If interested, I submitted a FOI request to TfL for the rationale/regulations behind the changes to the roundabout - this is their response: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1679-2324Guy, hopefully this provides the info you needed to help fight the change. This roundabout is the tip of the iceberg of repetitive, endless roadworks and poorly considered road changes that do not support proclaimed aims.The mayor’s plan apparently is for 80% of journeys to be made by walking, cycling and public transport and to help clear London’s air and improve health.The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians (especially children, the elderly and disabled persons), cyclists and motorcyclists. I’m 100% behind pedestrians being safer, making cycling safer, reducing pollution and having a great public transport network. Pretty sure everyone would agree.However, all the road changes/roadworks (including the cycle lanes) over the past 5/6 years either oppose those aims or make roads more dangerous for at least one group of the most vulnerable road users. Yet it seems impossible to determine who is ultimately responsible for these failings and hold them to account; is it TfL? LBH? National Highways? The Mayor?Let’s take the endless roadworks. Is there no-one with oversight/monitoring/evaluating on a local level to make sure roadworks are coordinated, planned (where possible) and completed with minimal impact in a sensible timeframe? If not, there clearly should be - the Mayor should probably add this to his aims. It seems that Thames Water, TfL, Highways, LBH etc can do whatever work they feel like with no prior notice for as long as they want. Repeatedly. Works also take an embarrassing length of time. It took a year to redo the paving on Kew Bridge. Twice. How long is a reasonable amount of time to replace a bit of road to create a cycle path between Chiswick Roundabout and the Steam Museum? It took 3-4 weeks just to replace these silly roundabout traffic lights. That’s not acceptable. If it wasn’t so harmful it would be comical. All the while there is pollution from compressors, long idling traffic jams everywhere and buses held up. This haphazard approach blatantly opposes the Mayor’s pollution aim as well as the aim to encourage public transport. So - who is accountable and what is being done to improve this going forward? Then, let’s look at the road changes in Chiswick High Road, Kew/Brentford to support cycling. Cycling should absolutely be safer, however cyclists have been prioritised above all other vulnerable road users and public transport. Trip hazards aplenty with a mixture of kerbs sometimes there and sometimes not for elderly, disabled and people with pushchairs to navigate. Bollards everywhere reducing lines of sight. Roads that slalom into oncoming traffic. Bus lanes - gone, although I note the plan to reinstate. The changes don’t even go far enough to keep cyclists safe. The lanes vary in width, cut across different sides of the road and are often really good for part of a journey but end suddenly at junctions. Is there honestly anyone who can look at Chiswick High Road and deem it a success? Do these road changes support the Mayor’s aim? Not really. It is better for cyclists but not as good as it could be, it is more dangerous for pedestrians, more polluting with idling traffic and doesn’t support using public transport.It is hard to get on board behind strategies like ULEZ when government/councils/others are happily paralysing the roads with poor decisions, choking fumes and no consequences.
Tanya Baker ● 249d