Forum Topic

Swyncombe Misery Confirmed Permanent

No surprise there then - was a given as soon as they dropped the concrete roadblocks You’ll never convince me of there being logic behind this move.Adds time and distance to journeys and therefore increases pressure and pollution.I’m trying to get clear in my head why they’ve also changed the phasing on all the traffic lights crossing or joining the Great West Road locally as well. It’s as if someone is intentionally trying to increase traffic to justify something else down the line.They wouldn’t do such an underhand and obvious thing as fudge it would they?Oh hang on….

Colin Goodman ● 592d95 Comments

To be honest thats what they want. Get the over 60s out of London.If Agism was taken as seriously as Racism we would not be getting the type of back door methods being inflicted.

Raymond Havelock ● 583d

These Farseholes couldn't care less how many people they drive out (geddit!) of London, the ONLY thing that matters is the blind & zealous pursuit and forcing on the residents of their deeply flawed Ideology Agenda.

Rosco White ● 583d

Swyncombe was the last straw for us. After 34 years in Windmill Road, 41 in West London, we've left London forever. Thanks, LBE, LBH and Sadiq Khan. Good luck to all of you, you deserve better.

Mike Paterson ● 583d

& while I’m at it, that bloody ****er mayor/mare was doing a so called consultation, regarding expanding the ulez.People are greatly opposed to it & made sure their feelings known,He’s crying it’s been fixed & it’s going to happenianyway.So much for a democracy & the millions spent on cameras, before the result .Lieing corrupt, fixed debacle

Peter Yale ● 585d

& it’s sadiq james utopia

Peter Yale ● 588d

No Paul. It’s the logical progression for Vision Zero. But they’d have to ban bikes too because they can, and do, cause serious injury and death.But then common sense isn’t much used in London transport planning these days.

Simon Hayes ● 588d

>Too many cars? Let’s have none, zero and whilst we’re at it let’s ban buses and delivery vans unless powered by the alchemy that is HFO.Now you're just being silly.

Paul James ● 588d

We have a lovely Council ....................🤣

Rosco White ● 588d

And let's have more idiots on unlit scooters going 20 MPH on the pavement and cyclists going over red lights.

Simon Wycombe ● 588d

I think I’m done nowIf anyone thinks “Liveable Neighbourhoods” will be anything other than madcap ideas being foisted onto us by lunatic wok fringe idiots then they are deluded. History usually predicts the future.I’m thinking maybe we should go for this car free London utopia these absolute tvvats want. Too many cars? Let’s have none, zero and whilst we’re at it let’s ban buses and delivery vans unless powered by the alchemy that is HFO.I’d say within six months London will be a wasteland with a seriously unhappy populous……..oh but the air will be sweet and children will play idyllicly in the streets.I’ll be heading for the hills I reckon

Colin Goodman ● 588d

‘Data published by the council shows that westbound flows on Swyncombe Avenue have decreased by 32% from 5002 vehicles a day in 2019 to 3420 vehicles a day in July 2022 and eastbound flows have decreased by 97% from 4851 vehicles a day in 2019 to 164 vehicles a day in July 2022.The scheme’s aim was to encourage active travel modes such as walking and cycling and the council collected data on pedestrian and cyclist numbers on Swyncombe Avenue in November 2021 and July 2022 but did not collect data prior to implementation for comparison. When comparing overall active travel figures from 2021 and 2022 there has actually been a decline, which the council blames on seasonal variation in data collection.On Boston Manor Road, traffic flows have decreased by 28% when comparing the most recent July 2022 traffic data to the November 2016 “before” data. Northbound traffic flows have decreased by 38% from 9181 vehicles a day in 2016 to 5658 vehicles a day in 2022. Southbound traffic flows have decreased by 15% from 7824 vehicles a day in 2016 to 6663 vehicles a day in 2022.However, on Windmill Road, traffic flows have increased by 19% when comparing the most recent July 2022 traffic data to the June 2018 “before” data. Northbound traffic flows have increased by 31% from 4335 vehicles a day in 2018 to 5685 vehicles a day in 2022. Southbound traffic flows have increased by 8% from 4551 vehicles a day in 2018 to 4925 vehicles a day in 2022. The council says this increase is partly due to the Whitestile Road diagonal closure and, as Windmill Road is the only road on which significant increases in traffic has been measured, it believes that a significant amount of vehicle journeys are no longer occurring in the local road network.There has been some increase in bus travel times in the area including on the E2, E8 and 195. For instance, the E2 bus route weekday run times between Orchard Road and Julien Road has increased from an average of 4.8 minutes to 7.4 minutes during the evening rush hours.’So the experiment hadn’t even boosted cycling numbers. No doubt the cycling lobbyists will respond when they’ve got their hands out of their trousers.

Simon Hayes ● 589d

The LCC push policy at TfL. Disgraced ex Ealing leader Julian Bell is a member and also on the TfL board. Gilligan is also still there.The LCC have the delusion that all private cars in London should be outlawed. Just last week it’s chief executive made this very statement to the Labour conference. Quite how they think that’s a) practical, b) lawful and c) fair is beyond me. Quite a few of its members in Ealing have cars. One individual has two!The main thrust of Ealing Labour campaign in the election was to stick one on Boris. They didn’t canvas on issues like the LTNs, precisely because they had ‘gone away’ and they didn’t want to risk reminding voters .You will note that Mason promised no more towers in Ealing. He’s already reneged on that pledge. As a career politician you can only trust him to speak half truths or outright lies.

Simon Hayes ● 589d

It is pointless rehashing old arguments about how many people do and don't support particular schemes. What is indisputable is that Ealing Council accepted that the consultation exercises they held into these scheme were valid and binding. An overal committment to encourage active travel, which is common to almost every elected authority in the country, probably doesn't override a specific commitment to people of particular roads not to implement these restrictions. The probability is that the aspiration to reduce The Broadway to single file each way is just seen as a 'nice to have' and without this the need for rat-run restrictions on nearby residential streets will be much less. The growth in population in the area means that the only realistic target for the council is to reduce the proportion of journeys that are driven rather than their overall number so a significant capacity contraint on a key artery is just out of the question. I'd remain hopeful at this stage that the Liveable Neighbourhoods plan will contain a large number of small tweaks to the way roads, crossings, footways and cycleways operate to create a much improved environment rather than some over-ambitious headline grabbing change driven by dogma.

Gordon Southwell ● 589d

>Peter Mason's difficulty may be that, having pledged that these decisions will be made with the consent of local people, a key part of the new scheme may have already been vetoed.Ealing has recognised that by stating referendums are not consultations in the new travel in Ealing charter, but yes, people against might suggest they had their say already ... on a survey monkey poll that anybody could fill in or on a march of about 1,000 people out of 300,000 in Ealing to the Town Hall, some of them Ealing residents, or on a Commonplace website "there's a green one showing through, quick, get some red one's over it"...Labour have since won an Election promising stuff will be done to reduce car use, and everybody that opposed such measures in it, including those explicitly stating they would remove ALL of it, lost very badly.

Paul James ● 589d

Although Gilligan has lost his role as Prime Ministerial advisor with Johnson being got rid of, he is remains on the board of TfL as far as I am aware. It may be that his influence has declined because he was widely credited with the policy of brinkmanship with TfL's finances to force it to do the government's bidding and the starving of cash to councils like Ealing who had scrapped trial projects implemented during lockdown. Whatever you think of the Liveable Neighbourhoods plan, for which there is little detail at the moment so it seems odd to be dead set against it, it is one for which borough transport officers will have done some preparatory work and hopefully will make strategic sense. This not like the ad hoc road closures implemented during lockdown which proved to be so disasterous. Paul may characterise the opposition to these as 'a few angry drivers' but it was mainly from local residents who felt their quality of life had been harmed by more traffic on their roads. The problem ahead may be that some of these closures, as part of a broad scheme of measures, may have actually been important to the overall plan. Peter Mason's difficulty may be that, having pledged that these decisions will be made with the consent of local people, a key part of the new scheme may have already been vetoed.

Gordon Southwell ● 589d

This is for paul sadiq richard ben james owen khan.You really are delusional, people who think or are mistaken about ltns!!!!I don’t have a strong enough expletive, even if I could write it.I proved to you during fuel crisis the problems they cause.You typically ignored this on many occasions.A basic common sense, some kind of science ,will tell you that if all vehicles are channelled down one road, there’s nowhere to go That causes congestion, & what does that do?Correct pollution All you liberal cycling luvvies hate that.Cite your favourite line of too many cars. I would put you on a list of non deliveries of any sort, You go & collect anything or everything you need & want for hone.Those of us who want & pay, carry on as normal.The right minded democratic public told the buffoon jobs worth’s, ltns don’t work & are not wanted

Peter Yale ● 590d

No idea, but I’m sure Paul could persuade his neighbours that they would love living in an LTN. He could even show them some made up statistics to impress them.

Simon Hayes ● 590d

Which is his road??

Peter Yale ● 590d

They are a bad idea.If you are such s fan why not campaign for one in your road?

Simon Hayes ● 590d

Andrew Gilligan is not working for the Government any more. If he was Ealing may well not have got this money as he asked for Ealing to be left out of funding after it destroyed its active travel infrastructure recently at the behest of some angry drivers and people who mistakenly thought and think LTNs are a bad idea..

Paul James ● 590d

Just read the Ealing “ liveable neighbourhoods”What a load of cobblers, Andrew Gilligan, TFL sadiq Khan do not have a clue.There are plans to reduce traffic to 1 lane, cut off back roads.The congestion & consequent pollution will be colossal.Business will suffer, time lost & the damage to the economy, untold.These buffoons & their supporters don’t have a clue

Peter Yale ● 590d

I accept the apology. You do not appear on my blocked list, I reserve that for spaamers.

N V Brooks ● 590d

You can't block me on ENF, the blocks work at a profile level.But we had an exchange on Ealing Matters a while back and it seemed you blocked me off and on during it.I guess this might have just been Facebook being a bit rubbish though, but your posts disappeared for me, which is what being blocked by a facebook user looks like.

Paul James ● 590d

Victim culture is alive and well it seems. You can get drugs to help alleviate the paranoia apparently.

Simon Hayes ● 590d

I alluded to the fact that there was activity on Twitter at no time was this ascribed to either you or Ben unless you believe that 'guess who' refers to either of you.Poor attempt at trying to swerve the answer about why you are posting that I blocked you from E&NF on Facebook which, for one last time, I did not as you were not a member of that group until today and as you cannot post on that group until approved neither can anyone block you.

N V Brooks ● 591d

Nigel, I see you didn't answer my question.Who is this about?Ben posted on ENF today MY observation that the traffic chaos we get in Ealing is the result of too many cars, he got soft banned but doesn't have a twitter account so it can't be him.I asked to rejoin ENF this morning (I had left of my own accord a while back) so this seems to have come from the time between me asking to join and me being accepted.Who is the twitter account you mention? It's not mine and it's not Ben's.

Paul James ● 591d

I have never blocked you on Ealing and Northfields Friend. I could not as you were not a member.Your post is either a lie or a fantsay, whcihever it is I am sorry for the issues you have that cause you to post in such a way.

N V Brooks ● 591d

But you don’t provide any sensible solution to what you see as a problem (and conveniently ignore other traffic).You purport to be a liberal, yet want to curb the freedoms of your fellow citizens because it doesn’t tally with your narrow viewpoint. I’ve yet to see any solution that won’t simply impose more hardship on much of the populace.Do you really think closing roads is a solution? It didn’t work last time and it won’t work next time. Much of the traffic in Ealing is passing through from points beyond the borough. You can’t comprehend this for some reason. Perhaps you ought to be campaigning to stop them driving here.And, of course, you shoot yourself in the foot every time you drive somewhere ‘because you have to’.

Simon Hayes ● 591d

I don't though Simon, I don't know where you've got this from. I've consistently stated here and other places I don't want to have cars banned, but I want there to be much less driving.I've said this hundreds of times.You've said this too.

Paul James ● 591d

That must make you a blockhead, Paul.Come on, tell us that you support the banning of private cars in London.

Simon Hayes ● 591d

Ah yes, I remember, you blocked me, unblocked me and blocked me again on Facebook, so I saved you the bother and blocked you myself.

Paul James ● 591d

London’s motorists need to be freed from the “burden” of car usage through improvements to active travel schemes, public transport, and the introduction of road charging measures, says the London Cycling Campaign’s Chief Executive Ashok Sinha.Sinha was speaking earlier this week in Liverpool at a Labour Party conference fringe event titled, “A gear shift on low-carbon transport”.He told the event, chaired by the Green Alliance’s head of climate policy Helena Bennett, that around 10 million car journeys are made every day in London, a figure the cycling campaigner says needs to be drastically reduced if the UK is to reach its climate targets.’I’m sure there are LCC members who will be delighted to give up theirs cars immediately! These people are seriously deranged.Of course Paul will deny its their agenda.

Simon Hayes ● 591d

Multiple personalities, which indicates extreme mental disturbance. Obvious.

Simon Hayes ● 591d

Are we sure that these posts are really him?After all I supposedly blocked posts from a Paul James in a forum that he only applied to join today.  Either he has a lying doppelganger or has an issue with reality

N V Brooks ● 591d

‘Quick, my arguments don’t hold water. Let’s change the subject and deflect, obfuscate and avoid’, said Paul James.

Simon Hayes ● 591d

No, I don't like some have to hide behind others. Plus, please stop fantasising about my 'banning' you. Just checked my list of banned spammers and nutters and you are not on it so your post earlier was yet another 'vision' to place alongside the rest of the rubbish

N V Brooks ● 591d

This is a very strange post from you. No mention of you you're talking about, what you are talking about, what twitter account it is, and no way of ascertaining if what you are saying it true or not.Did somebody else put you up to this?

Paul James ● 591d

I do wonder why Paul ‘too many cars’ James thinks it’s okay for him to contribute to that about which he perpetually complains by driving about when it suits him.A lot of the traffic is vans, lorries, buses and taxis. Not private motor cars. His inability to see this must make him a liability when in the road, where good observation skills are essential.His real agenda, and that of the LCC, is to outlaw private vehicle ownership in London (and don’t deny that Paul as it’s been well documented). Of course, what suits him doesn’t suit most other people.

Simon Hayes ● 591d

Absolutely correct not only was it used to transport goods to Acton works but also the massive Diesel generator sets and high voltage distribution switchgear into the London underground power centre that was at Northfields depot behind the erstwhile ODEON cinema.

N V Brooks ● 591d

This road was built for HGVs as part of the Underground Depot access for vehicles  retuning and collecting overhauled parts from Acton Works. That's why it is straight and wider and has longer front gardens than most streets built at the same time. To minimise the effect go HGVs.It was also a much needed link road for HGVs which could not manage Windmill road and Boston Manor Road was rebuilt accordingly with A road sewers and ducting and a deeper substrate base.It is also a key fast access for Ambulances to and from Ealing Hospital and the LAS Base in Boston Road.But with the exception of less than 2 hours a day, Swyncombe Ave has always been way quieter than South Ealing Road, Popes lane and Windmill Road.It has though been a bit of a racetrack and being one way will be a mecca for Scooterists.Like Occupation Lane - now a drug dealing haven, these closures are insane and simply to cause problems elsewhere so more can be justified.

Raymond Havelock ● 591d

Oh goody, making things up again I never said you had been baned. Honestly you are now so divorced from reality Mr James that I wonder if you know which way is up let alone what is the truth.

N V Brooks ● 591d

As usual Nigel, you've got this all twisted up!I've never been banned from Ealing and Northfields Friends, but Ben posted what I'd say about the traffic jams as himself (too many cars), and his comments got deleted, so I've joined ENF to say it myself.You can't see me though as you blocked me!

Paul James ● 591d

No idea what you are going on about,All roads should be open, utilise  space , save businesses & the economy.Save time & congestion.Basic common sense & fact

Peter Yale ● 591d

Yeah, it should have just been shut off at one end to motor vehicles and made a cul de sac (for driving).The one way thing there will just make things worse and suck drivers to it.

Paul James ● 591d

>So utilise ALL road space,That would mean even more cars Peter.There are already too many cars.

Paul James ● 591d

Well whatever reason it’s ridiculous

Peter Yale ● 591d

Too many cars Tony.

Paul James ● 591d

That's not why swyncombe was closed..

Paul James ● 591d

Re. Half Acre Road closure.A problem remains, namely access to the roads towards Greenford (ie local roads off Greenford Avenue plus Golden Manor, York Avenue, Manor Court Road, Campbell Rd, Church Rd) is the Church Rd/Uxbridge Rd junction - which is frequently blocked by activity at the E3 bus stop, and activity at the petrol filling station (directly opposite the E3 bus stop).  It's a bottle neck.We'd all like to live in roads that are blocked to 'through traffic' . . . . .

Tony Heath ● 591d

Some VERY strange posts on Twitter from guess who  about their Facebook comments being removed. Along with that they are applying to join the Facebook gourp to  discuss 'too many cars' (you can't post if you are not a member). Perhaps the Twitter poster in questionshould try to recall that he walked away in a huff, and moaned about it. They were not banned so cannot rejoin something of which they are already a member. Strange how something as innocuous as a traffic queue makes people act in this way.You'll  find that most of them haven't been banned from anything (I chacked with the forum admin and they certainly have not been banned at all) They usually LEAVE groups themselves and then claim on Twitter and the forums on their own 'side' that they've been kicked out and wear it like some kind of badge of honour. I've seen it and it's hilarious.

N V Brooks ● 591d

There are too many cars, indeed.So utilise ALL road space, don’t keep reducing it with idiotic schemes.You (sadiq james) chose time ignore my proof of the ltns causing congestion & consequently pollution, during fuel issuesPeople obviously need & want cars

Peter Yale ● 591d

There is a massive difference between the closure of Half Acre and Swyncombe Ave, Half Acre was a massive rat run between the Uxbridge road and Greenford Avenue, along what are residential roads, Swyncombe is a main road, yes also residential but still a main road, closing the main road forces traffic down the smaller residential roads. The recent LTNs were put in as a vanity project without any thought, planning or data, and not only caused problems but higher pollution, Swyncombe was initially closed because of the LTN21 that forced everyone down one road, even the people who lived in the LTN had to use Swycombe just to access there homes, now the LTN has been re-opened there is no need for Swyncombe to remain closed, the only people who want it to remain closed are the usual suspects,

Declan Devine ● 591d

Thank you for adding a timescale Ben I actually thought that these closures had been in place for far longer.

N V Brooks ● 592d

Joining the conversation to spread a fact not an opinion.Back in 2001 those working in the council traffic planning department did not even realise there was a traffic problem in the Lawn Gardens area. I would be surprised if they even knew where Lawn Gardens was.  The road closures only came about through a well orchestrated campaign led by local resident and campaigner Carolyn Brown. It is she who chairs the Hanwell Community Forum and, probably by no coincidence, HCF put their considerable weight behind the campaign too. Success quickly followed as the council accepted her sound arguments and acted accordingly. However, it must be stressed that this was done in two stages.The first stage was that it was going to be implemented as a trial of 12 months (might have been 6) before being reviewed. After 12 months had elasped a review took place and the scheme became permanent.This was in late 2002, so 20 years ago, and the new "NO THROUGH ROUTE TO UXBRIDGE ROAD" signs remained up for a good 5 years after the scheme went live for good!Carolyn once told me that the Myrtle Gardens, Lawn Gardens, Station Road and Half Acre roads were "every cabbie's favourite rat run in west London." I do not know if that was true! Nor do I know what drove her to campaign for it, but it is a fair bet that far too many non-resident vehicles were using these roads as a rat run that influenced her. Carolyn and a large number of other local residents are now delighted with the 20-year old traffic calming measures. After they were installed one resident told me "it is now much more peaceful outside my house." I also happen to know of a resident who lives in these tranquil roads, but marched against the LTN's because it impacted her household!Since LTN's are imposed as a traffic calming measures by transport planners, it is right to refer to Lawn Gardens as a LTN.

Ben Owen ● 592d

No Paul. Some of us know what the LCC wants, which is to eradicate private car ownership in London. But what morons like that don’t understand is that some people do have to drive for any number of reasons. You drive when it suits you, which makes you a hypocrite when you state there are too many cars. Bit like the vegan who occasionally eats meat because he ‘has to’.You don’t know what I want, do you? You think you know best. Even your London Mayor gets chauffeured about in a 4x4, yet you don’t think that’s a problem.You had any luck getting your toad closed off to through traffic? Surely your own doorstep is the best place to start? Or is it that your neighbours don’t want the road closed?

Simon Hayes ● 592d

>Closing Swyncombe isn’t a progressive move. It panders to the LCC and it’s acolytes ambition to make driving more difficult, despite it not being an illegal activity. This isn't about making driving more difficult, it's about making NOT driving more easy Simon.>Why, you even do it yourself when it suits. You have to admit that you might be a hypocrite.I drive, other people drive, it's just less driving I want to see Simon, as do you, not no driving.

Paul James ● 592d

>The amount of traffic using side roads is no worse in London than it was 13 years agoAnd 13 years ago it was bad too, and it's headed back past there now for London as a whole which must mean a bigger increase in places without congestion charge zones etc...

Paul James ● 592d

>One would have thought population increase would increase car journeys, at least according to you. But you were wrong.It is you that keeps saying more people means more cars, not me Simon.

Paul James ● 592d

Too many cars Simon, too many cars.

Paul James ● 592d

Hanwell's Half Acre Road, junction with Uxbridge Road, has been closed for decades.  I'd always assumed the closure was instigated by a councillor living in Half Acre, requiring peace and quiet. . . .

Tony Heath ● 592d

Paul, your straw clutching is pathetic.The amount of traffic using side roads is no worse in London than it was 13 years ago, despite the advent of satnavs. Completely opposite to the claims you and others made, as you will agree. So admit that you were wrong.In that period population levels in Ealing and other parts of London have risen substantially, with consequential increases in vehicles (including vans and lorries) to service that population. One would have thought population increase would increase car journeys, at least according to you. But you were wrong.Closing Swyncombe isn’t a progressive move. It panders to the LCC and it’s acolytes ambition to make driving more difficult, despite it not being an illegal activity. Why, you even do it yourself when it suits. You have to admit that you might be a hypocrite.

Simon Hayes ● 592d

Given the rise in population density and the emission and pollution reduction per vehicle I simply don't agree that the issue is anywhere near as bad as some have convinced themselves that it is."Less worse" is a strange similie for "wholly inaccurate".

N V Brooks ● 592d

Nigel, they corrected some figures so traffic down back streets across London measured as a whole looks less worse now on paper than it did.It's still bad though I'm sure you'd agree.This is not the gotcha you seem to think it is :D

Paul James ● 592d

Based on what traffic measures?The incorrect data from DfT?The fabricated data from TfL?Only an idiot or a liar would base decisions on such data.

N V Brooks ● 592d

I think you missed out the word 'not' between down and idiotic.

Simon Wycombe ● 592d

How is stopping main road traffic using back streets to dive down idiotic?

Paul James ● 592d

Ah, I see you've changed the subject and conceded the point. Thanks.The Montague road filter was put there after residents demanded it, it's not going anywhere.Same for the station road one and the Oaklands one.And all the others...

Paul James ● 592d

I guess even if 20 years old + then we can class them as LTN's on the basis they are just as idiotic.Perhaps we can call them I T S (idiotic traffic systems)??

Simon Wycombe ● 592d

Voted for on two factors:1. Incomplete and fabricated data supplied by DfT and TfL showing traffic volumes that never existed.2. An 'ownership' by some of of a public resource which will be rescinded when the ETOs are revoked.I must have missed the 'march'  to retain the restrictions I am sure that if there were significant numbers (fewer than 1000 supported retention borough-wide) then it would have been far wider publicised.

N V Brooks ● 592d

Station road IS an LTN Nigel, it's got actual bollards to  stop through traffic using it and blighting the streets in it. The only way in and out by car is onto Greenford Avenue.It's the very dictionary definition of a Low Traffic Neighbourhood!

Paul James ● 592d

>Whereas Montague Avenue/Deans is an LTN based on incorrect traffic flow data 'swallowed' by local residents to justify closing 'their' road.You know it was residents that asked for Oaklands to be closed to through traffic right?I still can't see what the difference is, except Oaklands has had its modal filter for a while and Montague Avenue only got it recently, but in 20 years time it will still be there and you can say it's long established then.And what about the bollards of station road and half acre?You know the residents marched to the town hall to stop them being removed right when it was proposed, including one I know of who also went on the anti LTN march to get them removed from other people's roads!

Paul James ● 592d

It is a (very) long established no through road closed at least twenty years ago.I doubt that many can ever recall driving down it, just like Windsor Road which closed not long after Ealing Broadway centre opened in 1985.Whereas Montague Avenue/Deans is an LTN based on incorrect traffic flow data 'swallowed' by local residents to justify closing 'their' road. An awakening will happen when the ETOs which permitted this and other "my road, sod you" schemes are rescinded.

N V Brooks ● 592d

Cars are a type of vehicleAll cars are a type of vehicle.Same meaning.All isn't needed to mean all.

Paul James ● 592d

Is it not an LTN Nigel? It's a road closed to through traffic, using a gate in this case. Same as Montague Avenue, LTN50.If it's not an LTN what is it?

Paul James ● 592d

Fast becoming a popular route for people heading West.Look at your comment then & work out why that would be.Same with Greenford Avenue.It’s to avoid queues & jams -congestion & pollution caused by blocking roads.I proved this to you during the petrol problems, you choose to pretend to forget or not understand.Same as the publics feelings about LTNs, why they were removed

Peter Yale ● 592d

No it doesn't, the clue is that the word 'all' is missing.STOP MAKING THINGS UP TO SUIT YOUR NARROW MINDED VIEW OF THE WORLD!

N V Brooks ● 592d

Has been closed for over twenty years and not part of the nonsensical LTN programme.

N V Brooks ● 592d

Station Road was made a no through road well before LTNs, as was Windsor Road in Ealing which has been in place for over twenty years.

N V Brooks ● 592d

The station approach Golden Manor route needs cutting off though, I see people clearly using that as a way of getting round a traffic jam on Greenford Avenue and they often rip down the very narrow station road at speed.

Paul James ● 592d

Swyncombe's not on it, that's just a no entry for motor vehicles at one end of a road. It's fast becoming a more popular route for people going west though!

Paul James ● 592d

Oaklands Road, with gates....This map is quite good. Details areas where gates or bollards, road layout or natural features create an area of housing without through routes.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5122172,-0.3272175,14z/data=!4m2!6m1!1s1zSad_np5MBmRyrJMFHaBiacMU7hMNbJp?hl=en

Paul James ● 592d

Station road in Hanwell is an LTN, with bollards.Big LTN behind the polish church in ealing, with bollards.One in west acton, with gates... There are many more...

Paul James ● 592d

>Colin posted "Adds time and distance to journeys".>This does not say all journeys does it? Yes it does!

Paul James ● 592d

Adrienne Avenue at the top of Lady Margaret Road is the only other one of which I know.

N V Brooks ● 592d

Isn't the answer that it's Hounslow, not Ealing?Aside from the Deans Road nonsense, are there any of these neighbourhood things left in Ealing?

Simon Wycombe ● 592d

It's all been meddled with.Those with longer memories will recall that messing with Traffic signals to create congestion was exposed after continual denials by the Ken Livingstone Administration and TfL to enable the Congestion Charge extension.When the Next Mayor came in one of the first things was to order TfL to drop this method of manipulation and within weeks congestion eased massively.But as revealed this week, the data being used to close roads and impose LTNs and this includes Swyncombe Ave was a work of fiction and completely unjustified.But Ealing and Hounslow have an agenda no matter how much they wish to lie of manipulate.Funny how they can do that but heavily criticise a government and leader who does the same.Double Standards and the same old hypocrisy when it comes to taxpayers money at any level.

Raymond Havelock ● 592d

I am the one getting it right, not the one pathetically trying to distance their way away from amother "it's about me" post.Colin posted "Adds time and distance to journeys". This does not say all journeys does it?  Honestly you probably don't need to cycle to stay fit Paul. The amount of leaping to conslusions that you manage to achieve is impressive and must keep you fit on its own.

N V Brooks ● 592d

>There lies the problem.>It’s the cyclist way or nothingWelcome to your new overlords... :D

Paul James ● 592d

There lies the problem.It’s the cyclist way or nothing

Peter Yale ● 592d

Nigel, all the op had to say was this and I wouldn't have said a word:>[possibly] adds time and distance to [some] journeys [by car] Let's get things right please.

Paul James ● 592d

The first point is obvious despite whining deials.The second becomes even more obvious as nights draw in and the weather becomes less 'favourable' and cyclists revert to public transport and cars.

N V Brooks ● 592d

Paul is only interested in himself and those like him.As we all know, cycling is a minority leisure pursuit, not a coherent transport policy.

Simon Hayes ● 592d

As ever, all about you and the 3-4% of those who, while it's still relatively warm and dry, choose to cycle. I know a couple of families who live on Swyncombe, neither want it and one, where the husband attends Ealing for treatment whose journey time has almost doubled as they either queue on Uxbridge Road to go via Northfields or Boston Manor Road to travel via the A4 and Windmill Road.Still, as long as you are Ok that's all that matters Paul isn't it?

N V Brooks ● 592d

>Adds time and distance to journeys and therefore increases pressure and pollution.It doesn't mine, why do you appear to suggest all journeys?!

Paul James ● 592d

The phasing is a temporary problem - they've all disconnected. See here: https://streetcare.tfl.gov.uk/around?lon=-0.31336&lat=51.48827&js=1&zoom=3

Adam Jackson ● 592d