Forum Topic

C9 New Drawings - an experiment to be paid for by TfL

Tonight is a Scrutiny Committee Meeting to assess the next stage of the C9 Experiment. The Cabinet is asked to approve "making a new ETO to trail a range of measures resulting from data and responses to C9T. These measures will be located on Chiswick High Road, between Goldhawk Road and Heathfield Terrace. Oddly, the drawings made available do  not include that stretch so how any proper scrutiny can be achieved is beyond me. This is the link for contact info for all  Scrutiny Committee members:  https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=211 If anyone would like the PDF in full, please send me a DM. These are the drawings available to date: DUKE ROAD — Turning radius reduced, removal of implied two lanes so anyone leaving the Glebe Estate will have to idle single-file. Turning left will mean pulling out into the oncoming lane. LINDEN GARDENS — Reduction in lane width for both entering and exiting, especially exiting with adjacent car park. Zebra crossing relocated DEVONSHIRE ROAD — The raised brick planters will be reconfigured (that'll go well) to create the odd loopy bit typical of most side road intersections. One would think this would impede flow for cycling. Good news is it would be a speed calming measure for some cyclists. Bad news is it will pit cyclist head to head when trying to navigate this in two directions.
BRACKLEY ROAD — Pavement will be reduced at the intersection as it will be along other parts of the route. So new pinch points for pedestrians where there were none. And more loops for cyclists.
CHISWICK LANE — This is where the drawings stop. Note the placement of the bus stop at the intersection creating a dead stop for traffic flow either from Chiswick Lane or westbound from CHR. Turning radius severely reduced creating an even worse condition for vehicles turning left especially HGVs and buses which already have difficulty making this turn. Doing so will mean pulling into oncoming traffic. The mature tree on the east side gets removed. The pavement at the intersection of Cranbrook gets reduced for the loopy bit. These are already pinch points for pedestrians especially by Parle Pantry. Take a highlighter and trace the path of the cycle lane. The temporary measure now makes more sense than snaking along.

David Lesniak ● 1931d79 Comments

Thanks very much for posting these. It is noteworthy that they have only been put in the public domain at the last possible minute when they had to be published as part of the agenda for this meeting.Overall it looks clear that the council and TfL believed that the OneChiswick judicial review would have been successful so now are resetting the clock with a new ETO with changes designed to address the weaknesses in the original one. With OneChiswick's coffers depleted the chances of a new judicial review are reduced.Disability issues seem to have been addressed by converting some loading bays into night time taxi ranks and the problems with bus travel times increasing are to be tackled by the introduction of the left turn lane at Chiswick Lane which will require the loss of a tree and some pavement space as well as road-widening on parts of the High Road.It is a concern that no maps have been published for the changes planned east of Chiswick Lane. There will be significant pavement loss and perhaps more trees will need to go. The track record of the authorities means the absence of the designs means the required changes are probably not very palatable.I don't know what powers the Scrutiny Committee actually has but any decision making body couldn't responsibly accept the presentation that comes with this agenda item that repeats the mendacious claims made for the cycleway in the TfL press release.The committee should ask the council officers to resubmit the report at a later date once they have been able to provide robust evidence on how much C9 has increased cycling in the are and how this compares to the general increase in comparable areas of London during the same period.The claim and counter-claim about collision figures should be clarified.More detail needs to be given about the delays to buses. The report states this is 1.3 minutes per km which doesn't sound a great deal but is this for the whole route for the whole day? If so this will be a gross underestimate for Chiswick bus users. What matters is the increase in travel time during rush hour along the route of C9.A market survey report of 2,000 people is referred to. Is this the one that TfL's press release mentions or were they referring to the much more limited survey which showed slightly more people in favour than against C9. If there are two reports what was the overall level of support and opposition shown in the larger one?I'm sure the Chiswick councillors on the committee will raise all these points and more. What would be nice to see is Labour councillors, who may well be supportive of C9, taking council officers to task for presenting information which is inaccurate, incomplete and downright misleading to the committee.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1931d

I thought these Experimental Traffic Orders didn't allow you to chop down trees? After all you can't put them back if the experiment fails.Widening the road between Goldhawk Road and Chiswick Lane will lead to a tree massacre - no wonder these truth twisters haven't posted the designs.

Anita Blake ● 1931d

Good work David, thank's.As has already been mentioned we need to see the plan East of CL to get a better understanding.The elephant in the room of course is why oh why was it not obvious to the 'planners' that doing away with the left filter into CL  would be a very bad move.Now more money has to be thrown at this project and more severe disruption whilst the changes are made.

Adrian Irving ● 1931d

The issue with the left turn lane is that it will create an additional red phase for cyclists while general traffic will be able to proceed. Cyclists using the route regularly will therefore switch to the general traffic lanes.The ambiguity over the usage numbers is not helpful but C9 is slower for cyclists that the former configuration because there are more traffic lights to negotiate. Regular cyclists are just as sensitive to travel times as any other transport user and will switch routes if a quicker one is available.At the moment I'd say based on a series of observations over the last few months only about 20% of cyclists are choosing not to use the cycleway when the general traffic lanes are not congested (not including people travelling in an orbital direction). If this number rises further then the benefits of the route are correspondingly reduced.

Mark Evans ● 1931d

I’m beginning to form the impression that some people will oppose a segregated cycle path on the Chiswick High Road whatever its configuration.

Edward Seaton ● 1931d

Edward, I am sure you are right but the vast majority of people in the area would be willing to accept a cycleway if its benefits demonstrably outweighed the costs. At the moment no convincing data has been prevented that it has significantly increased cycling above the general rise during the pandemic, the statistics on safety are unclear but the most complete data provided suggests that collisions have risen, bus journey times have increased maybe by a critical level although full data remains to be provided. Now we are faced with the possibility of road widening and substantial tree loss to accommodate it. In the face of this it could be equally said that some people will support a segregated cycle path on the Chiswick High Road whatever its configuration.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1931d

We now know the level of support for C9:"In March 2021, TfL commissioned independent market research to carry out a representative survey of 2,000 residents within 2km of the C9T corridor to understand the views of the community about the changes. The survey was representative of the borough for age, gender, social class and ethnicity. This data revealed clear support for making cycle routes safer and a slight majority of residents [47% to 43%] supporting protected cycle lanes in Chiswick High Road. The data also highlighted that the protected cycle lanes were not impacting on residents visiting Chiswick High Road."OneChiswick, and one of our councillors, were rather too eager to instead claim "TfL engaged with 48 people – yes, forty-eight – so if it claims 47% in support of the scheme, that is just 23 people in support of the scheme." As well as being factually incorrect, their maths must have failed them as 23/48 = 48%, not 47%. TfL were hardly likely to have rounded down!

Tom Pike ● 1931d

Thanks for clarifying that Tom. Could you urge TfL to publish the market research report?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1931d

Tom may we also know how the questions were phased as this can make a huge difference either way.

Adrian Irving ● 1931d

The survey showing resident support of the Kensington High Street cycle lane was subsequently published by TfL’s contractor. No reason not to expect same for this survey. The more pertinent question is why are OneChiswick not showing the full data from their collision FOI? Might it be because they included collisions not on the route of C9?The evidence so far is that OneChiswick are the ones being misleading, not TfL.

Tom Pike ● 1931d

I see Tom supports a mere 48 people having been consulted. Let's take a step back in time when significantly more people responded and 63% of them were opposed to the cycleway. I know it's hard for him to accept but that's on him.Why spend more money to make things worse? Worse for cyclists at that.

David Lesniak ● 1931d

"The evidence so far is that OneChiswick are the ones being misleading, not TfL"Well that's just idiotic now, isn't it?TfL have failed to release the very information meant to be scrutinized. There is no bigger means of misleading than omission. But do carry on, Tom. Maybe find some StreetView images to make you happy.

David Lesniak ● 1931d

"Turning left will mean pulling out into the oncoming lane"Where are the swept paths confirming this?

Tony Smart ● 1931d

Has Tom not clarified that the actual survey by TfL is based on a more representative survey than 48 people. It doesn't help that they don't publish it but it is not necessarily the case that they have manipulated in the results.A substantial proportion of the population, particularly younger people don't cycle, drive or take the bus down Chiswick High Road and their views will be captured in any random selected universe of those surveyed. Time and time again surveys have shown that Londoners are overwhelmingly in favour of cycle lanes in principle. I am myself and find it hard to understand why anyone wouldn't be. Therefore it is entirely credible that TfL's market research showed that there was a small majority in favour of the scheme locally.However, there is a basic unfairness in using this approach to determine the relative popularity of the scheme. Where people are required to pro-actively respond to consultations a very strong antipathy to the current C9 arrangements become apparent. Those in favour of the scheme argue that these results are self-selecting but those directly affected by measures should have the primary say and if you aren't bothered to respond to consultations then at best your views should be given less weight than those who are.

Francis Rowe ● 1931d

Ask TfL, Tony. They also study these things using 3D and animation, but we've never once seen that evidence.

David Lesniak ● 1931d

But TfL didn't say you will turn left into oncoming traffic. You did. So you must have seen the swept paths??

Tony Smart ● 1931d

There is nothing unfair in asking a representative, not random, sample of nearby residents their views on C9. What’s unfair is to accuse those you disagree with of manipulating surveys and data while failing to make simple checks of your own incorrect beliefs and deliberately hiding location data to misrepresent the evidence for your claims. It is also hardly astute to hide such data when it’s publicly available from your own FOI. The usual question in these circumstances is whether this is the work of knaves or fools. In this case that’s a false dichotomy.Maybe our councillors should be reconsidering how closely they want to be associated with One Chiswick.

Tom Pike ● 1931d

Not really sure what you are referring to specifically Tom but if councillors have to disassociate from OneChiswick because of incorrect use of data that does raise the question of how they can continue to do their jobs because they would clearly also have to disassociate from TfL and Hounslow Council whose practices in this regard seem far worse.

Francis Rowe ● 1931d

With weapons like freedom of information requests and judicial review available, it would be a foolhardy public authority that dissumulated more than the merest smidgen.

Ken Munn ● 1931d

One Chiswick claim that there have been 11 collisions on C9 since it opened. But their list of collisions includes ones that occurred the other end of the High Road, completely off the route of C9, as the response to their own FOI makes clear. Did they think nobody would check?https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/accidents_on_chiswick_high_roadWhat deliberate and direct misrepresentations by TfL do you think compare?

Tom Pike ● 1931d

It would also be a particularly cavalier interest group that requested tens of thousands of pounds from local residents to back a JR challenge based on such a faulty and misleading analysis.Judges have been in the past been pretty scathing of such “evidence”, and rightly so.

Tom Pike ● 1931d

Francis,From the council documentation "177 of these emails or online submissions specifically objected to C9T"Hardly "very strong antipathy".The number of people cycling on the route dwarf the number of objectors.

Michael Robinson ● 1931d

Jeremy, regarding your claim "Overall it looks clear that the council and TfL believed that the OneChiswick judicial review would have been successful"OneChiswick could have had the Judicial Review in June but they asked to delay until later in the year.  Perhaps they thought the outcome of the Bishopsgate appeal would be favourable to them.  If so, this looks like a gamble that failed.Winning the game without going to court, the equivalent of a penalty shootout, seems like clever tactics to me. It would be funny if OneChiswick spent £40k and didn't even get a day in court. They would only have their own ineptitude to blame for that.

Michael Robinson ● 1931d

Also note that the spreadsheet shown in the article below hides information within column F 'Location Description' so you can't see they have included collisions not on the C9 route.It is a particularly inept way of trying to fool people but it seems to have succeeded for some on this forum.In any event, the Onesies don't have the source police data which is far more comprehensive than the 6 fields in the FOI and would be needed for a proper analysis.  The police data is also provisional and is subject to validation and change.http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=cyclehighway065b.htm

Michael Robinson ● 1931d

Michael that is hardly the only channel through which people have expressed their opinion either way on the Cycleway. Petitions, the Commonplace consultation site, emails to the council - all are indicative of a substantial majority opposed to the scheme in its present form.Here is a quote from the council's report on their own residents' survey of Chiswick High Road - “The overriding response was that the measures had made the local area worse, with a number of respondent comments concerned that the recent Cycleway 9 and LTN schemes had created a problem rather than fixed one. “I don't think you are going to convince anyone that the number of people in Chiswick who are strongly against this outnumber substantially the number who are strongly in favour but hopefully the question will be asked in the forthcoming consultation.

Francis Rowe ● 1931d

I thought two sides sat down with the judge and it was mutually agreed that the review was best postponed until after the Bishopsgate decision?I don't know how depleted OneChiswick's coffers will be and whether they have enough firepower to fund a new review for the new ETO. The changes made by the council appear to be an attempt to address some of the concerns about disabled access on the High Road including drop off points for cabs but how effective they are in tackling the problem remains to be seen. For instance one such drop off point appears to be night time only in a loading bay. If the changes haven't materially undermined the original case there won't be much extra expense in dusting off the original arguments and find and replacing the ETO reference number on the documentation.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1931d

Francis,The figure mentioned did include emails to the council for the 6 month C9 consultation. Just 177.The 'we hate everything' petition was in November before the start of the consultation process and before the route had even opened.People may have chosen the town centre survey to have a rant about C9 but more fool them.  It had nothing to do with the C9 consultation process and just because the Onesies tried to hijack it doesn't mean it gets considered.AsI said, the numbers of people who are using the route dwarf the number of objectors.  The numbers can only increase further with LBHF extending the route eastwards.

Michael Robinson ● 1931d

Special interest groups that spend most of their efforts on organising petitions, encouraging responses to consultations and fundraising for judicial reviews on spurious grounds, rather than developing coherent arguments based on emerging data, are unlikely to be very successful. Self-identifying as representing the overwhelming majority opinion is also no substitute for that actually being the case.I don’t think you meant your last sentence quite as written, but I’m certainly under no illusions that there is any overwhelming local sentiment that is impervious to what C9 has actually achieved either way. Certainly those who claimed it would produce a retail disaster, increased injuries to cyclists and pedestrians and worse pollution on the High Road have not see their fears realised, but rather contradicted. I would expect local support for C9 to be shifting accordingly.

Tom Pike ● 1931d

Permanent design being installed at eastern end. Permanent design already installed at western end. Move to permanent design with junction treatments and upgraded signage in middle section where the Onesies and Chiswick Conservatives have been metaphorically kettled but, admittedly, with the best taxi drop-off and pick-up provision in all of West London.Anybody else tuning in tonight for some gold standard feather spitting?

Paul Campbell ● 1931d

The OC hasn't "accidentally" hidden information in Column F by narrowing the column - they've edited each line to remove the location.The intention must have been to inflate the number of incidents.  I understand the data is provisional and I can see some obvious duplicates on there as well.  Councillor Biddolph dismissed the TFL data as "lies, damned lies and statistics".The OC's transparent attempt to present provisional data as fact AND then go further and doctor it is a pretty good example of "damned lies"! 

Ed Saper ● 1931d

Expecting One Chiswick Ltd to produce a trustworthy analysis of cycle path use in Chiswick is rather like expecting the 1980s industry-funded pro-smoking group FOREST to carefully explain the risks of cigarette smoking. One Chiswick are a pressure group whose exact raison d’etre is to campaign for removal of the bike lane. They are raising money for precisely that. They are LITERALLY anti cycle lane. Why on earth would anyone expect an objective view from them?

Edward Seaton ● 1931d

Ho ho ho. Lawyers: 'won't be much extra expense'!That's not how m'learned friends make their living.

Ken Munn ● 1931d

Tony, I'm sorry you don't possess the ability to read a scale drawing using proportional analysis.Also a pity you don't watch the intersection daily including, but not limited to, numerous near-misses.Seems you didn't read the agenda for last night's ETO meeting where the lived experience of many factored into the current measures being reversed.If you're really that fussed you have options: FOIs, writing Ruth Cadbury, unleashing your wrath at Hounslow Cabinet, etc. In any event, it's nice to see you back. Although I suspect you've been here all along under another alias.

David Lesniak ● 1930d

"They are LITERALLY anti cycle lane. Why on earth would anyone expect an objective view from them?"The same can be said for the pro C9 group who demand a cycle Lane along CHR at all costs irrespective of it numerous drawbacks to Pedestrians, Disabled, Cyclists and Motorists.Also why do cyclists still insist on cycling on the pavements despite have C9 ? Perhaps you'd explain that Edward, Tom et al ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1930d

"The number of people cycling on the route dwarf the number of objectors."Would that 'number of people' be members of LCC/HCC ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1930d

'Tony, I'm sorry you don't possess the ability to read a scale drawing using proportional analysis'The thing is David, I do. I am calling you out to back up a statement which is based on nothing but which you want others to believe is true. For your reference turns are done with a design vehicle and a checking vehicle. The design vehicle (typically a B99 large car) will always stay lane correct. A large once a week lorry may encroach and pull out when safe. Sometimes designs are done to the checking vehicle which isn't considered very good.Just to confirm folks. You wouldn't be turning left into oncoming traffic.

Tony Smart ● 1930d

David has misread the plans, not the first time this has happened. The "severely reduced" turning radius is for bikes, not motor vehicles which should not be turning into the cycle lane! The overlay above traces the original inner turn profile and repositions it on the revised layout.

Councillor Biddolph relied partly on David Lesniak's comments in her criticisms of TfL's revised plans. She also repeated One Chiswick's discredited claims regarding the TfL survey showing "23 people in favour of C9" as well as their deliberately misleading collision claims. I thought the TfL officer showed admirable restraint in describing Councillor Biddolph as "slightly inaccurately" presenting the collision data.

If our councillors relied less on both One Chiswick's and David Lesniak's ill-founded claims regarding C9, they might represent their constituents interests rather better.

Tom Pike ● 1930d

The plan now includes the sections to the east of Chiswick Lane down to Goldhawk Road. https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/documents/s170162/Appendix%20B%20-%20Proposed%20Design.pdfIt looks like the the space for the bus lane is being made by putting C9T onto the the pavement.The loss of trees seems to have been kept to a minimum.  I only see 2 removed, but a number of new ones planted.I can't see how this could be classed as temporary though.  It looks like the permanent C9 plan.

Kieran Fox ● 1930d

Keiran, Thank's for posting the link however I can't get it to work.

Adrian Irving ● 1930d

Yes, looks like mostly permanent C9 East of Chiswick Lane.  That involves losing 2-3 trees (replaced elsewhere) plus pavement reduction for additional bus lanes (or the cycle lane depending on your perspective).You've then got the permanent C9 section from Wellesley to Kew Bridge and the linked pavement reduction for the extra traffic lane over the bridge.In the middle you've got the temporary C9T between Heathfield Terrace and Chiswick Lane.Congestion issues were largely Chiswick Lane to Goldhawk which is probably why they're implementing there first, rather than in the stretch that runs through central Chiswick. It appears that concerns over large vehicle turning circles at Chiswick Lane may not be as bad or overlooked as some had feared.

Ed Saper ● 1930d

My mistake, now working.

Adrian Irving ● 1930d

And to think, Tony, all you had to do was offer that up. You could also have offered up the tidbit about TfL doing these studies with animation.Then again, you could watch the intersection daily and know for a fact large lorries arrive more than once a week. Quite possible the most daft bit of misinformation I've heard in a long while. I suppose you'll also deny LBH rubbish collection blocks vehicular flow on CHR forcing vehicles to swerve into oncoming traffic to get around it. Not to worry, I have the video.One solution I've mentioned previously is to have Guy Lambert pull his finger out and resolve rubbish collection in general. To get stuck while bins are emptied one by one by one is absurd. Anyone stuck behind the collections on any one-way road will know precisely what I'm talking about. Drop off a team to roll a giant bin along and collect, then do one pick-up at the end of the road. But with the turning radius set to be severely reduced at Cranbrook, they'll know soon enough the lorry won't manage to get down there. Did you know commercial rubbish collection for this patch is typically done with the lorries reversing into Cranbrook? They will have to do that from the westbound lane to make the manoeuvre. I'm amused, though, you want to double down on the efficacy of TfL design when in fact we've seen not one but now two ETOs set to change the High Road. It's right there in the name: experimental. Quick aside - when this experiment fails, do we re-plant the existing mature trees? You'd think all that designing and studying wouldn't necessitate expensive trail and error nor the removal of healthy mature specimens. But there we are.

David Lesniak ● 1930d

My profound thanks to Tom for illustrating my point.He has shown the red arrow "vehicle after" literally jumping the kerb. Oopsy daisy. He also neglected (conveniently) to add the introduction of the new bus island forcing all traffic north and squeezing the west-bound lane.Slate me all you want, Tom. It doesn't change the facts.

David Lesniak ● 1930d

"It looks like the the space for the bus lane is being made by putting C9T onto the the pavement"Thanks for the link, Kieran. If  you refer to the legend on the bottom left, you will find the key to decipher what all the symbols, line weights, line colors signify. The existing kerb is shown as pink which means it will be removed. The roadway will be widened, the footpath narrowed. So much so the pavement by the Best Western is reduced by 2/3 if not more. This will create a pinch point for pedestrians made worse when cyclists run the red lights as they often do at this intersection by riding up the pedestrian crosswalk, across and then continue on the pavement past the hotel entrance. That sort of thing doesn't show up on TfL letterhead. Or StreetView for that matter. But you're able to see it with your own eyes on a daily basis during the morning rush.

David Lesniak ● 1930d

Ed, the correct way to think about these things is the number of leaves not the number of trees. It would take well over a decade for the saplings to be as effective as the mature trees being lost.There has also been a long history in all sorts of development projects of the original estimate of tree loss to be way below the ultimate outcome as contractors find reasons to cut down trees that were supposed to be kept.To avoid this possibility wouldn't it be better to do this in stages? If the new left turn lane into Chiswick Lane doesn't reduce the queues then buses will be stuck anyway so adding bus lanes won't help speed them up that much.

Felicity Caborn ● 1930d

I have now studied the plans.Somewhere in my brothers house is a Second World War tank periscope we used to play with as kids.I think I will  ask him to dig it out so I can fit it in the car to help when exiting our road.

Adrian Irving ● 1930d

You’ve misread the plans yet again. 1. The original radius goes right along the existing kerb. That was not to suggest that cars originally mounted the kerb to make the turn!2. The new island is clearly shown in the plan extract I posted. Not sure how you missed it. 3. This island is for crossing, not the bus stop you mistakenly assumed which are all otherwise marked as such. You neglected to note that this island is elongated to improve visibility of the pedestrian crossing, as clearly noted on the plan.That said, your criticisms are at least maintaining a consistent level of reliability.

Tom Pike ● 1930d

Tom, I've simplified some of the technical jargon so you can better understand:

David Lesniak ● 1929d

Really excellent work, David. Is there someway you can get this into Councillor Biddolph's hands and encourage her to proudly show this off to the TfL traffic experts? And please tell her this is very urgent. We really don't want her to double check this with someone who might know anything about road design. Given her past record, I can understand you might think that's unlikely, but we don't want to blow the whole gaff. I know we can count on you.The foxes will be frisky tonight....

Tom Pike ● 1929d

This is quite useful.https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/intersections/transit-route-turns/turn-radii/Taking their average bus sizes, you need an inner turning circle of 21.5 feet and a max outer turning circle of 43 feet.If you want to plot it on illustrator by opening the PDF of the map in there, use this easy calculator to get dimensions:https://www.maptools.com/scale_calculator(Map scale is 1:200)I tried plotting both the inner and outer turning circles on the map and it looks like there's enough space.https://ibb.co/6vfRxn9 (screenshot of my image)If I'm anywhere near accurate, it suggests that the junction design isn't as flawed as feared.Disclaimer (!) - just an amateur / this is brand new to me / not a traffic engineer / real life will be different!

Ed Saper ● 1929d

No, David's Post-it plan is much to be preferred at this point! Hold back for now. David's going to let me know once Councillor Biddolph has the critical document in hand. We really don't want to upset the applecart before then.

Tom Pike ● 1929d

Oh - it's for Biddolph?  Sorry - I thought this was a serious enquiry.You're overthinking it Tom.  Turn the pedestrian refuge into a shark pit (preferably with friggin' laser beams on their heads) and inscribe "Thar Be Dragons" on Upham Park Road.Biddolph will likely call for an enquiry into pedestrian safety and equality for navigating the sharks and demand a fire safety assessment for the residents of Thornton and Upham.  Honestly, the more absurd the better - she'll say anything.  That's her superpower and why she will never be defeated by reasoned argument, in this world or the next.

Ed Saper ● 1929d

TomYou really need to get over your OCD with Cllr Biddolph, you're embarrassing yourself - again. Not too mention your heavy handed sarcasm, it all demonstrates your acute desperation, never mind honeybun I'm sure the usual Suspects will be hanging on your every syllable 😉

Loraine Pemberton ● 1929d

Now look here, there is only one important consideration: Will the Cops still be able to get to KFC? Officially the safest place in Chiswick.

Carl Wynne ● 1929d

That image of the two buses is pretty funny. At first i thought David assumed they would be running into each other.

Tony Smart ● 1928d

Do buses coming N on Chiswick Lane actually turn left? Genuine question  - I never use Chiswick Lane buses

Ken Munn ● 1928d

Ken - no. The only bus that comes up Chiswick Lane is the 190 that turns right towards Hammersmith.

Carl Wynne ● 1928d

Hilarious. As irrelevant as all of this pedantry is to the fact that Cycleway 9 is done and dusted and here to stay, this little sub-thread is quite an entertaining distraction and it is generally helpful to the cause to keep feeding our bewildered Councillors misinformation like this so that they repeat it in public.

Paul Campbell ● 1928d

And even if buses did turn left, that wouldn't be when a bus was proceeding east along the High Road at that point, unless one of them was running a red light!  But remember, David Lesniak has being cited by Councillor Biddolph as having superior local knowledge to TfL on road design at this junction.

Tom Pike ● 1928d

Do buses coming N on Chiswick Lane actually turn left?Yes, Ken. Typically they are private hire buses. But occasionally you'll see TfL doing the same.

David Lesniak ● 1928d

Well, Tom, I'm not the one digging into StreetView archives trying to pass it off as data.But again, you're more than welcome to watch for yourself.I do so love you're all so blinkered that you can't then extrapolate from a bus turning left to an HGV turning left, the LBH rubbish collectors, deliveries of building materials, any hospitality supplier doing their routes or those lovely Dutch flower trucks.

David Lesniak ● 1928d

David. Absolutely right. Plenty of large vehicles will turn left, including some private buses on occasion. However, the position of the second bus looked erroneous. It would be several meters back at a red light. Did you have a chance to review that? I posted about turning circles further up. To me the turn looked fine on paper. Have you calculated the turning circle on the left turn?  Or perhaps we could ask Tony? Isn’t he a traffic engineer or similar professional?

Ed Saper ● 1928d

It's the traffic lights that are confusing him but the penny hasn't dropped yet.He seems to think that corner is a free for all.

Tony Smart ● 1927d

Bless.

Paul Campbell ● 1927d

Philosophical question: if a phantom bus service were to run a red light, could it cause a physical collision?If the answer is yes, David’s right in bringing this to our attention and our councillors need to press TfL on whether their current plans can mitigate this issue.

Tom Pike ● 1927d

I know when the boys pile on, I'm on to something and they are scared. Not that I needed their approval.But again, out of all of us, we're the ones who see what happens each and every day. For 13 years now. Like it. Don't like it. Don't care. But it is useful information to be considered prior to spending money TfL doesn't have. Spending to make it worse. Has anyone considered what would happen when this next experiment fails and TfL has no more money to continue it's experimenting? To rectify yet more mistakes being made? LBH won't pony up. So what? We're to be left with a crap version of the High Road because of trail and error? Mostly error.

David Lesniak ● 1927d

I agree, a change of approach is necessary: the phantom bus service running red lights didn’t have quite the legs we hoped. This “trial and error” claim might do better. As long as nobody compares the revised plan to the permanent scheme and realises that they’re identical from your place eastwards. And even if the penny drops you have the plausible deniability of your deserved reputation for misreading plans.I suggest you keep pushing this “trial and error” angle and see if it’s picked up.

Tom Pike ● 1927d

When you do something dumb which suggests you have no idea how traffic lights work and why stop lines are positioned where they are you should expect "the boys to pile on"

Tony Smart ● 1927d

That Post-it plan was the fruit of 13 years of David’s careful observations. As long as Councillor Biddolph continues to believe this, he remains one of our most valuable assets. But with how things are going, we might have to work up an extraction plan.

Tom Pike ● 1927d

It's okay, Tom. It's right there in the name.Experimental. Traffic. Order.You, as a doctor, surely know what an experiment is and how it works, no?

David Lesniak ● 1927d

Nope, Tony, it's not me who doesn't know how the intersection works. It's the boys.I know you are all somehow removed from reality. But it's reality that will bite us all in the ass if this sh*t scheme continues. Apologies to Tom, this next experiment is not the same as the permanent scheme. He really ought learn how to read a drawing.

David Lesniak ● 1927d

Tom, you drew an arrow jumping a curb to make a point.Priceless.

David Lesniak ● 1927d

So would you care to explain how exactly your buses are about the collide?Do be sure to tell us if you think the intergreens are insufficient to get eastbound traffic past the conflict point.You made a stupid picture. Accept it and move on.

Tony Smart ● 1927d

Great pointless remark to put them off the scent! I recommend more vitriol next time, though, just to be sure.But stick with the trial and error line. Drawing attention to the plans will only  encourage people to make the comparison themselves and confirm that yes, the amended scheme matches the permanent scheme east of you. That said, full marks for building on your carefully cultivated inability to read technical drawings.

Tom Pike ● 1927d

"Tom, you drew an arrow jumping a curb to make a point."I think that's debatable! But let's assume you're right that Tom was a couple of millimetres out with his hand drawn arrow.Your mistakes include:- Incorrectly assuming the junction was designed to make a left turn impossible for a large vehicle.- Incorrectly assuming there is a bus route that turns left at Chiswick Lane.- Misreading the plan and assuming there would be a bus going straight at the same time one was turning left.- Misreading the plan and assuming a pedestrian refuge was a bus stop.The "joke" is that you are a plant for the ECL because Councillor Biddolph castigated the council and TFL for relying on traffic experts when the Tories had superior analysis available from you.However, this isn't actually about you.  You're allowed to call everyone stupid and hypocrites while posting misinformed rubbish, because what you say shouldn't matter as you're not an expert on traffic matters.However, if the Tories are going to quote you as one and quote data published by The OC that was deliberately falsified, then I think it is fair to point out these errors.

Ed Saper ● 1927d

On your last point, I think Councillor Biddolph owes both the LBH and TfL officers an apology. She directly impugned their integrity, and was called out for this by the chair, by claiming that their presentation on C9 was not factually correct, preferring instead the misrepresentations of the One Chiswick data.Councillor Hearn managed to restrain her, instead complimenting the TfL officers on their transparency and honesty, and deferring discussion of her baseless claims to outside the meeting. That was a welcome and appropriate response.These officers were not in a position to defend themselves against her counter claims that even the Councillor must now accept were without foundation.

Tom Pike ● 1927d

Ed, you mention 2/3 trees being cut down but when I looked at the map I could only find two.

Felicity Caborn ● 1927d

Yes. I thought it was 2 as well but someone else said it was 4. I think the intention is to replace the trees with some that are bigger than saplings - still not ideal, but maybe slightly better.

Ed Saper ● 1927d

Actually only one. The second, opposite Villa di Geggiano died some years ago though it was only removed after the original permanent plan was drawn up, which the amended plan follows at this point. Five replacements will be planted. I understand your point about the leaf counts, and there should be more of those soon, if not immediately.

Tom Pike ● 1927d