Forum Topic

LTN’s - 20min Neighbourhoods — What I Learnt Last Night

Went to Ealing Councils “Community Workshop for Ealings 20 Minute Framework for Ealing Broadway & South Ealing” last nightDidn’t know about it did you? I’m not surprised as we only heard last minute via an obscure social media post; it was advertised as Sold Out via Eventbrite but this was wrong and there was plenty of capacity. In fact it was very sparsely attended!!!The buzzwords were “Primary Active Travel Route”; “Greener Active Travel Link”; “ Climate Change and Ecological Emergency Plan” and wonderful ideas such as Focus Zones, Placemaking etcCut to the chase: this is the return of LTN’s only on steroids now.Plans under consideration (ie coming your way in a year or two) are to make South Ealing Road a Primary Active Travel Route. Questioned what this actually is the spin answer was where walking and cycling encouraged but, despite constant requests, the details of what this looked like couldn’t be shared. When I stated this can only be at the expense of car travel and “another as Chiswick High Road disaster” the very nice young lady could only go crimson and I got no response really.Exactly the same when talking about the Uxbridge Road junction around The North StarAll of these plans are formulated via the online responses numbering 1,100 which is a 1.25% sample of the effected population in these areasWhen asked where the people rolling these ideas out lived they were rather sheepish in confirming they didn’t live in these areas, some actually not even Ealing rather the well known cycling stazi of Islington!! The regeneration aspect for these areas is of course laudable and welcome.However clearly this will be at the expense of heritage and your freedom of movement by means you may choose freely The final classic snippets were nobody from Planning in attendance or involved, no consideration apparently in respect of high density high rise blocks with this just being about infrastructure. So totally disjointed which to the average Joe must appear mad as don’t you plan your infrastructure around the expected built environment as a whole???In short — there’s a nightmare heading our way

Colin Goodman ● 1011d207 Comments

The (not so) funny thing is, Mr Goodman, you weren't in the least surprised at all the chicanery, were you?

Rosco White ● 1011d

I'm going to give my prediction as to how this will play out.1. Cycle lanes down South Ealing Road, maybe with pavements widened too.2. Removal of all Stop n Shop bays as a result.3. Over the next year or so, all shops, cafés and restaurants close because of lack of trade.4. South Ealing Road very quiet because there's nothing to go there for.5. Council declares the scheme a huge success and gives bonuses to the staff who planned and implemented it.

Susan Kelly ● 1011d

LTNs were the actually the carrots, but got chucked out by a bunch of people that wanted the "drive when and where" they wanted, and look, traffic still terrible and will only get worse.Now come the sticks as we can't continue with the levels of dirty air we have to suffer here in Ealing.

Paul James ● 1011d

One good suggestion (unless you live there) was using Mattock Lane and roads behind Uxbridge Road as more of a cycle highway A very informed gentleman there with lots of great ideas.The look of shock on the faces of the council bods running it was a picture!!!!London is a sprawling metropolis and we’ve got along great for centuries now.You cannot fit an elephant into a mini metro and neither should you grind this once vibrant city of ours to a halt.We’ve got the cleanest fleet of motor vehicles on the road EVER and still it’s not enough for some so deeply entrenched in their narrow views.Let’s hope they pay attention to the feedback….. I hear hell is forecast to freeze over soon as well

Colin Goodman ● 1011d

>One good suggestion (unless you live there) was using Mattock Lane and roads behind Uxbridge Road as more of a cycle highwayMattock Lane is a signed cycle route. I've used it for years, despite the ensuing chaos at the west end of it after you cross Culmington.>You cannot fit an elephant into a mini metro and neither should you grind this once vibrant city of ours to a halt.It gets ground to a regular halt on a regular basis because there is too much driving.>We’ve got the cleanest fleet of motor vehicles on the road EVER Air pollution still way above WHO recommend maximums all over.>Let’s hope they pay attention to the feedback….. ...and disregard people asking for even more roads and more driving.

Paul James ● 1011d

Cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo. It’s all cobblers from anti car zealots who have no clue, or basic common sense.The amount lost to the economy from foolhardy schemes, harassing drivers.These woke fools who live in a dream world, people need & want cars

Peter Yale ● 1011d

Peter, just another idiot espousing the 'traffic will evaporate' mantra of the intellectually challenged as they impose restrictions without any consideration for the consequences.

N V Brooks ● 1011d

During his working life my husband was “on the tools”. Two industrial sized heavy metal tool boxes, thick cabling, ladder, etc, etc. working at 2/3 different parts of London in one day. The idea that some of these sillies have that he should travel by bicycle or Tube , well it makes me realise how educational levels have collapsed.He was what might be termed an essential worker. The sort that Gruppenfuhrer Khan has declared war on with his ULEZ. If he was still working he would have had to have packed it in.

Bettina Margaret Thwaite ● 1010d

>The idea that some of these sillies have that he should travel by bicycle or Tube ,Nobody is suggesting this.Can you point to somebody that has?

Paul James ● 1010d

Yes, Paul sadiq khan James. Deidre Costigan/Ealing council

Peter Yale ● 1010d

The air in Ealing is not 'dirty'. Air pollution levels have been falling for at least the last 50 years, without LTNs.

Vlod Barchuk ● 1010d

Usual claptrap from Paul James. Only to be expected from a halfwit.London is grinding to a halt because so many obstacles are being put into the road network. Car ownership has been falling for years, as TfL knows from it’s own data. What has increased is the number of delivery journeys and private hire vehicles cruising the streets all day. Again TfL know this.The LYBs weren’t a carrot for anyone who had to live in one. They were unpopular for a number of reasons, hence the thousands of people protesting against them.What Paul and his idiot LCC chums don’t get is that cycling isn’t very popular. Otherwise everyone would do it (and the safety argument is bullshit). Unfortunately Paul has his head so far up his rear end he can’t see or hear anything that doesn’t tally with what he experiences there.

Simon Hayes ● 1010d

Where? Show me.

Paul James ● 1010d

Somebody (else) has posted this exact text on a local Facebook group Colin.Did they copy you or did copy them?

Paul James ● 1010d

The air at the junction of the high street and Ealing broadway is some of the dirtiest air in London.It exceeds local, national and international limits for many different types of pollutant.

Paul James ● 1010d

Paul, coming from someone who regurgitates LCC doctrine verbatim, none of which is supported by facts, your post is ridiculous.What you should be asking is why there’s never any detail in these proposals, just airy fairy ‘ambitions’, with constant evasion of explanation.If you cast your small, narrow mind back to 2020 you might recall that the primary reason for Lynn introduction was for social distancing. As it turned out that didn’t work so all manner of supposed facts to support their existence were put forward. Air quality was one, although the lack of any reliable air quality data rather undermined the case. Ealing Council admitted it had no baseline data and therefore could not say if quality was better or worse.

Simon Hayes ● 1010d

It is also worth remembering that three of the air quality monitors were mysteriously either stolen or went out of action for an extended period. (Boston Road, Uxbridge Road W7 near Ian King's both 'mislaid' and by St.Mark's School (mysteriously 'failed'). This means, that no baseline data for these sites all of which were on boundary roads for LTN21 could be captured, Therefore any comparative data citing reductions is either speculative or false.Also interesting to note that the three sensors at the most polluted (due to the release of ground chemicals) site in the bourough - Ealing Green Quarter have all been taken offline.The current readings for all but one of the monitoring sites that are still active is 'Low' for all parameters.

N V Brooks ● 1010d

Where is your evidence to support that claim? There is no monitoring station (which are run by the London Air Quality Network) there to take readings of emissions and pollutants.

Vlod Barchuk ● 1009d

One wonders where or how data that was never collated or even taken can make claims about data that again is now collated to order and to specifications that remain 'classified for commercial reasons'.So it takes several FoI applications to glean any actual clear facts and this can take an age. Purely to delay and stall and stifle any kind of reasoning.So Ealing Broadway.  How can it be worse?  Fewer buses than in 1989.Most are Hybrid, Many are all electric. and all are Euro 5 and a love and have been for some time.Railways. Now 90% Electric from 100% Diesel in less than a decade.The Diesels that remain for freight are all highly modified.90% of motor vehicles are 100% compliant and emit a fraction of emissions in the 1970s. Of the 10% not compliant only 2% are in daily working use. Most do very low mileages. Even if all 10% were used all day , every day it would not make any significant impact unless all concentrated in one small area. ( Which is never going to occur)There has been less motor traffic since the Travelcard zones were introduced.Even with a huge increase in population it is significantly lower than it was per 1000 people.HGVs, Vans and heavy Plant remain the only increase and two of that category are also near 100% Euro compliant.The only significant change in Ealing Broadway is the increase in Air conditioning plant, and structural infrastructure using industrial plant and the huge increase in food outlets which all emit fumes and waste which needs dealing with.Most of the problems are now used by imposed road management restrictions deliberately causing delays, idling, wasting of fuel and peoples time and damaging the economy in a myriad of ways.Delays and slowing of bus routes to the point that they are almost pointless using after 30 years of trying to speed them up to get people on them ( which worked by the way) is simply near insane. Hammersmith, Chiswick and Isleworth and soon to be Brentford are now hopelessly congested day and night. Businesses are leaving especially small ones and overdensification ( which is the true cause of bad air is continuing to be green lighted)

Raymond Havelock ● 1009d

Yet more fantasising by Mr James I am afraid. There nearest pollution monitoring station to the location he mentions is actually a diffusion tube halfway down Bond Street. Ealing published data shows this is consistently below the target level.

N V Brooks ● 1009d

One of the biggest contributions in Ealing at the moment is construction. Particulate emissions from demolition and building, the running of plant for hours (and Sadiq Khan has failed to implement his own emissions restrictions on that because of lobbying by developers), the transportation of materials to and from by HGV.It’s accepted that construction is not included when local authorities trumpet their green credentials. Hounslow were called out about it by the Green Party a couple of years ago but have quietly ignored it, despite the massive regeneration of Brentford.

Simon Hayes ● 1009d

Brentford also had an issue with an ongoing release of asbestos from the buildings being demolished. This seems to be in quietly covered up.

N V Brooks ● 1009d

>One of the biggest contributions in Ealing at the moment is construction. It's not the biggest though Simon, that's motor vehicles and more specifically, private cars!

Paul James ● 1009d

Which, according to both council and independent air quality data do no, at most sites emit PM2 5 and PM10 particulates sufficient enough to cause concern. What is of far greater concern is the removal of monitoring equipment at the "Green Quarter".

N V Brooks ● 1009d

>at most sites emit PM2 5 and PM10 particulates sufficient enough to cause concern. Did you mean>most sites don't emit PM2 5 and PM10 particulates sufficient enough to cause concern. This is nonsense nigel, they all do. you can't use an instantaneous reading to gauge this, you have to look at people's exposure over a longer time period.Over a life time or over a year for instance.

Paul James ● 1009d

The data I posted was from 2014-2022 and shows a steady decline.Call it nonsense if you wish but all but two roadside sites have PM2.5 and PM 10 levels within guidelines.Never mind Paul, you have a track reacord of neither apologising when you are wrong nor quitting while you are behind.

N V Brooks ● 1009d

Chiswick High Rd's demise seems to have coincided with the moronic cycle lane.The likes of Bill's, Carluccio's and one of JO's restaurant disappeared because of it I am sure.South Ealing Road going the same way fills me with dread.

Simon Wycombe ● 1009d

If you look at their local site the pro cycleway lobby laud the rise of the weekly artisan food market and credit the cycleway for its success (example, £14 for a plate of stew and nowhere to sit and eat it). Save that it is held on a little shop service road and is unaffected by the cycleway and would have been held anyway. In 5he meantime the closures and turnover of shops continues unabated.

N V Brooks ● 1009d

Yes, Nigelwhilst I have never really been a fan of Chiswick, it's sad to see it going downhill so rapidly.

Simon Wycombe ● 1009d

FTAO Paul JamesNot sure if your post above was a genuine question or a snidey swipe?No matter I’ll answer as you so very rarely doYou’re probably referring to a post from my wife on Northfields Friends or similar.I don’t think it’s preposterous or wrong for her to post word for word as she was in fact sitting next to me through the whole debacle. She’s quite a switched on lady and also can see through the charade Now…. Turning back to this topic and others like it. I do not see why people engage with you and your entrenchment as you’re either on a wind up, are totally narrow minded or a crank. All the evidence and more importantly COMMON SENSE points to a totally different conclusion but you remain steadfast. I suppose that’s to be commended slightly whilst also being amusing in a Comical Ali type of way.The sad thing is come the next round of elections you’ll have your way.Your cronies will be emboldened by another five years, central government will be red and the magic money tree will have somehow sprouted a new harvest. Ealing residents will have sleep walked into a disaster and I fear for the future of large parts of the Borough as people and businesses leave in their droves.I think that’ll be replicated across London.I keep saying it’s time to look at life further afield and that gathers more momentum with every day.I’ll say no more(PS - this won’t be copied anywhere else!!!)

Colin Goodman ● 1009d

Diffusion Tube EA26 for NO2 at that junction, which is a strong indicator of other pollutants as well obviously:2016 - 61.92017 - 54.42018 - 60.42019 - 56.22020 - 42.5 2012 - 44.3 2022 - 43.6All above local national and international recommended maximums.You say they are going down, which is the only correct thing you've said here. Are they still too high? Yes, are they going down fast enough? No. IS the air in the area too dirty? Yes, even according the UK's frankly lax maximums.Of course the reason they are going down is due to people concerned about air pollution, unlike yourself it appears Vlod!Acton is similarly affected of course, and it's quite surprising you don't appear to comprehend this!I have to say, you surely don't need these readings to know the air there is too dirty? Just use your eyes ears and nose surely, that's not fresh air coming out the back of all those cars!

Paul James ● 1008d

Ah, so 5hevstandards are wrong now are they. Any other strws at which you want to grasp?A truly busted flush.

N V Brooks ● 1008d

Replying to a claim that I don't have any evidence of dirty air at Ealing Broadway with actual readings from an air pollution monitor AT Ealing Broadway is grasping at straws?:D :D :D

Paul James ● 1008d

Show me where it says owning a private vehicle is illegal Paul.Just because it offends your sensibilities doesn’t make it wrong.If you don’t like it why not do us all a favour and move to the Antarctic. Nice a quiet there. No cars. Clean air. What’s not to like?

Simon Hayes ● 1008d

No, learn to read, Stating that the standards are too low is, as usual, grasping at straws.  Busted flush.

N V Brooks ● 1008d

Dear Busted FlushFrom the Mayor's written response to Onkar Sahota AM on 22 March 2022 in response to a question about polution in Ealing Broadway."In 2016 all 3 sites were in exceedance of the annual legal limit, with site EA26 also exceeding the indicative threshold for exceeding the hourly limit. Due to the action I have taken on air pollution since 2016, there was an average 33% reduction at all sites between 2016 and 2020, with two out of three sites meeting the annual legal limit in 2020 and site EA26 only slightly exceeding it."If the Mayor is seemingly content who cares what a Busted Flush thinks?

N V Brooks ● 1008d

>with two out of three sites meeting the annual legal limit in 2020 and site EA26 only slightly exceeding it."Is that good enough for you Nigel? It's not for me, or for the Mayor, nor the council leadership or anybody with any sense at all really.

Paul James ● 1008d

Yes it is, as the site you singled out (EA026) has dropped even more since the Mayor's response to Sahota.  Before you point out that the figures are higher than 2020, 2020 was a lockdown anomaly when all sites had artificially low readings.  As I said, no one really cares what a Busted Flush thinks so I'll leave you to imagining accidents and squadrons of skip lorries making a beeline for you. Sad really.

N V Brooks ● 1008d

Come on Paul, admit when you are wrong. Just because you disagree doesn’t make you right. Nigel has produced the evidence.Or you could just disappear again, as you tend to do when proved wrong.As an aside, I asked a number of my kids friends if they liked cycling. A dozen or so, all teenagers. Not one said they did, even though most had bikes. ‘Boring’, ‘uncool’ and ‘uncomfortable’ were the reasons given. Just thought you’d be interested and perhaps might feed that back to the LCC.

Simon Hayes ● 1008d

Oh good, maybe some peace until Busted Flush imagines something else.Interestingly, an independent survey by Transport for All, which seeks to level the playing field for all transport users recently surveyed users of various modes of transport across England. They included walking, cyclists (using handbikes or adapted models), car, public transport and hire vehicle. Of the total body of respondees only 3% listed cycling as their option of choice.

N V Brooks ● 1008d

As you know Nigel the real scandal is the inordinate amount spent by TfL to pander to the whims of a tiny minority of able-bodied cyclists while persistently ignoring the need to make all Underground stations fully accessible. Northfields campaigners were told they would have to find the £120,000 for a feasibility study at that station, as TfL won’t pay for it.A segregated cycle lane costs in excess of £500,000 a kilometer. No wonder there’s no money for anyone else.

Simon Hayes ● 1008d

Weren't the LTNs paused because of a very small minority of complainants, many of whom didn't live in Ealing? Sample sizes can't just be OK when you agree with what they say.

Kevin Wilson ● 1008d

>Show me where it says owning a private vehicle is illegal Paul.Show me where I said it is or I think it should be Simon!

Paul James ● 1008d

Bizarre, I've answered all of the questions here, but there are a few people that haven't answered mine, and some of them resorting to abuse and name calling (as usual) which is very telling!

Paul James ● 1008d

No you havde not, you never do Paul. All of the questions you posed have been answered save for those where the question was bazsed on one of your fantasies.Still, it's fun showing the world what a Busted Flush (neither abuse nor name calling, just an accurate description - you must learn to tell the difference) looks like on a local forum.

N V Brooks ● 1008d

Yes, a tiny minority of around 2,600 direct complaints from residents and God  knows how many others from others inconvenienced.

N V Brooks ● 1008d

And since the mayor's response to sahota the ULEZ has extended out past Ealing, in the face of incredible opposition, so no doubt it might get lower, but more to come as it's still too high.It seems the Mayor of London's adminstration isn't going to rest on it's laurels Nigel, as much as you sound like you want it to.More to come, thankfully!

Paul James ● 1008d

Population of Ealing...341,000...

Paul James ● 1008d

Er, so the pro lobby must be less than 0.001 percent then.Paul, you really ought to get out and look for the common sense you lost somewhere. You simply underline your stupidity with every utterance.What’s not mentioned is that there’s no actual campaigning by the Labour Party specifying that the aim is to eradicate private car ownership in London. Why? Because they’d lose every election. It’s cowardly to go about things as they do.Idiots like Paul and his LCC chums are only interested in what suits them. Ultimately they are damaging the London economy and making it harder for a lot of people to earn a living. Ask any tradesperson if they think the traffic restrictions are a good thing and you’ll get a short, sharp response.But, of course, nobody needs a plumber or electrician these days.

Simon Hayes ● 1008d

(narrator : nobody wanted to outlaw car ownership)

Paul James ● 1008d

Now you are just being dishonest as well as stupid.The LCC chairman is on record stating he wants to ‘free people from the tyranny of car ownership’. He even addressed the Labour Party conference about it last year. It’s been echoed elsewhere, including by Larry Brentford councillor lambert (an LCC member), although nobody is honest enough to admit it’s policy. Instead it’s done through tax like the ulez or simply removing on street residential parking, without consultation or notice.You must think everyone is as stupid as you are to keep denying it. The LCC even publishes its ambitions on its website.Seriously Paul, you should take a long hard look at yourself. It ain’t pretty.

Simon Hayes ● 1008d

We shall see. As NOx, particulate and CO2 levels drop as cars are cleaner than ever and motoring becomes a second choice for many on cost grounds only the true velophile fantasists are celebrating what might happen.I guess this plays well into the Busted Flush Fantasy Handbook.Essential reading for obsessed odiots everywhere.

N V Brooks ● 1008d

Don’t forget that Paul jumps into a car when he ‘needs’ to. If he really believed what he says he wouldn’t do so. Doesn’t matter if it’s a car club vehicle, it’s still a car that pollutes (in his words) and adds to ‘too many cars’ on the roads. And he’s probably a poor driver too!Trouble with arguing with thick people, they just can’t really do logic.

Simon Hayes ● 1008d

EA26 is not located at the junction of the High Street and Ealing Broadway. It is on Springbridge Rd, outside the primary school. This is going to have two pollution problems specific to that location: parents parking their cars whilst picking up their children (and running their engines) and vehicles accelerating away from the traffic lights (which will generate more pollution than a vehicle travelling at a steady speed). For reference here are the 2022 NO2 readings for a number of locations (note that the legal threshold is average NO2 of 40 microgrammes per cubic metre):Springbridge Rd - 44Bond St – 32 Haven Green – 37Haven Lane – 22Hanger Lane - 52So pollution levels vary greatly even across a small area, necessitating bespoke solutions. The only reading in what might be considered a residential street (Haven Lane) is the lowest recording, blowing apart the case for LTNs; it is residential middle class areas that have the lowest pollution levels. Forcing more vehicles onto main roads, which have the highest pollution levels, shows a complete lack of concern about pollution but that's you Paul - you want to virtue signal how much you care while proposing nothing that will actually deal pollution hotspots.

Vlod Barchuk ● 1007d

Wow Vlod, you've come a long way from:"The air in Ealing is not 'dirty'. Maybe you were just trolling?

Paul James ● 1007d

Let me tell you how this will play out if the Busted Flush's track record it anything to go by. He will refute data that anyone other than he publishes and even if he is 100% proven wrong he will fail to apologise. Someone will then post that he is fantasising and stage two of his normal process is to then play the victim or to totally divert the topic onto the need for better cycle lanes in some particular location that he recently cycled.This will be dismissed by those with a grain of common sense and the Busted Flush will then complain that he is being insulted and compound his victim syndrome.It happens time and time again and is like winding up an old clockwork toy.

N V Brooks ● 1007d

Pay attention. I put 'dirty' in inverted commas because its meaning is unclear, usually its definition is a political weapon used by people with an agenda - you, in short. The air is not dirty compared to the 1950s, 1970s or even 1990s. It's cleaner than it was 10 years ago. There, that's cleared that up. Now how about addressing the substantive points I made in my post?

Vlod Barchuk ● 1007d

Trust me, I have no political agenda here, none at all, air quality goes across politics as we all breath it no matter what our politics are. I think it's yourself making it political here.>The air is not dirty compared to the 1950s, 1970s or even 1990s. It's cleaner than it was 10 years ago.Yes, air is getting less dirty due to people wanting cleaner air to breath, let's keep doing this until it's actually clean and not causing serious health problems.You can see from the readings we're discussing, we're not there yet, or anywhere near it in fact.

Paul James ● 1006d

(BTW I'm not counting CO2 in all of this, but this is obviously a problem too that needs resolving too)

Paul James ● 1006d

As always the electorate can vote then out of office next time if they're unhappy. That's how democracy works.

Kevin Wilson ● 1006d

If only it worked like that in all parts of this borough.

N V Brooks ● 1006d

I don't think it's Democracy when Non Council Tax paying Students get to vote on Council Elections.And those who also vote twice, once where they study and once from their parents address.Which skews the results, because we all know which way  students tend to vote?This is plain wrong IMHO.

Rosco White ● 1006d

You know we fought the poll tax and won right?Are you seriously suggesting students shouldn't be able to vote?Really?

Paul James ● 1006d

Paul, Rosco White was not "suggesting students shouldn't be able to vote?". In my humble opinion ONE MAN MEANS ONE VOTE in national or local elections IN ONE ELECTORAL DISTRICT. NOT ONE MAN ONE VOTE, BUT IN TWO DIFFERENT ELECTORAL DISTRICTS EACH.

Anthony Hawran ● 1006d

"Are you seriously suggesting students shouldn't be able to vote?"Are you seriously suggesting that is what I said Mr James?I AM suggesting students who don't pay Council Tax should not be voting in Council Elections.But all the other readers on here knew I meant that.Except you.  😂

Rosco White ● 1006d

So you *are* saying you think students shouldn't be able to vote in council elections, or are you not?

Paul James ● 1006d

Rosco White did say this, not that students should be able to vote in council elections twice, but not vote at all.

Paul James ● 1006d

Only 18 years & over should be allowed to vote

Peter Yale ● 1006d

Mr James, I now fully understand the other posters' frustrations with you on here, your comprehension is appalling.

Rosco White ● 1006d

My comprehension is pefectly fine.You wrote that you want to disenfranchise students in council elections, unless you didn't you mean that when you wrote this, in which case this isn't about my comprehension skills. "I don't think it's Democracy when Non Council Tax paying Students get to vote on Council Elections."

Paul James ● 1005d

That is correct.I would like to see students disenfranchised for council elections.Like many of the foolish they often blindly vote for a political party, rather than whether or not the incumbent is doing a good job.

Rosco White ● 1005d

But you could say that about any voter.

Kevin Wilson ● 1005d

What a dismissive misanthropic horrible statement to make.

Paul James ● 1005d

Anthony. See below.

Paul James ● 1005d

(above! :D)

Paul James ● 1005d

You're still not getting this are you Simon.Investment in cycling is intended to allow more people to cycle, it's not really for those already cycling.

Paul James ● 1005d

>But you could say that about any voter.I imagine Rosco wants to disenfranchise those as well, except those that line up with their politics!!

Paul James ● 1005d

Have you considered professional help Mr James?  😉

Rosco White ● 1005d

Why the abuse? I wrote below, then added above, both are true, it's above in the order listed here, and below in the replies.

Paul James ● 1005d

The most misanthropic individual on this forum is Paul James. Absolutely condemns anyone who doesn’t share his bigoted view of the world. Coupled with a breathtaking level of ignorance it’s quite a combination.

Simon Hayes ● 1005d

I am rather disappointed with Paul today. He moved straight to the insults posts which is normally 'Phase 3' of his games card. Totally by-passing Phase Two (The Victim). Is he doing this to keep occasional readers on their toes?

N V Brooks ● 1005d

Where has Paul James been insulting , he did accuse one individual of misanthropy for calling for one group of people to be disenfranchised, he was correct.

David Burke ● 1005d

He hasn't, you misconstrue. Please see my earlier post to Vlod.Paul's playlist is.1. Post a factual inaccuracy or fantasy.2. Play the victim if challenged with accurate data or otherwise disproved.3. Then claim that HE has been insulted when his fantasies or inaccuracies are further disproved.It's the same playbook every time when all that is actually needed is a simple apology for posting fabrications in the first place (see Paul's posts elsewhere about non-existent Uxbridge Road casualties).

N V Brooks ● 1005d

Thanks David.Nigel, you're extremely insulting on this forum, as is Simon and Peter, really very nasty, very often. It only amuses me though as it really highlights your untenable positions on so many things. Show me where I've reached any where near the level of insulting nastiness that you three occupy on a regular basis, even just where I might have got off the first step, let alone the giddy heights you lot reach on a regular basis.Put up or shut up I think is the phrase.

Paul James ● 1005d

Advice that you would be well advised to take. As the old adage goes Paul "Physician Heal Thyself" or as is oft said Shut the F*88 Up!

N V Brooks ● 1005d

I don't follow these threads every minute of every day, because I don't get notifications - and I definitely don't want to start now!But Nigel, Paul is right. You can be so condescending with a vengeance now a days. You won't stop at nothing to be superior (including masking yourself in silly pompous language that you claim a 11-year-old can understand) and never learn from anyone else, or understand the other's position. Do you tell everyone who disagree with you to shut the f*!k up? It's a sure tell tale sign of the nastiness that Paul is referring to.

Ben Owen ● 1005d

Oh Paul. You are really proving Nigel’s point about how you interact here.If you ever have anything worthwhile to say people might listen, perhaps even be persuaded. But you come from such an extremist viewpoint everything you post is nonsense, because the facts just don’t support you.I do hope that any visitors you have over Christmas don’t drive to your house. That would add to the too many cars on the roads that you constantly bleat about.

Simon Hayes ● 1005d

No Ben, only those who play the post inaccuracies)play the victim/ bleat game and we have only one of those.  As I have said, I post in a language I expect any adult to comprehend

N V Brooks ● 1005d

Extremist viewpoint?We should all drive less and make roads safer so people (including kids) can walk and cycle without feeling at risk from heavy motor vehicles which can be badly driven, and driven too fast.It's like saying a 60 a day smoker should perhaps consider only smoking 20 a day.This is not an extermist viewpoint.

Paul James ● 1005d

Terrible analogy as there is no safe level of smoking or is that what you are implying about driving. You need to be very clear

N V Brooks ● 1005d

Don’t be an idiot Paul.You make massive assumptions about what people do and why they do it. It’s the LCC strategy down to a tee. Exaggerate (all those supposed ‘near accidents’ for example, which don’t count by the way).Private motor use in London is falling, and has been for years. What has increased is goods traffic and private hire journeys. Those Ubers are privately owned of course, but I bet that’s never stopped you using one.You come across as a needy, preachy hypocrite. Do you insist anyone coming to your house for a visit or making a delivery has to do so on foot or by bike? Bet you don’t. And you drive a car when it suits you. Every time you do do you add to the perceived problem you always complain about. Hypocrite.And love the tutoring of kids into your feeble argument. My kids have no qualms about walking locally or using public transport because they use their brains when out and about, as generations of kids have before them. Judging by the idiotic videos you upload on Twitter you signally fail to do so when on your bike. Not a great role model for your offspring, eh?

Simon Hayes ● 1005d

1) Paul is anti car & wont accept others need & want  them.2) He favours LTNs, doesn’t accept the congestion & pollution along major arterial roads, as vehicles are all channeled into them. This was resolved by public opinion & them rightly removed.( I proved this during petrol strike, which he ignored)3) acts as a policeman. - hence PC sadiq James4) fair enough wants children etc to feel safe cycling.As indeed I do, but not at the detriment to the majority. We all face risks & hazards daily5) hypocritically drives himself & will admit it at a push & if asked 100 or more times. I suspect he deliberately is provocative to keep LCC agenda in the limelight 6) worst of all I resent being 3rd behind Messrs Brooke’s & Hayes in the Paul James anti fan base ☹️

Peter Yale ● 1005d

If we’re talking about franchisement what about going back to the good old days.When I was a youngster I couldn’t vote before aged 21. This was actually a very good idea since the bulk of young people had then put in half a dozen years of work, living and contributing to the world of adults.The Boston Tea Party said” no taxation without representation”, well that works the other way as well. Why should students vote when they will not face the consequences of their actions. Their experience of life is as near nil as one can get it.

Bettina Margaret Thwaite ● 1004d

I know it suits you to try and make out I'm an extermist on this, but I'm simply not.I keep telling you I don't think cars should be banned, but you keep telling me I do.Leading you to ask ridiculous questions like this "Do you insist anyone coming to your house for a visit or making a delivery has to do so on foot or by bike?"I wonder if you can't comprehend I'm no extermist is because you are one yourself and you think everybody else must  think like yourself?

Paul James ● 1004d

Oh dear. ‘Too many cars’, isn’t that your mantra. Yet you insist you don’t think cars should be banned. You don’t offer a solution that’s fair or practical, just whine about drivers.You either accept that in a free democratic society everyone has the right to do as they please within the law, and that includes owning and driving motor vehicles. Just because you don’t doesn’t make everyone else wrong. Your idea that cycling is the answer is nonsense, and you know deep down that’s true. It simply doesn’t work, even the LCC acknowledges many roads in Ealing aren’t suited to segregation of bikes and vehicles.You are an extremist by dint of your LCC membership. It’s published aims are to eradicate private car ownership in London. If you disagree with that then why are you still a member?And why is asking if you stop people coming to your house by car ‘ridiculous’? If you encourage your friends and family to drive then you are adding to the very problem you insist is such an existential threat. Come on Paul, you have to admit that’s true.

Simon Hayes ● 1004d

What has been completely lost in this tit for tat dog fight is what Ealing are planning to do and who exactly is behind it and why are consultations being used that are invitation and/or online only to selected people and whether they are actually local residents?Also there is a loophole that allows students to vote not once, but twice. They can be on the electoral register at their parental home and on the electoral register in their student location.Of course, anyone eligible to vote can and should. But twice?This has been going on for years. In fact I found myself on the Electoral register both at home and when I was located away on a degree secondment and that was 25 years ago. But there is a point. Students are council tax exempt and should only be allowed to vote once and in the location they reside in full time.  But not twice in two locations.It does, where there is a very dense population of students have the ability to distort a result against the votes of full time council tax paying residents and thus affect local issues that effect people who reside permanently in a location.So in my view, of course everyone entitled to vote legally should.But those who remain registered at the home they may return to ie Parental home should only be registered for one place. And vote once.The fact that some political parties and groups spend more time and effort lobbying students rather than local permanent residents and businesses indicates to me that they know this and are taking advantage of the loophole rather than doing the honest thing and reforming it.

Raymond Havelock ● 1003d

There you go again Simon!I don't think cars should be banned.There are too many cars and there is too much driving, you've said it yourself before, do you want me to go and dig it out or have you changed you mind?And yes to Nigel, asking somebody who smokes 60 fags a day to consider going down to 20 a day is a good analogy, because 20 fags a day isn't as bad as 60 a day, but there are still improvements to make, like maybe switching to vaping etc...I'm not suggesting we ban cars though, just find ways of reducing the amount of driving being done, and part of that is cycle tracks and other improvements for people who aren't driving at the time.>And why is asking if you stop people coming to your house by car ‘ridiculous’?It is ridiculous, I don't think or would never think that, who would?! You if you were me?

Paul James ● 1003d

Raymond, we weren't talking about stopping students voting where they study and where they live, the Rosco wants to stop them voting in council elections altogether.

Paul James ● 1003d

Well, there’s your conundrum Paul.Why do you insist that residents should be kettled in LTNs and be ‘re-educated’ by people like you, yet anyone from outside the area is fine to drive? Nobody is being asked directly if this is what they want, apart from the selected few who favour restrictions. It was clear that the overwhelming opinion on traffic restrictions in Ealing was against, despite what you think.If you don’t ban cars then you have to accept that anyone who owns one should be allowed to use it. The point you miss, repeatedly, is that a motor vehicle is a tool that facilitates life for many people, particularly those who need such transport for economic reasons. You just can’t understand that because you live in a little bubble of self-satisfaction.There’s not ‘too much driving’. There’s too many people, and that’s not going to improve with current planning policy. All those people need services and shops and everything else, much of which isn’t conveniently located within a 15 minute walk of home. And that’s not going to change despite the supposed 15 minute neighbourhoods.And if you think there is too much driving then you should insist nobody drives to your house. That would make a contribution, no?

Simon Hayes ● 1003d

Yes I do, Students pay no Council Tax so should have no Council Vote.It's an opinion, like yours Mr James.    😊

Rosco White ● 1003d

Don’t be an idiot Paul. That’s not what Rosco said, or meant.As Raymond pointed out, voting in two locations is entirely illogical. It’s a loophole that we would ridicule if it was happening elsewhere. If you can’t understand that then perhaps you shouldn’t be voting….! :)

Simon Hayes ● 1003d

Wow, that's alot of stuff..>Why do you insist that residents should be kettled in LTNsKettled? What?>and be ‘re-educated’ by people like youEh?>yet anyone from outside the area is fine to drive?Uh?> It was clear that the overwhelming opinion on traffic restrictions in Ealing was against, despite what you think.Yeah, I don't think that.>If you don’t ban cars then you have to accept that anyone who owns one should be allowed to use itEr, yes, I haven't ever said they shouldn't be allowed to use it. I don't think cars should be banned,>The point you miss, repeatedly, is that a motor vehicle is a tool that facilitates life for many people, particularly those who need such transport for economic reasonsI don't miss that point, you're making it up that I do.>There’s not ‘too much driving’. Yes there is.>There’s too many people,Opinion. Also People <> cars...>And that’s not going to change despite the supposed 15 minute neighbourhoods.You misunderstand what 15 minute neighbourhoods are.>And if you think there is too much driving then you should insist nobody drives to your house.Again, that's a ridiculous thing to say.

Paul James ● 1003d

No Paul, absolutely no. There is NO, absolutely NO safe level of smoking. I will gladly introduce you to a good friend who is a consutant respiratory consultant who deals with the 'fallout' from smokers every day. There are almost 50,000 (and rising from long-term smoking) lung cancer case each year, 70% are fatal.  Vaping is far from improved alternative as there is still much work to be done in proving that inhaling warmed glycerin and trace chemicals is at all safe. If this is the extent of your expertise then it only serves to further undermine your 'opinion' on other matters.

N V Brooks ● 1003d

Not, "consutant respiratory consultant" but senior respiratory consultant.

N V Brooks ● 1003d

Simon, it is what Rosco said AND meant, they've confirmed it themselves!

Paul James ● 1003d

Nigel, I have in no way shape or form said or even suggested there is such a thing as a safe level of smoking here or anywhere, I don't understand how you think I've said that.But If you do feel the need to smoke 20 a day is less harmful than 60 a day.

Paul James ● 1003d

There was a time, and not so long ago either ( we’re not talking Rotten Boroughs era) when you could, quite legally, vote twice if you were a university wallah. Once as university staff and again as a private individual.

Bettina Margaret Thwaite ● 1003d

18 & over to vote, once only

Peter Yale ● 1003d

Every few years I get a knock at the door asking me why I'm not on the electoral register at my home.I respond that because I'm on the electoral register where my business premises are ( which is just a 1/2 mile away but in another constituency) The advice has been to register at both locations.  But I've checked with the electoral commission every time and this is not supposed to be the case. I can register quite legitamately at my home, or a paternal home, a business location. But only at ONE of them.Yet it takes several calls and proof to prove I do not have to register in two places.But clearly I could.  But that for me is ethically wrong and should be sortedStudents are allowed to be on the electoral register in two places unless in the same ward or constituency. there is no cross checking  region to region it seems. But that does leave it open to voting twice in two places and given the magnitude of mass student votes bad for the permanent residents and businesses as it completely distorts things.It should be vote in one or the other location only at the very least.

Raymond Havelock ● 1002d

Back to the topic subject.Ltns are pushed upon people undemocratically.Cause major problems & were removed when the voice of the people spoke.Any new back door methods of trying to introduce them under a different guise, should be repelled in strongest terms.

Peter Yale ● 1002d

Some problems are unsolvable to everyones agreement yet the world continues to turn on its axis. Cars in Ealing get wider and heavier by the day, buses, emergency services struggle to pass them either parked or moving.EVs are heavy and don't solve the toxic tyre crumb issue, Stazi Islington it seems should remove pavements, bus lanes houses to make more room for the car lobby to satisfy a very vocal minority.Basing views on "what aboutism", protest politics(I am againstism..)tactics without offering solutions is easy and headline grabbing.Look at the negative opinions on X Rail "Elizabeth line", Channel Tunnel. Hard to find anyone in the borough who now has a cogent answer against. HS2 is the exception perhaps.LTNs unpopular with a large minority as it was giving women the vote, abortion rights, not sending children down mines and so on. How about traffic lights they hold me up lots of time, shall we remove them? Seat belts, speed limits on motorways and so on.Surely we all support less road casualties, better health for accepting some constraints on our "freedom".I am sure the planners do not hold a monopoly on improving life for everyone, so let's give them ideas and solutions.There is a nightmare heading our children and grand children's way -its climate disaster.

Paul Broome ● 1002d

Judging by your incoherent post I’d say you probably haven’t got that great a grasp on reality. Probably one of Paul’s LCC mates.When you breathe you emit CO2, a known greenhouse gas. I suggest you hold your breath for, say, half an hour.

Simon Hayes ● 1002d

Wow, Paul. You really do struggle to put together any kind of sensible argument. But that’s nothing new.If re-educating the rest of us isn’t your aim then why bother airing your silly views on here? Perhaps you’d be better off spending your time writing Christmas cracker jokes.

Simon Hayes ● 1002d

Bottom Line is - the clear MAJORITY do not want LTN's, 20 Minute Neighbourhoods, or anything that even remotely smacks of the ideological idiocy.So, the MINORITY zealots will ramp up on inventing and manipulating "data" to suit their "facts".Aided and abetted by Labour controlled LBE and Comrade Khan.

Rosco White ● 1002d

The only way we get to the majority in this country is through the ballot box and it's fifteen minute neighbourhoods.

David Burke ● 1002d

Ha. Well, let’s see them put that on their election literature then. That’s the point. Nobody is voting for this. Most people aren’t even aware of it. If it’s such a great and popular idea then publicise it properly and provide full details of what’s intended. As the OP stated the event he attended didn’t have any worthwhile information available.Or is it left to LCC sock puppets like David Broome to try to bolster the pro lobby?

Simon Hayes ● 1001d

You know the CO2 we breath out isn't produced by burning fossil fuel right?And asking somebody you say you disagree with to attempt to kill themselves to boot, nice!

Paul James ● 1001d

Ha, you add to the problem Paul. It’s still CO2.All human activity is damaging to the environment in some form. Where do you logically draw a line? Even your lovely bicycles have a significant carbon footprint, let alone the emissions involved in building cycle lanes. Same goes for your cameras.Paul Broome? Sock puppet.

Simon Hayes ● 1001d

When you have a complete lack of resources to facilitate almost everything in an urban area, and yet over development & overdensification  are pushed as hard by the same administrations who advocate any sort of climate action based on revenue raising and idealism.So the crass solution?  Remove existing leisure facilities and creat a " Park' with weeds and call it wild and create pretty images of all these people sipping their Coffees in the 'wilderness'.Simple answer. If you are that concerned and want to make a contribution have less children or not at all.It's not cars or trucks or transportation that will stuff up the next generations. its over population and over reliance on apps and the way it is used to manipulate and mislead and create paranoia over reality.Solutions that exist are out there and will evolve but the way we are going about it is really to cover for the ££££s being made by developers and speculators and the willingness to have humans living like battery hens and all that entails.

Raymond Havelock ● 1001d

>Ha, you add to the problem Paul. It’s still CO2.You don't understand do you! People breathing is part of the carbon cycle."The carbon cycle recycles carbon around the earth between different reservoirs, which helps regulate global temperatures and make life possible."As opposed to digging earth's old atmosphere out of the ground and putting it back into the current one at ever increasing rates which is not the carbon cycle."Carbon dioxide levels have steadily risen over the past two centuries, thanks largely to the burning of fossil fuels for electricity general, transportation, and smelting. Current levels are approximately 415 parts per million (ppm), up from pre-industrial levels of around 280 ppm."

Paul James ● 1001d

Of course CO2 levels have risen over the last 200 years. In 1820 there were just one billion people on this planet, that has now increased sevenfold. EIGHT BILLION people breathing, living, working, traveling. BLINKERED BUFFOONS STILL BLAME TOO MANY CARS.

N V Brooks ● 1001d

Paul, I know more about the carbon cycle than you ever will. It was part of my first degree. It’s part of my job. Unlike you, I’ve had the benefit of a very good education so see a much more rounded picture of the world than LCC acolytes.Tell you what, though. All those people are busy consuming more and more energy, much of which comes through burning fossil fuels. I bet you store stuff in the Cloud. All those data centers gobble up energy and emit huge amounts of heat.Raymond hit the nail on the head. Perhaps you should read his post and rethink your answers.

Simon Hayes ● 1001d

>Paul, I know more about the carbon cycle than you ever will. It was part of my first degree.So you do actually know that the CO2 we breath out is part of that, compared to the CO2 that comes from burning fossil fuels then?

Paul James ● 1001d

You are, of course, changing the subject. As usual.Why don’t you ask to be enrolled on a further education course as a Christmas preeent.

Simon Hayes ● 1001d

>You are, of course, changing the subject. As usual.Said Simon, changing the subject. :DThere is a LOT to be done to reduce fossil fuel use, in all sorts of industries and activities, that includes reducing the carbon footprint of data centres, building works and a lot of other stuff AND transport.

Paul James ● 1001d

At least the PM went to the COP this year it seems without being embarrassed into going.  Even Dubai had its problems just before the COP with floods.Australia has been waiting with anxiety for the first cyclone of the season.  Life threatening flooding now expected.  Sydney has just had its hottest fortnight of weather.https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/australia-s-2022-23-tropical-cyclone-season-is-here/902501At least the PM turned up at the COP in Dubai this time without it seems having been embarrassed into going.  Liz Truss told the King not to go when she was PM. Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation in whatever form it has now morphed into in Tufton Street are still around and donations being accepted from oil and gas companies and family trusts. You can't expect all people needing security to take the same plane but it is a shame that so many private planes seem to be used instead of commercial flights.  We know there's going to be a lot of oil and gas lobbying but there does need to be others there to reduce their oil and gas worshipping fest and to showcase other innovations such as all the work being done in the area on clean green energy.The UAE has the experimental eco-city Masdar.  Just like everywhere changes are made and there are new innovations and inventions as time passes.https://www.fastcompany.com/90995444/the-uaes-green-city-is-a-cautionary-tale-its-hard-to-build-a-climate-haven-no-matter-how-much-oil-money-you-have

Philippa Bond ● 1001d

Oh dear, Paul. Do try harder.Bet your carbon footprint is bigger than you think. Gas boiler. Kids. Eating food imported from far flung places (I imagine you to be a keen avocado eater). All the usual stuff. Probably fly off on holiday once or twice a year. I know you are a keen supporter of your ‘local airport’.Perhaps you and your chums might be better off lobbying the council to stop building great big towers alll over the borough rather than banging on about too many cars.

Simon Hayes ● 1001d

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/plan-for-drivers-15-minute-cities-20mph-oxford-wales-no-evidence-department-transport/

Philippa Bond ● 1001d

Your Source ("openDemocracy") have a Left-Center (sic) Bias.Wottasurprise!https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/opendemocracy/

Rosco White ● 1001d

LOL  Everything is to the left of you Rosco!

Philippa Bond ● 999d

So I presume Rosco doesn't want 16 year olds to get the vote?

Philippa Bond ● 999d

Philippa, at least Roscoe White is not an apolgist for the facilitators of Baby P's Murder Party/ officious inept jobsworth virtue signallers party, that are the Labour Party. He speaks his own mind, apolitically, not to an agenda like you seem to.

Anthony Hawran ● 998d

A fair observation Mr Hawran........👌 🙂

Rosco White ● 997d

Whilst this got very political I’m revisiting following the news that £8.6mill of OUR MONEY is shortly to be wasted on this in West EalingCrazy that the biggest resident group in the area have stated this is a total waste and listed far more needy and positive areas this money could be spent on.The Lycra Lobby will change the face of Ealing and it will be a disaster for the majority The AI and CGI marketing shots are hilarious but once you stop laughing at them you realise just how very serious this all is.Coming your way soon

Colin Goodman ● 924d

A proper CGI representation would show Dean Gardens as a muggers paradise, half built blocks of flats, dog turds, litter, rain (!) and empty retail units.It’s funny how these high minded plans to make places better for people to live in rarely do. This will be no exception because unless the money is put in to maintaining the new infrastructure it quickly falls into disrepair. Councils are notoriously bad at looking after what’s in their care.

Simon Hayes ● 924d

Its ideal though as footer for the halfwits who keep voting this administration back into office.The council claims "improvements" in an area, spend the capital and then blames central government the cuts as the reason the "improvements" are left to rot because they have no money to maintain them. A very easy game to play.

N V Brooks ● 924d

Meanwhile many Councils are going bust and even more are being bailed out or are close to it as they struggle to carry out what is required of them.

Philippa Bond ● 924d

Yes, because many have tried to become property developers, investors in shopping centres and more than one has fallen, due to a lack of even basic diligence, to cons about energy supply "wonderdeals".If only they had stuck to being local councils eh?Nothing to do with cuts, just a fundamental lack of competence and commercial awareness

N V Brooks ● 924d

Simon. Why don't you get up to speed by investigating SuDS instead of just using an exclamation mark?

Philippa Bond ● 924d

Has anybody looked at or read The London Plan?  The plan that goes back and forth between the London Mayor and the Govt until the Govt Minister (in this case it was Robert Jenrick) approves it?Has Ealing actually got a Local Plan now?  The trouble with these is that Councils end up working to two Local Plans - the current and incoming new one at the same time.

Philippa Bond ● 924d

The council did not have a complete local plan for years hence the developers being allowed to ride roughshod over non-existent restrictions.Ealing has now published a plan, of sorts, all 1200+ pages of it and initial reaction from those who managed to stay away to read it is that it is largely waffle and bullshit.

N V Brooks ● 924d

What are you on about Philippa? If you are talking about urban drainage then explain your point.Are you sure you haven’t been enjoying your weeds?

Simon Hayes ● 924d

West Ealing live “proposals” - which they will do anway.All I can say is West Ealing is ****ed

Peter Yale ● 924d

https://www.room151.co.uk/151-news/gove-warns-of-tough-measures-and-intervention-where-councils-are-failing-on-housing-plans/#:~:text=According%20to%20Gove%2C%20the%20new,date%20local%20plans%20from%20annual

Philippa Bond ● 924d

No idea what that says or how to link to it. If as headline suggests there is a housing shortage, let’s deal with those here & close borders.Rwanda has been proposed, yet deemed the most heinous action ever, so what’s the alternative . How do we control numbers?

Peter Yale ● 923d

Generally, the people who want to close the borders and take care of our own, actually have no interest in taking care of our own.

Kevin Wilson ● 918d

You're not wrong

David Burke ● 918d

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2024/apr/06/why-has-15-minute-city-taken-off-paris-toxic-idea-uk-carlos-moreno

Philippa Bond ● 888d

The arrondissements of Paris have always been, in effect, self-contained neighbourhoods. As London has sprawled with out of town shopping, fewer, larger hospitals, schools and shopping centre any comparison is nonsensical.

N V Brooks ● 888d

You are right of course. Once the shops start to close that's it!

Nicholas Beard ● 888d

What N V Brooks really means is that any opinion that differs from his own is nonsensical. So long as this remains the case, their defence of cars will continue to rage. Even dogs understand that if you take cars off the road emission levels decrease.

Ben Owen ● 886d

No that is not what I mean at all. Why comment on something that you clearly do not understand, that, to any obective view is 'nonsensical'? Having worked in Paris (both in Motrouge and La Defense) it is easy to see how a fifteen minute neighbourhood could be implemented in these virtually self contained 'communities' far easier than London. The arrondisements have their own schools most have more than one hospital, multiple healthcare centres, shopping areas and cinemas.theatres, no need to travel much at all, sticking in a bit of poorly implemented cycling infrastructure or erecting afew bollards will not build these facilities in London.The problem, clearly not understood by anyone so blinkered by their 'cycle-centric' thinking, is that the enclaves have become socially isolating ghettos with 'richer' neighbourhoods being refined at the expense of communities, often on  racial lines.Before you expound again using your limited knowledge of Paris, (even leaving Hanwell once in a while would improve your world view) you might want Ben to look at Charenton, Issy-les-Moulineaux, Ivry-sur-Seine and Montreuil where fifteen minute neighbourhoods have further isolated already 'distanced' communities. Is that want you want for London?

N V Brooks ● 886d

Montrouge not Moutrouge (three hospitals, three shopping centres, fourteen schools etc.etc. to serve a population of under 50,000).

N V Brooks ● 886d

haha! What an pompous lad you are, Nige. I have lived in Paris, even cycled from London to Paris, worked in Paris, dated in Paris, watched Nayim score from the half-way line in Paris, got pickpocketed in Paris, driven in Paris and done all sorts of bodily functions in Paris.

Ben Owen ● 886d

Then your understanding of Paris and its environs should be far, far higher allowing you to post something with accuracy rather than the twaddle you post.  You must have been cycling with your eyes shut if you didn't see the social issues being compounded by current transport policies.

N V Brooks ● 886d

If your opinion is so deadly credible, write your counter argument for The Guardian and circulate the link here if it ever gets published!

Ben Owen ● 885d

If I were to write anything it would be for any part of the MSM other than the Guardian which lacks all credibility in this figure  as it constantly cites inaccurate data from the likes of Rachel Aldred. Come on Ben support your points don't use the classic deflection argument.  You supposedly lived and worked in Paris was your entire time spent with your eyes closed?

N V Brooks ● 885d

How can the general public be made aware of a counter argument if no one is prepared to write one? If you don't want to write it for The Guardian, that's ok, but write it for some other mainstream publisher. If I were you I would try The Guardian first since they are the most likely of all the nationals to publish it. You could also try The New Scientist, The Spectator, Philosophy Now, What Car?, Cycling Weekly. The magazine list is endless, Nigel. Or try to get it published in France's Le Point magazine if you are so inclined!

Ben Owen ● 885d

So, you are simply not prepared to support your argument with facts. You claim to have lived and worked in Paris and must therefore be fully aware of how the arrondissements are self-contained neighborhoods already. There are plenty of articles on social isolation in Paris without the need for me to write yet another.

N V Brooks ● 885d

"..... don't use the classic deflection argument."Ah yes! The good ole, trusty "Lefty Swerve!"Works well if the "recipient" is an idiot.  😆No idea how some can drive/ride/walk in a straight line from all that swerving.... 😂

Rosco White ● 885d

All sounds like “FUN” doesn’t it?Just wait until this mob get re elected in May and thus emboldened LTNs are coming back but this time on steroids

Colin Goodman ● 882d

>Just wait until this mob get re elected in May and thus emboldenedThe LTNs and streets changes introduced were Conservative policy.>LTNs are coming back but this time on steroidsComing back? Ealing already has loads and has had for years.

Paul James ● 882d

As shown by the people of Ealing, the LTNs were & are nothing but a cause for traffic combo.I proved this to you during petrol strike, which you continue to ignore or pretend  otherwise.Ealing/Labour/councils will completely balls up the economy with these foolish schemes

Peter Yale ● 882d

I remember that the surveys on the west London tram polled very few people on the uxbridge road but targeted people in Wimbledon. The west London tram plans of Livingstone are responsible for a lot of problems in Britain today. After all London voted in the buffoon Boris Johnson on the promise of cancelling the project and then gave him such a big ego that he led the Brexit campaign and became prime minister of the mess.

Peter Chadburn ● 879d

My recollection is that he got in on a ticket of banning bandy buses, which were really practical, they could suck up an entire bus stop of people, prams wheelchairs and all in seconds.Johnson targeted the perception they were ridden for free (they weren't) due to the open boarding, then introduced the crappy boris bus ...  which was open boarding...

Paul James ● 874d

Well you are wrong about the free riding on bendy buses Paul. It happened a lot and was rarely stopped, particularly on the Uxbridge Road. Ironically, the other complaint about them was that they were a danger to cyclists. Perhaps they should bring them back.

Simon Hayes ● 874d

Leave me alone Simon seriously, you don't' get to call me an arsehole and abuse me on here. bug off please you nasty nasty man.

Paul James ● 874d

& to get back to the point.Ealing (& other Borough) loathed ltns & voiced an opinion to remove the traffic congestion making, economy ruining, time wasting, pollution making monstrosities.As a footnote, Wales has seen common sense with their 20mph speed limits.People power

Peter Yale ● 874d

The bendy buses were rife with free riders resulting in revenue protection teams boarding then many times each week in Southall, Ealing Broadway and Shepherd's Bush. Compared to the bendy bus the Boris Bus, which was plagued with software faults was ultra reliable.

N V Brooks ● 874d

Grow up Paul. Disagreeing with your silly and inaccurate posts isn’t a crime. If you post nonsense, expect to be challenged.

Simon Hayes ● 874d

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001yhh9Start the Week

Philippa Bond ● 869d

Listen from 15:08 minutes in.

Ben Owen ● 869d

What’s it say? I genuinely can’t listen or hear these links

Peter Yale ● 869d

It's all about experience - what utter bollocks.Great to cite Anne Hidalgo " she doesn't care what people think" - that's a dictatorship. Happy to live like that Ben, I'm not!  Also worth pointing out that the Draconian restrictions in Paris only apply within a relatively small area bounded by the Périphérique (half the length of the North and South Circular ) not to suburbs like Ealing.

N V Brooks ● 869d

Has everyone noticed the dreaded rumble strip traffic counters out on roads in a few key locations?????Doesn’t take a genius to work out what’s going on there does it?Pretty soon after the lycra mafia supporting wokerati are re-elected and emboldened by their five year mandate chaos will be inflicted on our roads. Millions and millions and millions of OUR money to be wasted and countless lives negatively disrupted for the benefit of the few all under the guise of the great climate lie.(By the way…. I’m not denying there’s pollution; of course there is; there always will be no matter what.)Anyway, is the apathy approach to these eco-warriors the way forward? Appears so and we’ll just have to rant, bitch and moan then just be proved right in the years that come.Consider this when voting now and in the future

Colin Goodman ● 863d

Don’t forget photo ID.

Simon Hayes ● 862d

https://www.globalcitizen.org/fr/content/climate-change-global-warming-myths/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxJeg-YrvhQMVppFQBh0DnQBoEAAYASAAEgJ5lPD_BwE

Philippa Bond ● 862d

Sorry, can't be bothered to click on random links.

N V Brooks ● 862d

But Philippa, surely you are contributing to global warming with your continued use of the internet? Think of all the energy your constant boosting of links is gobbling up! Maybe time to switch everything off and go analogue.At least your constant recycling of posts is sort of green….

Simon Hayes ● 862d

Interesting to see that the High court has thrown out the campaigner's challenge to Tower Hamlets Council ripping out three LTNs To he campaigners intend to appeal but in commentary there was no order to allow for appeal costs

N V Brooks ● 633d

Oh. What. A. Shame.Interesting reading the reports online that one of the complaints by the pro-LTN group was inadequate consultation. Since when did that constitute a reason to challenge a council? Ealing regularly ignores consultation results if they aren’t favourable. Don’t these eejits in Tower Hamlets know that a consultation isn’t a referendum?

Simon Hayes ● 633d

The judge ruled & said that the schemes implemented in the borough “PUSHED TRAFFIC DOWN SURROUNDING MAIN ROADS. THIS LED TO COMPLAINTS ABOUT TRAFFIC CONGESTION, INCREASING AIR POLLUTION & NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THE HEALTH OF THOSE WHO LIVE THERE”

Peter Yale ● 633d

When in 2025 do we think the Council Wokers will roll out the physical  stage of their latest waste of OUR money????These barmy controls are comingFACTI’ve lost count of the number of ANPR cameras and rubber counter clicker strips dotted around my local Ealing wards. It looks like there will be an absolute tsunami of these measures installed around the same time. It will be car-mags and will destroy far, far, far more lives than it enhances. The local economy will be decimated It would not shock me at all to hear and see people taking matters into their own hands out of sheer desperation. Oh dear dear dearie me

Colin Goodman ● 632d

You've got it in one!!!

Elizabeth Price ● 631d

I'm still waiting for all the shops on Chiswick High Road to close after the introduction of the C9 Cycleway.Business is booming after the realisation that the majority of people don't own a car, don't drive to their local shops, and those that do go to Sainsburys where they have a space twice the size of the supermarket to park in.And before I hear the usual 'elderly and disabled' argument. Make all street parking near shops for blue badge holders only. No-one can argue with that, can they?

Dominik Klimowski ● 631d

Now you are just being silly.

Simon Hayes ● 631d

So are you saying the nightmare in Chiswick has actually improved the local economy?Or is your sweeping statement that the majority don’t own a car (mmmmmmm) then a contradiction as the local economy should’ve been booming anyway with these discerning local shoppers?Let’s just have it right….. there’s a climate crisis. We are at a tipping point.We’re all going to be incinerated in five yearsSo ban all cars IMMEDIATELY as all these SUV owners are killing our planet. Forget taxation, forget the intentional disruption which causes pollution in any case, drop out all these schemes and keep the roads for the emergency services, essential deliveries and the less able and pensioners.Let’s take this climate crisis seriously and ban private vehicle ownership.Are you with me brother?I am genuinely interested to see how this nirvana works out and clearly it’ll lead to an absolute boom in the footfall for all the chicken shops on the Uxbridge Road.Kids playing in the streets, no more local floods…oooooooooooh… cats n dogs living together Love it

Colin Goodman ● 631d

At least keep the planes flying though.

Simon Hayes ● 631d

Change is necessary everywhere.  Many plane journeys just aren't necessary and many more meetings are now done online on Teams and Zoom so reducing or avoiding all travel. The special concessions encouraging the use of private jets should be removed (and is expected to be if it hasn't been already) and a lot of frequent passenger flying discouraged.  Other less harmful methods of transport to us all need to be constantly improved to encourage people back to walking, cycling, scooting, buses and trains.  Much of this is active travel and would keep us healthier and out of hospital for longer.There just is not enough room for each and every one of us to have our own personal car either on the roads to travel or to park.  Reducing car ownership per household is often possible.  By joining a Car Club you can avoid a lot of the stress of car ownership eg worrying about how safe your car is where it is parked, where and when you last parked it, driving it, and all the costs of running and insuring it.Commercial traffic can and has changed and can change more and with fewer individual private car journeys this should be easier.  More space would mean that a lot of this  commercial traffic would not be encouraged to illegally mount and park on pavements.  Traffic being driven over kerbs and pavements causes a lot of damage which is a big trip hazard to pedestrians - many of whom end up in hospital with life-changing disabilities - physical and mental - and some of whom never get to come home.

Philippa Bond ● 626d

Fact: Reducing car use has amongst the highest potential to reduce per capita emissions (Ivanova et al., 2020, Wynes et al., 2018).How best to do this. It's going to need a push and pull effect.Push: Discouragement of private car use by increasing the costs of car use. Cost of parking (permits) is just one example. Very often people making a decision on whether to go by car or not is based on how easy/expensive it will to be to park up at their destination.Pull: Incentivising the use of walking and biking through good infrastructure. A good example is having decent cycle lanes to help those who have a bike to overcome their fear of the roads. Good cycle lanes can protect pedestrians too, because people will become less tempted to cycle on the pavement.Ealing has never hidden from its strategy of reducing car usage. I cannot remember where I read it that the council has formally pledged that their aim is to reduce car usage by 50% or 60% by 2030. Hounslow has done the same.

Ben Owen ● 626d

There’s less & less room because damned fool councils take over road space, prohibit cars from getting wherever.Untold issues with parking too.People want & need cars, no allowance is given for them.I quoted the negative effect sone of these schemes have

Peter Yale ● 626d

And what about those utterly idiotic and useless "pocket parks" (or whatever they are called) which take up very valuable car parking spaces.......

Rosco White ● 626d

Well, as long as they keep more planes flying and expand Heathrow we will be okay. Prosperity for all.Philippa and Ben really don’t understand anything about how the world works.

Simon Hayes ● 626d

The worse thing about them is that they attract antisocial behaviour. Loss of parking is an extra element.Anybody who disagrees with Simon is now claimed to be  either silly, or doesn't know about how the world works. The arrogance of the man is staggering.

Ben Owen ● 626d

No Ben, a realist. You live in a fantasy world that discriminates against ordinary people, businesses and those who have no alternative mode of transport.You are just stupid, pal. No other word for it. London isn’t a separate entity to the rest of the UK. The laws here are the same as elsewhere, though you are probably too dim to understand that. If banning cars is your answer to everything here then I hope Santa leaves you some common sense in your stocking. Though I doubt it.

Simon Hayes ● 626d

Sadly, yet more self-righteous crap from a leading member of the cycling lobby.Pray tell in what parallel universe do you reside?  Surely no sane person would countenance the allocation of up to 50% of road space to accommodate cyclists who make up, according to their own lobbying group, the LCC, under 7% of road users.

N V Brooks ● 626d

The FACT is that Ealing Council are determined to reduce car usage. They have published that FACT so no quarrels there.Show me a shared use road where 50% of the road space is a cycle track. Can you think of one to prove that as a FACT? Nevertheless, the FACT is that more cycle lanes encourages more people to cycle. Much more of an issue for you really is that you do not accept FACTS where it damages your opinion. Incidentally, what would you be advising the strategists at Ealing Council to do in order to reach their published goal in reducing car usage? That is another FACT.   

Ben Owen ● 626d

How about living in the real world. Ealing is a failing council. It can’t collect bins properly. It can’t maintain its social housing. It can’t maintain roads. It can’t run any services efficiently.Are they going to stop all the through traffic? No. Will they ban people parking their fees on driveways? No. Even Sneaky Pete Mason has a driveway on his property.The only thing you need to understand is that your constant bleating about cars makes you look stupid. FACT.

Simon Hayes ● 626d

This push / pull or carrot / stick argument doesn’t hold water anymore We can all see a loud minority have hijacked the whole scenario Paying for ever “greener” cars which were disproportionately more expensive was encouraged as you were exempt from taxes like parking, ULEZ, congestion zone and some of the actual taxes such as road tax.All of that gone or on the way out.So cars are the most environmentally friendly they’ve ever been but now there’s too many journeys; that’s ignoring the shift towards making roads virtually unusable for quick car journeys How about looking at this another way? We don’t have a car crisis or a housing crisis…… what we have in London and vast areas of the UK is a population crisis.Good old TTKeir doing his bit on that by attempting to kill off the OAPs this Christmas I suppose though.I really can see in six months time, when the majority have enough of previous 20 minute journeys now taking an hour and a half, there will be real civil uprising.Maybe not wide scale attacks on infrastructure but things like law abiding people reverting to fake plates, cameras and bollards being bumped etc etcIt was all so obvious it’s laughable. Predicted these lycra stazi loons would be emboldened with five years ahead of them and by summer 2025 the complete destruction of the transport network once lovingly called the roads would be well and truly underway in CERTAIN parts of Ealing, London and the UK at large.Shameful

Colin Goodman ● 626d

Accepting the FACT that "Ealing Council are determined to reduce car usage", how many of our worthy Councillors forcing these measures on us cycle regularly, and/or, rarely or don't use a car?Or are they all massive hypocrites like our lovely Mayor of London?Oh, wait a minute, Labour/hypocrites, there's your answer!  😆

Rosco White ● 625d

Does it matter how many councillors cycle regularly? Would it not better to ask how many councillors want cleaner air?

Ben Owen ● 625d

Maybe, Ben, you should shift your efforts to stopping the massive overdevelopment going on in the borough. Council greenwashing always ignores the environmental impact of this. It’s very bad in Ealing.https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/co2-emissions-buildings-and-construction-hit-new-high-leaving-sector

Simon Hayes ● 625d

"Does it matter how many councillors cycle regularly?"Yes, obviously it does, when they're forcing cycling down our throats and killing off car ownership."Would it not better to ask how many councillors want cleaner air?"No, obviously not, because that is not the question and not my point.Classic Lefty swerving.

Rosco White ● 625d

You and youilk would do well, as a first pass, to learn to read. I sais 'up to' 50%. I repeat "up to 50%". Uxbridge Road after the Iron Bridge is a prime example a full lane, 33.5% of the road space allocated to a woefullt underused cycle track alonside a bus lane which cyclists had bee sharing for years without issue. The only blessing is that the currene administration is not permanent and we simply have to endure the manic ravings of the LCC for a while longer.As to more cycle land engouraging moe people to cycle, how's that going? London boroughs have spent a staggering £65 million (source TfL) since 2020 to appease the cycling lobby to deliver a 'staggering 4.5% (peak) of journeys by bike (sources LCC and TfL).If nothing else it proves how absolutely selfish cycle campaigners are in expecting tens of millions of public money to be spent on their pathetic little leisure activity.These Ben are the FACTS.

N V Brooks ● 625d

So much for the new spelling bee.You and your ilk would do well, as a first pass, to learn to read. I said 'up to' 50%. I repeat "up to 50%". Uxbridge Road after the Iron Bridge is a prime example a full lane, 33.5% of the road space allocated to a woefully underused cycle track alongside a bus lane which cyclists had been sharing for years without issue. The only blessing is that the current administration is not permanent and we simply have to endure the manic ravings of the LCC for a while longer.As to more cycle land engouraging more people to cycle, how's that going? London boroughs have spent a staggering £65 million (source TfL) since 2020 to appease the cycling lobby to deliver a 'staggering 4.5% (peak) of journeys by bike (sources LCC and TfL).If nothing else it proves how absolutely selfish cycle campaigners are in expecting tens of millions of public money to be spent on their pathetic little leisure activity.These Ben, are the FACTS.

N V Brooks ● 625d

Pocket Parks are mostly a pain to those who can't think past travelling verywhere by car.They can be a good place to meet in town and to have a rest while walking your shopping home.  Unfortunately there is always some bad behaviour but much of that is due to the root problems not being addressed.  Most people enjoy an improved neighbourhood and will work to make sure that it stays nice.  Many more bikes can be safely parked in the space one car takes up! 

Philippa Bond ● 617d

I have rarely seen them used myself, and when they are it's nearly always by "undesirables."Plus, they attract garbage/detritus and aren't maintained so are deteriorated