Forum Topic

Steven Edwards (OP) asks: "... if 'it is clear that the local community is strongly against the cycleway, it will be removed', and that it was never intended to be permanent. This begs the question as to why, if that is the case, they are spending so much money and causing so much disruption when, surely, they should wait until the TfL survey is closed and they know the feelings of local residents."RC: The reason for doing it this way was made clear from the very beginning.Traditionally when something like this was being considered, the Authority would have a consultation period on the proposal and depending on the result, it would go ahead or not.Which sounds like a good idea in priociple, but isn't so in practice.For one thing, many people don't even know about the Consultation, never mind respond, until the plan may actually have been implemented, by which time it's too late.Second, you are asking people to comment on something before they know exactly how it will affect them.Third, opponents of the eventual decision, whether For or Against, inevitably feel aggrieved, often complaining that the Consultation was rigged from the start, so as to achieve the originally desired result..Finally, in the event of a "Yes", the scheme goes ahead in its permanent form, which means at best it will be expensive to make any adjustments which subsequently appear necessary and at worst, mean we're all stuck with a scheme which doesn't work out but it's too late, since the money has already all been spent and there's no money to revert to the original situation (or something new again).The present situation seeks to address these drawbacks, as follows. First, by having a temporary trial, everyone gets to see what is being proposed, so many more people will be able/likely to express an opinion.Second, that opinion will be better informed, since they can see what the scheme is likely to entail.Third, any defexts in the temporary trial can be identified and remedied should the permanent scheme eventually get the go ahead.And finally, should the result of the Consultation be a "No", then at least you've not blown your budget on a permanent scheme which cannot be reversed.Of course, no such process in a topic which arouses such strong feelings For and Against is ever going to be perfect, since whatever is decided will always leave an aggrieved faction which hasn't got its way.But for the reasons outlined above, I think that this new approach, if not perfect by any means, is at least better* than the previous approach.* - Unless, of course, you're like the Four Yorkshire men in  the Monty Python sketch who believed everything was better in the old days, and everyting new is rubbish.

Richard Cathcart ● 1421d

As I am sure you are aware from your in depth of Council minutes, LBH in has already determined in July 2021 that key aspects were positive:1. Air Quality improved following implementation of C9 - although that conclusion ignored the fact that the effect of C9 was to move the monitoring station on CHR c.6ft further away from the traffic on CHR which may or may not have had a significant effect on the consistency of the data and of course for parts of the previous 12 months UK was in Covid lockdown.2. Bus journey times improved - but again you can only reach that conclusion by ignoring the fact that bus passenger numbers were substantially reduced by Covid restrictions and overall traffic was impacted by Covid lockdowns.The chances of LBH admitting previous results were subject to serious flaws is nil.I did look at the  TfL Monitoring Strategy document, although whether that is the document Tom is referring to I am not sure.  It is a good document, for starters it wants a 3 year monitoring programme (I agree) and it wants Councils to provide consistent data (again I agree with that) so effectively we have to write off any data from 2020 & 2021 due to Covid making the data inconsistent. What is interesting is that LBH on its own website dealing with Streetspace, has not included a single mention of what criteria will be used in the final review to determine whether for Chiswick any of the "temporary" schemes have been "positive".  The obvious place for this would have been the FAQ page of the Streetspace section of LBH website.  In fairness to LBH, it may be because they have yet to approve (at least as far as I can tell from a quick google search) the 2022 3 year LIP Delivery Plan, last one was in 2019 and Covid has radically changed the landscape.  But being a cynic, possibly an over trained cynic, it does seem telling that the Consultation is likely to be finalised before the Delivery Plan is approved which does leave a lot of room for fudging the criteria.

Justin Stephenson ● 1419d