Forum Topic

What I object to is Michael Robinson being an apparent outrider of Hounslow's Traffic Department. I object to the fact that he was well briefed on the changes  before any of us were. I object to the fact that I learnt things from his posts for the first time that I had a right to hear in a letter fron the Council, or from our elected representatives.It is quite simply untrue to say that there was any publicity in North Grove Park for the 'consultation'. I filled in one form about the layout for the proposed scheme at Grove Park Shops. There was no indication that wider changes were involved, Our  councillors were so bothered at the absence of notice of the consultation that they expressed concern to LBH.It is one thing for engineers to draw lines on a map. They are not social scientists. They do not look at the sociology of an area in the round. And they certainly did not address themselves to the real daily issues of what it is to live in Grove Park (let alone to Michael's favourite hobbyhorse - what it is to cycle in GP. These changes will do nothing for us who cycle here daily)Yes, Michael can say what he wants and where he wants. What is galling is that he has more say over our neighbourhood than elected councillors. It all recalls the days some twenty years ago,  when Peter Eversden, a co-opted member of the Chiswick Area Forum, became a decisive voice in a traffic change that brought nothing but trouble in its wake.The only voices that should count in what is decided in Grove Park are our voices. We know our own interests best and we do not need lectures from people who don't live here.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2284d

Brendan,Sorry to disappoint about being an "apparent outrider" and being "well briefed".  The blog post I linked was written a week or so after the funding was awarded and I certainly wasn't aware of specific  plans.  For anyone who knows the area, Harvard Hill being a rat run is hardly a secret.If you like, I can also send you a document I sent to the Chiswick Riverside councillors in 2018 before the council had even submitted a bid.  I described the types of measures these projects involved, what had been done elsewhere and the benefits for the area.  I got an acknowledgement from Cllr Giles but no response from the other cllrs.As to "he has more say over our neighbourhood than elected councillors", catch yourself on!If someone has an interest in a subject and does some research, then they will always be better informed than those who don't.  If you claim there was no publicity at all in North Grove Park for the consultation, it is funny there are lots of comments on the consultation map from people in the area.  Putting aside the council communications, here are chiswickw4 articles about the project from September 2019.  There were other similar articles in other local media.http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=liveableneighbourhood001.htmhttp://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=liveableneighbourhood002.htmIt would be great if you could point out a traffic scheme that makes walking and cycling an easier choice, and reduces rat running traffic that has been done by social scientists "looking at the sociology of an area in the round".  As I said, I'm interested in this subject so would be really interested in reading of such a project that has been done anywhere in the world.There are plenty of existing measures in Chiswick that were put in to stop rat running, closing off Riverview Rd is one example.  Did they bring in some social scientists to implement that?

Michael Robinson ● 2284d

Your local councillors have been in weekly almost weekly virtual contact with the officers developing and implementing these plans. We have been questioning and probing and trying to understand the reasons behind the measures proposed and what they are supposed to achieve. We have suggested a number of changes and alternatives.One of the key points is that although residents are concerned about what will change outside their front door or on the route to work, school or the shops most of the measures are designed to work as one comprehensive scheme to reduce rat-running. The measures must be looked at as a whole.In the case of the Harvard Hill exit to the A4 this is designed to work in conjunction with the planned restricted access from the A316 to Hartington Road and Staveley Road and the school street on Grove Park Terrace. Some of the 8,500 vehicles travelling along Hartington Road every day in November 2019 (when research was done) were undoubtedly heading towards Harvard Hill.The restrictions planned for Hartington Road and Staveley Road will greatly reduce the traffic heading towards Harvard Hill. We must then ask if these measures are successful is the 24/7 blocking of access to the A4 essential. The answer of course is no it is not. There may be an argument that car drivers even from within the ward should be discouraged from using the Harvard Hill exit as an access to the A4. There may however be an argument for time restrictions on access or a ban on commercial vehicles (one in fifty vehicles using Harvard Hill is a commercial vehicle).The road barrier as installed does not however make sense for those drivers living close to Harvard Hill. They now have to make a pointless and frankly silly detour along Fauconberg Rd or Elmwood Road to reach Sutton Court Road and the A4. This does nothing to make life easier for cyclists or pedestrians, it does not aid social distancing nor reduce air pollution or traffic noise.The solution that we proposed was a camera on Harvard Hill linked to an ANPR system  that allowed locals living on the surrounding streets to have access to the A4. This would be similar to what is proposed for residents living in school streets and Hartington Road and Thames Road.But no we were told by officers and Cllr Khan - a barrier it must be. We told them that the barrier would be driven round and now miraculously the funding for a camera has been found to catch these miscreants. Hurrah!The barrier must go. It is a blot on the landscape and an unnecessary and unsafe measure. It must be replaced by something safer and softer and that will be equally successful at removing rat running. Our streets will then be safer for walkers cyclists and frankly all of us. There will be less air pollution and less traffic noise.By the way, the idea of shutting of access off the A4 on to Harvard Hill is completely dumb. Such an access is vital for when there is a blockage on the A4/M4. It also keeps locally based drivers off other congested busy roads during the rush hour.     

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 2284d