Yes we find it a better alternative than CHR due to not having as many intersections and traffic lights. Safer too for cycling, not being a dual lane in the middle of busy street with many intersections. I would love to see more green / a hedge alongside it, though.To the statements from the cycling lobby on here, it never ceases to amaze me how misleading they are - on purpose, or ignorance? Where is the number of vehicles in any statistics of CHR traffic? The fact that traffic lights on all crossings are forever on red (1.5min with long queue to get through the 10-20sec on green, including on Turnham Green Terrace), which means they are artificially holding vehicle numbers down to try and minimise traffic - not only it is STILL bad, but it is displacing all traffic to the A4 and other surrounding roads. TfL says A4 traffic is down, but that is because it is now gridlock there from 12-8pm each day. How is that less traffic?In summary, looking at a “ratio” is just that: a ratio. It doesn’t say anything if you are not looking at the overall capacity to transport people, in ALL methods they choose. Equally, CHR is only 1 street. Nobody has all their lives in 1 street. We all go to other streets, and we all breathe the air there - TGT is a clear example, that was made worse in order to accomodate C9T and Fishers Lane closure. All if this put in place why? So that people can cycle, which in turn is being pushed forward in the name of climate change.Climatenchange doesn’t only happen at CHR. If Goldhawk, Chiswick Lane, TGT, Acton Lane, the A4, A316, Sutton Ct Road are all gridlocked and with much worse pollution (conveniently not measured), how can this be better for the climate?A 2nd mature tree is about to be decapitated on CHR. It is 99 years old, it absorbs pollution and it contributes to making Chiswick a “leafy area”. That this tree is being killed in the name of climate change, is beyond me.Don’t be fooled, the progress of lane confiscation and road closures without offering good alternatives, will only squeeze the same amount of vehicles, including emergency vehicles, in fewer roads. Cycling is 2-20% of transport in any city, especially in large cities like London it is a small fraction. Where does the remainder 80-98% go? Where is public transport? Where are the good and efficient connections? We can bury our heads in the sand or we can try and tackle this. To look at CHR myopically and count cycles (mostly rat running through Chiswick from other boroughs) and not look at vehicle numbers or even the impact of this on King Street and the A4, plus the various cross streets, is to be either NIMBY or ignorant. I’m not sure what is worse, but perhaps a light bulb can still come one for some people. In the end we need modal shift and it has been said from everyone even the Hounslow Cabinet that modal shift hasn’t happened. They know that the Burlington traffic increase was displaced from the closures in neighbouring roads, and their (inadequate) solution is to close Burlington and Staveley - further exacerbating the problem. Ignorance or inability to tackle the real problem, which is indeed too many cars?Is anybody following car sales? Is this going down? Residential parking? % living inside an LTN who gave up their vehicles? But the Council surely likes the income from residential parking.Streetspace implemented in Chiswick hasn’t been an effective measure to tackle traffic and pollution. Hopefully soon we will have more AQ monitors around - and what a big failure that none were installed earlier.
Fabiana Eggers ● 899d