Forum Topic

Are you happy with what Hounslow Council have done to the streets of Chiswick?

The Chiswick Area Forum meets from 7.30pm at Chiswick Town Hall on Tuesday 22nd November – doors open at 6.30pmThere will be an update by council officers on;The Hounslow Highway’s work programmeThe petition on A4 usage at Sutton Court RoadLocal traffic and transport This will be followed by a Public Forum. Questions can be submitted in advance to the chair of the meeting Cllr Ron Mushiso (ron.mushiso@hounslow.gov.uk), or in the Public Forum itself. The Chair is keen to emphasise that this is not a 'protest' meeting but a formal council meeting at which residents can seek answers from officers and mak suggestions of their own.This is your opportunity to ask questions about the changes made to Chiswick’s streets, to understand what further changes are in the pipeline and to make your opinion on these changes known to the Council.Everyone is welcome to come along to this event and registration is not obligatory, but spaces are limited and so you can reserve your place by registering here. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/452938660727In addition, you can make your views known about the cycleway on Chiswick High Road at https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/cycleway-9If you wish to protest against the diagonal barrier at the Park Road / Staveley Road junction click on https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=82&RPID=23332730&HPID=23332730If you simply need further information contact https:/traffic@hounslow.gov.uk

Sam Hearn ● 1402d206 Comments

Tom, so to be clear is that the Steer report that seems to use two dates for its main survey data. The first being Sept 2020 and the second May 2021, which it compares with pre COVID data. I think that tells us a lot about COVID travel patterns and very little about life today. If we use LHR passenger volumes as a broad indicator the level of normality (and also as LHR is a big generator of through traffic in W4), on those two dates passenger numbers were respectively only 20% and then 10% of the passenger volumes in the corresponding months pre COVID. The Telematic data similarly compared the same COVID impacted dates with pre COVID traffic. So I think Steer is pretty useless to tell us what local vs through traffic looks like in normal times such as now, as the selected dates will show a strong bias towards local journeys.As to the use of bus gates to restrict traffic on central stretch of CHR, this is only required as LBH have allowed the 'temporary' version of CS9 to be built, rather than the widely consulted full version. So remember when the disingenuous claim that is has lowered air pollution are trotted out, as you just have done. Of course it has, because it explicitly restricts the number of vehicles in central CHR, as does the additional closure of Fishers Lane. Question as ever where has that traffic gone, Tom will pretend it miracuosuly disappears. Other people can give a more realistic answer. If traffic goes up elsewhere then by the same logic pollution is up there too. But thats OK apparently, not least as its not being measured.You seem keen to tell us there are no bus delays, although we know the London wide picture has for the last decade been one of declining bus speeds. I seem though to remember you telling us there were no queues and no bus delays caused by the first installment of the temporary CS9, right up to the point that TFl/ LBH announced the first phase of 'improvements' around Stamfood Brook bus garage. To deal with.... queues and bus delays. Hmmm.Many of us own cars and bikes, its not either or. But until the issue of commuter and other traffic flowing into W4 is addressed, which needs a London wide solution to include better and more affordable public transport and inevitably probably more congestion charging, then there is no real comprehensive solution. Piecemeal approaches wont work.

Bill George ● 1399d

Why would Heathrow passenger numbers give an accurate estimate of the mix of local and through traffic on the High Road? The vast majority of road traffic to Heathrow is on the A4.  In fact prior to COVID passenger numbers at Heathrow have been increasing while traffic on the High Road has fallen very significantly. The Steer figures also shows the increased proportion of local traffic is seen in all four areas of Chiswick monitored. Local traffic makes up most of the traffic in all four of these areas, but that’s not been the case on other roads in Hounslow which are closer to Heathrow.  It is not disingenuous to say pollution has fallen on the High Road when it has! Traffic has fallen on both the High Road and South Parade, so where has the traffic gone you claim has been simply displaced? The air is now cleaner along both South Parade and the High Road. People travelling by bus and bike are measurably benefitting from the new arrangements on the High Road. Prioritising buses over cars is now a problem for the same people who wanted to suspend the bus lane during the closure of Chiswick Bridge, and didn’t offer one word of complaint when a length of the bus lane was removed between Linden Gardens and Duke Rd. What is disingenuous is their now claiming to defend bus passengers.Yes, we need comprehensive approaches, connected cycling infrastructure to give more people a safer alternative which in turn will drive down traffic levels to the benefit of those travelling by bus. That’s what we’re seeing according to all the numbers on the High Road and that needs to be extended across London.

Tom Pike ● 1399d

Actually the biggest benefit of encouraging more people cycling is the benefit to health. For C9 that benefit is more than twice the cost of construction and that directly reduces the strain on the NHS.As for what's a local trip, that's defined in the Steer assessment by the area used to count the trips; if a trip neither begins nor end within that area, it's defined as a through trip. But that doesn't tell you if a trip is necessary. We actually saw a mass experiment during COVID when we were told only to take necessary trips defined as "shop for basic necessities, do one form of exercise a day, to satisfy a medical need, care for someone vulnerable, or travel to and from work where absolutely necessary." You might think that's a rather narrow definition, but for people with cars in households on the lowest 20% of incomes car mileage dropped by 10%. In fact taking 2020 and 2021 the restrictions led to a reduction in mileage of only 7%.It was a very different story for people in households in the top 20% of incomes. They already drove twice the mileage of those on low incomes before COVID, but when they faced the same restrictions, their mileage dropped by an average of 33% in 2020 and 2021, more than four times the amount of those in the poorest households. Clearly many more trips were deemed as not necessary by a common definition.So if you define a necessary car trip as one that a person on any income would take, half of the trips for people in the highest income households are unnecessary, while if you use the government definition, 7% to 33% are unnecessary. By either definition more unnecessary trips are made by people in higher income households.

Tom Pike ● 1399d

You are in the minority, chum. Your very stats tell you that, it do you think less than 50 percent now constitutes a majority. Odd for a numbers wizard to get that wrong.As you are being obtuse I’ll explain it to you. We are told by you and others that local journeys are to be discouraged, yet you can’t provide any legal definition of that. What’s ‘local’ to you may not count as that to someone else. Of course, the reasons that people might drive to a destination that you deem should be walked or, preferably, cycled. Let me give you an example, just to help you comprehend.There’s a large B&Q in Chiswick. Probably within the boundaries of your personal definition of local. It’s used by a lot of people daily, the car park is always busy. But horror of horrors, these people might only be driving a mile there and back. Yet for most it’s the only option because the things they get there are too big or heavy to carry on foot or on a bike. That applies to a lot of other shops, including Sainsbury’s where people clearly still like to do a big weekly shop.I don’t say that trips are discretionary, that’s your warped interpretation. People do things when it’s convenient for them. You probably do the same yourself. If they are time pressed ten they might drive. So what? It’s not a crime. Vehicles are tools designed to make life easier for those that have them. Just because you live some sort of perfect life doesn’t mean everyone else does.Your contention about the wealthy driving is laughable. Do you think that congestion charging and road pricing is going to stop the rich from getting into their big old cars? No, it won’t. They can afford it. The ones who can’t are those who you define as poor, who won’t be able to afford the charges. Just tax people out of their cars seems to be the attitude. Surely the only fair way to do it is to make car ownership illegal. But that won’t happen.And there you go citing congestion, pollution and death (though the supposed figures attributed to vehicle emissions for the last of those is contentious). Don’t you understand that congestion is increased by funnelling all traffic into a few roads. The LTN experiment in Ealing saw pollution increase on main roads as congestion increased. Much of the emissions wasn’t from cars, which are relatively clean and cut out when stationary l, but from HGVs and other large vehicles chugging out diesel fumes in traffic jams.I didn’t say cycling didn’t have health benefits. I said short trips on a bike have the benefits overstated. You won’t burn many calories in a flat ride for half a mile, and likely will consume those calories and more at the end of your journey. Otherwise you’d never see a fat cyclist, would you? There are many other factors to health, not least dietary habits, that put a strain on the nhs that cycling won’t address no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

Simon Hayes ● 1398d

Oh dear, witter on if you must.Maybe car usage is being replaced by people getting deliveries instead. The wealthy can afford that, and don’t have to take their cars out. But you have used a graphic that doesn’t say where this is happening. Just Chiswick, or nationally?You seem confused about car journeys being substituted by bike journeys when you cannot provide any evidence that that’s the case. Your bike counts don’t say what mode of transport people might otherwise use.But if car use is declining as you claim, then there’s no need for more road closures and all the other associated fuckwittery being carried out.My view is that if people want to cycle then they can. They always have done. But there needs to be a proportionate way in which infrastructure is installed, and proportionate spending on what is a minority activity and always will be. 1500 people a day on a multimillion pound bike lane. Not really value for money.Yes, B&Q doesn’t fill up but it has a regular turnover of vehicles, with some times of day busier than others. It’s not a commuter car park, so there are a lot of comings and goings. Local trips, and not just ‘cars’.As has been pointed out elsewhere Chiswick High Road benefits from being in an affluent area where a lot of people live close enough to walk. Which is what nearly everybody I know who lives there does. Have you been down to Richmond to ask the businesses there why they are struggling? It’s an area where there are a high number of cyclists out and about, but clearly they aren’t cycling to the shops to spend their money.Your example of Kew Retail Park is odd. It’s within the ULEZ so discourages anyone with a non compliant car from going there. It’s lost a couple of shops because of circumstances that have nothing to do with accessibility. It’s shopping offer is now pretty limited. And it’s now earmarked for housing redevelopment, which will deter any investment from the remaining businesses there.You seem to have a religious fervour about what you say, and cannot understand why there is a sizeable majority who don’t see cycling as the great answer to everything. For many it’s not an option.And the minority in London? Cyclists!

Simon Hayes ● 1398d

No knot tying on my side, Bill. Just a consistent picture of the trends moving generally in the right direction as far as traffic on our local roads is concerned. The High Road is an example of exactly the joined-up thinking you advocate. The changes have led to more active travel, both by bike and on foot, the buses have been protected, as shown by the 267 travel times, as a result of the bus gates and the islands that prioritise buses over other traffic. The closure at Fishers Lane has reduced the traffic on South Parade and improved the 94 and 272 bus times. The entire approach, which is certainly as a result of providing safer segregated cycling, has led to fewer vehicles on the High Road, and lower pollution. I agree if some aspects were reversed, such as the bus gate and the closure of Fishers Lane, we'd see an increase in traffic, but they're now part of the overall scheme. Through traffic should be pushed to the A4. It's rather you who are tying yourself in knots by saying doing this will only cause more accidents on the A4 and therefore more traffic off the A4! In fact the A4 through Chiswick had 109 injury collisions on it since 2017 while the High Road has had 160 despite carrying less than one quarter of the traffic. The A4 is the least damaging route for traffic through Chiswick. Of course all traffic should be reduced, but the priority in terms of the effects of pollution, safety and congestion is to reduce it on our local streets, including the High Road.

Tom Pike ● 1395d

Thank you for republishing my list of causes. It's always interesting to see what people deliberately omit when publishing somebody else's words, which are here below in response to Julian explaining why he thinks people oppose changes to streets in Chiswick and elsewhere. The omission reveals the motivation, which of course as usual on this forum is to distort in order to attempt to create a legitimate target for attack. Julian's quote is the first and my response to him and the intro to the list of causes comes just after."when people spend good money on something that is not banned or against the law,people just dont like being told what you can and cant do." (Julian)"That's a description of entitlement and it is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the minority of people being persistent and long-term opponents of safer streets. But there are loads of other reasons. Almost as many as there are other genuine active members of OneChiswick:" So really what you prove is that I am not targeted or discriminatory in any way in who I engage with on the topic of reprioritisation of urban space to create safer streets. Thank you for the defence. Obviously I am not going to apologise for a distorted version of what I said no matter how many times you invite me to do so. With this and the Old Marketplace saga you do start to come across as an obsessive fixated on incidentals, so we can add that to my list.  So let's reiterate. The causes driving the 7-15% of the population as cited by the DfT (I think it's less than 2% in Chiswick actually because the reality is that this is quite a progressive and lioberal place) to fight determinedly against any and every effort to reduce cars in cities and towns are numerous and varied for sure. Whereas those fighting determinedly for changes to our streets are mainly united around the common and big causes of reducing pollution, tackling the climate emergency, improving public health and enhancing the liveability of our urban environment.Is it any wonder really which "side" is winning and will continue inexorably to win the battle for how public space is allocated? The odds are heavily stacked in the favour of the diverse majority with a healthy mindset that is able to tolerate and even embrace change for the public good even if they don't directly benefit from all of it themselves.

Paul Campbell ● 1391d

Paul.It's clear that you included dementia and mental health suffers as being "the minority of people being persistent and long-term opponents of safer streets. But there are loads of other reasons." To debunk your claim of being misunderstood or quoted out of context below is your full text.Topic:Re:Re:ReplyPosted by:Paul CampbellDate/Time:13/10/22 21:05:00"when people spend good money on something that is not banned or against the law,people just dont like being told what you can and cant do."That's a description of entitlement and it is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the minority of people being persistent and long-term opponents of safer streets. But there are loads of other reasons. Almost as many as there are other genuine active members of OneChiswick:Car addictionCar fetishisationDeep-seated grudges and grievances against the Council or other authoritiesNPD - can't stand losing against perceived inferiorsIrrational fear or hatred of cyclistsStupidityAnnoyance at smugness of people like me who support and enjoy the changes and take pleasure in saying soPoliticsFear of changeReactionary conservatismLazinessActual genuine car dependency and fear (mainly stoked by the opponents of changes) that actual genuine freedoms rather than privileges are going to be taken awayPathological need to argue with people on the internetDementia😐Other forms of mental illness😑Persecution complexesDesire to deny others the privileges they themselves enjoyLibertarianism (overlapping with other reasons in this list)Genuine concerns for personal safetyFear of lack of competence in driving and causing danger to othersCager syndromeMGIF syndromePsycopathySuperiority complexExceptionalismI could go on as this is definitely not an exhaustive list. But I'm sure many of the opponents of safer streets will find something here that they can identify with. And diagnosing the problem is the first step in healing. Not for the psychopaths though - lock 'em up!

Adrian Irving ● 1390d