Forum Topic

Grant Shapps and the £250 million

The more I think about Hounslow's plan of stopping us residents of South Chiswick from accessing all our roads, the worse I think it is.The Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps held out £250 MILLION to bribe Councils to improve road space for cyclists and pedestrians DURING THE COVID19 VIRUS.  He has had the wool pulled over his eyes.    Glaringly so in the case of South Chiswick which is a unique, peaceful residential "pocket" hanging south of the A4 down to the river hemmed between Kew and Chiswick Bridges.   LBH plans for South Chiswick are blantant and fraudulent, they are an excuse for Hounslow to grab a part of the £250 Million by pretending South Chiswick is strangling its walkers and cyclists DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC which is a downright lie. We already have a safe and good neighbourhood with ample room for pedestrians and cyclists to distance themselves (possible exception the tow path at Sot G and a few cycle lanes could be inexpensively widened).   The Government’s money, taxpayers money, is being fraudulently deployed in our peaceful green residential area.Yes, of course, it would be a good idea to curtail the RUSH HOUR  commuters from rat running through Grove Park/SofG but that is a separate issue and nothing to do with Covid!   While at it, ban all heavy good vehicles too, not that that is on the Council’s plans.   I have already made suggestions on another thread as to how both these issues can be dealt with and it does NOT involved keeping us locked into our homes.     Government money is being misappropriated.    Hounslow has divided S.Chiswick into small CPZs, their new plans are boxing South Chiswick residents within their own individual Zones and preventing them entering adjoining ones within the area.  LBH's plan does NOT add any additional road space for cyclists and pedestrians during the Covid 19 virus that is not already there and just brings misery to its residents.     The emergency funding Covid money is being misappropriated.   Grant Shapps immediately has to rescind any Governments approval permitting Hounslow to implement this fraudulent scheme that does not comply with his remit.   The money can be used more fruitfully elsewhere.

Jennifer Selig ● 2293d128 Comments

I have lived in Chiswick by the High Road for 40 years, and have known our riverside between the bridges for 60.I'm a cyclist, a pedestrian and occasionally a motorist, sometimes through South Chiswick.I walk and cycle south of the railway very frequently, and regard it as the quietest part of Chiswick, even in the rush hour.The motivation of this traffic management scheme is not clear to me.Cyclists and pedestrians don't need any improvement here, which is just as well because the plan doesn't offer any.The South Chiswick area features high levels of car ownership. I suspect that most of the traffic movements within it are residents' own vehicles, or those serving them such as deliveries, builders and trades.Discouraging rat-running motorists by closing routes is a laudable objective, but the same rules and restrictions must apply to everyone! Providing exemptions to residents in two specific resident parking zones is inequitable and will store up future trouble and divisions. The scheme gives an appearance of creating a virtual ‘motoring gated community’ of the CS and RV zones, which are public roads maintained at the public expense. I think this is very wrong.I can see that LBH might see an advantage getting ANPR systems installed with government funding, but whose interests would be served by this, and do we really want yet more surveillance in our lives?As an aside I think that the diagonal barrier at Park and Staveley Roads is a disaster waiting to happen for most GP residents, and should be dropped…I would support potential restrictions of rat-run commuter traffic by simple physical restriction at key points which would apply to all traffic. Simple, cheap and changeable if necessary once all the affected residents have experienced the results. The scheme as currently proposed is an abomination and I really hope it is reconsidered.

Jeff Gear ● 2292d

Jeff,I could pick up on lots of your points, but to focus on one:"I suspect that most of the traffic movements within it are residents' own vehicles, or those serving them such as deliveries, builders and trades."You are wrong about this.  The council did an ANPR traffic survey with cameras at each entry/exit road in the area and two further cameras within the area.  There is extensive data (which I have analysed) with the registrations of cars entering and exiting the area. The registrations of the cars are anonymised. All of this data is timestamped so it is possible to differentiate between vehicles driving through, vehicles starting or finishing their journeys and vehicles that stop and then continue.Here are some figures:Hartington Rd: 84% through traffic, 16% localGrove Park Bridge: 82% through traffic, 18% localStaveley Rd: 90% through traffic, 10% localHarvard Hill: 79% through traffic, 21% localStrand on the Green: 82% through traffic 18% local"Local" means the vehicle journey has started or finished within the area.Basically Grove Park and Strand on the Green is just a big bypass for the Hogarth roundabout.Given you are wrong about this basic assumption, it isn't worth going over your other points.However as you believe there is an alternative solution based upon "simple physical restrictions", it would be great if you could write up your proposal. A marked up map with comments would be good and you could put this somewhere accessible to everyone, like google docs or similar.

Michael Robinson ● 2292d

Yes Loraine, you were ratrunning. Michael in my book, when a person lives in locally in an area such as Chiswick, and you visit a retail resource, you are leaving from within Chiswick which is your home and then drive out of where you live to a locality just outside. That is not rate running as you are not using all of Chiswick to make your journey. Chiswick is already divided into four sections by the A4 and the Railway,    I used to belong to a trade union that was entirely run by a small percentage of communists membership, Michael you are beginning to sound like them, your never wrong, when you answer some posts you come over as a bully as they did. But I didn't believe that Frank Foulkes  was a communist.So no doubt I would be rat running if I attended an appointment at Dr Seaton's Private clinic  at    20 Harley St, Marylebone, London W1G 7JW or NHS: Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust.As I use my car to drive into central London.A rat runner from the west is a driver who travels into London  from either the M3 or M4 and finds that crossing from one side of London to another is easer carried out a bit further out, and most have picked on Chiswick to cross between main roads.They have entered Chiswick from outside the area, driven through the area and left it again at another exit, so has used Chiswick residential roads as a mini M25 which is where they should have swapped Motorways. As  Lorraine was only using a percentage of Chiswick to leave and returned the same way she was not rat running.The Bedord Park Bicycle Club and other cycling groups are trying to cut up their area into little tiny boxes, and then stared shacking their fists at any motorist who dares move their car.Sounds like a Communist state to me, where a Cyclist can go anywhere they like and resident with a car is not allowed to move. Maybe the Government hasn't though this through, if you are a non car campaigner, that person should give up any vehicle they owned and those of the partners, and made to travel anywhere within the country be other means of transport. 

Bernard Allen ● 2291d

The journalist Laura Laker has been doing some digging and research into funding the boroughs have received under the government's emergency transport programme and the figures are here:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NlalGCRR5JHow4R9vkPN2nvYRMGDGGo7SGYwkzuSx20/edit#gid=0These aren't "official" but they are meant to be pretty accurate.To pick up on some local points:There is an item for Ealing “Strategic Cycle Routes C9 CHR” with Estimated Final Cost (EFC) £250k and Initial Allocation of £35k.Given Chiswick High Rd isn’t in Ealing, this could be the route to link Ealing with C9 on CHR, so Fishers Lane.  If Fishers Lane has a bus gate with a couple of cameras then £35k is in the right ballpark… but I really don't have a clue what the remaining £215k would be spent on if Ealing gets more money in the next round.Of the 9 schemes for Hounslow, the initial funding was the same for the Estimated Final Cost for of 6 them (including S Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhoods) so for these 6 schemes Hounslow got everything they asked for.  The 3 schemes where the initial allocation was less than the Estimated Final Cost  were:Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. Road Closures/Restricted Access - Through Traffic Management: Initial allocation £20k, Estimated Final Cost  £210kSchool streets. Footway widening: Initial allocation £5k, estimated final cost £55kTwickenham Rd:  Initial allocation £10k, estimated final cost £100kSo if Hounslow does get more funding in the next round, this gives an indication of what it would be spent on.  The next round of funding would be for the remainder of the 20/21 financial year.  I don't think there has been an announcement of arrangements for the 21/22 financial year yet.I believe the temporary C9 along CHR will be done out of TfL's budget, not Hounslow.  TfL's budget also comes from the Department for Transport as part of the bail-out.

Michael Robinson ● 2291d

Dear Vanessa.So you think the term 'rat running' is misleading.Well in some European countries, they use the term 'Parasites'.Here is the explanation from Copenhagenize.comWhen I was in Ferrara, Italy a couple of weeks ago I was having a good chat with a colleague who works for the City. We were looking at a map of the city and he was filling me in about the various traffic and bicycle-friendly initiatives in place. For example, Ferrara doesn't have a congestion charge - it has a congestion BAN. Non-residents are not allowed to enter and goods transport must pay a fee. Eight cameras are installed around the city to photograph number plates. If you're caught in the city without a permit, you are fined €100. Ah, simplicity.Anyway, he was telling me about a main route through the city and plans to tackle the motorists who use it. He called them parasites. I thought it was a bit out of character for him but he kept using the word. Finally, I had to ask why he was using the word and he looked at me quizzically and said that it was simply the word they used.Parasites.What a great word. The host organism is, of course, the city off which they feed. The streets outside my flat as I write this are relatively free of parasites. The ones that plague Copenhagen aren't your traditional parasites. They aren't noctural. They desert their host organism on migratory patterns, scurrying back to their formicaries in the afternoons, only to return to feed upon their host in the morning. To continue their infestation and causing all manner of illnesses that the host organism is unable to defend itself against.Traffic pollution with its toxic emissions and noise pollution, a lower perception of safety for pedestrians and cyclists, traffic accidents that kill and maim, reduced property prices and so on.Parasites. It's a brilliant way to describe the motorists who roll down these streets, contributing nothing to the liveableness of my neighbourhood and others, hardly making a dent in the economic well-being of the shops, paying their taxes in other municipalities. Rumbling past, spouting the residue of their combusted fossil fuels behind them to the funky tunes on their radio while they text away on their telephones.It's an epidemic and yet there is no Dustin Hoffman to help us. Only visionless politicians worried about getting elected for another term, organisations and NGOs who have become too politically correct to rock the boat and traffic planners who geek out over technical manuals and aerial maps instead of remembering what it is like to be a human being on the streets.And I'm referring to Copenhagen. I know how much more infested other cities are.On the flip side I tweeted a thought today: "Bicycle users are the transportational lungs of a city. Let's do what we can to get more of them, shall we?"A simple sentiment. Forests and green spaces are often referred to as lungs in countries and cities. Bicycle users are much the same. I certainly don't hope my body is used to convert carbon dioxide but the 37% of my fellow citizens who choose to ride a bicycle each day are a rolling metaphor for photosynthesis - as are all bicycle users in any city. What a lovely word. From the Greek φώτο- [photo-], "light," and σύνθεσις [synthesis], "putting together", "composition". Using the energy from sunlight to do their magic.For every kilometre we roll, we are putting money into the pockets of the state and the municipalities. 23 cents for every kilometre in Denmark. For every kilometre driven by a motorist, we as a society pay out 16 cents. Net loss. Parasitism at its finest. And that latter number is even with 180% tax on cars in this country. I shudder to think what the net loss would be in other countries.Do I get a tax break for cycling in my city? Not that I'm aware of. Free bicycle every couple of years? Nope. A discount for not owning a car on my car share subcription? Nah. I get safe, secure infrastructure to ride around on with my children - I'm grateful for that. But I'd rather do it without the parasites in the car lane next to me. Give them tramways down the main arteries - like we had for decades and decades last century. Subsidise public transport - it's Europe's most expensive - and let the parasites evolve into useful creatures. I can live with that.

Hans Lund-Sorensen ● 2291d

No, I am not wrong Michael, merely concerned that a ham-fisted scheme is about to be unleashed on an area of Chiswick, most likely to the detriment of most residents except those in the bit south of the railway line.Quantitative measurement and analysis is a good starting point for policy formulation, but the numbers you use in your post do not have much significance without the necessary context.What was the methodology for this ANPR survey?Over what dates was it conducted?An array of ANPRs at all area entry/exit points, or an ANPR van or two covering all the points on different days? Which days/dates, and over what time of day periods for each ANPR location?What are the boundaries of the area? Logically the area is defined by the exact locations of the ANPRs, so that too is essential context for assessing the local/through traffic ratio, and what is the delay period between entry and exit used to classify a journey as local or through? Is there a different set of criteria for defining whether a journey starts or finishes within the area?For each movement capture, the time of day and direction of travel through the ANPR, ie entry or exit from the area.And so on.Let’s consider the wider context for a moment. We need to reduce internal combustion engine vehicle use as far and as fast as we can, recognising that there are always some who would be housebound without the use of their car.  Measures which encourage and enable walking and cycling are a way forward, but are not really relevant in S Chiswick because it’s fine as is, and the scheme doesn’t really offer any improvements.BUT, our lives have been derailed by the Covid pandemic. Now govt. wants to encourage people back to their workplaces. How to get there? A minority can and will walk or cycle to work. Public transport would normally be the answer, but Covid has derailed the capacity of that too, and people fear the infection danger of using it. What’s left? The car, and to the extent that govt. is successful in encouraging people back to work, we should expect traffic to rise. Now is not a great time to introduce additional constraints on car use. As yet no government has made any real attempt to reduce fossil fuel use, indeed quite the reverse, so it’s reasonable to let that ride a bit longer.I remain strongly of the opinion that whatever traffic control measures are introduced they should apply equally to everyone, within or without the area, and any resultant inconvenience, delays or diversions be shared too. This has always been the case to date, and makes a scheme simpler, cheaper, and fairer than one which grants privilege to those within.South Chiswick is a quiet part of Chiswick. I remain unclear about what the driving force behind this scheme is, and its objectives. It’s extraordinary that these haven’t been described except in the vaguest terms, so residents don’t really know what to expect.We shall see. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating…

Jeff Gear ● 2290d

Jeff,Of course you were wrong.  You claimed that most vehicles movements were from residents' vehicles.  It isn't even close.  Traffic is dominated by vehicles driving through without stopping.  Primarily from the A316 to the A4 and secondarily from the A316 to the S Circular. Grove Park is just a bypass for the Hogarth roundabout.There is information about the ANPR study in the South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood project information page on the Hounslow website.  You can request the traffic survey data from Hounslow if you want to see the detailed information that will answer all of your questions and much, much more.If you want to persist in your claim that local journeys make up the majority of traffic then you should get the survey data yourself and demonstrate that you are right and I am wrong (a caveat, the survey data consists of  about 90 or so spreadsheets taking up about 100M.  There were 18 camera locations covering both directions at every junction with the S Circular, A4, Sutton Court Rd and A316 plus two internal locations)If you would like to understand the wider context in terms of government policy, you should read this:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management-act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid-19You can think what you want, really.  But this is the reality of what the government policy is and what they are funding councils to do.As to your claim of "South Chiswick is a quiet part of Chiswick".... since when can roads with over 8,000 vehicles a day, three quarters exceeding the speed limit with 80% to 90% just driving through the area be considered "quiet"?If you consider that "quiet", I shudder to think what you would consider busy...

Michael Robinson ● 2290d

“here are some Chiswick streets that have been closed or restricted to stop rat running: Prebend Gardens, Vaughan Ave, Beverley Rd, Devonshire Rd (the original 1 way), Cranbrook Rd, Thornton and Mayfield, Chiswick Rd, Wellesley Rd, Stile Hall Gardens, Riverview Rd.”Beverley Rd. No, closed for the school probably a decade before the phrase “Rat Run” was used to describe drivers.Devonshire Rd (the original 1 way). No, closed because it is not suitable for modern cars, rat runners are diverted via Ingress Street and Annandale Road.Cranbrook Rd. No, closed because it is not suitable for modern cars, it only prevents rat running in one direction.Thornton and Mayfield. No, Thornton Ave is closed, Mayfield Ave is still unrestricted. Personally I think they should be one way, it would be better for pedestrians and cyclists on the High Road.In Cranbrook Road 25 years ago, before the one way, there would regularly be car drivers arguing about who should reverse, so most people avoided the road as a short cut. Now car drivers regularly drive down the road at 30-40mph, because it is quicker than waiting for the lights to change on the High Road.If I wanted to live in a quiet road, I’d move out of Chiswick. As the options are having cars speeding down the road because it’s a quicker route or cars getting stuck and not using the road because it’s slower, I’d go for the latter. I would guess that the police not having to attend to road rage incidents and insurers not wanting to pay out for cars that have been scratched will mean that it remains one way.

Colin Potter ● 2289d