Forum Topic

Graham Weeks · 12/17/2015 1:23:00 PM

new.EalingToday.co.uk Communtity Forum Topic posting

Longfield Avenue

Why ban left turns from Longfield? http://www.ealingtoday.co.uk/default.asp?section=info&page=ealongfieldave001.htm

Graham Weeks ● 3610d151 Comments

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/longfield-avenue-turning-ban-motorist-12732961

Philippa Bond ● 3157d

The rationale for the changes to this junction is under the "safety" umbrella. There have been 10 slight injury collisions reported at and around this junction since 2012 (stats from crashmap.co.uk) compare this to other areas in Ealing where there have been fatalities & serious injuries recorded and no road layout changes have been made.

Kris Smith ● 3169d

Excellent letter from GRASS in The Gazette ( Gordon Road & Surrounding Streets)Typical of the councils lies & that fool Mahfouz who needs kicking out ASAPCOUNCILS & TFL CAUSE CONGESTIOPN

Peter Yale ● 3170d

Most of the problems with this road are in going north off the Uxbridge road, there is much less traffic trying to go south from this road onto the Uxbridge Road. Therefore make it one way northbound only with no restrictions.

George Marquez ● 3184d

I meant to add that it is particularly ironic that those affected roads that I mentioned are within the "Five Roads Home Zone" that was specifically designed and set up to deter/calm traffic movements.

Philip Coe ● 3184d

One would have thought that after 6 months alternative patterns and routes of the displaced traffic would now have settled down and be easily established. Eitherway I find it difficult to understand why it is acceptable to displace traffic from Longfield Road, predominately non-residential, to "lived-in" roads like Broughton/Hartington Roads?

Philip Coe ● 3185d

it would be interesting to see what data they have collected so far. This is a complete nonsense

S Tura ● 3185d

Is the trial monitoring looking at the affect on surrounding roads and congestion? St Leanords road, Arden Road, Broughton Road and Hartington Road have all become dangerous, congested rat runs. The effects are widespread accross Uxbridge Road.

Owain Dobson ● 3185d

From Ealing Council website todayA trial aimed at improving road safety on Longfield Avenue in Ealing Broadway has been extended by six months, the council has announced.The Longfield Avenue ‘Experimental Turns Ban’ will now be in place until May 2017. The trial is being extended to collect more data on the extent of the impact of the changes, particularly around road safety. Under the rules of the trial it will continue to be a traffic violation to turn left out of, or right into Longfield Avenue at the junction with New Broadway. Extensive signage is on display throughout Longfield Avenue to make road users aware of the ban. There are currently 21 permanent advance warning signs in place, many more than the three required by law. The council has also ensured that three additional temporary signs are retained to further help road users understand the scheme.Income from penalty notices is ring-fenced and used to pay for concessionary travel schemes, such as the Freedom Pass and for other road safety and traffic management projects. Details of the review into the trial will be available in May once it is completed.

Paul Webster ● 3185d

I've posted an air pollution survey which has a few days left to run. Why not put your complaints about the long queues of traffic on that?

Philippa Bond ● 3245d

Does anyone know what the justification was for moving the Pelican crossing from one side of Longfield Ave to the other on the Uxbridge Road was?Where it had been opposite Hungry Yeti it protected those turning left out of Longfield or turning right into it, and now it is next to the cinema site it does not. Is this why the accidents now happen?Why was it moved in 2014?

Andy Hame ● 3246d

No Paul you just have your view and thats all, thankfully most people see the bigger picture and care for all road users, As I said before its people like you that is crucifying our roads

Declan Devine ● 3248d

yeah buses, parking anywhere & everywhere. stopping every 2 minutes, spilling out of laybys. going from one side of the road to another, taking out a lane, allowed a free reign to turn as & where they like.

Peter Yale ● 3248d

What causes congestion is hundreds of thousands of vehicles with one person in them taking up three meters of road space each...

Paul James ● 3248d

we dont need hypothesis, reality is too many buses. Cars need roads as well yet met with ridiculous legislation, as this topic refers, causing futile obstruction, congestion, time wasting & fines. TFL & councils cause congestion

Peter Yale ● 3248d

"I havent missed any point, because it wouldnt be possible"Imagine for one second that everybody who takes the bus drove instead.It's a hypothetical question.What would happen to to available parking spaces and the roads?

Paul James ● 3249d

I havent missed any point, because it wouldnt be possible, not everyone on a bus can or will drive. Buses cause gridlock as I have listed. Too many buses on same routes spilling out of bus laybys, badly positioned stops, taking out a lanePavements are for people, roads are to transport goods, unless you want to somehow load buses with their goods.A hgv carrying valuable commodities is barred from making a simple left or right turn, using certain lanes because a bus takes up room instead

Peter Yale ● 3250d

I'm ignoring you're missing the point about all bus users suddenly starting to use cars to get to work. It would of course result it total and utter gridlock 24/7.Bus lanes (even if they appear empty) carry more people along them than car lanes, and that's the point. Roads are for moving people along, not vehicles.

Paul James ● 3250d

not everyone owns a car, can drive or wants to.Cars would use the majority of trunk roads, but unlike buses they can deviate down smaller roads, quicker routes as commuters all work in different places. That is unless of course some fool council employee = Mahfouz doesnt make obstacles & prevents free movement So buses do & always will congest London & take away a lane where there could & should be 2

Peter Yale ● 3250d

"just that they do add to congestion"No they don't. They relieve congestion.If you can't understand that, try answering my theoretical question.What would happen if we banned buses tomorrow and everybody that used them replicated their journey in a car?Answer that and you'll see that buses don't cause congestion, they relieve it...

Paul James ● 3250d

Another typical Paul response, No one here is saying ban buses, just that they do add to congestion, they do run too often at off peak times, etc, its about working out what is best for every road user,Thing is that a minority are like you and are always outspoken,And by any chance did you see the London News last night highlighted Oxford Street being the most polluted road in the world, Oh yea no cars at all on the road just buses and Taxis, which are all Diesel !!Lets take the cars away and have buses shall we Paul !!!

Declan Devine ● 3250d

I would be happy to ban some buses, there are far to many - not all. I would be ecstatic to get rid of bus lanes & free up roads/lanes.Also stop ridiculous prohibitions towards persecuted motoristsAs I stated bus stops are badly positioned, opposite each other, on the left just before a route has to turn right. So many spilling out of bus laybys from many routes.Tfl, councils cause congestion

Peter Yale ● 3250d

Children used to go to school on an ordinary bus from the age of 5. I can't imagine that happening now. They are driven to school by a parent often on the way to work themselves. Parents like to know that their children have arrived at school.With both parents working each parent can be driving a car. Would it be better if we had school buses like they do in the US? Or safe dedicated bicycle lanes or school walking routes (not bicycle race tracks) for travelling to school?

Philippa Bond ● 3250d

OK, let's ban buses tomorrow. Take them ALL off the road and give everybody a car.What do you think would happen?

Paul James ● 3250d

to many buses,& supported by blinkered council tfl fools.Yes there are a lot of cars, far more convenient, paying premium rates, yet penalised for fear of parking in areas where causing no obstruction whatsoever, Unlike bus stops situated in ludicrous places. Cars prevented from turning in various rds - Longfield.Buses are a nuisance & should stop being pampered by the powers that be

Peter Yale ● 3250d

Bus timetables get messed up by congestion caused by thousands upon thousands of cars on the roads blocking them up.The drivers need to get back home, as do the buses back to the depot, so yes, sometimes they run close together.

Paul James ● 3251d

I had the misfortune to use public transport last night. The 21 century rail network, being London Underground & what a farce.Shuttered gates were half open at Monument Stn, people freely being allowed to enter. No TFL staff insight. So we tapped in with oyster. Once on the platform waiting an employee came along & announced no more trains were running, not a sign or message in sight. We had to trudge back upstairs & sort the oyster tap in. Ticket office someone lurking in the back but no customer facing rep. She was rude, very reluctant to give info & suggested we walk to Bank, vague directions given grudgingly, being follow those people, Great.No id number for her suggestion to get staff to radio over about entering again with oyster.I asked an employee who appeard why no signs?? He too was vague,Finally got a central line to White City, as far as we could go, then a price inflated fixed fare cabThis is why I hate public transport, my last bus journey to Wembley involved a driver change, heavy traffic all of which can be avoided by car.

Peter Yale ● 3251d

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/diesel-buses-replaced-londons-first-12256969

Philippa Bond ● 3251d

It is definitely time that diesel buses (especially school buses) were axed.

Philippa Bond ● 3251d

Why answer a question, that I have never suggested, all I have said is buses cause more pollution than a small car which somehow you believe to be incorrectI have never mentioned changing every bus journey to a car, But I will say that TFL need to look at schedules, types of buses used, etc, a good example last night I took a E8 which had 3 people on it, an old double decker bus, followed by another 5 minutes later, in my mind a totally waste,

Declan Devine ● 3251d

Declan, answer the question please. If we took ALL buses off the road tomorrow and switched everybody to replicating their journeys in cars what do you think would happen?Others here are saying buses cause congestion. I say they relieve it.

Paul James ● 3251d

"if you want to believe a bus or HGV is less pollution that a supermini then believe what you want, "It's what the study says, did you not read it?CO2 is not a pollutant to humans (in an open space at least) CO2 ratings are done because it's a greenhouse gas and it's used to work out VED for vehicles.It's not even listed in this list of pollutants that are emitted by vehicles, because it's not a pollutant to humans at the levels we have it in the atmosphere (currently at leaast!)...Particulate matter (PM). These particles of soot and metals give smog its murky color. ...Hydrocarbons (HC). ...Nitrogen oxides (NOx). ...Carbon monoxide (CO). ...Sulfur dioxide (SO2). ...Hazardous air pollutants (toxics). ...Greenhouse gases.http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/vehicles-air-pollution-and-human-health/cars-trucks-air-pollution#.WEwaDuaLSw4

Paul James ● 3251d

Again, Paul twisting words, or not understanding the sentence.No suggestion at all in the paragraph you picked out, it is you who have mentioned switching to cars, I have never mentioned that.If you want to argue a point then argue against the point made, which is very simple and a fact you can get off TFL on their web data site, “The average occupancy of buses over all journeys made, “

Declan Devine ● 3251d

No Paul I fully understood what you were saying and the reason you were posting it, but as all government (worldwide) emission testing is done using CO2 testing and you are pulling in some meaningless study in Norway to support an argument that is unsupportable, , if you want to believe a bus or HGV is less pollution that a supermini then believe what you want, I guess my issue with you Paul is your rightfulness attitude to everything you post, whether is on bikes, cars, road laws or whatever, and the fact that no one else can be correct or have a opinion that is correct apart from you,

Declan Devine ● 3251d

Normally staggered.Graham is also of course forgetting that drivers also stop on the road...

Paul James ● 3251d

Are bus stops usually opposite each other or staggered along a road? I can see that it would be sensible for stops on opposite sides of the road to be visible from each other.

Philippa Bond ● 3252d

"Congest more so than cars"You can't see past the end of your nose on this one can you.UP to 80 people fit on one bus. Without that bus that would be 80 people in about 75 cars.And of course, one bus carries a lot more that 80 people on its route.So they relieve congestion caused by cars, not add to it.It's why we have them!So yes, they should get VERY special treatment, as should the people that use them that are keeping the roads clear of so many extra vehciles.

Paul James ● 3252d

"until you look at the facts people will always think buses are less polluting, due to numbers they carry, but work this on average across all journeys and this shows a totally different story"Are you suggesting that if all journeys made by people using a bus were switched to them using a car, pollution in London would go down?Ridiculous.Not only that, with all the extra cars required you wouldn't actually be able to get anywhere in a car anyway, or park it anywhere.

Paul James ● 3252d

Declan, the study is for NOx, not CO2.CO2 in the atmosphere is not poisonous to humans, NOx is.The study showed that many small cars produce more NOx that buses."The dramatic reduction in NOx emissions from heavier vehicles is a result of far stricter EU tests, in place since 2011, that reflect real-world driving conditions. If buses and trucks can comply with these limits, there’s no reason cars can’t as well"And you have a pop at me for little knowledge, but mistake an article about NOx for CO2?

Paul James ● 3252d

756 MILLION £££££££££££££££££££Thats what councils rake in, But its not profit, a surplus!!!"Motorists are an easy touch"Money raised must by law be used for other transport measures.This from The Daily Mail 09/12/16So in other words, the councils make huge profits from easy target motorists to implement more foolhardy schemes to cause unnecessary disruption & pollution, by ignorant officials - Mahfool etc.TFL/Council cause congestion & pollution

Peter Yale ● 3252d

Thats absolute rubbish again Paul, maybe you need to check facts first.An average HGV emits in Phase 1 urban testing 1450 g CO2e/KM compared with a "supermini" @ 115 g CO2e/KMThats from the the UK Gov Emissions web sitePaul just look at the physics, an average HGV engine size is 11 litre 460 bhp 12 cylinders compared to a supermini of today less than 1 Litre with 3 cylinders, simple Physics shows that your Norway tests are by someone who has not seen the light of day !!! Paul you are trying to argue a point that shows you have little knowledge on, until you look at the facts people will always think buses are less polluting, due to numbers they carry, but work this on average across all journeys and this shows a totally different story,I will admit that emissions testing is done is a controlled environment and not in the real world, and has been proved some car manufacturers are not trustful with the results VW for example, but the same testing is done on HGVs, Buses and coaches in the same clean environment so test results are consistent.

Declan Devine ● 3252d

Paul, I'm somewhat perplexed at the study, just down to sheer engine size and design how a bus or HGV engine how they can produce many times less than a modern equivalent car engine or 'supermini' which are usually small capacity petrol engines.Can you cite both of the studies so I can read more into them.ThanksLee.

Lee Page ● 3252d

very true, sadly in some respects. I used to walk although sometimes lazily jumped on a bus (4p it was I recall!!)I dont see why buses are wrapped in cotton wool, have dedicated lanes that dont work. Allowed to turn as & when, quite often where other vehicles are barred.Congest more so than cars, a bus stop near traffic lights where it then has to get across to turn right blocking 2 lanes & effectively blocking the road = Greenford Bdwy.Buses can stop opposite each other, again Greenford Bdwy, causing a bottlenck outside Lidl. Car drivers would be hanged

Peter Yale ● 3253d

Unfortunately there just isn't room for everybody to own a car or drive a car on the roads. It isn't just the buses that block up the roads - its all the cars. We use them differently now. We very often go from school to school andthen to work.

Philippa Bond ● 3253d

No interest in what vehicle produces most toxins, which I feel anyway is all government spin. They are an evil necessityAll I know is buses are a nuisance & I will list all there faults gladly if asked. Cars are far more convenient & for the amount in taxes both above board & by backdoor methods, from idiot councils.far more superior or imporatnt severely penalised with foolhardy measures like Longfield. Councils would be bankrupt without revenue from idiotic PCNs etc. St Leonards shows & proves that as just one example amongst many. TFL & councils are anti car & heighten congestion, which in turn supposedly, by their reckoning pollution. So therefore alleviate that by stopping ridiculous anti motor vehicle restrictions

Peter Yale ● 3253d

"Diesel cars tested in Norway produced quadruple the NOx emissions of large buses and lorries in city driving conditions, according to a report from the Norwegian Centre for Transport Research. A separate study for Transport for London showed that a small car in the “supermini” class emitted several times more NOx than most HGVs and the same amount as a 40-tonne vehicle."Article

Paul James ● 3253d

Its you Paul who continually misses the point, my thought process is spot on.London wide the average occupancy on buses is 13 people across every journey made, without question a full bus is more efficient, but it still pollutes more in some cases more than 20 average cars, the issue is that buses are polluting, and half the journeys are well below capacity, buses have to run to timetables cars don't, Also the size of buses now means that they block roads, and create jams which in turn creates more pollution, But I will say I am not anti buses, I use them when I have to, as I do with all forms of transport, unlike you Paul we are not blinded with agenda.

Declan Devine ● 3253d

could say likewise ref thought process. Maybe sometimes the buses are full down the Uxbridge Rd..More often than not as my friend & I counted saturday evening, 2 double deckers travel together in both directions with a handful of passengers.Pollution .pish, when it suits the powers that be who cause congestion, Buses are a congestion & take up valuable space for the majority of vehicles.Reread my full polite view on buses & bus lanes previously, along with Ealing Council wallahs & TFL

Peter Yale ● 3254d

Both of you are totally missing the point about buses.Each one can carry up to 80 people in the space of two cars, and I can tell you, most of them going along uxbridge road are full.Imagine tomorrow, everybody that was going to use a bus drove a car instead. What do you think would happen?Much much more pollution much more congestion, in fact I'd go so far to say there would be total grid lock with many people unable to even get their car on the road...If you can't see that you really need your thought processes looking at!

Paul James ● 3254d

Buses are a nuisance, take out whole road, as experienced tonight by an E8 in Ealing BDWY setting down & picking up passengers. Noone can go round as the other way cars are not allowed in bus lane, result is totally blocked rd.As for Mahfool citing safety, I pity any pedestrian at the St Leonards jct on Hastings Rd side trying to cross. Seeing as all the traffice is shunted down there now, people take their life in their own hands trying to cross. A relatively tranquil jct now a major hazard

Peter Yale ● 3254d

Buses pollute do they? simple answer yes..""In July 2014 researchers from King’s College London found that concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in Oxford Street are the worst on earth""so Oxford street has banned cars and only allows buses and taxi's, another study by the BBC says ""According to figures from the Department of Energy, a bus with average occupancy (9 people) is more polluting than a car with average occupancy (1.57 people)."" and ""Double-decker buses make a lot of sense in the rush hour but rumble around our cities almost empty in off-peak periods. Indeed, even at peak times every packed rush-hour bus is likely to make its return journey nearly empty""The fact the average age of a London Bus is 5 years old, the diesel engine has done over 150k in miles its is producing nearly double the pollution rate of a brand new bus and 40% more than an average car,So Paul, maybe you need to look at a few facts first,

Declan Devine ● 3254d

>The biggest cause of pollution in London is caused by congestionThat's quite a statement.Buses pollute do they?Let's take every single person that uses a bus over its route and make them drive a car to do their journey.What would cause more pollution?Also, given a bus with three people in it takes up less space than three drivers in three cars I think you're very lucky people take the bus.

Paul James ● 3255d

The biggest cause of pollution in London is caused by congestion, but we do nothing to keep traffic moving, in fact we hinder traffic at every chance, The government for years pushed people in to diesel cars which are proven to be more toxic, but as I have said many times cars are not going away, so we have to find ways to keep cars traffic moving, Local councils now just see cars as a way of making money, nothing else, as to accidents the statistics show road deaths have come down in recent years but the number of cars on the road has gone up.One other point the biggest source of pollution on our roads are buses, and heavy goods,

Declan Devine ● 3255d

Morning Paul -:) I wouldnt say anti as such, I feel cars are an easy way for councils & the governments to raise revenue, by exceedingly dubious methods. Covert cameras, legislation over parking & unnecessary road restrictions.I agree that cretins who belt down roads, the ones that get noticed give all drivers a bad nameThe mayor quotes various statistics (of which I see no physical evidence) yet impedes traffic flow, moves congestion from one place to another, all for potential financial gain.Cars are to me a massive benefit. No long waits, quicker progress, be it short cuts & not stopping every few 100 yards, driver changes, hoardes of people clambering aboard. Carrying shopping or goods. So many routes filling bus stops they obstruct each oter. Blocking smaller roads - great double deckers 2 different routes simultaneously going 75% same journey, thats Pitshanger Lane as an example

Peter Yale ● 3255d

Peter. We all need to be anti car to some degree.There are far too many of them, causing very bad pollution (today the mayor advised not to exercise in public or take babies outside), and causing delays for people using other forms of transport.Bad drivers also cause a terrible amount of death and injury. If you listen to an LBC traffic bulletin of a morning it's a long list of delays and chaos caused by what LBC terms "accidents".A reminder that our system of highways are for moving goods and people, not vehicles.Most cars I pass when I cycle or walk have one occupant in them, that's a terrible misuse of road space and the reason for congestion.

Paul James ● 3256d

Its no left turn from Longfield into Uxbridge Rd & no right turn into Longfield from the Uxbridge Rd.Odd indeed PB & your thoughts echo the sentiments of the rational majority on here & the Ealing car driving public.Purely a money making scheme with blatant mistruths cited as an accident blackspot & even more laughable will ease congestion.Said it before & will say it again, the problem causes congestion elsewhere = St Leonards Rd.Mahfool is negligent, Ealing Council & TFL anti car & cause problems

Peter Yale ● 3256d

I thought that it was just no left turn - which is odd because it is the easiest way to turn. Which road are people avoiding - Argyle which is horribly narrow and where it is difficult to pass a bus coming in the other direction?http://ealingnewsextra.co.uk/video/ealing-copenhagen/

Philippa Bond ● 3256d

nothing to do with cyclists whatsoever. Obviously we as drivers need to watch out & respect them. As Mr Bull points out they (cyclists & pedestrians) need to obey the rules. Clearly laws are a lot more lenient towards them, unlike the poor motorists who is fined & obstructed at every point - such as Longfield, no left or right turn & fines imposed. Cyclists & pedestrians can do whatever. As discussed & objected to, the problem of congestion & safety is pushed somewhere else at the moment that St Leonards

Peter Yale ● 3256d

Is it anything to do with cycling?http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/hovding/blog_posts/meet-james-bull-cyclist-in-london-46689

Philippa Bond ● 3256d

I don't think the no left turn policy at Longfield avenue is stupid.It means there are less vehicle movements across what is a very busy pedestrain junction.It also stops rat runners bombing down the road itself, which they do, a lot.

Paul James ● 3257d

Pedestrians do not need to prioritised, and no city is not prioritising pedestrians what most good city are doing is making the city work for everyone who uses the roads.Something if we let people like you get there way only bloody bikes and pedestrians will be on our roads.When will you wake up and realise cars are not going away, and we should make our roads work for every user including cars, bikes and pedestrians,

Declan Devine ● 3257d

I dont feel penalised, im a hgv driver too & of course if a pedestrian got hurt through a drivers fault,then they need punishing What im saying is drivers are penalised for no proper reason, such as stupid no left turn policies, Longfield, topic subject, with finesThe so called problems are pushed elsewhere as we have witnessed & heard from residents.Pedestrians & cyclists can really do what they like & tend to anyway without any fear of fines or punishment. Not however the easy target , registered, taxed, insured motorist

Peter Yale ● 3257d

>yet motorists are taxed, fined ,penalised at any move & pretty much always to blame if a pedestrian gets hit.I don't feel penalised when I drive.It's an incredible responsibility moving such a large heavy and potentially lethal machine around in public, and absolutely needs to be controlled, with severe punishments for those that do it irresponsibly. VED is a charge for polluting in public. Pollution from motorised vehicles is having a very adverse affect on all our lives and needs to be controlled.

Paul James ● 3257d

exactly, public spaces where pedestrians cross them "where they like", yet motorists are taxed, fined ,penalised at any move & pretty much always to blame if a pedestrian gets hit.Stupid rules stopping the motorist turning left or right (Longfield), unworkable bus lanes, speed restrictions, all supposedly to improve safety & congestion but in fact adding to it, moving congestion elsewhere & causing frustration leading to impatience

Peter Yale ● 3257d

People are traffic too..Why should pedestrians be forced stand in the rain whilst people in cars are ushered by.All over the world cities are realising people on foot should be prioritised. They do make up the vast majority of traffic and for too long have been treated terribly.

Paul James ● 3257d

There's no such thing as jaywalking in the UK. rads are public spaces for the use of everybody. Pedestrians are allowed to cross them where they like and drivers and riders must be careful not to hit them when doing so.

Paul James ● 3257d

Hear hear, Syon Lane previous streams & streams of commuters, tailbacks galore. Acton Town the same, but Mahfool whoever, TFL from their fur lined office know best. DD is spot on

Peter Yale ● 3258d

Pelican Lights are by far the most sensible crossing for both traffic and pedestrians, a great example is the new pelican outside Syon Lane station, for years every morning and evening cars were tailed back along the A4 while 100s of pedestrians streamed across the Zebra crossing, now its fully controlled, meaning the traffic flow and people flow just works. Acton Town station took the perfectly working Pelicans and replaced with Zebras and now the traffic is chaos every morning evening, and another example of Ealing Councils stupidity when it comes to traffic management.While we have Ealing Councils stupidity when it comes to traffic management and people’s opinion like Paul’s we will never sort out traffic issues in London.

Declan Devine ● 3258d

Pedestrians need protecting, obviously. They are fortunate to have unlimited options without flouting rules or regulations, including jaywalking of which I am guilty.Cyclists as well,turning left or right, reversing, diagonally proceeding however at their will In fact at Acton Town they stream across constantly & cause congestion on a roundabout & busy junction. Pelican lights would be much better, some give & take.There are too many cars agreed, far far to many buses & useless bus lanes.still congestion could be eased rather than aggravated & slowed by minor junctions being made into major ones - thanks Waitrose & Ealing Council for the Hastings, Alexandria, Drayton Green Rd farce, to name but 1

Peter Yale ● 3259d

Longer green means pedestrians have to wait more (they are traffic too), as well as the traffic on the other roads..I'm afraid this miracle of unimpeded traffic flow is not going to happen in london, there are simply too many vehicles.

Paul James ● 3259d

one issue is that lights should be longer on green to smooth the flow. even if you have a longer wait for them to go green again. twice the time on green will mean more than twice the traffic going through. what i have seen in london is very short green lights so that sometimes you are lucky if 2 cars get through so building a large queue.

Peter Chadburn ● 3259d

Traffic lights are held on red to allow people time to cross the junction..Apologies for that!

Paul James ● 3259d

The problem everyone has is that the highways department who are responsible for the roads are not interested in private car users!! They would like to drive the motorists of the road. Congestion costs everyone thousands of pounds whether it be the bus waiting in traffic, the delivery driver or the humble motorist going about his or her work. Ealing Council like other London borough's cause unnecessary traffic jams. Look at the traffic lights on Red far longer than necessary.

Nicolas Ozegovic ● 3260d

im not talking about adding more roads, im saying stop causing uneccesary delays, free congestion with nonsensicalprohibitions.Buses may well carry more people at certain times, but theres too many buses, too many routes, too little space all fighting for a single bus bay, taking out half the road,. crossing from left to right with bus lanes that when non operational are closed due to parking allowances. With 20 minute supposed waits against properly insured, taxed, penaslised motorists. Compared to uninsured, unlicensed, ungoverned cyclists,Bus lane dont work. TFL/Council Mahfool cause congestion

Peter Yale ● 3264d

This is were we should be headed, not more roads for year more cars.https://www.ted.com/talks/janette_sadik_khan_new_york_s_streets_not_so_mean_any_more

Paul James ● 3265d

The best way to reduce congestion on the roads is to make sure there are less cars...adding more roads has the opposite effect.https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

Paul James ● 3265d

>Get rid of bus lanes - dont workThat bus lane is transporting far more people than the car lane, even when it looks like it's empty...http://www.bikehub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Munster1991BusBicycleCar.jpg

Paul James ● 3265d

Get rid of bus lanes - dont work, Allow vehicles to be able to turn where they like when suitable. Classic example Uxbridge Rd/Gunnersbury is it, the no right turn sending all traffic down to roundabout at Steyne Rd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Det rid of Mahfouz & his ridiculous schemes. TFL also cause congestion

Peter Yale ● 3267d

Hammond pledges another £1.3bn of our taxes to reduce congestion on the roads yet Mahfouz is allowed to completely ignore the wishes of Ealing folk and push through this supposed 'trial' creating a huge amount of extra local congestion. Genius

Philip Slater ● 3268d

Very Good Paul, You will see this all over the world, on motorways, Autobahns freeways etc still does not excuse our woeful traffic management in London, where local councils fleece drivers to prop up their miss-spending in every other part of the councils budgets

Declan Devine ● 3268d

More on Declan's plan for bigger and better roads... This just in from West Ealing...https://twitter.com/ABC7/status/801262762261291008

Paul James ● 3268d

Clickable link:https://twitter.com/ABC7/status/801262762261291008

Paul James ● 3268d

Well that shows every space is premium, there is a massive problem. Too many cars, vehicles in general.Bus lanes do not work, too many buses, different routes all spilling out of bus bays, 3 or 4 at a time. When a bus lane is not in operation then vehicles can & do legally park. Consequence is a close lane. Bus lane = closed, non bus lane, vehicles parked = closed. All roads should be open & free, no entry, no right turn, no left turn why??TFL & Ealing coucil create problems, congestion & I can name half a dozen sites

Peter Yale ● 3278d

Here you go Declan, Uxbridge Road plans for you in 10 years time:

Paul James ● 3278d

I think people have more complicated lives - now with both parents expected to have places of work to go as well as having to get children to school in different directions. Children used to be more independent going on buses on their own to school at age 5 but life has changed and communities are less close if existent, and families more spread out and smaller. I do agree about rat-runs. They are alternative routes.

Philippa Bond ● 3278d

Simple not going to happen, with new car sales at an all time high, its time that local councils planned for the amount of cars on the road not trying to suppress roads space, also stop making a fortune out of fines on excersises like Longfield Avenue, if your going to fine car driver stick to sensible fines, i.e. box junctions, yellow lines, speeding etc things that help flow of traffic.

Declan Devine ● 3279d

Most people will drive the quickest route to their destination using local knowledge. Commonly known as a short cut except when used by others on a road near where you live and then it gets tagged as a rat run.

Philip Coe ● 3279d

You'll only make the main routes work by reducing the huge number of large vehicles with one person in them going along them.I.e. less cars.Even Boris Johnson realised this toward the end of his tenure.

Paul James ● 3279d

Otter rubbish, the only way to stop people finding alternative routes is to make the main routes work, something Ealing does not do, the phasing of the lights all along the Uxbridge road and Haven Green are poor, so drivers will find the quickest route to get from A to B.If the council wanted to stop the "Rat Run" they could have just closed Longfield Road to traffic fully, but no they want to make money from it, having a no left turn makes no sense at all, there is no safety aspect to it, as left turns are safe.

Declan Devine ● 3279d

So you agree it'll stop people rat running down that road?As for them just rat running elsewhere. Some will, they'll find different routes, not everybody will use the same route and some may even decide to change the way they travel.So a good idea in my opinion.

Paul James ● 3279d

PJ, it may well stop people rat running, but to what end? They will find alternative routes - St Leonards, which is now a rat run itselfWe all agree pedestrians & cyclists, anyone for that matter need to be protected. However the road is still open to the more dangerous right turn,so traffics flowing anyway.Vehicles from the Uxbridge Rd have to cross a live bus lane at great peril & as I witnessed Friday, intimated by double decker buses who wont, or dont want to give.As Nr Devine says & I agree, its a money making stealth tax.TFL & EALING COUNCIL. MUPPET MAHFOUZ & BELL ARE CORRUPT & NEGLIGENT

Peter Yale ● 3280d

Prohibition of the left turn out of Longfield stops some people rat running down it. Reducing the number of movements across the junction, and therefore the number of conflicts. BTW, people on the pavement and crossing the road on foot are traffic too..Well, that's my understanding.

Paul James ● 3280d

I too have never grasped the safety reasons. I would have thought left hand only turns out of both ends would be best. Probably left in only from the two feeder roads as well. If the Council have compelling traffic assessments and risk assessments that support the new arrangement please let's see them.Incidentally, earlier this week, a new CCTV camera was being installed at the Gordon Road junction with Longfield Avenue where there are no untoward in/out restrictions - yet?

Philip Coe ● 3280d

Its money making only, absolute no other reason, a stealth tax, Ealing has never and certainly not now have any idea of traffic management for the good of road users.

Declan Devine ● 3280d

These changes don't affect cyclists Paul, read the signs. What a sorry little rant. Maybe try to remember their skin is thinner than Lycra, London is a scary place to be a cyclist. On a more sensible note I tried to warn an unaware driver recently who didn't believe me because they were following their satnav. I think we can all agree it's an abysmal idea and this trial should now be retracted.

Philip Slater ● 3280d

Shame that the signage is routinely ignored by cyclists though.There again they are 'above the law' aren't they?Can't issue them with a PCN as they pay no VED and cannot be identified.Easy enough for them to whinge about other road users but woe betide if you ever criticise them as their skin is a lot thinner than their Lycra!.

Paul Murray ● 3280d

the council seemingly contradict themselves by allowing still the more dangerous right turn out of Longfield.They also state it alleviates congestion, which it may well do at that junction, however the congestion is moved to St Leonards Rd instead.

Peter Yale ● 3281d

4,000 motorists need to open their eyes, although a lot I've seen clearly see the signs and choose to ignore them anyway.

Paul James ● 3281d

The aims were stated by the council.https://www.ealing.gov.uk/news/article/1458/changes_to_turns_at_longfield_avenue_ealing

Paul James ● 3281d

theres a big article in getwestlondon - Ealing Gazette regarding thisridiculous junction enforcement by moron Mahfouz & buffoon Bell. Over 4000 motorists have received PCNs.All the legitimate reasons against this ruling, both safety wise & a money making racket, promoted by lies from TFL, Ealing Council etc, opinions can be voiced here obviously & also by contactinggoolistan.cooper@trinitymirror.com

Peter Yale ● 3281d

Yet again a product of the right-wing Julian Bell money machine worried about the poor quality but highly expensive flats being build in Dickens Yard not selling well enough becuase normal locals' cars are seen on the road. I noted a very expensive Ferrari illegally parked ("abandone") up on the PAVEMENT a couple of weeks ago opposite this junction. Even though it was opposite the Town Hall and we live in a heightened danger alert time no one did anything about it to remove it.

Joanna Corbett ● 3288d

more I think about this more it bugs me & seems nonsensical.I pass by this junction regularly & am wondering about the legality of it all, as in fixed penalty notices being issued for what is a temporary sign on a trestle making a request. Shouldnt there be either a red no entry sign, or no right/left turn, The highway code will show MANDATORY driving regs & signs which drivers have to obey.Then the sheer stupidity in itself of shoving the traffic down a road with a fire station,. Coupled with the fact that parking is allowed for a few meters near the Uxbridge Rd junction which completely bottlenecks the road causing congestion - ironically opposite the divs who issue PCNs!!!!Someone is seriously negligent here & the whole matter needs urgent reviewing Mahfouz in particular

Peter Yale ● 3288d

Twerp Mahfouz seen holding hands with Cllr Bell over wheelie bin fiasco & Courtfield Gdns botch up

Peter Yale ● 3332d

Entirely agree, sadly it's appears to be a decent little earner, despite serving zero useful purpose. Daily I see cars making the illegal turns, probably out of shock that any such ridiculousness would be in effect. It's also clearly having a knock on effect, the result on the (double-parked) section of Gordon Road is rush-hour mayhem. Evidently the irate E1 bus passengers striving to get to and from work are deemed far less important than our esteemed councillors. Abandon this stupid idea at once and make whichever loons signed it off pay for the reparation work.

Philip Slater ● 3332d

It would appear that Ealing Council have taken a leaf out of the book of that well known Acton entrepreneur Arthur Daley and created a "nice little earner" with this piece of nonsense. I have not seen any real justification. it just creates jam's elsewhere which is very un-green.

Peter Chadburn ● 3332d

I believe the council said this was going to be an experiment. With the congestion caused by vehicles trying to drive between parked cars on the adjoining roads and the needless inconvenience to many motorists will it now be sensible, resurface the junction and take this stupid restriction away.

Steven Biddle ● 3337d

Already been said but... it doesn't make sense! Surely it is safer turning left into Uxbridge rd than viceversa. Also car/moto drivers will be on the road for longer time thus increasing congestion and pollution...genius

S Tura ● 3415d

well the council needs to raise cash somewhere as they forgot to raise cash by by increasing council tax for the last few years.

Harry Jay ● 3416d

Enforcement (fines) starts next week.https://www.ealing.gov.uk/news/article/1495/enforcement_starts_at_longfield_avenue_turn

Paul Webster ● 3416d

I saw a council van turn left out of Longfield.

Graham Weeks ● 3477d

By my twice a day walk by I suspect hundreds a day are "violating" the new restrictions - either deliberately or more likely just following the instructions of the satnav. But is it confirmed that the junction is being monitored by CCTV/ANPR and fines being issued or will it just be on the ground police presence from time-to-time?

Philip Coe ● 3484d

which is their own stupidity in our big brother society, meaning a fine en route. However whats even more stupid, are the measures implemented by council dimwits. I have never heard one single "spokes person" comment, or even try to justify the actions & decisions made.They do what they like,when they like, raking in money to waste on nonsense

Peter Yale ● 3484d

I watched drivers turning right into it, they stop, look at the no right turn sign, then turn right into it anyway...

Paul James ● 3484d

I'm not sure they want it to stop Ben, just keep racking up those fines

Philip Slater ● 3484d

As of last night, cars were turning into and out of Longfield Avenue..dear council how will this stop?

Ben Owen ● 3484d

& St Leonards Rd was building up due to these foolhardy measures.Pure negligence by council officials,, money making racketeers

Peter Yale ● 3487d

I just walked past and saw 2 cars turn right into LA and 3 cars turn left out of LA. Lots of horns blaring and all within a 2 minute spell. I would think the signs have already paid for themselves.

Andy Vaughan ● 3487d

I have never said in any post that drivers don't break laws, this come about from your statement that cyclist will be able to turn left from and right in to Longfield Avenue, to which I replied that they do want they want anyway.It is you that has gone on to the defence about cyclist by pointing out about other road users, a typical cyclist blame the other users defence.

Declan Devine ● 3489d

...Be careful of trying to accuse people on bikes of being scofflaws and ignoring other road users, when we've got lots of examples of other road users being scofflaws too or you might look a bit one sided.Like I say, you've only got to stand at a junction for a minute to see somebody in a car jumping the light, or using a mobile phone etc....Why not bring that up?

Paul James ● 3489d

"So if you want to get into a slanging match about who's more compliant with the law in general I'd be careful!"Be careful of what ?? I stand by what I say, regardless of what you think most cyclist do what they want !

Declan Devine ● 3489d

>cyclist going through red lights or riding the wrong way up a one way street etc is far higher.For me it's less regarding the percentage of drivers/riders breaking the law but the harm, caused that's the bigger issue.Pavement cycling, I don't do it myself, and don't like seeing it, but if you're going to be injured on the pavement of a crossing, it'll be a driver that does it (statistically speaking).Pretty much usually the last one or two drivers through the lights as they change do so on amber/red (illegal).Walking up Uxbridge road the other day it was about one in five drivers fiddling with the mobile phones (illegal).Lots of drivers stopped on pedestrian crossings (illegal).And of course, when they can move MANY drivers exceed speed limits (illegal). When I drive I don't and am continually being harassed by people behind me who want to go faster (illegal).So if you want to get into a slanging match about who's more compliant with the law in general I'd be careful!

Paul James ● 3489d

Without doubt a car accident causes more death etc than a cyclist, but as some one who drives everyday, the percentage of "some" cyclist going through red lights or riding the wrong way up a one way street etc is far higher.I stand by what I said cyclist in general do what they want !

Declan Devine ● 3489d

Some cyclists go through red lights, so do some drivers.Crap driver's doing it creates far more more injury, death and misery than crap cyclists could ever dream of...

Paul James ● 3490d

The fun will start when, at completion of the development, shops will open. the only way for them to receive stock is in the underground car park on Longfield Avenue itself right after (or before) the town hall, opposite Perceval House - depending of where you are coming from. Perhaps the Council is already thinking ahead and in the meantime we are left with one less road. What a cock up. Roll on 2018!

Rosa Popham ● 3490d

Would not worry about cyclists anyway as a large percentage do what they want anyway, as the guy on a bike who a nearly knocked off after he went through a red light the other day did,

Declan Devine ● 3490d

Simple way not to get a fine for nopt complying with road signs. Comply with them.In my driving life, and I've driven a lot (all over the world, and certainly all over London), I've never had a fine, so it's possible.

Paul James ● 3491d

Will not apply to cyclists, motorised vehicles only.

Paul James ● 3491d

The issue here like others schemes introduced by the borough is to increase the revenue from unsuspecting motorist falling foul of Ealing Council. The fact is that the highways department removed the section of road and increase the pavement area which has made it unsafe for pedestrians. They need to return the junction as was and possible change the road markings to suit the environment. "A good old stop sign" and road charming measures!!!

Nicolas Ozegovic ● 3491d

There are 2 simple alterations that would make the junction safer. Firstly take up the paving blocks in Longfield Avenue and lay tarmac so the road is better defined. Secondly reprofile the left turn into Uxbridge Road to make it a bit sharper forcing vehicles to exit the junction slower.Vehicles coming from Dickens Yard (and there are many) will have a lengthy diversion, adding to what will be increased congestion and pollution in the area and contributing to making it a less pleasant area to live.

Steven Biddle ● 3491d

I'm pretty sure the article states that this only applies to motor vehicles, make of that what you will. I don't cycle down that way so haven't witnessed anything like that, but I agree that does sound dangerous.

Philip Slater ● 3491d

Presumably these regulations and fines will also apply to Cyclists who also far too regularly turn left into the paths of oncoming buses.It is very regular that buses hit the brakes hard here more often than not because of the sudden appearance of a cyclist who has ignored the dotted lines and moved out obscured by a car.It's a rare occurance with a motor vehicle and less of a hazard to the bus as it it is far easier to see the potential hazard.Will Cyclists ignoring the road markings, signage and turning left also be fined?It won't make things any safer as Pedestrians and Cyclists are responsible for their own actions as much as other road users. The claimed problem will simply be relocated to the displaced location.If one cycles with care, spacial awareness and observe the same rules and regulations, and pedestrians apply the same simple drill that is learned from pre school age then one is far less likely to come to grief.But once again, the easy option is taken. Pass all the blame to the tested, licensed and insured road users and do nothing to deal with those who refuse to comply with road sense and are seen blatantly taking risks to themselves and others.This sort of decision simply give creedence to the element who are giving diligent Cyclists in particular a very poor reputation.Is it a co-incidence that some of this uber cyclist element are Senior officers and councillors in local Boroughs?Until authorities follow the example set by the City of London and start dealing with non compliant cyclists and pedestrians, there will be no significant improvement in safety, just the usual smoke and mirrors.

Mark Kehoe ● 3491d

This does seem an utterly absurd decision - I wouldn't even like to hazard a guess as to the motivation behind it, I can only assume that it's a matter of convenience to one or two council members. Everyday I cycle up Uxbridge Road and turn right into Longfield Ave on my way home from work and have had a couple of close calls with pedestrians (as seems to be the reasoning referenced in the article) but this is simply down to Council employees stepping out into the road whilst transfixed by their mobile phones. This certainly WON'T make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists, just less of a reason to use common sense. As other posters have observed, it's merely a first step to pedestrianisation, council officers need to get the Charlotte's on their lunch break and screw everyone else. Another ridiculous and frustrating solution to a non-existent problem, along with the equally absurd reworking of the junction of Argyle Road and Courtfield Gardens. I just hope the council is well stocked with peanuts, payday is coming soon....

Philip Slater ● 3491d

Could not agree more. The Uxbridge Road/Church Road junction is a complete nightmare and hugely hazardous. Stopping traffic turning left out of Longfield Ave and right into it, will only force drivers down even smaller side roads and increase queues on the Uxbridge Road. I guess their next step will be to pedestrianize it. ..

Sarah Elizabeth Adey ● 3491d

Susan Kelly - that's EXACTLY what I thought when I first heard of this scheme. Dickens Yard residents need their peace and quiet. I live close by, and use Longfield Avenue frequently and always in the same way, to turn left onto Uxbridge Road or right from Uxbridge Road, both of which are now banned. It will massively reduce vehicular use of Longfield Avenue. Most folks who want to turn right onto Uxbridge Road already use St. Leonard's Road as it is a far less hazardous manoeuvre there. Now St. Leonard's Road and Haven Green will have traffic backed up all the time.No sensible traffic planner could have made this decision, without public consultation, unless there were an ulterior, undisclosed motive.

Judith Jaafar ● 3491d

Re. the Uxbridge Road/Church Road Hanwell roundabout, I am reliably informed that St Mellitus Church have agreed a complete change to their surrounding area. This includes removal of the railings around the church to open up the space as a public area, re-siting of the bus stop in Church Road and moving the zebra crossing further away from the junction. This will, hopefully, improve the safety of the junction.

Thelma Leach ● 3492d

Peter, fully agree about the pedestrian crossing being way to close, I have seen many times where cars see a break in traffic only to be stopped at the crossing as someone has walked onto it, so blocking the traffic, also the pedestrian lights on the Uxbridge road, when red means drivers block the roundabout, a simple box junction would improve that, I am also a Hanwell resident, and to me the only traffic flow improvement it along the Uxbridge Road, coming out of Greenford Avenue is slower and from St Georges Road it can be Impossible.

Declan Devine ● 3492d

They only put the two lane merge into one there after bad drivers couldn't cope with waiting a bit behind larger vehicles turning right instead of trying to power up their left hand side...

Paul James ● 3492d

Pat Hayes Ealing Council RESIGN NOW ( without massive pay off) but thats another topic.#Agree its revenue, anti car money making scheme.As for Church Rd Hanwell. too much going on,Roundabout/.pedestrian lights/zebra crossing/bus stop halting all/2 lanes merging

Peter Yale ● 3493d

Actually Declan as a Hanwell resident I feel that the Uxbridge Road/Church Road changes do have one serious and dangerous fault but they certainly aid traffic flow. No more long queues as the Traffic works it's way through. The real danger is from clueless drivers!! But the real dangerous part is the crossing on Church Road being too close to the Junction. It means that some drivers come round and get surprised by it being too close. just moving it up a few yards could make it a lot safer. But I do agree about the fact that within London there are some junctions that create more congestion. anyone who has driven in Central London can see this. Some awful junctions there. The Longfield road one does not make any logical sense though. I understand perhaps stopping people turning right into it affects the flow. but people coming out and turning left seems very natural.

Peter Chadburn ● 3493d

Revenue generation - 'anyone who makes an illegal turn will receive a penalty charge notice'.

Fred Hunt ● 3493d

I think it would help if these decisions had a little more transparency (No, I have no wish to see their tax returns) - i.e. explain what the perceived/problem issue is all about together with how they believe the imposed solution with ease or solve the situation.

Philip Coe ● 3493d

This council does not care about traffic management, and simply does not have a clue. What they have done at Church road junction with the Uxbridge road shows this perfectly.This is just a another example, I guess we will see a new camera installed so they can make £££s from people when the break the new rules, no doubt the signage will be minimum as well.

Declan Devine ● 3493d

Thats sensible, tight turns are that much more awkward.I dont see how "the council" can make these changes without consultation?All someone is doing is causing congestion, then rat runs as drivers seek quicker routes by any means.So many regulations causing jams everywhere one drives, some fairly easily remedied

Peter Yale ● 3494d

You would think the right turn out of Longfield Avenue should be the one to be banned.

Philip Coe ● 3494d

The warning signs are out ready for more money making above safety.You cannot turn left out of Longfield Ave, or right into it from the Uxbridge Rd from 18th April????????????This has to be the most ludicrous decision made by the council - or some foolish council employee ever, incompetant

Peter Yale ● 3495d

The cynic in me wonders if Dicken's Yard have a hand in this, making the road quieter for their buyers.

Susan Kelly ● 3609d

A joke or wind up right??? Surely some dick on the council cant be serious???????????Meant to try & alleviate congestion, keep traffic flowing.As you say come out of St Leonards, or Drayton Green Rd & maybe continue along Gordon Rd all round the one way of Haven Green. Unbelievable, crass decviison

Peter Yale ● 3610d

It doesn't make sense. Cars needing to get onto the Uxbridge Road will have to go further around to St Leonards Road. It will not change the number of cars on the Uxbridge Road. Longfield Ave is being favoured by the planners over St Leonards Road. Why is that?

Brendan Hartnett ● 3610d

Have just updated this story to add the council's explanation of why they are proposing this trial.Annemarie

Editor ● 3610d

Does seem odd. The right hand turn is the more hazardous manoeuvre.

Philip Coe ● 3610d