Forum Topic

‘Fishers Lane Bridge has shrunk’

Hounslow Highways Twitter response yesterday as to why Fishers Lane can’t be reopened to relieve the massive traffic jam on Acton Lane (caused by sinkhole in closed Turnham Green Terrace) was ‘Fishers Lane has to remain closed as there is a conflict with the width and height restriction for the bridge.’ And yet magically, it expands when the 272 bus passes under the bridge several times a day. Why don’t Hounslow Council and Ealing Council acknowledge the truth: they have made a colossal error in closing Fishers Lane to cars, which continues to cause misery, delays and extra pollution for residents, workers and commuters.

Lynda Fisher ● 1549d91 Comments

There is no need for Fishers Lane to be reopened at all anyway.

Ross MacDonald ● 1549d

Why is that? It was closed under emergency powers to avoid public scrutiny. It has been a through route for as long as I can remember and people passed through in an orderly manner. The pollution now being caused by slow moving traffic to residents and children is criminal. There is absolutely no excuse for its continuing closures, particularly when most other routes through the area are closed or problematic, which is why the council has to resort to these nonsensical excuses.

Mandy Waters ● 1549d

Some cyclists somewhere are in charge of making the decision not to open Fishers Lane.. Nice 👍

Maggie Dodge ● 1549d

Just comes downs to incompetent councils and councillors, just shocking  bath road/south parade is nose to tail all day long. If the council or councillors had a brain cell between them or even cared fishers lane would have been opened.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1549d

It's very Brexity / Tory to want a small lane open this much.

Ross MacDonald ● 1549d

Do try not to conflate unconnected issues Ross.

Lynda Fisher ● 1549d

I see that Lynda Fisher is one of the guarantors of Open Fishers Lane Ltd.Open Fishers Lane Ltd seems to be an offshoot of the now dissolved OneChiswick Ltd as they share a common company director, a Robert Austin.https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/open-fishers-laneLynda Fisher is listed as one of the company guarantors along with Andrew Mitchell and Kay Etherington.I assume, like OneChiswick Ltd, they set up this company to make a judicial review claim against the Fishers Lane decision.  I also assume, like OneChiswick Ltd, they failed, given I believe the time limit to make a claim has now expired and there has been no news of any legal action.I'm also assuming, like OneChiswick Ltd, they will be dissolving the company before they need to file any accounts.  OneChiswick Ltd clearly didn't want to make their finances public.Ah well, some Chiswick residents just love giving money to lawyers.

Michael Robinson ● 1549d

It’s fabulous we have some local folk that’s care about the area and it’s residents open fishers lane please idiots that closed it!

Jayne Thorburn ● 1549d

Such a shame the company (One Chiswick) was wound up before having to file accounts - I for one would have been interested what happened to all the money raised. We’ll never know now I guess.

Andrew Jones ● 1549d

One would have thought that following an unforeseen event like the appearance of a sink-hole in TGT, and the inevitable traffic problems it causes, the re-opening of Fisher's Lane, a route that has been a normal part of the road layout of the area for many years, would be an obvious move to help alleviate these problems. One can only assume that such a solution would go against LBH's policy of punishing residents in the Chiswick area for creating any traffic in the first place.

Colin Jordan ● 1549d

Ah well, some Chiswick residents just like harassing others who simply ask why traffic measures couldn't be fluid? Let's be honest, Michael, if you can. In the event of a sink hole (surely TfL thought of this eventuality) what is the harm in re-opening a perfectly suited road for the duration until such time as the sink hole is fixed. Quite literally, an open-and-shut case.

David Lesniak ● 1549d

The only thing that seems to have shrunk is the avergae IQ of those working for hounslow council.

Rahman Hyatt ● 1549d

Gosh, Michael Robinson, it would appear you are a part-time private dick. Who knew?!

Lynda Fisher ● 1549d

Julian Pavey ● 1549d

It's not private, all in the public domain. How much money did you waste setting up the company?And every time you pass Fishers Lane you will be reminded of your failure.

Michael Robinson ● 1549d

You are obsessively clutching at straws.

Lynda Fisher ● 1549d

The People's Lane

Paul Campbell ● 1549d

"Obsession" is instructing lawyers and setting up a Limited company in a clueless and useless attempt to save few minutes driving.

Michael Robinson ● 1549d

Again Michael, none of your business if you did t contribute, or did you ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1549d

And there you are Julian, bored by it all but just have to join in. As predictable as me 😂

Maggie Dodge ● 1549d

I think those that donated are just very grateful for their attempts to stopthe bullies.

Maggie Dodge ● 1549d

The money "wasted" is a drop in the bucket compared to the profligate amount wasted on repeated iterations of TFL contravening its own guidance with a cycleway that you yourself, Michael, said is substandard.

David Lesniak ● 1549d

I think Maggie that there have been people who did contribute who would like to know what happened to all the money.It seems to be an awkward subject that some people want swept under the carpet. As is sometimes said, "The silence is deafening".Did you contribute Maggie?

Andrew Jones ● 1548d

I did contribute, happily! I know they worked very hard. From what I know we were close to our day in court, but the Council tweaked the traffic order, so all the work was pretty much wasted . I don’t believe people who didn’t donate have the right to ask questions .Anyone who did does then have the right to ask. As I think David said the Council have spent/wasted an unacceptable a amount on trying to make Michael’s  cycle lane work. I believe they are now talking about stopping “rat running” down  Dukes Avenue, because of the lights ? So works and spending still ongoing. I’m taking the train to Hammersmith as we speak, let’s see what the cycle lane has done there.

Maggie Dodge ● 1548d

One would think expenditure using public money would require/demand more scrutiny than that using private funds. People are free to spend as they wish. TFL and LBH not so much. In Hammersmth we are seeing the temporary bit by the mall being redone almost immediately after it was finished. We see the part by British Grove aiming pedestrians into the facade of a building when headed east, and we see the gyratory backing up on itself. This can happen in the blink of an eye when the buses stop on King Street. This makes me laugh because we are being told to drive on the A4 to Hammersmith vs on CHR/Goldhawk etc to get to the A40. Except they all forgot to mention the removal of a lane around the gyratory and up Shepherd's Bush Road. Traffic routinely gets jammed in he gyratory due to light phasing as well. It's chaotic at rush hour as the above mentioned route gets caught within the gyratory and blocks anyone coming out of Beadon Road.

David Lesniak ● 1548d

"From what I know we were close to our day in court"OneChiswick Ltd *did* have a date scheduled for a court hearing in June 2021 but they then asked to delay this.So they appear to have spent over £40k and didn't even manage to get a day in court purely through their own decisions.  It was pointed out to them right from the start that the works were being done under an Experimental Traffic Order and subject to change.No wonder the people responsible for these decisions are lying low and don't want to say anything.

Michael Robinson ● 1548d

Yes - the incompetence and lack of understanding of basic traffic management principles by the Council engineers is breathtaking, if not somewhat worrying.

David Kerr ● 1548d

The problem as well illustrated by David's point is the cumulative effect. Lots of road closures, generally piecemeal with zero thought or coordination or traffic modelling, at the same time as key junctions and stretches of the remaining 'main' roads are seeing large reductions in capacity due to cycle lanes and new light phases. The impact is evident all aroudn with a general icnrease in congestion but also the whole network is now more vulnerable. Minor issues can rapidly cause gridlock. W4 is particularly vulnerable as its a cut through for large amounts of through traffic. Nothing done to reduce the number of vehicles that can enter W4, but capacity along exit routes has fallen and number of open routes also cut.Even after the immediate impact of closures this weekend this is the new normal, with more congestion and hence pollution. Cycling wont solve it, now matter how many times certain posters reiterate it.

Bill George ● 1548d

But isn't all this being done to get people out of their cars and off the buses by making life for those who want or need to go somewhere using a car or a bus as miserable as possible? I'm sure the people who came up with this sophisticated devilish plan are delighted as it's working a treat. It certainly seems so from this forum.

Mandy Waters ● 1548d

Ah David Kerr, or is this Amanda Smith?  It is difficult to tell the difference. When the incompetence and arrogance of the Onesies is highlighted, regular as clockwork David (or Amanda) pops up.There hasn’t been any posts from Amanda recently. ”She” incompetently gave the game away about posting using a fake name.As one of the main Onesies, David Kerr’s incompetence is one of the reasons why they spent all that money on lawyers and useless consultant reports and didn’t even get a day in court. His arrogant predictions that the cycle lane would be removed by April 2021 showed how little grasp he had.

Michael Robinson ● 1548d

Let’s remember One Chiswick and  other groups would not have been formed allover London , and considered taking legal action, had the Councils not ignored consultations and requests from council tax payers to stop anti motoring measures.. The LCC boast telling Councils what to do. They are consulted on road changes etc. Who elected them? What right do they have to be involved  in making these decisions? None that I’m aware of. Yet again Michael has no right to comment on the actions of OneChiswick . He’s not involved with them. He is a key member of the LCC so perhaps he should stick to what he knows.

Maggie Dodge ● 1548d

"His arrogant predictions that the cycle lane would be removed by April 2021 showed how little grasp he had."Yes. so true. It reminds me of him telling me that I didn't have the intellectual capacity to understand the implications of Justice Kerr's original ruling on Bishopsgate for Cycleway9. Hubris and profligacy with other people's money, your name is David Kerr.

Paul Campbell ● 1548d

Hi Maggie, thanks for your reply.Reflecting on it, it was private individuals (AFAIK) who gave their contributions to One Chiswick, and the purpose of One Chiswick was reasonably clear, so if those individuals don't want others to know where the money went, fair enough.I get the impression that some people who contributed money (and who posted on this forum saying as much) did want to know how the money got spent, and felt a lack of transparency - this may have been resolved for all I know.I disagree with you however, in my opinion anyone has a right to ask, though they don't have a right to demand an answer if they haven't contributed, and if they're told mind your own business, in a case like this, fair enough.By the way I wouldn't feel the same when we have large amounts of donations changing hands and there is a suspicion of the donors seeking to influence elected governments.  On a positive note, it looks like the sink hole near the station has been filled in, and hopefully all the pipes that I saw on Sunday lying there on the road don't need to go under the road, but can just be taken away on a truck and TGT can re-open.

Andrew Jones ● 1548d

I travelled along Acton Lane South Parade this morning and, although early, things do seem to be returning to some sort of normality. The main queue was eastbound at the lights by Bedford Corner although admittedly this was quite early.Hopefully the massive problems last week won't be replicated. They may have been particularly bad because the Bath Road/South Parade/Acton Lane corridor became the main way for people employed at the Chiswick Business Park to get to work if they were approaching from the east. We tend to forget that the working population of this office development is around the same size as the working population of Chiswick residents and, unusually for a workplace in London, it has ample parking for staff. This means that a disproportionate number of people working there will drive to work. The normal route that people would take to get there would not be South Parade, Acton Lane but turning down Goldhawk Road to get to Chiswick High Road. This however, became totally blocked due to the cycleway works and Hounslow Highways were directing traffic to carry on along Bath Road to join the queues on South Parade.With the train strikes a lot of business park staff will have worked from home but others will have switched to using their cars and most of them will have been coming along South Parade. This could have added several hundred cars to traffic in the area taking the roads beyond the capacity they could cope with.Last week opening Fishers Lane would have allowed these cars to circumvent the queue and rejoin CHR which was flowing reasonably well because it was being throttled at the Goldhawk Road junction. Obviously this would have resulted in queues on Fishers Lane but it would have improved the flow to Acton Lane and stopped the tailbacks reaching Bedford Corner.Doing this would have benefitted cyclists because  Acton Lane/South Parade is a valuable east-west route for many and cutting across the common is a less than ideal alternative.The question for this week is will the number of business park staff who normally drove but worked from home last week be outweighed by the number who normally take public transport but drove to work during the strike. If they do then the end of the train strike won't result in the end of problems in this area.Things didn't seem too bad earlier today so perhaps there is reason to be hopeful and, looking at Google Maps, South Parade seems to be busy but with traffic moving. It'll be interesting to hear from people on the ground but, while Fishers Lane should have been opened last week, it probably isn't worth doing it now.

Mark Evans ● 1547d

Mark lets hope things are slightly better this week, we still have restrictions by Kew Bridge. Its interesting you mention the throttling of traffic on the High Road, as this is one of the key factors that diverts traffic onto South Parade and Acton Lane in the first place. The problem is that on the one hand we hear that traffic 'should' be on main roads and not minor roads, but then the current version of CS9 has reduced capacity on a major A road for west-east traffic, plus also routes and capaciy for north-south travel. The biggest hit is at the western end where the new bus gate diverts lots of traffic onto residential roas and the route of CS9. But its replicated the length of CHR. Then we have issues around the Hammersmith gyratory, so traffic that 'should' stay on the A4 diverts off into W4.The elephant in the room is the crumbling infrastructure under our roads. Its only a matter of time before Acton Lane railway bridge is again dug up, or another route. You may well be right about the business park, which underlines my more general point is that the main problem in W4 is commuter and through traffic. The narrow focus of many posters on their neighbour popping to the shops as the main problem is wrong, and unless you know the cause of a problem you cannot address it.

Bill George ● 1547d

“ We tend to forget that the working population of this office development is around the same size as the working population of Chiswick residents and, unusually for a workplace in London, it has ample parking for staff. This means that a disproportionate number of people working there will drive to work.”There are 9,000 people working at the park - that sounds lower than the working population of Chiswick. Does anyone know the figure? And they don’t tend to drive to work - the parking is usually pretty empty. During the tube strike, the whole place was empty and I didn’t see a full car park. I was standing outside Ozzie’s when reading your post around 8.30 and there weren’t 9,000 cars queuing to go in - I counted 5 in and 4 out - Ubers and black cabs mostly. I might be wrong so I’ll take a photo of the car park when I go through later, but I’m pretty confident that the vast majority of people arrive by tube, bus and overground - there’s usually a few bikes as well and I recall they had issues with large numbers of rental bikes being left in the park.

Ed Saper ● 1547d

Mark, thank you for steering this discussion in a constructive direction and away from the petty name calling by the usual suspects. You make a number of points that really have increased my understanding of what is going on here. As Bill says, the first step to finding a solution is understanding the nature of the problem.As I understand it, there is no access to the business park for employees via the entrance on Bollo Lane. Would it help things if that was temporarily opened to reduce the queues on Acton Lane and South Parade?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1547d

Ed, I tend to agree, I dont think the car park is that busy these days. But it doesnt alter the point, most of the traffic causing gridlock in recent months, well before the nightmare weekend, is through traffic. TFL and LBH have created a near perfect storm for gridlock in W4 north of the A4. For traffic coming into London W4 is a convenient cut through and there are no measures to restrict it. Problems along more direct routes into London mean mapping apps will often still divert through W4, even though reduced road capacity means more congestion and pollution for W4. Same in the evenings, when when TFL now regularly shuts down W4 by cutting green time on Sutton Court Road for traffic heading to the A4/ M4 out of London, plus the regular gridlock at Chiswick roundabout. We then have more development in W4 that will increase traffic around the High Road, Empire House is ongoing and a new denser development for Chiswick Terrace by the junction of the High Road and Acton Lane. The full development of the Sainsbury's site is a matter of when not if. But TFL's new bus gate has cut the eastbound capicity on the High Road by 70%, with no thought as to where that traffic will go. The answer is onto residential streets including Wellesley Road.

Bill George ● 1547d

Chiswick has a population of around 34,500 people but that is based on people on the electoral register able to vote.Not many people drive to the buisness park. Given the average age im not sure many even own a car As to fishers lane,well it is madness that its not open given the local issues causing the traffic.

Julian Pavey ● 1547d

I didn't say that everyone at the Business Park drives to work. Only a small proportion need to do so given the size of the development. It would would be reasonable to assume this amounts to a few hundred with the number rising during the train strike.On the suggestion of temporarily opening the Bollo Lane entrance, my first thought was that would be daft but on reflection it isn't a totally crazy idea. It wouldn't be welcomed by people living on Bollo Lane but Acton Lane and South Parade are also residential roads so they deserve equal consideration.It must never be considered as a permanent move as that would just encourage staff to use Acton Lane and South Parade and rat run through Acton Green.

Mark Evans ● 1547d

This was the car park 10 minutes ago. It is busier at the edges but I'd be surprised if it was much more than 25% full today. 

Ed Saper ● 1547d

Wimbledon is starting today and will be be on for to weeks solid. This year there is even “middle” Sunday for the first time as an integral part of the timetable.And with Hammersmith Bridge still closed, there will be many more heading through via West London. Last weekend’s traffic was miserable but expect it to go on for two weeks solid. Timing is awful.Unfortunately the dogged dogma of Ealing and Hounslow Councils means thousands will suffer traffic and fumes.

Jackie Elton ● 1547d

Chiswick Business Park is owned privately so "opening up the Bollo Lane entrance" is determined by Chiswick Business Park, not London Borough of Ealing.Use for bus services is only with CBP's permission and I seem to remember they withdrew this during Covid.The chances of Chiswick Business Park providing a route through private land to be used as a rat-run for general traffic are just about zero.

Michael Robinson ● 1547d

As I understand it the suggestion was not for all traffic to be allowed to access the business park via Bollo Lane but employees (and perhaps deliveries and visitors only).You are probably right that this is a decision for the development's landlord but they may feel it benefits staff and Ealing Council might concur.I'd have some misgivings about it and there is no way it should be allowed to be permanent, but it might be worth trying if, as seems likely, train strikes become endemic.

Mark Evans ● 1547d

Ed is correct, the business park lots are rarely, if ever, full. We have a number of customers in there for which we deliver. I've seen the undercrofts and the adjacent lots out the rear of each building on all sides for about 8-9 years now. Not much change to either. Michael is also correct, not a chance in hell the management team would allow access for anything public. It's not the loop you think it is so best access for all CBP purposes is still going to be via the High Road past security.

David Lesniak ● 1547d

Nobody as far as I can see has suggested that the car parks at the business park are full or that public access is likely to be given.My suggestion was that the management might consider letting employees enter through Bollo Lane temporarily. This would mitigate the queues on Acton Lane and South Parade.At the time of the deal between the council and the business park for matchday parking, I recall a figure of 1,800 spaces being given for the capacity of parking, or something around that number. It is not therefore a contradiction to say that both the car park could appear relatively empty and the business park could account for a significant amount of the traffic on local roads.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1547d

It looks like you are clutching at straws to come up with a justification for something that isn't going to happen.

Michael Robinson ● 1547d

Just read Cllr Dunne’s excuses about Fishers Lane, along the lines of differing reports of the amount of traffic currently try and doubting opening Fishers Lane would help. Who is she listening to I wonder🤔

Maggie Dodge ● 1547d

Why are you so convinced it wouldn't happen Michael? The move would benefit both employees of the park and it would serve to mitigate, in a small way, short term spikes in traffic in the area. Other than concern for the residents of Bollo Lane, I don't see why Ealing or Hounslow Council would object (even if it was within their power).There appears to have been no repetition of last week's perfect storm for traffic so far this week but it might be useful to consider this as one of the tools that could be used to alleviate such problems the next time something like this occurs.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1547d

Maybe it is just as well OneChiswick squandered their £50k on legal advice and engineering consultants and gave up when they did.Today the Supreme Court ordered that permission for the cabbies to appeal against the ruling in favour of TfL be refused. Because their application does not raise an arguable point of law. OneChiswick had rested their hopes on cabbies winning this case. Goodness knows why as they were objecting to a scheme that prevents them accessing a major road in the City, which really has no bearing on Cycleway9 whatsoever.The ruling is however great news for advocates of safer streets as it creates a high bar for objections from the anti-safer streets campaigners.

Paul Campbell ● 1545d

Not entirely sure what this has to do with the subject but, while this does represent a comprehensive legal victory, it needs to be recognised that the legal challenge made by One Chiswick did result in Hounslow Council making significant changes to Cycleway 9 to make it compliant with equalities legislation.If you are arguing that anyone suggesting a temporary reopening of Fishers Lane is a 'Onesie' you need to think through the implications of your position. If local authorities don't consider temporarily suspending restrictions when it might alleviate traffic then this ultimately will mean these measures result in more congestion, pollution and bus delays strengthening the argument for their removal. A flexible approach would reduce the negative impact of the changes while retaining the benefits.Unless you think there will never be another strike, serious accident, burst water main or other unexpected road closure this issue will occur again and again.It would be interesting to now if there was any response from Ealing Council to Hounslow Council's contractor encouraging traffic to travel along South Parade and Acton Lane when it was already severely congested but it does suggest whoever was keeping Cllr Dunne up to date with traffic conditions on the ground wasn't giving her the full picture. There has already been a mini-border dispute between the two councils over proposals for Swyncombe Avenue.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1544d

"the legal challenge made by One Chiswick did result in Hounslow Council making significant changes to Cycleway 9 to make it compliant with equalities legislation."Yes this is true. They are going to remove parking spaces from side roads on the next section to be upgraded between Chiswick Lane and Heathfield Terrace and replace them with taxi ranks to ensure that disabled people can get taxis to and from shops and restaurants now that kerb access is not available to taxis on the length of the cycle lane. An outcome universally supported by the members of OneChiswick, the Chiswick High Road Taskforce, local businesses and local residents I am sure. Bravo. The cabbies have to pay £730k in court costs in 14 days for the Bishopsgate case. OneChiswick's supporters got off very lightly as it turns out and the organisers should be applauded for quitting when they had only spent £50k cutting what would undoubtedly otherwise have turned out to be very substantial losses. Everybody I have seen arguing for the reopening of Fishers Lane has been opposed to the cycle lane and every other traffic management scheme proposed and implemented in the area so if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....... another giveaway of a Onesie is their refusal to ever accept that they have lost and that the measures that have been made permanent are never going to be removed because they still believe the authorities will prioritise traffic flow over safer streets. Expert straw clutchers. I wonder what will cause the next Onesie tantrum? Probably the opening of the latest section of the cycle lane on 8th July and the realisation of the implications of the construction and light phasing for cyclists on the Hammersmith Gyratory. I look forward to the next bout of pearl clutching and claims of intolerable distress.

Paul Campbell ● 1544d

The changes made to temporary Cycleway 9 reflect the permanent design that was consulted on in 2017 and 2019. Where is your evidence of not being "compliant with equalities legislation"?That is why the Onesies were so dumb, bringing a Judicial Review against a scheme that was always going to change anyway.  This was pointed out to the likes of David Kerr and others but it appeared he was too arrogant to accept this.Then to compound their mistake, they could have had a hearing in June 2021 but chose to delay this.You are really clutching at straws regarding Fishers Lane.  The water mains issue does highlight what could be done to improve Turnham Green Terrace. It isn't the vital through route that some people claim it is, so through traffic could be restricted, pavements widened and other measures to turn it into a better environment for pedestrians and 'gateway' to Chiswick from the tube station.

Michael Robinson ● 1544d

Paul, you really need to see beyond viewing these issues as being goodies vs baddies. I have no fixed view on Fishers Lane as it doesn't really directly affect me. I was prompted to make the observation having been stuck behind a bus on the A316 at the weekend having been required to deliver provisions to a person who had caught Covid-19. It struck me that a temporary suspension of the Grove Park traffic restrictions would have helped the bus keep closer to schedule. The lack of flexibility in the road network to respond to short term problems will be used as an argument against these schemes when they are next reviewed - my point was that, if you are determined on them being retained, it might make sense to concede that temporary suspensions could be considered.Michael, I don't know any of the individuals that you refer to and you clearly harbour a great deal of personal animosity towards them. All I can really go by is my own personal observation that the legal challenge to the original cycleway plan rested heavily on arguments that it failed to take account of the Disability Discrimination Act and the revised scheme dealt with many of the specific objections raised. You clearly will never be prepared to give any credit to campaigners for these changes but it seems to me unlikely that the revised designs were not influenced by the issues that they raised.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1544d

"The lack of flexibility in the road network to respond to short term problems will be used as an argument against these schemes when they are next reviewed"Yes of course it will be. It already has during every consultation along with the other 782 arguments for objecting to safer streets. Sam Hearn focused on it right from the beginning saying that Grove Park needed to remain open as a relief valve in case of accidents or roadworks on the A4. The argument will continue to be as effective as it has been for the past four years. Safer street schemes that have been made permanent are not going to be reviewed again. They are in now. And they are not going to be suspended to turn them into dangerous relief roads whenever there are some roadworks in the area.

Paul Campbell ● 1544d

"my own personal observation that the legal challenge to the original cycleway plan rested heavily on arguments that it failed to take account of the Disability Discrimination Act"There is a difference between saying these were the grounds for the Onesies' claim and making an unevidenced statement that the cycleway wasn't complaint (you posted "making it compliant" implying it wasn't compliant)Onesie groups in other areas (like Hackney, Lambeth) also claimed that schemes failed to take into account Disability Discrimination legislation and these claims were thrown out in court, along with other grounds for claims they made.

Michael Robinson ● 1544d

Paul, I think you are confusing being made permanent with the changes being enabled by a permanent rather than experimental traffic order. No road layout is permanent and any measure can be changed if it is found to be causing congestion and, in particular increasing bus travel times. Admittedly this is less likely to happen with much of TfL's transport policy being driven by a board director who seems to be determinedly anti-bus but if you are relying on Andrew Gilligan to remain in place you have more optimism about Johnson's prospects than I do.Once he goes a lot of schemes will be revisited and it would be very helpful to ensure that changes were retained if the data didn't include a series of spikes in delays which could be attributed to them. It really seems to be totally counterproductive for the defenders of these schemes to kick back so hard against the idea that they should incorporate flexibility to allow them to be suspended when the road system is under stress.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1543d

The permanent schemes will be suspended to make safe streets relief valves for traffic congestion on main roads in the same way as Beverley Rd and British Grove will be opened up when there are roadworks causing congestion and bus delays in the area of Chiswick Lane and the east side of Chiswick High Road.

Paul Campbell ● 1543d

Jeremy, I think you are getting confused by the process used to make changes to roads.All permanent changes are made using a traffic management order which makes them permanent (a tautology, I know).You seem to be saying that a permanent traffic order preceded by a trial using an experimental traffic order should be subject to more review than a permanent traffic order preceded by no trials at all.  That doesn't make sense, does it? There will be more information available for the permanent traffic order decision if there has been a real world trial before this compared to, just a consultation for people to write in with opinions about what they think might happen.I don't see you calling for other roads to be opened up "when the road system is under stress".For example, Paxton Rd was made no entry from the A316 to stop drivers bypassing Hogarth roundabout between the A316 and A4.  Surely according to you, TfL/Hounslow should be opening up Paxton Rd whenever there is congestion at Hogarth roundabout?What is your explanation why this has never come up?  Could it be that after a couple of years, people simply get used to the change?So in a few years time, people will look back at your posts in puzzlement in the same way that anyone asking for, say, Chiswick Road to be opened up to relieve congestion at the CHR/Acton Lane junction would simply be dismissed today.

Michael Robinson ● 1543d

Michael, there is a significant difference between opening up roads which already have physical barriers and signage and temporarily suspending ANPR enforcement for roads which already have exemptions for some vehicles.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1543d

Fun fact(s) Paul.The relief valve on the High Road near Chiswick Lane is called Goldhawk Road. Or we have King Street. And Bath Road. Mind you, that's when Turnham Green is up and running. You can avail yourself of the side roads to make a U-turn even. As we often see on Cleveland/Merton and Airedale, Netheravon and Homefields. But better to forget what you know or, even better, use what you don't know as ammunition.

David Lesniak ● 1543d

Paxton Road doesn't have physical barriers or even ANPR enforcement.Why aren't you calling for it to be opened up as a relief route for Hogarth roundabout?I don't see what ANPR enforcement has got to do with it anyway. Are you saying that it is OK to drive through No Entry or No Motor Vehicle signs as long as they aren't being enforced?As I said, in a few years time people will look back at your posts and wonder what planet you were on as Fishers Lane restriction will be as accepted as all the other restrictions that have been implemented  in the area.

Michael Robinson ● 1543d

Perhaps we could make Chiswick Mall two way to relieve congestion on the westbound A4 then.Dukes Avenue in Chiswick House would be an even more direct route to the A4 than Paxton Road to relieve congestion on the A316. Redesign Beverley Road and make it ANPR so that it can be opened up to relieve congestion at the Chiswick Lane and CHR junction. Make Prebend Gardens two way to relieve the pressure on the Goldhawk / CHR junction. Open up Thornton Avenue and Chiswick Common Road to relieve the pressure on the TGT / CHR junction.Now that we have figured out that temporarily opening all these roads in Chiswick to cars whenever there is heavy traffic will improve traffic flow how are we going to let people know when we are re-closing or re-opening the roads in question? We know that drivers miss signs so we'll need another solution. Maybe posting on the forum so that the fraction of people who read it will know? And can we use the fines that will be paid by all the people who can't keep track of whether the roads are open or closed to fund the departments in Ealing and Hounslow Councils that will be doing all the work on the TMOs? And to fund all the changes in signage? We need the best car brains in Chiswick to figure all this out.

Paul Campbell ● 1543d

There is also a potential issue that if roads were opened up temporarily, drivers unfamiliar with the area and 'normal' restrictions might assume that it was ok to use those roads at other times.When they receive PCNs I can imagine cries of 'entrapment', unless the signage is really, really clear. They have flaps in some CPZs near sports stadia that can be used to change the restrictions depending on whether there are sports events happening.

Andrew Jones ● 1543d

Weren't the discrimination claims rejected by the courts because councils claimed the schemes were temporary, and/or because councils in certain instances conferred with Cycling for the Disabled, which is hardly representative of many less able people who do not cycle. Not sure how that works when they then make them permanent.

Mandy Waters ● 1543d

Andrew, that is a fair point but remember vehicles can continue to use roads like Hartington Road and Staveley Road with the necessary exemptions so it is already confusing for drivers hence the high level of fines being issued. There will be a problem with  Sat Navs being confused by temporary openings but seems like a small price to pay particularly if the authorities are lenient with anyone confused by the chopping and changing of restrictions.Michael, you seem to be misunderstanding the point I am making. The idea would be to temporarily suspend 'soft' access restrictions on roads which already allow some exempt traffic through at moments of severe stress on the road system such as for strikes and accidents. Not sure if you are familiar with the layout at the junction with Paxton Road but it is a 'hard' restriction with No Entry signs and a design for one way operation so wouldn't work for this purpose.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1542d

Justin,  I looked up regulations for traffic signs and I can't see anything about "hard" and "soft" signs.There are signs that give orders, signs that give information, but nothing about "hard" or "soft".If a sign gives an order and you want to remove or change the order, then the sign needs to be changed, doesn't it?The good news for your plan is that it means it doesn't matter if the sign is No Entry or No Motor Vehicles with exemptions, you are going to have to change the signage it if you want want to permit traffic that isn't normally permitted.  You are free to propose opening up Paxton Rd to relief congestion at Hogarth roundabout.  It just needs a change of sign just like Fishers Lane would.This may need to be preceded by an Emergency Traffic Order but assuming the paperwork is in place, what is your proposal for changing signage?  Is it high tech and replace the signage with some sort of electronic version, or low tech involving a man and a van and a ladder to put a hood over the sign?Would you plan to update all of the GPS mapping services with this change then update them back again afterwards?  They don't have a particularly good track record of being responsive to changes.Anyway. I'm sure you will agree it is completely pointless posting your musings on this forum.  If you are serious, why don't you form a brains trust with other forum members who believe they have the solution to traffic congestion in Chiswick.  You could then write up your proposals and as a first step, perhaps submit it to the journal of the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation for consideration.As the professional body responsible for planning and implementing the road network in the UK, you will get far more valuable feedback that chiswickw4.Let us know how you get on.

Michael Robinson ● 1542d

I agree that it can be difficult sometimes to work out quickly whether you can or can't proceed down a road whilst at the same time concentrating on all the other road users.However having restrictions that change depending on the levels of nearby traffic adds an additional complexity to the situation.And I wouldn't bank on leniency from the enforcing authorities. I got let off a parking ticket by Hammersmith once, because they knew that although I wasn't developing a valid parking permit and was therefore liable to receive a ticket, I had in fact paid for a parking permit and my not displaying it was just a 'genuine' mistake.How would a council know that someone driving where they weren't meant to was a 'genuine' mistake, rather than someone 'chancing it'?

Andrew Jones ● 1542d

As I understood it consultations and considerations did take place but perhaps not with the pretty obscure mainly American based charity who I saw made a fuss in Glasgow.

Philippa Bond ● 1542d

I think you're allowed to pass a restrictive sign 'on the instructions of a police officer', so in the event of an accident I assume traffic could be sent through otherwise restricted roads without penalty. 'Heavy traffic', on the other hand, wouldn't be a good enough reason.

Peter Evans ● 1542d

Most (all?) TMOs include something that permits the restrictions beind laid out to be overidden if a police officer instructs you to do something that is otherwise prohibited by the TMO.

Andrew Jones ● 1542d

I see Michael is tossing his toys. Again.Police.That would do the trick.Unfortunately a professional road network planning authority that works on a national level would be unfit to weigh in on the specifics of localized patterns and problems. Let alone be able to respond in a timely matter to an emergency. But flail you must, Michael. Enjoy.

David Lesniak ● 1541d

The police would exercise powers to redirect traffic through restrictions if they had the agreement of TfL and the local authority should they feel it necessary. For instance the chaos that resulted after the crash on Burlington Lane could have been mitigated by allowing vehicles up Staveley Road and Hartington Lane. All that would have been needed was a temporary diversion sign and a plastic bag to cover up the restriction signs.I suspect Michael is resistant to even the notion of this because, for him congestion is a feature not a bug in the design of any restrictions. He believes that because of all the unnecessary journeys we take traffic will evaporate if travelling becomes more difficult. While I doubt very much this is correct, it still may be tactically the wrong approach for anyone wishing to retain the restrictions to take because policy makers don't share his beliefs and they will remove restrictions if they are clearly adding to congestion particularly if they are delaying buses and blocking the flow of traffic on key arteries.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1541d

Jeremy can I just say about your comment regarding Michael “He believes that because of all the unnecessary journeys we take traffic will evaporate”  I would like to clarify, no one has ever proved that these unnecessary journeys exist have they? It’s just a line used by the LCC. The journeys may indeed be short on occasion, but without a detailed report on the what, why and where-for, it’s just a theory ior fake stats . IMO

Maggie Dodge ● 1541d

Maggie,I used to make plenty of’unnecessary’ journeys in my car which I don’t do anymore e.g. today I walked to  Boots and Waterstones to pick up a couple of things and am walking back home now.A few years ago I think I would have just jumped in my car and parked on CHR.I can’t believe that there aren’t others who still make ‘unnecessary’ journeys.Of course human nature being what it is, you’re less likely I think to find people ready to say their journey is unnecessary than those who will insist theirs is a ‘necessary’ journey.

Andrew Jones ● 1541d

An interesting article from the Guardian a couple of years ago - how London got rid of the private car and became more congested than ever. Since then bus travel has become more problematic and is set to worsen.  https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/how-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-congested-than-ever?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16568661568879&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2020%2Ffeb%2F11%2Fhow-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-congested-than-ever

Mandy Waters ● 1541d

Andrew, I don’t know where you live, how far from the High Road , but it’s fine for you to decide your car use is necessary or otherwise, in my book. The distance is one consideration. Your strength, depending on what your buying, your general health are all part of the equation. The cycle lobby produce figures, statistics . I object to them altering or attempting to alter how people live their lives, based on a guesstimate. What gives them the right? As I always say, these same people will fly off on holidays, and think that’s ok. Their carbon footprint is their business. Some of the people driving may never go on a foreign holiday. How do you factor that in. Then there’s the climate conferences, where world leaders fly in from all over the place. I’ll be the judge of whether I should make a car journey and trust my judgement and my concern for the planet, not some bullying cycle zealot, like Boardman, for instance. Who is happy to say cyclists should not be forced to wear helmets for fear of messing their hair up, or not knowing where to store their helmet.  He also wants to encourage people to cycle, despite his mother being killed when cycling. I’d also like to decide what risks I take.

Maggie Dodge ● 1541d

A classic bit of victim blaming , Mrs Boardman an experienced cyclist who was wearing a cycling helmet was killed when she was hit by a driver using his mobile while driving his truck. For this he got a sentence of thirty weeks.

David Burke ● 1541d

Maggie, I live a 1.2 mile walk away from Boots, so it was about a 2.5 mile round trip. The things I bought and collected were light. I have good mobility (this wasn’t the case a few years ago, but fortunately things have improved at least a hundredfold since then).Given that I undertook my journey by foot, without any discomfort I can’t see how most people could think that had I undertaken this journey by car, it could be deemed a ‘necessary’ journey. It could be that it was necessary that I made the collection e.g. if I was picking up a prescription, but it still would have been unnecessary to make the journey by car.You are of course likely to be in the best position to determine whether a journey you undertake is ‘necessary’ but any opinion you form is subjective, and there is no guarantee you are correct as to the necessity of your journey. If it had been raining heavily today, I probably wouldn’t have walked to Boots, but I might have driven and parked nearby. I still wouldn’t have considered my journey by car necessary, but I would have considered it offered me a degree of convenience and comfort compared to walking. I’m sure others in a similar position might have thought such a journey was in fact necessary. It’s very subjective but not all objective.Margaret Thatcher said in 1987 “ … there is no such thing as society” and she was wrong. There is a balance to be struck between individualism and collectivism.I’m sure you will dislike this concept, but sometimes it’s not the individual who’s best placed to determine what’s good for the community.

Andrew Jones ● 1541d

I wholeheartedly agree with what you wrote. Well put.

Francis Sheehan ● 1541d

Who blamed the victim? Mrs Boardman, an experienced cyclist  was killed by a reckless motorists. I therefore don’t want to put myself in a position where that might happen to me. My choice.

Maggie Dodge ● 1540d

While nobody is going to dispute that there will be some car journeys are unnecessary and making them longer and slower will tend to discourage them, it doesn't necessarily follow that this will eventually reduce the number of vehicles on the road at any given point in time or congestion and pollution.If you successfully reduce the number of unnecessary journeys by making them more difficult, this may be outweighed by the length and duration of the necessary journeys being extended.I'm not ruling out the possibility that nudging drivers away from using their cars by extending their journeys could, in certain circumstances, be successful in reducing congestion and pollution but it is a strategy that needs to be used carefully and is less likely to succeed in London where habitual private car use is already much lower than the rest of the country and has fallen significantly already.What I cannot accept is that there would be any potential net benefit to traffic and pollution by deliberately not trying to mitigate congestion which occurs during one-off disruptions such as a strike or an accident.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1540d

Going back to basics, is it the Council’s job to force residents to change their lifestyle choices? Is the fact that we’ve got LCC members on our Council, affecting their decisions on how they spend our money, because of their personal conflicts of interest. If we had pro motoring Councillors,  would it be acceptable for them to introduce anti cycling measures? Don’t we pay  our Council taxes with the assumption that these people will act on our behalf, equally without bias?

Maggie Dodge ● 1540d

Thanks for all the info.  I think you’re like an ex smoker. You’ve stopped driving what you now believe were unnecessary journeys, unless it’s raining, or you’re buying something heavy  etc etc , so you’re a convert. Basically though you are just making an informed choice for yourself as I do, so we’re even. Bearing in mind you have no idea what journeys I make or how (I do walk often ta da) it seems an opinion has been formed that because I don’t like bullies, and I’m not including you in that,  that I’m addicted to my car.I’m not, nor do I dislike the average cyclists, just those that want to force me to live the way they dictate. As I’ve  stated many many times, others like the LCC members here and elsewhere will fly on holiday when it suits them. Hypocritical bullies who should not be serving on Councils or making decisions for others using their position

Maggie Dodge ● 1540d

Prescriptions can be collected by others and also can be delivered by pharmacies.  This is something that those who are having difficulties will need to consider.

Philippa Bond ● 1540d

It is the role of government both local and central to encourage changes in behaviours which will make life better over all. One such behaviour that every political party would agree is positive is getting more people cycling. Therefore it is ridiculous to suggest that any politician who is a member of the London Cycling Campaign is biased or has a vested interest. In the real world of decision making and policy implementation, people don't fall into one of two opposing camps solely representing the interests of their tribe, rather they try and balance the competing interests of everyone for a equitable solution.I see no evidence of the council, TfL or individual councillors trying to form policy based on the more extreme theories that are sometimes articulated by members of this forum. The exception to this would be Andrew Gilligan who, for now, does have a baleful influence on policy but generally schemes are designed by experienced transport officers with the aim of encouraging active travel without resorting to wilfully making it hard to drive in attempt to get people to switch out of their cars.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1540d

Hi Maggie,I am an ex-smoker but not one who objects to others smoking when I'm out and about, if someone asks me if I mind them smoking I will say it's absolutely fine. I understand the analogy you are making though.I don't know that I'm a convert, I make unnecessary journeys myself, but I recognise them as such, and don't try to justify them to anyone, and nor do I look at traffic restrictions as an automatic infringement on some God given right to drive without let or hindrance. At the time I supported the closure of Turnham Green Terrace two years ago to through traffic, and I subsequently changed my view on that, seeing the effect it had for no real gain.All I am really trying to say is that there are a lot of people out there who say that their journeys are 'necessary' and just because they say that, it doesn't mean it's true.I was also trying to debate your assertion in the first post I replied to that there's no proof that there are all these unnecessary journeys being undertaken.I don't know whether you are addicted to your car, I doubt it very much. It does seem to me that you mostly object to any attempts to improve the infrastructure for cyclists, because it impacts on motorised traffic and to a lesser extent on pedestrians.The motoring lobby have been pushing the pro-driving agenda for many, many years, and continue to push back against measures that affect their interests.That's not to say that what's been happening is a universal panacea - it's not, but reverting to how things were five years ago isn't going to be a step for the better either.

Andrew Jones ● 1540d

Hi Phillipa, absolutely. In some circumstances though, I'd argue that it might be necessary e.g. I once got diagnosed with shingles, and the doctor told me that if I hurried I'd just about be able to get to a pharmacy to start my medication that day.

Andrew Jones ● 1540d

"Therefore it is ridiculous to suggest that any politician who is a member of the London Cycling Campaign is biased or has a vested interest"Sorry, Jeremy, what's ridiculous is your conclusion. Plenty of examples here, but of late look no further than what has happened in the US Supreme Court last week. Special interests are just that, special, and do not by definition follow the generality laws and protocols are meant to address. They are a powerful few who pull the strings to the detriment of many. Parliamentary procedure dictates recusal when one's special interest would undermine one's impartiality. Precisely part of the problem these procedures have been ignored all too often. LTNs anyone? Same thing applies.

David Lesniak ● 1540d

Hi Andrew. I’ve enjoyed our exchange. Time to agree to disagree.

Maggie Dodge ● 1540d

Hi Maggie, thanks for that.I agree. Or do I disagree?Pleased to have a 'civil' disagreement on this forum without anyone resorting to name calling and veering too much off the subject.

Andrew Jones ● 1540d