Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Emergency Services told Hounslow Council not to Proceed with Road Schemes | |
Posted by: | Paul Green | |
Date/Time: | 12/11/20 12:48:00 |
Michael, when such a narrowly focused lobby groups as yours has the ear of decision makers and deliver schemes that only suit that group to the exclusion of all others, then there is a problem There are plenty of cyclists who have come on here to express frustrations with the current scheme and displaced traffic. The new High Road layout will reduce tarffic to a crawl. It also cements the division of W4 into half, making it very hard for residents and associated trade traffic to move north to south. That reflects the fact that TFL literally do not give a sh*T about Chiswick. As with the A4, its a place to be ploughed through, with lip service to local consultation or usability. THere is no meanigful way to access CS9 from the north or south. This really is not a surprise as it is designed as long distance highway, not a plan to address local travel patterns. It is only of any use if you want to cycle from near Waitrose to Hammersmith. But its actually negative if you want to cycle anywhere else, and a disaster for all vehicular traffic, buses, trade and emergency vehicles included. You talk about the pollution measures, yet even before the construction of CS9 you said pollution was down. So what problem is being solved? You highlight that pollution has fallen on DR, a quite road with little traffic. But completely ignore the impact of displaced traffic onto already busy and congested roads. Where by your logic they MUST have seen more pollution. The Times today was talking about school streets and the very localised impact of some of the finest particles. So these schemes you support are knowingly subjecting the residents, pedestrians and cyclists on both congested streets to more and the most harmful pollution. You talk of people rejecting all schemes, when many do not. But you refuse to engage or acknowledge a single change to ANY of the schemes. You accuse others of having no practical solutions, then when reasonable ones are presented you shoot them down. Quite who appointed you as arbiter for W4 I have no idea. It is certainly not by any democratic mandate. The emergency vehicle is just the latest and indeed very serious example. Given that you and your group are clearly closely involved in the design and lobbying for these schemes then it is only reasonable you should be asked to address the problems they cause. |