Forum Topic

South Chiswick Traffic Calming Measures - Bring them on!

I find the postings by Councillor Sam Hearn on the forum rather self serving and not amusing. Those of us who live on Staveley Road, one of the worst roads affected by Rat Runners - want these traffic restrictions AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.There is a petition started by someone living on Park Road in Grove Park ( is it a coincidence that Clr. Sam Hearn has built a rather large property on Park Road, where he lives?) which is causing all sorts of mischief. And people are signing, I believe , without really understanding the implications.Its a TRIAL and people who are currently objecting will have plenty of time to give their feedback. Before this becomes permanent.I can't see why anyone would object to stop the 000's of rat runners abusing the green leafy roads of Grove Park just to avoid the Hogarth Roundabout.

Manita Khuller ● 2300d76 Comments

Manita, what you don’t realise is that the traffic is being diverted off Staveley to be able to cut through The much smaller Lawford Rd. it will still be able to travel from A316 down Staveley. I totally agree something needs to be done but this is badly thought out. Also the experiment will run when traffic volumes are low so the true effects will not be seen.

Krysia Gdaniec ● 2300d

Krysia,The diagonal barrier at Staveley and Park means a longer journey so you can't assume that everyone will now want to drive via Lawford.If traffic going via Lawford turns out to be an issue then there is an easy solution - put a planter at one end of Lawford Rd. It could be either end depending if there was a detour for SCR access or a detour for the other direction.  The traffic survey showed that not many people used Lawford Rd to access SCR and the detour would only be 300m-400m anyway.It makes more sense to do something, monitor what happens and do something more rather than try and predict the future.It also makes more sense to do something now before traffic has a chance to build up.

Michael Robinson ● 2300d

Why pick on one man? The idea that triggered the measures that LBOH are proposing came through the funding that they apply for from the government.Where a resident lives or the property they live in has nothing to do with any traffic measures that LBOH have Decided to install borough wide.Judging by the recent  history of events of Park Road, there seems to be a few bully’s who want their way, and if they don’t get it, they seem to single out a person as it’s their fault.Be carful what you wish for, as there will be heavy use of Burlington lane / Sutton Court Road as a main route through from the A316 to the A4.So in theory you could be surrounded by a ring of pollution as this route may be jammed for most of the day .

Bernard Allen ● 2300d

"Its a TRIAL and people who are currently objecting will have plenty of time to give their feedback. Before this becomes permanent."You've put your finger on it. I think what bothers people is that in fact there won't be a full stop between those two sentences. There is absolutely no guarantee anywhere that the majority view will hold sway should it turn out not to be the result those behind these measures want to see. There is a belief that regardless of popular opinion and indeed the  success or failure of the trial these changes will be made permanent.I don't know anything about the petition mentioned, however feedback can be left online until December 27th. https://haveyoursay.hounslow.gov.uk/traffic-and-transport/streetspace-feedback/

Bruce Hammal ● 2300d

"Be carful what you wish for, as there will be heavy use of Burlington lane / Sutton Court Road as a main route through from the A316 to the A4."A PREDICTION is not a FACT. After installation we will know what actually happens.

Ken Munn ● 2300d

You are right Bruce. The consultation process does not create a plebiscite and there is no majority principle.

Paul Campbell ● 2300d

Bernard, the area already has highly polluted roads on two sides anyway so it is preferable to reduce pollution in residential streets even if it means more traffic on the A4 and A316.You can see this in the pollution map at www.londonair.org.uk

Michael Robinson ● 2300d

I take it you're not a fan of democracy then Paul? To quote the old agage, you sometimes don't get the  result you want.

Bruce Hammal ● 2300d

Typo. "adage"

Bruce Hammal ● 2300d

Ken who said it was a fact.Burlington lane and Sutton court road is going to be used as the main route  between The A316 and the A4. It will also be.joined by what traffic  Goes over Grove park bridge.So any traffic that cannot use their normal rote will be using this route for a while.When the school roads are in operation  it may ease the road.But a local resident should not single out one person in their road, as it’s their fault.

Bernard Allen ● 2300d

To complete the old adage ©Jagger and Richard'But if you try sometimesYou just might findYou get what you need'

Ken Munn ● 2300d

I said the Burlington Lane and Sutton Court Road would become more polluted. Not the other way round

Bernard Allen ● 2300d

I didn't design the process Bruce. I am just telling you that it hasn't been designed as a plebiscite.

Paul Campbell ● 2300d

Everyone is so focused on traffic measures, they are missing the way a resident and their property has been single out.If you don’t know the recent history of Park Road, then it’s not down to me to inform you.

Bernard Allen ● 2300d

Two mistakes Bernard.Firstly, you are assuming that all the traffic that used Staveley or Hartington between the A316 and A4 would use Burlington, even though it is a longer journey than staying on the A316 (and there may be restrictions at school time as well).Secondly, all the traffic cutting through from the A316 to the A4 used Sutton Court Road anyway, so how would it become more polluted?

Michael Robinson ● 2300d

Sympathy for the devil?

Bruce Hammal ● 2300d

So it’s still all buts and maybes.You still missed the OP comment You obviously don’t know the recent history of Park Road

Bernard Allen ● 2300d

Parking zone ‘forced on residentsEvening Standard    Maxine Frith Wednesday 1 May 2013 10:58 A controlled parking zone is to be introduced in Chiswick despite some residents claiming that a majority of people don’t want it.Campaigners in Grove Park say a local councillor has forced through the plans without properly consulting them — accusing him of a conflict of interest because his parents live on one of the roads affected.The CPZ in Park Road and Staveley Road East was given the go-ahead last week by Labour councillor Ed Mayne, cabinet member for community safety and regulatory services, following nine years of argument about the proposed scheme. Hounslow council and Mr Mayne deny any conflict of interest and insist a full consultation was carried out of people in the two streets. Parking on the roads will be limited to residents between 10am and noon on weekdays for a six-month trial. The council says the CPZ rules will stop commuters from using streets as free parking for Chiswick station. But Andy Murray, chairman of the Grove Park Group of residents, said the restrictions would displace cars onto surrounding roads, prompting more CPZ applications. He said the council wanted to bring in CPZs as a revenue raiser.He said: “When a survey was done, 53 per cent of people said they didn’t have a problem with parking.”A council spokesman said: “The council carried out two comprehensive consultations before any decision to proceed with the controlled parking zone in Park Road and Staveley Road was taken. On both occasions, the majority of residents in the proposed zone were clearly in favour.”He added the proposals went through the scrutiny committee twice and that the decision was a “pragmatic and honest solution to parking problems”.

Bernard Allen ● 2300d

Good job there is a CPZ then Bernard otherwise the area would just become free parking for Brentford and London Irish fans who can get on the train and be at Kew Bridge station 2 minutes later.

Michael Robinson ● 2300d

... come to think of it, the CPZ would be need to be extended to cover weekend and evening games, wouldn't it?I'm sure residents will be asking for this when the fans find out they can park there.

Michael Robinson ● 2300d

Speaking as someone who helped do a residents survey prior to the CPZ implementation, the results showed out of 2,000+ responses, 90+% didn't want the CPZ. I assume that Ms Frith actually talked to Andy. I don't know what survey he was referring to. However, he was part of the survey I helped in. “The council carried out two comprehensive consultations before any decision to proceed with the controlled parking zone in Park Road and Staveley Road was taken. On both occasions, the majority of residents in the proposed zone were clearly in favour.”Not sure of the council definition of comprehensive. but it's not a definition I recognise. It is certainly true to say that the number of respondents to their surveys was nothing like the number or percentages I am aware of from the survey I took part in.  "He added the proposals went through the scrutiny committee twice and that the decision was a “pragmatic and honest solution to parking problems”."The phrase "Scrutiny committee" could be defined as an oxymoron in this context. Having attended one on this subject I remain unclear as to what got scrutinised and why the decision was reached by the scrutiny committee. I fully agree with Andy's comments on the CPZ.

John Hickman ● 2300d

Michael You have completely missed out completely that a cabinet member just run roughshod over the will of the residents.Now I know what side of the fence you sit on, and you shouldn't be involved in any consultation on the temporary measures south of the A4 in the future.

Bernard Allen ● 2300d

Bernard...this was 7 years ago!  Wait and see what happens when football and rugby fans find they can park in the area.  Residents will be demanding the CPZ is extended.I've got more bad news for you, can I respond to the consultation about the proposed traffic measures if I want to (it hasn't started yet by the way).  I think I may live closer to one of the traffic restrictions than you do.

Michael Robinson ● 2300d

That's fine I will be looking for your involvement in 6 months time. if it ever happens.But it seems that you are unaware of what really happened in 2013 so we will leave it at that.Also, Thank you John for your input about your truthful involvement in consultation process.Buy the way I am not worried about the football supporters nor should Park road as the majority have dropped kerbs and parking on their own land. The Northern Part of Park Road did become a racetrack for a while as there were know cars parked on the road.  What Andy said did happen, add one CPZ and you get the domino effect of others roads who were definitely against having one, slowly buckle under the weight of displaced parking and started asking for one.One poster on here at the time put it as CPZ by stealth. which is a LBOH tactic to get a CPZ when the residents don't want one.

Bernard Allen ● 2300d

As a one-off traffic changes cutting off the Staveley Road rat run is a good idea, the problem is that it is not a one-off proposal but part of a series of proposals.When the totality of the proposals are looked at (including some of the more tentative such as changing traffic lighting to allow more time for cyclists and pedestrians at the SCR/A4 junction) there is potentially a major problem for SCR in that the combined effect of the proposals will be divert more traffic on to SCR and slow it down.  My concern is that SCR will become one long traffic jam from the railway bridge all the way north to at least the Town Hall most week day afternoons (as opposed to merely most Fridays afternoons every week pre-lockdown) that has a knock on effect in that the E3 bus route becomes completely unreliable as it already was on Friday afternoons

Justin Stephenson ● 2300d

"My concern is that SCR will become one long traffic jam from the railway bridge "If it does drivers will surely stick to the A315/A4.

Ken Munn ● 2300d

Yup but its Grove Parks way out

Bernard Allen ● 2300d

Well thank goodness for the E3 and the 272 which are what I rely on having moved to Grove Park and sold my car. Oh hang on.... I'm advised to avoid public transport - especially pertinent now the journey is likely to take 10 times longer.

Bruce Hammal ● 2300d

Government advice on avoiding public transport is likely to change from tomorrow I've heard. That said, how the buses will cope with more demand is a big unknown.

Andrew Jones ● 2300d

Even in the flu season the NHS nurses call busies gem machines. They prefer to walk

Bernard Allen ● 2300d

I ment germ Machines.I am going to give up using an iPad it keeps changing what you write

Bernard Allen ● 2300d

Yes, agree with the second comment, they are badly thought out, really badly.  If that is the best way the Council and TFL can come up to help you, with all there resources we should be severely disappointed

Mike Chisholm ● 2299d

where are the stats on usage and the way they are collected anyway that we are building this picture from???  This is needed to measure the impact of any measure, or is this going to be hearsay measuring??

Mike Chisholm ● 2299d

I ment?? meant!  Also what is a busies?  Never mind we got the message.On another note why has Grove Park been changed to South Chiswick?Rat running through Grove Park is mainly during the rush hours - notices saying "no entry to A4", "no entry to Kew Bridge" etc etc should suffice with large notices saying "no heavy goods vehicles over ...tons  at anytime".  Meanwhile lower speed limits but please NOT speed bumps - ruins your car even at 5mph!Allow Grove Park residents to fully use all their local roads and be able to enter and exit at S on t Green/Kew Bridge.  The draconian suggested road closures will imprison us within Grove Park or force us to face big detours via heavily congested routes, so no improvement for locals!  Only gain will be money for the council from their spy cameras.

Jennifer Selig ● 2299d

JenniferI will answer you respectfully,If you have a problem with what my ipad does while I am typing  you will just have to let it go.I have been using it a lot recently and I got sick and tired of keep going back and correcting the spelling that the ipad changes, so I just decided to leave the ipad spelling in the post.This forum is twenty years old and the forum software is much older than that, I'm afraid they haven't got the facility to edit a mistake you make in a post.The new ChiswickW4 forum is still in testing mode and isn't linked to the home page for general use as yet. I apologise for any spelling mistakes in recent posts of mine, and bow to your superior intellect, and will try to keep my spelling under control in future posts.Kind Regards

Bernard Allen ● 2299d

Jennifer your question is a good oneOn another note why has Grove Park been changed to South Chiswick?....It  appears SOTG residents no longer  consider themselves part of  Grove Park. Of course they are delighted by the new proposals for Thames Road  and the effect it will have on house prices.  But if they think about the wider implications s if they want to return to SOTG from A316 they will now need to continue all the way to Hogarth roundabout and back up Sutton a court or go via Chiswick roundabout so although the scheme will make Thames Rd quieter they will be forced to make longer journeys. I really think with a few tweaks the scheme could work and benefit all GP and SOTG residents.  The key thing would be to allow all residents access to all the exit and entry points of South Chiswick. This would 1. Stop the rat runners2. Make the neighbourhood quieter and safer3. Reduce the pollution 4. Encourage cycling within the areaThe current proposal means 1. Local residents will be forced to make longer journeys2. Contribute more to pollution3. Contribute to increased traffic volumes on main arteriesWe could all benefit if this is done correctly.

Sean Wales ● 2298d

For the sake of completeness and accuracy there are other routes that SOTG residents can use to return home from the A3161. Outside school hours Staveley Road to Burlington Lane2. During school hours Burlington Lane3. Mortlake Road to Kew BridgeThe first two are quite short detours around the Hartington Road restriction and all three would usually be preferable to driving via the Hogarth and Chiswick roundabouts.

Paul Campbell ● 2298d

I will correct myself before  others do. I realise that technically SOTG is separate from Grove Park so the umbrella of South Chiswick makes sense. However, we are all affected by the scheme and need to give consideration to the wider implications for all south Chiswick residents even outside our own zones. We will all be impacted. We could all benefit still and South Chiswick become the liveable neighbourhood desired. I just don’t think all residents should be penalised forced to make lengthy detours and add to pollution and congestion on main arteries. Having the umbrella group of south Chiswick makes us bigger and stronger and a group and if we work together we can perhaps force some very minor changes to the scheme that will benefit us all.

Sean Wales ● 2298d

Paul I stand corrected. However I do seek peak hours being a problem Burlington Lane is very difficult to pass and this will be more congested with tailbacks. None of this is ideal. Also the poor residents of the wider part of Burlington Lane And Sutton Court Rd  will see far more traffic. Just a few minor alterations and the scheme could actually work.

Sean Wales ● 2298d

Strand on the Green Association (SoGA) has asked that the SOTG cpz zone to the west of Kew Railway Bridge be included with the RV and CS cpz's so that all residents in Thames Road and the side roads off it will be able to gain access via Hartington Road from the A316. Residents in the SOTG cpz zone should make this point when they respond to the Liveable Neighbourhood Survey on the Lbh website.

Strand on the green association ● 2298d

That’s interesting, surely residents of RV and CS for that matter should be applying for through access of SOTG so they can travel from that direction. This is the point I am trying to make. Why not allow all south Chiswick residents access to all entry and exit points. A simple solution and easy to implement and everyone will still benefit from less traffic.

Sean Wales ● 2298d

agree with some changes it probably could be of benefit to more/all residents, and travellers alike.  because a few pot plants and signs dumped into chiswick don't really cut it do they?

Mike Chisholm ● 2298d

Thames Road is slightly different in that it will be an ANPR controlled section from Kew Bridge to Grove Park Road to deter rat running.  If you set out from within the RV cpz zone there is no problem.  If you set off from within the CS zone to go through to Kew Bridge or vice versa then that will be considered a rat run. That is why the three zones should be treated as one.

Strand on the green association ● 2298d

"if they [residents of SOTG] think about the wider implications s if they want to return to SOTG from A316 "Sean,I've checked the traffic survey data and in the 12 hours from 7am to 7pm, there were only 28 vehicles that came into S Chiswick on Hartington Rd and stayed within the SOTG area (between the cameras located in SOTG and Thames Rd).  This includes vehicles that had previously left the SOTG area and were returning.For residents within the SOTG area, entering and leaving via SOTG is far more common.  There are some other examples of councils using ANPR with a list of permitted registrations but I'm not aware of anywhere in the UK that has a scheme with as many registrations as would be within the S Chiswick area.  I can understand the council wanting to limit the number of registrations because updating and managing this list involves ongoing costs.In the case of SOTG residents who return via Hartington Rd, there don't appear to be that many.Indeed, there could be justification for using the "time based" restrictions as proposed for SOTG elsewhere in the area as these don't need any management of registrations.

Michael Robinson ● 2298d

"However, we are all affected by the scheme and need to give consideration to the wider implications for all south Chiswick residents even outside our own zones. We will all be impacted. We could all benefit still and South Chiswick become the liveable neighbourhood desired.I just don’t think all residents should be penalised forced to make lengthy detours and add to pollution and congestion on main arteries.Having the umbrella group of south Chiswick makes us bigger and stronger and a group and if we work together we can perhaps force some very minor changes to the scheme that will benefit us all."Sums it up very well and I agree entirely. When LBH enforced CPZ on the area, they managed to salami slice Grove Park/SoTG up very neatly for revenue purposes and the same shouldn't be allowed to happen now. We are all residents in the same area and should be allowed to travel accordingly without punity.

Jim Brown ● 2298d

Hear hear John !We were totally steam-rollered.....

Madeleine Hazard ● 2298d

My letter to 'traffic@hounslow.gov.uk'FAO Mr Tom Sharland"Dear Mr Sharland and Lead Cllr KhanI have today received Tom Sharland letter of 14 July 2020 spelling out Hounslow Streetspace Programme – South Chiswick (why not Grove Park?? what is this new name???) Liveable Neighbourhood.  What an utter nonsense.    We are already living in a highly desirable and liveable  neighbourhood in Grove Park.  The only downside being the M-F rush hour rat running and the heavy lorries at all times bashing over the mini roundabouts and trying to squeeze themselves through some of our narrow roads to get to/from A4 or to exit/enter at  Strand on the Green/Kew Bridge junction.  It is very easy to stop those heavy goods vehicles – just need a sign at all entrances to Grove Park saying “NO ENTRY TO VEHICLES OVER ....TONS”  Permits could be granted for one off deliveries of Building materials,  home removals etc etc.  There has to be  an easier way of stopping rush hour rat running through Grove Park to the planned road closures  – simply use the planned Residents Car Recognition system.  All non-residents vehicles automatically to be fined unless they are stopping to visit a resident or a resident GP business.  Again a notice at each entry point to state “This is a Car Number Plate Recognition area -  Residents only. “ and maybe “No through way,  fraudulent entry will incur heavy fine of £.... “ 20mph speed limits can be imposed on all our roads and lower around schools during arrival and leaving times.  That’s it, done and dusted – no need for these other draconian measures – utter waste of money/time and will make we residents lives a misery as we shall be imprisoned unable to move freely about & in and out of our GP area.  As a vulnerable, shielded, disabled person with a daughter in Old Brentford both of us regularly use the Strand ot Green/Kew Bridge entry/exit point to get to/from my home in Hartington Rd.  Under your scheme we shall no longer be permitted to enter SotG!!!  How stupid is that?  It is not local residents who are causing the problems it is the commuting rat-runners and the heavy good vehicles.  Under my suggestions above, both these nuisances would be stopped whilst permitting residents to roam freely within their own enclave and to come and go.Please take my suggestions seriously and stop these unnecessary road  closures – they do nothing to improve space for either pedestrians or cyclists beyond a minor tweaking of some cycle lanes.  I wait to hear your reply." Automated reply saying they will respond in 10 days time!

Jennifer Selig ● 2298d

Sean,You said “all residents penalised”. Do you think that every single resident drives everywhere? It’s missing the point if you think this type of scheme is only about through traffic while people in the area continue to drive where ever they like. It’s about changing the area so residents will walk and cycle more too. That means making driving more difficult (still possible, but more difficult).

Michael Robinson ● 2297d

Michael I do appreciate the aim of scheme is to encourage residents to walk or cycle everywhere or use public transport. However there are many elderly residents for whom this is not posssible and they feel they are now being trapped and more isolated. South Chiswick has some lovely local shops but they are not sufficient for people to do weekly shops.  Many people need transport for school runs and many need to use their vehicles as part of their jobs. I still strongly believe the neighbourhood would be vastly improved in terms of less traffic but just restricting access for non residents.  It’s worth s shot at least before the more draconian restrictions are imposed.

Sean Wales ● 2297d

Um....there is nothing stopping anyone driving around Grove Park! They will just have to plan their journey around/through Stavely and Hartington Roads. Maybe things will take a few minutes longer though

Iris Hill ● 2297d

Sean - can you list a single destination that people will be unable to drive to?A detour is hardly a big deal.  It should encourage more people to walk or cycle instead and those who want to drive can still drive.I have personal experience of this as I live in a Chiswick street that was recently closed to through traffic.  There was all the same objections that are being said about the S Chiswick scheme.  There is a maximum detour of a mile compared to previously but try and say the street should go back to being a rat-run just so some people have some more convenient car journeys and see what reaction you get.

Michael Robinson ● 2297d

Eminently sensible Jennifer which is why it will be ignored or, at best, receive an "it's what the government wants" reply.The latter is, of course, nonsnse in that while the governemnt has set a framework the detail is down to the individual boroughs to implemnent.

N V Brooks ● 2297d

Actually the government has reviewed and approved each individual scheme put forward. Only schemes that have met their criteria have been approved. Many schemes were not approved and did not receive funding. For example, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea had a request for nearly £600k for a quietway cycle scheme rejected by the DfT because it did not reallocate road space away from cars or do anything to reduce traffic.

Paul Campbell ● 2297d

Neither does this stupid scheme for South Chiswick Paul.

Jennifer Selig ● 2297d

The scheme is designed to reduce traffic on many of the residential roads in the area. That is why the government approved and funded it and it is also, after all, why you are complaining about it. Thames Road and Hartington Road are just two of the roads that will benefit the most from reduced traffic.

Paul Campbell ● 2297d

Michael - "but try and say the street should go back to being a rat-run just so some people have some more convenient car journeys ......"  You have failed Michael to read my suggestions properly.  My idea is to stop ALL non-residents using Grvve Park as a rat run.  Also stopping all heavy goods vehicles entering it at all unless with an applied for permit to drop off or collect large items.  Try re=-reading it again!Incidentally ever since 1975 my husband & I used to walk miles, probaly twice a week the entire circuit over Chiswick Bridge along the river to Kew and home via SotG, now he's dead and I am 82 - still fiesty but bareley able to totter to the nearest postbox!  I am one of many over 80ties living here in the same boat!  In fact some over 70ties find it impossible to go out without a car, so you are happy to imprison we daft old twits are you?

Jennifer Selig ● 2297d

"Thames Road and Hartington Road are just two of the roads that will benefit the most from reduced traffic."What about the roads that not only won't benefit but suffer worse traffic and pollution ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 2297d

Which ones are they?

Paul Campbell ● 2297d

Why not forget all about closing roads just STOP ALL NON RESIDENTS DRIVING THROUGH GROVE PARK!

Jennifer Selig ● 2297d

"It’s about changing the area so residents will walk and cycle more too. That means making driving more difficult (still possible, but more difficult)."You missed out the word "forcing". As usual you seem to think everyone has the ability to cycle or walk longer distances with heavy shopping  etc

Loraine Pemberton ● 2297d

Oh don't you know ? You're one of the self appointed "experts" on here...The trouble with ill conceived intervention / tinkering at the edges schemes and policies is that they often have an unforeseen and unwanted domino effect, but let's wait and see 😉

Loraine Pemberton ● 2297d

As I expected.

Paul Campbell ● 2297d

Thing is you really have no valid comment about these ill conceived schemes.Look at the number of people on the numerous threads about the schemes and their concerns and negative comments, ah there's none so blind as those who won't see...

Loraine Pemberton ● 2297d

Tell the Conservative government who has approved and funded these schemes because they meet their criteria.

Paul Campbell ● 2297d

On the FWIW front, I find myself agreeing with Jennifer Selig. (Not a common occurrence). The missive to Mr T Sharland was eminently sensible, albeit a tad enthusiastic for my taste. Certainly any implementation ought to involve exceptions that are valid for all residents of Grove Park.If there is going to be an ANPR system implemented for SotG residents, it cannot be a great deal more expensive to extend it to the entirety of Grove Park. Certainly the cost of the camera(s) is an issue. However, the comment by Michael Robinson "I can understand the council wanting to limit the number of registrations because updating and managing this list involves ongoing costs" is somewhat disingenuous. ANPRs are run via IT. Whether you put 1 registration number or 5,000 into the system by way of "exceptions" there is no extra cost. The logic to do either is (ought to be) trivial and should be automated. If it isn't then it's a very badly written system. Incidentally, I note that both Michael Robinson and Paul Campbell seem to be rather enthusiastic about this scheme. Do either of said gentlemen live in the affected area (as I do)?If neither does, then why the continuous avid defence of the proposed system?

John Hickman ● 2297d

Labour LBH didn't have to take a Conservative government grant, but no surprise they did. They could have saved the financially pressed UK a few quid, but no, they chose to grab the money and put in schemes that will generate extra dosh for them by fining motorists for not seeing extremely poor signage. Hmmmm.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2297d

John,I take it that you yourself do not work in IT. As someone who does work in technology I am all too used to people with no appreciation of what is actually required to implement something claiming it is easy. The complexity is not necessarily in one piece of software but in all the processes associated with implementing a service and all the other systems and processes that need to be updated.If it as trivial as you claim, I’m sure you will have no problem finding another ANPR scheme managed by a council in the U.K. that covers thousands of registrations.I don’t live in the area affected but very close by, in Stile Hall Gardens. That street and Wellesley Rd has just been closed to through traffic. I have heard all of the arguments being used against the S Chiswick scheme before. All the same arguments were used about SHG and Wellesley but ask the residents if they want to go back to a ratrun and you will receive short shrift.It does seem that every time there is a proposal to restrict motor traffic, we are doomed to hear all the same objections again.FYI I also have some experience analysing traffic data so have created the following visualisation of the survey done by Hounslow. Happy to answer questions about this as there have been some pretty wacky claims.https://public.tableau.com/views/SChiswickLN/Intro?:language=en-GB&:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link

Michael Robinson ● 2297d

Each camera costs around £20000, and they only have so much funding, so to cover all of GP would I imagine be fairly expensive. And how do you think "IT" inputs all the reg numbers? It is someone at a keyboard doing each one! So a heavy cost for an admin person to do that. And of course when someone gets a new car, or another car, that has to have admin input as well. If you know anything about IT you will also understand about legacy systems and new systems talking to each other, and of course off the shelf software.Or do you think LBH are going to hire a coder to write a bespoke system?

Iris Hill ● 2297d

The government didn’t have to approve and fund LBH’s schemes but they did because the Council has followed their guidance and instructions.

Paul Campbell ● 2297d

Yes I live in the area. The nearest part of this scheme to me is Harvard Hill and I am very pleased that its closure looks like being the first part to be implemented by the end of this month. Of course that also means that I will have to stop driving on Thames Road and from the A316 to Hartington Road because I am in the FR CPZ. I can live with that because the benefits of reducing traffic in the whole area far outweigh the inconvenience of a few minutes detour for me.

Paul Campbell ● 2297d

Well the OP Manita Khuller certainly lit the touch paper.I wonder what happen to the OP, did they explode?

Bernard Allen ● 2297d

"I take it that you yourself do not work in IT. As someone who does work in technology I am all too used to people with no appreciation of what is actually required to implement something claiming it is easy. The complexity is not necessarily in one piece of software but in all the processes associated with implementing a service and all the other systems and processes that need to be updated."MichaelI no longer work, being of pensionable age. However, prior to my retirement I worked for over 40 years in IT so do have a passing knowledge whereof I speak. I should also mention that I spent over 16 of those years programming and the surrounding logistics. If there is no ANPR system as you describe that covers thousands of registrations then the sector is very badly served. In this day and age I would expect a modification of the nature being discussed to be of a trivial nature. It certainly was when I was working in that element of IT.You may, or may not, be correct in your assumptions about what the majority of people in Grove Park want. (Personally, I don't have a problem. I also doubt it's a majority as there has been no survey asking us). However, I would like to be asked, given that I will be affected. What I do not want is to have an ill thought out solution imposed on me by by a council who cannot be bothered to do its homework but merely relies on a number of requests in response to a general question on which there was no mention of traffic re-routing being considered.You may well have heard all the arguments being used against the South Chiswick scheme. You may even have arguments against them. Bear in mind, however, that you live in Stile Hall Gardens and that your problems are not the same as we (apparently) have in South Chiswick. I did not comment on the Stile Hall modifications as I do not live in the area.It is also not incumbent on you to respond to every objection with an "I know better" attitude merely because you happen to work in traffic.  Allow people to be asked and to voice their objections to the relevant members of the council whose duty it is to answer them. You do not number amongst these."It does seem that every time there is a proposal to restrict motor traffic, we are doomed to hear all the same objections again." So what? If you don't want to hear them, don't follow the thread.

John Hickman ● 2297d

IrisPlease see my response to Michael Robinson. I do know about IT. If inputting numbers requires someone sitting at a keyboard, then that is a very bad system. in addition, if each camera costs £20K then it seems to me that spending £40K for the Thames Road area is somewhat overkill compared to the rest of Grove Park.

John Hickman ● 2297d

Probably retired to a safe distance.....

John Hickman ● 2297d

John,You seem to object to comments from someone who has been through the process of putting in measures to address issues caused by traffic and who has also done analysis of the traffic flow in the area. More analysis, I suspect, than has been done by anyone who lives within the area.I will continue to challenge uninformed and mistaken views. If you don’t like opinions being challenged, tough shit.  Maybe you should avoid public Internet forums.Let’s hear your proposals to reduce traffic in the area. Unless, of course, you think the volumes of cars using the Hogarth roundabout bypass (sometimes referred to as Grove Park) is just perfect.

Michael Robinson ● 2296d

Paul you say " Of course that also means that I will have to stop driving on Thames Road and from the A316 to Hartington Road because I am in the FR CPZ. "Any car registered at an address within the entirety of  South Chiswick does not get sent a ticket.  Surely pretty simple!  That allows the residents of South Chiswick to roam freely in, out and around their home area.  It's the heavy goods vehicles and the commuters rat running that we object to and cause the problems - NOT the residents themselves! 

Jennifer Selig ● 2296d