Forum Topic

Fishers Lane

Did I see an article about the planned closure of Fishers Lane to all but buses and cycles?  I can't seem to find it now.

David Marles ● 2301d112 Comments

Front page about three quarters of the way down

David Parker ● 2301d

https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/fishers-lane-bridge-to-become-bus-and-cycle-only/

Michael Robinson ● 2301d

There has been an update since then. See front page.

Francis Rowe ● 2301d

It appears prominently on the front page now but maybe wasn't there when you originally posted.http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conroad267.htmWithout camera enforcement I don't think it will actually make a great deal of difference. From the north side at least two no left/right turn signs aren't really enough to make people aware of the change and they'll carry on as normal more out of ignorance than lawlessness.The removal of the parking bays by the playground just seems completely unnecessary but that presumably is a Hounslow decision rather than Ealing.

Paul Corcoran ● 2301d

It seems to me that this will mean a permanent queue of traffic past Chiswick Park station towards the High Road which will make access to Sainsbury's car park difficult - and, of course, more cars will be approaching from that end.  Perhaps the phasing/priority at the traffic lights could be changed accordingly.

David Marles ● 2301d

This proposal seems to be working on a different principle from those in TGT and Devonshire Road, which are intended to give more space to pedestrians so they can maintain a safe distance.  The Fisher Lane scheme does nothing to help pedestrians avoid the narrow elevated pavement under the bridge. Only by closing the road to all motor vehicles by temporarily diverting the 272 bus, would pedestrians be able to spread out and walk safely in the roadway. As it stands, this feels like part of a scheme Ealing has had in a drawer for some time which they can now get emergency funding for, though I'm surprised it passed the criteria of providing equal improvements for cyclists and pedestrians.

Peter Evans ● 2301d

David, you are quite right. The junction of Acton lane already sees lots of traffic. Queues are regular both southwards on Acton lane back to the common, as well as heading north on Sutton La along the green. The High Road is also busy at this point, it can queue all the way to Chiswick roundabout. Changing the light sequence will just add to queues in another direction. The junction is narrow and not really suited to large vehicles making the turn from the High rd.With the closure of both Fishers La and TGT this junction will be under enormous pressure. Queues and pollution for residents on the roads feeding into here are inevitable. It highlights the lack of any proper plan or traffic modelling here. Changes could also become permanent long before traffic volumes fully recover, in which case the western end of Chiswick will see permanent gridlock. Its crazy. THere are sensible plans to reduce through traffic in Grove Park, but not plan for Chiswick north of the A4 and no plans to reduce rat running on residential streets.

Paul Green ● 2301d

We are being assured this won't lead to traffic Armageddon and this probably will be the case in the short term with the two quietest months on local roads ahead. Come September we will see the real impact. What concerns me is that any chaos at that point will be explained away as an initial adjustment and there will be official stubbornness about recognising the scheme needs to be unwound.

Paul Corcoran ● 2301d

If these schemes go ahead, Ealing will need to remove most of the mini roundabouts on the alternative route along South Parade. Those at the north end of TGT and Fishers Lane will be redundant and the traffic flows at the other junctions will no longer be equally balanced.

Peter Evans ● 2301d

Paul, this is my concern. if the measures are made permanent by the end of the year, based on current low traffic, we could live with the consequencies for years. I saw on the Brentford site that Lionel Rd is also to be closed permanently, pushing even more traffic onto the roundabout.With all the developments, Chiswick roudabout will regularly be at a standstill. This causes traffic backlongs up the High Rd to Acton Lane and beyond. Then you have all the traffic that comes in Chiswick from the Porsche garage and heads up Acton Lane, with no plans even suggested to address this.Forcing all local and through traffic along one route is the most stupid traffic planning decision. And there is no modelling or coordination between LBH and LBE to consider this.

Paul Green ● 2301d

Please see my post re Online Hounslow Council meeting tomorrow - we need answers to these questions and decisions by those officials who are not residents of Chiswick nor impacted by them.

Mitra Alam ● 2301d

I think the turn off the eastbound A4 into Sutton Lane North by the Porsche garage is in line for being closed as well, though the same traffic should be able to turn down Sutton Court Road to get to its eventual destination.

Peter Evans ● 2301d

If that is true (and I have no idea if it is or not), that will be a major problem for traffic going east on the A4 and wanting to turn south into Grove Park.  At present, such traffic can't turn right at the traffic lights and has to go left into Sutton Lane North, east on Barrowgate Road and then South onto Sutton Court Road to cross the A4.  If that route is closed, then such traffic would have to go down to Duke's Avenue to come back to Sutton Court Road or to Hogarth roundabout to turn around.  The Duke's Avenue route has the advantage of involving only left hand turns which would ease traffic flow on Sutton Court Road.  However, the extra length of these routes and the time spent queuing on the A4 might be an incentive for such traffic to turn down Sutton Court Road and try and do a U-turn, thereby holding up traffic.

Andrzej Kowalski ● 2301d

Peter, no plans to address the turn off from the A4, seems a huge miss given funding was available. I cross the SCR junction most days and there is now a shorter green for A4 traffic. This can regulate amount of traffic heading up SCR, whereas at present traffic can flow via the Porchse turning until local roads are overwhelmed.

Paul Green ● 2301d

MitraYou're absolutely correct but we also need input from people who need to use vehicles  be it for commercial, personal and health reasons and not just from the cyclists who are vociferous in their support of road closures etc.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2301d

Andrjez, the who right turn via Barrowgate is a mess and hated by local residents. A lot of traffic also uses Barrowgate just to try and jump the queue on SCR. With the quiet neighbourhoods scheme for GP, then this may reduce the amount of traffic wanting to make this turn. Or Barrowgate could be made local access only to include residents of GP. Ideally traffic should stay on the A4 to the Hogarth. There are ways to address it.

Paul Green ● 2301d

There was speculation on another thread discussing proposals in Grove Park that the square 'loop' to turn right off the eastbound A4 into Sutton Court Road would no longer be available and traffic would be expected to go on to the Hogarth roundabout and get to the A316 that way rather than by cutting through Grove Park. A bit of a diversion if you live in Grove Park, hence the extensive discussion on the thread.

Peter Evans ● 2301d

True, but with Grove Park getting a number of schemes to reduce through traffic, it would only seem fair to the residents of Barrowgate get some respite from the terrible queues most evenings (pre lockdown that is).

Paul Green ● 2301d

Peter,  I think I started that speculation!This was prompted because I know that Hounslow has commissioned a new design of the SCR/A4 junction.It seemed logical to me that something to consider for this would be preventing the "hook" turn from the eastbound A4 to Grove Park via Sutton Lane N and Barrowgate Rd. This would benefit the residents of Barrowgate Rd as no more through traffic along the road and it would simplify SCR as no more vehicles looking to squeeze in.There would be a dis benefit to people going to Grove Park from the eastbound A4 as they would need to go on to Hogarth roundabout (or come off at Chiswick roundabout) but this will usually be part of a longer journey so an extra mile or two is hardly a big deal.It is still only speculation as changes to the SCR/A4 junction would need construction and there is no funding for this at the moment.There is unlikely to be future funding unless Hounslow demonstrates capability to deliver the current proposed measures for the area.

Michael Robinson ● 2301d

Thats an interesting last point Michael, I think one purely based on speculation on your point. So anyone else who has problems or wants to reduce rat running on their street needs to support the existing proposals, no matter if they cause more problems for them for the foreseeable future. I dont think so. Its a shame though the current measures were not better targeted on real problems.Its also quite possible to make Barrowgate and Heathfield Gardens access only without rebuilding the A4/ SCR junction. But the general point is that future funding is goign to be very scarce, so lets not waste it on schemes that add to misery for others.

Paul Green ● 2301d

Well said, Paul.

Claire Moran ● 2301d

Paul,DfT Funding at the moment is being based upon:1. Level of ambition2. Ability to deliverSo schemes that don’t meet the DfT policies aren’t being funded and councils that don’t deliver schemes that have been funded will need to return the money. Inability to deliver schemes funded for this financial year will put the council at a disadvantage when it comes to getting more funding for the next financial year. You can already see this in the funding “league table” for London boroughs. The councils who have got the most money are ones who have done the most previously so the DfT/TfL are pretty confident from their track record that they will deliver the projects. The councils at the bottom have still got a small amount and they are unlikely to get more until they can show they can deliver. Hounslow and Ealing are in the top third for funding.

Michael Robinson ● 2301d

Getting back to Fishers Lane there might also be a problem with southbound traffic opting to use the Goldhawk Road end of the High Road as the right turn phase may no longer be sufficient for increased volumes of traffic coming from Acton.

David Marles ● 2301d

So again, we need to support badly thought out schemes implemented without any planning or consultation in order to hope to get more money in future, partly to sort out the mess made by the bad schemes in the first place. Its a circus.

Paul Green ● 2301d

I think the point of this is to reduce the amount of traffic by getting people out of their cars.Air pollution is a huge problem, that official figures say results in 40,000 premature deaths a year in the UK, with around 10,000 in London.  Probably more than that this year, as there are strong links between air pollution and worse outcomes from Covid.NO2 is coming down, and will come down further over time with combustion engines being phased out.  However, the biggest source of particulate pollution is brake and tyre dust.Regenerative braking on electric cars will reduce, but not eliminate, brake dust.  Regen braking only works when you are moving, so you will still need conventional brakes to come to a complete stop.Given the weight of electric cars, the extra weight might actually make tyre dust worse, and also reduce the benefits of regen braking.At the same time, around two thirds of car journeys are under 5 miles.  45% of journeys under 2 miles are made by car.  Those are journeys that could easily be cycled by the vast majority of people - especially in London, where it's mostly very flat.This is about getting people out of their cars.  Some people don't like that, ans are making a lot of noise.  It's sad how they are willing to put up with massive disruption to their lives to reduce the death toll from Covid, but don't seem to be willing to make changes for something that has killed a lot more than Covid in recent years.The stupid thing is that it's a lot cheaper to cycle, and it's often quicker as well.  With all the 20mph limits going in, it's going to be quicker for the majority of journeys in London in the future.

Al Webber ● 2301d

Exactly Paul.  I am hoping that working from home will remain for many, which will cut down on pollution.  The idea that people needing to use their cars for heavy shopping etc will all suddenly jump on bikes is ludicrous.

Claire Moran ● 2301d

If they want to get people out of their cars the govt could just jack the price of petrol up to £4 a litreCosts nothing to implement, Hounslow council do not need to be involved which means they cannot do any more damage which would be an even bigger bonus. Inflation goes up thus reducing the national debt.They can then use the money for actual difficult real local issues such health and social care and paying off the remaining national debt, instead of dreaming up more irrelevant and moronic schemes to make them appear to look busy

Rahman Hyatt ● 2301d

But that wouldn't stop drivers who can just buy themselves out of having to consider alternative ways of travelling. Getting everybody out of their cars except the wealthiest is understandably attractive to the wealthiest.Reallocating street space away from cars to active transport distributes the costs and the benefits rather more fairly than fiscal throttling, though what's actually happening is a combination of the two.

Tom Pike ● 2301d

The rich can always buy their way out of most things, so I am not sure that is a great argument when it comes to setting policy. THe issue here is the closing of so many routes, but doing nothing to address the motorway that dumps masses of traffic into W4 every day. Plus some journeys are required like deliviers, trade, construction etc, and some need to use their own vehicle or a cab.Unless changes are thought through, we will a huge rise in congestion and pollution on the few remaining routes. It was informative the stats from Michael show the amount of traffic on the western end of CHR has almost halved in the last 10 years. But queues and congestion in the evenings westbound were worse pre COVID 19 than 10 years ago. SO the reduction in road space can increase congestion (and pollution) unless traffic falls even more sharply. Unless the M4 feed is addressed, we are reaching the limit of what local traffic management can achieve. THere is little point me leaving my car at home when 10k plus a day come in from the M4.

Paul Green ● 2301d

"The rich can always buy their way out of most things, so I am not sure that is a great argument when it comes to setting policy."But that's precisely my point! You can't simply buy yourself out of a reallocation of road space, but you most certainly can just buy yourself out of an increase in petrol prices. "There is little point me leaving my car at home when 10k plus a day come in from the M4." On that basis nobody will feel obliged to do anything. Why should we be cutting our carbon emissions as a country if everybody else is not doing the same? That path leads inexorably to the" tragedy of the commons" of massive damage to our planet.In fact traffic is dropping and pollution with it along the High Road. But the biggest drops of both are in the City and that's where reallocation of road space, not making driving "as short and easy as possible", has made the difference.

Tom Pike ● 2301d

So what if the rich can buy themselves out of it, I thought the whole point was to reduce traffic and pollution.And the rich would then contribute to paying more taxes.The obsession in this country with everything having to be fair is completely counterproductive.  If you want to continue in a country where 43% of the population don’t pay any income tax then you need to raise the money somehow, just taxing the rich more income tax, capital gains etc will mean they will eventually leave. and then the 43% will have to start contributing.

Rahman Hyatt ● 2301d

Not going to get many plumbing tools on the back of a bicycle so getting around Chiswick now is going to be shambolic for my local customers. I have already splurged out on a new Euro 6 Van to comply as best I can. Couldn't go electric for various reasons, what more am I supposed to do?

Chris Johnson ● 2301d

A lot of the youngsters nowadays don't choose to have cars and get taxis instead to go from one place to another when they can't walk it/cycle etc.  They have never become used to jumping into the car to go somewhere - so have no habit like that to get out of.

Philippa Bond ● 2301d

Well, I have 'behaved' like that for the last 10 years since I gave up the car. These changes will be appalling for anyone trying in a taxi to get in from North to South Chiswick or anywhere West.

Claire Moran ● 2301d

Or even just as far as the High Road. And of course,  anyone trying to get from Acton to the High Road or beyond

Claire Moran ● 2301d

The black cabs will love it.. Going nowhere, exhaust pumping, meter ticking....

Bruce Hammal ● 2301d

I live pretty close to Fishers Lane. I thoroughly welcome this (as well as the closure of TGT). Fishers is often a traffic jam especially on Friday evenings when, in normal times, children using the playground and Rocks Lane sports ground are subjected to pollution, noise and danger from traffic (as well as the slightly entertaining spectacle of adults in cars shouting at each other childishly about whose turn it is). It will reduce traffic at the Fishers Lane junction with the High Road which is our worst local accident black spot. It makes it easier to move about safely on foot or on a bike (for example for children who are cycling to school) and at a stroke, has now created a car-free area stretching across the historic Acton Green and Chiswick Back Common. Yes, it makes it slower and more circuitous to get about by car which is EXACTLY what is required to create ‘modal shift’ in other words make people more likely to decide to travel on foot or by bike instead of starting the car. This is well-evidenced (as described in parliamentary committee reports): It has been shown that simply building bike lanes is not enough. Driving needs to be less attractive to lead to a change in behaviour. If I drive somewhere and can’t go down TGT or Fishers, it might have to go a different way, which will me a few more minutes, but it’s worth it.

Edward Seaton ● 2301d

Edward, some fine sentiments but also some naivety. I also like the Fishers Lane proposal, but dont forget traffic will also get displaced. Not all journeys can be made by bike, look at the post about a plumber struggling to get around the area. Also, where is the car-free zone across Acton Green?? South Parade and Acton Lane will see even more traffic and congestion, with more pollution. You should ask why despite a near halving in traffic volumes and falling car ownership over the last 10 years has congestion not fallen dramatically. Part of the answer is the reduction in road space. Until the motorway running through the middle of Chiswick is addressed, waves of local road closures will have limited impact but cause huge problems on the few remaining routes. Its both unfair on residents on those streets and makes all our lives harder. Buses will get stuck in the queues alongside cars.

Paul Green ● 2301d

Cassandra or just another false prophet?Time will tell and we have plenty of it because, despite Mr Green’s devotion to commenting on every post on this forum from anybody who thinks it is a good idea to reduce motor traffic on our residential and shopping streets, this has now happened and is not going away until the ETO period has expired. If he is Cassandra then the measures will be reversed. If he is a false prophet of doom then they will not.Anyway Round 2 funding announced this week from the DfT so where else needs a reduction in traffic? I’ve got some ideas ....

Paul Campbell ● 2301d

Time will tell? Anyone with a brain the size of a gnat can easily  seethe horror that is about  to be unleashed on Chiswick.

Claire Moran ● 2301d

You mean like the devotion of yourself and a handful of other self-appointed guardians of our roads, or rather closed roads, to constantly post on here too? Its pretty pathetic to call me a prophet of doom. For someone who claims to be a long term resident of the area, are the regular queues on the A4, on SCR, along the High Rd to name a few just fiction? Or very likely to return as life normalises, as it will at some point. The danger is that these schemes are made permanent before we get back to normal life. Or do you simply not really care as you have your own neighborhood and road sorted?Strangely enough I would also like some degree of  coherence, consultation and democratic accountability in the decisions that are made, supposedly on our behalf.

Paul Green ● 2301d

Keep going Cassandra. Misery loves misery.Us lesser mortals will wait and see. I’ve got bad news though - the government, TfL and the Councils will see more traffic on the main roads as proof of success not failure. It is the point. The Councils will get more funding to make the schemes permanent when this happens.

Paul Campbell ● 2301d

Cassandra or just another false prophet?Time will tell and we have plenty of it because, despite Mr Green’s devotion to commenting on every post on this forum from anybody who thinks it is a good idea to reduce motor traffic on our residential and shopping streets, this has now happened and is not going away until the ETO period has expired. If he is Cassandra then the measures will be reversed. If he is a false prophet of doom then they will not.Anyway Round 2 funding announced this week from the DfT so where else needs a reduction in traffic? I’ve got some ideas ....Pot & kettle me thinks.Of course you tend to think of yourself as Hounslow savour, but don’t bank on any support when or if it all goes pear shaped.

Bernard Allen ● 2301d

Exactly.  And the pollution levels will rocket.

Claire Moran ● 2301d

Bernard have you forgotten that you said you would no longer reply to my posts on “parking” as you put it? It didn’t take long to tempt you back.I have been thinking of you though so I’m glad you’re back. Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m guessing that you are retired. So given that you don’t share my pain of the ball and chain of long working hours what is the big deal of stopping off for a coffee or to buy a pint of milk on your way through Thames Road? Then no more need for tears for the loss of your preferred run to and fro Brentford.

Paul Campbell ● 2301d

Paul I'm afraid you've forced me out of my brief retirement too!As a "lesser mortal" myself I am resigned to seeing where this scheme takes us. However are you seriously suggesting that should it turn out that  Chiswick and neighbouring areas end up gridlocked under clouds of pollution for large parts of the day week in, week out this should be viewed as a mark of success? I'm sure you don't really mean this.

Bruce Hammal ● 2301d

Might have that problem sussed.I don’t know if you can still buy them, but a rotating number plate frame was all the rage about three years, have to do a bit of research .I never found my working life was like a ball and chain, in fact I liked working shift work, which allowed me take on another semi pro roll.Coming from a circus family I can adapt to most things, but the one thing I couldn’t get the hang of was riding a unicycle.But now I see they starting to advertise electric Versions of them, J Vine was trying one out on his show this morning. You won’t find me on one, but you might see Mr Vine on one in the next few weeks.

Bernard Allen ● 2301d

The basic principle of closing Fisher's Lane to traffic is a good one, it is a dangerous road and is only really a cut through between CHR and Acton Lane/B409.  The problem is that even if that cuts some traffic, and it will but probably not by anything like its proponents suggest, where does the rest go - they cannot use TGR as that is closed to traffic so the only option is take Acton Lane passed Chiswick Park station, a road which is regularly over loaded even when they are not digging it up (again!).We are seeing the same fundamental errors by the Council elsewhere. If the Council proposals in others areas are implemented in full Sutton Court Road will become a permanent traffic jam (and a huge one at that during the afternoons).  The Council look at each proposal in isolation and fail to consider the proposals effects as a whole - it is either negligence or a deliberate intent to make Chiswick a traffic hell

Justin Stephenson ● 2301d

Rage road and pollution will go through the roof. Plus anyone who drives avoiding Chiswick like the plague. Poor old Chiswick, I will remember the good times as I see you go to hell in a handcart.  It's the traders I feel sorry for.  I would occasionally go down to the High Road to pick up a prescription or some heavy goods and maybe pop into a couple of other shops on the way.  I can't see any reason at all to go down now apart from to pop cheques into the bank and draw some money occasionally, but I will get a bunch of them together and put them in just before the 6 month deadline.  So I will probably spend 15 minutes on the High Road now, around twice a year.

Claire Moran ● 2301d

Will go to places where if I need to shop for heavier items I can do that before or after I meet friends and then get a cab back easily with my shopping.  It won't be in Chiswick, more likely West or North, avoiding Chiswick cemtre.  And then you have to ask, why stay in Chiswick if it all becomes so difficult to move around?

Claire Moran ● 2301d

Schemes that propose to take away some space from the dominant mode of transport typically face very exaggerated prophesies of doom, chaos and economic hardship as the hyperbole on this thread exemplifies. The traditional response to congestion was to build more roads. This paradoxically opens capacity and often induces traffic. The reality of such closures is usually that there is a relatively short lived period of adjustment and then behaviour changes. People choose to travel using different means (perhaps involving their legs), or if driving they chose a different route, or adjust their journey times. There are multiple examples in European cities of exactly this type of change leading to reduction in car use, known as traffic evaporation. This is recognised by the Government whose Department for Transport are demanding urgent implementation of these schemes by experimental traffic orders. They are being implemented by local authorities. It is often only courageous local politicians who back them.

Edward Seaton ● 2301d

Yes, the ones who brownose the latest policy fads that will help with their promotion while remaining completey clueless and uncaring about the impact on local communities. Their indiviudal promotion and wallets are far more important. When it causes chaos they really don't give a damn. Nice promotion, nice money, job done.

Claire Moran ● 2301d

I suspect they will phrase it differently to you Bruce but essentially “yes”. When the government’s policy was first introduced there were quite a few incredulous men on this forum mocking the idea that it would result in measures to take space away from cars. But these have happened all over London and here. Edward Seaton has described the new strategy below - reduce space for vehicles, keep them on main roads, encourage alternative forms of transport for short journeys in towns and cities by giving space to people walking and cycling.And he is right that the people devising the policy for government are looking across the Channel for the instruction manual. Another way of looking at it is that, in the absence of traffic restrictions, vehicles that should be on main roads have been invading the space that should be used by people on our residential and shopping streets. The days of opening up as much space as possible to allow cars to permeate it in order to increase flow and reduce vehicle journey times are behind us for now. It is ex-policy.

Paul Campbell ● 2300d

Clare, I've no idea what you're talking about but it makes you sound rather clueless about the impact on local communities. I live in N Chiswick, to drive to other parts I will now have the choice of facing a longer route and more traffic on Acton Lane, or getting the kids out of the car and onto their bikes down the now safer routes of Fishers Lane or TGT. What's not to like about that impact? Especially when we can stop and shop where and when we like. And my hypothesis would be that there are a lot of people in that queue on Acton Lane who will see people walking and cycling past that will start to think about switching their mode of transport for local journeys too, if they can. I'm not sure how you can defend the current situation and the illegal levels of pollution.

John Hall ● 2300d

John, your post does raise the question why it has taken this particular change for you to alter your behaviour and avoid unnecessary short car journeys?The equation is ultimately very simple, for these changes to work the extra journey times involved have to be at least counterbalanced by the number of journeys that no longer take place.My concern about this is that motorists now largely fall into three main groups, those that, after years of raised awareness about the environmental impacts of driving and the health benefits of walking and cycling as well as increased congestion and cost of motoring, have already changed their behaviour and would never dream of using the car for a short trip; those that have no choice but to use a car because they are ferrying kids, have limited mobility, have heavy stuff, need to for their job; and those that are too wedded to their car to ever change the  mode of transport they use.My concern is that the important remainder - people who are amenable to change but have not yet done so - are now such a small group that the reduction in the number of journeys closing these roads will make will not be sufficient to compensate for the increased journey distances and therefore there will be more traffic in the area. The likelihood of this happening is increased at the moment because public transport is a less viable alternative than it used to be.This isn't a prediction but a concern. The closures are trials and while I'm worried about how things might turn out I am not hoping for it to be a disaster. If it works that will be great. However, there is higher level of congestion that persists for more than a few days along South Parade, Bath Road, Prebend Gardens and Acton Lane which we have been promised there won't be I'm not going to accept the argument that it will all be okay because driver behaviour will change.

Paul Corcoran ● 2300d

Scary. Today Chiswick, tomorrow the world!

Bruce Hammal ● 2300d

If you look at the transport modes for short journeys in Dutch cities, it can be done.  It is possible to get people out of cars and onto bikes.Heavy shopping isn't an everyday thing.  I popped to Sainsburys the other night to get milk and bread and a couple of other things.  I did that on my bike.  It was quicker than it would have been by car.  We use the car for the big shop, but that isn't the big issue.The big issue is commuting and the school run.  The traffic is much worse at those times.  You aren't carrying heavy shopping when you do that.Commuting is better by bike for most in London.  Even though there is parking at my current workplace, it's quicker to cycle there than drive, given the traffic.  The last 4 offices I've worked at, cycling has been quicker than any form of puplic transport.  It's also a lot cheaper.

Al Webber ● 2300d

"for these changes to work the extra journey times involved have to be at least counterbalanced by the number of journeys that no longer take place"Why? People walking and cycling are being prioritised higher than the convenience of drivers so it is a mistake to assume there is equivalence.In other words, it is OK if drivers' journeys take longer.  Reducing traffic on TGT and  making Fishers Lane a more attractive route for cycling is being prioritised higher than driving convenience.For example, closing Wellesley Rd and Stile Hall Gardens has undoubtedly added time onto some drivers' journeys.  That's OK, because it isn't a priority. Reducing traffic along those streets was the priority.I now predict someone will come up with a "reductio ad absurdum" argument...

Michael Robinson ● 2300d

I'll give you a reductio ad absurdum argument from the other side. We should open up Beverley Road and St Peter's Square to through traffic as relief roads for the congestion on Chiswick High Road, King Street and Chiswick Lane. We should open up Woodstock Road as a relief road for Bath Road and the Avenue. Surely the residents on those roads will accept the loss of their quiet street space for the greater good of drivers who wish to save a few minutes on their journey times?

Paul Campbell ● 2300d

Talk about missing the point! How on earth would this benefit any of us, drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, people sitting in their front room, if there are more cars on local roads at any point in time than there were before?

Anita Blake ● 2300d

Quite.

Paul Campbell ● 2300d

Paul and Michael, your arguments are descending into the farcical. Noone is suggesting opening up quite roads for more traffic, so its ridiculous and embarrasing to be muddying the waters. A number of people have raised geniune concerns about the scheme and the risk of permanence long before the full impact is known. You completely choose to ignore the issue of creating congestion on already busy roads, and the impact on residents there, despite now benefitting from your own traffic free zones. Its legitimate for people to expand a proper consultation, including with traders, and to understand the plan. Traffic modelling is far from perfect but would be a start to understand the cumulative effect, why is not being done and the results shared? Its not just Chiswick, there are complaints in many areas, and some schemes are being scrapped as in  Ealing. Until we have a broader plan including commuter traffic on the A4/M4, which really wouldnt be that hard given plans already in place to expand the ULEZ zone, then these schemes will just displace traffic. The problem in Grove Park is readily identified as rat running, but its just as bad in north Chiswick yet there is coherent plan to address it. why not?

Paul Green ● 2300d

Paul, I am beginning to suspect that you might be a disciple of Dominic Cummings!

Bruce Hammal ● 2300d

All of those roads were closed to through traffic and now they are quiet residential streets that people living there would not give up and rightly so. It is a highly relevant point. Where it has been done before nobody would want to reverse it. That is the likely outcome of the new measures too. I suspect you do know this much and that is why you are so desperate to turn back time.You are never going to be able to understand all of this while you cling stubbornly to your notion that the decision-makers and us plebs do not realise that there will be more traffic on busy roads. We are not ignoring it. We just understand the policy and accept it as a price worth paying for quiet residential and shopping streets and active travel for more people.You are also not going to be able to understand this while you are unwilling to understand that the DfT's policy supercedes and renders irrelevant your outdated views of what should take place in advance of implementing measures that reallocate road space to walking and cycling. They have instructed the Council to do it swiftly and then consult/review and then decide what to do. I and others have explianed this to you countless times and you just refuse to accept reality. Not much we can do to help you with that any more.If the residents of North Chiswick start to look enviously over the A4 at the LN then they would be best advised to lobby for similar schemes there. I am happy to help them to do so.

Paul Campbell ● 2300d

Shudder

Paul Campbell ● 2300d

As I said, It's a balance. But allowing the rich to always buy themselves out of measures that affect everybody else is going to undermine the social contract. That social contract allows inequalities in wealth but not at the extent of damaging other people. 20,000 Londoner's die every year from traffic pollution (considerably more than from COVID). Insisting that your wealth should give you the ability to avoid pricing restrictions on driving means you would be disproportionately contributing to those deaths. A restriction that reduces traffic ensures that all who drive, irrespective of wealth, contribute to reducing that number of deaths.

Tom Pike ● 2300d

Well done Paul, one of the most high handed and obnoxiously dismissive posts to date. As ever, completing ignoring most of the points made and just resorting to insulting people.My views are simply the need for coherent planning and consultation, with a proper traffic modelling exercise, and most importantly clarity from TFL on what measures will be taken on major roads under their control to support schemes. If you think that is 'outdated' then you are just pushing for a dictatorship by the unelected. Most telling of your attitude is this statement:'we just understand the policy and accept it as a price worth paying for quiet residential and shopping streets and active travel for more people.'That is rather noble of you, given you have secured your own traffic free road and are fit enough to cycle around the local area. Have you asked any of the residents on the roads that will suffer even more congestion, do their voices count in your noble pursuit? Some platitudes that something may be done some years down the road, if there is any money left, does not cut it in my view.

Paul Green ● 2300d

Paul, a substantial proportion of car trips could be made using active transport. This is not about squeezing a small group but rather a much larger shift for a substantial proportion of the population. Everybody will be involved in that shift, and most will welcome the outcomes of less pollution and noise and healthier, safer travelling around London.Evidence from other cities around the world show that this is quite possible.

Tom Pike ● 2300d

I haven't insulted you but I will now freely admit that your total failure to understand the cold reality of the politics and processes involved is very tiresome and repetitive. Your views on prior consultatiuon and traffic modelling are literally outdated. It is not a personal judgment from me. It is a statement of fact. You are calling for things to happen that the goverment has scrapped. Any Council that followed your wishes would receive no funding because they would not be complying with the government's statutory guidance. They would look very silly. I haven't actually got my own traffic free road. My road is very quiet already. I've been supportive of other roads in my area and beyond to beneift from traffic restrictions. And I too will sit in my car for longer on the major roads when I use it to leave Chiswick or for the odd necessary local trip in a car. I reiterate it is a price I am willing to pay for more streets to be opened to walking and cycling. Anyway I'm done trying to help your understanding. If you want to carry on banging a drum for things to happen that are impossible then I will leave you to it as you are playing into my hands. I'm done interrupting the enemy while he makes his mistake.

Paul Campbell ● 2300d

It is indeed Tom, but a key ingredient is for a city wide plan, that will discourage the mass of commuting and day tripper traffic into London on a daily basis. That would include things like actively discouraging fans heading to sports stadiums and office developments to cycle or use public transport. Expanding the congestion charge would be a great start. Otherwise the actions of local residents will not be sufficient to offset the pressures on reduced road space.I am sure there is really nothing in these statements that you can disagree with?

Paul Green ● 2300d

'I am sure there is really nothing in these statements that you can disagree with?'A classic example, I think, of the phrase, 'Faux naïf'.

Colin Jordan ● 2300d

'I am sure there is really nothing in these statements that you can disagree with?'A classic example, I think, of the phrase, 'Faux naïf'.

Colin Jordan ● 2300d

Just so we're all clear on the way ahead....After the trial period and having regard to the the "streetspace governance" statement, "officers will provide a report with recommendations which will be circulated to local councillors to review, prior to a final decision being made by the council’s cabinet/lead member."  So far, so good. Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there is no onus on the decision-makers to give any actual consideration to those who object, no matter on what grounds and in what numbers if those opinions  are at odds with their own. The temporary measures can be made permanent and there is no means of appeal. Wow. Local government Chinese style.

Bruce Hammal ● 2300d

I believe you're referring to people driving in to London, and in that case you're right that we need to build on the current measures. But I don't accept the aim should be to reduce pressure on road space for drivers. The response will be predictably more driving.As has been mentioned, a predict and provide policy with respect to driving just leads to increased car usage and worse health outcomes for those who both drive and breathe their pollution, as well as increased carbon emissions that are affecting our global environment. That process is now quite rightly in reverse.

Tom Pike ● 2300d

Tom, you seem determined to misinterpret my statements. I am not for one moment suggested predict and provide, as I think you know. I am talking about removing one key source of traffic to allow all residents to see lower traffic at the same time as benefitting from better cycling and walking conditions. That is after all the point of the congestion charge, to discourage traffic and reduce congestion and so pollution. Sadly the last 10 years have shown that reduced traffic numbers have not fed through to a material reduction in congestion or any reduction in pollution. So what is going to change now? I expect with the widespread adoption of electric vehicles all will be subject to a milage based road charge, but that is for the mid term. But before then it would be quite straight forward to introduce policies at a London level, in parallel with local measures.

Paul Green ● 2300d

Nothing much changed then.Look at how we had a CPZ imposed on us in Grove Park when the overwhelming majority didn't want it.

Al Webber ● 2300d

Plus ca change. This is how our democracy is constructed and how decisions are taken in many spheres of public life at local government level all over the country. Few notice it until their hands touch the electrifying third rail of driving and parking. I guess the line on voting has to be drawn somewhere for society to function. I'm not sure we are quite suited for the ideals of the early Athenian democractic model.

Paul Campbell ● 2300d

“Sadly the last 10 years have shown that reduced traffic numbers have not fed through to a material reduction in congestion or any reduction in pollution.“Not true, Paul. I’m pleased to say pollution has fallen on the High Road rather faster than the reduction in traffic. But it is still falling too slowly and we need to do more. I’m all in favor of additional measures to help make that happen.

Tom Pike ● 2300d

Park Road  CPZ  was  complete stitch up by one cabinet member

Bernard Allen ● 2300d

Parking zone forced on residentsEvening Standard    Maxine Frith Wednesday 1 May 2013 10:58 A controlled parking zone is to be introduced in Chiswick despite some residents claiming that a majority of people don’t want it.Campaigners in Grove Park say a local councillor has forced through the plans without properly consulting them — accusing him of a conflict of interest because his parents live on one of the roads affected.The CPZ in Park Road and Staveley Road East was given the go-ahead last week by Labour councillor Ed Mayne, cabinet member for community safety and regulatory services, following nine years of argument about the proposed scheme. Hounslow council and Mr Mayne deny any conflict of interest and insist a full consultation was carried out of people in the two streets. Parking on the roads will be limited to residents between 10am and noon on weekdays for a six-month trial. The council says the CPZ rules will stop commuters from using streets as free parking for Chiswick station. But Andy Murray, chairman of the Grove Park Group of residents, said the restrictions would displace cars onto surrounding roads, prompting more CPZ applications. He said the council wanted to bring in CPZs as a revenue raiser.He said: “When a survey was done, 53 per cent of people said they didn’t have a problem with parking.”A council spokesman said: “The council carried out two comprehensive consultations before any decision to proceed with the controlled parking zone in Park Road and Staveley Road was taken. On both occasions, the majority of residents in the proposed zone were clearly in favour.”He added the proposals went through the scrutiny committee twice and that the decision was a “pragmatic and honest solution to parking problems”.

Bernard Allen ● 2300d

Pollution on the High Road will have collapsed since the Low Emission Bus Zone was put in place as buses were responsible for at least half of the NOx and therefore presumably more of the particulates according to a Hounslow Council Report. Problem is the buses no longer serving local routes are operating somewhere else polluting someone else's air.Tom, on the question of people switching to walking and cycling I really struggle to believe how suddenly people who hadn't worked out this was a good thing to do won't have done this already. If the people who could do have done you are left with the people who can't and won't so the scope is very limited.I am not optimistic but we will soon see how this plays out. Overall I think there is a big danger in seeing people who drive as morally deficient. As a general principle I think access restrictions are a good thing if they displace traffic to where it ought to be. Therefore Wellesley Road - tick, South Chiswick Neighbourhood scheme - tick, the idea of eliminating the loop through Sutton Court Road to get to Grove Park - tick. However Fishers Lane/TGT displaces traffic from predominantly commercial areas to predominantly residential - no tick. Even if the scheme works out as you hoped you still may end up with more cars in the wrong place.

Paul Corcoran ● 2300d

We all more often do things gradually. Whether it be what we eat, or how we exercise, shop or travel, it’s not generally a sudden shift. So it’s not about moral absolutes at all but rather shifts in our behaviour that collectively produce much larger effects.

Tom Pike ● 2300d

No one who uses their  car or a taxi to do heavy shopping, get to places difficult to reach by public transport, need to take babies or animals to an appointment any distance away is going to stop using private cars, ever. This just means they'll sit in emission spewing traffic for much  much longer.

Claire Moran ● 2300d

Claire, I've done all those things, and continue to do many of them, but I drive a car less and less. I stopped owning one ten years ago. This is increasingly common for more and more Londoners, and pollution will fall as this shift continues.

Tom Pike ● 2300d

Well I gave mine up over 10 years ago and will bitterly resent the time I will now have to spend in a cab when I need to take one in horrendous tailbacks.  I will be ordering everything online from now on (I ordered a lot online before). More and more people are doing this which means more and more delivery vans, adding to congestion and pollution. I will now only go into Chiswick to go to the bank  maybe 2 or 3 times a year to deposit cheques and get some cash.

Claire Moran ● 2300d

There is already congestion “Armageddon” from beyond Goldhawk Rd. approaching Chiz. with the knock on from Turnham Green Terrace closure. Perhaps our LBHF should close off “our” High Rd/King St. To Hounslow/Ealing traffic now being displaced down Goldhawk? While Ealing/Hounslow fight over who gets the loot from “fines” the residents and taxpayers are suffering. No joined up approach and denial of a traffic plan.

Caroline Carrington ● 2300d

Claire, for those with a smartphone, Lloyds banking app lets you take a photograph of a cheque and upload it - it's then cleared and credited to your account. I think Lloyds is the only bank offering this at the moment but others may follow - at least if we still have cheques for much longer!

Bruce Hammal ● 2300d

No, it's clear down Bath Road. There's a collision clearing on the High Road.

Tom Pike ● 2300d

Ah, ok, thanks, I had a look online over the weekend but couldn't see any UK banks offering it.  I do have an account with Lloyds that I don't use but will start if they do offer this service.  So then there would be no reason at all to go into the centre of Chiswick ever, just through it going South  West by cab or bus!  Thanks very much for the info, appreciated.

Claire Moran ● 2300d

Here's howhttps://www.lloydsbank.com/online-banking/mobile-banking/cheque-deposits.html

Bruce Hammal ● 2300d

Really simple Paul, no safe provision for cycling as a family until now.

John Hall ● 2300d

Yes, thanks, have just installed the app, will try it out later

Claire Moran ● 2300d

John, there are too many Paul's on this forum so I'm guessing this was meant for me. Can you specify what extra safe cycling provision there is for anyone coming from your part of North Chiswick? As I see it the risk is that South Parade could become more dangerous for cyclists. At times it may be much more congested and at other times speed may increase because the calming effect of the mini roundabout near the underpass will be lost and cars will not need to pause there anymore. Cycling through the underpass stopped being unsafe when they repaired the potholes. It can be intimidating but still will be if you meet a bus coming the other way.

Paul Corcoran ● 2299d

If I may jump in, it's the junctions that are the dangerous part.If the cars aren't coming out of Fisher's lane then they won't be doing a SMIDSY on a cyclist.You also don't have the risk of a left turning vehicle squashing a cyclist.  Often that happens because a cyclist puts themselves in a bad postion, but it is one of the leading causes of deaths to cyclists in London.You also won't have the risk of a car turning right into Fisher's Lane hitting a cyclist.  I know that is the car's right of way, but it's still an accident that happens.If you look at the stats, cycling on a straight road is very safe.  The overwhelming majority of collisions involving cyclists occur at junctions.  If you essentially get rid of the junction, you make it safer.The other thing to consider is the underpass itself.  That is very narrow, and some idiots in cars will just charge through it even when a bike is coming in the other direction.Personally, I think closing TGT is too much.  It is going to increase pollution because cars, delivery vans etc will have to make much longer journeys, and there will be extra congestion on Acton Lane and Goldhawk Road.The other option might be to make TGT one way in a Northbound direction, with a contraflow cycle lane, and make Fisher's lane one way in a SB direction.

Al Webber ● 2299d

It's swings and roundabouts really (literally in the case of the latter). All of what you say make some sense but I agree with Paul that speeds will increase at this junction. Drivers already often ignore cyclists turning right into Fishers Lane from South Parade and once they realise there isn't likely to be a car crossing their path they will approach this junction at greater speed.Also looking at the proposed location of the sign and the bus stop I think there will be lots of drivers missing the no left turn sign and there is an increased risk of collisions if cyclist assume no cars will be crossing their path.Overall for me the minimal benefits of no cars going through the underpass will be outweighed if South Parade gets more congested. Cars don't leave space for bikes (they can't because they know they will block the 94 bus if they do). This renders the road unusable for cyclists if it is congested.

Andrew OSullivan ● 2299d

The paths on Acton Green between Fishers and TGT and between Fishers and Fairlawn are shared use so cyclists don't have to use South Parade to travel east and west if they choose not to. Particularly useful for people like John who want to cycle in safe conditions with their children. It will be interesting to archive all these predictions and revisit them several weeks after Fishers has been properly closed with enforcement in place. I've noticed that a few of the commentators here have confidently made other predictions that have not been accurate so wondering if they can improve their track record. Let's see.

Paul Campbell ● 2299d

Are you seriously suggesting that a cyclist coming from the north of South Parade should loop round to cross Acton Green just to get to Fishers Lane?Fears that South Parade will become more congested may be misplaced, we will see. After all you won't be rat-running along it any more so that is one less car to worry about.

Andrew OSullivan ● 2299d

Another advantage of closing Fishers Lane is that the area around the junction of Fishers Lane and CHR is a casualty and collision hotspot for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicle occupants.Anecdotally, there seemed to be a lot of Ubers cutting down Fishers Lane then slaloming across CHR to get to Dukes Avenue for the A4.The local cllrs called for zebras for crossing at Dolman and Fishers.  Under current UK regulations, these weren't permitted as they were too close to junctions but with a reduction in traffic, they may not be necessary (although Chris Boardman is leading a campaign to have UK regulations changed so zebras at junctions would be permitted).

Michael Robinson ● 2299d

Yes indeed! That will certainly help the situation. And that is why the predictions may not come to pass because, despite the outrage and incredulity of some long-standing Chiswick drivers, lots of people are aware of how to use the backstreets of Chiswick to avoid delays at lights etc. Google maps currently has Fishers Lane on its fast route to get from Slough to Westfield. So the experienced and knowledgeable drivers like me won't be there anymore and nor will the people following their SatNavs. But we shall see. After all it wasn't long ago that I was being scoffed at and being told that there would be no money for new schemes and that nobody would take road space away from cars. Amazing how counter-intuitive these events have proven to be for some of our most confident travel commentators.Yes I am certainly suggesting that the paths on Acton Green provide a safe route for families to travel east and west on their bikes around the area to the north of the railway between Acton Lane and Turnham Green. I am sure that a couple of minutes detour to keep small children away from cars will not be too much of an inconvenience. After all us families who travel by bike are already quite used to having to construct convoluted routes around our areas in an effort to keep children safe from the dangerous motor traffic that has been allowed to pour into residential and shopping streets unimpeded.

Paul Campbell ● 2299d

No cars going down Fishers Lane won't necessarily make this junction safer for cyclists. It's when you try and join traffic on the High Road that the risk rises. I'll generally use a car emerging onto CHR as a shield which means that I can get through queuing traffic more safely. Without a car joining at the same time it is much less likely that someone will stop for you to let you through.

Andrew OSullivan ● 2299d

Interesting theory Andrew. It doesn’t seem to work in practice as the section of road there has the second highest rate of cycling collisions along the Cycleway 9 route other than the junction at CHR/King St/Goldhawk Rd (and not far behind it).It is bad for pedestrian and motor vehicle occupant casualties as well.Basically there are too many different vehicle movements possible in a short section of road then add pedestrians crossing and cyclists and that is why there are so many casualties.Closing Fishers Lane will simplify this, particularly as so many vehicles were looking to do a right turn then slalom over to do a left turn for the A4.

Michael Robinson ● 2299d

Wow, the Michael and Paul C double act are out in force today. Only yesterday I was criticised by Paul for commening on positive posts, yet here you both are with a running commentary for all who dare disagree with the measures.It will be the case that Ubers will no longer 'slalom' across CHR, and I support the closure of Fishers Lane. But these Ubers are taking people places they want to go, an airport or station, a night out or appointment. In great majority of cases they are not going to be replaced by bikes or even public transport. So the Sat Navs will take them along the remaining routes, which are already heavily congested at peak times and will get worse. Adding to pollution, often delaying buses, and delaying all of us. Lets not foget CS9 will see the removal of key stretches of bus lane, not a good outcome.If traffic volumes remain subdued until Xmas, then of course 'the world wont end'. But unless there are larger measures to stop traffic flowing to/ from the A4 and through Chiswick to Westfield and elsewhere, then congestion will pick up sharply once things normalise.

Paul Green ● 2299d

Absolutely right, Paul G.

Claire Moran ● 2299d

It's not a theory Michael. I can assure you it works very well in practice and I highly recommend it as a method of reducing risk as a cyclist who has used this junction for over 20 years. Cars are rarely the cyclist's friend but this is a rare case in which they are.

Andrew OSullivan ● 2299d

Thing is Andrew, when it comes to standard practice for reducing casualties, removing the source of the danger is the first thing on the list,Using a car as PPE would be the last.

Michael Robinson ● 2299d

Thing is Andrew, when it comes to standard practice for reducing casualties, removing the source of the danger is the first thing on the list,Using a car as PPE would be the last.

Michael Robinson ● 2299d

Michael, if only it were that simple. This change won't remove danger. In my case it will move it towards me except in the one rare instance where the source of risk is benign.

Andrew OSullivan ● 2299d

Andrew, I agree I also often feel safer using cars turning right from Fishers Lane to shield me. But looking at the actual collisions, it's drivers making that right turn that result in serious injuries for cyclists.From 2010 to 2017 there have been six serious injuries to cyclists at the Fishers Lane/High Road junction, a little less than one a year. In all cases it was due to the vehicle turning right from Fishers Lane colliding with a cyclist on the High Road. It would be very likely that the complexity of making that turn caused the driver to overlook the cyclist on the High Road. In comparison there were no serious injuries to right-turning cyclists who would be in the path of drivers on the High Road and very difficult to overlook. I've no doubt you are serious about reducing accidents at that junction and I can appreciate your point, but the proven risk to cyclists is from drivers making the right turn from Fishers lane. Closing Fishers Lane would prevent about one serious injury to cyclists a year.

Tom Pike ● 2299d

Indeed Tom. If you include vehicle occupants, motorcyclists and pedestrians in the casualties injured by vehicles coming out of Fishers Lane, the rate is more than one casualty per year.Three quarters of these were from right turns out of Fishers Lane, a quarter from left turns with left turn collisions being with pedestrians crossing or motorcyclists.

Michael Robinson ● 2299d

We seem to be losing track of what I understood was the original intention of these experimental schemes, which is '..to reallocate road space to people walking and cycling, both to encourage active travel and to enable social distancing during restart..'  I can see how the TGT and Devonshire Road schemes do that directly by making more space available for pedestrians, but I can't see how the Fishers Lane scheme meets the criteria as pedestrians are still restricted to the narrow elevated pavement. This discussion seems to have digressed into a debate about generalised traffic calming which will, at best, only benefit pedestrians indirectly.

Peter Evans ● 2299d

Closing Fisher's lane is a consequence of closing TGT.  A lot of the TGT traffic would end up on Fisher's lane, which is already a problem area under the bridge.

Al Webber ● 2299d

“I checked google maps yesterday afternoon and it was showing Fishers Lane as the preferred route for someone driving between Westfield and Slough.”“Google maps currently has Fishers Lane on its fast route to get from Slough to Westfield.”I think it is just the two of you getting that result. Google maps learns your behaviour and previous routes, so what it shows you is your preferred route. If I type in Westfield to Slough or Slough to Westfield it directs me to use Goldhawk Road, Chiswick Lane and the M4. It gives me the suggestion to use the A40 which is a few minutes slower. I’ve tried departing at all times during a day and the only change is where to leave the A40 (or join depending on direction). The only way I can get directions via Fishers Lane is to put a waypoint there, it takes 4 minutes longer. You may want to go to your timeline in Google Maps and delete your history, it may give you options you haven’t used that are quicker.

Colin Potter ● 2297d