Forum Topic

Seems to be a lot of over excited comments on this topic.Here’s the actual statement from the OneChiswick sitehttps://onechiswick.com/whats-new/“ OneChiswick has no connection with any damage to Council traffic counters”June 1st Statement  “Exactly one month ago, accusations were made and repeated on social media without any evidence or indeed any truth whatsoever, which insinuated that members of OneChiswick had vandalised a garden and destroyed some flowers. It soon became clear these claims were in fact ludicrous and those claiming it quickly withdrew their insinuations. Now just one month later it appears that traffic counters set up by Hounslow Council around Chiswick have been damaged which is very bad news for all of us who want the collection of good accurate traffic data.  Some councillors have have suggested this is deliberate vandalism. It is unclear whether this happened as a result of any systematic criminality. Other people have suggested it was the work of young foxes who can be very destructive indeed.  We don’t know and given that there appears to be so much damage over so many sites – the police should be called to investigate before further accusations are made and hasty conclusions reached. What we can categorically state is that OneChiswick had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of this.  We are against the imposition of LTNs and the unsafe Cycle Lane but we are in favour of the proper collection of accurate traffic data and we are entirely against law breaking or vandalism of any kind. It has been further alleged by the ChiswickCalendar website which is known for its eager and consistent support of the activities of Hounslow Council and its Lower Traffic Neighbourhoods policies that:“The Facebook group OneChiswick, who are taking the council to Judicial Review over the cycle lane through Chiswick, published a list of locations where the traffic counting strips had been placed a few days earlier.”  This is a highly misleading statement and we have written to the editor Bridget Osborne about this asking her to remove it. There was a wide ranging and legitimate discussion in the private Facebook group about the traffic counters not just in Chiswick but in the entire Borough and even across London but no list of locations was published. OneChiswick is a campaigning organisation who operate entirely within the law to achieve a just and lawful outcome for the residents of Chiswick who are overwhelmingly against the changes being imposed by the London Borough of Hounslow. We will never encourage or carry out any vandalism and will continue to refute and resist any concerted bogus claims to discredit our reputation. “

Russell Pearson ● 1972d

"Sam and the OC have never managed to understand the phrase "car-led recovery"."Paul - it is very clear that although some people who previously commuted to work on public transport are now working from home, many others because of the nature of their work are unable to do so e.g. teachers, and are choosing to commute by car rather than risk using public transport. Anecdotally, this includes parents unwilling to let their unvaccinated children to commute to school by bus, tube or train.In the short and possibly even the medium term there is a degree of inevitability about the emergence of a "car-led" recovery. Although there would appear to be more people cycling no one seems to be claiming that this amounts to the Holy Grail of modal shift - in my opinion there do seem to be more people cycling for pleasure but this by its very nature is not relieving the rush-hour pressure on our roads.What is vitally important is that TfL must take on board the implications for London's transport net work of a car-led recovery. If they do not they will be left Canute-like with a sea of unresolved traffic issues lapping around their ankles. They must remind themselves that they are the servants of London's residents and not our masters.I believe that people will eventually return to commuting by public transport however fewer people will be using public transport than before the pandemic - because many more will be working from home and/or moved of London. Once international tourism returns our overground and underground trains will become fuller as will our buses. Some tourists may well choose to cycle and this may even become a long term trend in the centre of London. Whilst measuring traffic volumes at this time is better than doing nothing at all I do seriously question the value of such data (on its own) for making any long term decisions such as converting experimental traffic measures into permanent ones. What conclusions can be drawn other the 'b******g' obvious?

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 1972d

Sorry, Ed, you've misrepresented me which happens often from cycling advocates.My position has and always will be site-specific holistic urban design to resolve the evolving situation on London roads. A solution that must encompass all manner of road use. Maybe you missed the original bit of ReDesign CS9. Somehow the reading comprehension of the cycle lobby interprets "redesign" as "anti" or "hate" or whatever rhetoric suits them that day/post. I thought you were different. Now a good time to mention posting a link to removal of highways? Or the multiple other links shared over the years trying to shine a brighter light on the problem, not just this dim ray we get from cyclists who have proven time and time again their lens is a bit smudged? It's a bit myopic to say the least.We had a bus lane. We no longer do. Thus buses have been delayed. It is not a coincidence the arrival of the cycle lane has caused an increase in traffic as Paulo's link mentions. And yes, isn't it just awful I advocate for shopping locally to support businesses (especially now) but also to reduce the number of delivery vehicles arriving on all our streets at all hours. Used to be the main roads were the main thoroughfare for distribution. But now vehicles pull up to the curb outside the house at all hours to drop of a meal kit. I mention that because it never escapes me that so long as others are inconvenienced, its okay. But please don't inconvenience you and Paulo when getting the latest veg dropped to your door. If its an LTN network you want so badly, then get the delivery vehicles off the roads. But nah, that's just following all the "logic" presented to its obvious conclusion. Why do that when you can cast aspersions?

David Lesniak ● 1972d

Yes Sam many people are using their cars for short local journeys and creating the congestion that they complain about and mistake as "gridlock". I am glad that you acknowledge that. No doubt some of them believe they have irrebukable moral logic for choosing to use their cars for these journeys and they are particularly sensitive to any hint of criticism or explanation of the damaging consequences to society of their choices. Parents protecting their children by driving them a mile or two to school for example.The national government, their representation on the TfL board, TfL and the local Councils believe strongly that safer streets and cycle lanes will help more people to make transport choices that are better for them and society. They are united in seeing it as a categorical imperative to make this happen in London. You are right that nobody believes this will be a panacea to the transport problems caused by the extent of personal car use in London but it will help. We are only at the very beginning of creating a network of safer streets and cycle lanes that will enable more people to resist using cars for short local journeys that can be walked or cycled instead. And it is working. I know many parents who are taking their unvaccinated children to school by bike now and who are pleased to have safer streets to allow them to make that choice. We are fortunate to have politicians with the fortitude to create a liberal society that supports choice and encourages people to take decisions that benefit both themselves and society. We are very fortunate to not have ones who fold at the merest hint of anger from friends who are inconvenienced by measures that share public space with others at their expense. There is more than enough traffic to warrant collecting data to inform decisions. My experience of the reactions of opponents of traffic restriction measures to receipt of data does not support your view that the conclusions will be "bleeding obvious". A particularly memorable example was your colleague and regular user of the cycle lane remonstrating with TfL online when they presented the bus journey time data which contradicted his perceptions or beliefs.

Paul Campbell ● 1972d

David, I was very careful to say that I was paraphrasing my understanding of your position and I hoped it was implicit that if I'd got it wrong, you'd be kind enough to clarify or correct!  Could I just say that I don't agree with the label "cycling advocate" - could I have "part-time local transport enthusiast" instead?  I'd accept "anti-pollution" or "anti-congestion" enthusiast [part-time, W4 Area] too :-)I'm not a member of any cycling organisation or a lobbyist.  I think cycling, scootering and walking have important roles in helping to solve the problems of too many vehicles - and in that sense, I think we're starting from similar places, even if our paths diverge somewhat in terms of the solutions.On one thing I can agree - the answer to whatever transport issue isn't always "bicycles" and perhaps you already agree that it isn't always "no bicycles"?I think I missed your link to removing highways.  I don't know if you saw my question on another thread - but I did ask "what bus lane"?I only started using a bike because we got caught in traffic on CHR so frequently (especially Fridays) going Westbound and would have to sit in the car or bail out of the Uber and especially bail out of the buses and walk.  There was no Westbound bus lane.  When the traffic was gridlocked, the buses were stationary.  There were no halcyon days where the buses glided effortlessly up and down CHR picking up and dropping off smiley happy passengers.  I know there were bits of bus lane, but the way people talk about it, it is as if the cycle lane completely replaced long, contiguous lanes in both directions.  Outside your gaffe, what the cycle lane seems to have replaced is a cycle lane!  I know there was an Eastbound bit that's gone now, but the buses largely relied on free flowing traffic in both directions rather than dedicated lanes.  Maybe putting back the bits that were taken out might help a bit - particularly Eastbound?  But they weren't doing much in 2019 - or I wouldn't have got on a bike in the first place!  I've drifted away from your point - yes, too many vehicles and a lot of them are commercial, not cars.  We need solutions to that and, as I said, the answer isn't always bikes :-)

Ed Saper ● 1972d

Ed, you can say what you like. Transport enthusiast it is. I'd ask not to be called anti-cycling, but when last I checked pigs weren't flying yet. Maybe they're on the red list. I'd also ask for the silly rhetoric to be stopped but I think many of your colleagues need an enemy or villain for some reason so they brand as many as they can to suit their purpose. Assuming there is one.I think it's time the High Road evolve. But that doesn't mean hodgepodge solutions. You want to encourage walking. How? A few zebra crossings here and there? I think it should be more experiential. An upgrade to the urban realm to make it more pleasant, to encourage people to stroll, idle, meet, gather, shop, etc. TfL lip service says the same thing. Our commissioner on walking has never once heralded a new era for walking. Nary a new walking project. Nor a new model for walking on High Streets. And yet he still gets paid with our money. For doing half his job. I'd love to sell people stuff and give them half of what they paid for. Could you imagine what that would do to our margins? Your margins? But we can't operate like that. How come Will Norman can? But here in W4 money is never put where the mouths are on improving public realm and walking for all. Ticking the box for a minority group does not excuse you from your responsibilities to the wider community no matter how loud you preach nor what vitriol gets hurled. You'll always note the volume (in both senses of the word) goes up several notches when your point hits home. Simply wait to read people respond to what I just said.As for the bus lane, there used to be a dedicated 24-hour bus lane from Goldhawk to Chiswick Lane on the south side. That's gone now along with the dedicated left-hand turn from CHR to Chiswick Lane. Why it was 24-hours when no other patch was remained a mystery. Why there are still bus "lanes" now is a mystery. The paltry section on CHR headed east toward Goldhawk is inane. Especially during morning rush. It is utterly pointless and sits empty while traffic idles. For what purpose? To generate more pollution? It's doing a grand job at that. There may be other areas along CHR that had dedicated bus lanes. I think there used to be one from TGT headed west toward Heathfield but I don't think that was 24-hour. I rarely went that way. But that, too, is gone. Indeed there wasn't a contiguous lane that was replaced wholesale, but there were patches here and there. And after riding with Will Norman on another route several years ago, I asked how a new cycle lane was being accommodated near Aldwych and the answer was they removed the bus lane. It is a TfL strategy. Despite the government strategy to get people back on buses to prop up TfL revenue as well as generate a green post-COVID recovery. So a contradiction worth noting. A contradiction worth resolving but when you press that point it gets you a lovely ANTI sticker for your lapel. That plus stupid tweets from Paulo insinuating we had something to do with the foxes. But about those foxes, if local government read the room, they'd know they brought that upon themselves. However it happened, whoever did it, I sense it was a form of consultation. One that could've been avoided had common respect, decency and courtesy prevailed. But nobody has an interest in that anymore. Just creating enemies where there are none for some silly game that postpones a better solution. So we all lose.

David Lesniak ● 1971d