THERE are fundamental contradictions in the traffic management plan outlined by David Millican last week.
The very concept of traffic 'flowing freely' in a congested urban environment is self-contradictory. Every extra provision given to motorists to flow freely will effectively be taken from the pedestrian, the bus passenger and the cyclist.
If you really want to ease congestion in any significant way you offer people realistic alternatives to driving, and the two obvious ones are buses and cycling.
Bus lanes are essential for a good bus service. Any extension of car drivers' rights to use bus lanes would mean buses carrying 50 or more people being held up by cars carrying (usually) one person.
The plan has no mention of improving the bus service, which is by far the simplest and cheapest method of reducing congestion
Bus lanes are a life saver for cyclists. They give us a safety zone separating us from cars that are often driving too fast and too close. Significantly, the council's plan makes no mention of making cycling easier and safer.
The plan, which amounts to little more than tinkering with traffic light settings and bus lanes, will in practise do nothing to ease congestion and reduce overall journey times for car drivers. There are too many cars in too small a space, too many road intersections and too many pedestrians who, inconveniently (!), want to cross the roads.
The council is in 1960s thinking mode, when the car reigned supreme. Let's have some imaginative thinking on traffic in Ealing and not base the solutions on how fast the car driver can get from one side of the borough to the other.
COLIN LOMAS Southdown Avenue