Forum Topic

Traffic nightmare

Anyone know why the traffic is so bad today? It look me 1 hour 15 minutes to travel back from Hanger Lane to Grove Park at 5pm this evening.

Jim Brown ● 1185d88 Comments

TfL traffic light rephasing asppreantly.Eastbound A4 was a shambles with only a few cars passing on rach completed phase.

N V Brooks ● 1185d

Roadworks on A4?

David Turner ● 1185d

There was roadworks at night on the A4 last night but not much congestion. There is a rephasing of the Traffic lights which are on the A4/Ealing Road junction. I don't agree with these and they have certainly caused some congestion on Ealing Road and roads to the west of it.Not credible that that would have an impact on the NCR which is about a mile to the East. The NCR has always been skilful of creating its own jams.

Guy Lambert ● 1185d

Spot on for once Maggie, well done.

Hayden Potier ● 1185d

Sadly, it is credible as the light at Chiswick roundabout have obviously been rephased with longer pauses and far fewer cars passing. The same on the A4020/ A406 junction at Ealing Common with queues at previously quiet times. The longer pauses do though give you time to reflect on the 'wonderful' job that TfL planners and engineers are doing 🤣

N V Brooks ● 1185d

Chiswick roundabout was always vulnerable but does seem to have got worse. As some of the utility works around Kew bridge have gone its not clear why congestion is so bad. North circular in particular I hear has been terrible for a while. There are various roadworks across Acton and the water main repair near Shepherds bush. But with the news that leakages at Thames water have actually got worse and it will miss targets,  expect even more roadworks.This all explains my scepticism when a certain regular poster claims that the closure of Hammersmith bridge has reduced congestion and traffic on major roads in the area. It defies logic and is in conflict with all other data. On the Putney SW15 site the MP is calling for Hammersmith bridge to reopen as she highlights the appalling air quality in Putney.Wandsworth bridge is set to close for 10 weeks in mid July which will make things even worse in Putney and have knock on effects further west. As we saw with when there were emergency utility works near Kew Bridge, river crossings are already at capacity and more closures/roadworks are a fact of life, which in turn drive more congestion. We need to reopen one of the few bridges we have.There are too many cars, especially those driven into London each day. More efforts need to be done to address this, but it seems that LTNs and cycle lanes alone are not doing much. The strategy of creating congestion to reduce car use is painful for many and its not clear it works.

Bill George ● 1185d

I am fortunate in only having to negotiate Chiswick round about on one day each week. The queues have certainly become longer and it is self evident that much of the problem is due to a rephasing of the traffic lights with longer pauses and changed priorities. The situation will become far worse from August when more traffic diverts to the A4 M4 corridor with rolling closures on the elevated section of the A40 Westway for joint replacement and waterproofing.  The repairs are destined to take two years.

N V Brooks ● 1185d

Oh joy, I didnt know about the A40. But this is a key point, our infrastructure be it roads, bridges, utilities etc will need constant repairs, some of which will be highly disruptive. The current strategy of further reducing road space on a piecemeal basis while doing nothing active to discourage the volume of cars will simply cause more congestion and more pollution.

Bill George ● 1185d

"There are too many cars, especially those driven into London each day. "No argument from me about this Bill.There are a range of possible measures to address this, including road pricing.Some of the proposals for road pricing rely on technology, so basically a GPS/communications device in the vehicle that reports where/when the vehicle has been driven and a charge is based upon this.  The conspiracy theorists will have a field day about that.Other proposals are low tech, such as the vehicle mileage is annually reported in a MOT and the driver is charged based upon that.  Someone doing 10 miles a day in the Scottish Highlands does not have the same impact of someone doing the same distance in London so I don't know if that would be allowed for.Another mechanism is parking - no point driving if there is nowhere to park or very expensive to park.Hounslow did propose a workplace parking levy for businesses along the A4 west of Chiswick roundabout and the funds for this were targeted at a new rail station providing a shuttle service to link with the Elizabeth line at Southall.  Businesses hated it, of course.  I don't know the status of the proposal.Within Chiswick, if you look at the section of Wellesley Rd by the A4 bridge, there are always cars parked there during the week.  The CPZ there isn't 24 hours so I assume drivers with more flexible work hours drive in, park their cars there and maybe use the tube at Gunnersbury or visit Chiswick Business Park.You could do your own little bit to discourage people from driving into London by lobbying Cllr Biddolph to change the hours of operation of the CPZ at this location to be 24 hours.

Michael Robinson ● 1185d

Bill, I have to disagree with your comment about "doing nothing to discourage the volume of cars".  They are doing any and everything to make life difficult and expensive. Fact is it's not working because they don't take into account why people are on the roads. They go for the simple accusation that we are all lazy and making unnecessary journeys.  If that were the case they would have had some impact and they haven't.  Their current strategy won't work, because bringing the country to a standstill affects everybody, not just motorists but seem unable to realise that.  Road pricing, well that's the plan and we all know it.  Roll on 4th July and I don't mean for America Independence Day.

Maggie Dodge ● 1185d

“This all explains my scepticism when a certain regular poster claims that the closure of Hammersmith bridge has reduced congestion and traffic on major roads in the area. It defies logic and is in conflict with all other data. On the Putney SW15 site the MP is calling for Hammersmith bridge to reopen as she highlights the appalling air quality in Putney.”Bill, you are the one ignoring the data here. First of all, since the closure, air quality has continued to improve on Putney High St. Secondly, traffic across the other bridges has indeed fallen since the closure, and by a larger amount than for the affected boroughs. Thirdly, TfL identified particular pinch points for the bus services after the closure, with delays immediately increasing by an average of six minutes.  But subsequently that delay has been dropping continuously, averaging two minutes in 2021 and one minute in 2022. According to Steve Cowan, TfL’s position has shifted in the light of the evidence and they are are no longer wholly convinced of the benefits of reopening the bridge to motor vehicles. What other data do you have to support your personal opinion?

Tom Pike ● 1185d

TOm, we have been over this before, for many journeys bridges are not fungible but replaced by other journeys, while delivery routes are altered.With the closure of another bridge imminent the lunacy of not reopenign Hammersmith bridge only grows. On air quality, it seems the local residents dont agree, and how much of the improvement is due to the move to lower emission buses and the ULEZ which without the Hammersmith impact would have seen even greater gains. Congestion will get a lot worse when Wandsworth bridge closes.The simple issue is the huge inconsistency between your claims and the bigger picture. Here is a report from INRIX, I beleive they supply some of the data you quote from, making London in 2022 the most congested global city and with time lost up 5% vs pre COVID. So either Hammersmith bridge has magically destroyed traffic or your analysis is flawed. https://inrix.com/press-releases/2022-global-traffic-scorecard-uk/

Bill George ● 1185d

Bill, the pollution measurements showing a fall on Putney High St are data, not your personal take on local option. Of course it's alway possible to say that the fall would have been even greater, but you were incorrect to claim that air quality had fallen there after the closure. INRIX scorecard is for all of London, not around Hammersmith Bridge. In fact restrictions on traffic and support for active travel were made precisely to mitigate the induced traffic from the pandemic with people shifting from public transport to cars. The unrelated closure of Hammersmith Bridge provides evidence that such restrictions are effective. And it's not magic, it's the standard relationship between supply and demand. Demand is induced by increased supply and vice versa. To believe otherwise, that people will not shift their preferences in response changes in supply, that is certainly magical thinking.

Tom Pike ● 1185d

Tom, my point is a reasonable one which I am sure you realise but choose to be obtuse. I understand what the data shows. I also understand that there have been improvements in London air since 2016 and some areas have further benefited from both the first phase of the ULEZ and in the case of Putney specificlly a move to lower emmissions bus fleets. So a quite legitimate quesiton is how air quality improvements in Putney compare to other areas.The second point as you again realise is indeed that the INRIX scorecard is for all of London. And it shows clearly increased congestion in 2022, despite the very measures you reference in terms of 'restrictions on traffic and support for active travel' which were made across London. Which begs the question whether we really believe your limited analysis thats shows some miraculous fall around certain roads in west London whilst the rest of the city saw an increase. The closure of Hammersmith bridge shows no evidence that restrictions are effective. Its just a road that crosses a river. The data on which you rely is also incomplete, such as for key roads such as the A4. You obsess about it as if its some magical thing. If you really believe this rubbish, you should be calling for the immediate closure of all bridges in all urban areas. By your logic all traffic congestion will disappear.To translate your final point, when you reference the 'standard relationship between supply and demand'. So to be clear, what you want is more road closures and then more congestion in the hope that this reduces traffic. Some of us would rather take a more proactive approach that doesnt shift traffic and congestion. THe INRIX scorecard shows your approach is failing.

Bill George ● 1184d

"The closure of Hammersmith bridge shows no evidence that restrictions are effective."Bill, you are repeatedly simply ignoring the evidence."So to be clear, what you want is more road closures and then more congestion in the hope that this reduces traffic."I don't need to hope: the data is unambiguous, traffic has been reduced by the closure and the delays have dissipated. I think even TfL has been been somewhat surprised by the outcome, but unlike you they are responding to the clear evidence rather than ignoring it.

Tom Pike ● 1184d

Hi Tom, I made various points that you ignore. Firstly on air quality, where the question is how the trends in Putney compare with other areas, and what is the specific local impact of ULEZ and cleaner buses?Secondly on Hammersmith bridge, you are basing your conclusions on incomplete and inconsistent data from different sources. You actually called out in a seperate thread the lack of 2022 data for the A4 through Hammersmith, a key route.So again, let me pose you a simple question. Have you discovered a magic cure to traffic congestion, namely closing bridges? If you accept the INRIX scorecard that showed a 5% increase across London in 2022, and believe in your own analysis, then you must be on to something. Which bridges should we close next?Finally, as you yourself stated, 'restrictions on traffic and support for active travel' were made across London in 2022. If these work, then why does the INRIX analysis show more congestion, not less? Does this mean the measures are not working or is it just bridges that see this benefit?Or do we need to close more roads so the 'standard relationship between supply and demand' creates even more congestion in the hope that this reduces traffic? It seems you do, lets at least be honest about it.

Bill George ● 1184d

Bill, when you are done dismantling the proven and universally acknowledged principle of traffic induction can you please do gravity or entropy? Thanks, Paul.

Paul Campbell ● 1184d

Hi Paul, do you want to have a discussion on a discussion forum? So do you agree that closing a bridge has a magical impact on congestion and why Tom's analysis is so different from the INRIX annual scorecard that showed London congestion increased in 2022? Also why is is congestion increasing when all these 'restrictions on traffic and support for active travel' were made across London?Interested in the answers as these issues impact all of us. As with Tom what you dont seem to want to explicitly call out is that you advocate creating congestion to slowly reduce traffic volumes. How much more congestion do you want?

Bill George ● 1184d

Bill, there is absolutely no point in having a discussion with somebody who spends so much of their time trying to dismantle the established principle of traffic induction and who refuses to see that it is precisely in the tiny fraction of roads where traffic reduction measures have been implemented in London that traffic volumes are reducing and cycling numbers are increasing. You are way too far down the anti-science rabbit hole to be helped despite Tom’s valiant and patient efforts to make you understand what is right in front of you.

Paul Campbell ● 1184d

Ah, the normal Campbell rejoinder. Can't actually substantiate his position as he has no supporting evidence  so resorts to insults and barbs

N V Brooks ● 1184d

Paul, I'm really not down any anti-science rabbit hole and your attempt to insult and label anyone who disagrees is pathetic. The trouble is you and others reject anyone who doesnt share your particular focus on one mode of travel.Tom makes certain assertions and I am challenging them. He may be right, its hard to tell at present, not least as the datasets he used have gaps. Again, there are some legitimate questions:1) Has air quality improved in Putney more or less than other similar areas not impacted by the bridge closure? 2) is there something unique about bridges that makes traffic disappear. Or perhaps is it the flawed starting assumption that all journeys that crossed one bridge MUST then either cross another bridge or not happen? Tom claims that a large area of west London and key roads have not seen any increase in congestion whereas we know London as a whole clearly has. I agree that this effect may be lost in broader London data, so what the borough level analysis show? This might be expected to show up if the effect is real or not if its just that travel patterns adjust.I would love to see less traffic and congestion in London, but afraid not convinced your solutions provide it, certainly not on their own. At least be honest and acknowledge that you are calling for more congestion, at least in the short term. Such a strategy, if there is a mandate to implement, might even benefit from proper coordination and a parallel boost to public transport.

Bill George ● 1184d

Nobody claims that a handful of traffic restrictions in Chiswick, Hackney, Lambeth, Enfield and Waltham Forest will solve the problem of traffic in London. They are not designed to. They are designed to solve the problem of traffic in localised areas. And they work. Every study done so far has proved that. Conversely you have no evidence to counter those studies. Just your convictions and they are not relevant. Traffic induction is really simple - reduce space for cars, fewer cars. Increase space for cycling, more cycling. This isn't controversial expect in the scrambled minds of people who cannot understand it. It is not remotely interesting to have a conversation with somebody who insists that the moon is made of cheese. There are plenty of Facebook groups with similar like-minded people if you are looking for friends. Ta ra.

Paul Campbell ● 1184d

"I would love to see less traffic and congestion in London"What are your proposed solutions then Bill?Your main approach seems to be picking arguments with everything posted by Tom Pike, but that isn't going to achieve anything, is it?Why don't you start small, such as lobbying for a 24 hour CPZ on Wellesley Rd by the A4 to dissuade all the cars currently driving into the area and parking there?

Michael Robinson ● 1184d

Paul, why are you so hostile. I understand there are far more traffic restrictions than the ones you mention, including Ealing for example. How many do we need before these show up in London or borough level data, shouldnt they have been evident in 2022 when there were still lots of temporary restrictions and new cylce paths?  If we do need more where should they be and should these be coordinated? What level of congestion is acceptable, what level of road capacity is needed to ensure the efficient functioning of the London economy, should public transport and perhaps more local bus routes be improved?  Is there adequate provision for those with mobility issues? These are all quite legitimate questions.In terms of studies, we have no consistent traffic data for London as as whole for 2022, so analysis is difficult. I have no convictons but there are lots of gaps in the studies I have seen, such as the recent one debated in Lambeth. I think the real world is far more complex that your simple statement 'reduce space for cars, fewer cars'. What did we see during Hammersmith flyover closure or recent A4 roadworks? Should we close Kew bridge? Do you think we should invest more in public transport, make it cheaper, introduce step free access to local tube stations? I can assure the moon is not just cheese, its green cheese, as any child can tell you.

Bill George ● 1184d

"Why don't you start small, such as lobbying for a 24 hour CPZ on Wellesley Rd by the A4 to dissuade all the cars currently driving into the area and parking there?"That is addressing the symptoms, not the cause. If people are finding it necessary to drive to Wellesley Road before taking public transport to their destination, then presumably it is because public transport is inadequate from their point of origin. Why don't you arrange for a survey of those parking their cars to establish why they need to drive, and then perhaps there could be targeted improvements in public transport so they would not have to.

Richard Greenhough ● 1184d

I dont think there are easy solutions, but a number would help. First and foremost, and no doubt unpopular for some, is an expanded congestion charge to reduce the daily flood of traffic into London every day. The one Tom claims the problem is all local traffic, but if you stand by the A4 you might have a different view.Second would be cheaper and better public transport with more accessible stations, we saw under Ken Livingstone this can work. We currently seem to be pricing people off public transport. Thirdly a coherent and well researched coordinated plan to decide whether we should have further measures such as LTNs in more areas. In terms of CPZs, its crazy that LBE and LBH have made some parking available for commuter traffic, so yes we should stop it. We should also tax all workplace parking with all funds to go to public transport. A coherent strategy would also look at improving parking at stations around London to discourage car use. I can equally ask regarding Tom why he chooses to argue with everything I post? This is a discussion forum. I see him making assumptions that I believe reflect his own bias and not real world experience. Lets not forget he was telling this forum that there were no problems whatsover with the first 'temporary' CS9 installation and the loss of the left turn filter onto Chiswick Lane, right up to the point that TFL announced they were digging it up to reinstall the left hand filter and other measures including some lost bus lane.We also have a lack off consistent full year data for 2022 and its equally hard to unpick the COVID effect from historic data.

Bill George ● 1184d

Hi Bill,Re your comment "I think the real world is far more complex that your simple statement 'reduce space for cars, fewer cars'. What did we see during Hammersmith flyover closure or recent A4 roadworks?"Don't disagree with your first sentence, it is far more complex than that. However, there may be a palpable difference if you permanently reduce space. Some of those vehicles that were caught up in the congestion that occurred would have been vehicles that would continue to use Hammersmith Flyover/The A4 once the works were concluded and the roads fully opened up. If the drivers knew that the roads wouldn't open up again, some of the drivers might well choose to undertake their journeys in a different way, rather than choose to sit in the same congestion day in, day out.

Andrew Jones ● 1184d

A survey trying to identify transport improvements for W London and the immediate area  because of a couple of dozen parking spaces seems somewhat excessive.All the eastern section of Wellesley Rd is CPZ 9am - 6pm so just extend this for 100m.  I'm sure the people parking there can figure out an alternative.

Michael Robinson ● 1184d

Some good suggestions there, Bill. Definitely better public transport although with the terrible congestion now in Chiswick largely as a result of the cycle lanes it's difficult to know how to improve the flow of buses.  Yesterday evening I needed to get home in a hurry - the next E3 from Turnham Green tube station was 25 minutes away.

Claire Moran ● 1184d

Bill, I agree with you there should be some form of congestion charging/road pricing to dissuade people driving into London in the first place.On cheaper public transport, this can be a good thing but there is lots of evidence showing it isn't very effective getting people out of their cars.Cheaper public transport does increase numbers using it but this is primarily more trips by people already using public transport and people switching from walking/cycling as there is no longer a cost advantage.If people use cars because they dislike being crammed in with "the great unwashed" on a bus or train, then they aren't going to switch to public transport willingly, even if it is cheaper.Basically, if you want people to reduce use of cars, "stick" is more effective than "carrot".  Increase use of public transport is not the same objective as get people out of cars.  Will the Elizabeth line mean reduced traffic on the M4/A4? I doubt it.  It does mean that someone in, say, Reading, might apply for a job in Canary Wharf when previously they would have considered it not viable to travel there and that is a good thing to provide more opportunity to people but that isn't the same as dissuading existing drivers from driving in London.

Michael Robinson ● 1184d

It used to be possible for people to drive in and park on Harvard Road on the north side of the A4 and then continue their journeys on the District Line from Gunnersbury Station. As much of that section of Harvard Road does not have houses, this seemed to me to be a reasonable arrangement, but LB Hounslow decided otherwise and made it into a CPZ. I suspect those now using Wellesley Road might have used Harvard Road if it was still an option. I doubt if the people now parking in Wellesley Road have a workable alternative for accessing the tube from Gunnersbury or SWR from Kew Bridge, but simply banning them from parking without identifying the reason they are doing so and looking at creating reasonable alternatives for their journeys smacks of uncaring nimbyism.

Richard Greenhough ● 1184d

Bill, I expect that you are probably quite accustomed to people not wishing to engage any further with you on this topic and that is why you have made so little headway in the last five years of your interest in it. You strike me as the type who writes extremely long and tedious emails to people in Councils and places like the LCC, which just switch people off after a while. The sealioning is the most tedious aspect of your style. LAs are responsible for managing their road network. They are run by elected politicians who make pledges in manifestos. It is up to them to do what they think is best to meet their commitments on transport and its relationship with and impacts on their commitments to air quality, environment, safety, health etc.  Traffic induction really is that simple in the real world. Less space for cars = fewer cars. What goes up must come down. If the Westway and A4 flyovers were permanently shut and turned into highline parks there would be a great deal fewer people driving into central London.

Paul Campbell ● 1184d

It isn't the role of Hounslow council to provide free parking for people driving in from Slough or where ever.The best way to encourage drivers to use public transport is make driving more difficult.

Michael Robinson ● 1184d

"The best way to encourage drivers to use public transport is make driving more difficult."Nope, the best way is to make public transport better attuned to commuters needs. And it shouldn't be the role of Hounslow council to make life more difficult for commuters.

Richard Greenhough ● 1184d

Michael, I know we have had this discussion before, and you de-emphasise public transport whilst I see it as more central.As for pricing, I am sure diminishing returns kick in at some point but as London has the most expensive public transport of any major European capital we have a way to go. Agree we need a stick to get people out of cars, which is where the congestion charge comes in. I know people who lived west of London who felt it was quicker and cheaper to drive to Westfield and take the tube. Those parking on Wellesley Road and in all day parking in CPZs clearly feel the same. That balance of cost vs benefit needs to change.As for the example of Elizabeth line, I am sure a meaningful proportion of users are new to public transport. Again this could be increased by a congestion charge. Bus routes need to be rethought and made more local, the E3 is a disaster and is too long and complex to ever run reliably. An interchange in Acton would deliver more reliability especially for W4.As to the final point, I do think you and fellow posters need to be more transparent about what 'dissuading existing drivers from driving in London' looks like. In practice it means creating congestion, which will have some negative impacts.

Bill George ● 1184d

" the best way is to make public transport better attuned to commuters needs. "Ah, so for the driver who likes having his own space without being close to others, you propose providing personal carriages on the tube..."stick" is more effective than "carrot" as a way of getting people out of cars.And sorry to disappoint Richard, it is an objective of Hounslow Council to make life more difficult for people commuting into the area by car, that is why there is almost 100% coverage of residential streets in Chiswick with CPZs.  But for some reason, you object to 100m of roadway having the same CPZ times as  further down the street.

Michael Robinson ● 1184d

Park and Ride like in Oxford?  Maybe some of the coaches could be persuaded to stay outside as well?

Philippa Bond ● 1184d

We left chiswick on the A316 this morning at 9.30. It took 17 mins to get to Hogarth roundabout and then the queue coming into town was mad apparently it’s the same every morning. Whatever happened to the school of thought keep traffic moving. We are now introducing measures to do exactly the opposite, can’t be good for anyone. Feel sorry for the residents on these new queues outside their home dreadful decisions from those in charge.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1184d

""stick" is more effective than "carrot" as a way of getting people out of cars."Nonsense - do you really think people would choose to drive in to Chiswick and then take the tube or train from there if they could do so from walking distance of their home ? "..it is an objective of Hounslow Council to make life more difficult for people commuting into the area by car, that is why there is almost 100% coverage of residential streets in Chiswick with CPZs."Yet another area where LB Hounslow is getting it wrong.

Richard Greenhough ● 1184d

"Nonsense - do you really think people would choose to drive in to Chiswick and then take the tube or train from there if they could do so from walking distance of their home ?"Yes. I know that people drive from Fauconberg Road to get their morning coffee from the stand at Chiswick station. I've seen people drive from St Mary's Grove to Fauconberg Road to get lunch from the deli. These are relatively young people. There is a very well known anti-safer streets campaigner who drives from Whitehall Gardens to the pubs on Strand on the Green. I know people who drive from Bedford Park to Turnham Green Terrace, take advantage of 30 mins free parking and leave with one bag of shopping. Some people just love their cars.

Paul Campbell ● 1184d

Yep same on the A4 this morning. Backed up all the way west of Chiswick and on into Hammersmith. Tens of thousands of drivers piling into London blaming cyclists for traffic.

Paul Campbell ● 1184d

Just look at train prices Richard... Reading to London could be up to £50 return.  Of course people will drive in and park near a tube station and pay less than £4 for a zone 3 fare.  Why do you think most of Chiswick is covered by CPZs in the first place? All the people driving in to park near tube stations.If you think this is the wrong thing, then I suggest you discuss with your councillor that you would like a campaign to remove all CPZs in Chiswick as it is only right the streets should be made available for people in the West of London and beyond to park for free because it is convenient for the tube. Let us all know how you get on.

Michael Robinson ● 1184d

I made no mention of cyclists, this level of congestion is just unacceptable and needs a rethink. Cars, vans, buses etc are here to stay so we need to find a way to accommodate the reality and clearly the current LTNs are not working. It’s an appalling state of affairs leaving no one happy to go about their business whether on foot, cycle or 4 wheels. Time for a change and practical solutions for all.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1183d

Jayne,"It took 17 mins to get to Hogarth roundabout and then the queue coming into town was mad apparently it’s the same every morning."I presume the queue you are referring to is a queue after the Hogarth roundabout going into town?What have LTNs done to cause this? If there were fewer cars going into town there would be less congestion. How would you suggest we go about achieving having fewer cars queueing to go into London on this stretch of road?

Andrew Jones ● 1183d

You didn’t need to. I flushed it out. My LTN is working great. It’s not designed to stop tens of thousands of cars driving into London via the A4 and A316 and A40 and it’s not designed to make your car journeys quicker so I can see how you’re missing the point. It’s bloody nice to live in because you and all those other drivers can’t drive through it.

Paul Campbell ● 1183d

There is no sussing none of us own the roads, we all pay for them, yes Grove Park total closure to business vehicles, other chiswick residents is clearly causing outrageous journeys for people. We live in a world of selfish people who are happy for other neighbours to carry the burden 👏👏👏👏👏

Jayne Thorburn ● 1183d

We live in a world where people are fighting back against the tyranny of selfish drivers and all the damage they cause. Finally.

Paul Campbell ● 1183d

Humpty, once again you miss the point - people who drive from outside Chiswick to travel onwards by tube and train are a different category from those who choose to drive short distances within W4.

Richard Greenhough ● 1183d

No you missed the point. You found it hard to imagine that people who could walk to a station near their home would drive to park near one in Chiswick. My examples are all about how easy it is to imagine that people would do that. It wouldn’t surprise me if people drove from Grove Park to park in Wellesley to get the tube. Some people probably never even walk to the end of their road. And I know people who live near train stations outside London who drive to Westfield to park for their commute because it is “nicer” and “cheaper” to do that and get the tube than getting a train and a tube. This is the absurd world drivers have created. It is utter fantasy to imagine that anything like most car journeys are “necessary”.

Paul Campbell ● 1183d

Grove Park LTN may have something to do with your 17 minute journey to Hogarth Roundabout, but I doubt it has much to do with the congestion going into town from the Hogarth Roundabout onwards (or have I misinterpreted what you were saying in your post where you mentioned the 17 minutes)? And while taxpayers pay for the roads they also pay for things like education, but I can't imagine that gives me the right to walk into any school of my choosing.

Andrew Jones ● 1183d

The Grove Park LTN does not cause delays for people driving from north of Chiswick High Road to Hogarth roundabout. That's where you have to start blaming Fishers Lane and the cycle lane while continuing to studiously avoid the volume of drivers like yourself who are actually causing the traffic congestion.

Paul Campbell ● 1183d

Parking in Wellesley Road still means a walk to either Gunnersbury or Kew Bridge stations.

Richard Greenhough ● 1183d

Richard, when you’ve finished calling people names like a five year old, what do you plan to do to turn Chiswick into a refuge for drivers from outer London and Berkshire who can’t be arsed going to their local station and want to drive into London as far as they can to park?If you look at justpark you will see many locals are making some money from these drivers and renting out parking spaces in front of their houses.  Surely you will condemn this naked capitalism and demand the council should provide these spaces for free?

Michael Robinson ● 1183d

Hi Maggie, yes it's not a great analogy - I'm sure there are better ones.The point I was trying to make was that I don't believe contributing towards something as a taxpayer automatically gives me unfettered access to it as other posters here suggest.What about those who make no contribution via taxation - should they have fewer 'rights'?A common theme used to be that people would say that if you paid "Road Tax" you were entitled to use any roads you liked, conveniently ignoring (or being unaware) of the fact that a) "Road Tax" is paid directly to the Exchequer and isn't earmarked for roads, and b) some people pay a "Road Tax" of £0.00.And, it's not as if LTNs prevent all access to the Roads within the LTN anyway. They sometimes make it more inconvenient but you can still get to ever road within the LTN. One way streets have been around for decades, preventing the most convenient route from A to B for some.LTNs aren't a universal panacea for the problem of too many people making journeys in cars when they could adopt alternative means of transport for some of their journeys - and they create problems, but the responsibility has to be shared with those sitting in their cars in congestion undertaking journeys that they could undertake in other ways.Back to your comment though, yes it wasn't a great analogy.

Andrew Jones ● 1183d

Think the plan is to make travelling by car so difficult that traffic will ‘evaporate’. Idea is, if it’s more than a 15 minute car journey, stay at home and buy online so someone else can do the work for you. https://www.15minutecity.com/

Russell Pearson ● 1182d

"Everyone living in a city should have access to essential urban services within a 15 minute walk or bike. The 15-Minute City Project is designed to help access-focused urban transformations be what we need them to be: ambitious, inclusive, measurable and effectively implemented."What a dystopian nightmare!

Paul Campbell ● 1182d

Caused by LBH’s systematic destruction of Chiswick high road by closing Fishers  lane to traffic, implementing the dangerous C9, and the cash cow LTNs.

Sarah Potter ● 1182d

15 minute cities - doesn't anyone else leave home to do anything but shop?  I visit family and friends. Days out, to the coast etc. Concerts.  Are they all to be rationed.  What a prospect.

Maggie Dodge ● 1182d

Nobody's trying to stop you.!5 minute cities are an initiative which is "an urban planning concept in which most daily necessities and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure can be easily reached by a 15-minute walk or bike ride from any point in the city"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_cityNot liking this is bizarre - I think everybody would like it - all the stuff about stopping us doing other things is made up by people who are frankly paranoid.

Guy Lambert ● 1182d

The roads that were built, were by and large built a long time ago. If we restricted the traffic to what it was when they were built we would have a lot less traffic than we have now.Things change. We have pedestrianised areas these days. If we followed your logic, we wouldn't have any pedestrianised areas.I don't have a cycle by the way, I've had two stolen, I have a car, and I think there should be some constraints on driving - in particular I believe there shouldn't be unfettered access to all roads for all cars.I suspect that puts me in direct opposition to you on this point. Do you not think that some car drivers are biased and selfish?

Andrew Jones ● 1182d

Paul, it is cheaper to drive than get the train.  That's the main reason people drive.  If I want to get the train to my home town in Devon today, the cheapest ticket the the Trainline is £55.  If I want to book a ticket on Monday 3rd July at 8 in the morning, it's £148.  Those are for single fares.  If I drive sensibly, I could do it on around £22 of petrol.  With numbers like that, it's no wonder people drive. Every other major European country regards railways as part of the national infrastructure and subsidises them.  It doesn't make sense that we subsidise cars by spending billions upon billions on roads, but expect railways to fund themselves out of tickets.  It's also made worse by private rail operators taking profits out of the system.You aren't going to get people out of their cars without making the railways competitive on price.The other problem is that public transport is often slow because it doesn't go directly where you need it to go.  That journey to my home town is slower by public transport.  Allowing for possible delays on the Tube, and a ten minute walk to the station at this end, I'd need to be leaving home a good hour before the train is due to leave Paddington.  The station is 6 miles from my home town at the other end, and buses are not frequent in Devon.  It would be a good 20 minute walk from the bus station in the centre of town to my parents' old house.  It's going to take significantly longer by public transport.  That's before you start thinking about the costs, which I mentioned above.Many journeys in outer London are also a lot slower by public transport.  If my wife were to get public transport to work, it's 3 buses.  It's much quicker to drive.In London, bikes solve the speed issue, if you use the right route.  The last 4 offices I've worked in have been significantly quicker to get to by bike than by public transport (or car).  Adding 5 minutes plus to the journey by using your cycle lane wouldn't help though.  I wouldn't be going that way if I still worked in central London.Bikes are quicker, as are cars in much of the country, because they go door to door.  Public transport is never going to go door to door for most people, so it's always going to be slow.  Outside of London, and other major cities, that's going to make it difficult to get people out of cars.  In London though, we can solve a lot of the problems by getting a lot more people cycling.  I agree with you on that.One thing we should do to encourage cycling is adopt the Canadian standard on electric bikes.  In Canada, they are allowed to provide assistance to the rider up to 20mph instead of the 15mph we have here.  Outside of London, that could get a lot of people out of their cars.  If I use my hometown as an example again, it's 15 miles to Exeter.  There are some people who cycle that route, but most people aren't going to cycle that distance under their own power.  It's going to take an hour on a currently legal electric bike.  Even with rush hour traffic, it's around 45 minutes in a car.  A 20 mph electric bike would be the same time as a car, and a lot cheaper to run.  That would get people switching.It's perfectly possible to get a normal bike up to 20mph on the flat, and well beyond that downhill.  When I've tracked rides using GPS on my phone, I've got up to 35mph.  I used to go down some of the hills in Devon a lot faster than that when I was young.Limiting electric bikes to 15mph just seems stupid when you can go a lot faster on an ordinary bike.  The other thing that slow electric bikes do is encourage illegal ones.  I see large numbers of illegal electric bikes.  If legal ones could do a sensible speed, then people wouldn't need to buy illegal ones, or monkey with the governors on legal ones.  20mph bikes that meet standards are going to be safer than dodgy illegal bikes.The added advantage of 20mph electric bikes in London is that they could keep up with the traffic, with all the 20mph speed limits we have now.  That would make it a lot less intimidating for cyclists.We also need to look at wider issues.  Why is commuting 50 miles plus accepted as a normal thing?  There need to be jobs where people live.  That should mean a moratorium on new office buildings in cities like London.  Build residential in London, so that people can afford to live nearer their work.  On the other side of that, build offices in the towns 20 to 50 miles from London, so that there will be jobs near home for the people who live there.  These ridiculously long commutes need to become a thing of the past.

Al Webber ● 1182d

The Party Line is the Beacon Shining on Our Work, 1953

Basil Finnis ● 1182d

When Professor Carlos Moreno first postulated the concept of 15 minute cities he focused on bringing daily necessities closer to residents not on restricting traffic movement although transport reduction would naturally flow from their introduction. The mistake that ‘blinkered visionaries’ have made is to implement the traffic restrictions in the belief that the 15 minute city would flow from this. It will not.I would love to see the return of ‘popping down the shops’ to pick up everything I need but the return to those days has gone, even Professor Moreno calls his concept a utopian ideal.Successive governments, both local and national and of all ‘hues’ have trashed local high streets with restrictive policies and allow the virtually uncontrolled development of out of town ‘shopping theme parks’. The resultant desert left means that many local shops and services, essential to delivering the 15 minute city have gone forever, never to return.Locally in Boston Manor and within a fifteen minute 'radius' we have, over the last thirty years, lost three doctors surgeries, two dentists, two cinemas and no fewer than nineteen corner shops (all but one of which have been converted to housing). No local butcher, greengrocer, hardware shop, hairdresser or chippie within 15 minutes of home and no concept of them returning.Edward Glaeser (Chairman of the Harvard department of Economics) wrote “Aspects of the 15-minute city are praiseworthy. I yield to no one in my embrace of the pedestrian city. I have long believed that walking as the best of all possible modes…..but the basic concept of a 15-minute city is not really a city at all. It’s an enclave — a ghetto – a subdivision. All cities should be archipelagos of neighbourhoods, but these neighbourhoods must be connected. Cities should be machines for connecting humans – rich and poor, black and white, young and old. Otherwise, they fail in their most basic mission”.Professor Glaeser wrote in a blog post for the LSE that “We should embrace the good aspects of the 15-minute city— the idea of accessibility, perhaps driving less, and embracing congestion pricing — ultimately, we should bury the idea of a city that is chopped up into 15-minute bits”.Those who seek to restrict traffic flow in isolation as delivering an enforced 15 minute city would do well to reflect on the wise words of Professors Moreno and Glaser.

N V Brooks ● 1182d

NV Brooks, my dentist , my doctor, Sainsburys are already walking distance.  So they are fixing a problem that I don't have, for reasons that make no sense.

Maggie Dodge ● 1182d

You are fortunate. The problem is those who are ideologically opposed to some forms of transport and who have a mistaken belief that restricting one or more forms of traffic will magically create a fifteen minute city. These people either fail to grasp Professor Moreno's intent or seek to divide cities to further their own 'vision'.

N V Brooks ● 1182d

Professor Moreno loves cycle lanes, LTNs, removal of parking spaces and many other restrictions on private cars in cities and he does a great job of convening Mayors from around the world to understand his vision and implement it. One of the things they discuss is the importance of ignoring the inevitable bleatings of angry motorists who they know will say and do anything to attempt to protect the supremacy of the car, including misrepresenting what 15 minute cities are and spreading conspiracy theories that grannies will be imprisoned in their zones.

Paul Campbell ● 1182d

Pofessor Moreno is clear in his intent and, as I said, I would welcome the return of local services. Sadly, in many locations the wherwithal to deliver a return to 'localism' no longer exists.Thankfully, unlike some who speak from their own cloistered community, he does not envision the creation of 15 minute cities simply by banning certain types of vehicle. He is, in other words, not an anti-car obesessive. He is clear in his remit in that services must be provided not simply traffic removed. Do read the full work-up, listed to his TED talks, it may enable you to get a more balanced view.

N V Brooks ● 1182d

Listen not listed.

N V Brooks ● 1182d

Yes I know that and he is absolutely clear that radical reduction in private car use is a necessity for his vision of liveable urban spaces. It is essential to the entire concept of accessibility of services to walkers and cyclists. This is well understood by progressive politicians everywhere.

Paul Campbell ● 1182d

Surely, it's the cycling mafia, realising it's safer, quicker and way more healthier than aggressively riding along those money wasting cycle lanes.

Carl Johns ● 1182d

80% of bike counts are on C9 on average. It’s higher at peak traffic times and falls when the traffic is lower.  People clearly seek protection on C9 from motor traffic.

Tom Pike ● 1182d

I don't see the word 'radical' in his papers.What is equally and abundantly clear is his statement that there must be local services. These will not appear magically by anti-car obesessives demanding more restrictions. It takes vision, like in Paris where almost €1billion has been spent by the city, not on building more cycle lanes but in acquiring leases on 62,000 properties and re-letting them at realistic rents to revitalise High Streets and communities meanng that people have access to the local services that building a 15 minute city requires and , as a consequence, reducing the need for car use.Simply bleating as an anti-car obesessive will not open a single local shop or local service. Can you not grasp this concept?

N V Brooks ● 1182d

Who are these anti-car obsessives who are only interested in the car reduction part of Moreno’s vision? Are they the same people supporting all the other town centre changes and amenities that our local reactionary conservatives object to or have you made them up in your head so that you can have something simplistic to rail against?

Paul Campbell ● 1182d

Look in the mirror chap.For which other deliverables are you actively campaigning?These are the deliverables that are the enablers for localisation.Your posts are models of negativity and obsess as anti-car.

N V Brooks ● 1182d

I’m a driver. I really like cars. And I support higher taxation in general  to support funding of local services, health and amenities and sustainable energy and transport initiatives. Specifically I also support  massive increases in fuel duty, CPZ permit costs, clean air zone charges, congestion zone charges and road pricing to recognise the true costs of externalities of private car use and use those funds to subsidise more sustainable transport alternatives including trains and trams. Plus free cycle hangars for example. Obstinate polluters should pay heavily for their choices and the damage they cause. I also support planting cherry trees and local initiatives that attract people to Chiswick to support local businesses. I also spend a lot of money in Chiswick at local businesses. You on the other hand contribute absolutely nothing to our area. Your posts are entirely fixated on your increasingly vain efforts to protect the supremacy of the car in a Borough in which you do not live and where you contribute nothing whatsoever to local services. You sit in Ealing on your computer lobbing insults at people who are active in improving Hounslow. The only fixated obsessive here is you Nigel with your determination to oversimplify  and demonise anybody who dares suggest we need to restrict and reduce private car use for the benefit of our area. Goodness know why you have this compulsion to do it because nobody is listening to you and you have no impact. Why don’t you get a more productive and healthy hobby?

Paul Campbell ● 1182d

Reality is we all have to live as one society and for many car is the only option, we all pay to live in or around chiswick and as residents we should be able to use our local roads. There is absolutely no justification for LTN’s in their current form. As for 15 mins city complete rubbish, most people will use their local facilities and if they aren’t any then off they go. Finding a job within 15 mins walk from home that is laughable 😂😂😂😂

Jayne Thorburn ● 1182d

QED, another totally car obsessed post. I actually spend a fair bit in LBH as well as Ealing and Hillingdon  I would soend more but I like, where possible, to shop local. Keep throwing the brickbats and insults, water offa duck's back, they only served undermine your position.

N V Brooks ● 1182d

Reality is we all have to live as one society and for many bike is the only option, we all pay to live in or around chiswick and as residents we should be able to use our local roads.

John Hall ● 1182d

Absolutely but not at the expense of others, one society, we all fund roads so residents should be able to use their local roads. The current schemes throughout the city are penalising local residents who fund the roads. Time for a new mayor and new creative thinking

Jayne Thorburn ● 1182d

Actually the historical schemes that prioritised cars at the expense of everybody else penalised local residents who fund the roads. Now we are correcting the wrongs of the past. Just as has been done anyway for decades with all the LTNs that most local antis unwittingly live in, including you I suspect ....

Paul Campbell ● 1182d

Which roads is it that bikes can't use? Not only roads, but parks and tow paths etc.  I don't think any cyclist can feel hard done by in this day and age.

Maggie Dodge ● 1182d

Yes, you have completely misunderstood, unsurprising given the  balderdash often posted on social media.15 minute cities have nothing at all to do with restrictions on movement. Nothing.You are lucky enough to have those things within 15 minutes. This depends on your personal mobility, what you like to do, what you need from services, and of course where you live. Not everyone is as lucky as you. Many places (including parts of Hounslow) are not so lucky. That's the point of promoting a 15 minute city

Guy Lambert ● 1182d

The light phasing approach is proving very promising indeed, second only to the narrowing of Chiswick High Road for bike lanes and bus stops. Onwards to 24/7 gridlock my friends!

Davey Harris ● 1182d

Except the bus times have not increased and the High Road is now carrying  significantly less through motor traffic and more cycle traffic.This outcome is actually what some of the original critics of C9 claimed they wanted but predicted it could not deliver.

Tom Pike ● 1181d

I would ask for stats on this Tom, but they just make me laugh. Buses are definitely incurring dificulties without the bus lane? We have your word for this.. Why if motor traffic is significantly less are people still discussing how bad it is alongside C9

Maggie Dodge ● 1180d

Maggie, you’re right it’s just like climate change. No amount of data will convince you and there’ll always be some deniers you can rely on to bolster your opinion.

Tom Pike ● 1180d

Do you really believe the climate isn't changing Maggie?I believe it is and that it's a result of what humans have been doing for decades, perhaps even centuries, but the most recent decades have accelerated the rate of change.Not the end of the world, but certainly the end of some countries that will be swamped by rising water levels, and the end of some areas of the world in terms of their inhabitability.

Andrew Jones ● 1179d

And our local Onesies wonder why nobody listens to them .....

Paul Campbell ● 1178d