Forum Topic

Closing Weltje Road/Rivercourt Road access

Reading the report on this, it is clear Hammersmith & Fulham Council are being a bit cagey and hard to know whether they are just posturing to show they are taking the casualty rate among these cyclists seriously or are genuinely pushing forward with access restrictions on Weltje Road and Rivercourt Road.Anyone who says this issue is clear cut either way hasn't really given the matter proper consideration and I can see both sides of the argument. At the end of the day, safety trumps everything and there is no guarantee improved junction treatments along King Street will stop cyclists being injured. Closing off access will also significantly improve the cycle route along the A4 giving a more or less a clear run between Hogarth Roundabout and the centre of Hammersmith.Against this are issues that will arise from the way traffic is dispersed. Much of the traffic heading east onto the A4 would now use Chiswick Lane/Dukes Avenue/Sutton Court Road and nearly all of the traffic heading to Hammersmith via Rivercourt Road will use Chiswick Lane or Devonshire Road going north. This will mean more vehicles crossing Cycleway 9 in Chiswick and I'm not totally convinced by the argument that signalised junctions will protect cyclists because a significant proportion ignore the signals.Trying not to be too Chiswick-centric about this, the biggest objection may be that the closure of Weltje Road would put more pressure on the already stressed pinchpoint at Beadon Road in the centre of Hammersmith along which four buses run. That may mean it will be difficult to persuade TfL to go along with the proposals which, as they are providing the cash, may kill them stone dead.

Mark Evans ● 1278d85 Comments

Mark you are quite right, there are displacement effects that are often studiously ignored or downplayed. None of this is to be 'anti' CS9 and most were existing issues that have seen a further impact, but its important to have some honesty on the implications.Looking at TFL jam cams you often now see heavy congestion approaching Hammersmith flyover on the A4 as the approach the gyratory along Hammersmith Bridge Road gets heavily congested. Traffic flows around the gyratory have been impacted by CS9 and changes to light phasing. We also see more congestion around Hogarth roundabout as lihgt phasing has altered to accomodate increased traffic flows up the A316/ Burlignton Lane due to GP road closures. This leads to more blocking of A4 eastbound caused by traffic queueing to turn right to reach Burlington southbound.For W4 we do see as a result more traffic using Chiswick Lane, but more the Heathfield Gardens cut through up from the A4 rather than Sutton Court Road. So you end up with more traffic on residential streets and crossing  the non-segrated route of CS9. There is already too much traffic on these routes.

Bill George ● 1278d

Mark,Another point is the number of casualties from motor vehicle collisions on the A4, in particular around Rivercourt.  Collision maps show a cluster of casualties at this location.This could be from vehicles slowing to make the turn, then maybe being rear-ended.It is also important to consider the volume of traffic using the roads.  People see a queue of cars along a road and assume it is lots of traffic, but the reality is that cars take up a lot of space and narrow residential streets like Weltje and Rivercourt really can't carry a lot of traffic anyway.  From surveys done for cycleway 9 the peak hour traffic for Weltje and Rivercourt combined was about 500 vehicles.That is too much for a residential street and too many vehicles crossing the bike lane for safety, but it isn't significant compared to the traffic already on Chiswick Lane (13k+) or the A4 (95k+).The other mistake you are making is that TfL view residential streets as relief roads for the arterial road network.  They don't. TfL have funded LTNs which close rat-runs so vehicles use the TfL road network, not bypass it using residential streets.  Can you cite a single example in the last few years when TfL have objected to closure of a minor street because it would mean more traffic on their road network?Another point is equity for residents on these streets.  None of the other streets between Hogarth roundabout and the gyratory have access to the A4 (e.g. Homefield, Netheravon, Airedale is a classic Low Traffic Neighbourhood with through traffic blocked between boundary roads)

Michael Robinson ● 1278d

"Can you cite a single example in the last few years when TfL have objected to closure of a minor street because it would mean more traffic on their road network?"Weltje Road when it was suggested access be restricted during the design meetings for the Cycle Superhighway.Presumably it is TfL objection that stops access to the A4 at Dukes Avenue being closed.The evidence suggests that TfL don't have a one-size-fits-all policy for this kind of thing. Obviously if restricting access to a road boosts the quality of life of the people living in it and doesn't cause them undue convenience they are going to consider it. However, this would always have to be considered alongside where traffic is being displaced to.  The roads that you describe as arterial have more people living on them than the roads that would be closed so there is rarely a clear distinction or an easy solution.

Mark Evans ● 1278d

TfL are funding the improvements so closure of Weltje is clearly on the cards.Hounslow have never put forward closing Dukes Avenue.  It isn't as simple as that because if Dukes was closed, then traffic would use Barrowgate/Wavendon instead as an alternative route to Sutton Court Rd (quite a lot does anyway...) so there would need to be a scheme for the overall area.TfL cannot veto a scheme on a borough's roads because the borough is the highway authority and legally responsible.  Instead, TfL can decline to provide funding so the borough needs to find its own money, but TfL is providing the funding in this case.

Michael Robinson ● 1278d

A reminder that Chiswick drivers are going to find themselves excluded from many more rat runs as LBHF rolls out its CAN scheme to every Ward in the next two years. The Council has already made its mind up on the philosophical dichotomy between freedom for residents and freedom for out-of-Borough drivers.

Paul Campbell ● 1278d

As far as I can see what TfL is funding is the upgrade to the original design permanent infrastructure. It doesn't specify in the H&F report where funding is coming from to investigate two-way operation on Weltje/Rivercourt but does say this is dependent on consultation with partners which points to the council doing its own investigation to be presented to TfL. They may be keen because, as you say, collisions are occurring near here regularly as vehicles slow to turn left at Rivercourt. That also rules out leaving it open but with access restrictions because driver would stop unexpectedly on the A4 to read signs.It seems to me the most likely scenario is that H&F are going to see if the junction improvements end the spate of serious injuries and, if not, use access restrictions and two way operation as a fallback.

Mark Evans ● 1278d

LBH&F have their own Low Traffic Neightbourhood programme  (which they call Clean Air Neighbourhoods).  Weltje and Rivercourt are part of the Ravenscourt area, so they will be looking at this anyway.As a prediction for another route that they may look to address in this area, drivers using Ravenscourt Gdns as a bypass of the lights going east at the Goldhawk Rd/King St junction.

Michael Robinson ● 1278d

Netheravon and airedale are also dangerous. I nearly got knocked of my bike a month back, because there is a kerb segregating the bike lane from the road so I don't think cars are very aware of people cycling along the lane.  I was riding along at about 15mph and a car just pulled left into netheravon (or airedale can't remember which) and a last minute swerve was required to save going into the side of the car.

Nik Solomon ● 1278d

I have a friend who lives in the vicinity of Ravenscourt Gardens and she would be very keen on an access restriction there as this has become a major problem since the queues started to lengthen going back from the Goldhawk Road junction.It isn't so much the volume of cars but that that the road is narrow and quickly becomes blocked particularly by vans which meet coming in opposite directions.However, bear in mind that with SatNav capable of recalibrating when access is reduced you may end up playing a game of wack-a-mole. Prebend Gardens has already seen a increase in cut-through traffic and that will be used by some as an alternative.

Francis Rowe ● 1278d

Whack-a-mole is indeed precisely the desired outcome of a residents-first approach to traffic management in London. The only question is at what point the recalcitrant Boroughs feel they have no choice but to join the party.

Paul Campbell ● 1278d

To do some completely not thought through amateur traffic engineering, if through traffic along Prebend Gdns becomes an issue, a solution would be to stick a bollard in the road under the tube line bridge and remove the restrictions on the Chiswick High Rd side of Prebend Gardens (no entry from CHR and left turn only to CHR).Prebend Gdns would then be like all the other streets between Turnham Green Terrace and Goldhawk Rd in that there wouldn't be vehicle access under the tube line, but there would still be the benefit of walking and cycling access under the tube line.

Michael Robinson ● 1278d

... just to add, there already have been some previous low traffic neigbourhood measures for this area.  If you look at old maps, there used to be access from Stamford Brook Ave and Vaughan Ave to Goldhawk Rd so drivers going eastbound along Bath Rd could 'cut the corner' as a shortcut to Goldhawk Rd.This route was stopped with a diagonal barrier near the Shell station that goes across what was previously a junction for Goldhawk Rd, Stamford Brook Ave and Vaughan Ave.

Michael Robinson ● 1278d

I think the residents of Prebend Gardens would prefer the increased flow of traffic to having to drive much further and into already congested points such as Chiswick High Road and Goldhawk Road to get home.

Francis Rowe ● 1278d

> To do some completely not thought through amateur traffic engineeringNot again Michael, you’ve already stuffed up Grove Park with that.

Russell Pearson ● 1278d

Thoughts and prayers must go to the residents of every other street between Turnham Green Terrace and Goldhawk Rd who can access their street via CHR or Bath Rd/Stamford Brook Ave, but not both.I'd have thought residents of Prebend Gdns south of the tube line would quite like to have vehicle access to the street from CHR just like the neighbouring streets of Cleveland Ave, Merton Ave etc.  At the moment, they have a journey of almost a mile to get there from CHR. I know the car brained find this difficult to comprehend, but for streets that are afflicted by traffic, it seems that most residents prefer a quiet and peaceful street all the time over some inconvenience for some journeys by some people some of the time.

Michael Robinson ● 1278d

LBH could make access SCR , Chiswick Lane and  Dukes Avenue for LBH residents only , that would stop those pesky “out of borough” drivers from using our streets.Could only access the A4 at Hammersmith gyratory or Hogarth roundabout but hey why not?

Michael Good ● 1278d

I suppose it depends on individual circumstances but on balance people I think people would probably prefer to have access from the north rather than the south. Requiring people to negotiate CHR traffic that they previously avoided may not be popular.You may be right about the balance of opinion on the road and I don't disagree with your general point about preferences. As there is a tube station on it, car dependency may be low and it is hard to see what significant displacement would occur if the road was dead ended.

Francis Rowe ● 1278d

How nice to see a grown up discussion of these issues with nearly everyone acknowledging the complexity of the problems being presented.It seems pretty clear that the H&F section of the cycleway was implemented with undue haste. I've seen this attributed to Andrew Gilligan demanding work be started almost immediately if funding was to be given but, whatever the cause, the deficiencies of the scheme need to be dealt with.This seems to be part of a broader problem in which funding from central government is given on a unpredictable basis making it difficult for local authorities to form overall strategies and biasing them towards large scale 'big win' schemes.This has had the dangerous effect of TfL being totally committed to projects no matter what their actual impact. It is impossible these days to rely on figures they supply as they have clearly been drawn up by press people rather than traffic engineers.What clearly needs to be done now is patch up the problems at the junctions along King Street to reduce the number of serious injuries. This should be done urgently.Then, rather than embarking on yet more radical change with no real understanding of the likely impact, such as the closure of Weltje and Rivercourt Roads, an independent traffic consultant such as Steer should be called in to analyse both the historic impact of the Safer Cycle Pathway and look at the benefit and costs of any future proposed mitigation.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1276d

You are still clutching at straws Jeremy with calls for "independent" traffic consultants.Hounslow brought in Steer to do analysis of traffic data but that didn't stop the Onesies objecting to all their conclusions because they were being paid by Hounslow.  People who don't like their driving being inconvenienced will object to any evidence they don't like.The best way to understand the impact of closing Weltje and Rivercourt would be to close them for a year using an experimental traffic order.  By the way, the traffic order making the King St cycle lane permanent came into effect yesterday so all the paperwork is complete.

Michael Robinson ● 1276d

A rather depressing response from Michael, lots of whataboutery and pretty irrelevant to the immediate discussion. One idea is that W4 roads be open to all LBH residents, exactly what LBH&F are proposing for their own roads. Sounds ideal to me, reducing much of the 'through traffic'. There may still be some road closures.Not sure if it was Michael or someone else arguing when the GP scheme first came in that it was impossible for LBH to offer exemptions for all GP residents. It is and always was a simple database issue that H&F are showing can be done. If we go down that route then pehaps open all W4 roads that are currently restricted are open to all W4 residents, expect for school streets?As for the pont Jeremy and others make, there are two key issues. First much of the analysis (Steer and others) was done during COVID impacted time periods. It tells us precisley nothing about travel patterns today. Secondly, the impact of traffic measures are widespread but there is no coordination. We have scenarios where LBH close TGT without evern warning LBE. Much of the modelling has been done is by borough, so we look at maps from Steer of North Chiswick where traffic appears to disappear into a black hole when it moves across the borough boundary. Again, its use is then limited.We have streets closed in one area for LTNs with zero consideration or modelling of wider impacts, save an occasional 'boundary road', which may not be sufficiently broad to capture displacement.The GP LTN has pushed traffic up A316 and impacted Hogarth roundabout and so the A4 traffic flows. Some of the cycling advocates dismiss these realities as they dont suit there narrative. Its not only 'Onesies' (a depressing and dismissive term more akin to the extreme Brexit debate) who raise issues with Steer. Tom likes to qouote them until there is an element that he doesnt like when apparently there is some new and better data.Chiswick is an unfortunate position as nothing done here impacts the electoral position of the borough's governing party. It is also massively exposed by the lack of coordination across boroughs, even though you can move short distances in some locations and be in one of three different boroughs.Closing A4 access routes in H&F will impact the A4 which in turn impacts W4. To pretend otherwise is nonsensical. What is being asked for is leadership and coordination from TFL and acknoledgement of the implications across borough boundaries and broader areas.

Bill George ● 1276d

"It is and always was a simple database issue"Tell you what Bill, you should offer your services as an IT consultant to Hounslow to implement the type of scheme you mention. You seem to know exactly what would be needed.  Can you give a description of what IT systems Hounslow have in this area, what LBHF have as well, and what the similarities and differences are?It always amazes me that people pronounce something is 'simple' on the basis of zero knowledge.Only about 500 vehicles use Weltje and Rivercourt during peak hour.  That's far too many for narrow residential street  but is less than 1% of the daily traffic on the A4 at that location.  Traffic will vary by more than that day to day anyway.  You aren't going to get some area wide traffic modelling for these roads.

Michael Robinson ● 1276d

Michael, more distraction and distractions from solving the problems.. Yes from an IT perspective it is simple, lots of organisations do it and its being proposd by H&F. So maybe LBH could jusk ask them, how radical an idea is that? Perhaps more sharing of resources and joint procurement?It amazes me how some posters with agendas refusing to engage or accept suggestions from outside their narrow group.I do agree that the are too many vehicles on Weltje for a narrow residential road. Why can we not get some wide area modelling of the cumulative impact of all these measures, given the magnitude of changes across the last area over last 24 months? At least we seem to be acknowledging there are implications.

Bill George ● 1276d

You are just bullshitting Bill.  You haven't a clue what IT systems Hounslow or LBHF have for this area, who operates and maintains them - are they in-house or outsourced? Then what is needed to implement some sort of borough-wide scheme linked with cameras, fines, CPZ schemes, vehicles that aren't in CPZ schemes and what changes are needed in terms of processes and rolling out new functionality.  And in many locations, a bollard will be simpler, cheaper and more effective.I've already explained why wide area modelling is pointless.  It is only 500 vehicles in peak hour across both roads.  Modelling isn't the crystal-ball tool at predicting the future you think it is.The primary reasons for closing these roads will be safety for both cyclists on King St and drivers on the A4 and also residents on the streets may be hacked off about being ratruns while all the other streets between the gyratory and Hogarth roundabout don't have access to the A4.

Michael Robinson ● 1276d

Safety is a concern not just for cyclists but also for the school children of both Latimer & WLFS.Prior to the cycle lane being installed they parked their coaches to transport the children in the bus lane that was immediately outside the schools.  Now however they park on Rivercourt Road.  Closure of this street would mean that a significant number of children’s safety would be put at risk on a daily basis.  There is no possibility of creating a lay-by as this would mean removing the pavement outside the school and felling 3-4 mature trees. Also there  is not sufficient space to create a turning circle on the street and asking the coach to reverse across the cycle lane would make it more dangerous than it is at present.  So whilst you might prevent the potential injury to a cyclist (5 or 6 over the period of the survey) you would be increasing the danger for 50-100 + children on a daily basis.  There is no simple solution to this and TFL needs to have a more studied approach rather than the knee jerk reaction of just closing the road to the A4.

Karen Lang ● 1276d

Michael if you want to get personal then you are full of sh*t too. Its pathetic, childish and undermines you and the lobby groups you represent. No I dont know what IT systems either authority use but I supsect you dont either. But as you know this is not the pointSimple question, try and answer. If H&F can do it why cant LBH? There may be cost implications but given the amout raised in fines then perhaps they can be used. But at the end of the day it is quite possible. Do you deny this? Try answering without insulting people

Bill George ● 1276d

The school coaches will still be able to drive into Rivercourt Rd to park as the road will be made two-way. They will drive in from King St.When the Latymer and WLS Hausfrauenpanzers, driven by the parents whose children couldn't possible go to school on PT, bike or walking, snarl up both the new two-way roads they will probably have to be turned into school streets with access only for residents and school coaches during morning and afternoon school times.

Paul Campbell ● 1276d

Why should LBH copy LBHF? LBH has a population of 290,000 and is in outer London. LBHF has a population of 185,000 and is in inner London. 67% of LBH households own a car. 43% of LBHF households own a car. Traffic flows and volumes will differ as well.I know that you want lots of people to go to great effort so that you get your favourite rat runs back but they really have no obligation whatsoever to do so and it is up to each Borough to implement the schemes they believe will be most effective in achieving their goals for net zero, clean air, safer streets and active travel.

Paul Campbell ● 1276d

Karen, many hundreds of pupils a day cross King St on their way to school without incident. Why can’t the coaches park on the north side?All of these hypothetical concerns should be balanced against the significant number of actual injury collisions to cyclists on King St and motorists on the A4 at both ends of Weltje and Rivercourt Roads due to the current traffic flow.

Tom Pike ● 1276d

I appreciate they can drive in from Kings Street but then how do the they exit ?? There is not space to turn and reversing out would be dangerous.As to parents dropping off I am with you on that.  To me its a more contentious issue than the cycle lane (which I might add I use on a regular basis)

Karen Lang ● 1276d

Ah I see what you mean. As Tom says parking on the north side of King St is probably the best option. The safety of the cycle lane is more important than minimising the distance for schoolchildren to get to and from the coaches really. Coaches for Ravenscourt Park Prep stop on the north side west of the bus stop outside Saffron.The new zebra crossing on King St  by Weltje will help too.

Paul Campbell ● 1276d

Yes Bill, I haven't a clue what IT systems Hounslow and H&F but at least I know enough not to make pronouncements that something is 'simple' on the basis of zero knowledge.I do work in technology so am well used to people who know nothing claiming that something is simple so try not to make the same mistake myself.Clearly you are less concerned about proclaiming something is simple when knowing nothing.In terms of why LBH and LBHF may be different, here are some possible explanations:- LBH&F is an inner London borough, LBH is an outer London borough.  LBH&F has over double the population density so the demand and use of roads is not the same as LBH.  Chiswick is probably more similar to LBHF than the west of Hounslow.  So should LBH do things that are just applicable to Chiswick but not really applicable for the rest of the borough?- LBH and LBHF may have completely different IT systems.- LBH and LBHF may have completely different provision of IT systems. eg. insource vs outsource. Both have advantages and disadvantages but for outsource, you just can't demand new functionality from the supplier if it isn't part of the scope of the services they provide.- even with insource, an older system may be in 'maintenance' mode so there are bug fixes, but there isn't any new development being done on the system.  That is perfectly fine if the system is doing what it was originally intended to do. It does present a problem if someone wants new functionality.  Does that mean procuring a completely new system? Documenting requirements, going out to tender, evaluating responses from suppliers? There would need to be a good business case for that. Is there a good business case just based upon some entitled moaners in Chiswick?

Michael Robinson ● 1276d

Michael, what is your point? I asked you a simple question from an IT perspective, not whether the two boroughs are different.They may well have different IT systems, but then for a specific application they could potenially piggy back on the H&F deal or use that as a template. It doesnt need to integrated into other systems that LBH use. I supect LBH has a mass of legacy and diverse systems from different vendors that dont communicate with each other, nor they need to. Who is an entiteld moaner? You post comments all the time on here asking for what you want, so I assume you are talking about yourself. You and Campbell are cut from the same cloth.For reference I dont have favourite rat runs and rarely use a car. But I do know that some of the scheme you support displace traffic, conveniently not onto streets where you and Paul live.Despite you and Paul trying to call out all the massive and frankly irrelevant differences between LBH and H&F, the fact remains H&F are doing this on a large scale and LBH COULD do it on a small scale. We dont know the costs but we know there are lots of fines to fund it. I doubt it will happen but it is possible. LBH have already incurred some considerable expense in installing cameras, registering white list vehicle owners etc Its fascinating how you and Paul jump in here to try and shut down any discussion that doesnt follow your agenda with a range of insults and irrelevant commentary.

Bill George ● 1276d

I know the car lobby would love to have the narrative over how to manage urban space all to themselves but we haven't got to where we are today by allowing that have we?Differences between Boroughs and their demographics and traffic flows and volumes are very far from irrelevant. They are massively important factors in the way that decisions are made. You have to have a very limited mind to fail to understand that.You are right about one thing - you won't get what you want. Whereas it is highly likely that I will continue to do so because it is widely recognised at all levels that we have to radically transform road transport. Naturally cycling campaigners are going to be one of the main beneficiaries of this and car drivers one of the main losers.  That it pains you and the other local curmudgeons who can't abide change so much isn't as important as the positive outcomes for net zero, clean air, safer streets and active travel but it will nonetheless never cease to be pleasing.

Paul Campbell ● 1276d

Bill, when you are in a hole, stop digging. You are displaying how little you know with every post.  This is a classic: "It doesnt need to integrated into other systems that LBH use."  You mean, other than LBH's record of households in the borough, LBH's record of vehicles registered in CPZs in the borough, any security system that LBH use to restrict access to data by their staff...It isn't shutting down discussion to point out clueless statements from you or others.At least you are posting using your real name rather than the fake name you used until you were caught.

Michael Robinson ● 1276d

Tom, you have to concede that making more children than necessary cross a busy road is not a desirable outcome.While you are right that this presents only a theoretical extra risk against the ongoing actual casualty toll on cyclists, the first step should be to implement improved junction treatments at Weltje Road and Rivercourt Road as an emergency measure. You have earlier expressed confidence that this would reduce cyclist injuries and, if it does, there is no need for a radical change such as access restrictions at Weltje and Rivercourt. The extra risk this change would present to schoolchildren is just one of the many negative impacts of this move.In my view it would actually deliver zero benefit in safety terms at best. As I take it, your argument is that it would transfer the point at which vehicles cross the cycleway to get to the A4 from non-signalised junctions in H&F to signalised ones in Chiswick i.e. Chiswick Lane and Dukes Avenue.This sounds reasonable in theory but it really only takes about 5 minutes observation at both sites to see where the flaw is in the plan and some other posters have already pointed this out. I don't have a particular problem generally with cyclists ignoring red lights if pedestrians aren't near but they do this at their own risk and a significant proportion ignore the red phases for cyclists at both junctions. It seems therefore folly to expect that forcing traffic to cross the cycleway in in Chiswick rather than Hammersmith will reduce injuries to cyclists. It is not an experiment we need to make anyway as changes at the Hammersmith junction could potentially solve the problem.

Francis Rowe ● 1275d

We come round again to how we persuade everyone to learn and observe the Highway Code for everyone's safety.  To make it fair we should ALL be knowledgeable about it and revisiting  it more often to make sure that we understand it.  How are we going to ensure that?

Philippa Bond ● 1275d

Francis, my summary of your so-called "flaw in the plan" is:"we shouldn't reduce vehicles crossing a cycle lane at an unsignalled junction because that might mean more vehicles at a signalled junction and some cyclists might ignore the lights and that might mean more risk"That is a patently ridiculous argument.So you are basically saying that a known risk affecting every cyclist at that junction is less important than your opinion of the risk taken by cyclists ignoring red lights.Fortunately, your track record of predictions when it comes to Cycleway 9 has been consistently wrong, so I am happy this is your opinion as it means the opposite will likely happen.

Michael Robinson ● 1275d

No Michael. I am saying the need to protect cyclists is paramount and that may be achieved by improving junction treatments at the problematic roads.Furthermore, the risk to cyclists at signalised junctions is only reduced if they obey those signals and therefore there is no good reason to assume that transferring the point at which traffic crosses to get to the A4 to Chiswick Lane and Dukes Avenue will reduce will reduce injuries.I'd be the first to admit my record of predictions is patchy but one that I made that was sadly spot on was that the bi-directional design of the cycleway would increase the number of serious collisions involving cyclists. You dismissed those concerns at the time, when I was not the only one to raise them, so perhaps you should pause to consider concerns that are being raised now.

Francis Rowe ● 1275d

Francis, there is every reason to assume this.Weltje is a bigger risk than Rivercourt as cars turning into a junction is a bigger risk than emerging.  There are about 300 vehicles entering Weltje at peak hour.  That isn't a significant increase in traffic for alternative routes such as Chiswick Lane or the gyratory which have about 13k and 25k vehicles using them daily.  Too much traffic uses Weltje/Rivercourt as narrow residential side streets but the volume of traffic using them isn't significant compared to signallised junctions already carrying orders of magnitude more traffic.If your opinion involving red light jumping cyclists was correct, there would already be significant numbers of collisions at Chiswick Lane or the gyratory but there is no evidence this is the case.'car brain' sees queues of traffic along streets like Rivercourt and Weltje and assumes 'wow, that is a lot of cars, if it goes somewhere else it will have a big impact'.  However there aren't lots of cars using Weltje/Rivercourt compared to Chiswick Lane (A316) or the gyratory which have been designed for higher volumes of traffic in the first place.  There are queues because Weltje/Rivercourt aren't suitable for even a small volume of cars.

Michael Robinson ● 1275d

Francis, you are now hypothesising outcomes that we know will not happen. Firstly there are currently much fewer collision injuries at signalled junctions on the High Road than at Weltje and Rivercourt despite their carrying much more traffic. Secondly, there are currently many more pupils crossing King St every day without incident than would have to cross the road to get on a coach. In fact removing access to the A4 will mean less traffic on King St passing the school, further reducing the risk to pedestrians. Thirdly, the collision risk at unsignalled side road junctions is proportional to the number of vehicles and any mitigating factors. If the traffic is high, none of the treatments that we know reduce risk will prevent an excess risk at such junctions. Hence we already know that stopping through traffic on these streets will lower the overall number of collision injuries as it will mean more traffic on signalled junctions which we know to be considerably safer, despite all the observations you might make. It will also reduce the risk of collision injury to both car occupants in the A4 and pedestrians on King St.Your view that this would lead to “zero benefit in safety terms at least” simply ignores what we already know about where injury collisions have occurred.

Tom Pike ● 1275d

The queue on Chiswick Lane southbound already tails back to CHR in the evening rush hours, putting another 100+ vehicles down their very hour is significant. It’s not the daily figures that are important it’s the pinch points. Small changes make a big difference, remember what happened to the traffic on CHR & King St when the filter left lane at Chiswick lane was removed ?

Michael Good ● 1275d

The journey time of some drivers is a lower priority than reduction of casualties.  LBH&F have also shown they prioritise the views of the residents to reduce traffic along streets over drivers from outside the borough.

Michael Robinson ● 1275d

Absolutely and that’s LBH could mitigate these issues by placing similar restrictions on Chiswick Lane, SCR etc for drivers outside the borough, don’t see why LBH&F should have all the fun

Michael Good ● 1275d

Francis, though notionally a discussion forum, as you can see its actually not free to post on certain topics. Unless one is pre qualified by the self appointed thread monitors then all suggestions and inputs are dismissed as useless and you will be labelled a 'Onesie', petrol head, apparently having a favourite rat run. All sorts of ludicrous labels that are intended to shut down all debate and ensure no dissent from the chosen path.The latest is Michael's ingenious creation of a 'car brain'. How does he know who has one, is there something about being a cyclist and car driver (as many of us are) that uniquely allows Michael and a select group not to have one?The issue is not just with another relatively minor closure, but the cumulative effect across a wide area of road restrictions and changes to junction capacity that have a material impact on road capacity. Especially as many of thos key junctions were already operating close to capacity.Hogarth roundabout and Hammersmith gyratory are two good examples of this. Addressing this would need a coherent joined up approach across boroughs. Its funny how one minute we hear CS9 has reduced pollution, but when queues along Chiswick Lane are mentioned this is irrelevant. Of course there are no pollution monitors there.Michael now says H&F value the views of residents? So why not have meaningful engagement from LBH with local residents?

Bill George ● 1275d

There is a large difference in the traffic carried by Chiswick Lane and Weltje Rd.LBH have shown they are prepared to close or restrict traffic along some streets and of course there are dozens of examples of this.

Michael Robinson ● 1275d

Bill, of course you are free to post on topics (assuming you use you real name, not the fake name you have used in the past.)However that doesn’t mean you are exempt from being corrected or exempt from ridicule when you post something that is incorrect or ridiculous.I’m sure I have mentioned this to you in the past, but I can guarantee that constant whinging on this forum will achieve nothing but if it makes you happy, then keep it up.

Michael Robinson ● 1275d

Nobody restricts what you can say and Tom and Michael are normally polite despite their passionate opinions on the subject. When insulting terms and mischaracterisations start to be used it is a sign that you have exposed a weakness in their argument.

Francis Rowe ● 1275d

I think you are giving me too much credit for being polite Francis.  When someone says something I think is really idiotic then I may not be shy letting them know what I think...

Michael Robinson ● 1275d

That's not correct. When I do genuinely say something idiotic, and this happens more than I would like, you explain why it is so. If you actually call me an idiot or imply as such, I know have made a sound argument that you can't counter.

Francis Rowe ● 1275d

Francis, whatever you would like to think, if I call someone an idiot it means I am not being very polite and I think they are an idiot.You might like to think it means 'ah ha, this is a sound argument' but other reasons are, I am sometimes not very polite, I am being overly judgemental, I simply can't be arsed providing lengthy explanations to someone who obviously doesn't get it. I make no claims to be perfect.

Michael Robinson ● 1275d

Tom left out the fact that it will make the shared use path on the A4 better for cyclists as well.  I almost got left hooked there by a car that turned in without indicating.  You also won't have to slow down and look over your shoulder for cars that are indicating to turn in.It will also make it easier (and safer) for pedestrians to cross Rivercourt Road at that junction.  Cars that turn in without indicating are a danger for them as well.

Al Webber ● 1275d

Tom, we are both hypothesising as neither of us are blessed with perfect foresight.The lower rate of collisions on the Chiswick stretch of the cycleway could be related to it not being fully open for much of the period during which the Hammersmith section was suffering all these injuries so it would be better not to be complacent.It could well be that the higher rate of serious injuries to cyclists in King Street could be down to local factors which will not be replicated in Chiswick but there is no reason to take it for granted.If we assume that Weltje Road closes, then eastbound traffic on the A315 heading to the A4 will have three remaining options - SCR, Dukes Avenue and Chiswick Lane.My concern would be that the preferred option of those with Waze/Google Maps and local knowledge would become Dukes Avenue because SCR has a short phase to get onto the A4 and Chiswick Lane requires you to progress further along CHR which can be very slow moving.You tell us 500 vehicles an hour are turning into Weltje at peak times at the moment so it seems to me a reasonable estimate that 100 an hour would now start to use Dukes Avenue as an alternative. Not great news for residents but the main drawback is the elevated risk this presents at the junction with the High Road.The light phase here, particularly for cyclists, is very long and not everyone has the patience to wait. I've seen a number of instances of a cyclist assuming an eastbound vehicle was continuing on straight and continuing on through a red phase. Fortunately the driver spotted them but, in one case it was quite close. I don't pass this junction every day and therefore it seems to be reasonable to assume that what I have witnessed is quite commonplace. I may be wrong, you may be wrong. However, the pandemic is over and there is no need to make significant changes without proper research and consideration. Closing Weltje Road would have widespread impacts across this part of London on cyclists, buses and general traffic. Rather than we both speculating it would be good if some proper analysis was done before a decision was made preferably, as Jeremy suggests by an independent transport consultant, who would be briefed to represent the interests of all types of road users and residents of both the affected boroughs.

Francis Rowe ● 1275d

Frances, It isn't 500 vehicles at peak hour turning into Weltje.  Apologies if I said that. Total peak hour traffic for  Weltje plus Rivercourt is about 500.  The morning peak hour traffic of vehicles turning into Weltje is ~200 and evening peak hour ~300 vehicles. In comparison, a road like Netheravon that doesn't have access to the A4 has peak hour traffic of about 20 vehicles turning into it.Of the vehicles turning into Weltje Rd, the ratio is ~60% westbound turning left and ~40% eastbound turning right.Closing access at Weltje Rd will mean some of the westbound vehicles will access the A4 at the gyratory.  Some will continue on to Chiswick Lane but they certainly won't continue on past Chiswick Lane to Dukes Ave or SCR. That would mean at least a 2km journey to get to the same place they could get to by turning left at Chiswick Lane.Of the eastbound vehicles turning right into Weltje, this represents about 240 vehicles during the evening peak. I think it is highly unlikely vehicles are driving the length of the A315 past SCR, Dukes and Chiswick Lane just to turn into Weltje for the eastbound A4.Anyway, so what if these vehicles turn into SCR, or Duke Ave or Chiswick Lane or even continue on to the gyratory? This volume of traffic really isn't significant compared to the existing traffic using these junctions.The general approach of traffic engineering is to look at the peak and the rest can look after itself.  There won't be a big engineering study into the possible impact of a few hundred vehicles during the peak.  This really is a tiny amount of traffic compared to the other roads in the area.Other things will be far more important for LBHF to assess.  For example, access for council bin/recycling lorries - is there room for them to turnaround, would there need to be parking removed, would they need to reverse out?

Michael Robinson ● 1275d

"Of the eastbound vehicles turning right into Weltje, this represents about 240 vehicles during the evening peak."Maths booboo by me, 40% of ~300 vehicles is ~120 vehicles, not 240.

Michael Robinson ● 1275d

Francis, it’s only you who are hypothesising. We already know that collision injuries are clustered on unsignalled side roads, and the ones with the largest traffic have the most collisions, and that’s when C9 was open and taking into account cycle counts.No further research is required to demonstrate that you have ignored those established relationships that show that closing these roads will reduce the number of injury collisions.

Tom Pike ● 1275d

Take the cyclists off the roads. They are the minority. Then no more collisions or whinging from twits who don’t live in the real world. Simple.The only people unhappy are messrs Pike, Robinson, Campbell and Saper, and frankly why do they matter?

Simon Hayes ● 1275d

> Maths booboo by me, 40% of ~300 vehicles is ~120 vehicles, not 240.Not another boo-boo Michael. You’ve already stuffed up Grove Park.

Russell Pearson ● 1275d

I don't think it will ever be practical to create special road arrangements that meet the apparent requirement that a 12 year old child can immediately cycle freely and safely from place to place.  As we've seen, even the comparatively sophisticated installations along CHR and King Street are far from foolproof, having introduced increasingly unfamiliar complexities for all road users. They can in fact be a snare, attracting 'new' cyclists with limited 'road sense' or awareness of other road users.  They might think they are 'safe' but are actually exposing themselves to danger, particularly when the special facilities evaporate, as they often do.  Only somewhere like Milton Keynes with its huge network of completely separate cycle routes can this ideal objective be attained.  I doubt if it ever can in the busy streets of Chiswick, however much paint and bike stencils are used.  On the contrary, if there were no special facilities for cyclists, other vehicle drivers would not be able to ignore them with a dismissive 'get in your cycle lane!' but would have to accommodate them as a legitimate part of urban traffic.  And the more cyclists were to use the roads, rather than the occasional special facilities, the more other traffic would get used to them and respect their presence, and the more cyclists would develop the necessary road sense and skills.

Peter Evans ● 1275d

Peter, we tried your idea for 60 years. It hasn't worked. Other places that have tried the other method of protected space for cycling have done really rather well. Here is one recent example where politicians had the courage to push through the inevitable resistance and predictions of the death of the city. Cycling reached the target of 35% of modal share of trips by 2030 in just the first two years of the scheme.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEOA_Tcq2XAPoliticians who do this will be rewarded for it. Interestingly the Conservative Council of Canterbury is replicating the Ghent circulation plan and it is being bitterly opposed by the Labour opposition which is saying exactly the same things, using the same hysterical words as our local Conservatives and the cagers on this forum.

Paul Campbell ● 1275d

I don't think you can rely on established relationships from existing signalised junctions to project forward likely collisions at Chiswick Lane and Dukes Avenue. They are only partially signalised because a significant proportion of cyclists ignore the signals so, to that degree you would expect collision statistics to mirror unsignalised junctions.You presumably cycle through these junctions as often or more often than I do but I would estimate that around 20% of cyclists disregard the signals at Chiswick Lane and 30% at Dukes Avenue. The phases are very long so you can understand why they do so but they would be safer staying in the general traffic lanes.Another point that needs to be considered is that traffic along Weltje Road is probably well below historic levels at the moment because of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge. If and when that reopens there will be a significant increase in the number of vehicles using this route and they will need to cross the cycleway in Chiswick at some point. I'm not sure directing them to cross at points were signal observance is not as high as it should be will achieve the desired outcome of fewer cyclist collisions.

Mark Evans ● 1274d

Things are changing though.  In the short term, 20mph speed limits are coming in all across London.The big thing is longer term, when driverless cars arrive on the scene.  They will respect the rules of the road around cyclists.With no driver to pay, an Uber will be half the price of what it is now.  For most people, owning your own car in London just won't make sense.  Once they are legal, they will proliferate very quickly, and become the majority of vehicles on London's roads.  Culture on the roads will change in the space of a few years.Should we really be spending lots of money now on infrastructure that will be redundant in 10 or 15 years time.The other thing is that a lot of streets in London are not wide enough for segregated lanes.  Cars and bikes will always have to co-exist in London.The best way to make cyling safer is to go after bad drivers.  Get more traffic police out on the roads.  Let them keep the money from fines to fund the extra police officers.One specific thing I would do is put police out on bikes in plain clothes with cameras, and equipment to measure the distance cars give when overtaking.  The fines from cars overtaking too closely would pay their wages for the day in less than half an hour.  Instant driving bans for anyone who leaves less than half the legal clearance would get a lot of bad drivers off of the road.  The Evening Standard reporting tens of thousands of fines and bans being issued per month would make car drivers a lot more careful about how they driver around cyclists.Changing the culture on the roads will do far more good than segregating cyclists away.  The segregation appraoch is already leading to the "you don't belong on the roads" brigade getting louder and more vocal.

Al Webber ● 1274d

Michael "Anyway, so what if these vehicles turn into SCR, or Duke Ave or Chiswick Lane or even continue on to the gyratory? This volume of traffic really isn't significant compared to the existing traffic using these junctions."I have quoted Michael's exact words to avoid any question of misconstruing them.The issue is mostly one of what is the effect on Chiswick Lane, SCR or Dukes Avenue of adding potentially an extra 200-300 cars to their traffic during morning or evening rush hours.  And of course Michael is ignoring the many calls on this forum to close the Dukes Avenue exit on to the A4.We know that Chiswick Lane already frequently backs up almost to CHR (and at times onto CHR) so adding even a few more cars there will be an issue.  SCR is not as bad, except on Fridays from 4pm onwards when it frequently backs upto the Town Hall (and sometimes beyond).  Then there is the issue of both the Chiswick Lane junction with cars coming off the flyover and the SCR/A4 junction are notoriously dangerous, so again putting more vehicles down those roads does seem at least potentially problematic.

Justin Stephenson ● 1274d

Numeracy doesn’t seem to be your strong point Justin. The likely level of addition traffic isn’t significant compared to the traffic these junctions are carrying already.

Michael Robinson ● 1274d

“ when driverless cars arrive on the scene”I think I’ve come across a flaw in your argument Al. You seem to have a blind faith belief that driverless cars will be effective in complex, messy urban environments like London. Even the car manufacturers are stepping away from this.The other point about your list of proposals is that you won’t be able to point to any location anywhere in the world where these have been implemented or successful increasing modal share of cycling to significant levels. Along with driverless cars, it is purely a pipe dream.

Michael Robinson ● 1274d

Don't forget the true but sore point that changes to roads can change habits.  Unfortunately the data protection act made it more difficult for parents to arrange joint collections of children.  When carrying large musical instruments and large amounts of games kit and books it can be easier to keep track of it all  by monitoring it especially with younger children.

Philippa Bond ● 1273d

These hideous cycle lanes are beyond dangerous. Some clown who decided all this a good idea must either have no driving experience or lives in rural Sweden were the average jo just rides a push bike. These cycle lanes are dangerous poor lighting at night and too many lines over lines and now rainbow ones to add to the silliness and dangerousness of these cycle lanes.

Carl Johns ● 1273d

Before accusing Justin of being innumerate, it would be an idea to consider how the maths of this actually works. If a road is operating within capacity, traffic will flow and there will be no problem. Once it goes above capacity we get congestion. As traffic tends to be concentrated at certain times, it only takes a relatively small number of vehicles to significant boost the number of occasions in which traffic flow was just under capacity to just over, therefore it can have a disproportionate impact. We see this in reverse during the school holidays when actually only a small proportion of people are away but the roads seem to magically clear.Therefore Justin is quite right to say that 200-300 vehicles  along these already struggling roads would be problematic.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1273d

Too many impatient motorists!

Philippa Bond ● 1273d

Jeremy, the latest counts show that traffic on the A4 and the High Road are significantly below prepandemic levels. It’s rather unlikely that any of the routes between them are therefore close to any tipping point from the relatively low proportion of traffic that currently uses Rivercourt and Weltje roads. Rather, it’s the small amount of traffic on those roads that is having a known disproportionate effect on the number of injury collisions on C9 and the A4.  None of the hypothetical arguments that it will have a disproportionate effect elsewhere have so far been based on any numerical evidence.

Tom Pike ● 1273d

It’s not much below pre pandemic levels at the morning and evening peak, go take a look for yourself? A couple of hundred cars extra at these times is significant

Michael Good ● 1273d

Peak traffic is down on the High Road.

Tom Pike ● 1272d

I talking about Chiswick lane in particular which is where a significant amount of displaced traffic would likely to end up

Michael Good ● 1272d

Chiswick Lane had pre-pandemic traffic of over 13k vehicles a day.  The traffic was even higher in the 2000s, with 14k+.A couple of hundred vehicles isn't significant.

Michael Robinson ● 1272d

Tom, when you say 'Peak traffic is down on the High Road', which bit are you referring to?It couldnt possibly be the central stretch of CHR where the bus gates, closure of Fishers Lane and shorter green phases at other junctions actively hold back traffic? Combined with the various pinch points that mean traffic actively avoids the area? So of course traffic is down. Do you want to then tell us that pollution is down? Again of course it is.

Bill George ● 1272d

It seems to me wrong to get too complacent about traffic levels in the area. With Heathrow not yet back to normal levels, the chances are A4 traffic will increase further. Also any short term ULEZ benefits will be diminishing. Chiswick High Road may have fewer vehicle movements due to drivers avoiding due to the congestion but some of that traffic will have been displaced onto roads like Chiswick Lane, SCR and Dukes Avenue. It would be interesting to see data for traffic flows on those roads.I agree that the paramount consideration here should be avoiding people getting seriously hurt. I was surprised in that respect not to see immediate work taking place at the dangerous King Street junctions to ensure available funds from the current financial year were not lost. However, the priority should be to get these junctions fixed. You (Tom Pike) have assured us that better junction treatments will reduce casualties and, if you are correct, there doesn't seem to me any need for further measures.If the casualty toll for cyclists continues to rise, this needs a proper strategic approach rather than the suck-it-and-see mess we have had so far. You are currently accusing everybody who raises concerns about safety and congestion of hypothesising, when your claims about why shutting Weltje Road and Rivercourt Road will stop serious injuries to cyclists and won't cause further congestion in Chiswick are equally speculative as far as I can see.If cyclists continue to get injured on King Street after the junctions are improved, then we do have to look at closing Weltje Road and Rivercourt Road. However, this should only be done after a proper independent cross-borough analysis shows clearly that such a move would not simply transfer the risk elsewhere and wouldn't cause significant extra gridlock in Chiswick.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1272d

Just to add, estimated 2021 traffic on Chiswick Lane was 11k, so over 2k down from 2019 and over 3k down from the 2000s.Those who are predicting a carmageddon from the few hundred using Weltje at the peak should really explain why this didn't happen when there was significantly more traffic on Chiswick Lane in the past.In any event, Weltje is in LBH&F, Chiswick Lane is in LB Hounslow. Closing Weltje is a decision for LBH&F.  I can't see LB Hounslow objecting and even if they did, LBH&F are under no obligation to change their plans.

Michael Robinson ● 1272d

The latest figures show vehicle traffic is down on the A4, King St, South Parade  and over Chiswick Bridge, as well as the High Road at both TGT and Goldhawk Road.It’s interesting that while any increase in cycling numbers on C9 is dismissed as irrelevant, any small potential redistribution of equivalent traffic numbers is considered as critical for a road system at a tipping point. If that were the case, anything that promotes a shift from driving to cycling would actually have a disproportionate benefit.

Tom Pike ● 1272d

"Just to add, estimated 2021 traffic on Chiswick Lane was 11k, so over 2k down from 2019 and over 3k down from the 2000s."Well that's alright then because I don't remember anything happening in 2021 that might have led to a temporary reduction of traffic.

Francis Rowe ● 1272d

Jeremy, you continue to ignore the evidence. We have seen that the majority of injury collisions occur at unsignalled side roads, and is especially pronounced if those side roads that carry more traffic. Junction treatment will reduce the risk per vehicle at side roads, but if the traffic is high, there will still be more accidents at such locations.No hypothesis is required to tell you that transferring that traffic to signalled side roads will reduce the overall number of injuries as we already know the relative risks. Hence the solution is to ensure that all such junctions have mitigating treatments, and those carrying large numbers of vehicles are considered for closure if reasonable alternatives exist.You have yet to provide any numbers to back up your assertion that traffic in Chiswick is at a tipping point. On the contrary, traffic counts are still down, so you have to first speculate that they will increase, and further that this increase will cause a disproportionate effect in congestion. Of course that necessarily implies we are already seeing a significant reduction in congestion that will then be reversed - tipping points work in both directions.

Tom Pike ● 1272d

Francis,  DfT surveys show that GB road traffic was regularly exceeding March 2020 traffic levels after April/May 2021 and the 2021 estimates were from September 2021.The point still stands that Chiswick Lane traffic in the past was higher than levels even in 2019 before Covid and Weltje traffic is a small fraction of this traffic.I have no doubts that the car-brained will come up with even more convoluted mental gymnastics in an attempt to prove than any restrictions on motor traffic will be the end of the world as we know it.

Michael Robinson ● 1272d

Tom, can you share the source of the data and date that you have and quote as 'latest figures' for vehicle traffic, that would be very helpful. You are still being somewhat disingenuous. We know that junctions and key routes have seen material reductions in capacity, so in some cases you would expect 'traffic' to be down. Not sure who is dismissing cycle numbers as irrelevant. There is a point in how statistics are presented, in that an event that goes from one to two is a 100% increase....

Bill George ● 1272d

Bill,Some of the sources I know about are:- DfT annual traffic surveys for locations around GB going back to 2000.  On DfT website.- TfL survey cameras on CHR which record counts 24x7.  They have been in place since 2021 but some locations have changed because of the construction work.  This information is on FOI section of TfL website from multiple FOIs.  I think the FOIs have been done by someone opposed to C9 but they will have been disappointed by the results.- Annual TfL cycle count survey on TfL website (goes back to 2015)- Project specific survey data. Peak hour counts were done for all of the junctions on C9 available in the C9 plans. A number of other surveys have been done in the area, data available from Hounslow and Ealing.So basically there isn't one single place where you can get all this information.

Michael Robinson ● 1272d

If there have been more accidents at the ends of Weltje and Rivercourt since the two-way cycle lanes were put in, I’d have thought the simplest answer would be to remove them rather than to add more speculative ‘mitigations’ and road closures. It seems clear that a two-way cycle lane along an urban road with many side junctions is impractical and introduces more complexities and dangers than it removes.

Peter Evans ● 1272d

The Rivercort. Road/Great West Rd junction has always been a tricky one to cross on a bike. Judging the speed and probability of a vehicle turning can easily be miscalculated.Safer to dismount if there isn't a very clear gap in traffic. Overlapping barriers forcing a dismount would be a simple viable solution.

Adrian Irving ● 1272d

Peter, there's nothing "speculative" in concluding that restriciting traffic on Weltje and Rivercourt roads would significantly reduce the number of injury collisions to cyclists on C9 as well as for motorists on the A4.On the stretch of C9 from Heathfield Terrace to Chiswick Lane that has been open continuously from December 2020 to September 2022 accident rates for cyclists have dropped by 25% and there are no unsignalled junctions on that stretch which carry significant traffic.Overall we can conclude that C9's bidirectional cycle lane has increased cycle numbers significantly without leading to increased injury collision rates except at a limited number of junctions where there is substantial unsignalled traffic crossing it. That is right in line with previous research from the Netherlands.

Tom Pike ● 1272d