Justin, you right that the claims are overstated and not verifiable, just like Tom's claims about Hammersmith Bridge. It relies on being highly selective.If i close two lanes of the M1, I then monitor the amount of traffic flowing past this point. I also monitor some of the surrounding A roads. Of course, these cannot cope with the displaced traffic and so are gridlocked, as is the motorway. Some drivers give up this journey, others find alternative routes to alternative destinations, others sit in jams. But to Tom, the fact that fewer people now move between A and B proves evaporation, not least because congestion is simply not measured.So we see in W4, the design of CS9 intentionally throttles traffic, creating long queues before the new bus gate, at the eastern end with loss of left turn lane and shorter green periods, and Acton Lane to South Parade. Many of these routes, already busy, become gridlocked. So again Tom would look at aggregate data and say 'oh look, its evaporated'. A truly incredible claim when many see queues of traffic.Then you only measure air quality in the central stretch, where there is less traffic, and go oh look at the nice clean air. Tom even now claims CS9 has caused the lower pollution, not the near complete lockdown or the fact that all the measures specifically reduce the number of vehicles past the monitor. Its madness and frankly dishonest. He simply does not care about those residents who face more traffic and more pollution.Such myopic and biased conclusions.
Paul Green ● 2094d