Forum Topic

Time for Progressive Action on Chiswick High Road

The Transport Editor of the Sunday Times offers an interesting report this morning.  Apparently the UK Government is becoming concerned about safety and other problems arising from the growing use of cycle lanes by fast moving e-scooters, electric bikes, cargo bikes, three wheelers etc. that a transport minister has been over to the Netherlands to discuss how to avoid future chaos.  The interesting part of this report is that the Deputy Mayor of The Hauge is reported to have said that the rising dangers have led to consideration of getting rid of cycle lanes in areas with the equivalent of our 20mph speed limits. He is quoted as saying "When we create a road with a limit of 30kph (18mph) and there is a separate cycling lane we will remove the cycling lane because we want everybody on the same piece of road".  This from the much quoted source of all that is regarded as the "gold standard" for cycling facilities.  Chiswick High Road is an urban mess at present and would clearly qualify for such progressive thinking. Safe and more equal treatment for all users too.

David Kerr ● 1492d100 Comments

All you need to do now is find a way of ensuring that all road users keep under 20mph at all times. Granted, it's not a problem currently on CHR due to all the traffic on it that's presumably the result of the A4 roadworks, but one of the sets of stats posted on this forum recently had something like 7 or 8% of drivers exceeding 35mph on a stretch of King Street that I presume is a 20mph zone.

Andrew Jones ● 1492d

Ah Andrew , can’t quite make you out. You started with the nice guy routine with me, remember? You really think you’ve got all the answers?  “All you need to do now is find a way of ensuring all road users keep under 20mph at all times.” Well they developed cameras to keep  a check on motorists, so nothing new there. How do you plan on keeping cyclists in check, speed wise, what’s the master plan Andrew?

Maggie Dodge ● 1491d

Of course I don't think I have all the answers Maggie.I do think that some car drivers (and others) protest just a little too much about what they see as the injustice being done to them by re-allocating some of the road space that previously they had access to, to cyclists.The suggestion was that the practice in Holland is to get rid of cycle lanes where the speed limit is 30kph ( about 19mph). Seems an idea that might merit a bit more investigation. I was pointing out that in what I imagine is already a 20mph zone, that is not that far from Chiswick, a significant number of cars considerably exceed the speed limit. The cameras you mention that have been developed probably aren't employed to regulate the speed, otherwise I imagine word would quickly spread and the number of cars speeding would reduce to a handful.On the bits of motorway where they have average speed checks there is a lot more adherance to the speed limits than on those bits where there are no speed cameras. There is pretty good adherance on the A40 Westway going into and out of town because of the cameras.Before you keep speeding cyclists in check, you have to change the law so that exceeding a particular speed is an offence, and then you can probably have occasional enforcement by police with speed cameras who target any road users they think are breaking the speed limit.How does that sound like an idea Maggie?

Andrew Jones ● 1491d

Do cyclists know how fast they are travelling?  My bike doesn't have a speedometer.

Vivienne Cox ● 1491d

I think that is just one of the myriad of issues that show Shapps's comments are just there as clickbait for the petrolheads.The Conservative think tank onward on the other hand:...suggested that “nudges” could play a key role in changing consumer behaviour, which will be needed to reach net zero. Luke said local authorities could offer personalised transport and commute plans.He pointed to a trial in Ipswich, costing £27 a person, which gives personalised information on public transport, walking and cycling routes, which resulted in an 11% fall in car journeys and a 14% increase in walking and cycling.

Will Watson ● 1491d

Cars and vans have speedometers but an awful lot of drivers still struggle to restrict those powerful engines to 20 mph on a clear road in a 20 mph zone.  Pedal cyclists I understand are unlikely to be able to reach 20 mph on the road.  Speedometers for pedal cycles do exist.  Personally I think bells and working lights are more important. 

Philippa Bond ● 1491d

You have to be fit and with a good bike to reach 20 mph (32 kph) and probably a lot younger than me!But the 20 mph limit isn't really a limit.  The police allow for a margin for error as traditionally speedometers or vehicles are not accurate.  Even if caught on average speed cameras 24-25 mph would actually be the enforcement limit - and even before the current traffic gridlock the chances of doing that down most of CHR would have been pretty limited

Justin Stephenson ● 1490d

The problem surely is that some change needs to be made so that cyclists can't just say that laws don't apply to them ie think that they are above the law.I was told that racing bikes weren't legal on ordinary roads in Norway.  Is this right?  How good is visibility and reading of the road ahead with your head down?Some e-bikes are not legal on the road here without proper registration because they have bigger engines/they can travel faster than whatever is specified for the hire ones.We do need speed limits policed.

Philippa Bond ● 1490d

We need police for other reasons not cars and bikes going over the limit set. PS  e-Bikes dont have engines

Julian Pavey ● 1490d

*I was told that racing bikes weren't legal on ordinary roads in Norway.  Is this right?  How good is visibility and reading of the road ahead with your head down?*This is total nonsense btw. Racing bikes - by which you presumably mean lightweight bikes with drop bars - are not illegal in Norway.Possibly the sort of bikes you use on a velodrome are (they don't have brakes) but I can't imagine anyone riding them on roads.How about the progressive action starts with GPS-based speed limiters for cars, a bit like you have on e-scooter hire?

Sarah Smith ● 1490d

How about some proper consultation? Seems to work for all the LTNs that actually work.

Russell Pearson ● 1490d

GPS-based speed limiters for cars is an excellent idea. And geo-fencing too. They just stop working if you drive through Fishers Lane or into a cycle lane. Engine shuts down and you have to push it back.

Paul Campbell ● 1490d

>GPS-based speed limiters for cars is an excellent idea. And geo-fencing too. They just stop working if you drive through Fishers Lane or into a cycle lane. Engine shuts down and you have to push it back.More barking ideas.

Russell Pearson ● 1490d

Yeah Julian I'm a bit tired - they have batteries duh but there are some without limiters which need to be registered like motorbikes..

Philippa Bond ● 1490d

How about banning those e-bikes which are solely operated by a throttle from using the cycle lane with your kids? Clearly they are are motor bikes. But hey, if you're not interested in your kids safety, why should anyone else be?

David Lesniak ● 1489d

It's possible to reach 20mph on the road, but only a very small percentage of cyclists are going to be able to sustain speeds significantly higher than 20mph.  Flat stages on the Tour De France average around 40kph (25mph).  That's with the advantage of £10k bikes and being able to shelter from the wind in a large peloton.You might find that a small number of the faster cyclists can sustain 22 or 24 mph but that's not going to break the system.E bikes with the governors removed are probably more of an issue.  They should adopt the Canadian standard on E bikes anyway and limit the speed to 20mph not 15mph.  That would largely remove the incentive to monkey with the governors.  It would also make them a far more attractive alternative to cars - especially outside of London. If they could do 20mph, there would be no need to overtake them within 20mph zones, which would make things far safer and more pleasant for cyclists.

Al Webber ● 1489d

I agree. Ebikes do seem to be motor bikes flying under the legislative radar.They are very green and I'm all for 2 wheel EVs but classifying them the same as human powered bicycles is not quite right.

Will Watson ● 1489d

Agree, although if they are limited up to 20mph there is no way they should be allowed in cycle lanes any more.

Mark Evans ● 1489d

Can we have the same big brother dystopian shut down for bikes on pavements, bikes through red lights etc? Parking to one side all the bike v car v pedestrian crap and be careful which version of 1984 such barking ideas wish for.

Mark Talbot ● 1487d

It should be mandatory for all cycles to have speedometers. It must be made a legal requirement.

Steve Taylor ● 1487d

All e-bikes should be legally obligated to use cycle lanes wherever cycle lanes are available.  Cycle lanes are radically underused so it should be law that cycles, e-bikes, e-cycles, disability tricycles and vehicles are banned from roads where a cycle path is available. We need to free up our roads for cars and trucks and the ever increasing van deliveries!  It’s time to get London moving again!

Steve Taylor ● 1487d

It’s time to get London moving again!Steve, London hasn't moved since before Victorian times.

Brian Green ● 1487d

All e-bikes and e-scooters should be compelled by law to use cycle lanes wherever they are available. Cycle lanes are radically underused, so let’s use them the free up traffic on the overcrowded roads. Delivery vans are on the increase due to online purchases so the roads need to be freed up wherever possible.  Online purchases are fantastic for the environment so we need efficient van deliveries. Most van deliveries from reputable companies are now electric and they are taking the place of thousands of diesel or petrol cars so free up the roads for them and force all cycles, e-bikes and e-scooters onto all the underused cycle lanes.

Steve Taylor ● 1487d

Steve. If they are travelling at up 20mph in a 20 mph zone - why?  20mph is a much safer max speed for all vehicles in a lot of areas.  It just sounds as if you want to travel faster than the speed limit.  What about those who are travelling or want to travel much slower than that in the cycle lane?  They must NOT be pushed onto the pavement into the paths of pedestrians.

Philippa Bond ● 1487d

E bikes are for wimps. Evolution gave us muscles, use them or loose them.

Adrian Irving ● 1487d

What about bells?  I do wish that cyclists silently racing up from behind us would be courteous to let us know they are there.

Philippa Bond ● 1487d

"It just sounds as if you want to travel faster than the speed limit."No, definitely not. I am just wanting free flow on the roads rather than gridlock. 20 MPH is fine if it keeps traffic moving.    "What about those who are travelling or want to travel much slower than that in the cycle lane?"Absolutely. Cyclists should feel comfortable riding as slow as they want to on a cycle lane. I certainly amble along at a moderate speed. We need to follow the lead of Denmark and Holland. It is not necessary to speed on a cycle lane and cyclists must show due respect to all users of the cycle lanes, including e-bikes and e-scooters. Likewise e-scooters must show due respect to cyclists. There is certainly space for all because the lanes are radically underutilised.

Steve Taylor ● 1487d

"Steve, London hasn't moved since before Victorian times."Precisely - but in the 80's and 90's it certainly moved a lot faster than it does now!! 

Steve Taylor ● 1487d

"E bikes are for wimps."That's a bit nasty. E bikes are a Godsend for thousands of older people (or young people for that matter) who don't have the energy or muscle power to cycle longer distances but they want to help the environment by not using their cars. They should be applauded not denigrated, surely?

Steve Taylor ● 1487d

"What about bells?  I do wish that cyclists silently racing up from behind us would be courteous to let us know they are there."Definitely, bells should be mandatory. A legal requirement! But in any event cyclists shouldn't be racing up behind us on shared paths etc. Admittedly I wouldn't hear a bell if I am walking alone because I generally have my AirPods in listening to heavy rock. Highway to Hell is good for a speed walk!

Steve Taylor ● 1487d

"but in the 80's and 90's it certainly moved a lot faster than it does now!! "Traffic in the 80s and 90s was faster because there were less (about 20% less) journeys compared to now, and up to 40% less traffic on minor (non-A) roads.Source: https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/regions/6

Francis Sheehan ● 1485d

"about 20% less journeys"Deliveries.Amazon. Ocado, etc.

David Lesniak ● 1485d

E-bikes are particularly good if you live in a hilly area!  We need to make sure that e-bikes have not been interfered with and are still limited to the regulated maximum speed and that those which aren't are registered just like motorbikes and are just being ridden on the road.

Philippa Bond ● 1485d

Enjoyed reading Gerald McGregor's blog and seeing the local Conservative Councillors are keeping the accounts on the cost of the cycle lane paid for by the Conservative government. Thank you very much to the Tories for funding the build of and ongoing improvements to this fantastic piece of infrastructure for us cyclists. We are lucky to have you.

Paul Campbell ● 1485d

No, we need to ensure that e/bikes and e-scooters are confined to cycle lanes wherever available. It makes sense. Cars (big metal boxes) keep to the roads; pedestrians on pavements and cyclists, e scooters and e/bike rides must be heavily prosecuted for riding on pavements and must be confined to cycle lanes wherever available. That should ensure that everyone is happily segregated with no confusion and no cross contamination.  The disability trikes / chairs should also be encouraged to use the cycle lanes because when you look at roads, pavements and cycle lanes across London, cycle lanes are the most under-utilised by far.

Steve Taylor ● 1484d

Yet another example of the Tories blowing large amounts of public money to no gain. Good job Boris has gone.

Russell Pearson ● 1484d

Its high time the Council woke up to the fact that the Chiswick High Road and now the King Street cycle lane mess need sorting out NOWHow much longer do we have to put up with the complete log jams on Chiswick High Road all because the Council thought it was a brilliant idea to carve up the road in the worst manner possible to facilitate a two way cycle lane so that cars, ambulances, fire engines and huge lorries delivering goods to local shops have to make way for a minority ie cyclists???And there are still cyclists who ride on the minimal car road space and on the pavementChiswick has become a permanent car park and a joke! Its affecting businesses very badly.The recent works on the M4 bridge and the traffic chaos down Sutton Court Road have compounded the problem!More traffic jams for 3 months.The whole Chiswick area is even more of a nightmare. Hounslow Council needs to find someone in its inner sanctum who understands the flow of traffic in Chiswick and how this brilliant part of London used to work before the road carve up and road closures over the last two years!It will no doubt take a fatality before Hounslow Council act

Lesley Exley ● 1483d

"Hounslow Council needs to find someone in its inner sanctum who understands the flow of traffic in Chiswick and how this brilliant part of London used to work before the road carve up and road closures over the last two years!"

Tom Pike ● 1483d

“It will no doubt take a fatality before Hounslow Council act”I don’t think even 10 fatalities would make these morons at Hounslow act. They would see it as collateral damage to their political agenda. There is a brain worm eating away at Hounslow Council and people there are no longer able to focus on reality.

Steve Taylor ● 1483d

So, Tom, to be clear, there was zero point to what you posted.It did, however, illustrate someone else who is frustrated as we all are. Somehow I doubt that was your intent. But only you know what you were trying to do.

David Lesniak ● 1483d

It is as clear as day what Tom Pike was illustrating.

Philippa Bond ● 1483d

Yes,Something happened after Beatrice posted in 2008 that made Chiswick a utopia for road users with little if any congestion to grumble about.

Andrew Jones ● 1483d

Pretty obvious what Tom was saying. NO CYCLE LANES IN 2008 YET STILL TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. ok now?

Tony Mansell ● 1483d

HOWEVER,If you analysis the post it should strike you that Beatrice had trawled though ten pages and nobody else has issues. Odd that.Try that today and spot the difference.Also there is no direct reference to CHR but more about journeys from the surrounding areas.I am not saying there weren't problems in the past but it is a surely a question of degree.

Adrian Irving ● 1483d

That's a fair point to make Adrian.What I do remember is that even with Fisher's Lane open, there were still regular tailbacks on Acton Lane from South Parade during the evening rush hour, and similarly southbound on TGT was frequently very slow.Back then, I would use Fisher's Lane to avoid the hold ups, these days though, if Fisher's Lane was still open, I wonder whether the ubiquitous Sat Nav apps would channel drivers down that way, so opening up Fishers Lane might not be the panacea for locals it once was.

Andrew Jones ● 1483d

Another cycle lobby member losing the plot. It must be hard defending the indefensible day in day out. Making up stuff, then remembering what you made up. Nightmare!

Maggie Dodge ● 1483d

For £80m ring-fenced per annum for Active Travel till 2024. That should sort out the next section of Cycleway 9 from Kew Bridge to Brentford. Hounslow's excellent record on spend of previous kind donations from the Conservatives should hopefully see it at the front to the queue for future projects too.

Paul Campbell ● 1483d

Yes thank you, now Hammersmith Bridge will be reopened to vehicles!Oh, and maybe they will have a few bob left over to remove awful graffiti on subways under the Great West Road that has been there for months.

Adrian Irving ● 1483d

Meanwhile tube fares will continue to rise and bus servives cut further, as confirmed by the mayor. The once excellent bus service will disintegrate as cylcing ideology replaces bus lanes with cycle lanes and govnt imposed fare increases plus less reliable journeys mean that usage will fall further. Hurrah, thanks once again to Boris and co. But hey, if you only care about bikes, who cares. Strangely enough pricing people off public transport wont help reduce congestion.

Bill George ● 1483d

Yep and more deaths will occur on the cycle paths.

Steve Taylor ● 1483d

There also seems to be some ambiguity in the local reporting on what the settlement means for Hammersmith Bridge.The funding letter states that while a commitment to permanently reopen the Bridge for pedestrians, bikes and river traffic will be sought, any further opening to motor vehicles will depend on the costs. The letter then limits government funding to no more than one third of the repair costs, leaving the rest to be picked up by LBHF and TfL.So the settlement seeks a commitment to the reopening of Hammersmith Bridge for active travel, but then leaves it to TfL and LBH to finance the bulk of anything else.  If that was not a strong enough hint at the DfT's expected outcome, the funding letter then specifies: "the independent board... will conduct regular assessments for the controlled and limited opening of Hammersmith Bridge to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic."https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-settlement-letter-30-august-2022.pdf

Tom Pike ● 1483d

"full reopening" is what it says in the editorial.As to the cost, well this has been banded about for some time.I think we have every reason to be cautiously optimistic despite the naysayers.It will be great relief to the the people of, Barnes, Putney and Chiswick who have had to live with the knock on effect for far too long.

Adrian Irving ● 1482d

Best read the actual announcement from the DfT, Adrian.The article on this website has misreported it regarding Hammersmith Bridge.The DfT says:"we expect to finalise a memorandum of understanding between HMG, TfL and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to ensure all parties’ commitment to the reopening of Hammersmith Bridge on a permanent basis – initially to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic and, depending on cost, to motorists. "The DfT then sets out conditions for providing funding which includes not providing more than one third, so TfL and LBHF need to find the other two thirds.Also "HMG’s support for TfL’s third of Hammersmith Bridge repairs will end at the point that TfL reaches financial sustainability, or upon the expiry of this Funding Settlement, whichever event occurs first."I think the funding settlement is until the start of the 24/25 financial year, so in 20 months time.

Michael Robinson ● 1482d

The article on this website is somewhat misreporting what the DfT says regarding Hammersmith Bridge.Best read what the DfT actually said rather than what chiswickw4 think they said.https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-settlement-letter-30-august-2022.pdf

Michael Robinson ● 1482d

Gosh, all these closet Tories coming out in support!

Russell Pearson ● 1482d

I think you might be overlooking the breadth of political consensus in favour of prioritising active travel over motor vehicles. That’s why we have funding from a Tory government being given to Labour councils and a Labour mayor for common purpose. In fact the funding mandates from central government for investment in active travel are mostly symbolic: the Mayor has already instructed TfL to prioritise active travel to fulfil his own electoral mandate, and TfL have previously spent well above the mandated amounts.

Tom Pike ● 1482d

Some have pointed out that there’s a breadth of political consensus that expands across a small elite of politicians, media professionals, and might one say career academics, that’s totally disconnected with the rest of us.

Russell Pearson ● 1482d

Beginning to think they want all the plebs on bikes, crammed into cycle lanes, so the roads are emptier for their chauffeur driven limos.

Vivienne Cox ● 1482d

"It will be great relief to the the people of, Barnes, Putney and Chiswick who have had to live with the knock on effect for far too long."Slightly odd that you don't mention the people in Hammersmith who live right by the bridge and are responsible for paying, with TfL, two thirds of the costs of the repair.LBHF has no mandate for from its electorate to cover the very much higher additional costs of making the bridge safe for cars, even if it is indeed possible: the bridge is not mentioned in Labour's manifesto for Hammersmith, and the Mayor backed a ferry in his campaign.In any case, the funding letter is quite clear. After reading it you still think there's any chance of driving over Hammersmith Bridge in the future, you need to read it again!

Tom Pike ● 1482d

Oh whoops. Too hasty yet again Adrian. Never trust this editorial. It's like trusting the Heily Fail. What a shame you didn't light a candle the last time you drove across the bridge. Because you never will again. On the plus side it means there is an excellent and rather large LTN for Barnes and Hammersmith and an Active Travel route for the rest of us that has been made permanent. By stealth of course and with plausible deniability as one would expect from this government. And its local Councillors.

Paul Campbell ● 1482d

If the people of Barnes, Putney and Chiswick want to put their hands in their pockets to help fund the Bridge reopening to private motorised vehicles then they are welcome to.As a council tax payer in LBHF I have no wish to "over-contribute" towards the reopening of a bridge I've happily lived without since it shut a few years ago. If it was funded by tolls or dare I say it from the public purse then full speed ahead ,,,

Andrew Jones ● 1482d

"For £80m ring-fenced per annum for Active Travel till 2024. That should sort out the next section of Cycleway 9"Given all the fine print being interpreted with respect to Hammersmith Bridge, just wondering where the same level of detail is with Paul's wishful thinking on CS9.Did I read recently costs for CS9 are £13 million and counting? So let's have a looky loo...80/13=6.15...which surely means that money isn't enough. Unless you want half a cycle lane somewhere or if costs are allowed to run amok as they are now, there's no telling what funds will or won't do. Especially for something so experimental.I'd also guess it will be spent elsewhere.

David Lesniak ● 1482d

Well done guys, yet again you have underlined your ideological blinkered approach to the whole getting about town problem, I could say selfish and self centred but I will stop short of that just by way of keeping exchanges reasonable polite..

Adrian Irving ● 1482d

"yet again you have underlined your ideological blinkered approach to the whole getting about town problem"Hmmm - I think you mean the Conservative government has underlined their approach. Not in our power to pay for the opening of the bridge to cars dear boy.

Paul Campbell ● 1482d

Wow, what an amazing sunrise over Hammersmith Bridge this morning. A stunning fiery ball with a beautiful halo of crimson edged clouds.Only one thing missing that would have completed the picture.Traffic.

Adrian Irving ● 1482d

https://twitter.com/timbr1ggs/status/1519666659509813248?s=21&t=1KG3rhNzfcF10mMjva5UaQ

Maggie Dodge ● 1482d

Yes, thank you Tom, an oversight. I should have included the good people of Hammersmith who have also been badly let down not only by their local council failing to ensure a historic and regular preventative maintenance of the structure but also by the joint incompetence of Government and TfL.

Adrian Irving ● 1482d

Adrian,As referenced in the DfT communications, TfL and LBHF are responsible for funding two thirds of the costs to re-open the bridge, whether this is for pedestrians and cyclists as the immediate priority or motor vehicle traffic, which will clearly cost more.I expect LBHF and TfL will explore ways in which they can raise the money.  Tolls and a workplace parking levy for car parking spaces owned by businesses could be two ways of doing this.

Michael Robinson ● 1482d

Michael, tolls, although not ideal, are far better than not restoring the structure's full functionality but with the caveat local people and businesses have some sort of concession.

Adrian Irving ● 1482d

Having lived close to SCR for nearly 30 years I can at least answer Beatrice from 2008 about SCR.  It has regularly blocked back on a Friday afternoon for at least the last 20 years.  TfL has prioritised traffic on A4, leaving London, on Friday afternoons for at least that long.  Of course it is not helped by Thames Water digging up SCR close to the junction many, many times during that period to repair of the repair of the repair (etc., etc.) to the water main there.Then there is the regular digging up by various utility companies of S Parade/Acton Lane just by Sainsburys - there is a good chance that was also happening then!So going back nearly 20 years we can say that the road network in Chiswick was under pressure and usually at best two accidents/road works in key locations from ending up in gridlock.What we see now is that it only takes one accident or road work in a key location to cause gridlock.  Whether you consider that is a function on C9, more cars on the road or probably some combination of both depends on your own bias

Justin Stephenson ● 1482d

"Deliveries.Amazon. Ocado, etc."Well, though %-wise the number of LGV journeys has increased massively, in actual numbers the increase in journeys is pretty much the same as for cars between 1994 and 2019, i.e. 1.7bn journeys according to TfL.It's also worth noting that there are almost 5x as many car journeys as LGV journeys in London.So, bottom line = car journeys are the exceeding majority of all London journeys and there are way more car journeys than in the 1980s and 1990s. Especially on minor roads. https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/regions/6

Francis Sheehan ● 1482d

https://twitter.com/TimBr1ggs/status/1519666659509813248?s=20&t=rVhjf821QrgZ1BamdLX9TgHe’s right.

Russell Pearson ● 1481d

So right he got beaten into fifth place in the election after this video and is now an ex-Councillor touring the country looking at LTNs and tagging in abusive One groups on his lonely tweets. Another winning anti-cycling campaigner.

Paul Campbell ● 1481d

An “anti-cycling campaigner”. Classic Culture War nonsense. 😹

Russell Pearson ● 1481d

Says the guy who got suckered in by a fellow Onesie's inattention to detail and dates. I know that Russell "Brentford Taliban" doesn't  like looking foolish with his mates at the Cooper Cow so a charitable word of warning: Maggie (@MortonPeas) has a habit of snuffling around the internet and dredging up old threads from Twitter with no apparent awareness of the dimension of time. Those who follow her lead are even more foolish than her.

Paul Campbell ● 1481d

Maggie’s video vigorously denies that anyone opposing LTNs is a climate-change denier. Not sure why she posted that.

Tom Pike ● 1481d

Why shouldn't she post it? Seems to be a necessary message although it's wasted on the bullying selfish lycra clad white middle aged male idiots on here. Fingers in ears singing as they weave dangerously on the cycle way snorting up the increased pollution from idling traffic.  Perhaps getting a high from the increased  petrol and diesel fumes along with their new sense of power at bringing Chiswick to gridlock and making the lives of pedestrians, particularly the disabled, unwell and elderly and motorists along with businesses miserable, a very heady combination.

Claire Moran ● 1481d

Tim Briggs is a true hero. He should stand as mayor of London. Get London moving again. In the meantime brilliant news that the government is funding the opening of Hammersmith Bridge to all traffic again. Getting traffic moving is a top priority and high time the Labour imposed, pollution creating, traffic increasing LTNs will be removed and designated as total failures.

Steve Taylor ● 1481d

Where did you get the information about Hammersmith Bridge and government funding?  Has it been in the news today?

Nora Watkins ● 1481d

Sorry Tom

Maggie Dodge ● 1481d

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-settlement-letter-30-august-2022.pdf"....we expect to finalise a memorandum of understanding between HMG, TfL and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to ensure all parties’ commitment to the reopening of Hammersmith Bridge on a permanent basis – initially to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic and, depending on cost, to motorists.""...HMG will not directly contribute more than one-third of the costs;"

Tom Pike ● 1481d

Tom, out of interest how many more bridges would you like to close to traffic? One, three, all of them? How do goods get around London, or key trades, or those with mobiltiy issues. London already has far too few river crossings and the closure of Hammersmith has caused far more traffic on other roads and more congestion in parts of Mortlake and Barnes. Please dont trot out your flawed data on river crossings.The closure of two of three lanes on the A4 has significantly reduced the amount of vehicular traffic that can travel west out of central London, with the High Road also at a standstill. Yet that doesnt mean that traffic has 'evaporated', which will no doubt be your response. People on the ground experience more congestion and pollution with longer journey times.

Bill George ● 1481d

It’s on the leader page of this forum. I read “full opening of Hammersmith Bridge” to mean FULL opening which would allow for buses, vans, cars, pedestrians and cyclists. “ Full details of the agreement have yet to be published, but the government says that it amounts to over £6 billion and matches the Mayor’s own pre-pandemic spending plans.TfL is to be given £1.2billion up front to cover existing deficits and there is nearly £3.6 billion being made available for investment in the network. Projects that will be funded include the repair and full reopening of Hammersmith Bridge”

Steve Taylor ● 1481d

It's clear you prefer your own view of traffic to any actual data, whether it be the proportion of through-traffic on our local roads, or the volume of traffic across the bridges.  The published numbers on both are quite clear though obviously you don't want them to effect your thinking. There are a couple of new traffic counts published by the DfT since the last time you ignored them:1. We now have a manual count for Kew Bridge after the closure of Hammersmith Bridge that's actually 3000 down on the previous manual count. The previous inferred count gave an increase of 2000. That gives a best estimate that of the 25,000 vehicles that crossed Hammersmith Bridge, 10,500 were transferred to the other bridges, so an overall evaporation of 14,500 in terms of Thames crossings from Kew to Battersea.2. We also have automatic count data for all of 2019 for the South Circular at Chalkers Corner. Compared to 2018, it was up by less than 500 for the year of the closure. You had previously said the drop in bridge counts should be ignored in favour of the very large inferred rise at Chalkers corner. Now we have actual figures with a much smaller rise, are you suggesting we should ignore these as well?

Tom Pike ● 1481d

The DfT recently released stats indicating active travel has declined to pre-pandemic levels wiping out gains seen during lockdown.Tom must hate it when his own source contradicts him.

David Lesniak ● 1480d

Those figures aren't for the very recent past though, are for incomplete cycle lanes when not as many people have been commuting to work or school every day.  Lots of people are still working from home or part of week from home.  Are the train fares for commuters from outside London competitive enough and advertised enough for the increase in flexi- working?  Oxford has a successful Park and Ride. Could less through traffic be encouraged?

Philippa Bond ● 1480d

Yes, the figures David is referring to are for 2021. I've been posting more recent figures from the DfT confirming cycling fell back close to prepandemic figures last year (car travel fell even further) but cycling has subsequently taken off in 2022. Here's the latest update:

Tom Pike ● 1480d

Tom, your paragraph marked 1 needs to have the dates of the counts otherwise it has no real meaning.Kew to Battersea? I take it therefore includes Battersea but I am puzzled why it should. In London traffic terms Battersea might as well be the far side of the moon.It seems to me you are inferring the evaporation is a direct result of the the bridge closing. Yes?Have you given any consideration  to the possibility that other factors have materially contributed to the evaporation you have concluded occurred?Also what, if any, studies have been carried out on the economic impact the closure has had on cross river and local businesses?

Adrian Irving ● 1480d

Philippa, you are correct on the need for a coherent transport strategy, one that encourages transport uses and discourages the flow of commuter traffic into London every day. Without this, then closing more roads and reducing capacity further on those that remain will merely increase congestion and udnermine buses. Dont forget bus speeds have been falling for a decade, despite the often repeated myth of traffic evaporation. Its a shame some other cycling enthusiasts refuse to support a proper solution that would benefit all.

Bill George ● 1480d

Here's the complete set of DfT traffic counts for both Hammersmith and all the other bridges from Kew to Battersea. This includes all of the updated counts in 2019, and all but one (Wandsworth) is based on direct counts rather than inferred numbers.

According to this data, the closure explains the drop in total traffic on all the bridges in 2019, with the total counts on the other bridges hardly shifting, 186k in 2018 and 185k in 2019. On that basis it looks like the traffic on Hammersmith Bridge has completely evaporated.
As for the economic effects of the closure, those were investigated by the Barnes Community Association in March 2020:

"We received economic spending data from Mastercard. Interestingly this data not only indicates there’s no slowdown in economic spending in local shops in SW13, but in fact shows a 21% increase. The data also shows an increase of 13% in shops north of the bridge in W6. (The average figure for London is an increase in spending of around 9%)."

https://www.barnes-ca.org/community-blog/theimpactoftheclosureofhammersmithbridge

Tom Pike ● 1480d

I'd also like to know what difference it would make if there was better access at Turnham Green tube station ie lifts or level access - for buggies and for wheelchairs and for everyone who can't cope with those stairs. When everybody was commuting I often used to have to flatten myself against the wall at the bottom instead of climbing the stairs because of the numbers of commuters rushing down both sides.  It was interesting to see more recently that notices have been added to those stairs although I think those notices already need replacing.If I wanted to get the Piccadilly line I often used to walk to Hammersmith. There was too much traffic on the road to want to catch a bus.

Philippa Bond ● 1480d

Thank you Tom."According to this data, the closure explains the drop in total traffic on all the bridges in 2019". I asked you if you had considered other factors may be in play but, having not answered this point, I can only assume you haven't. Interesting. So you are also saying  by referencing the extract from the BCA the economic miracle in Barnes and Hammersmith can be more or less solely attributed to the Bridge shutting.Sorry, I don't buy it.

Adrian Irving ● 1479d

Its astonishng Tom is still pushing this gibberish. People adjust to make fewer river crossings. Businesses change delivery schedules to avoid crossing the river. Some people go to Richmond instead of Hammersmith to shop. We also see more congestion on key approach roads to alternative routes such as Lower Richmond Road to reach Chiswick bridge. The actual bottleneck is not the bridge itself but the approach roads, many of which were already at capacity. So remaining bridges cannot take all the displaced traffic even if travel patterns did not adjust. London has few river crossings as it is, without closing any. Traffic can be back along Lower Richmond rd all the way to Barnes and yet Chiswick bridge itself can be fairly quiet.Its such utter illogial rubbish that it astonishes me he thinks anyone will fall for it.Look at the current A4 lanes closures. Any analysis of traffic volumes will show less traffic moving west out of London, as all local routes are solid. So Tom can look at the stats and say traffic has evaporated. But on the ground many people see gridlock. Interestingly, Tom and his fellow posters dont live on any of the roads that currently suffer from the roadworks, or those around Barnes and mortlake that see more congestion. Or the A316 which also sees more traffic. They pontificate from nice quite leafy roads.

Bill George ● 1479d

The point is that we have not seen a significant change in total traffic crossing the river on for several years preceding the bridge closure. In 2019 the total dropped significantly, and by an amount very close to the traffic across Hanmersmith Bridge in prior years. Clearly other factors that caused year-to-year variation were not particularly large prior to that year.  Do you have a particular factor you would like to suggest that came into play in 2019, but was not apparent in previous years?You asked “what, if any, studies have been carried out on the economic impact the closure has had on cross river and local businesses?”I gave you the answer from BCA whose study addressed just this question. I’m not suggesting that the increase in sales was solely down to the closure, but it does indicate that the closure was not associated with the decline in sales that some have suggested.  .

Tom Pike ● 1479d

Good, now we are making progress, you have finally conceded that other factors may have been at play.I am not saying there were or there weren't but for your statistics to have value, or any others for that matter, they have to be considered in the round.It is not for me to suggest other factors although I can think of a few, it is for those interpreting them to consider.It seems to me Tom you have simply looked at third party information, accepted them without question to "prove" to yourself what you want to be true.

Adrian Irving ● 1479d

It is interesting that there are/have recently been two planning applications for Putney pier, although there are complaints that one or the other or both may interfere with rowing on the river.

Philippa Bond ● 1479d

These are DfT data. Do you have any particular reason to doubt them? Some of these data are estimates, and obviously they don’t capture all of the traffic changes that took place with the closure. Nevertheless, this data does show that with the closure of Hammersmith Bridge, traffic across the Thames did not simply redistribute itself to use the other bridges. Whether you or I want that to be true is immaterial. But if you are unwilling to accept this straightforward fact then it’s your beliefs rather than the data that’s the reason.

Tom Pike ● 1479d

“It’s astonishng Tom is still pushing this gibberish. People adjust to make fewer river crossings.”It’s always a little disconcerting that you first insult me and then agree with me. You did the same with your claim that most of the traffic on residential roads in Chiswick was through traffic. "We also see more congestion on key approach roads to alternative routes such as Lower Richmond Road to reach Chiswick bridge."Your personal views on local traffic seldom survive their first contact with data, and this is no exception. Traffic counts on Lower Richmond Road hardly changed, from 19,907 to 20,334 between 2018 and 2019.

Tom Pike ● 1479d

Tom, its called real world experience of local road conditions, something for a Chiswick resident you seem quite oblivious of.If you read my post, you will note the comment that many approach roads to bridges were at or close to capacity even before Hammersmith bridge was closed. Lower Richmond Road has a near permanet queue heading towards Chiswick Bridge, the general question is how long it is. So of course traffic will barely increase. lets take the simple example of the current traffic in W4. Two lanes closed on the A4 mean that for long periods the High Road westbound is at a standstill. Yesterday around 2pm queues were back almsot to Chiswick Lane and extended all the way to Chiswick Roundabout, with long periods where traffic did not move. So what would a traffic counter show currently? Traffic levels on the High Road flat or more likely down, as once key junctions reach capacity then gridlock ensues. I wonder also why is it only bridges you want to close? What about the Hammersmith flyover? As the same analysis and data sources you use would show traffic on surrounding roads barely increased when it was closed. Because traffic counters cant see congestion. Whereas people who live on these roads or have to use them see it.

Bill George ● 1478d

"Lower Richmond Road has a near permanet queue heading towards Chiswick Bridge, the general question is how long it is. So of course traffic will barely increase." You are factually incorrect to assert that a longer queue will not be registered by a traffic counter. If more vehicles from a longer queue pass the counter, whatever their speed, they will be counted.DfT traffic counts on each of the Bridges and Lower Richmond Road have hardly changed between 2018 and 2019. That indicates that journeys on Hammersmith Bridge have not simply been transferred to the neighbouring bridges. If traffic has not been significantly transferred, it's difficult to see how that could drive an increase in local congestion. There is in fact a full set of manual counts for one route that we might expect to be affected by the closure, Station Road in Barnes that forms part on an EW pathway for local traffic between Mortlake and Putney. Any significant increase in local traffic due to the closure hold be seen in the total traffic counts and a change in the pattern though the day as congestion took longer to clear. Comparing the change for every year compared to the previous year, 2019 had both the smallest average change and what's more the smallest change across all the hours of the day compared to the previous ten years, as far back as the data goes.None of this data can possibly be construed as indicating a significant increase in congestion due to the closure, but I rather suspect that won't stop you trying to argue otherwise, while offering no data to support your case.

Tom Pike ● 1478d