Forum Topic

Who is doing the Math?

Please just bear with me on this for a bit.It’s a given that everyone wants a cleaner and better natural living environment. One where cost effective, efficient, reliable, affordable and safe connectivity is available for all as we go about our daily lives.Now please take a moment to examine the following basic statistics:Along the section of Chiswick High Road between Acton Lane in the west and Turnham Green Terrace in the east, 8 bus routes operate all week. These services connect not only areas to the east and west but also those to the north and south and visa versa.5 of the routes employ double deckers and 3 are single deck.  The maximum passenger capacity of a “double” is 87 and a “single” is some 47.  All buses have assisted access facilities for passengers with mobility issues (Ref. TFL and Wikipedia).Therefore, based upon TFL’s timetables, on any weekday, these routes have the capacity to carry up to  86,528 passengers.  Yes, over eighty six and a half THOUSAND.  What a fantastic resource!   This already exists and should be made even better.  It is being paid for indirectly through our tax contributions (via local council and national taxation), as well as from direct ticket sales.As with the rest of the UK, we have financial constraints, environmental priorities and in this area of London, rapidly increasing changes to the demographic distribution and density of population. Both Ealing and Hounslow have been leading an increasingly rapid charge towards a high-density, high-rise, inner-city-living environment.  This is self evident — it’s happening all around.So here’s a question that I would like to pose to any incumbent or aspiring local council councillor in the upcoming local elections. Why is so much money and energy being consumed constructing an experimental infrastructure project that is used spasmodically by what can only be considered as a tiny and therefore privileged minority?Why create an anastomosing  tangle of channels, chicanes, kerbs and ramps with lights, tactile pavings and eyot-styled bus stops?  It’s a situation where confused priorities are leading to increased congestion, confrontation and above all a clear and present danger to life.If anyone has any ACTUAL statistics (not hearsay), on cycling numbers and additional lasting environmental and health benefits coming from this project please let us hear them.Ealing council’s old chestnut about cyclist increasing 100% from pre-COVID numbers is not a statistic. It’s just obfuscation and meaningless. For starters 100% of what exactly?So Statistics  please, not “Opinions”Quite frankly, on this topic when it comes to “Opinions”, I’m right up there with Dirty Harry!PS. I do have a bike.

Steve Lewis ● 1612d37 Comments

I'm not sure why we need another "conversation" about this. You many not have noticed but there are very few people engaging with the subject on this forum.  It's just the same people on each side of the angry argument each time. It gets personal and abusive and is very unpleasant.   

Nora Watkins ● 1612d

Yes indeed, Nora. No less than seven threads discussing this subject directly and a couple more which touch on it tangentially. All very tedious!

Robert Fish ● 1612d

Have you seen that Police have issued a crime number after residents submitted a report on what LBH has been up to - procedural issues, no regard for residents concerns and of course raising £m's in fines. Never mind the blight that its causing on our lives.The procedural issues are also about the maths here - the spending of vast amounts of tax $ with little foundation.We all need to submit details of what we know is going on - making schemes permanent with no data to support decisions, ignoring residents views etc. We also  need to tell the Police how it is  impacting us - carers cannot access, taxis won't come and tradesmen avoid the area.See this update and use the link to report - and get lots of people to do this and then they can see how serious this is.https://www.change.org/p/stop-hounslow-council-destroying-chiswick-stop-streetspace

John Jones ● 1611d

Hi Steve Lewis. Interesting post. Ignore the grumps who post just to say they’re bored. When they could do easily ignore it and save themselves the time. It’s not their place to say what is or isn’t allowed or interesting

Maggie Dodge ● 1611d

Thank you for proving my point Maggie Dodge

Nora Watkins ● 1611d

You’re welcome. You can post pointless comments the same as anyone else.

Maggie Dodge ● 1611d

“ I'm not sure why we need another "conversation" about this.”Possibly because it’s an important conversation and many people feel passionately about it.  This platform for expressing one’s views is called a ‘forum’ !  Do you know what a forum is?

Steve Taylor ● 1611d

“ All very tedious!”You find them tedious, Bob, but you continue to read them and comment.  Does that make you a troll?  😂😂😂

Steve Taylor ● 1611d

I'm not getting into a fight with you Maggie Dodge.  I made an observation (which would be easy to verify by looking at how many individuals actually engage with the multiple threads on traffic measures or the bike lane) and you immediately dismiss it because it doesn't fit with your viewpoint.  That's hardly going to lead to a healthy debate is it? 

Nora Watkins ● 1611d

“ which would be easy to verify by looking at how many individuals actually engage with the multiple threads on traffic measures or the bike lane)”It is indeed easy to verify. There are four people who continually support the cycle lanes and LTNs because they are totally anti-car and there is Robert Fish who supports the cycle lanes and LTNs because he is fanatically a Labour Party supporter who cannot get himself to question anything the Labour Party does.  It is extremely difficult to gauge the political affiliations of any of the contributors who oppose the LTNs and unused cycle lanes and question the safety of CS9.  They seem to be people who are genuinely concerned about the traffic chaos, pollution and safety of road users and pavement users in Chiswick. Not to mention the devastating effect  CS9 has had Chiswick High Road business. 

Steve Taylor ● 1611d

I’d always thought the fish was a disgruntled Cameronite who nailed his flag to a losing mast and never got over it, rather than a Corbynista. But you live and learn. Mr Lewis is on the money, but it’s Maths…

Russell Pearson ● 1611d

But how many people are there actively involved in those threads at the moment Steve Taylor. 20? 30?  It’s always the same people on both sides.

Nora Watkins ● 1611d

There’s consistently over 2,000 people on the local Facebook group who are opposed to the silly traffic measures, though everyone knows that include a handful of rather sad spies and their sock puppet accounts.

Russell Pearson ● 1611d

Steve, your same reasoning could be done for cars.A bus carries up to 87 people, a car 5. And often that number is one. Two cars occupy the same footprint of a bus, so let's make it (up to) 10 people occupying the same space of 87. More often than not it's actually 2 people.And yet we are dedicating the overwhelming % of our road surfaces to cars to drive around. We give up an incredible amount of space for them to be parked, where they spend north of 80% of their time (unused). Besides giving up space we also put up with their noise, their emissions and we tolerate them hitting and killing other road users. Why? I understand that, in some places (the countryside, for instance) and for some users (those less able to walk, or tradies) there's no alternative, but when there's 86 thousand bus seats available, two Tube, one Overground and one rail lines available in the neighbourhood the question is quite relevant.Just sayin'.

Francis Sheehan ● 1611d

You live, but don't learn. The moron-basher has misinterpreted my posts. I'm neither a disgruntled Cameronite nor a Corbynista. And I'm not a committed supporter of the cycleway. As a pedestrian I dislike it, and as a driver I'm always nervous exiting a side road and having to look both ways at the same time. It seems to me that a two-way cycleway increases the potential for accidents at junctions. On the other hand, I don't see the increase in congestion and pollution that the most strident critics claim. Perhaps the cycleway has led to a welcome reduction in car use locally. I reserve judgment for the moment. What I do object to is the obsessiveness of the antagonists, and their endless arguments and exchange of insults. It's childish, pathetic and wearisome. I can understand the rage and frustration of the pro-motor brigade with the special attention given to the needs of cyclists, all too many of whom have no respect for the rules of the road or for other road users, principally pedestrians. I've lost count of the times cyclists ignore red lights or pedestrian crossings. Maybe Maggie's angry obsessiveness stems from envy of their freedom to commit infractions with impunity. But please no condescending explanations from the other side. The risk differential between a 9-kilo bike and a 1.5 tonne car is obvious. What is equally obvious is that whilst motorists cause more death and damage, the number of infractions committed by cyclists is vastly greater. So if the chief moron-basher thinks I'm a fanatical supporter of Labour and of the cycleway he's utterly wrong.

Robert Fish ● 1611d

Nora if there are even just two people in a debate that doesn’t interest you there’s always an option to ignore it. Why can’t you let it go, if it’s so boring. I genuinely don’t get your point.

Maggie Dodge ● 1611d

I didn't say it was boring Maggie. My point is that the threads which relate to this topic are off putting for anyone new who would like to engage.  This is meant to be a forum for local debate,  but it's very personal and full of history between individuals.  Russell Pearson - I didn't say there wasn't engagement on this topic elsewhere.  I just pointed out that there isn't a lot on this forum.  Please don't try to discredit my opinion by accusing me of being a man again,  I'm not.  But it does prove my point,  these threads are often personal and bizarre which is off putting for those who would like to engage with the debate.

Nora Watkins ● 1611d

I glance read this as 'Who is doing the Meth?.Whoever designed the scheme most likely.

Keith Iddon ● 1611d

Hi Robert,Thanks for a sensible, non knee-jerking post.

Andrew Jones ● 1611d

So Nora, what’s the answer? I do think it would be helpful if the site worked differently. I’d like an option to delete posts I regret. Block people I know I can’t agree with. On Twitter I have few arguments now that I blockpeople.  Let’s face it there are many you know you’ll  never agree with. It’s a good source of information or a chance to vent. Nothing wrong in venting we all need it.  Other than that the onus is on us to learn to ignore  posts that we don’t like, me included. I try but mostly fail.

Maggie Dodge ● 1611d

I don't really know what the answer is.  Giving people the opportunity to delete posts would certainly be a good start.  I agree that it's good to have a local place to post and keep others up to date on things they might miss otherwise.  Venting doesn't have to be a negative thing, but the difficulty is that it's very easy to misinterpret a post when you can't hear tone or see body language.  There seems to be a lot of history with many of these posts.  I wonder if people met face to face whether they would say all the things they do from behind a keyboard?

Nora Watkins ● 1611d

Agreed. The written word can be dangerously misunderstood  It’s why I use  emojis. They help add a pictorial tone I think. If you get my drift.

Maggie Dodge ● 1611d

I don't think it is a good idea to not listen to other people's views.  That can give give you a very skewed view of the world.  I wonder how many people disagree with Putin for instance.  I think we would all say not enough.  So other views are important even if you don't like them.

Philippa Bond ● 1611d

It may not have been your intention, but .. math? No one other than americans think that math is a noun, and your use of it in the title completely distracted me from the content of this thread. :-)

Paul Barnett ● 1605d

Math or Maths are both grammatically correct.

gary strang ● 1604d

I did the maths, and the answer you've been waiting for is:if we don't reduce our usage of buses and cars, and switch to more sustainable modes of transport, then we are going to ruin the planet.and cycle lanes are a great help in making that reduction

Simon Pedley ● 1604d

Meanwhile Putin continues to destroy it.

Janice Evans ● 1604d

But we can't just grab at any excuse to avoid doing something about it because that doesn't help.

Philippa Bond ● 1604d

“then we are going to ruin the planet.”You live in a dream world. Humans have already destroyed it for themselves. We have passed the point of no return (for human life on earth)  The planet will survive but humans and most animals will not.  Cycle lanes will not make the least bit of difference especially on our little insignificant island with such a ‘relatively’ low population.

Steve Taylor ● 1604d

Defeatism doesn't work for our grandchildren - they expect better.

Philippa Bond ● 1604d

" they expect better"They can't have better. They are humans and their ancestors have ruined it for them through greed, greed and more greed. It's how humans are!  Humans were only destined to inhabit the earth for a milli-second in the grand scheme. Unfortunately human greed has ensured that we will only be on earth for a nano second. The planet will survive, we won't. You have a duty to explain that to your grandchildren.  There is no going back. Get over it and tell them to enjoy life while they can. There isn't much time left.  And of course Putin could make it even shorter!!

Steve Taylor ● 1604d

True, but 'math' is American English, while 'maths' is UK English. Apart from other considerations, 'math' just doesn't sound right, and you study 'mathematics, not 'mathematic'.

Brian Coyle ● 1602d

Good to see you back on form,Brian.

Keith Iddon ● 1602d

Do you have children Steve? If you truly believe what you've just written, then I hope not.

Nora Watkins ● 1601d

Of course I do, Nora. That is precisely why I believe in total honesty. I don't lie  and pretend things will get better when I am 100% certain that they won't. BTW I think it is particularly nasty, and uncalled for, to say that you hope I don't have children. Quite despicable in fact. Abhorrent. Disgraceful. Proof of why the human race doesn't deserve to survive on this planet for too much longer.

Steve Taylor ● 1601d

And now Nora has cycled off at high speed. Typical!

Steve Taylor ● 1600d

What a strange response Steve.  Please try to keep it civil,  this is meant to be a forum for discussion.  My comment wasn't meant to be rude,  so I apologise if it came across that way.I find it sad if you're genuinely convinced that what you said is true.

Nora Watkins ● 1600d