Forum Topic

Low Traffic Neighbourhood - Data

I haven't seen this posted anywhere on this board yet: https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/dramatic-drops-in-traffic-in-south-chiswick/Some really interesting data and certainly shows that the schemes have been effective in reducing traffic.

EH McNeill ● 2082d67 Comments

But where does the traffic go to ? Thats the issue...Low,to some its now high LBC RADIO NOW

Julian Pavey ● 2082d

"About Guest BloggerThis author has yet to write their bio.Meanwhile lets just say that we are proud Guest Blogger contributed a whooping 159 entries."Extract from Chiswick Calender above. Guest Blogger? This person is probably the likes of a well known local TV/ radio presenter.Come out, come out who ever you are if you what to be taken seriously that is.

Adrian Irving ● 2082d

And here's to you, Mr. Robinson Jesus loves you more than you will know Whoa, whoa, whoa God bless you, please, Mr. Robinson…

Russell Pearson ● 2082d

Thinking about it maybe Blogger is worried about breaking the terms of his/her employment contract.Now there's a thought.If that's the case then probably best to blogger off before getting exposed would be my advice.

Adrian Irving ● 2082d

Just more evidence that the pro cycling lobby will stop at nothing to get their own way. They simply cannot be trusted. And they wonder why they are so despised’.

Steve Taylor ● 2082d

Michael Robinson (as guest blogger) would say closing Hammersmith Bridge reduced traffic. Chiswick Calendar is an outlet for Hounslow Cycling propaganda that they milk very well. All part of their playbook.https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/cw9-takes-another-big-step-forward

Russell Pearson ● 2082d

The Great Conspiracy must be undermined. Put your best people on it. Do anything you can. Quote Simon and Garfunkel if necessary.

Edward Seaton ● 2082d

No conspiracy Ed, he’s clearly identified as the author. Nice try right out the playbook.“ Michael Robinson is a Chartered Engineer, Chiswick resident, data geek and a member of London Cycling Campaign. He receives no payment for being anything other than an engineer. ”

Russell Pearson ● 2082d

There is a Great Conspiracy Playbook as well? All part of the Evil Plot to destroy the place where I actually live. Makes sense.

Edward Seaton ● 2082d

I think the data shows that if you close a road to traffic, you get less traffic on that road.If the aim was to keep traffic on main routes and cutting out "rat runs", then I guess it worked.I used to live in Grove Park and I'd take Harvard Hill North onto the A4, swing round Chiswick roundabout and back up to Chiswick and into South Acton for work.Annoying to have the direct route blocked - but even at the time we realised that a 30 minute walk or 8 minute cycle was often quicker than the car.  The Hogarth Roundabout could take a good half hour or the Sutton Court Road approach (don't they know there's two lanes up at the top?!) was super stressful and often backed up to Heathfield Terrace.Maybe the detour to get to the A4 from Grove Park isn't the end of the world, if there's fewer cars on the local roads anyway?Kinda feels like lots fewer cars freeing roads up for locals using cars / bikes seems like it should be a good thing....but if you take cars off the roads, it just fills up with bloody kids on skateboards! I blame the parents - is it really that hard to give a teenager an Ipad and point him to a couch?

Ed Saper ● 2082d

There are many, many problems with the data analysis and in fairness to Michael Robinson some of the problems are not of his making but a function of the data itself.The first issue is that a single month's worth of data is not sufficient, especially in a pandemic, to assess the full effect of the scheme which is of course why LBH have always said the evaluation period was much longer. Any traffic scheme has short term, medium term and long term effects and so far all we are seeing are the short term effects which may or may not affected by the pandemic.The second issue is identifying where the traffic has gone, some of it will have evaporated but we do not know how much, and where traffic has diverted onto other routes is that causing a problem.  Again because all traffic schemes have short term, medium term and long term effects we simply cannot reach a conclusion yet.So whilst the data and the data analysis is interesting, it is way too early to base any conclusions on it.

Justin Stephenson ● 2082d

Agree with Justin. Firstly comparing September 2020 with September 2019 is comparing apples and oranges in the extreme. Sept 2020 saw the rule of 6 introduced, many bars and restaurants still closed, most people WFH, no cultural events (cinemas, theatres) and all sports stadiums empty).  Most important, LHR, which is a major driver of traffic through W4, was at 10% of normal capacity.So first point, we have no idea what the new normal traffic patterns will look like. It is most likely that the remaining 'through routes' such as Burlignton Lane and Sutton Court Rd will see much more traffic. The A316 and Hogarth will be even bigger choke points. So I am sure its lovely for some residents, but worse for a sizable minority. For the proponents of LTNs, the answer is 'tough' we dont live on these streets. We also know that businesses and local residents face major challenges with the restrictions on Hargington Road and SoTG, which have turned them into nice little private roads for a small number of residents. These schemes could be improved to benefit all of GP residents, but Michael will not hear of that. He is also happy for GP residents, visitors and trades people coming up from the west and south west to follow the signed route along Barrowgate Road (a residential road) to access GP via SCR, while keeping SoTG traffic free. Winners and losers. So in summary, if you close a road to traffic, you get less traffic. Not sure why Michael needed to write a whole article to tell us that. It does not address where the traffic goes, how the residents of the roads that Michael and his chums dont live on feel about more traffic, noise and pollution. We have 30 years of LTNs and related schemes in London, but the data shows miles travelled by vehicles as increased steadily, mainly in last few years. At the same time, bus speeds continue to fall. So traffic evaporation is a fantasy spread by the wealthy middle classes who dont care where traffic goes.

Paul Green ● 2082d

Thank you Paul 👏🏿

Maggie Dodge ● 2082d

You'd think a complete data set would be mandatory for assessing anything where a variable has been changed.In this example, how is traffic being monitored on all streets? Those adjacent to LTN schemes, those not adjacent, etc. How else to determine evaporation vs displacement? Otherwise all we have is the hearsay of spin doctors and not actual facts.

David Lesniak ● 2082d

Indeed David, but also traffic flows are far more complex. Delivery routes will adjust around local traffic conditions, as will shopping, leisure and commuter habits. It is impossible to look at any one scheme in isolation. We have London wide data for over 20 years, we see clearly there is no traffic evaporation, in fact the opposite. We would also need comprehensive London wide modelling to see the aggregate impact of all these schemes. It should not be difficult, TFL could use the Google maps algorithms to see how traffic routing will dynamically adjust. If they wanted to....

Paul Green ● 2082d

Justin,Happy to address your points on the data and conclusions ( I'll be ignoring Paul Green's typically rambling rant).You say that in your view there are 'many. many problems with the data analysis'.  Can you list them?The article mentions that further surveys are needed to assess longer term impact, and the effectivenesss of the camera-based measures at School Streets locations, Hartington and Thames.Even if the camera-based methods turn out to be ineffective or impractical, I believe there is enough evidence that the measures at Harvard Hill and Staveley are effective and could be retained. The temporary barriers could be replaced by something permanent and more aesthetically pleasing like planters, trees, greenery.On the point about where the traffic has gone, as long as it has not been disproportionately displaced to other minor roads within the area, then this doesn't matter.  The data showed that any localised displacement was small compared to the previous volume of through traffic.  Future surveys will show if any localised displacement decreases with enforcement, GPS maps being updated etc.If the traffic has gone back to the A316 and the A4, then this is where it should be in the first place. In the long term, there are so many different factors could affect traffic (ULEZ, a boundary charge, etc) that it is impossible to pick out the impact of a change like a thousand fewer cars on Harvard Hill as this is just in the noise.Best to go back to the objectives which are to reduce car trips and improve areas for sustainable transport, walking and cycling.

Michael Robinson ● 2082d

The following is from a letter in this week's Private Eye (page 25).'On a recent job we were literally at the end of a street adjoining the road the cardiac arrest was on.Due to the barricade we had to take an almost five minute detour around the side streets before we found our way to the address. Five minutes probably doesn't sound long to whoever came up with the idea of barriers but a London Ambulance Service (LAS) crew trying to get a cardiac arrest patient and give that first shock,it slashes our chances of a viable resuscitation.In this case the patient did not survive.'They go on to say:'With the huge spike of Covid-related cardiac arrest calls we've seen in the past few months,these barriers are literally killing patients.Private Eye is the first publication I've seen so much as mention it.'  signed PARAMEDIC (name supplied)

Ben Gemmingen ● 2082d

Michael, a few things. You say:'If the traffic has gone back to the A316 and the A4, then this is where it should be in the first place'.This depends on what the traffic is. Whilst I agree through traffic should ideally stay on main routes, the problem these are heavily congested. There has been no attempt by TFL to model these traffic flows and adjust light phases at key junctions to adjust and accomodate these. Also the difficulty is defining what is and is not through traffic. Once you leave your own road, then you (or a visitor, tradesperson or delivery driver) become 'through traffic' for someone else.It would be very easy to adjust the SotG and Hartington Road schemes to benefit all GP residents, rather than a tiny handful. But in your self appointed guardian role, you have refused to countenance any of all changes.'as long as it has not been disproportionately displaced to other minor roads within the area, then this doesn't matter'.The schemes divert traffic onto a handful of local roads, who suffer more traffic, pollution and noise. But as long as you dont live on those streets, its OK. Why is it OK to close SoTG but then route even more traffic onto the officially sanctioned rat run that is Barrowgate Road? What is your definition of a minor road? I am sure it is you or one of you chums last year that claimed official road designations are irrelevant.'Future surveys will show if any localised displacement decreases with enforcement'. Again, we need London wide data to show the impact of all these schemes. We need to avoid creating pollution and noise ghettos, which disproportionately impact lower income groups in favour of wealthy middle class WFH professionals. Know any of those Michael?'he objectives which are to reduce car trips and improve areas for sustainable transport, walking and cycling'. No doubt worthy but exactly whose objectives are these and who appointed you as the guardian and enforcer of these. Public mass transport is the ultimate sustainable transport, but is the big loser from CS9, as are all those that use it. Why are you still silent on the mass Brentford stadium parking in W4, which completely stands against these stated principles. Curious...Michael, please have the courage and decency to address my points. less of the personal insults too. As a final point, teh real problem with the cumulative effect of all these road closures is that when there is a problem, there is nowhere for traffic to go. We recently had Acton Lane, Dukes Av, SCR and then Stamford Brook Rd closed for repairs. In normal time W4 would have been a car park. Except of course no impact for you and your chums, and a disaster for bus users. Still, you guys are fine.

Paul Green ● 2082d

Ben, sadly this is irrelevant in the myopic self obsessed world of the cycling lobby. They are the worthy, cycling the only allowable transport mode, end of story. How they ignore the manifest problems with these schemes is beyond me.

Paul Green ● 2082d

I agree Paul.I'm waiting for a 'That's terrible but...'

Ben Gemmingen ● 2082d

?So no one's willing to defend the indefensible.I thought as much.

Ben Gemmingen ● 2082d

More cycling paramedics might be the answer! As the judge concluded, these schemes are not a 'rational solution' to the specific problems presented by Coronavirus which they purport to address. They are general traffic management projects smuggled in under the emergency regulations but not actually improving pedestrian safety during social distancing, etc. In theory, once the virus threat is over, all these schemes will become redundant and can be removed. The fact that they're being considered for permanent retention means they were never intended to address the specific problems we're actually faced with. On top of that, their 'efficacy' must be impossible to measure at the moment with public transport use so limited and other travel patterns so distorted.

Peter Evans ● 2082d

I wonder if you actually read what the paramedic wrote.If ever there was a time when they're not wanted nor needed,it's now.

Ben Gemmingen ● 2082d

Indeed it has been blatantly obvious that road closures would block ambulances. The same can be said if the cycle barriers in Twickenham Road to West Middlesex hospital which prevents drivers from pulling over to allow ambulances to pass. This is compounded by undemocratic closure of Church Street which now prevents ambulances from avoiding Twickenham Road. These people who authorised the closures will have blood in their hands. All in the name of petty politics. Trumpism rules supreme in Hounslow Borough.

Steve Taylor ● 2081d

“ More cycling paramedics might be the answer!”What a stupid suggestion.

Steve Taylor ● 2081d

They were planned well ahead of the pandemic. That was just a cover as noted. Here’s the blueprint LBH have been followed to the letter, with a handy guide for local activists to make a lot of noise.https://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/13010/original.pdf?1536332560&fbclid=IwAR1nDkYks57S9DNX4jWPVRPTMP_egjcbOCgA2E0jZks-X8s-ghqX1TjRj_A

Russell Pearson ● 2081d

Ambulance Trusts view on supposed delays.https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/13/covid-bike-and-walking-schemes-do-not-delay-ambulances-trusts-say

Edward Seaton ● 2081d

From that guide:'Emergency services have generally been very positive about such schemes. They are statutoryconsultees and typically see no change in response times, with most common concerns raised beingplacement of lockable bollards for access during extended incidents, and their GPS systems beingupdated appropriately.'This is utter bs.I've heard medics on phone ins say so as well as the letter in PE.Page 4 of this sums it up.https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/704397/response/1685611/attach/7/FOI%2045457%20Correspondence.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Ben Gemmingen ● 2081d

This bit made me laugh“ USE YOUR SUCCESS TO BUILD MOREBuild a high-quality pilot scheme which neighbouring communities will be able to see and experience, and then ask for their own version of. But try to avoid making the first scheme particularly high budget or unique – delivering lower quality elsewhere risks leaving the communities in later schemes feeling cheated.”Yep, cheated.

Russell Pearson ● 2081d

From the letter in PE:'We're not able to call attention to the issue because our internal problem-reporting software only allows us to report equipment or personnel failures within LAS ;there is no way for us to quantify the number of fatal delays caused by the councils' arbitrary road closures and no structure in place for us to report this..'NB If anyone should know ,I'd have thought it would be a member of crew of the  London Ambulance Service.

Ben Gemmingen ● 2081d

This very comprehensive and detailed dive in to the limited data that is available does confirm that blocking of roads and fining people for using them will reduce traffic on them. As this is something that we might have guessed before the schemes were implemented I'm not sure what Michael's hard work has added to the debate. The question as to whether these schemes have reduced traffic overall remains unanswered. They can only have done so if traffic has evaporated rather than simply been displaced. This is a tricky one to answer at the best of times but with lockdown in operation it can't be assumed changes in traffic patterns at a local level are due to one particular cause. What I have noticed recently is that coming into North Chiswick from the west either on the A4 or the A316 my SatNav has been directing me towards the North Circular and then round by Gunnersbury Lane. This means a lengthy detour and a trip along Bollo Lane, the residential part of which was more blighted by traffic than Staveley Road ever was. This leads me to think that traffic is being displaced rather than evaporating and there is little or no net gain in traffic reduction in residential areas overall.  The feedback on these schemes on the Commonplace website seems to suggest that people living in the Grove Park area are against them by quite a large majority. If the beneficiaries of reduced traffic in their area aren't supportive this suggests that more attention should be place on the interests of people in Acton Green and the Glebe Estate who may not be aware that increased traffic through their area is due to the South Chiswick scheme. The latter seems to be suffering due to an increase flow of cars up through Devonshire Road from the Hogarth Roundabout  which formerly had been going up Sutton Court Road.

Andrew OSullivan ● 2081d

Indeed Andrew, an awful lot of huffing and puffing by Michael to confirm that if you close a road to traffic, then it has less traffic. Hmmm. I think its all the attempt to blind us with noise and stats. You are of course right that traffic is diverted onto other busy and residential roads. That has been my fundamental point all along, there are winners and losers. The vocal lobbyists strangely enough succeed in closing their own local roads, but have no care or consideration for others. They circumvent local democracy and accountability to get their own way.

Paul Green ● 2081d

Thanks for the comments Andrew.I could dig up opinions from some people who claimed that the measures would increase traffic in the area because of detours made by residents.  They didn't appreciate how small residential traffic is compared to through traffic.  The data does demonstrate these opinions weren't correct.The measures don't have the objective of reducing overall traffic (by that I mean traffic both within and outside the S Chiswick area defined by this scheme).  They may reduce overall traffic, but that isn't the objective.  The objective is to improve condifions for walking and cycling and reduce the dominance of motor traffic in the area.Therefore asking questions about traffic on the A4 and A316 is moot because that isn't a consideration for the objectives of this scheme.  Management of traffic levels on London's arterial road network may be addressed by the ULEZ, a boundary charge or a road pricing scheme.  I don't see a connection between your comments about traffic elsewhere in Chiswick and the measures south of the A4.  An origin-destination survey involving ANPR cameras tracking vehicle movements in the S Chiswick area clearly showed that the main traffic flow was from A316 to A4 and secondary flow between A316 and A205.I don't see how getting drivers to stay on the A316 and A4 affects traffic on Acton Green and the Glebe estate,Indeed for the Glebe estate, I have data from a traffic survey done in April 2019.  That shows the major traffic flows in this area at that time were Dukes Avenue to eastbound A4 bypassing the SCR/A4 junction and Dukes Avenue to Barrowgate Rd 'jumping the queue' at SCR for the A4 junction.As to the popularity of the scheme, maybe look at what people said when asked privately and directly. https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/a-divided-community/

Michael Robinson ● 2081d

Alleged restriction of access for emergency vehicles is often used by anti-cycling groups like OneChiswick Ltd to oppose safety improvements for other road users. In fact the C9 bike lane is obviously wide enough to accommodate an ambulance held up by cars. It’s pretty obvious to me that motor vehicles impede ambulances, as well as contributing to emergencies directly from being driven into or over people and indirectly by causing exacerbations of cardiovascular disease, respiratory illnesses and cancer of course.

Edward Seaton ● 2081d

So do we agree that ambulances and fire engines haven’t been held up by theses. Schemes. No lives out at risk ?

Maggie Dodge ● 2081d

Is there evidence that no ambulances or fire engines have been held up by LTNs across London?

Steve Taylor ● 2081d

Id say there’s plenty of photo and video evidence that they have been held up. If they’re held up, I’d say there’s a risk to life, where time is of the essence. But it seems Mr Seaton and Mr Robinson feel there’s nothing to worry about. Just checking if that’s agreed by anyone else.

Maggie Dodge ● 2081d

e is to improve condifions for walking and cycling and reduce the dominance of motor traffic in the area.What if you can't walk and cycle?

Jennifer Selig ● 2081d

I suppose I should respond to Michael about the limitations in the data analysis.1. The data is limited in time, in covers Sept 2019 and Sept 2020 only.  We have no idea whether a "normal" Sept is representative of other months of the year, indeed we have no idea what a "normal" September in terms of driving data looks like.2. Sept 2019 was pre-Covid, Sept 2020 was not.  Just because the traffic in Sept 2020 in areas not covered by the road closures had nearly caught up with pre-Covid levels brings in a series of assumptions none of which can be adequately checked.3. The data is limited in geographical extent so we cannot really know whether there is substantial traffic displacement to other roads which are themselves or become a problem.4. A similar point arises in relation to traffic evaporation.  If the point of the schemes, or a least one of the key points, is to reduce traffic by encouraging people to take buses, walk or cycle, the geographical and time limits of the data mean it is impossible to draw any statistical sound conclusions as to whether there is, and if so what amount of, traffic evaporation.5. Then there is the issue of what sort of journeys are being effected.  We have no idea how this is impacting on non-local and local traffic - and for this purpose local means journey being made within Chiswick or by residents of Chiswick returning to residence.  A scheme which massively reduces people using back streets to cut through from A316 to A4 or vice versa may be considered a success but if at the same time it also massively impacts of people living in Grove Park who find that many businesses will no longer deliver to them then it will have major local problems.  The data simply cannot address these issues.The leading academic research, now over 20 years old, emphasised that with all road schemes there would be short term, medium term and long term effects as traffic adapted to new road layouts.  One month's worth of data is barely sufficient to count as short term.  That is why even LBH wanted a longer review period.  At the risk of upsetting nearly everyone my view is that the schemes need at least 12 months of "normal" operation before any conclusion can be drawn with even a modicum of statistical soundness of the scheme's effectiveness.

Justin Stephenson ● 2081d

... Then you can still use the car...
Justin makes some good points, particularly around the need to give it a chance. Trouble is, if it's dangerous, which i personally think it is around the joining roads, I'm not sure you can run it for 12 months if people start getting injured. Out of interest, has anyone seen a cyclist using the diagonal of doom outside waitrose? I haven't. 

Rob Reynolds ● 2081d

Justin,Thanks for the response.  In answer to your points.1. Define "normal".  I'd suggest that you will be unable to define what 'normal' actually is therefore the data is the best you will get.2. I think you are overthinking this.  What assumptions? Why do they need to be checked?3. This isn't relevant.  The objective of the project is to improve condifions for walking and cycling and reduce the dominance of motor traffic in the area.  The origin - destination survey showed the major flows were from A316 to A4.  Can you name specific areas that are affected by keeping traffic on the A4 and A316?4. The survey data isn't intended to measure traffic evaporation,  That would likely be done by interviewing a representative sample of people about their travel choices and I wouldn't expect this to be done until all measures have been in place for a while.5 Actually, the survey data gives a pretty good view of how journeys are being affected. Data is available in both directions down to 15 minute periods and it is interesting to see streets where the flow is pretty well identical from a year ago, compared to streets where there is a change.On your last point, I think you have unrealistic expectations of what is actually possible and practical.  In the medium and long term, there will be so many other factors that will affect traffic flow (like ULEZ, possible boundary charge, possible road pricing) that the impact of a change affecting a few thousand vehicles years ago will be lost in the noise.Ultimately data is just there to assist decision making. The data indicates that the measures were pretty successful in doing what they were intended to do.

Michael Robinson ● 2081d

Justin does make some good points, especially about bedding in. Of course there are always data limitations. It is a massive bit of work to get every piece of the puzzle so you go off what you can and then add more and more to further educate as things progress.I do find it quite amusing that posts look to discredit data without offering any counteracting data to back up the argument. The closest I have seen is "my sat nav sends me".Perhaps some assumptions can be backed up if you get out there and do the hard work.

Tony Smart ● 2081d

What if you can't walk and cycle?What if 'you' can't afford a car or don't have a car?

Matthew Swain ● 2081d

We had something similar in Ealing's LTN25:Last Thursday, I was on my front path and saw an blue-light emergency ambulance approach the recently re-padlocked gate about 15 houses south of me. There's always been a gate there, but only recently locked as part of the newish LTN.The crew obviously didn't have a useful FB14 key, because they turned around and went off down Shakespeare Road.About 7-10 minutes later the ambulance reappeared - still blue lights - from the top of the road and drove down to a house about 15 north of us. So a ten minute delay to go an effective 250 yards - but via all the boundary roads and half of Acton.I don't know if that lead to further trauma, though presumably would have heard if the outcome was fatal.Of course I have written to London Ambulance and requested they do a Datix incident report. And to the CEO and leader of Ealing Council. I doubt if any of them will respond. But at least it will be on record for the inevitable enquiry.

Sara Nathan ● 2081d

See my post further up - I witnesses such a delay in LTN25 recently.There have been others - I saw a fire-engine unable to access St Dunstans road before Xmas and neighbours have documented several other incidents.It doesn't seem to make any difference.

Sara Nathan ● 2081d

'What if you can't walk and cycle?'Use your mobility scooter in the bike lanes.

Ken Munn ● 2081d

If you define local very narrowly then local traffic will be a small proportion. I'd regard myself as local as my ultimate destination is in Chiswick but would accept that I might be regarded as non-local for the purposes of analysis. I understand what the objectives of the scheme are but you can't totally discount displacement. The expectation is that traffic on the A316 heads towards the Hogarth Roundabout. That will be helpful to the extent that cars heading for the A4 westbound don't use Sutton Court Road but those heading north to Chiswick which may have used Sutton Court Road before seem now to be using Devonshire Road and pass through the Glebe Estate. A combination of the throttling of traffic on Chiswick High Road at the Acton Lane bus gate and Chiswick Lane plus the South Chiswick restrictions appear to be leading to the redirection of traffic bound for the north of Chiswick High Road to leave the A316 and to go up the North Circular to get back to Chiswick via Gunnersbury Lane and Bollo Lane. It would be perhaps possible to argue on balance that the cost of displacement of traffic to these two areas is outweighed by the benefit to Grove Park but the available evidence appears to suggest that residents are not convinced about the value to the scheme of them. I'm not sure if you are being entirely serious in suggesting a limited series of self-evidently biased interviews is representative of views in the area but there is no good reason why the feedback on the Commonplace system shouldn't be broadly representative of the opinion of people who live in the area. This appears to be negative by a wide margin. 

Andrew OSullivan ● 2081d

"Out of interest, has anyone seen a cyclist using the diagonal of doom outside waitrose?"Yes I have. Cyclist hurtled across but traffic lights were green for cars heading west, a nasty accident was narrowly avoided as driver slammed on his breaks.Quite a few cyclists ignore their newly installed cycle traffic lights.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2081d

Andrew,To pick up on your points:“cars heading for the A4 westbound don't use Sutton Court Road but those heading north to Chiswick which may have used Sutton Court Road before seem now to be using Devonshire Road and pass through the Glebe Estate.”There was minimal change in the traffic using Sutton Court Rd between 2019 and 2020 surveys.  What is your evidence that more traffic is using Devonshire Rd and going through the Glebe Estate?“ South Chiswick restrictions appear to be leading to the redirection of traffic bound for the north of Chiswick High Road to leave the A316 and to go up the North Circular to get back to Chiswick via Gunnersbury Lane and Bollo Lane.”The impact of the S Chiswick measures on this route seems dubious. In any event, how many vehicles are heading up the A316 with a destination of Chiswick via Gunnersbury Lane. Traffic from residents will be minimal and it isn’t as if there are major “trip attractors” in the area. Chiswick Business Park is impacted by WFH.“ there is no good reason why the feedback on the Commonplace system shouldn't be broadly representative of the opinion of people who live in the area”The good reason why it won’t be representative is that the Commonplace survey is on the OneChiswick “spam list” along with the email addresses of Hounslow cabinet and officers. Cllr Biddolph and other OneChiswick members have been continually exhorting people to bombard these people with emails and add comments to the survey. As a result they are claiming positively North Korean levels of support from Commonplace.What is the basis for your claim that actually asking residents in the area what they thought of the changes was “self evidently biased”. The person doing the research spoke to about two thirds of households on the street.

Michael Robinson ● 2081d

What if 'you' can't afford a car or don't have a car?Take the bus, Matthew. Take the bus.

David Lesniak ● 2081d

To Dr. Seaton:First do no harm.There is nothing alleged about watching emergency vehicles sitting in gridlock. Fear not, there is plenty of evidence collected by many. Gotta love mobile phones for this.C9 is not wide enough. Your claim that it is demonstrates you have no clue about the zigs and zags it takes and the pinch points created in and around it. No vehicle  travelling to respond swiftly would be able to do maneuver the bits around bus islands, for example.What also contributes to exacerbations of cardio and respiratory disease and cancer, as you say, is increased traffic caused by ill-conceived schemes, you know, the ones you support.You're a bit too facile when it comes to ignoring  your oath and painting a picture of others while forgetting to look in the mirror.But you're a doctor. You're smart. You know this. Try it just once without being disingenuous to see how that feels.

David Lesniak ● 2081d

'Take the bus, Matthew. Take the bus'During Covid? That's just genius.

Matthew Swain ● 2081d

Michael, I know you choose to ignore my posts, but that is fine. As long as other people read them and can see the huge holes in your position I am happy.So;* YOu cannot infer anything from Sept 2020 data about what the 'normal' traffic patterns will be. Not only we were in partial lockdown, stadiums empty, WFH, LHR empty etc etc. But also critically CS9 did not exist then, so key features such as the new bus gate and big reductions in capacity at key junctions had not happened.* So to ignore the realities of what is happening today based on what your data did or did not say last September is crazy* We already know that traffic heading from Sw or west to access GP, that might reasonably have used SoTG, is now routed along A4 then Barrowgate Rd to reach SCR. So more traffic on an already busy and congested residential road* The point about Glebe estate would be that traffic that might previously have come through GP and up SCR, faced now with local GP restrictions plus CS9 may well choose other routes, including that indicated* We can also see how the new bus gate diverts traffic onto residential roads such as Wellersley Road or up Heathfield Gardens from the A4. This can be seen in practice and also by viewing the route options supplied by Google maps.So in summary, these schemes cannot be considered independently, as they all have knock on effects. Despite TOny not so Smart's comments, Google maps and its algorithms give a very good indication of how traffic will reroute.Finally, your comment about OneChiswick, as a member of a campaign group that will use all kinds of tactics to get its way, is staggering. You dont need to spam Hounslow inbox as key decision makers are part of your own org. How dare other interest groups attempt to make their voice heard. THe various cycling campaign groups have been very effective at getting their input into all consultations, as you well know.On the door to door questions, it would very much depend on exactly what is  being asked and how it is framed. Without this it is very hard to take any of your evidently biased commentary seriously. Strange also as I am sure it was you that told us all that these consultations are not referendums. So what are they, and if they are not referendums what does local opinion count for?There is no reason why anyone cannot use the commonplace survey, though I suspect we can both agree its pretty useless.

Paul Green ● 2081d

'An elderly respondent, who has lived on the road for 45 years and said that the changes meant she couldn’t get to the Co-op and said everyone working for the council “are completely rubbish and brainless.https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/a-divided-community/Hear,hear !

Ben Gemmingen ● 2081d

Michael, away from the stats, when it comes to the emotive stuff,  "my propaganda good, your propaganda bad" is hardly a defensible position.

Bruce Hammal ● 2081d

Hopefully this will be read my MICHAEL ROBINSON.....,You seems to feel that it’s ok for traffic to be diverted onto the A4 andA316. I live on the Burlington Lane stretch of the A316. The closure of Hammersmith Bridge increased the volume of traffic passing past my house by 6000 vehicles per day. Hounslow Council claims that up to 7000 vehicles per day pass through Hartington Road. Closing it off will cause those additional vehicles not only to pass my house, but also Chiswick School, Cavendish School and Alexandra Gardens Council Estate. Does that sound fair to you? Roads exists to disperse traffic otherwise you will get pollution hotspots. I’m sure that you are aware of the Southwark Coroner’s Court judgement that found that the cause of death of a young asthmatic girl was contributed to by traffic fumes. Car ownership in the capital has been decreasing dramatically over the past 10 years and thanks to the government reversing its “dash for diesel” strategy, vehicles are only going to get cleaner and quieter. This is an over-thought,  ill-advised and UNDEMOCRATIC traffic management exercise.

Cliff Sykes ● 2081d

Wrong way round, traffic was diverted from the A316 to Grove Park by SatNav apps and these changes are getting it back to where it should be.If you are going to complain about traffic using the A316 rather than minor roads, then you could start with Paxton Road as that was made no entry to stop traffic bypassing Hogarth roundabout.  No difference to the plans for Grove Park.If you want to reduce overall traffic on London's arterial road network I suggest you vote for a mayoral candidate who supports measures such as the ULEZ, extension of congestion charging, a boundary charge or similar measures.

Michael Robinson ● 2081d

Hi Cliff, I sympathise with your position. The problem with these schemes is that they create winners and losers. What we see is lots of nice middle class areas becoming traffic free, whilst other routes (not all of them 'main' roads by any definition) become permament hot spots of congestion, noise and pollution. Its also not the impact of any one scheme but the cumulative impact of multiple schemes, with no one caring what this does or monitoring it. Routes become so congested that the lunatics claim traffic has evaporated, because they do not measure congestion merely count the number of vehiclesMichael's nice response can be summarised as 'tough sh*t, not my problem'.This shows both the inherent selfishness of the cycling lobby, who focus on one transport mode at the expense of all others. They also all benefit from road closures or sit in nice quiet streets with no through or displaced traffic. They dont need to worry about getting to clients with tools, or running a business with deliveries, or have a dependency on vehicles (their own or Uber and the like). They certainly dont worry about where the displaced traffic goes or what that means for other people.

Paul Green ● 2081d

Where does the traffic go? It goes along the larger roads where the poorer people live (me included). So the richer sections of society get their pollution-free expensive roads with their homes increasing in value, while the poorer sections of society get lots more lovely fumes and depreciating house prices. Most people who use a car for work are working class so again they're penalised by having to use more petrol in the long run to sit in traffic going around these blockages. And yes, I know it's Tory money, yes, but Labour have made the decisions to improve the lives of the rich at the expense of the poor. That's the bottom line for me.

Tania Bapuji ● 2081d

You are absolutely correct Tania. Labour are committed to sucking up to the  rich in Chiswick to get their votes. If that means making the lives of the poorer folk a misery and destroying the area for the vast majority, so be it. It is all politics. And these are not nice people. Selfish to the highest degree.

Steve Taylor ● 2081d

'Take the bus, Matthew. Take the bus'During Covid? That's just genius.A bit callous, don't you think Matthew? Given there are millions of Londoners who don't have a choice. And you basically just called them all idiots.Then again I imagine they aren't coming from that privileged white middle-class male angle you sit so comfortably in.

David Lesniak ● 2080d

I'm particularly enjoying Michael's hypocrisy when it comes to the A4. Mere months ago when people wondered why cycling wasn't improved/encouraged/routed there he and others blathered on about pollution and the quality of life for those living along the route.Now he's blathering on about traffic (increased traffic at that) belongs there. And yes, he doesn't seem to give a shit about it nor the quality of life for those folks. But gosh darn it all, his road is an LTN so he couldn't be happier.

David Lesniak ● 2080d

James Dow ● 2080d

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-who-are-they-for/

Philippa Bond ● 2080d

Ealing council caught out - Ealing Council Pays Ealing LTN Objectors' Legal Feeshttp://www.ealingtoday.co.uk/default.asp?section=info&page=conroad033.htm

peter king ● 2079d

'An attempt to bring forward a judicial review against Hackney Council’s radical Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) has been dismissed by a High Court judge.'https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2021/02/15/round-one-hackney-council-anti-ltn-legal-challenge-dismissed-high-court/

Ken Munn ● 2079d

How interesting to see all the cyclists in Ealing opposed to the LTN schemes.Ken, per your CHR is not King Street logic, nor is Hackney Chiswick. Your reference to that example is pointless. Thank yourself for that.

David Lesniak ● 2078d