Forum Topic

Tfl proposals for Hogarth Roundabout

TfL is holding  in-person drop-in sessions at Hogarth’s House, Hogarth Lane, Great West Road W4:- 9.30am-12.30pm, Saturday 10th August- 4pm-7pm, Tuesday 20th August,following local  intervention they have added two more3pm-7pm, Thursday 29th August- 3pm-7pm, Monday 2nd SeptemberPlease do attend one of them if you can.Your views are important and valuedThanks John

John Richard Todd ● 79d179 Comments

“ Criticism of the scheme came from all quarters including Hounslow Council’s own transport team. Most of the negative comments related to the closure of Church Street, which was regarded as unnecessary, and the very sharp turn proposed to enter Church Street via Burlington Lane in front of George & Devonshire pub was roundly criticised on safety grounds. There was also scepticism about the safety arguments being made by TfL for the scheme which it was claimed did not support the changes being proposed.”

Steve Taylor ● 18d

I guess you have been eagerly devouring your copy of today's Daily Telegraph and that explains why you seem to be foaming at the keyboard. WAFI sums you up perfectly. You should have worn your helmet.

Richard Greenhough ● 23d

You don’t read it, you share all the characteristics of a typical Telegraph reader and yet you feel a compulsion to write boring lengthy defences of it on a forum. Sure you don’t read it! WAFI!

Paul Campbell ● 23d

Humpty, you don't seem to be able to grasp that "tabloid" is a description of paper size. If you want to read right-wing tabloid content I suggest you try the Daily Express. I haven't read the Daily Telegraph in ages, although it sounds like you do, if you have such a detailed knowledge of its content. Certainly "swivel-eyed bigoted readership" could be applied to you. Or are you just assuming the content based on your prejudices ?

Richard Greenhough ● 23d

Precisely. It uses the size of its pages to masquerade as a broadsheet while pouring extremist right wing tabloid content and propaganda into the gaping drooling gobs of its swivel-eyed bigoted readership. Do you read it? It's so hard to tell ...

Paul Campbell ● 23d

"A tabloid is a newspaper with a compact page size smaller than broadsheet. There is no standard size for this newspaper format."Do try and get your facts right, Humpty. Last time I looked the Daily Telegraph was still a broadsheet, whatever you think of it. I assume you must be a regular reader to have your apparent knowledge of its contents ? Or are you just displaying your usual ignorance by shouting off about something you don't actually know about ? Actually much of your comment sounds more like the Guardian - "Masquerading as a broadsheet for people who....consider themselves "intellectual"."

Richard Greenhough ● 23d

Yes. The Telgraph used to be a broadsheet. Now it is a tabloid for people with an extreme right wing disposition who lack the cognitive ability to perform critical thinking. Masquerading as a broadsheet for people who are in denial about the above and consider themselves "intellectual".

Paul Campbell ● 23d

"It's a disinformation tabloid.."Do you know what a tabloid is, Humpty ? Or is this yet another example of a word meaning just what you want it to mean ?

Richard Greenhough ● 23d

Thanks for the comprehensive report, Sam. It sums up very nicely the arrogance and incompetence of some TfL employees.

Steve Taylor ● 24d

That's the spirit Sam.And they are quite right about the Telegraph. It's a disinformation tabloid for swivel-eyed Reform voters now. Wy should anybody read anything printed in it?

Paul Campbell ● 24d

I agree Michael. Private cars have ballooned in size, weight and quite unnecessary gadgets.Keeping all the advances in safety, there has to be a radical rethink of design and function.

Adrian Irving ● 24d

Adrian - Thank you for your balanced summary of the Hogarth Roundabout section of last night's well attended Chiswick Area Forum.The Lead TfL representative started well basically saying "I come to bury Caesar not to praise him". Unfortunately he quickly reverting to arrogant apparatchik mode. He knows that he and his scheme are "fire-proof" and that he can safely ignore anything that local residents (with or without pitch forks) say. By attending the Area Forum he and his colleague can tick a box and say that they have fully consulted local residents blah blah blah. Cllr Todd read what the Hounslow Council Head of Traffic had  said on the record about the scheme. It was pretty damning. But the TfL representative said that "we get this all the time from local council officers" and making in quite clear that as far as he was concerned it was water off a Duck's back.He refused to comment on TfL's public statement of apology for the duff traffic incident data that they had originally published in support of the scheme. He claimed that the incident data that he quoted in the meeting was accurate. But how do we know. There was no written report for us to peruse. He also refused to comment on the additional errors that were highlighted in an article in the Daily Telegraph. He smugly said that he made a point of never reading reports in the Daily Telegraph. Quite stunningly stupid - effectively saying I will not look at any evidence that might undermine my opinion/view.  He did admit that the data they had used was a bit flaky (I forget the exact adjective) because the incident reports often failed to mention where on the roundabout a collision had occurred. This is surely at the heart of any decision on what needs modifying? However he said that many hours of traffic behaviour had been filmed and reviewed and that this supported their proposal to add an additional lane to the exit onto the A316. But we only have his verbal assurance on this. When confronted with the dangerous nature of the proposed 180 degree turn at the beginning of the A316 neither TfL representative had anything to say in its defence other than they are looking at it. To most people in the room it was clear that this new turning (and the shutting of of Church Street) would create additional serious traffic incidents/collisions.I am hopeful that TfL will produce a revised version of the scheme but know from past experience that any further public consultation will only be on those aspects that have been changed and not on the scheme as a whole. To me as a lay person any change to a roundabout layout can have implications for how all the other parts of the roundabout are used. The re-consultation on any revised scheme should logically look at the whole of the proposal. This is a costly scheme. The implementation will cause countless hours of traffic chaos and the scheme really deserves a far more rigorous approach to its design. We are being asked to buy a £5m pig-in-a-poke because a couple of guys from TfL say that it will make the traffic flow more smoothly.

Sam Hearn ● 24d

From a quick bit of googling, the Hogarth flyover opened in 1959 which also is the year the Mini was launched.  A Mini Mk1 kerbside weight appears to have been 585 kg.The current Mini Cooper Electric weight is listed as 1615-1680kg, so almost 3 times heavier.I believe the road wear of a vehicle is proportional to the axle weight to the 4th power so 3x the weight has way more than 3x the impact.I'm sure there will be lots more examples of this 'autobesity'.Tick, tock, tick, tock, it is inevitable it will be closing...

Michael Robinson ● 24d

As to the flyover I don't understand why a camera hasn't been installed to catch over weight vehicles years ago.I have suggested it to TfL only to be told cameras are expensive to insall. What!? They would get their money back ten times over in no time as well as extending the structure's lifespan.Hey ho. Mother knows best.

Adrian Irving ● 24d

Nasty, odious, bitter little 'man'.

N V Brooks ● 24d

Sounds like they are softening up the local car lobby for when that day comes ....No better place to plant a seed in what passes for their collective mind than at a Chiswick Area Forum. Watch out for the pitchforks.

Paul Campbell ● 24d

Hopefully all the proposals will be dropped / thrown out as a total waste of money. Some idiots have just catastrophised a few minor incidents.

Steve Taylor ● 24d

Thanks for the update.Any bets on the year when the flyover will be closed to motor traffic?Just like Hammersmith bridge, it wasn't designed for the volume and weight of traffic going over it now so only a matter of time before it gets closed and I'd say minimal chance of being replaced.

Michael Robinson ● 24d

TfL sent two representatives to the Forum last night.Bullet points;They were impressed by the very high volume of feedback to the drop ins.They were still analysing and taking on board this useful feedback.Lots of work still needs to be done by them before finalising their proposals.They have concerns that creating another lane may adversely affect the structure of the flyover and are awaiting a structural engineers report.They take on board the infamous U bend and are looking at ways to mitigate. (good luck with that!)My take;TfL realise the scheme has serious issues yet to be resolved and it may be that it won't be viable. It may have to be paired back simply to much clearer overhead signage.More to come from them towards the end of this year.

Adrian Irving ● 24d

From my own experience, drivers turning left in front of the pub as they enter A316 from Hogarth roundabout must learn to control the traffic behind them.  They should leave the Hogarth roundabout, initially at the speed of the other traffic around them, keeping their lefthand indicator on throughout (following drivers will think they have left their indicator on by mistake but they must learn it is not a mistake). They must immediately start to slow, not too suddenly, but enough to show the traffic behind them that something very odd is about to happen when they see the car ahead starting to turn left.  The great thing is that as long as their car is not hit from behind they are not responsible for any accident that occurs behind them: actually, even if they ARE hit there are almost no circumstances that I can think of that would make them culpable.I have walked, cycled and driven in this area many, many times over 16 years.  I have never once seen any vehicle turning left onto this road.  I'm going to try and do so in a it myself soon...once I've plucked up the courage.  I forsee accidents galore waiting to happen! It will slow the traffic down but at the slow speeds estimated by ???, injuries, especially to younger drivers, are unlikely to be too serious.  Hey ho.

James Petri ● 35d

I forgot to mention it before but a number of people wondered why a bench is proposed slap bang next to the roundabout.Good question. The answer.According to the bloke from TfL old people complain there are not enough places to sit so that is most thoughtful of them to provide the facility isn't it.After all old people won't be bothered by traffic noise, lungs full of exhaust fumes and brake dust because they are already one foot in the grave and probably won't notice.Obviously.

Adrian Irving ● 35d

Oppose it. It’s unnecessary and a total waste of money. The very few accidents, probably only involving inexperienced L plated motorcyclists, do not justify the expense.

Steve Taylor ● 38d

The consultation ends at 11.59pm Thursdayhaveyoursay@tfl.gov.uk

Chris Lucy ● 38d

Poor old Mickey Boy, he's even running out of original thought for sarcasm. One would have hoped that someone retained to promote cycling in LBH would have rather more intellectual rigour .

N V Brooks ● 69d

“ A couple of hours counting cars at the evening and morning rush hour must be sheer pleasure!”A lot more exiting than your hobby of counting bicycles on C9 which amounts to staring at an unused cycle track and fast tracking to dementia.

Steve Taylor ● 69d

I’ve told you already Jeremy I have no interest in the scheme.I can however, spot bluster, waffle and ignorance so sarcasm is entirely apt. You get ridiculed because you are ridiculous.I’ve no interest in “conservative” or “10%” but I’m sure the TfL engineers will be rapt with attention as you demonstrated the depth of your insight. Come on Jeremy, chiswickw4 is too small a stage, you need to offer your services as a consultant to the Old Chiswick Preservation Society. I’m sure they will be happy to pay your professional rates.  There are 3 more drop-in sessions. You’ll be going to all of them won’t you Jeremy. Or will it only take one to explain your calculations.  Don’t forget to bring the cigarette packet!

Michael Robinson ● 69d

By their nature hypotheticals will involve made up numbers and of course this is all very back of a cigarette packet.However, there will be a junction capacity boost for westbound A4 traffic due to A316 bound traffic being confined to a new dedicated lane which will reduce lane ambiguity. You may legitimately claim that this is a side benefit of measures primarily designed to improve safety but you simply can't deny that it wouldn't happen. I tried to be as conservative as possible in the increase in junction capacity that it would provide but 10% is probably too low. Whatever the actual number, the rest is driven by maths and the outcomes are predictable whether you are a traffic engineer or not. If you had an explanation as to why the extra lane will not increase junction capacity I'd be fascinated to hear it but otherwise your misplaced sarcasm looks like another case of you switching to ad hominem when you can't provide an argument to support your point of view.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 69d

I went to today's session. It was very good. The TfL staff were brilliant in listening to the concerns of local people. Overall there is support for the scheme and the main issue is, as expected, people not liking Church St being closed because it affects their habitual driving route.Michael was right about the software being used to model the turn off Burlington Lane and TfL is super-confident that it is absolutely fine and drivers will be able to do it very easily in one movement. They are also confident about the turn back north on Burlington Lane and noted the confusion with people not quite understanding the provision of a dedicated right turn lane.I suggested clustering lots of cycle hoops on the south side of the roundabout so that Chiswick Cycling Club and other cyclists have more space to park their bikes when they come back from their long rides in the Surrey Hills to enjoy a drink at the G&D. They loved that idea.

Paul Campbell ● 70d

I have just attended.First thing to say is well done to TfL for holding the event.There are some important factors that can only be fully understood by people that live locally and or have first hand knowledge from using the roundabout extensively.I and others did our best to explain the issues to the folk from TfL which I sincerely hope they take on board.Here's hoping.

Adrian Irving ● 70d

Jeremy, I am afraid your traffic engineering expertise is totally wasted on chiswickw4 as all the amateurs on the forum, including myself, have simply no chance of understanding the depth of insight you bring to the subject.These days, the methods used by so many professions can be impenetrable and incomprehensible to mere lay people so I am sure the TfL engineers will really enjoy discussions with you as a fellow expert when you attend the drop-in sessions.I hope you are looking forward to in depth discussions with them about your calculations as you can combine it with doing your own traffic surveys at Hogarth Roundabout.  A couple of hours counting cars at the evening and morning rush hour must be sheer pleasure!

Michael Robinson ● 70d

So you are resorting to just making up numbers now. This is pretty embarrassing.

Paul Campbell ● 70d

I'm going to have to concede that you are right and the statement that these designs would significantly boost junction capacity isn't strictly correct.Any improvement to flow is going to be quite marginal possibly even as little as 10% However that doesn't mean the impact is insignificant. Let's just assume that current junction capacity westbound is 200 vehicles per green light phase. These changes would mean that 20 fewer cars per phase would remain stuck in queues back to Earls Court when capacity was reached. If the number of vehicles arriving at the junction per phase at peak rush hour was 260, this would cut tailbacks by a third and if it was 220 it would eradicate them altogether. Given the way traffic light phasing is altered to smooth the flow of the A4 this would just have benefits in the immediate vicinity but across west London.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 70d

“Significantly boosting junction capacity”. 😂You’re really having to reach now. These desperate attempts to deny that your conspiracy theory is stupid are actually more effective at proving you are wrong than you just admitting it. The vast majority of the flow through the junction is east to west through three lanes on the A4 that remain three lanes with these changes. Please do keep trying to deny it.

Paul Campbell ● 70d

Once again, I think you have failed to grasp the point.At the moment there are three lanes with ambiguity on the two to the left as to whether individual vehicles are going to the A4 or A316. This, as you should have observed from your countless times driving across the roundabout tends to create lane confusion which significantly slows the flow of traffic and reduces the number of vehicles that gets through on the green phase at the lights before the roundabout entering on A4 westbound.Under the proposal these lanes will see no lane ambiguity and vehicles will move through much more smoothly significantly boosting junction capacity.The one fly in the ointment is the decision to make two of the southbound lanes on the east of the roundabout signed for the A316 with the old Church Street lane switched over. It seems odd to have two lanes at this point when the funnel into the A316 has been restricted and there is a potential for problems here particularly when larger vehicles are manoeuvring into the road in front of the George & Devonshire. This may reduce the benefits of the extra lane westbound but not to the extent that it won't help reduce tailbacks on the westbound carriageway.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 70d

Don’t be silly I’ve driven the roundabout countless times! Finally you appear to have grasped that the proposal maintains the existing capacity on the A4 and creates a much safer exit to the A316. That was painful but well done for getting there in the end even it took you days. You’ve come a long way from your initial claims about this proposal and I consider it a job well done on my part to spare you from humiliation when you go to a drop-in session and to put a stop to your determined spreading of disinformation on social media.

Paul Campbell ● 71d

While my general intellectual ability is something I'll leave others to judge, I do have specialist knowledge of Hogarth Roundabout having used it hundreds of times. You don't seem to have fully grasped some of the points I am making, which I won't put down to stupidity, but a lack of familiarity with the road layout, as you have, quite laudably avoided driving in favour of a pedal cycle.When I spoke about three lanes being available to westbound traffic, they would not be in the proposed 'tin of paint' solution in which the existing left lane westbound on the A4 was designated A316 only. This solution would reduce the dangerous lane shuffling to deal with the safety concerns  but it would mean that one lane wouldn't be used by westbound traffic crossing the roundabout and continuing straight. TfL seem to have ruled this cheap and simple solution out because they believed it would reduce capacity at the roundabout and gone for the extra lane which means there would be three lanes for westbound or right turning traffic.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 71d

From some interactions with locals I think that the description of this as a u-turn, while not entirely wrong, has been misleading. Once people see that there is a dedicated right turn lane and  keep clear boxes they are being a little less hysterical with their feedback.

Paul Campbell ● 71d

Also they rely on warning bleepers when reversing, you are also supposedto be looking, I wouldn't rely on them or a camera for reversing, Always look.

Janice Evans ● 71d

No I don't. I'm right. There are currently three lanes for going straight on and right and there are three lanes proposed for the same in the design. They are maintaining the same capacity on the A4 while repurposing other existing road space to create a short dedicated lane to the A316 in order to reduce the collisions on the roundabout. It is laughable that you consider that to constitute a significant increase in capacity on the three lane A4. Just plain thick actually and it gets more stupid the more you try to argue it. It is a road safety scheme no matter how much effort you put into spreading your stupid conspiracies. Why don't you go to the drop-in sessions and try to convince TfL that you are right that they are deliberately misleading the public? Please let me know when you are going to do it so I can come and watch.

Paul Campbell ● 71d

You need to have a look at the designs again.At the moment there is ambiguity about which lane you should be in. Some drivers going straight on westbound stay in the left lane, some intending to turn into the A316 are in the middle lane (often having enter the roundabout from the north or looping around to get to Grove Park avoiding the restrictions). This confused flow causes collisions although, given the speeds at which people are travelling, they tend to not involve serious injury.A tin of paint could be used to change the road markings and  discourage people going straight on westbound from using the left lane of the A4 or people using the middle lane if they are heading from the A316. This would reduce collision risk but it would effectively reduce the westbound flow to two lanes and maybe down to one if traffic turning right backs on to the third lane.That is probably why TfL felt the need to introduce the fourth lane. This guarantees at least two and normally three lanes westbound which should improve traffic flow significantly.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 71d

"three lanes all moving directly forward or right which will remove a partial pinch point at this junction."There are three lanes now moving directly forward or right. Classic Onesie thinking. It was a valiant attempt to support your stupid conspiracy theory but back to the drawing board.

Paul Campbell ● 72d

When I see TV coverage of racist rioter thugs on the streets, I think of Nigel as as bargain basement, cut price, cosplay chiswickw4 version of them.  Not very clever, hanging around looking for people to attack with racist abuse.

Michael Robinson ● 72d

Although improved public transport could make a significant difference, the time scales for introduction, given that nothing material in this part of London has been approved, could be at least a decade. There are already ongoing issues on the A4 with consistent tailbacks to Earls Court westbound and Junction 1 of the M4 (Chiswick Roundabout) eastbound. When these become particularly acute, the timings on lights at the junction with the A316 seem to be adjusted leading to tailbacks down past Edensor Road. We seem to be getting some respite at the moment due to the summer holidays but this was noticeably bad during June.Clarifying the lane to use to turn into the A316 westbound on the A4 will improve throughput at this junction and reduce the risk of collisions. However, this could also have been achieved with a tin of paint to remove indications that drivers should use the left lane when approaching the roundabout from the east with the intention of staying on the A4.The fourth lane will provide a further boost to capacity with three lanes all moving directly forward or right which will remove a partial pinch point at this junction. This should help reduce queues tailing back into central London.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 72d

Mickey M'Boy (XL Bully and Stalker Extreme). Glad to see you working hard doing the good works of the LCC. Oh no, my mistake, you were simply being an offensive fool as usual. Where's the 'pocket pillock' today?

N V Brooks ● 72d

Nigel the racist is beyond ridicule.There appears to be little else in his sad life than hanging around this forum like a creepy stalker, just waiting to unload his hate.

Michael Robinson ● 72d

I believe that routine ridiculing only applies to that famous double act foot in mouth or foot and mouth AKA Captain Skidmark and Mickey M'Boy.  The overwhelming majority of other posters make considered points worth considering.

N V Brooks ● 72d

I'll be sure to read any reports of what TfL said in the sessions.It's funny that some people think that being ridiculed is a sign that they are correct, while not considering that being ridiculed is a sign that they are being ridiculous.

Michael Robinson ● 72d

Yes thank you Jeremy, I think most regular posters are aware of that characteristic.I believe you are being too pessimistic on future demand patterns. Heathrow's growth has to be restricted and, while you are right about the population density increase, there are other trends that may off set this. I'd be very hopeful that confirmation of the Piccadilly line signalling upgrade is announced soon and there are other public transport improvements in the pipeline that will provide alternatives to motor transport. You yourself have pointed to this possibility on this forum if I recall correctly.As to whether I will get to the public events, I work so can't make the weekday events so this Saturday is my only option. I'll relay back what I am told and, in the event I don't make it, I know like minded people who will ask similar questions to me and I'll post any informative responses received.

Mark Evans ● 72d

Superb! The Jeremy Parkinson stamp of approval for uninformed speculation.  When Jeremy says something is 'inevitable' that is a pretty well cast iron guarantee that it won't happen. Can both Jeremy or Mark say if they will be going to one of the umpteen consultation sessions so they can ask TfL people about the scheme rather than speculate?I look forward to you both posting what TfL people said in response to your questions.Or will Mark say that he won't be going because it has been so poorly advertised?I won't be going as I have no real interest in the scheme.  But mocking and taking the p!ss of some of the flights of fantasy posted on this forum provides some amusement.

Michael Robinson ● 72d

Nope this is a road safety scheme not a capacity expansion scheme. It would be a pretty pathetic attempt to increase road capacity on the A4. It is true that conspiracy theorists tend to be really thick.

Paul Campbell ● 72d

Mark, I hope you have worked out that an immediate and hostile response from Michael is a sure indication that you have made a good point. Some sort of judicial challenge to this scheme does seem inevitable should it survive the consultation stage.While I do acknowledge your point about induced demand, what TfL seem to be attempting to do is anticipate further increases that would be inevitable if there was no change. The amount of residential development along the A4 corridor is massive and, even without a third runway, passenger numbers at Heathrow may be far from their peak.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 72d

Yes - it was aimed at you Mark.  Speculating about a judicial and review and the grounds for a judicial review is truly the high water mark of the uninformed speculation there has been on this thread.You should see this as a complement as it takes a rare talent to be this creative speculating on the basis of no actual information.

Michael Robinson ● 72d

I'm not sure if that comment was aimed at me Michael, but if it was, do you really need to be so obnoxious?My intention was to explain why TfL may have felt a relatively small additional expenditure was justified.There is every reason to opposed any road widening scheme for which a robust case is not being made and TfL has not done this so far. Providing more space for cars doesn't not make roads safer and it is unbelievable naive of you to take at face value TfL's claim that this project is not about increasing road capacity. Your faith in it is more speculative and uninformed than anyone expressing concerns about it.Widening roads will attract more traffic, as you often remind us but seem to have conveniently forgot in this instance. In addition it will increase traffic through some of the most attractive parts of Chiswick to the extent that they are blighted. As these are roads we will all often walk along the harm is not just to the multi-millionaires who live there. If they are able to use their wealth and in inequities of our legal system to put a stop to this, I for one am not going to complain.

Mark Evans ● 72d

Thanks Paul. I agree that slow moving traffic = reduced danger. There is still danger. A U-turn is inherently more dangerous than continuing straight on.

Jim Currie ● 73d

This would have been a far more sensible place to start the discussion on the changes from than the OCPS publication and the report on the front page. The viability of the turn is the crucial point and it will be interesting to see what TfL say about how they are creating the space for the four lanes. They have obviously thought about it because they are changing the layout of the junction and removing a parking space which suggest to me they have analysed the turn. I disagree with your contention that the road is more congested because of the LTN as we know there are fewer vehicles using the A316 northbound than prior to the LTN. But if it is then congestion = slow-moving traffic and reduced danger for the turn you mention. Annoying and more inconvenient yes. Dangerous? Convince me.Very sensible to use the consultation to register your concerns and solicit feedback.

Paul Campbell ● 73d

I should have added to my previous message that I have replied to the TfL consultation process on these lines and I will be attending one of the sessions at Hogarth House to get their views on my comments.

Jim Currie ● 73d

I want to respond to many of the views which have been expressed on this thread. I live close to Hogarth Roundabout but not in the Church Street/Chiswick Mall area. I am a regular vehicle user of the roundabout. I abhor irresponsible drivers. I abhor irresponsible cyclists. I abhor irresponsible pedestrians.The thread started with John Todd advising about the drop-in sessions for the proposals. Two sessions had been arranged by TfL on 10th and 20th August right in the middle of school holidays. Two further dates were arranged "following local intervention". It appears reasonable to me to add more dates during the holiday period. Yes, there will be added costs but surely they are acceptable. I do not regard the number of sessions as "umpteen".The addition of a new inside lane on the A4 approaching the roundabout is in itself not a major issue. However, from the point where the petrol station used to be on the left just before Church Street, there is very little (insufficient even?) room to provide that fourth lane with the pavement being so close.The stretch of road on the roundabout immediately next to the steps down to the pedestrian underpass by the George & Devonshire is currently three lanes. I will have to be convinced that there is a safe way to convert that from three to four lanes.The closure of Church Street will cause problems, not just for residents/businesses down there. The solution that all vehicles requiring access, including delivery vehicles and funeral vehicles (often stretch limos)  make a hairpin turn by Chiswick Square, is on the verge of laughable. Many of the vehicles will only be able to negotiate that turn by means of a three point turn. That means they will be reversing into the oncoming traffic coming into Burlington Lane. Safe? Convince me.With regard to the beer delivery lorry for the pub, which is normally a huge vehicle, they will not bother with the hairpin turn. They will just drive level with Chiswick Square then reverse back down Burlington Lane against oncoming traffic to the front of the pub. Safe? Convince me.Vehicles exiting Church Street will be directed to go up Burlington Lane past the end of the flyover then do a U-turn against oncoming traffic to get back to the roundabout. That stretch of Burlington Lane to the Hogarth Roundabout is congested most of the day due to the LTN arrangements for Staveley and Hartington Roads. Safe? Convince me.I applaud any measures which increase safety for road users. However, the proposals to (a) squeeze four lanes into the same space that currently needs three lanes; (b) require vehicles, many of them large, to negotiate a very tight hairpin bend; and (c) direct traffic to U-turn against busy on-coming traffic, will worsen road safety.

Jim Currie ● 73d

Your inability to make an argument without using insults does not strengthen your case. It remains a fact that the Councillor, hard-working or not, is not infallible and has demanded that more taxpayers’ money and the time of public servants is spent on extra consultation and that I am well within my rights to politely challenge him. And I will continue to do so with total disregard for how much that irks you. In fact I think I’ll submit a FOI to see for myself the arguments that Councillor Todd has made to TfL to justify his demands. Thanks for the encouragement.

Paul Campbell ● 73d

You wouldn't know "perfectly reasonable" if it sat on your large egg-shaped head, Humpty. All I ask is that you justify your claims of proportionality of spending of taxpayer's funds with some idea of how much those funds are likely to be. You quite clearly have no idea, so your case fails.

Richard Greenhough ● 73d

I only insult idiots as well you know (or should do by now).What a wonderful ambassador you are (NOT) for the LCC.

N V Brooks ● 73d

Oh, Captain Skidmark, unsurprisingly out there as part of the Foot and Mouth (or should that be Foot in Mouth but equally bloody useless) double act. My concern for cyclists seems somewhat higher than your own. I asked if there was scope to enhance safety for cyclists as part of the scheme. You can't answer as all you can do is act like an infant with insults that my grandchildren would find embarrassing - pathetic.  Mickey-boy won't answer, further undermining his borough-wide 'cycling ambassador' role with the LCC. useless and pathetic.

N V Brooks ● 73d

Nurse! NV Brooks needs some help...(obviously not a nurse who is Irish or an ethnic minority as that would just set him off again...)

Michael Robinson ● 73d

Wow! Speculation not only about a Judicial Review but about the grounds of a Judicial Review - consultations that are so poorly publicised that they have generated a thread of 113 posts (and counting...) on this forum.  Every time I think that this thread has 'jumped the shark' with uninformed speculation, along comes another poster and proves me wrong...

Michael Robinson ● 73d

No I would like Councillors to be more responsible when dealing with hysterical reactions of a small number of residents to schemes and consider the proportionality of their demands for taxpayer funds and time of public servants to be spent on consultations. This is perfectly reasonable and your persistent objections to it are starting to look a little unhinged.

Paul Campbell ● 73d

"Your cognitive decline appears to be accelerating quite fast."Pots & kettles, Humpty.

Richard Greenhough ● 73d

"It is a fact that each session costs money and time of TfL staff."You have clearly no idea how much money an additional session might cost, and as I have already said, it is good use of the time of TfL staff to be available to explain their plans to the taxpayers who pay their salaries. You are just using this non-issue that you raised as a means  of taking a pot-shot at a hard-working councillor. It's people like you what causes unrest. https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/a7bd66b4-26fa-4abc-9b1d-f99f885677ec

Richard Greenhough ● 73d

He is absolutely right that you have the recall of a goldfish.  I have pointed this out to you numerous times too. You are demonstrating it more frequently on this forum. Your cognitive decline appears to be accelerating quite fast.

Paul Campbell ● 73d

No it didn’t. It was a perfectly reasonable comment in response to John Todd. And it remains a valid criticism in the absence of the Councillor justifying his demands for extra sessions. You have taken exception to it for reasons only known to yourself and blown it out of proportion thus drawing unnecessary attention to it. Attention which I doubt John Todd is welcoming. Keep it up. 👍

Paul Campbell ● 73d

I know that it isn't a cycling scheme you odious little man. I merely asked if there was any impact on cyclists something upon which I am sure you would need to be aware of. Don't start on me with the insults m'boy.

N V Brooks ● 73d

"By the way I didn't say it was a big deal."The whole tone of your post of 01/08/24 22:00:00 suggested you thought it was. "The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead increases public awareness of the information."I guess the consequence here is to demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about.

Richard Greenhough ● 73d

It is a fact that each session costs money and time of TfL staff. And it appears to be a fact that John Todd and his dogged defenders have not considered that fact. No expense should be spared by taxpayer in pandering to the demands of a handful of Chiswick Nimbys.

Paul Campbell ● 73d

Humpty, I am not demanding anything. It would be nice if you could justify your complaints against Cllr Todd but you are clearly unable to do so and resort to waffling to pretend you have a case, without bothering to try and bring any facts into play to support it.

Richard Greenhough ● 73d

So you have no idea how much the extra sessions cost, what else the TfL staff could be doing with their time instead, or how many people are likely to attend but you demand they take place?I think you are making my point for me. That is precisely the position I am arguing John Todd has taken and it is helpful that you illustrate it so well.

Paul Campbell ● 73d

Oh I do sincerely hope that more wealthy Chiswick residents let their entitlement rule over their reason and donate generously to more holidays and school fees for lawyers. Distribution of wealth is to be welcomed. And I very much doubt that the two sessions will be what a judge requires to rule in TfL's favour in a JR. Please let it be so. By the way I didn't say it was a big deal. It is Richard who is determined to make it one. This seems to happen whenever people decide to doggedly defend a local Councillor against justified criticism. The Streisand effect.

Paul Campbell ● 73d

So you have no idea about any possible costs, but that does not stop you glibly claiming that there are some and asking for them to be justified. If, for sake of argument, each extra session could be costed in the tens of thousands of pounds, you might have a case; but, if, as seems more likely, the marginal cost of an extra session is minimal, then you are just spouting off for the sake of it. But then, facts never were your strong point, were they ?

Richard Greenhough ● 73d

No sure why you think the additional sessions are such a big issue but TfL probably felt that they should agree to include them because the consultation was taking place during the summer holidays. This wasn't by design as it was meant to take place earlier but was delayed by the election.In the event of a judicial review, which must be a strong possibility given the financial muscle of some of the people impacted by the proposals, it will probably be argued that the consultation was half hearted, poorly publicised and inadequate. Agreeing to extra sessions would undermine this contention and in the context of the potential cost of delays to the scheme due to legal challenges, would seem to be money well spent.

Mark Evans ● 73d

I've maintained from the start that the extra sessions will be justified if they are well attended. I'm glad you finally agree. Although I suspect from your continued protests against my criticism of John Todd's demands that you also agree with my prediction that the sessions will be sparsely attended because you also do actually agree with my analysis that only a tiny fraction of the population of Chiswick is directly affected by the scheme. You would be better off spending your time going out with John to try to drum up some numbers instead of trying to convince me that TfL consultation sessions don't cost anything. Maybe put an advert on OneChiswick's Facebook. They love turning up to shout at and abuse public servants.  As I said I do hope John can do a better job than you of glibly dismissing the need to justify demanding the costs of these extra sessions. It wouldn't become a Conservative Councillor to be so dismissive of considering how taxpayer money is usefully spent.

Paul Campbell ● 73d

I've already told you that it isn't a cycle scheme Nige but you appear to have the recall of a goldfish.You also don't seem to realise that the Evil Cycling Lobby is more than just one person, indeed, we are legion as the saying goes and that means it isn't me who does everything.  I'm happy to follow the recommendation of other members, some who live in the area, that it isn't a cycle scheme and the only point worth mentioning is some suggestions about locations of cycle stands.

Michael Robinson ● 73d

The time of the public servants involved is well utilised meeting affected residents and explaining their proposals to them.As you have been unable to put any sort of figure on the possible extra costs you keep banging on about, it seems fair to assume that you have no facts or numbers and only your personal prejudices are involved. Definitely a sign of scrambled-egg brain. You should have worn your helmet !

Richard Greenhough ● 73d

So you do think the two additional sessions are free and the time of the people involved would not be usefully deployed elsewhere? That's some riposte to the criticism. I suggest that if John does decide to justify his demands for the extra costs incurred that he attempts to exceed the very low bar that you have set for him.

Paul Campbell ● 73d

I shall go to one of the meetings to find out more but from a passing look on foot the other morning I suggest affected residents start practicing their handbrake turns asap.

Adrian Irving ● 73d

So you have no idea what additional costs may be involved, you just like to take pot-shots at a local councillor doing his best to help his constituents. I doubt if any of the people involved will be paid overtime for doing so, the materials will be the same for each session, and unless you know of any per session payment to Hogarth's House then it seems probable that the costs of the extra sessions will be minimal. You should have worn your helmet !

Richard Greenhough ● 73d

Do you think they are free? How about you just think of the cost of the people involved in prepping and hosting the sessions? I criticise when criticism is justified. John is free to comment on how he has considered the additional costs and time of the people to be justified in the context of the impact of this scheme. But I doubt he thought about it for a second.

Paul Campbell ● 73d

Do you have any idea of what costs may be involved in adding extra sessions, or is it just an excuse for you to criticise another of our hard-working councillors ?

Richard Greenhough ● 73d

So, still no opinion on the impact, if any on cyclists. Do any additional safety measures need to be factored in, as example? Disappointing that the borough rep for the LCC has no opinion. Perhaps he should go to one if the meetings.

N V Brooks ● 73d

No. The Councillors have demanded a doubling of sessions without any consideration of the costs and the time of the busy people running them. That will only be justified if there is good attendance at all of them. John Todd, saintly as he is, seems to have got caught up in the OCPS hysteria and ignored the facts.

Paul Campbell ● 73d

Jeremy, thank you for calling out Nige's racism however as usual, you are indulging in far too much uninformed speculation.I really have no opinion on the Hogarth scheme so your assurance that I am 'passionately against them' is immediately 100% wrong.Maybe it will address the safety issues that TfL have raised, maybe it won't.  I haven't reviewed the plans in detail, have no plans to do so and I won't be responding to the consultation.From this detached position, it is somewhat amusing to watch the usual suspects on this forum post layers upon layers of uninformed supposition and speculation, your latest post being another classic example of the genre.

Michael Robinson ● 73d

"..go to one of the drop-in sessions to explain their concerns and hear TfL's justifications"Good job then that the local councillors have arranged for sufficient drop-in sessions to allow anyone potentially affected by the changes to attend and find out more.

Richard Greenhough ● 73d

Yes they can argue that is the case because TfL have said so and have provided the most recent year of collision data as an illustration. The design of the scheme fits with their explanation of a common cause of the collisions. Anybody who wants to argue that we should just continue to accept collisions every year caused by the current two lane set up at the A316 turn on the roundabout so that a handful of people in Chiswick don't have to slightly alter their private car journeys can go to one of the drop-in sessions to explain their concerns and hear TfL's justifications.

Paul Campbell ● 73d

Boggy is a well established and long-standing bully on this forum. Use of a derogatory term is though wrong and I shall try to desist.

N V Brooks ● 73d

I don't object to the scheme. If TfL say it is necessary then I can accept that.What I don't accept is its claim that the primary reason is road safety particularly of motorcyclists who are the most vulnerable road users of the Hogarth Roundabout. The data that we have shows that there was just collision involving a motorcyclist being seriously injured in the most recent year for which data is available and that took place on the north side of the roundabout where the road configuration will remain largely unchanged. There may be more unpublished data which makes the case better and if so TfL should release it. However, in its absence nobody can argue that the justification for this multi-million pound road widening project has been made on safety grounds.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 73d

Everything you write is pure speculation. There is no chance of the South Chiswick LTN restrictions being lifted and this scheme has nothing to do with them.The explanation has already been provided to you many times and explicitly by TfL. It is a road safety scheme and so far nobody has raised a viable objection to it.  Every objection has been deconstructed on this thread and shown to be false. Michael, like me, objects to the usual suspects spreading disinformation and maligning people doing their jobs.

Paul Campbell ● 73d

Please stop Mr Brooks. The way you are expressing yourself is shameful and embarrassing. Whatever Michael may have said to you, there is simply no excuse for using racist language of this nature.Your unpleasantness detracts from what is the most interesting aspect of this discussion. If you'd asked me what Michael's attitude to these plans just after they were revealed, I would have assured you that he would have been passionately against them.While I disagree with him on a lot of things, his consistency and inflexibility have to be respected and he often raises important points for consideration. While he may ignore nuance and complexity in many of the issues we face, he has always had a number of rigid principles that he follows without fail.Normally he will engage in civilised discussion until someone makes a point that he can't answer, at which point the anger will boil over and the name-calling begins. The baffling thing about this issue is that he seems to have gone straight to abuse without any preamble.I'm really intrigued why he is so intensely in favour of a road widening project which seems to go against the foundation of everything he has argued for over the years. It offers zero benefit to cyclists apart from ASLs which even he will admit will never be used. He is generally in favour of blocking roads but as the Church Street exit is by definition local access only even by the loosest definition, this can't be described as an LTN.The only explanation I can think of for his passion for this expansion of road space is that he has been told that part of the reason for it being required is pressure on the northbound carriageway of the A316 created by the access restrictions in Grove Park. He may therefore fear these measures would be removed if the extra lane isn't added to the A4.This is pure speculation on my part and the only evidence I have for it is the passion with an unbending anti-car campaigner is defending a measure which is indisputably pro-car. If someone can give a better explanation, I'd be very grateful.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 73d

Thick as pig excrement? You should feel right at home Boggy m'boy.

N V Brooks ● 75d

I know you are a thick as pig excrement racist Nige but do you know what 'not a cycle scheme' means? The tinfoil hat brigade  may think the only thing TfL does is cycle schemes and LTNs but the truth is that there are lots of non-cycling related schemes and I don't comment on those either.Still, I speak to them while you just howl racist abuse on chiswickw4.

Michael Robinson ● 75d

So, as a representative, a total waste of space. In that you won't be feeding into your members any positives or negatives from this scheme. Why the hell did they select you?

N V Brooks ● 75d

No need for me to attend the meetings Nige.  Don't you know that TfL are under the thumb of the evil cycling lobby and we get our own meetings with them.I could ask them about Hogarth but won't because it isn't a cycling scheme other than some bike parking.However it is good to see the usual suspects on chiswickw4 applying the same level of uninformed speculation and unfounded assumptions to non-cycling schemes as they do to cycling schemes.

Michael Robinson ● 75d

Perhaps then, as the borough representative for the London Cycling Campaign, it would be prudent of you to attend one of the meetings to determine exactly how it will affect your members.

N V Brooks ● 75d

Perhaps instead of pontificating on CW4, Humpty, you could drop into the pub and see if you are correct - and even discuss the proposals with those directly affected. I'm sure that Maxine would welcome your expert advice.

Richard Greenhough ● 75d

I wonder if this could break the record for the most ever assumptions built upon assumptions built upon assumptions built upon assumptions on the chiswickw4 forum.

Michael Robinson ● 75d

"I've assumed Maxine has spoken to her delivery drivers who have told her the turn can't be done."Compelling stuff. That pub is probably ground zero for all the disinformation being spread about this scheme.

Paul Campbell ● 75d

Michael, I didn't look up  "swept path analysis software" because I've assumed Maxine has spoken to her delivery drivers who have told her the turn can't be done.

Mark Evans ● 75d

Of course, Captain Skidmark, bastion of all things (in his sight) good and 'local hero' (also in his sight) wouldn't dream of attending one of the meetings just is case (God forbid) that he could be found to be .......takes courage to type this.......wrong!

N V Brooks ● 75d

As I said before, Humpty, this could potentially impact on more than a small handful of people. But that doesn't agree with your agenda, does it ?

Richard Greenhough ● 75d

I expect Mark will find there is a very short wait to speak to somebody at one of these drop-in sessions as the reality is this boils down to a small handful of people living on three streets being upset at having to slightly alter their car journeys.  As I said before some may even think twice before driving to Chiswick High Road or Turnham Green Terrace.

Paul Campbell ● 75d

Mark, suggest you google "swept path analysis software" - these  are software applications used for planning pretty well all schemes involving vehicles and roads as they allow the scheme designer to understand if vehicles can make turns with a whole variety of 'what if' scenarios for vehicle size, type and speed.I'm not sure what you point is.  Is it:- the plans are final and TfL hasn't done a vehicle swept path analysis - the plans are final, TfL has done a vehicle swept path analysis but are lying about the results- the plans may nor may be final, TfL did a vehicle swept path analysis but you believe they are wrong and you know better- the plans may or may not be final but TfL has done a vehicle swept path analysis and your claim is wrongAs with Jeremy, the answer is simple.  Just go to one of the umpteen drop-in sessions and ask the TfL people about this.Obviously uninformed speculation on an internet forum is a lot less work so I won't be surprised if you really couldn't be  bothered asking people who may know the answer.

Michael Robinson ● 75d

Ah, so now you're one of those armchair traffic experts of which you complain. Why not go to one of the meetings instead of playing keyboard warrior?

N V Brooks ● 75d

??? Looks pretty false to me 

Paul Campbell ● 75d

I've looked at the plans and they show that the paved area under Hogarth Flyover will be built out to narrow the entrance into the A316 into single file. This would have the effect of making the turn for a delivery lorry even tighter and one of them couldn't make that turn in a single move now. You have listed buildings on one side and the subway on the other so there is no space to widen the entrance. It doesn't seem to me that the landlady's claims that she won't be able to get deliveries is 'obviously false'

Mark Evans ● 75d

Captain Skidmark and Boggy, the best double act since Foot and Mouth.

N V Brooks ● 75d

"What is your solution as to how the George & Devonshire will get deliveries when the Thames is in flood?"See this is it - once you strip away the conspiracy theories, the hysteria, the preening victimhood, there is little substance to the arguments against the proposals. Delivery vehicles cannot drive the wrong way along Chiswick Mall to get to the G&D anyway. It is a LTN with a contraflow cycle filter. The flooding argument is a red herring and I don't know who the OCPS is expecting to be stupid enough to fall for it.Why won't delivery vehicles just access the pub via Burlington Lane regardless of when the Thames is in flood? If anybody has reason to believe a delivery vehicle cannot turn in from Burlington Lane then that would be a good thing to raise during the consultation. The OCPS description of this turn suggests they haven't actually looked at the plans or understood them.I don't need to talk to businesses and residents to examine claims that are so obviously false for anybody who can read the proposals and study the plans. And you still you lie - I am not vehemently supportive of the road widening. I am examining the arguments of its opponents and finding them to be vacuous, misleading and untruthful. And I am experiencing from you and others the habitual response of people when their lack of substance is exposed.

Paul Campbell ● 75d

Sorry Jeremy, since when did TfL need to release evidence to counter an uninformed claim by an old man on the chiswickw4 forum?Do you think that TfL staff are monitoring this forum 24x7 looking at what you post? Maybe there is a klaxon alert in TfL HQ when you post something 'Quick, Jeremy Parkinson has posted on chiswickw4, we need to get a press release out NOW!'.Of course, you could always go to one of the umpteen drop-in sessions that have been arranged and ask the TfL people there face to face but I appreciate that doing things in the real world may not be your preference.

Michael Robinson ● 75d

Let's just accept for one minute that the notion that TfL are widening the A4 is to increase its capacity for traffic is a giant conspiracy theory, wouldn't the best way for it to counter it be to release evidence that the road widening was necessary to increase safety at Hogarth Roundabout.I still can't get my head round you being so vehemently supportive of the road widening but if you were opposed to it you would be mercilessly mocking the scant evidence provided to justify it on safety grounds.As for disinformation about the impact, you need to talk to residents and businesses in the area before declaring what I have said to be untrue. What is your solution as to how the George & Devonshire will get deliveries when the Thames is in flood?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 75d

That's more like it, eleven minutes!Didn't read it, but good to see you responding quickly. For one horrible moment I thought that you had got a life.Cue stalking post (standard Gnomic reply # 17).

N V Brooks ● 76d

It's a fact that you are spreading disinformation. You are saying explicitly that TfL is being dishonest and concealing the real reason for the project. That they are using road safety as a smokescreen for some nefarious ploy to expand road capacity. You are literally calling it a conspiracy. You are a conspiracy theoristAnd every time you post you add more untruths: "devastating impact on some businesses"; "meaningful deterioration in quality of life"- because they have to take a slightly different entrance and exit into an area involving three streets.All the hysteria and untruths just illustrate that there is no substance to the argument and you do a disservice to anybody with a genuine concern.It shouldn't surprise you in particular that I am motivated to expose malicious actors spreading disinformation online. It's the only reason for your forum account and I haver treated you exactly the same many times on a variety of topics. This is your MO. I just deal with the facts. And I still have not once advocated for the scheme. And you know that because otherwise you would be delightfully quoting examples of my advocacy.

Paul Campbell ● 76d

Paul, you are one step away from shouting 'Fake News'.If you are correct that the decision wasn't taken on one year of collision data, then don't you find it odd that TfL has chosen not to say that its explanation? It will be interesting to hear what they say at the drop-in sessions but it would be much easier for TfL to make a convincing case by publishing what details it has on safety which encouraged them to make this decision. The new design will have a devastating impact on some businesses and lead to a meaningful deterioration in quality of life for around 100 people in our community. You may lack sympathy for them but you can't disagree that they deserve to hear the full reasoning behind the proposals. In the absence of this, it is not unreasonable to come to the obvious conclusion is that the reason for widening a road is to increase its capacity. It remains bewildering what you have said on here in the past that you seem not only willing to wave this through but have become the most fervent advocate for the scheme, your blatherings about your motivations being singularly unconvincing.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 76d

An egg stuffing a chicken ? Sounds incestuous.

Richard Greenhough ● 76d

Paul have you stuffed the chicken yet... Come on time is rolling on.

PATRICK MULHALL ● 76d

"I have two motivations for my contributions to the forum discussion on this scheme".1. Another opportunity to express your prejudices2. Another opportunity for self-aggrandizementDisappointed by the (lack of) speed of your responses this morning tens of minutes between post and thinly-veiled insult in response.

N V Brooks ● 76d

That post is just full of disinformation. It is your usual false narrative that authorities are deliberately deceiving Chiswick people and dissembling their true motivations. I am sure that the decision was not taken on the basis of one year of collision data and I have absolutely no reason to believe that TfL's motivations are not exactly as they are articulated them - to improve road safety at a dangerous junction. Anybody who doubts that can ask at the drop-in sessions.I don't know what motivates people like you to attack the motives of people every time changes to road space are proposed (visceral aversion to change, paranoia, misplaced sense of superiority)  but it certainly doesn't help create an impression that you have a sound argument against the substance of the scheme. I have two motivations for my contributions to the forum discussion on this scheme:1. I am calling out the glib and self-congratulatory efforts of Councillors to spend more taxpayer and ratepayer money on consultation sessions which I expect to be quite sparsely attended given the reality of the limited direct impact this scheme will have on a small number of people2. I have an aversion to men on this forum like you blithely and cynically spreading disinformation to stoke discontent so I will keep calling it out every time I see it

Paul Campbell ● 76d

I am not ignoring the seriousness of the collisions at Hogarth Roundabout any more than you are ignoring those that have occurred at Cycleway 9.It is very difficult to put the three collisions resulting in serious injury that occurred at the Hogarth Roundabout in context without more information. However, looking at the FoI response to the OCPS request it would appear that the one serious collision to a motorcyclist occurred at the Dorchester Grove junction which is the other side of the roundabout to Church Street. As motorcyclist safety is explicitly given as the main reason for these changes - are you willing to argue that they are making a strong case?I'm not posing as an expert or casting aspersions on the engineers who designed these changes. I have confidence that the designs have been drawn up to the highest standards but their aim is self-evidently to increase capacity at this junction. My criticism is of the way these changes are being justified which is likely to have been a decision taken not by engineers but press and PR people. They have completely failed to make a case for widening the A4 on safety grounds. We have been given vague numbers which are meaningless without further detail. At the very least a report into the collision history of the last five years should have been provided as part of the consultation process. Although you say you are not an advocated of this scheme you seem to be rolling out your usual tactic of vague use of data, juvenile insults and moral condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you. I think it is fair to conclude you are a major fan of what TfL wants to do.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 76d

You are deliberately ignoring the seriousness of the collisions that are taking place at the roundabout. I am not a proponent of the scheme. I am a critic of malevolent men deliberately spreading disinformation to stoke discontent and posing as experts who know more than professional engineers when in reality they know absolutely nothing.

Paul Campbell ● 76d

I have studied the proposals in detail and read the OCPS objections to it. I entirely agree with their suggestion that the reduction in risk at this junction which which this massively expensive proposal seeks to achieve could be realised simply by making it explicit that the westbound left lane is for A316 traffic only and not A316 and A4 as it is currently.That the number of collisions resulting in serious injury at Hogarth Roundabout in a year is fewer than half that took place at one junction of Cycleway 9 and King Street around the same period puts things in context.TfL wants to make these changes because of the need to increase capacity at the junction due to anticipated increase in A4 traffic when it is already struggling to cope. There are massive developments in the pipeline all along this road and Heathrow passenger numbers are predicted to keep on rising. If it was honest in explaining why it is proposing to make these changes I would be willing to listen but justifying an addition of an extra lane on a very weak argument based on safety means that the proposals can't be supported.My head is spinning that you of all people, who so recently had demand induction as one of your constantly repeated catchphrases, could be an enthusiastic proponent of a four lane highway.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 76d

C9 is a fantastic success. I am very proud of the small part I have played to make it happen and to neutralise the people who predicted it would “destroy Chiswick”. Every day I cycle on it and see all the wonderful people using it to travel safely around their area. It’s the best thing to have happened to Chiswick in the 25 years I’ve lived here.

Paul Campbell ● 78d

I care about Chiswick and our community and I am pretty committed to seeing good things happen and neutralising the small group of people who are so intent on trying to stop them and who got too used to having things their own way until Cycleway 9Paul can I thank you sincerely for making me laugh out loud having read above, yes you are a Saint, having saved Chiswick with the C9.I hear you are having it extended to the moon, could you send us a post card when you get there.Thanks again for saving Chiswick.

PATRICK MULHALL ● 78d

Bouncy, bouncy!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWcP1FDawzI

Robert Fish ● 78d

That's the one, still gigging in his 80's

N V Brooks ● 78d

💡 Marty Wilde, father of Kim Wilde?

Adrian Irving ● 78d

Didn't Marty Wilde live around there?

N V Brooks ● 78d

I'm racking my brain to remember the name of the well known singer entertainer who live down that delightful lane running off the top end of Church StHis daughter also became a well known singer.Anyone?I am going to pop along to see what's what and to see inside Hogarth House for free. Win win.

Adrian Irving ● 78d

I think anybody who admits to thinking about me when he is at the pub needs the help.

Paul Campbell ● 78d

Im off down the pubSee you all,love you

Julian Pavey ● 78d

HA 6 Mins and you could not waitYou need help mate

Julian Pavey ● 78d

I'm not in manual work Julian. I receive email notifications and I am usually online. It takes virtually no time to respond to posts, I ignore many but some I choose to respond to because I don't like people lying, being abusive or misleading others by pretending that they know what they are talking about when they really do not. I care about Chiswick and our community and I am pretty committed to seeing good things happen and neutralising the small group of people who are so intent on trying to stop them and who got too used to having things their own way until Cycleway 9 mobilised people like me to get involved.  A group that you are affiliated with. Hence this response.

Paul Campbell ● 78d

Id say PC is fixated with this forum rather than fixated with what one says. If you post you are guaranteed a responce within a short space of time,which can only relate to looking and refreshing ones browser evey 30 mins. Or perhaps does not care a jot which by most peoples standards and seen by the outside world as being the number one forum buffoon.Even his friends deep down most likely in private think what an idiot. HAWe live on graciously i would hope.

Julian Pavey ● 78d

Apologies for duplication. I only clicked on 'submit reply' once!

Robert Fish ● 78d

Regrettably, you're still making things up. My only acquaintance with Paul Campbell is through reading his posts on this forum. He has not persuaded me to claim that he was being ironic. There is no conspiracy - it doesn't take a genius to realise that the comment about which you're so exercised was tongue-in-cheek. He was being, as usual, provocative, and you took the bait, hook, line and sinker!

Robert Fish ● 78d

Regrettably, you're still making things up. My only acquaintance with Paul Campbell is through reading his posts on this forum. He has not persuaded me to claim that he was being ironic. There is no conspiracy - it doesn't take a genius to realise that the comment about which you're so exercised was tongue-in-cheek. He was being, as usual, provocative, and you took the bait, hook, line and sinker!

Robert Fish ● 78d

Oh good, so the good citizens of W4 and beyond (few that they are who read this forum) should expect fewer ageist, disabled shaming velovile posts? Excellent news

N V Brooks ● 78d

"However, the risk at this junction seems to be elevated by indicating that westbound traffic on the A4 can stay in the left lane. The close shaves I have witnessed is when vehicles, usually motorbikes, cross from the middle lane to enter the A316 not expecting anyone in the left lane to be going straight ahead."This is precisely the purpose of the new design. If some people could get over their paranoia and actually study the proposal they might be able to understand that.

Paul Campbell ● 78d

Nigel, I can at least spare the readers of this forum some degree of annoyance by ceasing to entertain your poisonous vitriol and sticking to the topics at hand. You have done far more than I could with your verbal incontinence to prove yourself a liar, a racist and a thoroughly unpleasant character. You carry on responding to me and continuing to prove that you are entirely fixated and I will continue to satisfy myself with progress in reducing the harms of both car supremacy and dogmatic ignorant people.

Paul Campbell ● 78d

I ignore many of your ramblings, believe me. Your anti-car, velovile stance is, to me, an object of ridicule. Sad that you cannot grasp that.  Making things up? Oh the pure hypocricy of that statement from someone in denial about their ageist and disabled shaming posts which they then seek to squirm out of by getting acquaintences to claim that you were being 'ironic'. You keep posting chap and I'll keep laughing.  'A lot of readers', how many do you actually think read topics to which you contribute? It was a small enough number even before your latest pantechnicons of ordure, be grateful that anyone comments at all.

N V Brooks ● 78d

I didn't say you were apologising to me. Unlike you I am capable of following a thread.It is clear to everybody that you are fixated with me. Responding to my every post is not enough for you. You also have to constantly refer to me in your responses to other posters even on threads in which I am not involved. Making up things I have not said and falsely accusing me of things I have not done. Thus derailing and crapping over every discussion on the forum. I am sure it is extremely annoying for a lot of readers.

Paul Campbell ● 78d

My apology was to PATRICK.I would find it most difficult to apolgise to an ageist, disabled-shaming poster.You credit yourself with way too much self-awarded kudos Campbell. Fixated, strong word from a blinkered velovile.

N V Brooks ● 78d

The filter lane on the northbound A316 is a very good suggestion if it was practical. The queues along Burlington Lane continue to be an issue.However, the risk at this junction seems to be elevated by indicating that westbound traffic on the A4 can stay in the left lane. The close shaves I have witnessed is when vehicles, usually motorbikes, cross from the middle lane to enter the A316 not expecting anyone in the left lane to be going straight ahead.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 78d

No I don't. You spent a day failing to find evidence to support your false accusations and you've made a fool of yourself again on this thread by jumping to yet another wrong conclusion. Your problem is you have become fixated on me and unable to see anything clearly through your red mist. You've always been a pigeon crapping all over this forum but you are getting more manic and erratic by the hour now.

Paul Campbell ● 78d

Sadly, he has a track record of disabled shaming and ageism and I  will not sit back and observe without comment.

N V Brooks ● 78d

He did make a mistake with his spelling as it goes. But I don't make such drama's over such silly mistakes 😊

PATRICK MULHALL ● 78d

No worries, my mistake.Do you see Paul, when you make a mistake, you apologise. Sorry.

N V Brooks ● 78d

Sorry Nigel, when I said I was dealing with dementia, I meant as a carer 24/7. 365.But thank you for making your point.I can see large lorries and vans getting stuck if they try and turn into Church Street/ The Mall, in the new proposed road entrance, because you have the subway and the pub there.There is very little room. This will slow the filter lane of the A4 to the A316 ?.

PATRICK MULHALL ● 78d

I see that the Old Chiswick Protection Society has submitted a Freedom of Information request to TfL for information regarding the Hogarth Roundabout scheme.https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1123-2425I was surprised that TfL responded with collision casualty information as this is in the public domain anyway and produced by the police, not TfL, so TfL would have been entitled to respond telling them to look it up for themselves from police data.However not surprised that the request for "any and all" information was knocked back as requiring excessive effort to provide. There is a threshold of person hours to respond to FOI requests and the Old Chiswick Protection Society fishing expedition would easily have exceeded this.

Michael Robinson ● 78d

Never thought that I would see the words Campbell and rational discussion on the same page let alone in the same post. You are the person criticising a dementia sufferer for not turning off his caps lock. SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT THE KIND OF TRULY NASTY 'MAN' THAT YOU ARE!

N V Brooks ● 78d

The stated purpose of an extra westbound lane seems to be to allow more traffic to funnel into the A316 and to remove the danger associated with the two lanes leaving the roundabout converging into one.  But the (extra?) traffic will have merge anyway a bit further on as the westbound A316 is single lane with a series of traffic lights.  And to then block direct access to Church Street to be replaced by a ludicrous doubling back along a service road seems likely to create more dangers. What would be useful would be an extra filter lane so northbound A316 traffic banned from Grove Park can make a left onto the westbound A4 without such an extended wait at the traffic lights.

Peter Evans ● 78d

"It's a shame that we also have the same idiots like Richard and Nigel constantly undermining every attempt at rational discussion about anything on this forum with their puerile personal abuse."Pots and kettles, Humpty.

Richard Greenhough ● 78d

"BUt from what I see church street will still be accessible just slightly weird entrance."Exactly. So it really doesn't have an impact on everybody south of the A4. They will all continue to access from the east as they did before apart from people on Church St and Chiswick Mall (and yeah OK Lamb Brewery) and from the west with an entrance that is in a different position. So again it is a very sall number of housholds that are genuinely directly impact by virtue of having their direct access from the eastbound A4 closed and so having to drive onto the A316 and take that odd-looking left turn. It looks like the same thing is happening as happens every time any change is proposed. Irrational hysterics begin. The reality is nobody will be unable to access their home or business and nobody will have to drive far out of their way to do so.And it's always the same names getting involved in the hysterics too. That's why I criticise demanding the cost of four in-person sessions to  pander to a tiny minority of perpetual and vexatious complainants. We'd be better off investing taxpayer funds in some therapy for them. It's a shame that we also have the same idiots like Richard and Nigel constantly undermining every attempt at rational discussion about anything on this forum with their puerile personal abuse.

Paul Campbell ● 78d

Nik, it makes you wonder whether Humpty Campbell has a proper grasp of the local geography, despite all his cycling around the area.

Richard Greenhough ● 78d

Paul.  It effects a lot more than 20 houses.  It effects every house south of the A4 between the Blacklion pub and the hogarth.  Lamb brewery studios, there's 21 in Millers court alone.  + 8-10 river boats. Mari deli, elderpress cafe, blacklion pub.    + all the deliveries, tradesmen etc.    It's pretty much the only way in from the West without driving an extra mile or 2 around hammersmith.  BUt from what I see church street will still be accessible just slightly weird entrance.

Nik Solomon ● 78d

Great to have a job that allows you to spend most waking moments on local fora.

N V Brooks ● 78d

If the attendance level is so important to you, Humpty, then why don't you go along to each session and count the numbers attending. You seem to have plenty of spare time on your hands.

Richard Greenhough ● 78d

As I said originally the value of the additional sessions is easily assessed so I expect Councilor Todd to be recording and reporting back on the number of attendees at each of the four. Then we can evaluate the additional costs he has demanded.

Paul Campbell ● 78d

A long established principle in transport planning comma imported from the rail industry is that a safety investment should only be made where it showed an element of payback. In that should, as example a £50 million spend be required to reduce fatalities by, say, two, it would not be made. If the potential fatality reduction was, say, 10 then the investment would be sought. Yes, a value was placed 9n lives and I am not sure if this has ever been overwritten

N V Brooks ● 78d

"I consider Councillor's Todd's demands for additional sessions to be disproportionate to the impact of this scheme on residents."Humpty, it is not only residents living in the immediate area who are going to be affected. Anyone driving, cycling or walking past Hogarth Roundabout has a valid interest in seeing what is planned, and Councillor Todd's seeking additional sessions for viewing the plans to give anyone interested the opportunity to do so is to be applauded. You should have worn your helmet !

Richard Greenhough ● 78d

But the absolute number matters! If a junction with very high vehicle throughput is producing multiple collisions and at growing rate then it is prioritised for safety treatment. You don't know or understand the process by which the investment for Hogarth was signed off. You don't even know where this junction ranks on the single metric you have raised. You are just assuming things from a position of ignorance and unwarranted suspicion of the motives of engineers and professionals. Why don't you go to a session and see if you can improve your knowledge of the situation before casting your aspersions?And I haven't said I support the scheme either. As you should know by now I am often motivated by observing the usual suspects on this forum make lofty and over-confident pronouncements on matters of which they have no knowledge.And I consider Councillor's Todd's demands for additional sessions to be disproportionate to the impact of this scheme on residents. They cost money and it is taxpayers and farepayers funding them. As I said it is a tiny number of households that are directly impacted by it and the Councillor could probably gather all of them together in a single session at the church. Having said that the residents of both Church St and Chiswick Mall are definitely going to think a lot harder before jumping in their car for a shirt local journey!

Paul Campbell ● 78d

"So you think that they should accept the current rate of collisions if you determine them to be proportionate to the number of vehicles?"Yes because you would give priority in investment spending to junctions where the proportion was higher and hence reduce injuries and fatalities.This is a plain vanilla expansion in road capacity and I'm really surprised to see you advocating for it.

Mark Evans ● 78d

So you think that they should accept the current rate of collisions if you determine them to be proportionate to the number of vehicles? Maybe it's good that we have professionals instead of armchair pundits making these decisions on behalf of the public.

Paul Campbell ● 78d

TfL might be able to convince people these changes are about road safety if they provided figures that showed the proportion of collisions was high in the context of the number of vehicles passing through the roundabout. In the absence of that, it must be assumed that this is the addition of an extra lane to add capacity at this junction.

Mark Evans ● 78d

Sorry, I am dealing with dementia.I was just trying to make the point if you are dealing with any chronic illness.Thank you again to Cllr John Todd informing us.

PATRICK MULHALL ● 78d

My sympathies Patrick. I have two good friends battling cancer and a good friend's wife with early onset dementia. I can't imagine the struggle and strain if you add the absolute bastard that is MND into that mix.

N V Brooks ● 78d

Oh Paul, you are such a tease to us Leprechauns.What THE cycling lane has cost to Chiswick is an absolute disgrace.I don't know why you are asking me anything any way, because I can't even de cap any way.Paul, listen, I wish you know I'll.Try and see life if you were in Chiswick, dealing with a loved one with, dementia, cancer. MND, it is so heartbreaking difficult.

PATRICK MULHALL ● 78d

This scheme isn’t about cycling. It’s about reducing collisions between motor vehicles on the Hogarth roundabout. Cyclists don’t use it. The point of my comment to John is proportionality of expenditure of taxpayer money on extra consultation sessions for a scheme that really only affects about 20 households in Chiswick. So I’d like him to tell us how many people go to the consultation sessions so we can consider the value for money and the value of our local Councillors with less than two years to the next election to register our assessment of their contribution to Chiswick. Why do you consider that to be an unreasonable request?

Paul Campbell ● 79d

Regards Cllr John Todd.He has helped me pass through an LTN, dealing with dementia. And a few issues along the way.... Paul, life isn't just about cycling.

PATRICK MULHALL ● 79d

Sorry Cllr John Todd, that should have read, thank you for letting Chiswick know.

PATRICK MULHALL ● 79d

I am very upset that you have called me a man, I am not a man I am a leprechaun...Cllr John Todd, again thank you for letting Chiswick.

PATRICK MULHALL ● 79d

Well, that should provoke a response from the Gobshite.

N V Brooks ● 79d

Well I am happy to express my shock that a man who couldn’t figure out how to turn off his caps lock when registering for the forum is a velophobe and an anti-LTNer. Maybe the anti movement has finally found the intellect that will defeat the crazy cyclists.

Paul Campbell ● 79d

I think John has learned the difference between a consultation and a referendum although he did have a big wobble with his understanding of democracy three years ago when he got a bit enthralled by OneChiswick.  Democracy tends to be a contentious issue for the Chiswick Conservatives anyway and generally.Now he can justify the extra expense he has demanded for this consultation process on the Hogarth Round about to his constituents. No doubt he feels it is justified by the dozen emails he has received from residents of Church Street.

Paul Campbell ● 79d

Well at least it won't cost us £12 million, give or take, like a pathetic cycle lane, that most people STILL don't want.And we still don't want these LTNs.Thank you Cllr John Todd for letting us know.Kind regards Patrick.

PATRICK MULHALL ● 79d

John, please do remember that Paul abhors democracy if it fails to deliver a pro-cycling/anti car result. I refer you to the flawed consultation on Swyncombe Avenue, the result of whcich delighted the little velovile.

N V Brooks ● 79d

John, you should let us all know how many people attend all sessions and especially the extra two you have demanded taxpayers fund.

Paul Campbell ● 79d