Forum Topic

West London Orbital Rail

Consultation for proposed plans out now.https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/west-london-orbitalLocal stations on the route are South Acton and a new station at Lionel Road beside Brentford stadium.WLO line would stop at an Old Oak Common station for interchange with Elizabeth line and HS2 (assuming it is actually completed....) I think the Old Oak Common station would also be a stop on the Mildmay line for Gunnersbury.As predicted, there are proposals to close level crossings at Churchfield Rd Acton, Bollo Lane Chiswick and Wood Lane Isleworth.At Bollo Lane, the proposal would be to close the southern Mildmay line crossing while the northern WLO line crossing would be still in operation to permit bus services through Chiswick Business Park."other options for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the railway would be available at the crossing closure points or nearby" and they say these would be accessible.https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/plans-for-west-london-orbital-rail-link-would-close-level-crossings-in-acton/

Michael Robinson ● 35d91 Comments

I'd have thought some upgrading of the signaling operations around these level crossings would allow them to not be closed for anything like the same inordinate length of time they are now. Closing Bollo Lane is a serious matter and the consequences for vehicular traffic need to be properly considered and not just absorbed into generalised environmental talk about 'making the world a better place'. I assume some traffic tracking and route plotting will start soon to provide information about where everyone is trying to get to and working out how they'll manage in the future - including cyclists and pedestrians!One obvious solution is to open the Chiswick Business Park to through traffic, which it's well capable of handling.  This should have been done from the start to take pressure off the southern residential section of Bollo Lane, the junctions by Chiswick Park tube, and the traffic lights with CHR.

Peter Evans ● 35d

Consultation documents say:"Under current railway operating rules, the level crossing barriers - which are already lowered for around 40% to 50% of the time during the day  [...] When WLO services are added, the barriers would be lowered for up to 75% of the time for periods as long as 11 minutes at a time. While technology improvements are being explored which could result in barrier down times not increasing this much, based on the current rules closure of the level crossings to road traffic would be required."Specifically for Bollo Lane, they say:"Due to the proximity of the crossings, if they were to remain open to traffic when WLO services begin to run, the barriers on both crossings would need to come down for a train passing on either line, to avoid the risk of vehicles queuing over the other crossing.Under current railway operating rules, at least one level crossing would therefore likely need to close, and through traffic would be displaced onto other routes. "Chiswick Business Park is a non-starter because IMO the owners would not accept the road through the park being turned into a traffic sewer.

Michael Robinson ● 35d

>This should have been done from the start to take pressure off the southern residential section of Bollo Lane,Moar roads = even moar driving.

Paul James ● 34d

‘Moar’? Bit early to be that off your head Paul.You always make spurious claims about cars, yet don’t provide any evidence to back up your claims. If Bollo Law is closed to through traffic it will push all those vehicles onto other roads. What will you say then you moron?

Simon Hayes ● 34d

'..and through traffic would be displaced onto other routes'.It will be interesting to see the results of the surveys I assume will be done in anticipation of the works to see where the Bollo Lane is coming from and going to and thus what mysteriously biblical 'other routes' will conveniently accommodate it. (Though I appreciate that the convenience of motor traffic and the usefulness of roads is anathema to some Chiswick bloggers!)  The Business Park might not like through traffic using their capacious and little used road system, but I doubt if many residents of west London will like their useful local roads being blocked by this proposed scheme.

Peter Evans ● 34d

So what is your proposal then Peter?- cancel the entire project because some drivers don’t like the inconvenience ?- add maybe a few hundred million pounds to the project budget to build a bridge or a tunnel?- compulsory purchase the road through Chiswick Business Park? - hope some magic new technology is found?- demand that the level crossings stay open even if cars need to wait for 10 minutes and the queues go on for milesHammersmith Bridge had 22k vehicles a day across it. Bollo Lane has a lot less than that so despite the inevitable predictions of doom, when it is shut, drivers will get used to it and make other plans. People aren’t robots only programmed to drive. You never know, some might take the train.

Michael Robinson ● 34d

Although through traffic will be reduced, there will be a significant increase in vehicles serving the new housing around Bollo Lane when the developments are completed. Even if every resident didn't own a car there would still be services, deliveries, visitors etc meaning that the number of vehicles entering from either Gunnersbury Lane or Bollo Bridge Road would be not be much changed.There doesn't seem to be anyway that Bollo Bridge Road, particular at the narrow end by Acton Lane could handle any significant increase in traffic. I can see the emergency services raising objections to the proposals particular due to the eventual presence of buildings up to 24 storeys.Other parts of TfL might also not be keen particular buses and property - which is a partner in the development going on along Bollo Lane.For this reason it is wrong to present this as a done deal. From a selfish point of view I would love to see the WLO built and closing Bollo Lane would have no impact on me (except perhaps adding a bit to congestion on CHR). However, there are significant practical and technical challenges and some vested interests which will oppose this. Unlike most consultations it might just be that TfL is genuinely looking for ideas how to get round the challenges that the scheme presents and hopes someone will come up with good ideas.

Francis Rowe ● 34d

This is an interesting idea. West London will benefit greatly from more railway links, businesses will be opened up to new customer bases, new homes will have better transport links etc. I live about 80m South of the Richmond crossing and I have to say Bollo Lane does suffer already from significant congestion when the barriers are down. I would like to question the 50% a day as it doesn’t feel that much but then again I have not sat outside with a stop watch. Personally, closing the road will make my commute a little harder and will make going North to the North Circular a bit of a longer journey, but what I really worry about is where the traffic will go. The back streets of Southfield ‘Soapsud Island’ are, in the majority, single lane, Acton lane is an alternative but is already busy. As someone has already mentioned, understanding where the traffic is going needs to be studied but my assessment (based on nothing scientific!) is that you have 5 types: 1) Delivery scooters and Ocado zoom bikes going to the warehouses and kitchen in the industrial estate. They need to be able to go both North and South. 2) People coming from Chiswick headed for the Northbound north circular who want to cut out the Chiswick Roundabout. 3) drivers linking the A40 to A4 (and vice versa) who have gone through Acton. 4) ‘normal’ local traffic5) people in cars with souped up exhausts who like Bollo Lane because it’s straightish. But as I have said it needs to be properly studied. As an aside, there did use to be a pedestrian bridge crossing each of the railways, I have an early 1900s map of the area and they are to the east of the crossing. I think it would be a bit of squeeze to fit it in now though as I think gardens are now in the way. Long post and I’m sure that this project is not going to happen quickly!

Rory Hill ● 34d

You left an option off as to where cars will go instead.It's the one where a car is not used for the journey at all, which is quite high up the list of the reasons for introducing this service in the first place.

Paul James ● 34d

I certainly don’t think WLO is a done deal from a funding perspective as the money still needs to be secured.However, from a technical perspective, if WLO goes ahead I think closure of the level crossings is inevitable. It’s been referenced in project documentation going back years so it’s been the de facto plan. There are plenty of other more complex issues to be addressed so they’ll go for the simplest approach for level crossings which is closing them.The consultation sugar coats it.

Michael Robinson ● 34d

I'm not sure how many motor vehicles using Bollo Lane are making the journey from Hounslow to Hendon and would thus benefit from the new train service!  Proper advanced data gathering will doubtless tell us!

Peter Evans ● 34d

I suspect that the level-crossings at Mortlake and East Sheen have far more trains passing through, what with the stopping and non-stopping services in both directions, and vehicles seem quite happy to wait as required when the gates are closed.

Peter Evans ● 34d

As other have pointed out, there's been increased traffic in the residential streets just south of the Bollo Lane crossings, which, from the type of vehicles involved, is probably linked to the increased use of SatNavs to avoid delays on the traditional routes. It could be said that, if the crossings close, these drivers would equally rely on their SatNavs to find an alternative route, but the residents south of the crossings will be somewhat cut off from going the north.What I suspect will be most challenging will be building suitably accessible alternative pedestrian/cycle/wheelchair crossings here, and equally at the other proposed closures.Compare with what they did back in the day at Chiswick Station, where they built an elegant new road bridge to take traffic over the railway!

Peter Evans ● 34d

Agree I doubt it’s many! Although I have just google mapped it and the route goes to the Chiswick roundabout, it could be conceivable that if traffic is bad on the North circular that satnavs bring traffic along into Chiswick

Rory Hill ● 34d

Again, people seem to think motor traffic is a fixed unchangable quantity.One of the stated aims of opening this line is to reduce the amount of journeys made using cars.And given cars are such a massive and disproportionate consumer of road space it doesn't take many people to use the train instead to make a huge dent in congestion caused by them.Then people that REALlY need to drive,  and o mean REALLY need to drive (emergency serives, delivery drivers etc...) find less less congestion on the main road routes.

Paul James ● 34d

The Mortlake crossing at Sheen Lane is down for an average of 46 minutes per hour at peak times.  Traffic at Bollo Lane will be more than Sheen Lane.In addition, there are the safety issues associated with level crossings, long waits and frustrated drivers.The WLO project team won't have been sitting twiddling their thumbs for the last couple of years while they wait for a consultation.  There will be designs for bridges at each of the level crossings.

Michael Robinson ● 34d

What I don't understand is  the "new" line is going to make use of existing freight/passenger track which must have existing level crossings so what has changed that they now need to be shut?Trains aren't held up by crossings so it can't be a time delay or a safety issue  so I need someone to calmly explain why crossings need to be closed.

Adrian Irving ● 34d

I regularly drive ( couple of times a month) along Churchfield Road, and so drive across the crossing next to Acton Central station.If I'm going west, then if I can see the crossing is shut, I wait until it opens - the reason I go along churchfield road going west is to avoid congestion going west along the Uxbridge Road through and towards Acton.If I'm going east towards the crossing, then if I see the crossing way ahead is shut, I can usually opt to go down Alfred Road towards the Uxbridge Road ( obviously if I've already gone past Alfred Road before the crossing starts to shut I can either wait or do 3 point turn to get back to Alfred Road).If the crossing is shut for a higher proportion of the time e.g. 80% of the time, then you will end up getting longer queues of cars at peak times, waiting for the crossing to open. The longer the queues that arise the slower the traffic flow will be.At some stage, you'll be getting blockages so often, it's not going to be a viable route for through traffic, and that's the point at which you might as well either close it, or restrict the use of the crossing to 'local' residents ( or perhaps have width restrictions so wide vehicles are prevented from going along Churchfield Road)

Andrew Jones ● 34d

At Bollo Lane, WLO will be using the northern crossing currently only used for occasional freight trains.  There are no existing passenger services on it.The southern crossing on Bollo Lane is used for existing Mildmay line.For WLO they are looking at 6 trains per hour in each direction plus existing Mildmay Overground with 4 trains per hour in each direction.  I don't know if they will be looking at increasing frequency of Mildmay line given interchange at Old Oak Common with Elizabeth line will increase demand.With that number of trains, the barriers will be down so much the road will be almost closed anyway because only a small number of vehicles will be able to get through in a given period of time.  Then consider barriers are something else that can go wrong plus safety issues with vehicles crashing into them, getting stuck on the crossing or frustrated drivers, pedestrians, cyclists risking getting through the barrier because they are fed up waiting.So with all those issues, it is simpler just to close them.

Michael Robinson ● 34d

I should add, that on two occasions in the last two weeks, it's looked to me that when the barriers started to come down there was a westbound vehicle that still hadn't cleared the level crossing ( the barriers don't all come down simultaneously, the ones that prevent you going across the crossing come down first, followed by the ones that stop you exiting the crossing) I could have been mistaken of course as I was several vehicles away from the closing barriers, but it certainly looked on these two occasions that there were two drivers that were 'chancing' it.

Andrew Jones ● 34d

Well it seems to some vehicles crossing is an improvement on none.As to; "Then consider barriers are something else that can go wrong plus safety issues with vehicles crashing into them, getting stuck on the crossing or frustrated drivers, pedestrians, cyclists risking getting through the barrier because they are fed up waiting." That applies to all level crossings throughout the Kingdom and no sensible person would advocate closing them all.I hope!

Adrian Irving ● 34d

I get what you're saying Adrian, but, there has to be a point at which so few vehicles would be able to pass in a given time period that it would be pointless having a crossing there.E.g. if there was capacity for 100-200 vehicles to pass every hour, and you only got an average of 50 arriving to use the route, then no issues.But take it to an extreme, if the capacity was just 5-10 vehicles, you wouldn't want it open to everyone, because if you have more than 5-10 vehicles joining the queue per hour, you are just going to get an ever increasing tail back.At some point, if the amount of traffic able to pass while the crossing is reduced sufficiently, than the junction will become saturated, and the knock on effects might be such that it would be better to close the crossing.Just thinking aloud really.Also, the longer you have to wait, the more frustrated some ( not all of course) people waiting to use the crossing will be. So I think there is a potential safety difference between what risk people would be preferred to take to avoid a 10 minute wait compared to a 3 minute wait.  Having said all that, difficult to predict what would happen in practice. Personally, I'd prefer an increase in the frequency of trains, see what effect the increased closures of the crossing have on all road users, and if it's too disruptive, then implement the crossing closure and see if it's better.

Andrew Jones ● 33d

Well the WLO project disagrees with you which is why they want to close them. The hassle and risk isn’t worth it not to mention impact on the street of long queues of vehicles.There is an ongoing programme to close level crossings throughout the country based upon the risk.You can’t compare a level crossing in London with 20+ trains per hour and thousands of vehicles using the road with one in the country with a train every hour and hundreds of vehicles.

Michael Robinson ● 33d

Andrew thanks for you considered reply. "Personally, I'd prefer an increase in the frequency of trains, see what effect the increased closures of the crossing have on all road users, and if it's too disruptive, then implement the crossing closure and see if it's better." I fully agree with what you have said and I accept there may come a point when crossings become unviable but, as you say, let's wait and see.Also, remember, with sat nav technology, drivers will be able to see in advance what traffic is like at the crossing and then decide if the delay is better or worse than a diversion.

Adrian Irving ● 33d

The suggested orbital route closely matches my daily commute and if it existed now it would drag me out of the car on to the train. Currently I drive to Savoy circus, west to hangar lane gyratory, then round the north circular up to Hendon. Early morning it takes no more than 30 minutes, on public transport which I have tried many times it takes between 1hr 20 minutes and 1 hour 40 minutes. The return journey is about 45 minutes by car and 1 hour 40 min by public transport. That it takes 3 hours on public transport for a return journey of 11 miles from west to north west London  belies the idea that we don’t need to use cars in London. I’ve done this commute for over twenty years and during this time more and more restrictions have been implemented on the roads but with little alternative provided. For a journey like mine the proposed rail route would be great though I will be retired by the time it’s finished.

David Turner ● 33d

To add to Andrew’s comment: I often drive east over the crossing at Acton central (or go down Alfred rd if the traffic has backed up) on my return journey. It always amazes me how many people drive on to the level crossing before the vehicle ahead has fully cleared the crossing. The reason I drive down church field road rather than the main routes of the A40 or Acton High street is because (i) the lights at savoy circus are so dysfunctional that it takes a seeming eternity to turn right there(ii) Acton high street still suffers from poor/illegal parking which blocks one side of the road or other - though this is a bit better since they installed the cycle lane.

David Turner ● 33d

Maybe a new tram service along Acton High Street or even the rest of the Uxbridge Road would have helped reduce traffic. Oh, what?!

Peter Evans ● 33d

I just don't see "wait and see" being part of a £billion+ project.For example, if level crossings being closed permanently means trains could accelerate to a higher speed than would be the case if the level crossings were in operation, this means reduced time between stations, a higher frequency service and more trains needed to run the service.  The trains don't just need to be purchased, they need space to stable them overnight, they need to be staffed, and so on.  So something that impacts the service frequency can have a huge impact on project costs and other factors.

Michael Robinson ● 32d

As far as I can tell if the crossing is closed the only way to get to the other side(coming form Chiswick Park Station end) is to drive all the way back to the Acton Town end thus creating more congestion, pollution and potential for RTAs.Hardly ideal.Lawsons Timber Yard and other businesses will suffer an immediate drop in trade from being effectively cut off from a good  chunk of customers.Again hardly ideal.Some better solution must be found than just closing vital crossings.

Adrian Irving ● 32d

"Some better solution must be found than just closing vital crossings."Like what?I've already listed some options.  - cancel the project because some drivers don’t like the inconvenience - add at least a few hundred million pounds to the project budget to build a bridge or a tunnel- compulsory purchase the road through Chiswick Business Park- hope some magic new technology is found (technology may recognise a problem at the barrier faster but laws of physics mean it won't make a train do an emergency stop any faster)- demand that the level crossings stay open even if cars need to wait for 10 minutes for one or two to go through and the queues go on for milesLevel crossings are some of the most dangerous parts of the road network so there is no way that traffic using alternative routes will be as dangerous as a frustrated person risking getting through the barrier because they don't want a long wait.

Michael Robinson ● 32d

>As far as I can tell if the crossing is closed the only way to get to the other side(coming form Chiswick Park Station end) is to drive all the way back to the Acton TownOnly if you're driving. You left that bit off.

Paul James ● 32d

I hear there are people at the council that still quiver and lock themselves in cupboards if the word "tram" is mentioned.Clearly the campign against that by the drivers reached levels of toxicity that hadn't been seen before or maybe since.Shame really, it would have been amazing.

Paul James ● 32d

Weren't you an estate agent Adrian?  Look on the bright side. For the people who live south of the level crossing on Bollo Lane won't estate agents be writing up listings like:"Quiet cut-de-sac, perfect for families.  Short walk from excellent public transport connections".

Michael Robinson ● 32d

"Level crossings are some of the most dangerous parts of the road network so there is no way that traffic using alternative routes will be as dangerous as a frustrated person risking getting through the barrier because they don't want a long wait".That sounds like opinion to me so please provide statistics of motorists frequently crashing  barriers out of frustration along with proof level crossings are part of the MOST DANGEROUS part of the road network."and the queues go on for miles" 😂

Adrian Irving ● 32d

Have you ever heard of something called google Adrian? I think you will find it is very useful any time you want to find out information.So March 25 to April 26 there were  "11 fatalities at level crossings which involved eight pedestrians and three road vehicle users on the mainline."I can turn the question around to you - why do you believe the road network and footpaths that don't go through level crossings are more dangerous than roads and footpaths that do?

Michael Robinson ● 31d

No it wouldn’t Paul. It would have required demolition of buildings along the proposed route and wouldn’t have solved any congestion issues. None if the councils support Lee the idea either. You know this, of course, as you have been repeatedly told this information on other forums. Seems you came here to spout more of your moronic nonsense to a new audience.What did they build instead of the tram? Crossrail.

Simon Hayes ● 31d

As for level crossing fatalities, I see that very few happen at fully gated and controlled gates such as those we're talking about. They mainly happen at rural, self operated or half gate crossings.In the past, when it's been felt necessary to replace a level-crossing, an alternative bridge or tunnel crossing has usually been provided rather than the apparently new approach of hoping that road traffic will just give up and go away!

Peter Evans ● 31d

>I’ve done this commute for over twenty yearsCould you have cycled?If so, that's 20 years of amazing bike rides you've missed out on there...

Paul James ● 31d

The trouble with statistics is people blindly read them to suit their purpose.A excellent recent example is the very misleading report that 90% of traffic using Welche Road was from outside the Borough. Clearly nonsense but some people, including the Council, choose to believe it because they foolishly wanted it to be true.Level Crossings aren't intrinsically dangerous. That's looking at it from the wrong side of  question.Looking from the right side it is a small number of road users that are the real danger not only to themselves but others.It's people that play chicken at  level crossings,traffic lights, roundabouts, tear down roads at stupid speeds, cycle as though their arse is on fire and their brains left at home, etc. etc. not the environment they are passing along.Finally, I believe many level crossings have have CCTV so it should be easy enough to fine and put  points on the licences's of  offenders that take stupid risks.

Adrian Irving ● 31d

>Finally, I believe many level crossings have have CCTV so it should be easy enough to fine and put  points on the licences's of  offenders that take stupid risks.After they've killed or seriously injured a train driver and any number of people in the train?The double crossings leading to barnes is a classic, you haven't got to sit there long during busy persiods to see somebody stop a car on the rails for the want of moving forward instead of hanging back.

Paul James ● 31d

'The double crossings leading to barnes is a classic, you haven't got to sit there long during busy persiods to see somebody stop a car on the rails for the want of moving forward instead of hanging back." I think you're hallucinating. I've used these crossings many times over a period of 50 years, and I've never witnessed such behaviour. Car drivers can be selfish, inconsiderate and insuffiently respectful of traffic laws, but they're not usually self-destructively stupid.

Robert Fish ● 31d

You have no evidence that '90% outside the borough' figure is clearly nonsense Adrian.  You are wanting to believe it isn't true because it doesn't fit with your carbrained view of the world.The majority of households in H&F don't have cars, a route via Weltje is only applicable to a small geographic area in H&F and how many people there regularly drive into central London given they are close to 3 different tube lines?Your views on level crossings are also completely out of sync with the professionals who are actually working on these projects.  Your view is 'everything would be ok if people didn't do stupid things'.  The professional view is, 'People will do stupid things. How do I design things to eliminate or substantially reduce the risk of them doing harm to themselves and others'.That's why I am confident the level crossings will be closed if WLO goes ahead.You are being hypocritical anyway.  If you were an estate agent selling a house on Bollo Lane, the listing would be something like:"Welcome to this beautifully presented family home, perfectly positioned on a quiet, highly desirable residential cul-de-sac, ensuring a safe and quiet environment.The area has exceptional commuter links: just 5-minute walks to underground and overground stations with trains to central London and connections to HS2 and Elizabeth line."

Michael Robinson ● 31d

> I've never witnessed such behaviour.I used to cycle across those crossings a lot.I would often see people drive forward then slow right down or stop with part of the car inside the raised crossing gates because somebody in front stopped or slowed.And hardly anybody waited for the car in front to clear the crossing with a gap big enough to get into if the car in front was stopped, people just following each other across.I also see this at box junctions all the time.

Paul James ● 31d

Is it planned to stop at Acton Central?

Claire Moran ● 31d

Agreed about box junctions.

Robert Fish ● 31d

Yes, northbound route would be Acton South, Acton Central then new station at Old Oak Common for interchange with Elizabeth line, Central line and HS2 (if it gets finished...)

Michael Robinson ● 31d

While welcoming the West London Orbital project as a whole, Bassam Mahfouz, London Assembly Member for Ealing and Hillingdon, said, “But better transport links must not come at the expense of existing connections. This could have a significant impact on pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, who may face long detours with no convenient alternative routes. The West London Orbital should enhance connectivity and accessibility, not reduce it. TfL must properly address these concerns.”

Adrian Irving ● 30d

The danger here is that if the level crossing closures are a requirement of the WLO proceeding then that may rule it out ever happening. It is likely that since Sterling Road tip closed most people never pass through this area now but the scale of development is extraordinary and it is in its very early stages.The population based there will be equal to a small town and even now with Bollo Lane open - road access via Gunnersbury Lane and Bollo Bridge Road can be problematic.It has been noticeable in the past few years that sat navs have been directing people aiming to get to north Chiswick from the west up Gunnersbury Avenue and along Gunnersbury Lane to get to Bollo Lane. Some analysis is needed to learn how much of the traffic here is being redirected this way - it could be that much of it would be displaced meaning that even with long queues would disappear. This could be reinforced by additional access restrictions for residents, deliveries and prebooked visitors.Without this I share other's scepticism that the available roads could handle the traffic even for an area predominantly car free housing with good public transport. It seems odd that TfL have highlighted the possibility of level crossing closures without any suggestion that they have at least done some high level analysis of the remaining road infrastructure to cope. It was also surprising to see TfL be dismissive of the scope for technology to reduce delays at level crossings. Perhaps it is a funding thing - they might be hoping to get extra  money for the latest tech but outside the current budget.

Mark Evans ● 29d

"could have a significant impact on pedestrians, cyclists and drivers" ......and the numerous small/medium businesses on the 'wrong' side of the track.

Adrian Irving ● 29d

They'll have to keep one of the crossings open as there is access to the park between the two of them I believe its for bikes and buses.

Brian Green ● 29d

TfL have done analysis into the impact of closing the crossings.I've seen a presentation given by the WLO project team to a professional engineers association in March 2025 and this says "Pedestrian and cycle bridge options have been developed while traffic impacts have also been assessed."I think the consultation sugar-coats it, referencing the level crossings "could" close while in reality, if WLO proceeds (which can't be assumed given the funding has not been secured) then the crossings will be closed (in my opinion). The March 25 presentation doesn't mention any alternative to closure.I believe technology at level crossings only addresses improved detection of issues.  The distance/time taken to stop a train travelling at a certain speed is laws of physics and technology won't do much about those.

Michael Robinson ● 29d

While I wouldn't question the expertise of the project team - they are making a case at this stage rather than presenting a final design. They have to downplay potential traffic issues to ensure the project doesn't lose momentum. I'm sure if you plug in certain assumptions about population growth and vehicle usage you can come up with an assessment that is favourable but whether this would be accepted by other parts of TfL including those responsible for roads, buses and property development is another question. It would be helpful if any assessment made so far was put into the public domain.The danger appears to me, as someone who really wants this project to go ahead, is that if potential problems like this are not addressed at an early stage - the scheme could get a long way through the process, only to hit a brick wall when questions about site access can't be properly answered.If technology can't help with the level crossings (AI says it can but let's assume it is wrong), then it is understandable that the WLO project team are hardline on shutting them. However, the maximum capacity of the Gunnersbury Lane/Bollo Lane junction and Bollo Bridge Road for handling traffic is relatively easy to calculate and will be very low. If the current assessments are based on what there is there now rather than what there is going to be - then this will fail at the consultation stage. I am increasingly moving towards the suggestion that restricted access through Chiswick Business Park for residents has to be explored.

Mark Evans ● 28d

This isn't 'early stage' for this project.  The project team have been working on it for years (to a greater or lesser extent) to scope and define the requirements.Info on level crossings is 1 page in a 40 page presentation so it isn't that significant compared to all the other things that need to be done such as electrification, track upgrades, new stations, new signalling, stabling arrangements...I think you are massively overestimating the traffic generated by residential developments.  With say, 900 residential units at Bollo Lane, even if each unit had 3 vehicles per day visiting it for services (and 3 per day per unit is a lot!), that is just 2700 vehicles.  Even a residential street like Rivercourt had more traffic than that before the restrictions.Making use of Chiswick Business Park is a non-starter.  Not a single mention in the presentation I have.I'm saying again that I am not assuming WLO is a done deal given the funding gap.  But if that is put in place, there will be a lot of momentum and support behind it.  All the councils along the route are supporting it along with major employers.  Some complaining from some drivers about some inconvenience won't be a show stopper.  Particularly given a project objective is to reduce vehicle journeys and you don't do that by making it easy to drive.

Michael Robinson ● 28d

As I said earlier in the thread it is probably a good idea to visit the area before reaching a firm conclusion about how it would cope with the closure. The TfL Bollo Lane project is only a small part of what is being built there. Acton Gardens will eventually comprise over 3,000 units and this is not a car free development and parking has been supplied for many of the estates. There is in addition lots of extra stuff going up at Bookbinders Place, Sterling Road and Colville Road where a massive tower for over students is proposed. Just by Gunnersbury Lane there is another large project being brought forward by TfL on land near the Acton Depot.You are ultimately looking a population in the area of up to 10,000 people. The available data suggests that the average London household gets 1-2 deliveries a day so lets go at the lower end of this and call deliveries to this area 5,000. It is a two way trip so that is 10,000 journeys (of which admittedly many will be made by motorbike). Private use, Uber trips, visitors and services would probably more than double this. The main GP surgery for many people in north Chiswick is on Bollo Bridge Road and it is not always easy to get to by bus. This road is already getting snarled up at busy times and is not carrying the level of through traffic that Bollo Lane does so there will be little displacement if the level crossings shut.It could be that this has been considered, properly analysed and found to be of no concern but to call it not that significant would be complacent if it is the issue that stalls this much needed project.

Mark Evans ● 27d

‘The project team have been working on it for years… to scope and define the requirements’This seems to suggest that any forthcoming consultations will be an empty exercise and any suggestions will be ignored as if it’s all a done deal. Yet the published proposals seem far from the ‘detailed presentation’ that others say they have witnessed.

Peter Evans ● 27d

The thing that will delay or stop the project will be inability to fund the estimated £1.2B costs.It won't be drivers complaining about inconvenience or posters on internet forums clutching their pearls about what they think will happen to traffic.

Michael Robinson ● 27d

A consultation isn't a referendum and it also isn't an invitation for the public to submit their own ideas for how they think a railway should be engineered (although that won't stop some people).It is a sweeping statement to clan "any suggestions will be ignored".  I expect the number of drivers complaining about inconvenience will be recorded and proposals from the public that they need to build a tunnel along Bollo Lane or purchase the road through Chiswick Business Park will be noted and reasons given why they aren't viable.

Michael Robinson ● 27d

I’d have thought the Chiswick Business Park would stand to benefit from the improved rail service such that they could well be approached to allow some access for through traffic to help the scheme along. I’m surprised this possibility didn’t seem to occur to the TfL planners, from what we’re told, though I do realise that we’re up against the Campaign for the Abolition of Useful Roads that Go Places!

Peter Evans ● 27d

Peter, what part of private land do you not understand?The moment you leave CHR and turn into the CBP, you've left the road network. It's no different than pulling into the Sainsbury car park. By your logic, why isn't traffic going through the car park then?I think we can all agree various authorities, be it LBH and/or TfL have no clue about how to negotiate anything with developers. Simply look at the Gunnersbury Station history.In the states you see local infrastructure improvement either prior to or coincident with development. Here, it seems, you all wonder why after a building/project is completed, the promises remain broken. Not really rocket science.

David Lesniak ● 27d

I believe Chiswick Business Park is one of the local businesses who have said they support WLO as part of a campaign organised by the business association West London Alliance.Of course, this will be based upon plans as published and not imaginary plans to turn the business park into a traffic sewer.

Michael Robinson ● 27d

I just saw that somebody crashed a car through the crossing gates at Acton the other week and it's been shut for a while now.

Paul James ● 27d

Am I to understand that 'traffic sewer' is the new technical transport management term for a useful road that goes somewhere? The Business Park might well be 'private land' but there are many instances of private land being taken over or used, by agreement or otherwise, to enable public infrastructure projects.

Peter Evans ● 26d

Interesting account of our level crossing dilemma by this well known London-based blogger:https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2026/10/wlo-level-crossings.html

Peter Evans ● 26d

Looked at another way, Peter, you want the business park to remove what is ostensibly an LTN so that you can get around more easily. Why not go another way? Might take longer. Oh well.If the business park supports the WLO, it doesn't mean they want drivers coming through their property and ruining the environment they rightly created for their tenants.

David Lesniak ● 26d

Car IS Crashed Through Churchfield Road Level Crossing....https://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conaccident185.htm

Paul James ● 26d

>it doesn't mean they want drivers coming through their property and ruining the environment they rightly created for their tenants.But you're opposed to H&F Council making Weltje Road an LTN and fixing an environment wrongly created for driving fast to get to the A4?You're sounding VERY selective there, although it shouldn't be a surprise I guess, many people vehemently opposed to LTNs or streets protected by modal filters live in them, sometimes not even realising it!

Paul James ● 26d

Yesterday we took a trip to Gunnersbury Park and went via Bollo Lane which is out of the way just to have a look at the area which I don't think I have been to since Stirling Road closed. The changes are jaw dropping and I'm more convinced than every that this area couldn't possibly be viable if it was served by just two very narrow roads.One point on consultations is that, while unrealistic suggestions from members of the public will be ignored, there will be a number of public bodies that will potentially lodge objections. The London Assembly member for Ealing is already raising concerns and Hounslow will soon realise that the Bollo Lane closure will undermine their attempts to get Chiswick High Road flowing again. In principle approval from these local authorities might not survive an angry reaction from residents concerned about traffic displacement.Other departments of TfL will also get their say including the bus people. Chiswick's only accessible link with the Elizabeth line might be lost if the 440 needs to be sacrificed to reduce congestion on Bollo Bridge Road. The emergency services will have their say - if there is a fire in the 24 storey tower they are planning at the Chiswick end of Bollo Lane a fire engine which is based at a station about half a mile away will have to go on a massive detour around Chiswick Roundabout and the North Circular to get there.Unfortunately, I don't think London Transport retained the freehold of the Chiswick Business Park site but there is an obvious deal to be done with the Chinese owners. TfL could provide the investment needed for a proper upgrade of Gunnersbury station. They could pay for this with the money they get from the developments planned on Bollo Lane - which would be very hard to sell anyway if the flats were regularly cut off due to traffic.

Francis Rowe ● 26d

Well, Paul, let's have a little lookie lou...Private property vs public domain that has been, ostensibly, an on ramp to the A4 for decades. Because, supposedly, the people living there all along somehow didn't notice what was going on until a few months ago. Not selective. Observant. Plus I can see a money-making scheme a mile away.

David Lesniak ● 26d

>an on ramp to the A4Describing a road as an "on ramp to the A4" really hits home that H&F are doing the right thing here (although I think it should be shut off to all motor vehicles, not just those of non residents)...

Paul James ● 26d

You really are a master at pearl-clutching Francis."Follow the money" and if the £1.2B gets funded then local councils, TfL, Mayor will be solidly behind the project.

Michael Robinson ● 26d

How would passengers get to the Northbound platform if they walked up to Acton Central through Acton Park, as I often do, if there is no level crossing and the tunnel between the platforms is often flooded or closed in winter?  Having to take the E3 bus to avoid crossing the tracks to get to the Northbound platform would add considerably to the journey time.

Claire Moran ● 26d

>I think you're hallucinating. I've used these crossings many times over a period of 50 years, and I've never witnessed such behaviour.>Agreed about box junctions.What about this box junction?What were you saying about people not stopping inside the crossing?If you watch the video at the start the barrier is already down on the bonnet of the car.I can't beleive the person with the camera crosses the line as well whilst all the alarms are going off, but there you go.https://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conaccident185.htm

Paul James ● 25d

I think in this instance you mean straw clutching rather than pearl clutching. I am doing neither - I believe this project is a good idea but fear the current proposals are unviable and therefore doomed to fail.'Follow the money' is wise advice but, in this case, it is not clear cut. Council leadership and TfL leadership may back the project overall but Ealing's borough planning committee can't override a report that says that new building in this area in breach of regulations if Bollo Lane closes and TfL will have to weigh the funding they are getting for WLO against the loss of income from abandoned development.

Francis Rowe ● 25d

No Francis, I absolutely mean pearl-clutching - acting with exaggerated shock.The TfL development at Bollo Lane is fully aware of the plans for level crossing closure.  The plans reference funding being provided towards an accessible crossing plus public realm improvements at that end of Bollo Lane.Its symptomatic of 'car brain' that WLO impact upon car journeys is top of your mind. While there are many reasons why WLO may not happen, impact to a relatively small number of vehicle journeys really wont be top of the list.

Michael Robinson ● 25d

Michael, this social media derived name calling makes you appear juvenile and unserious.What tops my mind here is access for emergency services. There is a 24 storey tower (same height as Grenfell) being built, with several others well above ten storeys. In my view the two narrow access points to this area will be regularly severely congested. Yes I was shocked to see the level of development in this area having not visited for some time but that only added to my existing reservations.

Francis Rowe ● 25d

Francis, if you are referring to my use of 'car brain', there is a lot of academic research behind how people apply different criteria to motor transport compared to other comparable topics.  This is usually described as 'motonormativity' but even the academics use the term 'car brain' as 'motonormativity' can be a bit of a mouthful.You can read the link below and look at the research of Prof Ian Walker in the UK and other researchers in other countries. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378025000172Is peer reviewed academic research serious enough for you?You really are an exemplar for the type of thinking being studied by the researchers.

Michael Robinson ● 25d

Michael, it seems to be a term that you make use of, not when someone argues for unfettered car use, but when they refuse to accept in whole any argument you make and you don't have an adequate counter. You seem congenitally unable to accept other people's point of view and totally unwilling to compromise on any issue. I'm not the first to recognise that you come out with the playground insults when you can't muster a proper argument against what they are saying.The West London Orbital is a really great idea and everything should be done to help it proceed. If it was just a matter of extra congestion in Chiswick resulting from the closure of the level crossings, I would be 100% fine with that as long as the modelling suggested it was within tolerable bounds. Apart from an unquestioning trust in the project team, whose jobs depend on the scheme proceeding, you have offered no strong argument that the concerns that have been raised are ill-founded. Your only attempt to quantify the problem was based on a significant underestimate of the amount of housing that would ultimately be contained within the site. The problems that present themselves are almost definitely not insuperable but pretending they don't exist risks sending the scheme down a dead end and it never being built.

Francis Rowe ● 25d

> If it was just a matter of extra congestion in Chiswick resulting from the closure of the level crossingsThere's even people on this thread that say having a north/south train servie like this would cut their car use, and it's a stated aim of the project too, reduce the amount of cars being driven around, which is good for everybody in or not in cars.

Paul James ● 25d

Did you actually read the reference I posted Francis? 'Car brain' or 'motonormativity' if you prefer, has been the subject of extensive scientific research. I think of you as a lab rat supporting the research."you have offered no strong argument that the concerns that have been raised are ill-founded"That is because the concerns you have been raised have offered no strong argument. Let's face it Francis, you simply do not know the existing level of traffic along Bollo Lane and the predicted level of traffic new developments are forecast to generate.  You are just doing what you always do when there are possible restrictions to motor traffic, clutching your pearls and catastrophising.

Michael Robinson ● 25d

If there’s a ‘relatively small number of vehicle journeys’ to be affected by the Bollo Lane crossing closure, then the Business Park should be well able to accommodate it.  They’ve already got a grand traffic light controlled junction joining CHR opposite Gunnersbury station. 

Peter Evans ● 25d

I agree the provision of improved public transport is the best way to reduce discretionary car use and that's why I really want to see this project go ahead. Whether shutting roads has the same effect is debatable. Journeys could be evaporate or be displaced. If the reduction in journey numbers does not adequately compensate for the increase in journey time and journey length then you end up with more vehicles on the road at any given point in time.It is likely that closing Bollo Lane will displace traffic onto Chiswick High Road and that is a key corridor for buses. We know this is already causing concern for TfL because of the proposals for the Cycleway being discussed elsewhere. A small fraction of bus users switching to car use because of an unreliable service could undermine the gains from the WLO. I don't think it would but it needs to be looked at - these things are not as binary as you seem to think they are but extremely complex and every decision will have impacts some of which will be unanticipated.

Francis Rowe ● 24d

>If there’s a ‘relatively small number of vehicle journeys’ to be affected by the Bollo Lane crossing closure, then the Business Park should be well able to accommodate it.  More roads available for driving = even more driving, also know as "build it and they will come" which is bad for everybody, even drivers believe it or not!

Paul James ● 24d

"We know this is already causing concern for TfL because of the proposals for the Cycleway being discussed elsewhere"Is this the royal "we", Francis?You really can't stop yourself making things up.You don't "know" this Francis, because you are making it up and presenting it as fact with zero evidence.It really isn't difficult to say something like "in my opinion..." or "this is speculation..." but you seem to be incapable of doing this.

Michael Robinson ● 24d

Okay Michael, in my opinion the proposed changes to the Cycleway are to improve traffic flow on Chiswick High Road.  Perfectly willing to revise that view if you can present a case that it is incorrect.

Francis Rowe ● 24d

You are entitled to your opinion Francis.

Michael Robinson ● 24d

Claire, I've been caught out trying to get to Acton Central when the park has been closed and it isn't much further to walk up the residential street that runs parallel to the west of the park.I've never actually encountered the underpass being closed for flooding or any other reason having been a reasonably regular user for many years so I wouldn't worry about that too much. The tunnel will require an upgrade to allow people not travelling on the Overground to use it. If there are any drainage issues - these should be dealt with at this point. Hopefully it will also be made fully accessible with lifts otherwise that would be one less step free station in London.

Anita Blake ● 24d

Lifts might be tricky here - the space is limited and the building, while not fully listed is classed as a heritage asset. There might need to be an additional foot tunnel on the other side of the line with compulsory purchase of the two buildings there to allow space for lifts.The existing tunnel is an integral part of the station so there would be additional challenges to make it open to all. I'm not aware of any flooding issues there, certainly not in recent years.

Mark Evans ● 24d

A WLO presentation I have from March 2025 shows part of example plans for a crossing at Churchfield Rd.  Steps up to a footbridge across the track are parallel to the track and there are also lifts at the end of the steps.  As it only shows part of the plans, it is difficult to say if the steps and lifts fit on the road or if they also extend for a bit alongside the track to the north of the crossing.

Michael Robinson ● 24d

I did manage to track down the presentation you referred to and similarly couldn't tell exactly how it would all fit in. It does seem likely though that part of the builders yard will need to go on the western side. The eastern side could be a bit more complicated with electricity sub-stations there plus the recent completion of housing just next to the line could create access issues. As this is the example they give it is reasonable to assume that the other potential closures are even more challenging.

Mark Evans ● 22d

I didn’t think Churchfield Rd would be that complicated. If most of the infrastructure is on the road then it would only need to extend for a short distance north of the crossing and the existing kit there for the crossing gates would be removed.There is even more space alongside the tracks at Bollo Lane if it needs to extend beyond the road plus they mentioned removal of the existing signalling hut as a historical item. At Bollo lane however it could make sense to extend the crossing across both tracks so it would be a much bigger project.

Michael Robinson ● 22d

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/budget-sadiq-khan-income-tax-powers-business-rates-chancellor-transport-tube-b1302628.html"The reforms will allow Lord Khan to give the green light to deliver key transport schemes such as the West London Orbital and Bakerloo Line extension."

Hans Lund-Sorensen ● 1d