-ella-kissidebrah-death-london-inquest-b337127.html

Hans Lund-Sorensen ● 2142d

Yes the diesel black cabs and buses should have been banned years ago. Hopefully Covid has turned people off using public transport so that pollution can be reduced. We need to replace cabs, cars and buses with ebikes and escooters and reduce bus lanes and taxi lanes.

Steve Taylor ● 2142d

Given the all the crazy schemes Hounslow council have thrust on Chiswick residents, more congestion, more pollution perhaps we should all sue the council that might make them sit up and listen to local residents!

Jayne Thorburn ● 2142d

Buses seem to proclaim they are green. In that case they must be better than several cars.

Vivienne Cox ● 2142d

When we can quote chapter and verse, yes of course.  At the moment, unless you can prove otherwise, we can't.

Claire Moran ● 2142d

Perhaps an LTN is to blame. This from the mother:https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18616846.air-quality-voice-rosamund-kissi-debrah-slams-lee-green-ltn/

David Lesniak ● 2142d

David is correct. The mother of the child who sadly died has been a very vocal critic of LTNs. Her view is that these schemes displace traffic onto already busy and congested routes, so increasing pollution for the residents there. These residents are often some of the more disadvantaged who may have no choice on where they live.This same issue has been raised by the Labour Ealing MP and residents across Hounslow and Ealing. It is always ducked by the proponents of these schemes. This judgement could have some big impact on both TFL and the boroughs, who create cleaner air for most by creating dirtier air for a sizable minority.

Paul Green ● 2141d

I think Alex has nailed it.  This quick implementation with a lack of planning and consultation has been a disaster.One group thinks they have ‘Won’ but haven’t we all ‘Lost’.  (Isn’t that a line from a movie 😉)

Kieran Fox ● 2141d

"Buses seem to proclaim they are green. In that case they must be better than several cars."An oft quoted factoid is that one one diesel bus emits thirty times as much air pollution a thirty petrol cars. Diesel engines emit the particulates that are now known to be so damaging to lungs.Chiswick High Road is notorious for it poor air quality. TfL could have done us all a favour by replacing the buses that travel on this road with electric or hydrogen powered vehicles. There technology has been there for some years.

Thomas Samuel hearn ● 2141d

".... replace cabs, cars and buses with ebikes and escooters and reduce bus lanes and taxi lanes. "Can't wait to see the halt and lame or the merely tottery and the "ancients" all wobbling along the highways aboard their escooters (with carer on board), or astride the ebikes, panniers bulging with oxygen bottles, crutches or just a single walking aid - that really will be a sight to gladden the eyes of many a beholder - better than a circus parade - red noses & clown hats an essential!

Jennifer Selig ● 2141d

Jennifer  You forget that there are already motorised mobility scooters and motorised wheelchairs as well.  Please don't limit the options. The more the merrier.

Philippa Bond ● 2141d

At least the 94 bus is all-electric.

Peter Evans ● 2141d

2Jayne  If you want to sue anybody you should be suing the Govts who have failed to do anything for so many years.  It is 30+ years since the scientists warned us that we needed to do something about reducing CO2.  The Govt has been taken to court several times and LOST over the illegal pollution in this country.  The craven pursuit and retention of power in our failed electoral system seems to have allowed part of the electorate to carry on recklessly consuming and polluting regardless with no conscience or foresight. Remember David Cameron's Greenest Govt Ever?  And then Cut the Green Cr@p?https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/david-cameron-theresa-may-climate-change-greenest-government-ever-failed-a7137391.htmlSo the buck gets passed for someone else to do the dirty work for Britain - "the dirty man of Europe".All those jobs in the clean and green industries lost because of a split Conservative party.  The engineering companies installing wind turbines being built in the Channel who employed people on the coast and gave work to hotels where the workers lodged who then lost custom.There is a bigger picture to your own personal discomfort.

Philippa Bond ● 2141d

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/03/eu-dilutes-proposal-halve-air-pollution-deaths-uk-lobbyinghttps://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/news/uk-government-loses-third-air-pollution-case-as-judge-rules-air-pollution-plans-unlawful/The third court case lost above was in 2018BTW I believe that Ella Kissi-Debrah died seven years ago.Her mother Rosamund is one of campaigners with a place in the Woman's Hour Power List of environmental campaigners.

Philippa Bond ● 2141d

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/03/eu-dilutes-proposal-halve-air-pollution-deaths-uk-lobbyinghttps://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/news/uk-government-loses-third-air-pollution-case-as-judge-rules-air-pollution-plans-unlawful/The third court case lost by the UK Govt above about illegal air pollution was in 2018BTW Ella Kissi-Debrah died seven years ago.  Her mother Rosamund is one of the environmental campaigners listed on the BBC Radio 4 Woman's Hour.  A lot of very interesting women.  Today it was Franny Armstrong - British documentary film-maker of The Age of Stupid and McLibel.

Philippa Bond ● 2141d

of course Brexiting may mean that the UK Govt will manage to avoid some more environmental court cases.https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/02/25/brexit-court-cases-eu-uk-environment-bog-burning/

Philippa Bond ● 2141d

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/pollution-and-air-quality/cleaner-buses#:Buses have been getting cleaner.  They are not exactly cheap.

Philippa Bond ● 2141d

So is it true, Philippa, as some have said recently on the site, that Debra's mother blames LTNs for poor air quality that killed her daughter?

Claire Moran ● 2141d

Yes it is. LTNs are causing a massive increase in pollution where vehicles are forced to use already congested roads.  Twickenham Road is another example of this where Church Street to Syon Park was blocked and traffic is now diverted past three schools!!!  Hounslow Council has a lot to answer for!!

Steve Taylor ● 2140d

She lived on and near busy roads.  It takes a long time to make changes in this country - especially when there are behind the scenes lobbying and a very powerful fossil fuel industry.  Were there LTN's that long ago?  Her mother has been campaigning for a new CLEAN AIR ACT.  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/16/air-pollution-verdict-shines-political-light-uk-invisible-killer-ella-kissi-debrah

Philippa Bond ● 2140d

See how the motoring lobby jump in.  Should we all get back to 'normal' and increase pollution everywhere - or should we make some changes - some of which may not be easy for us - to achieve something better?

Philippa Bond ● 2140d

"Were there LTN's that long ago?"Yes, but you knew that.Her mother is campaigning against LTNs.But you knew that, as well.

David Lesniak ● 2140d

Not the motoring lobby, Philippa.But you know that.I just called you out on yet another of your half truths that omit facts is all. I think its called being held to account in this country.

David Lesniak ● 2140d

The LTN's are designed purely to re-direct traffic from the leafy more expensive areas to the highly congested roads where the less privileged folk live.

Steve Taylor ● 2140d

Philippa, some people need carers with them, these mobility scooter or wheelchairs are no replacement for a car.

Janice Evans ● 2140d

David  So neither of us know everything then.  I never expected to.  I did at least know that air pollution is bad and wouldn't choose to live on or near a main road - but then I have a choice.  So how do you propose that we wake up an entire population and get them to reduce all their unnecessary and polluting vehicles and reduce their use of them on our roads without getting them to make any changes to their lives?Here is a rational article about West London:https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/11/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-LTNs-London-car-street-cycling-walking-culture-war-pollution-gentrification

Philippa Bond ● 2140d

So Philippa says'I did at least know that air pollution is bad and wouldn't choose to live on or near a main road - but then I have a choice'It rather depends on how we define a 'main road'. Is Acton Lane and South Parade a main road? Is Heathfield Gardens? TGT clearly is, but then the lobbyists want to close it. And nice you have a choice, others do not. Do you care?Also with new flats and the decline of shops we are seeing more people living on main roads, the High Road is a good example of that. Think of all the flats being built down by Chiswick roundabout. Many people may have chosen to live on busier roads when traffic was tolerable, but now with no democratic mandate or consultation, councils such as Hounslow have decided to divert even more traffic onto them, with LTNs leaving no escape,The article you linked has the language I have seen from other biased lobby articles, that 'only' 10% of people live on main roads. So we abandon them to ill health? You say you and others all know the harm that pollution does, yet support condemning certain residents to permanent pollution? The mother of the child that died opposes LTNs for these reasons, she opposes the selfishness of campaigners who live on quite roads (or as in W4, have benefited from schemes that quite their own roads while diverting traffic onto other busy roads). So do many residents across west London.

Paul Green ● 2140d

I live in a green and leafy area - nowhere better than Grove Park but Hounslow Council are doing their best to bugger that up with their closed roads, divisions, diversions and cameras and white exemption lists!

Jennifer Selig ● 2140d

Ooh go for it you lobbying motorist. I did notice how you jumped in earlier. Rent your spleen, won't you!No what we do is WE all wake up and WE REDUCE our own use of motor vehicles where WE can and WE tell our Govt that WE are tired of all the in-fighting and and WE want clean air and WE want clean alternative power and public transport and active transport routes.  WE want a situation where WE can travel and OUR children can travel by themselves and safely to and from school and where WE don't need to ferry them around.  WE need accessible stations and easy routes to them.  If Ella had been my child I would have been campaigning for clean air for ALL.  Have you actually asked Rosamund Kissi-Debrah if she is campaigning for clean air for ALL instead of conveniently using her campaign to support your selfish no-change one? I actually heard her say that she hadn't realised that air pollution was such a problem. Perhaps unlike me she had not read and realised that it was so bad in this country but worse than that UK Govts here were not only failing to act but lobbying for the figures deemed unacceptable to be lowered so they wouldn't be so onerous to reach.  Perhaps she didn't know about the air quality reports given out on radio for when it was advised as bad for asthmatics and those with heart problems to go out or exert themselves or was anyway unable to do anything about it if she did know.  It was certainly many years before I realised that such a lot of lobbying went on in Govt and that there were so many vested interests there.  What price breakfast with a PM?I expect you were lobbying against the fuel escalator too.We are ALL condemned to air pollution if we don't tell Govt to get their act together and do something about it instead of just passing the buck onto the Mayor and LAs so as to distance themselves from any unpopular decisions.I believe the South Circular is bigger than Acton Lane.Why exactly do you think HM and other dignitaries travel down or did travel down CHR?  You have to think past just being aghast that HM had problems.   

Philippa Bond ● 2140d

Funnily enough, Philippa, I also know air pollution is bad.But I also know transport is needed. And I also know I believe the residents and businesses of this community should have access to this community which you are campaigning against. For that matter, you campaign against shopping locally instead suggesting people shop online and get things delivered. And then you wang on about delivery vehicles destroying pavements.I think if you made walking and gathering in Chiswick the envy of all other boroughs with a grand scheme facilitating that you would have more people who would stroll not to mention stroll to shop and even just come to stroll for a day out. I also think that without support (by that I mean use) of public transport infrastructure you may as well kiss it goodbye. Because to spend millions on something that doesn't generate revenue whilst watching the revenue streams you do have die off, well then you ain't gonna have revenue (oh wait, TfL already doesn't) and then you ain't gonna have public transport. I think in a city that is a more civic minded choice where many of the arguments for cycling come across as entitled and privileged. I give you but one rich white guy in town who wants LTNs in his front yard so long as the displaced traffic goes someplace else. To him that's evaporation. To anyone with a functioning brain cell it is displacement. And then there is the white list. Perhaps we should ask Ms. Kissi-Debrah what she thinks of white lists.

David Lesniak ● 2140d

"Ooh go for it you lobbying motorist"This made me laugh.So the next time you're in a queue at Sainsburys, let's say, and the person in front of or behind you should piss you off, don't reach for tw*t or cu*t or plonker but lay into them with a "you lobbying motorist you" and see how far that gets you.

David Lesniak ● 2140d

Philippa, I know you are well intentioned and I do not want to sound overly critical. But you display the group think and labeling all opposition which is the approach of all the cycling lobbyists. Firstly, you don't know anything about the people who dare to object to these schemes. I support the fuel escalator and would like the congestion charge extended, a purely personal view. I used to own four bikes.You claim you want clean air for all, but LTNs as proposed by Hounslow, plus the new CS9, are delivering clean air for some but more pollution for others. As David points out, we all generate traffic, whether we drive our own vehicles, order online or visit shops (that need stocking). No amount of wishful thinking can suddenly change this.If you look to cities like Oslo, as other lobbyists encourage us to do, we see cycling schemes go hand in hand with expanded public transport. Here we sacrifice mass transit for cycling. It makes no sense and is discriminatory.

Paul Green ● 2140d

Yes, Janice I spent many years transporting and looking after the elderly and frail who needed two people with them - one to park the car and the other to accompany - and that was often just to hospital where I then had to walk whole floors to find a wheelchair because of the distances involved - until we bought our own just for hospital visits.  The car is not the only option for everyone.  There are some very natty mobility scooters but they also need speed limiters!  I remember there was a user in Chiswick who got an ASBO and I often used to see a gentleman with one in the Roebuck.  It can obviously be more convenient sometimes to go somewhere with your own mobile seat.Don't forget there are also car clubs and shared cars.

Philippa Bond ● 2140d

What's the going rate to rent a spleen?

Bruce Hammal ● 2140d

@ David,  I was actually replying to Paul not you who just had to jump in."I just called you out on yet another of your half truths that omit facts is all. I think its called being held to account in this country."What half truths?  You must just mean something that you don't agree with.

Philippa Bond ● 2139d

@ AlexI replied but deleted because as Ken would say TLTR.

Philippa Bond ● 2139d

@ DavidI also object to you making statements presuming you know what I think or know.  Please stick to what you think or know.

Philippa Bond ● 2139d

Oh dear, Philippa.You know precisely what I mean so own it.You offer up only one part of this woman's position and neglect to include her criticism of LTN's. It's blatantly obvious except to you. What I disagree with is your "strategy" of cherry picking your "data." "please stick to what you think or know"If you adhere to your own admonition then you'll be left with nothing left to say about me. Wedging me into corners of your own making must give you cramps.

David Lesniak ● 2138d

I saw a very near miss CHR/CL junction yesterday.Bloke on a bicycle veers from the cycle lane to avoid stopping at the cycle lights into the vehicle lane and starts to carry straight on. No lifesaver look and ears plugged with buds only for a left turning car to have to do an emergency stop to avoid hitting him.I was immediately behind on a scooter and foresaw what was about to happen so sounded my horn to alert the rider but because he couldn't hear (buds in ears) he just kept wandering along.Lucky this time but luck has a nasty habit of running out.

Adrian Irving ● 2138d

A mixed traffic system which relies on cyclists stopping at lights has a problem. If nothing else some serious work will have to be done to get home the point that obeying traffic signals and other measures like pedestrian crossings  is not optional. Similarly paying full attention is mandatory - so wearing headphones or looking at a phone is not a good idea. In Paris, where they have also introduced new cycling measures they have squads of "enforcers" who remind errant cyclists of their obligations as road-users and apply correctional measures where appropriate.Our traditional laissez-faire attitude to free range unregulated cycling can't be allowed to continue on crowded city streets where everyone needs to follow the rules. Anarchy is rarely good for your health.

Bruce Hammal ● 2138d

@ DavidDon't "Oh dear" me. We will just have agree to disagree because in no way am I agreeing with the stuff that you make up.

Philippa Bond ● 2138d

Dear, dear Philippa -You made an omission in your argument.I merely filled in the blank. Accurately I might add.And you choose to have a go at me in order to bolster your sloppy logic? Do I have that right?You can wish I make stuff up. But wishing won't make it so.

David Lesniak ● 2138d

I'm afraid that near misses don't seem to count - most probably because they are not recorded.  It used to be only a certain number of deaths that counted - which is gross.    How do you educate what seems to be a growing self-obsessed population?  There is so much media now - yet so much ignorance of road rules.  How do you attract their attention?I've heard radio ads - on Jazz FM I guess - warning drivers about ignoring the Red X on motorways and also about Tailgating.  I've also seen signs by road works where the road is narrow instructing drivers not to overtake cyclists.  None of these you would expect to be necessary.No messages for drivers about turning lights on front and back in poor visibility because you haven't read the manual and don't know that automatic front LEDs don't mean automatic red tail lights.No messages about riding cycles through red lights and reading and making texts while cycling - no hands.  Is it time for a blanket right of way ruling?

Philippa Bond ● 2138d

I've seen film of the enforcement guys in Paris and they lookmore like marshalls who show cyclists how to use the routes.

Philippa Bond ● 2138d

More of this to come?https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9071129/Patient-life-threatening-condition-sues-bike-lanes-near-hospital.html

Claire Moran ● 2138d

Definitely more of this to come. Hopefully the dim-witted Councillors who approved these obstructions, for selfish party political reasons,  will be hauled into Court.

Steve Taylor ● 2137d

It should also make self-important and selfish car users who are busy pretending that they can't walk or cycle or reduce their car usage at all and that it should be business as normal to think again.  However no doubt that would be expecting too much of them!

Philippa Bond ● 2137d

At least the two-way cycle lane now appears to be open, not that it's easy to tell. The 'Cycle Lane Closed' signs seem to have gone but there don't seem to be many cyclist using it.  I saw none going eastbound on it, but that will take some time for people to get the hang of.  Some 'Cycle Lane Open' signs might have helped, or 'This Way for the Cycle Lane' or 'Free Mince Pies on the Cycle Lane', or maybe 'This Cost Enough so you'd Better Use it'!

Peter Evans ● 2137d

Or free lessons on how to use, it funded by LCC, sounds like an accident waiting to happen

Maggie Dodge ● 2137d

I have been cutting a bit of slack for the pavement jockeys whilst it has been dangerous to cycle on the dogs dinner of a road but when the cycle lane is fully open they will get both barrels from me and that includes parents with their sprogs in tow.

Adrian Irving ● 2137d

I suggest in a Michael Cane voice;YOU'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO USE THE BLOODY CYCLE LANE!

Adrian Irving ● 2137d

I certainly saw no eastbound cyclists attempting to follow the 'diagonal dotted lines of doom' that tack across CHR's junction with Heathfield Terrace, to guide them into the contra-flow cycle lane. I did, however, see cars turning right into Heathfield Terrace as previously but now illegally.

Peter Evans ● 2137d

It won't be used much. They never are.

Steve Taylor ● 2137d