Forum Topic

80% of Chiswick are against Hounslow Streetspace. The Council need to work with the majority.

Having been away, it is somewhat depressing to be back in the UK and in Chiswick.  There appears to be no change.Boris Johnson is still PM. When will the Tory party do the right thing and get rid of him.  Overseas our reputation is being tarnished and economic growth (GDP per capita) since 2015 lags all major European countries, even Italy by some way. We are returning to the 1970s and becoming the sick man of Europe.Sticking with the 1970s more locally, the new Council said they were up for change and then gave Cllr Dunne, member of the Hounslow Cycling Campaign, the role of lead on Transport. Who can forget her performance on 23 September at the Call In.  Very left wing, momentum orientated and the part of the party Sir Keir and team know have to be stopped if Labour are ever to get back into power.    So is Cllr Dunne a deliberately conflicted choice? Or can we expect change.From discussing with friends in Grove Park over the weekend, it became apparent that some on Staveley Road and Park Road had been recently door stepped by the increasingly less read Chiswick Calendar no less; asking the wrong questions as one said about the Staveley Road and Park Road Barrier.  As one said, the barrier has not stopped traffic entering Grove Park or reducing traffic on either Park Rd or Staveley Rd, but the person interviewing did not appear to understand that.  As they all know in Grove Park, and those of us that would like to visit it is the measures all around the area that restrict traffic and those in Chiswick even wanting to go.And right on cue, an article appears today in Chiswick Calendar and is being tweeted and posted.  What a surprise!  It looks like it was an organised activity and plan, following Hounslow Cycling Campaigns monthly meeting (last Thursday of the month) and often attended by Hounslow Councillors who are members of HCC.  The meetings are great fun to join.The evidence of Council surveys and in the case of Grove Park, the local Resident Groups at the Church meeting in March all say that Chiswick votes against the schemes by 80%.  It always does.   Every single one.  And that is a problem for Cllr Dunne and HCC as the overwhelming evidence is against these schemes.And the evidence in this thread clearly supports the plan, the same old people trying to push a flawed survey and its results, the same on twitter and even Ruth Cadbury being asked once again and tweeting again.  It regularly seems to be the same people who got the Chiswick Calendar to print a letter in November 2020 of 20 people who wrote into Government and supported Boris Johnson’s cycling plans. And now what we all know is that time and time again there are only 20 people in Chiswick who support these cycling plans, and sadly appear to be demonstrating the same failures as Boris Johnson.Labour should have won hands down in Chiswick wards given how poor Boris Johnson is, the fact is they did not and the reason for that is the local Hounslow streetspace schemes, which 80% of Chiswick do not agree with.  There needs to be change.Well the Council says it wants to change, it wants to listen, and that means that it needs to work with the majority of Chiswick, the elderly, the vulnerable, residents and businesses.

Jonathan Mabbutt ● 1574d91 Comments

Spot on!

Steve Taylor ● 1574d

The situation is rather more nuanced than you present it. As far as I can see the vast majority of Grove Park residents aren't against Hounslow Streetspace per se and welcome the reduction in traffic that it has brought. They just want changes to reduce the impact the restrictions have on them.Quoting a huge majority 'against' Hounslow Streetspace is the same trick the government is trying to pull on the Northern Ireland protocol in which anyone not prepared to say it is perfect is an opponent.The Strand on the Green Assoc/Grove Park Group solution of blanket ANPR cameras allowing resident and delivery access seems to be wishful thinking. It would create a  relatively traffic free oasis in an already very pleasant part of London but much of this traffic will be displaced to roads where other, less well off people live. What the point of LTNs is rarely well articulated but I can't believe this is what they are intended for.The more I consider this, the more I think there is much to be said for the theory advanced on this forum by Paul Corcoran that TfL's primary concern in this area is traffic flow on the A4. He suggests that since the advent of SatNav fewer vehicles are taking the signed diversion to Grove Park via Barrowgate Road and this was causing delays on the eastbound A4 due to queues of traffic trying to turn left at Hogarth Roundabout. Having driven that way a few times since he first made the suggestion I'm increasingly convinced it is right.This explains lots of things that were otherwise perplexing e.g. the inconsistency of directing traffic down a residential road while talking about LTNs, the limitations on the residents zones allowed to access Grove Park from the A316, the one way access at Hartington Road and the expansion of the scheme even though the outcome of the original design was largely negative.If correct then the claims from both sides that 'my gang is bigger than your gang' and that an overwhelming majority support one solution or another based on obviously flawed surveys are a waste of breath. The wishes of Grove Park residents cannot be granted if they compromise a key piece of London's road infrastructure. Therefore Hounslow Streetspace is here to stay for the long term and Grove Park residents will not be given easier access because restricting them is the whole point. This is being done not at the whim of far left cycling zealots but as part of a considered strategy by transport experts who want to keep the road network running smoothly.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1574d

"the local Resident Groups at the Church meeting in March all say that Chiswick votes against the schemes by 80%".How have they come to that conclusion?

Francis Sheehan ● 1573d

Plucking a number out of thin air!

Robert Fish ● 1573d

To the best of my knowledge the survey by the local residents groups didn't show that 80% of people wanted the schemes scrapped but that they wanted changes made to the way they operate. This seems to me a low number as I don't know anyone in the area who, even if they are relatively enthusiastic about the overall aims of the restrictions, wouldn't like to see changes.The main change that everyone would like to see is the exemption from the restrictions extended to all households in the Grove Park area not just a very limited number of people in a small area.Can anyone explain to me why they believe this wouldn't improve the way the scheme operates? At the moment a significant amount of extra pollution is being generated by the narrowness of the exemptions that are allowed.

Diane Brown ● 1573d

Unlike the cycle lobby and their accurate statistics by the likes of RachelAldred, Tom Pike etc etc

Maggie Dodge ● 1573d

80% of Chiswick's anti-safer streets campaigners are cleverer than a cabbage.

Paul Campbell ● 1573d

36 people and a dog turned out for the demonstration.That doesn't imply 80% support to me. Not even among dogs.

Simon Pedley ● 1573d

Paul, to prove to us that you are yourself 'cleverer than a cabbage', can you explain why you think it is unreasonable for Grove Park and Strand on the Green residents to ask that exemption from restrictions is given to all residents?The limited access means that many residents have to drive much further (in many cases within the LTN itself and often along residential streets). This boosts toxic emissions and output of CO2. I've done a detailed analysis that shows the increase each week is the equivalent to the pollution caused by someone taking a skiing holiday so it is not insignificant.

Francis Rowe ● 1573d

I've answered that on here loads of times already. I'm not a call centre for Chiswick's anti-safer streets campaigners and I'm not going to keep repeating myself every time one of them asks the same question. And just so you know your analysis was flawed as it made false assumptions and flawed reasoning. This is becoming a pattern and a MO.

Paul Campbell ● 1573d

I apologise. I have failed to notice any of your previous answers to this particular question. I and others would be really grateful if you could put us straight on this matter.I'm not sure what is wrong with my analysis - would you be kind enough to point out my error? Does causing people to make a significant diversion on a heavily congested road which will delay them for at least ten minutes and often up to 40 minutes not cause extra emissions and traffic? Does going on a skiing holiday not lead to a significant amount of toxic emissions and CO2?

Francis Rowe ● 1573d

You only account for one mode of transport to the Alps. And your car analysis is always based on your zero sum thinking. Two big mistakes in the formula.

Paul Campbell ● 1572d

Did you cycle there?

Francis Rowe ● 1572d

Francis, if you follow your logic that the way to reduce pollution is to make driving as convenient as possible then surely you should be advocating that all rat-runs which have been closed off over decades should be opened up?Indeed, why stop there? Surely roads such as Homefields and Airedale that don't have access to the A4 should be opened up?  Rather than causing people to drive along Chiswick High Road and Chiswick Lane to the A4, then they could just nip down Homefields or Airedale instead?  According to you, the greater convenience driving will reduce pollution, won't it?  Of course your reasoning is nonsense and as pointed out, you are thinking traffic restrictions are a zero-sum game and people will never change behaviours.  The penny doesn't seem to have dropped that if you make driving more convenient, more people will drive and the reverse is true.

Michael Robinson ● 1572d

The demonstration was specifically about Grove Park and Strand on the Green areas and the few privileged people who live there. The demonstration was NOT about the whole Hounslow Borough Streetspace program which 80% of residents apparently deplore.  It was not expected that many would support the Grove Park and Strand on the Green demonstration which proposes changes which will benefit only a minuscule of people.

Steve Taylor ● 1572d

We aren't talking about rat running here. The issue was specifically the exemptions that should be given to residents from restrictions. This would have zero effect on any rat runs.While you may believe the theory that deliberately inconveniencing residents can force a change in behaviour, Hounslow Council does not adhere it and this is not the purpose of these measures. No Hounslow Council officer or councillor has ever supported this idea generally or in the context of Grove Park as far as I am aware. Please correct me if I am wrong. If it is genuinely the policy of the council to maximise the inconvenience for residents to force behavioural change it is surprising that the opposition is as low as 80%While the theory may have some validity in certain circumstances it is unlikely to work in the Grove Park area. Anyone approaching from the A316 is unlikely to be on a journey that is easily substitutable by an active travel measure given the distance of their likely origin point and the lack of public transport alternatives.Even if you do encourage some modal shift and reduce the number of vehicle journeys this has to be at a level which reduces the vehicle kilometres which will be boosted by the lengthy diversion. The time vehicles are on the road overall is also likely to be increased due to the regular queues from the Hogarth Roundabout which regular stretch back to Staveley Road on the A316.Behavioural change also isn't just modal shift. Difficulty of access from the A316 might not mean a vehicle journey is abandoned but might be replaced by one to a alternative destination. For instance a Grove Park resident might choose to visit Ealing or Westfield as opposed to Richmond because, although they might be further away, the delays getting onto the A4 mean the trip is quicker. Similarly a resident might decide the Greenford tip is a better option that the Townmead one.I don't think any open-minded person would dispute that it could be said with any confidence that the Grove Park restrictions would reduce the overall amount of locally sourced traffic and congestion in the area given the above factors.If you continue to insist that it would, then the question must by why are you willing to accept any exemptions at all to the restrictions for residents? Surely the logic of what you think will be achieved is undermined by allowing some residents convenience but not others?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1572d

Addressing rat running with a restriction such as a barrier or No Entry will require a detour for some journeys made by residents compared to before the restriction.That is the case for the barrier and No Entry at the end of Wellesley and Stile Hall, the closure of Beverley Rd at Chiswick Lane the No Entry to Paxton Rd from the A316 and dozens of other examples in the area.Every one of these restrictions has meant some inconvenience to some residents because following the restriction, certain journeys were longer than they were previously.However every one of those restrictions went ahead because the convenience of some residents' journeys was a lower priority than the benefits achieved by reducing rat running traffic.Hounslow Council will not present this as "deliberately inconveniencing residents" but it amounts to the same thing.  Inconvenience to some car journeys made by some residents is a lower priority than the overall benefits to people in the area.

Michael Robinson ● 1572d

Once again, I'm not disputing that restricting general access to an area can have benefits. The question is does restricting residents access to where they live have any benefits - in this case I think not and, whatever you say, Hounslow Council does not believe so as they have, I'm reliably informed, stated on several occasions they have no wish to do this, however the policy is articulated.You haven't addressed the question of what your intention would be for existing exemptions - shouldn't they be removed if you really believe that doing so would reduce traffic overall by encouraging behaviour change?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1572d

I thought it was 18 people?

Maggie Dodge ● 1572d

Fun fact about all your samples, Michael. Each and every one remain accessible to all. More importantly, they remain accessible to all residents and local business doing deliveries without threat of penalty. And zero confusion about it. No decoder rings necessary! No private membership required!

David Lesniak ● 1572d

Many more would have joined the demonstration had they known about it.  I for one.  It was not well advertised.

Victoria Mary Lynch ● 1570d

Many more would have joined the demonstration had they known about it.  I for one.  It was not well advertised.

Victoria Mary Lynch ● 1570d

Demonstrations are a good way of showing the strength of feeling on an issue and a well attended one lends legitimacy to arguments. A very poorly attended demo removes legitimacy. The oft repeated claim that “80% of Chiswick are against Hounslow Streetspace” was undermined by the lack of demonstrators and a separate poll which showed a majority of local residents in favour of the Staveley Barrier.

Ed Saper ● 1569d

If i was against something local the last thing id do is turn up to a demp and have my photo or video taken and shared locally. Some people are not bothered,most hold views but keep them private or out of the local press. How many are against runway 3,how many people turned out locally,very little. How many turned up as a greater london demo in central london,quite a few from w4 but still not the numbers who are privately against. So in my view local demos and numbers mean very little. Even if i was a bit critical at the time myself

Julian Pavey ● 1569d

Agree Julian.

Janice Evans ● 1569d

Spot on Julian.

Mark Talbot ● 1569d

I'm gonna go ahead and guess Ed expected precisely 80% of the entire Chiswick population to be there in order for him to deem it legitimate.

David Lesniak ● 1569d

I thought it would probably be helpful to summarise what we have learned from these discussions. They have been aided by the insights and understanding of Michael and Paul who have a much deeper knowledge of these matters and the workings of Hounslow Council than the rest of us.What we now know is as follows:Hounslow Council's policy is to force local people not to drive their cars ever by making it as inconvenient as possible but they aren't going to say this out loud. This isn't actually a 'war on motorists'. They would regard it more as a 'special traffic operation'.These policies are hugely popular with local people because they recognise they can't be trusted themselves to make adjustments to their own travel habits so they need to be forced to do soSome of the residents of Grove Park are more equal than others and they are exempted from these restrictions because err....Congestion and pollution in the area will be reduced by making people have to wait in long queues on the A316 and the A4 until they get tired of doing so and change their means of travel, job or move house and the queues will all disappear and vehicles won't return to these traffic free road because err.....The view of all the local residents groups that changes could be made to the schemes to make them better is wrong because the schemes are perfect and these groups are run by old people who don't represent the view of the silent majority who understand the schemes are perfectWe know the view of the silent majority because a bloke from a website who thinks the restrictions are a great idea has knocked on some doors on a road from which traffic has been diverted away onto someone else's road, and, anyone who didn't tell him to get stuffed, has said the restrictions are a great idea. Therefore a proper consultation in which residents across the area can give their view is unnecessary because the silent majority has spoken loudly.The council is committed to diverting traffic away from residential roads except Barrowgate Road where residents should be thankful that fewer cars go down their road than the A4. Traffic heading towards Grove Park on the A4 needs to be directed along Barrowgate Road because any alternative diversion would require vehicles to drive further and that would case more congestion and pollution and what authority in its right mind would do a thing like that?

Francis Rowe ● 1569d

Francis. A pretty fair summation. Most traffic is displaced, not evaporated. The only time traffic volumes fell for a sustained period in London in the last 20 plus years was when Ken L cut public transport fares and expanded the bus network. We now have a govnt that is forcing through the exact opposite, making the most expensive public transport in Europe even more expensive and then cutting buses. The cycle lobby are silent on this as they either dont care or in some cases seem actively hostile to buses. This will inevitably lead to more traffic. No amount of personal attacks or moralising will change that.A recent article in the Times noted that local councillors who approved LTNs tend to live in the area that benefitted or some distance away, but not on boundary roads that see more traffic. We have a similar issue in W4, with the proponents of these schemes either direct beneficiaries or safe on quiet leafy side roads. The lack of honesty and integrity that there are winners and losers, and also the refusal to acknowledge that there are large sections of the population for whom cycling cannot be a solution is also disappointing and futher shows the lack of integrity. If the present govnt continue to underfund TFL, the only capital network in Europe that receives no public subsidy, then things will only get worse in terms of congestion and pollution.

Bill George ● 1569d

"The only time traffic volumes fell for a sustained period in London in the last 20 plus years was when Ken L cut public transport fares and expanded the bus network."Yes, London traffic fell every year from 1999 to 2009 - a total of 8.7% (6.7% reduction on main roads and 12.2% reduction on minor roads).Ken was elected in 2000 and Boris elected in May 2008. You also had Cameron elected in 2010. Traffic started rising in 2010 with a 3% increase.  However, traffic on main roads continued to fall until 2013, the traffic increases were focused on minor roads, including a nearly 9% increase in 2010 alone.  Since 2009 there has been a 57% increase in traffic on minor roads.  No wonder people are delighted and supportive of having all this traffic removed from their roads.  We should be aiming to get traffic back to 2009 levels.

Ed Saper ● 1569d

“  things will only get worse in terms of congestion and pollution.”Quite right!  This Council is in cloud cuckoo land if it thinks it will EVER get people to stop using their cars. They are only demonising car drivers and the people WILL retaliate.  No decent people will tolerate despotic rule by a largely inept Council.

Steve Taylor ● 1569d

So if you want to do that Ed we can agree that we need to make public transport cheaper and more reliable, as we hae clear evidence that worked last time. Like most other European cities, including those always held out as examplars for cycling. Otherwise it wont happen. But as one of the more balanced posters i think you know that. Where do you think all that traffic on minor roads has gone? WHen you say 'people' who are delighted, for clarity you refer to the select groups that have seen traffic removed. Not the people who get more traffic.

Bill George ● 1568d

"So if you want to do that Ed we can agree that we need to make public transport cheaper and more reliable"Sorry Bill, there is little evidence that cheaper public transport gets people out of their cars.  Even in several European cities where public transport has been made free, the evidence has been this reduces the numbers walking and cycling but has had little impact on driving levels.For people who have incentive to save money by walking and cycling, there is no incentive to do this any more.  For people who have paid for their car, they've paid for it, might as well use it.With the launch of the Elizabeth line, do you expect to see a reduction in the numbers of people driving into London? I doubt it.If you want to reduce private motor traffic, then "stick" is more effective than "carrot". That means reducing parking and making it more difficult and expensive to drive.The growth of traffic on minor roads has been displaced from major road by use of SatNavs.  Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are getting this traffic back to where it should be in the first place.  There wasn't much point demolishing swathes of historic Chiswick housing to build the A316 and A4 if drivers refuse to use them because google says they might save 30 seconds.The A316 had over 48,000 vehicles a day in the early 2000s.  The last pre-pandemic figure for 2019 was 25,000. Obviously the people are concerned about traffic using the A316 will be able to point to their concerns going back to 2000 when traffic was considerably heavier.  It would be very cynical of them to use faux concerns about pollution and the like as a smokescreen for what really matters to them - their own personal driving convenience.

Michael Robinson ● 1568d

Francis, your reductio ad absurdum, mischaracterising and caricaturing of other people's views is a better explanation than I could be bothered to write of exactly why I and many others I know don't respond to repetitive sealioning from our local anti-safer streets campaigners. You can explain things to people with a fixed and zero sum mindset but you can't make them understand or learn how to distinguish facts from speculation and evidence-free opinions. I used to try but I realised a long time ago the futility of it. And it makes no difference to the outcome. In fact if anything it is the fixed mindset and inability to understand or accept things that don't conform to it that has rendered the opposition to these schemes so helpfully inept and prone to failure. There will be more done to reduce car use regardless of what anybody says on this forum. The opposition's style serves only to further motivate the decision-makers. All of this has only just begun and the right people have been elected at every level of politics with their clearly-stated aims to continue the journey.

Paul Campbell ● 1568d

Looks like it is all downhill from here then...

Francis Rowe ● 1568d

"there is little evidence that cheaper public transport gets people out of their cars."Seriously?

Mark Evans ● 1568d

It certainly is for people with your view yes.

Paul Campbell ● 1568d

Like it or not Paul, Francis does an excellent job of skewering the apparent illogicalities and inconsistencies of the council's traffic measures. Despite what you claim, there clearly is no ideologically driven strategy behind them - on face value they appear to be a series of reactions to the problems caused by previously introduced measures.I don't believe that Hounslow Council is inept or despotic nor is it driven by dogma to inflict disruption and inconvenience on residents to make them change their behaviour. The more I consider what has been done, the more I have come to believe that the changes have been driven by broader considerations about the flow of traffic particularly around Hogarth Roundabout with TfL mainly calling the shots. Only this makes sense of the apparent contradictions such as the partial exemptions for residents and the direction of traffic up Barrowgate Road.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1568d

Michael, if you insist on being so disingenuous then its hard to take you seriously as a proponent of safer streets, less pollution and congestion, rather than someone focused on a single mode of travel.The increase in TFL passenger traffic under Ken was huge, especially for buses. One report found that 'total passenger-kilometres travelled on [all public transport] services operated by TfL were almost 70 per cent higher in 2008/09 than in 1991/92,this growth was especially pronounced on the bus network'. The latter years of this period also coincided with the fall in vehicle traffic in London.So if you expand and network and cut fares more people use it. That should be obvious, and we have the proof in London. For years now we have a central govnt that is doing the opposite, forcing fares on TFL (and our wider transport network) ever higher, whilst cutting routes. The impacts of this are also obvious.As for the QE line, in itself it may indeed see some modal shift. But a much greater shift can be achieved by more stick, such as a wider congestion charge that makes it uneconomic for many commuters to drive into London and park. It would also help if LBE and others, including the local Sainsburys, were not actively promoting our streets and local car parks to the same commuters. A joined up coherent transport strategy is the answer, as we had before. I think you know this.Also, you talk a lot about where traffic 'should' go, and I wonder on what basis and who is making those decisions? Someone posted ages ago that road classifications were now largely irrelevant. So who gets to make these decisions, and where is the democratic or community input?

Bill George ● 1568d

Jeremy, I am very happy for you to propagate the argument amongst Chiswick and Ealing's cognoscenti that traffic management schemes are designed for the benefit of motor traffic and therefore drivers and have absolutely nothing to do with any ideologies about the benefits of reducing car volumes on residential streets despite public statements to the contrary from all of the authorities involved in the decisions. It is a great line that should make it much easier for drivers to accept change and it is one that can easily be adapted and reapplied to just about any traffic restriction. One needs only cite Braess's paradox. I wish I had thought of it myself.

Paul Campbell ● 1568d

Yes, there is quite a lot of research on the impact of free public transport given cities that have tried it.  For example:"The impact of fare-free public transport on travel behavior"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016604622030301X"We find no evidence of mode or period substitution"As I explained, it is entirely understandable that people who had an incentive to walk or cycle because it is cheaper are the biggest users of free public transport.  The marginal cost of using a car is low and as people have already bought their car, the attitude is "I have a car so I'll use it". If all the costs of car ownership could be translated into a per-journey cost then this attitude may be different, but they aren't.

Michael Robinson ● 1568d

Jeremy, you may learn something if you actually read the Hounslow transport strategy (whether you consider this to be 'ideologically driven' or not).This contains an objective to reduce the number of trips made by private car.The borough transport strategy is a response to the mayoral transport strategy.  It is a statutory requirement for boroughs to produce a strategy describing how they will meet the mayoral objectives, and the reduction in private car use flows down from this.

Michael Robinson ● 1568d

Bill,you are ignoring that the expansion of bus use was accompanied by expansion of bus lanes.Reducing the road space available for cars means reducing the number of cars.The same applies if you reduce the road space with cycle lanes.You are also ignoring the reduction of car parking through CPZs, redevelopment of car parks for more profitable use etc.  No point driving if there is nowhere to park.As to "where traffic will go", well, this can either be decisions made by borough or TfL transport officers who operate within a policy set by democratically elected politicians.Or, in the case of SatNavs, they are algorithms developed by software developers working for West Coast US tech giants who will only listen to their shareholders.

Michael Robinson ● 1568d

"Reducing the road space available for cars means reducing the number of cars."Don't follow this Michael.If the road space available for cars is 20% utilised, and this road space is reduced by half, you can still have the same number of cars, but the utilisation goes up to 40%.Of course if the road space is already highly utilised then what you say is true, but you didn't specify how utilised it was.

Andrew Jones ● 1568d

Michael. you completely ignore my post then tell me I am ignoring things. We have categorical evidence in London of how better and cheaper public transport led to more people using it and also at the same time less traffic, exacrly what you claimed not to be the case. I am not ignoring bus lanes but these were only one part of the solution, you seem determined to cherry pick elements that suit your agenda. The impact on bus traffic of cheaper and better transport is even clearer during Ken's time as mayor'In 2008/9, TfL’s ‘best estimate’ is that 7942 million passenger-kilometres were travelled by bus. This compares with 6755 million passenger-kilometres travelled by bus in 2004/5 (just prior to the first of the interventions evaluated in this study), 4709 million passenger-kilometres in 2000/1.'As to CPZs etc yes these have had a role in reducing commuter and some retail traffic, so why are you not campaining against LBE and others that now offer streets to all day parking? We seem now in Brentford and the Chiswick business park to have more parking than less...?You claim that reducing road space for cars reduces their number, but that is obtuse. No bus lanes were removed after 2009 but traffic again began to increase, so its clearly far more complex. Remember congestion is different to the number of cars.Can we at least advocate for consistent policies from local authorities? Why do you seem so determined to not find areas of agreement but instead come back to one narrow transport mode? It seems perverse you appear determined not to support better public transport, and contort yourself to achieve this.As for democracy, I think we can all question the legitimacy of what we currently experience, from Boris to our friends in Hounslow. You seem to advocate for local community engagement when it suits and not when it doesnt.Regarding your post to Jeremy, we have seen before how you reduce car use.... It was not LTNs.

Bill George ● 1568d

"With the launch of the Elizabeth line, do you ecxpect to see a reduction in the numbers of people dribinvin into London? I doubt it."As an advocate for reducing private car usage Michael, that's the daftest thing you've said to date.Why bother spending billions upon billions on new tube infrastructure? Why spend millions upon millions for cycle infrastructure if using a car is so cheap (by your own estimate) and you doubt the temptation of brand new infrastructure will get the job done? Why not save all that money and leave well enought alone? That seems to be your thinking. It't also fun to watch you contort yourself when it comes to free travel. Gosh darn it, let's not charge cyclists because that would disincentivize people from taking it up. But let's make sure we charge other commuters because if they, too, had free travel costs then they'd be more inclined to us it. No? That's your own thinking only applied outside of your bubble.

David Lesniak ● 1568d

Bill,"correlation is not causation".  European cities that introduced free public transport also had an increase in use  However this wasn't from people giving up their cars, it was people near to subway and tram stops taking more trips that they used to because they were now free.  My point is that people won't give up cars just because of "carrots", there needs to be "stick" as well making car travel more difficult and more expensive.I don't know why you expect me to complain about things in Ealing as I don't live in Ealing. While you may like complaining about lots of things, personally I don't see the point.

Michael Robinson ● 1568d

The maximum capacity of a single lane of traffic is about 2500 car-sized vehicles per hour.  Less with bigger vehicles included in the mix.So for example, in 2000, Chiswick High Rd had 27000 vehicles per day while in 2017 this had reduced to 17000. One of the factors behind this was a reduction of road space with bus lanes.

Michael Robinson ● 1568d

This argument goes around in circles.  So Michael,  if a bus lane reduces road space by the same amount as a cycle lane, thus reducing road space for motor vehicles by the same amount and in turn reducing vehicle use.  Would adding a bus lane or cycle lane be more efficient in reducing car use?

Kieran Fox ● 1568d

A 2 way cycle lane (or two 'one way'*) cycle lanes takes up half the space of 2 bus lanes for both directions so it isn't a direct comparison.Adding bus lanes would reduce car use but of course there are the practicalities of this and the reaction. There were howls of complaints about bus lanes  over Kew Bridge and on the M4 and these were removed.  Also Chiswick High Rd went down to single lane in several locations so a dedicated bus lane in both directions for the entire length would have meant only buses unless the single lane sections were  rebuilt to add another lane.It is the act of reducing road space that reduces numbers of cars.  This doesn't need to be a bus lane, it could be a garden.Or, maybe Chiswick High Rd should be for only buses, cycles and access anyway but thats another debate.  I think it would be more likely to happen for the eastern section of King St than CHR.* legally all cycle lanes are two way just as pavements are two way but those actually designed for two way will have more space.

Michael Robinson ● 1568d

Michael, it always seems you want to provoke dispute rather than alignment. I was under the impression from your regular and extensive posting on this site that you were a general proponent of less traffic and safer streets, was I mistaken? The decision from LBE to promote commuter parking impacts streets that are within W4, and hence traffic reaching these parking spaces add to traffic in the local area. Strangely I thought that you were in favour of reducing that? The broader point is surely valid that there is no coherent strategy across boroughs, TFL or govnt. I am also fully aware of the difference between correlation and causation, unlike some posters. But are you seriously going to suggest the near doubling of passenger numbers on TFL in the early 2000s did not drive at least a good part of the fall in traffic over the period? You also seem to extrapolate from a few limited examples to make an equally flawed point. There are no major cities with free transport (I dont count Tallin or even Luxembourg), but many European countries are currently cutting prices (from already low levels) in the face of rising fuel prices and cost of living to get people out of cars. Germany is a good example with discounted travel passes offered over the summer. How ironic that we have a govnt insistent on doing the opposite. I was not suggesting you personally complain, but if you are a member of a cycling group might either you or they not have a view? Surely these are the kind of issues that should be considered if we are serious about a coherent and comprehensive plan. I am also generally agreeing on the need for more stick, but one that might work rather than simply funnelling traffic into more congested space and hoping some gives up. A wider congestion charge seems inevitable and would raise additional funds for public transport. I am afraid this thread merely confirms the suspicion that cycling campaigners only really care about one mode of transport. IMO a very narrow view which cannot deliver a goal that would benefit us all.

Bill George ● 1568d

Another excellent post from Bill George.

Steve Taylor ● 1568d

I don't dispute your figures and have no reason to think they are incorrect but correlation doesn't equate to causation.Did the peak traffic flow along CHR go down by 37% between 2000 and 2017?

Andrew Jones ● 1568d

PS I hadn't read your post further down this thread where you also say correlation isn't causation before I posted the above!

Andrew Jones ● 1568d

Sorry Bill, I'm really under no obligation to do what you think I should be doing.I think we do have alignment.  Improving public transport is a good thing although free or reduced travel isn't the panacea you think it is and there is good evidence that it  hasn't been effective at getting people out of cars and the increase in trips are from people who didn't drive anyway.Also a charging system for cars based upon type of vehicle, time and location would be more effective at getting people to consider their use of cars as there would be a direct cost for each journey.  However TfL said that there won't be a viable method to do this for some time so I won't be waiting for some magical solution to emerge anytime soon.Also, did you previously post using the name 'Paul Green'?  There seems to be a lot of similarity.  I assume 'Bill George' is actually your real name given the policy of this forum towards fake identities.

Michael Robinson ● 1568d

What happened to "Amanda Smith". There seem to have been quite a few fake profiles on here getting hot under the collar about cycle campaigners campaigning for cycling over the past few years. At least they have the integrity to do so using their real names on a community forum.

Paul Campbell ● 1568d

'David Riley' and 'Chris Soze' seem have been another two who got very irate about inconvenience to their driving and blamed cyclists for this.  I wonder what happened to them?

Michael Robinson ● 1568d

Michael, I was suggesting one bus lane in one direction, thus reducing road space for motor vehicles by the same amount as the two way cycle lane.  There should be room for this the complete length of the road as there is room for the cycle lane.  Would adding one bus lane on one side or a two way cycle lane be more efficient in reducing car use?  Has anyone worked this out?Again I know this will not happen now,  but I still believe it would have been more efficient.  I would sometimes jump on the bus traveling on the high road, but now I tend to walk as it is often just as quick.  But lots of people must now choose their car instead of bus if they cannot walk/cycle or just don’t want to.I suppose it comes down to does an efficient bus lane (one way) or a safe cycle route get more people out of their car.

Kieran Fox ● 1568d

Yes. There have been and undoubtedly still are more. All it requires is an email to support@neighbournet.com asking them to check the identity of a poster. They seem quick and consistent in their response to removing posters who break this particular rule.

Paul Campbell ● 1568d

Most sensible people are going to agree that we would all be better off if there were fewer vehicles on our roads particularly at peak times. It is entirely right for both TfL and the Council to develop policies to encourage that to happen but there are also other objectives they need to consider including the smooth running of our road network. They don't believe as you do that creating congestion can reduce congestion and their policies reflect this. This seems to be confirmed by what is happening locally. You may deny it because it is unpalatable to you but there is still no explanation from you as to why TfL directs traffic along Barrowgate Road to get to Grove Park, as opposed to say requiring it to loop around Hogarth Roundabout or why there are selective exemptions to the Grove Park restrictions. The only credible explanation for these seemingly contradictory policies is that maintaining flow on the A4 is a priority for them and they don't share your assumptions.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1568d

Yep they're doing it all for the motorists Jeremy. It's the only possible explanation. You are a genius. Now you can explain your irrefutable logic to OneChiswick and the local Conservative Councillors and everybody can breathe a big sigh of relief and go and cheer the Council at the next Cabinet meeting at Hounslow House. Hooray.

Paul Campbell ● 1568d

You'll note Michael and Paul have been reduced to flailing. This is their tell. Bill has eviscerated their "logic" and clearly points out without a comprehensive plan put in place with local knowledge vs SatNav corporate policy (i thought Mike liked SatNavs but today not so much) we will only ever get the mess we got. Twice. And counting. To wit: the flood that now occurs at the Netheravon pedestrian/cycleway crossing. All the experience, all the precedent, all the research, all the trial and error and millions spent and they still couldn't get the most basic of urban design elements right.  Astonishing.

David Lesniak ● 1568d

Paul, you seem to have totally lost perspective on this issue. Roads are not solely there for the benefit of drivers. They are there for your benefit - they provide the means for the food you eat to be delivered, the services your require to be undertaken, the continuance of economic activity which provides the tax revenue to pay for government services.Deliberately snarling them up isn't ever going to be the policy of any rational administration and doing so to the A4 would cause massive congestion and pollution consistently across Chiswick.I don't know for sure whether this is what TfL's policy is in this matter but, as I have said, if you assume an absolute priority is given to the smooth operation of the A4 it explains much that otherwise made little sense about the traffic measures implemented in the area. I'm quite happy to reconsider this view if you could provide more convincing explanations that fit the facts but, when I ask you reply with platitudes and bluster.I'm not sure anyone deserves cheers over this but I think we should all be grateful to the pragmatism and expertise of the road traffic engineers at TfL who are doing what they can to limit congestion in the capital.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1566d

No I am very happy with your explanation. So far you've convinced me and Francis so you are doing very well. If you find it impossible to think of any other explanations for the traffic measures then what hope is there for us lesser mortals. Please keep going you are doing great! Why don't you think of some other ways in which the Council could work with TfL to optimise traffic flow on the A4. Braess's paradox is your friend.

Paul Campbell ● 1566d

'they provide the means for the food you eat to be delivered, the services your require to be undertaken, the continuance of economic activity which provides the tax revenue to pay for government services'And travel to the airport for skiing holidays.

Francis Rowe ● 1566d

I love car-brain. Not only are planes the only way to travel to the Alps but cars are the only way to get to the airport. Really what I meant to say earlier in the thread is that 80% of Chiswick's anti-safer streets campaigners are up to 10% cleverer than a cabbage. But it is great to see Jeremy and Francis tag-teaming to prove me wrong. Or maybe they're just lucky enough to be in the 20% .....

Paul Campbell ● 1566d

Francis, this is the second time I've seen that you've trolled Paul about a skiing holiday.How exactly does trying to land some sort of "hypocrisy" charge fit with your reasonable man persona?You're piling on with the worst elements of this forum who make false accusations and if they don't receive an immediate denial each and every time they make the accusation, then it becomes established fact in their minds.And if someone does respond to a false accusation, they either keep making it because it gets a reaction or they move onto something else.  There is zero point responding to trolls.  If you're run out of decent arguments and all you've got left is "but you took a plane to go skiing", then you're going to look a right prat if that's not the case - and Paul's dropped heavy hints that it isn't. 

Ed Saper ● 1566d

“ CHECKThe number of ordinary rail ticket sales between October and December last year equated to around 77.5 per cent of pre-pandemic usage, while season ticket sales have slumped to just 31 per cent of normal levels”

Steve Taylor ● 1566d

People are shunning the germ ridden public transport system and taking to the comfort of their cars. Time to get rid of some of underused bus lanes and get traffic moving again!  Time also for TfL staff to accept pay cuts as people no longer rely on their products. “ TfL’s reliance on passenger fares for the majority of its income, means the effect of the pandemic on TfL’s finances has been devastating, requiring Government support to keep public transport in London operating. The Government set a number of conditions before it would provide emergency funding to keep TfL operating, including requiring a plan to set out how we would achieve significant financial savings. “

Steve Taylor ● 1566d

The little bit of gentle teasing coming from Francis hardly justifies that reaction Ed.I've gone on several skiing holidays so I am not going to condemn anyone for it but it does need to be recognised that they aren't great for the environment.Unless Paul went by train it doesn't matter that much if he drove or flew according to the article linked to below.https://www.wanderlust.co.uk/content/to-fly-or-not-to-fly/#:~:text=Compared%20with%20driving%20a%20car,return%20flight%20produces%200.28%20tonnes.

Mark Evans ● 1566d

While I will continue, for obvious reasons, to minimise sharing of personal details to readers of and contributors to this forum, for anybody who is seriously interested then this article is a more specific and also I think interesting guide to the carbon costs of travel to the Alps:https://ecoski.co.uk/stories/what-is-the-real-carbon-cost-of-travelling-to-the-alps/Train is best of course and a car with four or five people via Eurotunnel is up to 2/3 better than plane. Of course as has been covered extensively on this forum reduction of personal car use has extensive benefits beyond the obvious benefits to the environment. Nobody has illustrated this better than Jeremy when he provided the links to the road accident statistics for Hounslow which showed a direct and dramatic correlation between reduced motor vehicles and reduced road deaths and injuries. Although Tom Pike has done a good job of showing the positive impact of reduced vehicle journeys on local air quality as well. Remember reduced personal car in London = lower emissions, better air quality, fewer road deaths and injuries, healthier lifestyles, more liveable neighbourhoods, more accessible and inclusive multi-modal transport systems, more connections to community and better educational outcomes for children. Great for absolutely everybody and good for the economy too because the aggregated opposite of all of those things is extremely costly but doesn't get noticed because it doesn't appear in the price of a tank of petrol or VED.

Paul Campbell ● 1566d

Paul, you are going to have a very hard time persuading people that there isn't a legitimate public interest in discussing the mode of transport you use to go on your skiing holidays. You have actively lobbying for your neighbours to be significantly inconvenienced in order to discourage them from taking unnecessary short journeys so they could argue that you shouldn't be taking, what they would regard, as an unnecessary long journey.This isn't a point of view I would agree with. It seems to me entirely necessary that somebody who works hard during rest of the year should be able to travel to somewhere to take the kind of holiday he wants. Whether that is snow or sun it doesn't really matter.However, in the context of what we were discussing I do think it means you have to lower your own bar for what you regard as an 'unnecessary' car journey. The same principle of justified use for leisure would apply to a Grove Park resident taking a trip to Richmond Park or a visit to the gym but with a much smaller environmental impact.If you accept this as a definition of unnecessary then the residual amount of car journeys that are substitutable by active travel measures gets even smaller. I am not saying we shouldn't try but that we shouldn't be using sledgehammers to try and crush a very tiny nut. Deliberately inconveniencing residents with the sole objective of trying to force modal shift is one such sledgehammer.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1566d

Well you'd better get used to slight inconvenience for London drivers because there is going to be a lot more of it as 70 years of planning around the dominance of the car is slowly unwound, regardless of how triggered you or anybody else is about your fantasies about my personal lifestyle choices. I know that there are some people who think that people who have or use cars, have children, run gas boilers, eat food, own businesses, get deliveries, go on holidays are not allowed to advocate for safer streets because that makes them massive hypocrites. Those people are entitled to their views and free to publish them on social media but nobody is obliged to take them seriously, least of all the people who are actually making the decisions to take measures to reduce personal car use for all of the benefits I have described.

Paul Campbell ● 1566d

Paul, I can assure you I don't have any fantasies about your personal lifestyle choices. If I was wrong to suggest you go skiing obviously I would be happy to apologise.I agree that none of us can bring our environmental footprint down to zero and compromises are necessary and people required to make them are not hypocrites. However, you should hold yourself to the same standards you want to force other people to adhere to.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1566d

Oh I am very confident that I hold myself to higher standards than those I lobby for others to adhere to. I have no concerns on that front.

Paul Campbell ● 1566d

I've never been skiing and, as getting up a flight of stairs is now a challenge for me, I suspect I now never will.What people not familiar with the Grove Park area consistently fail to appreciate is how orientated it is to the south rather than the north. This means many people like me choose to shop in Richmond and Kew, socialise there, have joined groups in the area, buy petrol there and go to the tip on the other side of the river.Most of these journeys can't be done by public transport, particularly for someone like me with limited mobility so the car is vital to be able to live a fulfilled and varied life. This may not be considered as necessary by some but I would say they are as necessary as your skiing trips and I would hope you agree with me.I don't benefit from exemptions so now have often have to wait in long queues to get home after a trip south. Maybe I have used the car a bit less out of fear of getting stuck in traffic but this is outweighed by the extra mileage of the long diversion and the time stuck in a jam on the Great Chertsey Road. Occasionally the extra travel time is in excess of 20 minutes.This is annoying but ultimately bearable. The type of people who are really suffering are those that live in the area and commute home on the A316. My neighbour's daughter works in health services in Twickenham and doesn't have the opportunity that I do to avoid peak travel times. She apparently sometimes gets stuck for 40 minutes in a queue with her home walking distance away.I asked earlier for some justification why all Grove Park residents don't receive exemptions to the restrictions and nobody justifying these changes deigned to respond. If you are so confident that you hold yourself to higher standards than you are urging me and my neighbours to adhere to, can you explain why only some residents are being excluded from direct access to their homes?

Diane Brown ● 1565d

"Maybe I have used the car a bit less"You've answered your own question. People who live in SOTG don't need to use the A316 to get to and from Kew, Richmond and Twickenham. There is a perfectly viable alternative route that provides them with direct access to their homes.I wouldn't commute by car to Twickenham. But I'm not lobbying for people to meet my higher standards. Yet. There are other more immediate priorities to focus on first.

Paul Campbell ● 1565d

I have been unclear. When I say I have used my car a bit less I mean I have taken fewer journeys because I may have chosen not to pay a visit or go for a trip that I might have otherwise have done. However, this is more than outweighed by the extra time taken and distance travelled on the remaining journeys.If you think Kew Bridge is an appropriate alternative you are mistaken. It would be an even longer detour in many cases and the congestion there can be worse.I will pass onto my friend that you are not going to lobby for her daughter to meet your 'higher standards'. I'm sure it will be of great comfort to her at the end of a long shift.

Diane Brown ● 1565d

Another great example of car culture is people not pausing for a second to question whether the most appropriate way for people to travel relatively short urban journeys when they are tired after a day at work is to drive when they have plentiful accessible alternatives. This is another reason why we need more separated cycle lanes on all those A roads that drivers don't like using because there are too many people driving on them. To protect vulnerable responsible road-users from tired and tetchy drivers.

Paul Campbell ● 1565d

Paul, there is a Johnsonian quality in the way in which you avoid answering direct questions by confidently asserting something which is patently misleading.I'm not seeking to undermine these schemes, in fact I've argued that they are justifiable in the broader context of managing traffic in west London. You disagree with my reasoning, which is of course your right, but you can't continually respond with Roger Irrelevant bluster when asked to explain aspects of the current measures.Once again, why couldn't all Grove Park Residents be exempted from the scheme and, if the answer is that the intention is to force people out of their cars by inconveniencing them, why aren't all Grove Park Residents subject to restrictions?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1565d

"why aren't all Grove Park Residents subject to restrictions?"They are! Every GP and SOTG resident is subject to restrictions. Why do you think the two RAs are lobbying so hard for them to be removed?The message from the lobby for absence of restrictions for Grove Park and SOTG residents only is best summarised like this: "we support restrictions on all drivers apart from us". The popularity of that message was best illustrated by the support it got at its much vaunted public protest. 18 people. You should be asking yourself why you support this tiny minority of selfish drivers instead of continuing ad nauseam with your miserable and futile ad hominems.

Paul Campbell ● 1565d

"there is a Johnsonian quality in the way in which you avoid answering direct questions by confidently asserting something which is patently misleading"

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1565d

It's an observation that has been made before but the refusal to accept that someone might drive because they have no alternative, because they are disabled, because they have heavy stuff to transport, because it is required for their business, because there is no public transport option is based on the belief that the only reason anyone gets in a car is due to a moral deficiency. There is a zealotry at play here that is close to religious in its intensity and it makes some people come across as irrational.It doesn't take a genius to work out that there are too many vehicles on our road and that steps need to be taken to reduce them but this obsession with punishing people is dangerous and will probably end up being counterproductive.The ultimate viability of many of these schemes is likely to get a severe stress test in the coming weeks with the transport strikes. Hopefully the Cycleway works on the High Road will be complete at least.

Francis Rowe ● 1564d

Nope nobody is refusing to accept some people might need to drive. That is why everybody still can and it is why any vehicle can access any address. Anti-safer streets campaigners like to try to make it binary to construct false narratives about discrimination but they are seen for what they are.The cycle lane works will not be finished in the coming weeks.

Paul Campbell ● 1564d

Paul drives a car. Is Paul subject to his own ridicule?Otherwise I'm guessing he's not the only one who engineers his journeys. I'm fairly certain people have, for years now, used the bus, the tube, cabs, private hire vehicles and bikes. His high and mighty schtick remains tiresome.

David Lesniak ● 1564d

Paul, you're forever touting your insider status, please can you share with us the expected opening date of the cycleway and what the cost overruns have cost TFL and, by extension, all of us when fares increase to cover their ever-widening shortfall? For now I'll give you a pass on all that missed business for traders since there isn't the promised influx of cyclists given the cycleway remains closed roughly two months past its delivery.

David Lesniak ● 1564d

My neighbour's daughter had her attention drawn to comments made by Paul Campbell elsewhere on social media that her having her journey time extended by 40 minutes was her own fault because she was unwilling to consider other forms of transport. The problem with this rather high-handed suggestion is that she needs the car while at work to fulfil her role.Her coping strategy has been to have her hours changed so that she starts work later and that means if she arrives by Staveley Road after 7pm she can circumvent any queues. This however does mean that she gets to spend much less time with her young family in the evening.What really annoys her is the inconsistency of it all. If she lived 400 yards away she would not be having these problems. It makes no sense to her that her life has been so negatively impact by a random accident of geography. Paul Campbell has been asked many times to explain why the measures have been set up this way but the only response he ever gives is a pious lecture the main point of which is that he is better than the rest of us and anyone who has a problem with the schemes is deficient in some way.

Diane Brown ● 1563d

David,Expected opening date is unknown to most but my theatrical agent told me she has been asked to make a booking for an opening do.A Santa Claus has been heavily pencilled.As to the cost, anywhere between eye watering and, you'll never be told the truth so don't bother asking.

Adrian Irving ● 1563d

Diane, you are unlikely to receive a definitive answer from either side of this debate to your questions. While stressing this remains only a theory, it could be that TfL have required Hounslow Council to restrict the number of exemptions allowing residents to enter Grove Park from the A316. The intention would be to force them to enter via Sutton Court Road and discourage people coming from the west from driving onto Hogarth Roundabout and turning right due to concerns about capacity constraints at this point.As I say, it's just a theory and not mine originally, but it seems to fit the facts better than other explanations.This does mean that there is scope for an increase in exemptions should TfL's monitoring determine that the junction capacity would allow it so anyone affected by these changes to give feedback to the council on their experiences. It is often forgotten that they are a trial and will be subject to a review in a few months.Details of the very under-publicised feedback exercise on these changes is here:https://haveyoursay.hounslow.gov.uk/traffic-and-transport/staveley-road-and-burlington-lane-trial-access-r/

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1561d

I don't really understand your explanation but I appreciate that you are at least attempting to answer questions rather than repeat slogans at me. You are perhaps too trusting of the authorities. A far simpler explanation is that they are restricting exemptions to create confusion and maximise fine revenue.

Diane Brown ● 1560d

You may very well be right and the simplest explanation is often the right one. Allowing some residents access and not others confuses SatNavs which see traffic flows along a road and assume it is opened so it has made these measures a goldmine.However, while it is certainly the case that this extra revenue is welcome I still prefer to believe that it was not the primary reason for the design of this scheme. If I am right then there is a chance that residents making their case for an extension of exemptions during the feedback exercise may be successful.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1560d