Forum Topic

IT is a long standing policy of TFL to prioritise the A4 over Chiswick traffic. Whenever there are delays on the A4, TFL effectively closes SCR by reducing the green phase. This is often pointless, as the A4 congestion is so bad or in a most distant location that a longer green phase for A4 achieves nothing, but does gridlock W4.TFL used to state in their annual report average speeds or journey times along the main arterial routes, including the A4, they may well have had actual targets for these. It has always struck me as bizarre to prioritise and to make it easier for traffic to drive in and out of London, at the expense of local traffic and buses. Given that SCR traffic often then blocks back onto Heathfield Terrace and then blocks CS9 seems even more peverse example of TFL's priorities.It is also interesting that Paul states that most W4 traffic is through traffic:'The Steer reports confirmed that the vast majority of drivers on TGT and everywhere else in Chiswick are through drivers who do not start or end their journeys in Chiswick.'This is obvious, yet no so long ago Tom Pike was using the very same report to claim most traffic was local. This was patently untrue. This matters because it has huge implications for how traffic is managed. There is little point in constantly exhorting your neighbour not to drive to the gym or shops if the main problem is through traffic. The proximity of the A4 and north/ south circulars mean W4 is always a cut through. None of these through drivers will shift to bikes, so again while CS9 may well be of value its not going to sort this type of congestion.I must admit walking along the High Road yesterday evening the supreme idiocy of many of these drivers, most of whom must of know of the problems, sitting for hours in their cars is astonishing. With the Elizabeth line open and no strikes yesterday, use public transport!Paul also claims its local people wanting to make their own journeys easier. No, I think most people want to be able to walk without the stink of fumes or be able to use a bus or on occasion use a car or taxi as needed. CS9, plus other road closures, has also reduced road capacity through W4. So the threshold of disruption needed to cause gridlock is lower. There are a couple of rat runs off the A4 that should be looked at but unless we close CHR at either end and block Acton Lane, traffic will continue to drive through W4.The only long term solution is an expansion of the congestion charge to reduce commuter traffic, at least to the north-south circular and possibly further, with all funds going into public transport (and cycling). Taxes on work parking spaces need to come in as well. Not a popular answer to many but the only way of solving this.

Bill George ● 1496d

" It would be really helpful if somebody could give some background on how local authorities interact with the providers of navigational services and what options they have to alter the data that causes these sorts of issues."The services are all different and a challenge for local authorities is there are lots of different services and there isn't a consistent way of dealing with them.  People will have heard of consumer services like Google Waze and Apple Maps but there are other proprietary routing services used by businesses that are integrated into logistics systems and the like.Google Waze is probably the best because it is possible to interact with real people on a web forum but for the others, in my experience requests just disappear into a black hole and something may or may not happen an unspecified time later.Routing algorithms are key intellectual property so these companies won't willingly give them up or publicise how they do things.  To save computation power, algorithms will simply serve up similar routes taken by other drivers rather than calculate each route from scratch.  "Are companies like Google and Waze just indifferent to the problems"Yes, Google and Apple multi-billion dollar West Coast US-based NYSE-listed companies with development of the platforms likely being done all over the world from India to S America.  They care about their shareholders, not some disgruntled residents in in Chiswick.  With free SatNav services, the driver *is* the product and the data being collected can be used for all sorts of other services to make their products more attractive.

Michael Robinson ● 1495d

"I do now understand the need to limit access to the High Road from too many side roads to allow the mainstream traffic to be uninterupted as far as possible"I like that Jim. Good to see somebody thinking it through like that. Here is something else to chew on re. the serious matter - the more difficult it is for through-traffic going to and from inner and central London to use Chiswick as a bypass between the A4 and A40, the more of it will use Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington & Chelsea instead. The drivers' Sat Navs will send them there while their Councils cling on to their outdated traffic management theories, which technology has rendered redundant. Hammersmith will probably wake up first, despite how firmly the Council Leader Cowan has been clinging on to his expired beliefs about traffic flow, and start shutting down rat runs leaving Kensington and Chelsea to absorb the majority of it. Both the Council and the residents of K&C seem to want as much traffic on their streets as possible so there shouldn't be any complaints. TfL will have to take space from a couple of the main roads to enable cycling through the Borough of course but the rest of it can be preserved as a museum to urban planning of the 1970s and 1980s. Of course making Chiswick unattractive as a bypass will likely also make it a bit less convenient for local car journeys starting and finishing within the four wards of Chiswick.  More cycle lanes and quieter roads will enable many of those local car journeys to be substituted with micro-mobility and PT. Greatly benefitting everybody in Chiswick including those who really are dependent on motor vehicles as the roads will be much better for them. Not to mention delivery vehicles etc.First steps are a Dukes Avenue LTN (which it is imperative that Grove Park and SOTG residents do not have an exemption for since they lobbied to make their area a private driving neighbourhood that excludes the rest of Chiswick); Wellesley Road LTN and cycle lanes on both Sutton Court Road and Chiswick Lane. The Chiswick Lane one should connect over to a proper separated cycle lane on the A316 going to Richmond. There is plenty of space for these cycle lanes when parking spaces are removed. Another pain for some of our most committed daily drivers but a minor sacrifice for the greater good.  This thread has established quite clearly that the most car-centric "thinkers" on the forum are only half-pregnant with their theory that side roads should be relief valves for congested main roads so let's crack on and make the whole of Chiswick a low-traffic neighbourhood like Homefields Ward.

Paul Campbell ● 1495d

"First steps are a Dukes Avenue LTN (which it is imperative that Grove Park and SOTG residents do not have an exemption for since they lobbied to make their area a private driving neighbourhood that excludes the rest of Chiswick); Wellesley Road LTN and cycle lanes on both Sutton Court Road and Chiswick Lane. The Chiswick Lane one should connect over to a proper separated cycle lane on the A316 going to Richmond. There is plenty of space for these cycle lanes when parking spaces are removed. Another pain for some of our most committed daily drivers but a minor sacrifice for the greater good."Interesting ideas from Paul Campbell shame he clearly hasn't walked any of the roads.1. Cycle lane on SCR is technically impossible currently due to the pinch point at the shops - you could not get 2 buses coming in opposite directions through.  By removing the parking spaces that might become possible but given that there needs to be 2 lanes and a physical barrier of some sort (even if just plastic cones) compared to the (probably) 2m wide parking spaces it will be very tight - how wide is C9? If wider, including barrier, than 2m then a cycleway is physically impossible unless you cut back the pavement, but even that can only work if you remove the central pedestrian island part way down SCR and you would have to remove the right turn into Barrowgate Road "lane/island" (sorry do not know how to describe it technically) but if you take that out then any vehicle turning right would block the north bound traffic coming over the A4 junction.  Which is polite way of saying a cycle lane is not feasible 2. Paul has failed to consider the knock on effects of a cycleway on SCR on the A4/SCR junction.  Currently SCR has 3 lanes at the junction, one for those turning right onto A4 westbound.  A cycleway would reduce that to 2 lanes which would reduce the flow of traffic and cause the same tailback north of the A4 we are seeing at the moment, but permanently.3. Dukes Avenue LTN - DA is used by drivers on CHR who want to go east on A4.  If you close that they have to take other routes to access the A4 and the 2 nearest are SCR and Chiswick Lane - so not only is Paul effectively proposing a near permanent tail back on SCR by the SCR cycle lane he is also proposing sending more traffic down SCR!4. Chiswick Lane cycleway is a really bad idea - the junction with the cars coming off the A4 "temporary" fly over is a death trap so adding cyclists is wonderful.  But again Paul fails to consider that the road is not physically capable of having a cycle lane.  At the shops (just by the Wilton Ave junction), you have a zebra crossing, unless you were to reduce the pavement, the road is not wide enough for 2 lanes of traffic plus the central isle for the zebra crossing and a 2 way cycle lane. It is only when the road widens close to the CHR junction that you can fit a cycle lane and there already is a cycle lane on the north bound side there!3. Wellesley Road LTN though is possible.  There is definitely an issue with east bound traffic using it to bypass the bus gate traffic jam on the CHR by the Acton Lane junction and stopping anything other than local traffic going east would be fine (as usual there will be a fight over what counts as local).  I walk that road most mornings and haven't seen any issue with the west bound traffic to justify restrictions - at least not since the exit close to Kew Bridge was blocked to vehicles

Justin Stephenson ● 1494d

"No, i thought the consensus was cyclists should be prioritised?"I guess you missed my words "on this forum". You can't have meant there is a consensus on this forum that cyclists should be prioritised because otherwise you are looking at a different forum to me.No the bus lane wasn't effective at prioritising buses for the reasons that have been explained countless times and at great length on this forum. There is a consensus amongst the professional traffic engineers on those reasons. The bus gate west of Acton lane on the other hand is very effective at prioritising buses by holding back other motor vehicles so that the buses get to the front of the queue and then have clear road ahead of them when the lights go green. It works brilliantly in its core purpose. Anybody who has actually ridden a bus eastwards along that stretch knows this. The side-effect of drivers using residential roads instead of main roads that were built for them at great expense does require dealing with for sure. And the solution is a Wellesley Road LTN.As for there being no issue with westbound drivers using Wellesley and Oxford Road North as a rat run when there are not road works on the A4 - well I am happy to organise two hours of bike rides in mid-January midweek up and down the length of Wellesley between 5 and 7pm for anybody who thinks that. These drivers aren't seeking an alternative route to the A4. They are driving to Ealing and beyond. Then we can have a chat about it in the Pilot afterwards.

Paul Campbell ● 1493d

Ita funny how Paul seems to care about buses when it suits him. Removing bus lanes for cycle lanes is a hugely regressive step that will further undermine the fragile economics of the extensive bus network. But as he doesnt use them he doesnt care. There are plenty of people at TFL unhappy with aspects of current policy but with no new funding they have little choice than to take what they are given, even it means more harm to the bus network. It is unclear LBH have anyone in a position with the qualifications or desire to scrutinise what happens in W4.As for the Acton lane bus gate on the High Road, it is causing huge displacement onto other rotues as it has drastically reduced the easbound capacity of this junction. Paul talks about speeding westbound traffic on Wellesley, which may be an issue but the volume is much reduced after the closures at the western end of Wellesley and Stile Hall. Even worse is the volume of eastbound traffic also often speeding. The accidents in the last couple of years on Wellesley involving cylists were all heading eastbound amd vehicles turning onto Wellesley having diverted off the High Road to avoid the bus gate. We also see more traffic diverting off the A4 up Heathfield Gardens and then up Sutton Lane, an existing short cut that again receives more traffic due to the bus gate. Wellesley Rd was closed about 6 weeks ago on a Friday afternoon by yet another accident, fortunately no serious injuries I heard but again traffic cutting down from CHR to blame.Locals and commuters/ business using Google maps all avoid the eastbound stretch of CHR before the bus gate. The bus gate was not part of the original CS9 and was not reviewed or consulted upon. Its stated purpose is to hold back traffic to protect eastbound bus journey times, and specifically TFL called out the loss of bus lane by Stamford Brook bus garage under the 'temporary' CS9 scheme. Ironic in itself that TFL gets rid of bus lanes and then introduces more complex measures to compensate for its own actions. Two problems with this. Firstly, most eastbound traffic on CHR was turning north onto Acton Lane. Of the rest, there is even less incentive to carry on eastbound after the junction following the closure of Fishers Lane, as well as the general slower journey times through central Chiswick. So the bus gate solves a problem that doesnt exist. Secondly, TFL has now reinstated the stretch of bus lane they so stupidly removed. So even their initial flawed rationale for the bus gate is gone. Plenty of local residents, including those on Oxford Rd North and Wellesley, witness the increase volumes heading eastbound on Wellesley especially in the morning peak. Not just cars but many commercial vans and lorries. All this traffic then heads north up Sutton Lane to reach Acton Lane. It is then joined by more traffic diverting off the A4 up Heathfield Gardens, an existing short cut that again receives more traffic due to the bus gate. Its bizarre when TFL is actively diverting traffic off a major A road onto residential streets and a cycle route. But these are indeed strange times.As a final point there were no delays to buses heading eastbound on CHR past the Acton Lane junction before the bus gate, none. TFL will confirm this.

Bill George ● 1493d