Forum Topic

The supporters of the cycleway seem now largely have taken to social media echo chambers where they can go and confirm to each other how right they are.Led by Jeremy Vine they are currently arguing that there is no issue raised for ambulances by the current configuration of the road because a) ambulances have always got delayed on Chiswick High Road and b) the problem is too many cars an issue which will be resolved when we all start cycling. Ambulances being held up by traffic on the High Road is not a new thing but it has to be recognised there is a difference in the current situation. Previously, even in very heavy traffic there was enough road space for vehicles to move to one side to make way for an ambulance. Now, however, with the stretch between Turnham Green and Turnham Green Terrace largely single lane each way and this often being static there isn't room for people blocking an ambulance to get out of the way.I have often witnessed ambulances and fire engines being delayed for a few seconds on Chiswick High Road. This month, for the first time ever, I witnessed one being delayed for a few minutes. Anyone who doesn't see the problem here has their head in the sand.What remains to be seen is whether or not the cycleway will ultimately provide a bypass for ambulances to get through gridlock in Chiswick. If it does then this is far less of an issue although I won't be totally convinced it is wide enough until I see emergency services vehicles actually using.  It does concern me that fans of the cycleway are not pointing to this potential solution and are still insisting that the current configuration of Chiswick High Road presents no extra risk to life due to emergency help being delayed.

Francis Rowe ● 2177d

Michael, when such a narrowly focused lobby groups as yours has the ear of decision makers and deliver schemes that only suit that group to the exclusion of all others, then there is a problemThere are plenty of cyclists who have come on here to express frustrations with the current scheme and displaced traffic. The new High Road layout will reduce tarffic to a crawl. It also cements the division of W4 into half, making it very hard for residents and associated trade traffic to move north to south.That reflects the fact that TFL literally do not give a sh*T about Chiswick. As with the A4, its a place to be ploughed through, with lip service to local consultation or usability. THere is no meanigful way to access CS9 from the north or south. This really is not a surprise as it is designed as long distance highway, not a plan to address local travel patterns. It is only of any use if you want to cycle from near Waitrose to Hammersmith. But its actually negative if you want to cycle anywhere else, and a disaster for all vehicular traffic, buses, trade and emergency vehicles included.You talk about the pollution measures, yet even before the construction of CS9 you said pollution was down. So what problem is being solved? You highlight that pollution has fallen on DR, a quite road with little traffic. But completely ignore the impact of displaced traffic onto already busy and congested roads. Where by your logic they MUST have seen more pollution. The Times today was talking about school streets and the very localised impact of some of the finest particles. So these schemes you support are knowingly subjecting the residents, pedestrians and cyclists on both congested streets to more and the most harmful pollution.You talk of people rejecting all schemes, when many do not. But you refuse to engage or acknowledge a single change to ANY of the schemes. You accuse others of having no practical solutions, then when reasonable ones are presented you shoot them down. Quite who appointed you as arbiter for W4 I have no idea. It is certainly not by any democratic mandate. The emergency vehicle is just the latest and indeed very serious example. Given that you and your group are clearly closely involved in the design and lobbying for these schemes then it is only reasonable you should be asked to address the problems they cause.

Paul Green ● 2177d

Mark is fundamentally correct. We need to counter the constant flow of disinformation. The temporary version of CS9 has crticial differences to the original, there has been no traffic modelling, and TFL do not really know what the impact will be. Traffic will be far, far slower, with more diverting onto surrounding routes. Buses will suffer, always my primary complaint with this scheme. You cannot want people out of cars and then make the main mass alternative unusable.As for the new bus gate before the Acton Lane junction, one has to question the sanity and competence of whoever designed this. For eastbound High Road traffic this junction was busy but functioned and buses had a very long bus lane and then had no problem filtering into the traffic to go straight ahead. I say this from long personal experience.The new scheme nearly halves the junction capacity, reducing the left turn lane for Acton Lane and then with a dedicated green time for buses. Pre lockdown the longer queues were evident even before the new lights are in use, with traffic diverting down onto Wellesley (BTW the route of CS9!) and then up Sutton Lane. It can only 'work' to a degree if the plan is to reduce green time for non-bus traffic substantially and so throttle traffic onto the main section of High Rd. This will create gridlock, with even more traffic diverting along Wellesley and then onto Sutton Lane or Heathfield Terrace. It will also make it near impossible to access Acton Lane from the west or south. Madness does not do this justice.

Paul Green ● 2176d

I was walking around Turnham Green yesterday and there was gridlock on the High Road. Many buses hardly moving and mostly delivery vehicles trying to get down the HR. The whole scheme is bonkers. We will also have complete gridlock at the CHR/Chiswick Lane junction soon as they have removed the westbound bus lane and no doubt the left hand filter get to the Hogarth roundabout. We are in lockdown at present and the scheme is just a mess. I tend to uses the buses in the main and have noticed they take ages now (as they get stuck due to one lane width most of the high road), so why is TfL promoting a scheme like this which will see bus use decline (although that is probably what they want so they can reduce the service and cost and say that emissions have come down all at the same time) Having lived in Chiswick for nearly 30 years, I just see a sad decline of what a vibrant place CHR used to be. Covid has a part to play as well as business rents etc,  but the biggest change is going to be effect of people no longer wanting to visit the High Road due to it being gridlocked and on Sundays no yellow line parking for visitors who would visit the High Road for a wander and dining. And before anyone starts spouting off about you can get there on a bike, yes, you can get anywhere on a bike, but this all feels like we're being dictated to about how we live our lives and with all the cameras turning up to fine people, it feels like its becoming the Stasi. (Really interesting museum in Leipzig if anyone interested where the Stasi HQ was based)

J Morse ● 2176d

Tom, others seem to fall for your 'politeness', but I am afraid it masks dangerous messages and disinformation. YOu say 'If we don’t see a fall in pollution from traffic on the High Road and a shift from motor vehicles to active transport, the scheme will have demonstrably failed'.So lets be specific. You have previously claimed that 'we all' benefited from cleaner air as a result of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, and that we have also all benefited from the reduction in air pollution on the High rd, which you strangely have attributed purely to the closure of TGT.So the issue, as I keep pointing out to a scientist who does know this but finds it easier to ignore, is around causality and the counterfactual. Pollution on the High Road has fallen for various reasons, fewer buses, more hybrids and electric, the pandemic, and related to that a big fall in pollution from the A4. There is also a large background pollution effect from other areas and indeed at times other countries, all of which has no doubt fallen due to the pandemic. You have claimed that a monitor on DR shows less pollution there. If we accept this is true, then a small local road that saw modest traffic seeing a drop in that traffic causes less localised pollution. So logically, all the roads seeing more displaced traffic are seeing more localised pollution, bad for the health of residents, pedestrians and others.So what do we make of that. The new measures will roughly halve the capacity of the High Rd, which even with the impact of more stationary traffic must in the immediate vicinity may well mean less pollution. Heathrow is empty so A4 pollution is also down hugely. So the first question is, with less queues, could the High Rd have seen pollution fall more.The second biger question is, all the other routes that see more traffic and queues, where there is no monitoring at all, why is the pollution not considered there? Because by the same irrefutable logic it has gone up due to these measures. But it seems if you dont measure it then it does not exist.Finally, how are we measuring a modal shift. We are seeing many choose to avoid the High Road. Many already walked there or took the bus. And most crucial of all, when are these results to be taken. In the midst of a pandemic when the traffic is gone. Or a wet winter evening with Brentford and Chelsea at home and most of Chiswick reduced to gridlock? Sadly I think I know the answer.

Paul Green ● 2176d