Forum Topic

Connollys bus gate

Has anyone actually witnessed a bus stopping at the bus gate?  I have watched them driving down the bus lane and they never stop at the bus gate - whatever colour the lights are.   Whom should I email about this?  TFL or Hounslow?

Lena Armstrong ● 1953d69 Comments

It's a complete waste of space! Plus, the buses who drive through then have to pull out into the right hand lane to continue down the High Road.

Linda Bright ● 1953d

The idea is that the bus does not stop, it zips down the bus lane and straight to the front of the traffic queue, much quicker than previously when traffic queuing to turn left into Acton Lane would hold up the bus.  I was a sceptic at first but am now converted having experienced much quicker bus journeys.

Adam ONeill ● 1953d

The traffic lights don't apply to the bus gate lane - only to the traffic in the other lanes.The gate lets buses through and stops other traffic so the bus can get ahead.

Ed Saper ● 1953d

Indeed, the stated aim of the bus gate is to "to protect eastbound bus performance on Chiswick High Road". The removed westbound bus gate before Chiswick Lane performed a similar purpose.While now only eastbound buses get the benefit, once the permanent CW9 is installed they'll be a chance to prioritise buses in both directions, as well as active transport.

Tom Pike ● 1953d

I thought when the lights were green for traffic to go forward the buses had to stop until the lights turned red . If the buses just keep going when cars are trying to enter the left lane it causes problems.

Lena Armstrong ● 1953d

This bus gate is, along with many other traffic measures introduced over the last year or so, a complete disaster. It has created an almost permanent queue of traffic along the high road, and also caused additional traffic and rat-running down many of the side roads.Please do make your feelings heard - these measures are slowly but surely being overturned, and the more we voice our concerns, the more likely it is we will be listened to, and Chiswick can be returned to how it was before the first lockdown. Which, bizarrely, was more of a 'low traffic neighbourhood' than before all these LTN's were introduced!

Mark Edwards ● 1953d

It's a yield beyond the lights on the bus lane, so the buses can go through the red that only applies to the general traffic lane, but then have to give way if there is any traffic beyond it, though it's usually held back.

Tom Pike ● 1953d

You said the same of the original bus gate. Should that be removed as well?

Tom Pike ● 1953d

As others suggest, buses are allowed through without impediment.  It's the rest of the traffic that's held back by the new lights.  What I don't understand is why the buses then pull across into the right hand lane to wait at the main traffic lights, occupying road space that other traffic could use, when they could stay in the left hand lane, which expressly allows buses to go straight on.

Peter Evans ● 1953d

"Chiswick can be returned to how it was before the first lockdown. Which, bizarrely, was more of a 'low traffic neighbourhood' than before all these LTN's were introduced!"In some ways you are right. The Homefields Ward is essentially a series of LTNs with almost no roads not in a LTN.  These measures are so deeply popular that some of the most fervent opponents of StreetSpace are passionate and vigorous defenders of these LTNs. Southfields Ward and Turnham Green Ward also have many LTNs in which again some of the most fervent opponents of StreetSpace live. Riverside Ward was lagging behind and suffering the increase in traffic on residential roads in the past decade but that has now been remedied.

Paul Campbell ● 1952d

So left turning vehicles can move off directly while the bus is at the head of the queue to go straight on. The aim of the bus gate is to prioritise buses, and their needing to merge right from the left lane into the rest of the traffic just negates the advantage the bus gate is able to offer. Putting the bus stops in line with the main traffic lane achieves a similar advantage. In comparison, waiting to merge when exiting from a bus stop off the main traffic lane just slows their progress.

Tom Pike ● 1952d

Tom, some of your earlier posts are inaccurate. The now removed bus gate by Stamford Brook was not put in to improve bus times, but to allow buses easier exit from the bus garage. This was when Mayor Ken was increasing bus frequencies and TFL had money to burn. Beforehand, there were no delays to buses on this route, or for private vehicles, the westbound CHR junction before Chiswick Lane worked well with a long left filter. The bus gate created queues, as then head of transport at LBH, Chris Calvi Freeman accepted. The knock on effect of the new queues was when they reached back to before the bus lane, delaying buses on Goldhawk Road and King Street. The loss of bus lanes in the full CS9 design and even worse now is a flaw.TFL indicate to me no delays to buses in the past at the CHR/ ACton Lane junction. It was not included in the original CS9, which also confirms the point. It 'protects' buses as you say by penning back all other traffic. That is what it does and it does it well. Traffic then displcaces onto Wellesley Road and Heathfield Gardens off the A4 to reach Acton Lane and avoid queues on CHR. Paul Corcoran nicely summarised the problems this has created.TFL are aware of the congestion and traffic displacement onto residential roads caused by the new bus gate. If this is sufficient for it to be changed we will see. But please stop claiming these problems do not exist or making statements that are false. I can't see why you do this?

Bill George ● 1952d

Of course the original bus gate caused queues to general traffic. The aim was to prioritise bus movements, including in and out of the depot. The bus lane allowed buses travelling through to bypass those queues. The Acton Lane bus gate replicates most of that function at the west end of the High Road, increasing the speed of the eastbound service, as mentioned by a regular passenger above. I’m not denying that there is traffic displacement, and as I’ve said before TfL should take measures to counter it, not remove the bus gate.

Tom Pike ● 1952d

Tom, you are being obtuse. The queues to 'general traffic' also slowed buses on the approach to the bus lane on King St and Goldhawk Road. There were no bus delays prior to its installation, and TFL never demonstrated any real need. The sensors often triggered the bus gate lights when there were no buses. It felt like something to spend money on rather than a necessity. A constant traffic queue and pollution was created.As my previous post, there were no delays to buses eastbound before the bus gate was installed by Acton Lane.  I cannot comment on one other poster but in many years of crossing this junction daily, buses never had a problem. TFL confirm this junction did not delay buses. What measures would you suggest to counter it? Other than shutting more roads?

Bill George ● 1952d

The bus lane stretched back to the traffic lights at Goldhawk Road, and beyond. How could the queue for general traffic at the bus gate obstruct buses on the stretch of road that it controlled? A quick flick through the Street View images over the years show no "constant queue". The lights at Chiswick Lane, not the bus gate, were the prime restriction on general traffic flow.The existing restriction at the end of Beverly Road stopped cars bypassing the original bus gate.

Tom Pike ● 1952d

Tom, this is strange discussing the real world with you. The 'last year' was during a pandemic. Before then, there was a near constant queue of traffic along that stretch of CHR, caused by the bus gate. Calvi-Freeman stated it was inevitable. If you read my post carefully, it states that at peak times the queues stretched back along CHR and onto King Street. There is no bus lane there and buses would be help in the queue. Once they reached the bus lane it was fine. A lot like the bus lane on Kew Bridge, the bus gate did more harm than good.I do not see why you are so obsessed with a feature that has now been removed? If you liked it then you must be dismayed at the removal of the bus gate and the loss of the bus line there? The main point, if you recall, is the impact of the new bus gate before Acton Lane. This acts to hold traffic back. It then displaces it onto residential roads. The reason it exists is to stop congestion along CHR with the segrated cycle lane. TFL accept this is happening.

Bill George ● 1952d

"Putting the bus stops in line with the main traffic lane achieves a similar advantage. In comparison, waiting to merge when exiting from a bus stop off the main traffic lane just slows their progress"Pity the good doctor neglects the bit about buses idling for shift changes. They sit and block traffic completely while we all wait for the staff to sort themselves out. Not as quick as you'd think. So we see westbound double deckers veering completely into the eastbound lane to pass their idling colleagues. When the bus lane existed, this was rarely, if ever, an issue. Side note: one can never see the westbound buses overtaking as you can't see behind the idling bus, so it always comes as a sudden surprise.It's also super fun to watch as businesses getting deliveries near the bus garage compound this situation. There are plenty of times when traffic in both directions grinds to a complete halt because the combo of light phases and idling buses and business deliveries create the perfect storm. Funny how no cars are the culprits in those instances. At times like that I take solace knowing people are getting the latest stuff from Amazon (you know, when everyone in the household orders separately triggering multiple deliveries to the same address in one day) as well as their meal delivery kits for that evening's supper.

David Lesniak ● 1952d

"Before then, there was a near constant queue of traffic along that stretch of CHR, caused by the bus gate.... the queues stretched back along CHR and onto King Street. There is no bus lane there and buses would be held in the queue"That's just not true and the Street View images go back to 2008, so you can check for yourself. There was a westbound bus lane stretching back along King's Street all the way to the Hampshire Pig.

Tom Pike ● 1952d

"Hi Tom, I dont normally post on here" hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Paul Campbell ● 1952d

Not as Bill George. Paul Green had been rather quiet recently, or so I thought until a couple of days ago.Chris Soze/David Riley have one after the other stopped posting. A think a pair of socks might be doing the rounds of the forum.

Tom Pike ● 1952d

You have lost me now. You dislike anyone daring to post on the realities on the ground, things that do not fit your agendas.

Bill George ● 1952d

"... the queues stretched back along CHR and onto King Street. There is no bus lane there and buses would be held in the queue."This is most certainly not a reality on the ground! I take it you don't travel much up to that end of Chiswick.

Tom Pike ● 1952d

I'm not familiar with any LTNs in Southfield ward, other than a few historic physical road closures.

Peter Evans ● 1952d

That's all a LTN is Peter. A road closure like at Evershed Walk or Priory Road that pevents through-traffic from accessing a number of residential roads in the vicinity to make it a low-traffic neighbourhood. Those closures make areas to the east and west of Acton Lane and north of South Parade LTNs. They are very deliberate and effective in their placement and force through traffic to use Bollo Lane, Acton Lane and the Avenue instead of smaller less suitable residential roads. Or in The OC speak - displace traffic, increase congestion and force pollution on the less fortunate who live on main roads. A new example of this similarly simple and effective measure is Harvard Hill in Grove Park.Woodstock Rd has also been blocked at its southern end to create a public realm improvement and prevent traffic accessing roads east of the Avenue and north of Bath Road from the roundabout but that is probably less driven by prevention of high volumes of through-traffic on those roads. It still means for some in The OC speak - forcing residents to take lengthy detours, burning more petrol to reach their homes.

Paul Campbell ● 1952d

LTNs are implemented using road closures or other types of traffic filtering.So closing off Priory Rd at Wadhurst Rd turned Priory Rd into a LTN.  Same for closing off Evershed Walk.  They just weren't called LTNs but that is what they are.Funny that there doesn't appear to be any demand for these roads to be re-opened.

Michael Robinson ● 1952d

I think that's a little over restrictive. LTN's don't necessarily require road closures. Every cul-de-sac is an LTN by design. Similarly residents on all the streets bounded by Ramilles, Vanbrugh, Marlborough, The Avenue and South Parade enjoy an LTN as there is no through traffic.A good proportion of residents on Chiswick live in an LTN on the basis that the only traffic on their streets has an origin or a destination in their immediate vicinity.

Tom Pike ● 1952d

Same for the residents to the west of Cunnington Street on Fairlawn Avenue, Fairlawn Grove, Ravenscroft Road.

Paul Campbell ● 1952d

So Fishers Lane is an LTN?

Mark Evans ● 1952d

While the mdoeration on this site may be questionable at times there is no doubt that the one thing they never look favourably upon is sock puppet accounts. They tend to disappear fast after a report. The only one worth keeping around is Janice.

Paul Campbell ● 1952d

Fishers Lane is part of a cycle scheme linking East Acton to Chiswick.If you look at the Ealing website, it isn't listed as one of their LTN projects but is referenced as a cycle scheme.

Michael Robinson ● 1952d

Bill George's "You have lost me now" might have to be considered as a last farewell before joining the forum's growing list of lost socks, along with his matching pair, Paul Green.

Tom Pike ● 1952d

If this is a reference to whether Fishers Lane will be classified as a LTN by Ealing Council and that means it will be subject to a CPZ-style consultation then I can't answer the question as I do not know the Council's intentions. But I do believe that OneEaling is not as enamoured as one might expect with the consultation proposals because it is rumored that they will be restricted to the people who live inside the LTN and on its boundaries only, which is obviously quite infuriating for those who wish to drive through the LTN and believe their voices should carry equal weight with the residents inside.The few times somebody who actually lives on Fishers Lane have raised their hands to engage in this ugly debate they have been in favour of the closure to cars, to the astonishment of its opponents. They knew before the interim review data was published that it had become a high speed dangerous road for through-traffic and that made it more unpleasant to live on. We shall see what Peter Mason decides but even if he goes for consultation I think we will have a lot of angry drivers north of the railway line.

Paul Campbell ● 1952d

The bus gate by Stamford Brook bus garage is very much still there, allowing buses easier exit from the bus garage.

Carl Wynne ● 1952d

Yes, just as you say, though the lights can no longer hold back general traffic while allowing buses to proceed westerly up the bus lane, so not a "gate" in that sense.Bill George/Paul Green's understanding of the traffic system this end of town is a little hazy, but I don't think we can expect his acknowledgement of this any time soon.

Tom Pike ● 1952d

Shame the CHR bike lane consultation wasn’t restricted to people who live on its boundaries for consistency then. Talk about sample boundaries to try and fit an agenda.

Mark Talbot ● 1952d

Perhaps it would be better not to describe every single permanent road closure that has ever taken place as an LTN as it ends up making the debate confusing. I don't think the Fishers Lane closure is an LTN but if you wanted to use the broader definition it would have to be.Whether Peter Mason is going to include it in his 'CPZ Style' consultations remains to be seen but he would have a hard time explaining why not if he chooses to exclude it from the process. That is not to say it doesn't present difficulties - a higher proportion of people who live on Fishers Lane are likely to be supportive of the continuation of the restrictions but they live in Hounslow Borough. If they are included in the consultation then should residents of Prebend Gardens be asked their opinion as many there believe they are seeing increased traffic down their road due to the closure?Should Ealing treat all responses equally or should complaints from residents of roads like Acton Lane and South Parade and adjoining roads which are suffering from the displaced traffic have their views be more highly waited as they are in Ealing borough and the council is supposed to be representing them?

Mark Evans ● 1951d

Michael has already given you the answer as to why Ealing Council may not classify Fishers Lane as a LTN. Because it is designated as part of a cycle route linking Acton to Cycleway9. None of the other LTNs I have documented here are designed as designated cycle routes. Personally I don't think that is confusing.I don't know what Ealing Council will do but I suspect Michael is right and there will not be a further CPZ-style consultation for Fishers Lane because it is a cycle route. We shall see. As for the consultation methodology for what Ealing Council is designating as new LTNs, none of which are in Chiswick, they may very well seek responses from people in surrounding areas of LTNs but I understand that more weighting will be given to those inside the LTN. That is a moral question - one either believes that the right of residents on minor roads to live on quiet and safe streets trumps the right of drivers to have unrestricted access to the whole road network to make their journeys shorter or vice versa. I think it is difficult for any Chiswick resident living in a pre-2020 LTN to make a strong moral case for the rights of drivers to trump the rights of residents. But I look forward to seeing somebody volunteer for the task ....

Paul Campbell ● 1951d

At least the historic road closures in Southfields are honest, straightforward, physical closures, and don't rely on confusing signage or secret cameras, nor are they a source of revenue for the local council. A model for other schemes elsewhere, perhaps.

Peter Evans ● 1951d

I'd love if there was a link between Cycleway 9 and Acton but recent changes have made it more difficult to join Chiswick High Road from the north.I won't labour the point about Fishers Lane but I'd be surprised if Ealing Council tried to fall back on such an arcane point of definition to try and avoid consulting residents on the matter.The notion of these issues being a binary decision between the rights of drivers and the rights of residents is a false one. Any attempt to make this a good guy/bad guy matter is going to prove both facile and ham-fisted.The most vociferous opponents of the traffic measures that have been implemented across the two boroughs have been those residents of roads to where traffic has been displaced. Fishers Lane is unusual in that the restriction diverts traffic past far more residential properties than benefit from quieter roads i.e. it is Fishers Lane against not just Acton Lane and South Parade but roads like Cunnington Street and Fairlawn Grove. The residents of these roads are not objecting because they are having longer car journeys, it is because there is currently much more traffic and pollution outside their homes.It is absolutely right to say that active travel should be encouraged but it should be viewed as something that can mitigate not solve the problems we face. Particularly here in Chiswick with a huge amount of new housing going up in the area we are going to have to try and protect residential streets from increased traffic levels. The main issue I have with Ealing's LTN programme so far that it seemed mainly designed to protect relatively wealthy areas at the expense of roads with cheaper properties. The assumption seemed to be it was fine to direct more traffic down distributor roads as they  had some already. But homes on busier roads tend to be cheaper and often not owner occupied so it was if poorer people's quality of life offered less.Ultimately it will have to be technology that protects residential streets from traffic. There are some relatively simple and low cost measures that could be implemented nationwide to enable this but at the moment we seem to have lost any sense of an overarching practical policy objective.

Mark Evans ● 1951d

"allowing buses easier exit from the bus garage"Unfortunately, Carl, this is not the case.Unlike Tom's snapshot version of reality from Street View, frozen in time, the daily experience is the phasing at the bus garage is poorly timed. If you are able to catch light at Chiswick Lane you invariably get to the red light at the bus garage. More often than not it is for naught: no pedestrians crossing nor buses accessing CHR but cars idling for no reason down to bad design. You also get buses trying to access CHR but can't because of the traffic so they will block eastbound flow entirely.So what Tom has proven is he himself doesn't get down this way much, he relies on StreetView for all manner of contortion and then he (and Paul) like to denigrate those who know the day-to-day reality. I'm of the belief that when the boys pounce they feel cornered. But that's just me.

David Lesniak ● 1951d

Spot on Mark. I rarely if ever drove through the Fishers Lane underpass but its closure has significantly diminished my quality of life by making traffic an even bigger part of it.

Anita Blake ● 1951d

I disagree with your comments about the cycle way link and also the definition being arcane. But let's see what Ealing decides.Actually the question of whose right will be prioritised is not a notion or a false dichotomy made up by me. It is fundamental to the decision-making of the politicians and how they weigh up the responses they get in consultations. This is precisely how the decision was arrived at for Stile Hall and Wellesley for example. If Hounslow weighed all interests equally those closures would not have happened as drivers who want to use the roads outnumber the residents.Ealing and Hounslow have both decided that their moral priority is to residents who want quiet and safe streets rather than to the drivers who want free access to drive through them. They believe that this has positive consequences for climate and active travel as well. But they are taking a balanced view and not just pivoting entirely one way. Other boroughs such as Wandsworth have taken the opposite view and prioritised the drivers. There are streets where residents have a consensus that they want it closed to through-traffic but their Council refuses to countenance that. Some of our local Conservative Councillors also make that same moral choice and it is very clear that they believe it to be the right one. I have my views on which of these I consider to be right but it is a genuine choice that politicians are making when determining national and local transport policies. Given your concerns about the policy of diverting traffic from residential roads to distributor roads would you advocate for the removal of all of the historic LTNs in Chiswick that do precisely this? Which one should we start with to test the notion that I have invented a false dichotomy?What is your idea for a technology solution to all of this? We've had one suggestion to nationalise the Sat Nav technology sector and create a state-owned monopoly that drivers would be forced to use which I don't think is realistic personally.

Paul Campbell ● 1951d

The point was simple but you appear to have missed it - this is not about drivers vs residents.A slightly longer journey will be an annoyance for some but a significant amount of traffic displaced onto the road where you live could have a potentially life-changing impact.The 'historic LTNs' as you insist on calling them or road closures as they will be known to the rest of us were presumably introduced by local authorities following lobbying by local residents, consulted upon, had their impact properly considered and modelled and it was ultimately decided that the benefits they brought outweighed the harms. Fishers Lane does not really follow this pattern. There was no significant demand from residents for it as far as I am aware, the number of residents who might be said to benefit from it are far outweighed by the ones having more traffic diverted past their homes and the queues back from Acton Lane clearly are creating more harm to the local environment than any benefits which appear at this stage to be a largely fictitious cycle route from Acton to Chiswick. (As someone who regularly cycles between the two areas benefit of the access restrictions in the underpass is more than outweighed by the harm of having to deal with static traffic on Acton Lane and South Parade more often than before).My idea for a technology solution is that council's share data with SatNav providers and in return have the ability to redesignate the designation of individual roads in realtime so the algorithm will divert traffic away from residential roads that seeing too much rat-running.

Mark Evans ● 1951d

So if Fishers Lane is reopened where then us the safe cycling route from the north of Chiswick to the other side of the railway line? It only leaves the pavement as an option. 

John Hall ● 1951d

What about the cyclists?? What about the elderly and the disabled.

Maggie Dodge ● 1951d

I didn't miss your point. I am explaining how politicians see and evaluate the choices that they are making about transport management. I also did not make a judgment on the morality of the choices they make. The Councils who prioritise the rights of residents on minor roads to not have through-traffic on them have made a moral judgment that has factored in the impact on distributor roads.  I could get into a debate about whether that is right or wrong  and reference the various studies that make those politicians comfortable with that moral choice but that has been done to death on here already. Suffice to say they are aware of it and have formed a judgment and made their decisions accordingly. They believe the benefits outweight the disadvantages and are for the greater good. I agree with them. Wandsworth Council agrees with your views on this and so do other authorities. They believe that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and the greater good is better served by allowing cars unrestricted access to the road network in their areas.I disagree with your point that the most fervent opponents of road changes live on the main roads. But again I've made that point before plenty of times. I believe that the people like the founders of The OC live on quiet roads with no through-traffic, are not suffering from displacement from new schemes and are drivers who feel their right to unrestricted driving should be prioritised over the right of residents to not have them driving down their roads. You can say I am wrong about that and where they live but it isn't really a factor in the decision-making on this anwyay. I think you are overestimating the process that established the historic LTNs. They were typically not widely consulted upon, they did not consider views of people from farther afield or sometimes even anybody outside the one street that had the restriction put in, they were triggered by a handful of residents lobbying for changes, Councils doing some pretty rudimentary evaluations before agreeing and implementing. One day a driver turns up and realises they can't go down a road and that is it. With these new schemes the same thing has happened but the bar for consultation and evalutation has been set at a much higher level. Residents have lobbied the Council for changes, due to the change in statutory guidance from government the Council then made some decisions to implement changes that they thought would help to solve the problems identified by those residents as a trial, then they have conducted an extensive consultation and data-gathering exercise facilitated by independent consultants before making any final decision on what should happen. the process is more inclusive and consultative that what happened several decades ago. Some might argue that has actually not helped with public attitude to change.I know that residents lobbied for change and that Fishers Lane is one of the changes that has been lobbied for over a very long period of time Opinions on the cycle route from Acton will vary and you are welcome to yours. I have mine and it is different. I may have asked you this before but have you used Waze? If not I would recommend that you do and then reconsider your proposed technology solution. I could explain why but the experience will have more impact.

Paul Campbell ● 1951d

I don't understand the point about needing to cycle on the pavement. Cycling under the underpass was never particularly dangerous once they repaired the potholes and it still has buses and a significant number of cars passing through so any safety benefit is pretty marginal. I was also recently nearly taken out by a car reversing out of the tunnel after the driver realised belatedly there was a restriction. Cycling on South Parade and Acton Lane is significantly more risky when there are queues of traffic because the road is very narrow and you often have to negotiate a gap on the inside of vehicles if you can pass at all. On balance these changes have made me feel less safe when cycling.

Mark Evans ● 1951d

You'd be nuts to try and cycle with your kids through that underpass with cars on both sides aggressively jockeying to get through as was before. So without the current closure no safe way to get into the center of our town on two wheels. 

John Hall ● 1951d

Just to cover several points here:- Most 'historic LTNs' pre-date legislation that introduced requirements for statutory consultation so there wouldn't have been any consultation.  They would just have done it.  Also, statuory consultation isn't the same as 'tell us your opinion' consultation and there is no requirement at all for councils to do this before a scheme.- Fishers Lane is being done as part of a cycle route, not a LTN, and is intended to be part of a north-south link to Chiswick.  Even Cllr Biddolph highlighted the need for north-south cycle links although of course she failed to say what she believed would be the best option and would undoubtedly have opposed any option.- "council's share data with SatNav providers"/. What does that actually mean? You are being naive if you  think that SatNav providers give a toss what routes they send cars down/  It is just algorithms remorselessly seeking out time savings of 30 seconds and they sure as hell aren't going to rewrite their algorithms and co-operate and share data with other SatNav providers just because some councils ask them.  Why should they? Your idea is pure cloud cuckoo land.

Michael Robinson ● 1951d

"If you are able to catch light at Chiswick Lane you invariably get to the red light at the bus garage. More often than not it is for naught: no pedestrians crossing nor buses accessing CHR but cars idling for no reason down to bad design."

I travel through there regularly, but rarely in a car. Given your track record, I thought it worth checking your claim. Over the last 13 years, those lights have been driven through 13 times by the Streetview cameras. 10 out of the 13  the lights were green, and for the remaining three times pedestrians were crossing where the lights were red. Either you are very unlucky, or your recollection is  faulty. 

These images also show that westbound queues stretching back through the bus gate and back towards Goldhawk Road were a common occurrence before C9, but contrary to the claims of Paul Green/Bill George, buses were not held back in the general traffic. 

Tom Pike ● 1951d

Families used to cycle through the underpass before the restriction and even as an adult the most intimidating thing was always if you were unlucky enough to come across a bus which is still liable to happen.Even if you aren't persuaded that it hasn't really become significantly safer you still need to consider the offsetting extra risk of having to pick your way through static traffic on South Parade and Acton Lane.

Mark Evans ● 1951d

As I said I don't really want to get bogged down in semantics - it helps nobody.The issue with Waze and other SatNav providers and the ETOs was that they didn't automatically update with the new restrictions. The way they work is that they monitor the traffic flow using the users mobile. When a restriction is in place that is being widely disregarded the system has no way of knowing that its users are at risk of being fined and continues to direct them through the restriction. This continues until Waze/Google updates their maps. All I am suggesting is that local authorities provide this map data to them directly. This would end inadvertent non-compliance by anyone using the app. In return the local authority could be allowed to redesignate the classification of roads so that the algorithm was less likely to divert vehicles down them. This isn't technically difficult to do and would present a win win for technology companies, councils and app users.

Mark Evans ● 1951d

The local authorities do provide changes to SatNav providers.Waze has the advantage that there are real people who can interact with the people who make the request.  Google, Apple and the rest - forget it.  A change is submitted and disappears into a black hole with no idea if it will be actioned or not and no way of following up.  In the case of Google, it doesn't matter if they implement the change anyway.  If the restriction uses ANPR and lots of drivers continue to drive through, then the google algorithms will re-open the road.  You can forget anyone in a local authority being able to contact let alone influence a product manager in San Jose with development team in India to change this behaviour."the local authority could be allowed to redesignate the classification of roads"Again, you are presuming how all the different SatNav providers algorthims work and they don't provide any visibility into their algorithms today because these are core intellectual property. Why should they let any local authority change them?  As I said - the only thing they care about is saving time for drivers.  They don't give a toss that residents get annoyed by a constant stream of traffic along a street."This isn't technically difficult to do".  Can you cite your knowledge and expertise of the how each of the SatNav provider algorithms work and your insight into their business models with justification why they should devote time and resources into redesigning their products and processes?As an engineer I just wish I had got money for every time someone with no knowledge of how the technology worked said "how difficult can it be..." or "that's got to be easy..."/

Michael Robinson ● 1951d

Nothing faulty about my recollection, Tom. But thanks for trying to disparage me. I can't help but notice the images you selected have no time stamp. Just a day. Be that as it may, unlike you, there are many of us locally and otherwise who are all too familiar with the new traffic queues and patterns. The changes have occurred since the implementation of the temporary cycle lane as well as since the LTNs have come and some gone.But please do continue to pull your punches. It simply doesn't change the truth nor does it dent my reputation except, of course, maybe what you think of me. But that opinion is locked in the vortex of your mind which you've demonstrated is so closed it will never change no matter the facts. Pity. I always expect more from smart people. Oh well.

David Lesniak ● 1951d

Sorry, John, you could use the pavement as they are intended: walk.Safest when cyclists aren't using it simultaneously, but walking is clearly a healthy and viable option. A win-win for your agenda.

David Lesniak ● 1951d

If SatNav usage is increasing the amount of traffic on our hitherto quiet residential roads, it would be useful to have a system whereby the local authority tells the SatNav companies which roads are closed, but doesn't actually close them.  Thus speculative through traffic would be diverted but locals who know better would be unaffected. As it is, the algorithm seems to work by detecting actual traffic movements, which is why our present ineffective 'closures' are still offered as viable routes.

Peter Evans ● 1951d

Not really David. If I had to think what my agenda is I would say being responsible to others in transport choices which I think means whenever possible walk locally, cycle a bit further or take public transport, and drive/train/coach when leaving London. If you can't get safely from N Chiswick on 2 wheels to CS9 and beyond (eg Sheen or Richmond with kids is too far to walk) then that's an issue. 

John Hall ● 1951d

The time stamp is irrelevant: these are 13 independent random samples of the state of the lights at the bus gate. They directly contradict your claim that the lights are invariably red at the bus gate after crossing the Chiswick Lane junction, and then mostly for no reason, and your assertion this demonstrates a design flaw in the bus-gate design. But you are correct, this probably doesn't affect your reputation - your dissembling to the Mail cemented that pretty solidly - but it does provide further confirmation.

Tom Pike ● 1951d

When some vehicles can legally access roads the algorhythm will show the road open and then there are those people who decide to play games with the algorhythms to show the roads open or closed.  These companies seem to be running roughshod over national Govts not just local Govts.  They need to pay tax in each individual country they make money in and follow each individual country's laws.

Philippa Bond ● 1951d

Peter,  like your namesake Mark, you seem to be under the impression that SatNav companies give a toss about directing traffic along residential streets.They don't.  They only care about saving seconds for drivers and have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to change this.All these people who think that SatNav companies will have some altruistic reason to reduce traffic along residential streets are naive in the extreme.The most effective way to change their routing is a bollard that makes it physically impossible for a vehicle to pass.  And even then, many maps aren't updated so drivers will continue to go down a street only to find it closed.

Michael Robinson ● 1951d

"The time stamp is irrelevant"This from a doctor???Uh...if the images were taken say on a Sunday morning bank holiday weekend, it would matter. But you know that. You know full well it matters whenever the images were taken. Nice try dodging. Better luck next time. CHR is empty at various times of day. Hell, for all we know the images were taken when CHR was closed outside of the photo.We watch this intersection daily. We live it daily in our own travel. Phasing has changed. Traffic has increased. Flow has diminished. Sadly for you Tom, I'm not the only one who knows this. Still baffled as to how a doctor, how someone so interested or versed (perhaps) in data analytics doesn't give a sh*t about a critical piece of data.

David Lesniak ● 1950d

Thirteen samples on the state of the lights at the bus gate over thirteen years, some showing queues of traffic, some with little traffic, but together incontrovertibly demonstrating what you claim “invariably” occurs simply doesn’t. And of course the High Road wasn’t “closed outside the photo” each of those times - anyone can follow the series of street-view images back along the High Road to confirm that wasn’t the case.Your squirming with patently lame excuses only serves to confirm your dissembling.

Tom Pike ● 1950d

Please, Tom, you're embarrassing only yourself.The topic has to do with recent changes. You can't troll up data from 13 years ago and offer it as pertinent. But seeing that you did, it's awfully curious you then choose to ignore time stamps which are absolutely part of traffic management engineering. Goes to ebb and flow and how phasing can be micro-engineered. But again, you know all that. This about you attempting to assassinate my character. But the bullets keep missing. I did think of you this morning though on my way to Kings Cross. Once again, got the green at Chiswick Lane only to get the red at the bus garage for no reason. No buses exiting. No pedestrians crossing. I'd recommend you get out from behind the screen, take an amble out from the back bedroom and watch what happens live on CHR.

David Lesniak ● 1950d

In the light of the photographic evidence and your past record, I'll give your observations the same credence as the claim in the Mail that a pro-cycling campaigner was responsible for an animation of a missile attack on your bakery.

Tom Pike ● 1950d

Sorry, Tom, but your hand-picked photographic "evidence" sans time stamp means nothing. I do so love you want to present an image from bank holiday Sunday morning as proof positive of your point.  Mind you, this from 13 years ago. But what doctor would want facts? They are so damn pesky let's just avoid them altogether and contort whatever we can get our hands on. Not to worry, this morning on LBC I was listening to your buddy Karen's brother, you know the one, he of the TfL Board, rant on about TfL's poor management oh phasing and how it causes traffic.Now, as you say, my memory is so faulty I can't remember if this is precisely what I said. Either way, what he said has been recorded for perpetuity by LBC. I know you give me no credence. Couldn't care less. But quick question - do you give Karen's brother credence? Do you give the TfL board credence? You're forever touting their "data" so surely it is down to their competence, no? Or as Karen's brother seems to think, their incompetence. What was it he said again...oh yes...TfL controls traffic.

David Lesniak ● 1949d

All your points are completely irrelevant, David, as you know. Whatever TfL's competence, all thirteen photos showed there was no issue with the sequencing at those times, despite your increasingly contorted claims to the contrary. It is possible that every shot over the last thirteen years was taken the Sunday before a bank holiday, despite some of them showing queues stretching back towards Goldhawk Road, and only under those special circumstances will the lights function correctly. As there are eight bank holidays on a year the chance of that happening once is 8/365, or 2%. The chance of that happening 13 times is (8/365)^13 or 1 in 27,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. You have helpfully provided the basis for an estimate of your claims being credible. Though vanishingly small it's actually likely to an overestimate, given your past record.

Tom Pike ● 1949d

I cannot speak for all Sat Nav providers - but Tom Tom worked with local authorities so that road closures and similar traffic management schemes were incorporated into Tom Tom data in real time by the organisation which was implementing the road changes (which could be the local authority or could be someone else).  This was rolled out over 2 years ago

Justin Stephenson ● 1948d

Sorry, Tom. Blather all you want.It doesn't change the fact the phasing is causing traffic at this location. Fun to watch you spin your wheels, though. By the by, once again the conversation has to do with recent changes. You know, from mid-2020 onward. Not 13 years ago.Enjoy StreetView. If one were to believe it, I'd still be sitting in Pizza Makers. That hasn't been the case for 12 years and counting. You really don't get out in the real world much, do you?

David Lesniak ● 1948d

Message removed

Fatima Traore ● 1948d