Forum Topic

grove park traffic this morning

Anyone who doubts that we need the proposed traffic restrictions in Grove Park, go check out the traffic this morning.Massive jams north and south of the bridge caused by large commercial vehicles rat-running (e.g. a huge Sainsbury's lorry). Roll on the proposed restrictions.

Simon Pedley ● 2243d107 Comments

I agree, Simon. This morning was ridiculously busy.

Pippa Meldrum ● 2243d

It's not rat running that's causing the traffic it's diverted traffic from the A316 as it's closed for some reason.

Brian Green ● 2243d

The argument is not about whether we need traffic measures to reduce rat-running - that much has been obvious since the closure of Hammersmith Bridge. The question is whether the changes proposed by LBH are proportionate and sensible and the best way of dealing with the problem. The Council still refuses to answer the specfic questions put to them in an open letter in August by local Cllrs. This extremely disappointing. If they cannot defend specific aspects of their schemes they should not be implementing them. 

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 2243d

The misguided LBH changes punish residents and do everything but address the one thing that might make a difference to Grove Park. This is the suppression of through traffic on Sutton Court Road.  If LBH  were serious about ‘liveable streets’, they would address that central question.  Instead, they prefer to bottle us up in our neighbourhoods, making it harder and harder for us to get in and out of here.My central complaint is Harvard Hill, the closure of which adds almost a mile to my commute.  But there is a further unaddressed issue., that of Burlington Lane between Staveley Road and the A316. This is a key route out of GP. Yet there is almost no passing room. The road has parked cars from end to end on both sides. Why is it not in a CPZ? Why is parking allowed on it at all?’

Brendan McCarthy ● 2243d

The closure of Harvard Hill also means that I have to drive via Fauconberg Road and Sutton Court Road to access the A4 westbound. It is a few minutes extra in the car and is more than worth it for the benefits of removing nearly 2000 vehicles a day coming through Fauconberg, Burnaby Gardens and St Mary's Grove. This is an absolute no-brainer example of the benefits of a traffic restriction outweighing the minor inconvenience. Per the OP the residents in SOTG are going to seriously benefit from the timed access restrictions on Thames Road.

Paul Campbell ● 2243d

Its an interesting question when there is an accident and the road is closed, as a long stretch of the A316 is now. So is traffic then allowed to divert, would the police not encourage people to do so in order to prevent broader knock on effects? The proposed measures would seem to make this difficult, which obviously is the idea. But it does raise questions about wider traffic management.

Paul Green ● 2243d

In today's example the traffic should be diverting via Mortlake Road, the A205, which is far more suitable than the narrow old village road that is Thames Road.

Paul Campbell ● 2243d

South Circular currently resembling a car park both directions Kew Bridge way

Madeleine Hazard ● 2243d

Pretty heavy and fast traffic going from A316 up Burlington Lane and SCR northwards this morning. Understandable due to the closures but the speed is a concern.

Jo Roberts ● 2243d

"In today's example the traffic should be diverting via Mortlake Road, the A205" - interesting idea Paul but of absolutely no use if you are stuck on Chiswick Bridge and passed this turning.Why do you assume that traffic would all head towards Thames Road? If you are on the A316 travelling north you would surely not choose to head to Kew Bridge.The 2,000 vehicles a day that you quote as using Harvard Hill is of course pre-Covid data. The way to stop most of this rat-running is some form of the A316/Hartington Road closure. Stopping the problem at source and not disadvantaging locals who wish to slip out on the A4 rather than face a I mile detour. LBH have of course in their cack-handed way closed Harvard Hill and still not activated the A316/Hartington Road measures. Has anyone been able to register for the "white list" on this scheme?The school street on Staveley Road will not be implemented until October (long after the school has gone back) whilst the diagonal barrier on Park Rd/Staveley Road which is an integral part of the school street scheme will apparently be implemented this week. Good luck with ripping out the traffic islands and pedestrian crossing on Staveley Road - it will make life so much safer for those of us who walk. Pure genius.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 2243d

I'm responding to the OP's observations of HGVs diverting to Thames Road today Sam because there is an accident on the A316 and it is closed. It seems the traffic is diverting through Grove Park to avoid the road closure. Some up SCR and some along Thames Road with the split probably determined by SatNav in the moment they come off the A316."Cack-handed" is rude. I am very leased to hear that the diagonal filter is going in this week. That will make for much more pleasant family outings to Chiswick House. I think that the safety benefits of the reduction in traffic on Staveley Road will far outweigh the loss of one pedestrian crossing. In fact the crossings should become pretty redundant. Good news!

Paul Campbell ● 2243d

What I mean about the A205 is that when all the Grove Park restrictions are in place and there is a situation like today then the urgent diversion should be at Chalkers Corner for vehicles travelling north on the A316. That would be the most sensible traffic management measure. It probably should be the case today but Grove Park is currently the established diversion for any traffic situation on the A316 so it doesn't happen.

Paul Campbell ● 2243d

FYI:- "In some parts of the English-speaking world, "cack-handed" is slang for left-handed, and is also used to mean clumsy."So not rude in the context is was used.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2243d

There was an accident causing the buildup of traffic in Grove Park this AM: http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conaccident146.htm?fbclid=IwAR2OiUqKPqWuFKtSuW_XE9ZXiOUzJNZY156Cfpdp6RvqpaNfnZpT4aBFDac

Helle Kaiser-Nielsen ● 2243d

"Has anyone been able to register for the "white list" on this scheme?"I have seen no information regarding when this will be implemented or how to register for the white list.  As a resident of RV CPZ zone with off-street parking (so no parking permit) and entitled to access from the A316 to Hartington Road as I understand, I am quite anxious about this.Do you know when we will get more information about this?

Catherine Steele ● 2243d

Paul - you are quite right cack-handed does derive from a lavatorially rude insult found in many cultures. I was using it in its more modern sense.Devising a complex and innovative traffic management scheme and then introducing it piecemeal and backwards first is cack-handed. I made this point on several occasions to officers and have sought assurances from them that they would not do this. But they have only been able to say that the implementation would take place over a short period of time. It is a shame that Hounslow Highways do appear to have received the email. An analogy would be like filling a dam before you have built it because you need the hydro-electric power - duh.Without any evidence at all I blame this on political pressure placed on officers because on the whole I and my colleagues find our traffic officers professional, intelligent and intellectually well equipped .. as for their masters I will leave others to judge.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 2243d

Cack Handed sounds very sinister

Andrew Jones ● 2243d

There was heavy traffic across both Richmond and Hounslow boroughs this morning.  Get used to it. It is because schools are back and more people are returning to work. It won't last too long because we will soon have the second wave and schools will close again and people will work from home again. In the meantime - suck it up.

Steve Taylor ● 2243d

What’s the best way of getting Grant Shapps involved? He needs to review the undoubtedly cack handed approach and replace it with something that works. I’m sure the gridlock in Grove Park could have been avoided with a well thought out sensible approach - local access only maybe?

Russell Pearson ● 2243d

Mr Pedley  Where the devil do you live?  Your OP "Anyone who doubts that we need the proposed traffic restrictions in Grove Park, go check out the traffic this morning.Massive jams north and south of the bridge caused by large commercial vehicles rat-running (e.g. a huge Sainsbury's lorry)."  Is completely incorrect - nothng to do vehicles "rat runningg" there was an ACCIDENT ON THE A316 so all traffic was directed through Grove Park.  Try getting your facts right before spouting off about a system that majority of the residents within Grove Park DO NOT WANT!!!

Jennifer Selig ● 2243d

As an attempt to find some common ground here, do you think it would be correct to say:"most people in GP would like to reduce the through traffic using Thames Road, Hartington Road, Grove Park Road, Grove Park Bridge and Staveley Road".By through traffic I mean: neither starting point nor ending point within GP.Leaving aside for the moment whether the current proposals could be improved upon. Maybe if we can agree on that then at least we know we have a common goal.

Simon Pedley ● 2243d

I think we all want to reduce rat run through traffic. The solution put forward is designed to stop locals using some roads, and will not stop gridlock in future. It’s unfit for purpose.

Russell Pearson ● 2243d

"situation like today then the urgent diversion should be at Chalkers Corner for vehicles travelling north on the A316"So if someone is coming from Richmond and should be met with this type of closure and they want to get to the M4 or head in to central London via the A40 they should do the same thing? Which boils down to the situation being sorted so long as the traffic is in someone else's backyard, just not in your back yard.Call me crazy, but if there's on thing I've learned this country is crap at signage and dealing with this type of situation. I have yet to see the police taking pro-active steps when it comes to traffic management. It is often crawling up as close to the scene as possible only to be sent down whatever roads are nearby regardless if they're suited for all vehicles types or not. I've also learned you call these situations cluster f~cks. So when next traffic gets diverted and the diagonal closures are in place causing enormous disruption in the Park Road area as articulated lorries do circles in Grove Park in a vain attempt to get out of it, let's all come back here and thank Paul.

David Lesniak ● 2243d

Exactly Russell P.  I've already said the Council could very easily stop ALL heavy goods vehicles over a certain weight entering Grove Park/S ot Green unless with a special permit.  Erect road signs at all entry points to the area and have cameras to catch and fine any vehicle breaking this rule.

Jennifer Selig ● 2243d

To Simon's point. It is possible that there may be common ground on not wanting through-traffic/rat-running in Grove Park/SOTG. In that case ANPR cameras at the entrances to GP/SOTG on the A316, A4 and A205 would sort out the problem.The present temporary proposals avoid the central issue, Sutton Court Road. Any proposals which do not square up to through traffic on SCR simply throw the misery on to residents - and not commuters. And if the Council feels it can do nothing about SCR, it is better that it folds its tent and leave us alone. There was no demand here for any change after all.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2243d

I wouldn't argue that the proposals are perfect, but it seems pretty clear to me that they will reduce traffic in strand on the green and over the bridge, which it seems that we'd all appreciate, and that they'll slow traffic on Staveley road. Given that, I don't understand the extreme negativity towards the proposals. Are you worried about the side effects?Stopping all HGVs sounds good though.

Simon Pedley ● 2243d

Just to reply on SCR: I think it'd be great if there were a speed camera, and if it were easier to cross. People cross it all the time in many places...why not have 3 or 4 more crossings and really start to give pedestrians a higher priority. Or at least a few islands.

Simon Pedley ● 2243d

Why? I used the term for left handed people or trade men’s  who cannot quiet get an operation right how Many time they try it.

Bernard Allen ● 2243d

As I have said before the problem with the current proposals is that they seemed designed to force more traffic onto Sutton Court Road, a road which pre-lockdown could not cope with the traffic most Friday afternoons, a road which has a well known accident blackspot at the junction with the A4.I am not against all road closures and re-routing of traffic but it does seem as though LBH have looked at each change in isolation without thinking about the cumulative effect

Justin Stephenson ● 2243d

Sam, we all know where the political pressure is coming from: the very clear and time-constrained instructions issued to Councils and published by the DfT and its SoS. We can also only assume if the Chiswick Councillors fail to summon Shapps to cancel these schemes after his statements in the state newspaper on Sunday that he is satisfied that they meet the criteria and protocols as laid down by the DfT.Your explanation of your usage of “cack-handed” doesn’t satisfy me. I think it is rude in its old usage, derogatory in its modern usage and disrespectful in your application of it to the efforts of people who we have both heard explain the rationale and level of thought and work that has gone into these measures. I’m glad that you acknowledge their worth and it would be good if you didn’t give with one hand and taketh with the other as it risks looking politically opportunistic, which in itself is nonsensical considering they are complying with the instructions of your government. We both know that the officers have considered this scheme as a whole and are able to articulate how its various measures work together. You are either failing to understand their explanations or you are deliberately misrepresenting them. I think that is unfair and I expect more diligence, attention to detail, honesty and objectivity from our elected representatives. State the facts and let people decide for themselves without leading the witness with obfuscation, hyperbole and insults.

Paul Campbell ● 2243d

There was a great deal of demand for change in the consultation. Every aspect of this scheme responds to points raised by local residents and supported by many others in that consultation. It is a matter of public record.The traffic officers believe that the Hartington Road restriction and the Chiswick School Street will reduce the traffic using SCR significantly. So the Council does think that it is addressing the SCR issues. If they are wrong then we will provide feedback during the ETO consultation and suggestions for further restrictions to make it work better.

Paul Campbell ● 2243d

The negativity is because the measures are not really designed to reduce rat run traffic, which is easily done. It’s instead an extremist XR type anti car ideology. This is why we need Grant Shapps to review the measures, as they are a clear misuse and waste of the intended use of the government monies.

Russell Pearson ● 2243d

Paul, do you refer to the initial Commonplace consultation when you say there was a "great deal of demand for change in the consultation"?

Henry Man ● 2243d

Yes Henry

Paul Campbell ● 2243d

Thanks for clarifying Paul. According to the published results of this consultation, just 348 local residents contributed. I believe that is roughly 3% of all local residents. Can the views of 348 local residents be described as a thorough initial consultation and demonstrate a "great deal of demand" and a "matter of public record"?

Henry Man ● 2243d

Brendan said "there was no demand here for any change at all" so I commend you Henry for going further than most to read the consultation report. It was actually 349 residents who wrote comments but there were 3,939 contributions in total with a very high proportion of those agreeing with the comments of their fellow residents on the problem areas. A contribution must surely be at least as valuable as clicking a box on a change.org petition.As you are in the report I would urge you to read the comments from people on Burnaby Gardens in particular. I have published their comments on here before several times. Plaintive pleas to the Council to do something about the volume of speeding traffic on their narrow road. Brendan has resolutely refused to acknowledge the concerns of his very near neighbours but I can see that you are more interested than him in digging deeper.So the stats do show a great deal of demand and they are on public record as you have demonstrated. How thorough that is as an initial consultation has been rendered a moot point by the actions of the SoS for Transport as the previous process has been superceded by his new one which involves a 6 month consultation from the start of the scheme. the Council had intended to run a consultation process before implementation until Shapps' intervention.

Paul Campbell ● 2243d

Message removed

Madeleine Hazard ● 2243d

I agree with the Burnaby Gardens residents' comments. If I was asked the question of how I would like my neighbourhood to be improved, I would say the same things. We all would.I do wonder how the proposed measures will tackle traffic speed in Burnaby Gardens though. So, I believe the initial consultation was exceptionally poor given the wide reaching and ambitious nature of the changes. 3% of the impacted population consulted with an online only survey is just not a good representation. It is a moot point though, as you say, which leads me to the post implementation consultation.The entire scheme is based upon 2019 traffic data. Do you believe traffic will return to normal patterns within the next six months given the context of Covid? Is the post implementation consultation not therefore flawed?

Henry Man ● 2243d

It doesn’t really matter what I think about when or if traffic levels will reach pre-Covid levels because the SoS for Transport did not stipulate that measures to reallocate road space and restrict traffic should wait until such a time as traffic returned to 2019 levels. On the contrary he said that he wanted Councils to take preemptive action and implement schemes at pace. Therefore if you feel that his guidance for consultation is flawed due to misalignment with his guidance on timing of implementation and funding then you may want to take that up with the Conservative government. Voicing your concerns to me on this forum will not stop Shapps’ process.As for Burnaby Gardens and speeding traffic. That is quite simple. There is no traffic there now. It’s gone. This is what the residents are about to experience on Staveley. You don’t have to worry about cameras or bumps or enforcement when there are no cars except the occasional resident leaving or returning home. It’s bliss.

Paul Campbell ● 2243d

I am no prude but there are rules for comportment on social media sites like this and you have crossed the line Madeleine. Only one measure of the South Chiswick LN has been implemented so far and it has been a great success so your evaluation of the scheme is either inaccurate or premature.A lady on Nextdoor who is anti the Scheme was wondering yesterday what could be done about the volume of speeding drivers around Chiswick School. I mentioned that  she could support this scheme because it includes the school street scheme for Chiswick School which will eliminate that traffic entirely during the arrival and departure times. She thought that was great. Our Councillors have done a really lousy job in explaining this scheme to confused residents. Demagoguery is a lot easier than work.

Paul Campbell ● 2243d

The ‘consultation’ has little evidential value. There is no way of knowing if people are who they say they are, let alone if they live in Burnaby Gardens.  We have no way of knowing if the contributions from Burnaby Gardens came from many people, or from one or two persistent posters. It is telling that 90% of contributions were from out of area, and telling too that most of us had no idea that a consultation was going on.We can easily guess at whose promptings 3600 people who don’t live here participated in the consultation.The only consultation that would have any worth would be one along the lines of the CPZ consultations. It would be clear who was participating, and where they lived.Even if all that was being proposed was of high merit, it is unacceptable if the price is a complete thrashing of local democracy. We have been mugged by a tiny minority and this must stop.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2242d

It is following the government’s statutory guidance so it is not anti-democratic. The government was elected and given a mandate by the people. Your conspiracy theories and grievances are not sufficient grounds for halting the scheme and it will go ahead unless your Councillors can persuade Shapps to personally intervene. If he does not then we must assume that the SoS for Transport is satisfied that the scheme is fit and proper.

Paul Campbell ● 2242d

Brendan,If the consultation ‘results’ had ‘gone’ the other way, do you not think that the forum posters who are anti this scheme would not be pointing to how the scheme had been rejected by the consultation?

Andrew Jones ● 2242d

I dont have a strong view on this scheme and think some of the proposals are sensible but some easy changes are needed to make it better. But there is a point about how open to manipulation these consultations are. Lobby groups have very effective mechanisms to flood these consultations with their viewpoint, for areas they have never been to. It would not be difficult to ensure that only local residents apply, if the desire was there. Cost of course an issue.

Paul Green ● 2242d

Russell...can you explain your comment a bit?To me the plan looks like a pretty straightforward attempt to cut traffic on various roads, using pretty standard methods. All I see in the proposal is a few cameras, traffic islands, one way roads, etc. Nothing remotely sinister. I'm struggling to see any crazy extremist ideology in that.

Simon Pedley ● 2242d

Correct, there is barely any traffic using Burnaby Gardens and there has not been for several months now because of the impact of Covid on regular travel patterns.

Henry Man ● 2242d

Simon do you live within the Grove Park/S ot Green area?  If not you have absolutely no right to comment on road closures here at all - I can't see where you have ever said where you do live?

Jennifer Selig ● 2242d

Well said.

Stephen Edwards ● 2242d

I don't particularly agree with Simon's take on it, but he has every right to comment. 

Rob Reynolds ● 2242d

I disagree. It was building up again before the barriers went up on Harvard Hill. Anyway it doesn't make any difference if you and I exchange oppositve views of the impact of Covid on traffic in the area. You appear to believe you have spotted a fundamental flaw in the DfT's misalignment of exhortations to proceed with pace or miss out on funding for the foreseeable while running a consultation in what you believe to be a time of suppressed traffic so I suggest you talk to your Councillors to escalate that to the Party. The alternative is acceptance.

Paul Campbell ● 2242d

'If you don't live in the area...'I didn't realise Grove Park had become a private gated community.  Until it has I will continue to drive through the area, making use of the public highway in whatever way the authorities and the law permits.  I'll also feel free to comment on any proposed changes to my route.

Peter Evans ● 2242d

There is also a problem with people signing consultations who just sign them because they are afraid of any change.  These can be worded to elicit the answer wanted rather than really being a chance for people to share their own views.  This is actually taught at university.  Surely a trial of something is a far better way to get a conversation going?

Philippa Bond ● 2242d

Jennifer - he has every right to comment. Who do you think you are?

Pippa Meldrum ● 2242d

I don't think that Jennifer is disputing anyone's right to comment, only that the residents of Grove Park feel that their neighbourhood is being used as a case study without much consultation or regard for their views. Yesterday's accident does illustrate one of the issues with the proposal: If everyone travelling north over Chiswick Bridge was forced to turn left into Hartington Road because the A316 was blocked just ahead of the bridge, does this mean that all these cars would have been fined for entering and exiting the Hartington zone?  Where does that traffic go to if the police are not stopping them crossing the bridge?I feel for the residents near Grove Park School, especially those north west of the Grove Park quadrant. Having navigated around the school to avoid the zone, they will only be able to exit Grove Park via Sutton Court or Strand on Green regardless of whether they are looking to head to Barnes for example. Same for people on Staveley Road who will only be able to get out through Sutton Court Road at some times of the day or for those in the south east quadrant of Grove Park who suddenly can no longer go to the West Mid hospital by the most direct route.  There is such a thing as making life more difficult for traffic cutting through Grove Park, quite another for the local residents' lives (and their visitors) to be so materially affected.  Not everyone can cycle or walk and there are no bus services that go across Grove Park. That is without saying anything about having to register your number plates with yet another database and with the nagging feeling that it is only a matter of time before we are asked to pay for the privilege.  I am all for freedom of speech but a lot of local residents in Grove Park feel that they are getting trapped with very little say on the matter and with their voices drowned out.

Cecile Parfitt ● 2242d

Simon, the sensible and rational option would have been to introduce some easy cheap measures to reduce rat run traffic. As the move was ideologically motivated, they decided instead, and without any real consultation, to implement measures to make driving in and out of Grove Park a total pain in the....

Russell Pearson ● 2242d

Jennifer,I live right in the middle of grove park.I walk, run, drive, cycle, skate and scoot around grove park and strand on the green on a regular basis.I weigh 79kg. A little more than I'd like to.I don't really like celery, although my wife says I should eat more of it. I have one pet fish.Any other personal questions, just let me know.

Simon Pedley ● 2241d

The biggest challenge with this scheme is its needless dicing and slicing of Grove Park into different pockets. Some people are allowed to drive along this road, others cannot. Give the freedom of travel to all residents in area south of the A4. It also needs a weight limit to prevent lorries using the area unless for access.

Paul Green ● 2241d

Jennifer,You have a lot of opinions about the changes on the high road,  as a resident of Grove Park I guess you have no right to comment TGT and DR based on your own thinking. PS - I support the road closures in Grove Park completely and wholeheartedly.

Matthew Swain ● 2241d

Russell, I agree.And at least some of what is proposed does look to me like straightforward things to reduce rat-running.Which bits do you like and which bits don't you like?For the bits you don't like, what do you think the alternative is? I'm genuinely interested to see if there is actually some common ground...maybe we all like the idea of cameras on Hartington road, for instance, but dislike some other part. If we could tease that out, we're much more likely to be able to have some influence. I really don't know about anybody's ideological motivations, to be honest. How do you even know what their ideological motivations are? Wrt the consultation: what exactly was it about the consultation process you didn't like? I thought it was just right. But I guess they could have tried harder...what is the next level up in terms of consultation from what they did? I think we have to be realistic that consultations are always of the form:a) ask for lots of people's opinionsb) most people won't be bothered to respondc) a small group of people then take what responses they get and make decisions, which not everybody will liked) there will be winner and loserse) and some people will complain

Simon Pedley ● 2241d

So easy to do that Paul, but they don’t want to. It would work for the locals and cut rat run traffic.

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

Can you explain what your proposals would be Russell?

Michael Robinson ● 2241d

I will do a new post, in the absence of consultation we can all explore and critique alternative ways of managing this. I have 2 variants on a simple measure.

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

Simon, current proposals for example only allow certain SoTG residents to use Thames Road to enter/ exit the area. Others are told to buy a coffee or stop for a chat. Why? If this is to be controlled by registering number plates, it can easily be extended to all GP residents while still removing through traffic.

Paul Green ● 2241d

There is a consultation.  https://haveyoursay.hounslow.gov.uk/traffic-and-transport/streetspace-feedback/

Michael Robinson ● 2241d

Paul, that's wrong.  I suggest you read the proposals before commenting on them.

Michael Robinson ● 2241d

Hi Michael, thanks for you not at all condescending post. Are you so unpleasant in person?So for Hartington Road, the northbound access only is indicated as for just the CS and RV zones. Why such tiny areas and not the whole of Grove Park. YOu can enter if you live in one street but the next one. That is ridiculous.Having revisted the various sites I struggle to see which areas the 'access only' Thames road covers. Perhaps in your wisdom you can educate me. I understood from others that this also allowed only certain CPZ zones. Is that wrong?

Paul Green ● 2241d

Yes, your understanding about Thames Rd is wrong.https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20053/transport/2181/south_chiswick_liveable_neighbourhood/2This seems clear enough to me.

Michael Robinson ● 2241d

OK, so it even worse. 'zone will stretch from the Kew Bridge / Strand on The Green junction, to the junction of Grove Park Terrace / Grove Park Road'.Why are residents outside this short stretch being prevented from using this stretch of road. I dont believe any local residents suggested this measure. So you live one house before the junction of GP Terrace, you can use this road. You live one house the other side, you cannot. Lunacy. And you wonder why people are unhappy.

Paul Green ● 2241d

Yes, you could easily use the same method for Stand on the Green, for all of Grove Park, whitelisting all residents with a permit, and not just 2 CPZ.

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

There is no whitelist for Strand on the Green. If you are going to object to the scheme at least understand what you are objecting to otherwise you make it extremely easy to dimiss your objections.

Paul Campbell ● 2241d

Russell, you don't appear to understand the proposals.The measures at SOTG don't use a "whitelist" or registration of cars.  They apply to everyone.As you believe you have an easy alternative, can you provide an example of another local authority in the UK implementing your solution for an area with a similar size and population as Grove Park?If it is as easy as you claim, you should be able to provide lots of examples.

Michael Robinson ● 2241d

Ah yes, I’m confusing it with the Hartington road model! https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20053/transport/2181/south_chiswick_liveable_neighbourhood/3Same logic would apply, use this method, with a CPZ whitelist for all, for all of GP.

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

Yes, I was confusing it with the Hartington white list.Here’s one approach used elsewhere https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/sw6-traffic-reduction-scheme

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

Michael, the issue should not be how 'easy' something is, but whether it is what the residents of the broader GP area want. I don't believe it is. We need to be careful as to where the desire to reduce through traffic and create a better environment becomes simply anti-car. This specific measure as currently proposed is the latter.

Paul Green ● 2241d

A proposal. Make all of Grove Park local access only. Upload the geo data to Google maps and other sat nat companies - they are a prime cause or cut through rat running. Whitelist all of Grove Park car owners. Allow legitimate trade delivery vehicles to apply - amazon, post office, taxis etc. Same for visitors on a permit basis. Periodically randomly police with mobile cameras - if serco got a large cut they would be eager to do this. Any trade delivery people could appeal if caught out. Serco to manage. No need for expensive ANPR and would generate revenue for Hounslow.

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

RP > "Serco to manage."I think they might be fairly busy running the world-beating 'NHS' Test and Trace service. But if there's enough cash on offer...

John Whitworth ● 2241d

Well whoever manages parking tickets seems to be doing it.

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

Russell you claimed it was "easy" - this is horrendously complicated and would require huge overhead to manage.  The H&F scheme is tiny in comparison to the Grove Park area.Planters and bollards would be far easier

Michael Robinson ● 2241d

Simply updating the sat nav data would remove a lot. You can see this on some days when google is directing all traffic through Grove Park. And it’s no more complicated than the Hartington Rd version, with just 2 CPZ! Now that is messy.

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

Yes, the same vehicle database can then be used for both schemes. From an IT perspective, its no harder to search a list of 100 licence plates than a thousand. Lets not pretend we are planning a Mars mission. And where workable proposals cannot be found than those elements need to be dropped or amended.

Paul Green ● 2241d

Yep, no more difficult. Another alternative is to extend the Strand model and time limit exits across all Grove Park, using ANPR at Harvard Hill. SCR could be included but would probably not be necessary.

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

I believe the residents along Thames Rd and SOTG are supportive.  Certainly SOTG Association has been.  The measues will transform the area from the traffic sewer it is at the moment.  It is impossible to keep everyone happy.  I know, I live on Stile Hall Gardens and access to the S Circular was closed back in June.  That was opposed by people who previously used SHG as the shortest route to the S Circular and now they need to take a longer route.Creating a quieter and safer street for everyone who lives there was prioritised higher than the convenience of some car journeys by some people.

Michael Robinson ● 2241d

Google and other SatNav providers has been updated with the current measures anyway.It wasn't straightforward - they show roads as closed on the map but drivers ignore No Entry restrictions and drive through anyway so the google algorithms think the road is open and show it as a route again.

Michael Robinson ● 2241d

Not sure about safer - now Harvard Hill is closed there’s less traffic along Grove Park Terrace so cars and bikes rev up after the railway crossing (some before), reaching very fast speeds before braking at the shops.

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

'Creating a quieter and safer street for everyone who lives there was prioritised higher than the convenience of some car journeys by some people.'Let me rewrite this: 'Creating a quieter and safer street for a small number of residents was prioritised over the needs of a far number of people who live outside that immediate area, in particular those living on Sutton Court Rd who will see far more traffic as a result of this and other measures'.There are winners and losers in all this, something the advocates never seem to acknowledge. There are workable alternatives.

Paul Green ● 2241d

The issue isn't looking up a database - it is maintaining it.  The bigger the database, the more maintenance is needed.  Adding details, changing them, deleting them, dealing with irate people who have received a fine when they believe they shouldn't have, dealing with appeals, dealing with exemptions, the list of work goes on.  It all needs people to run and administer.That's why you will only find councils have implemented ANPR schemes with registrations for a small number of vehicles in a small area.  You won't find one for as big an area as Grove Park.If it was in the Netherlands or Denmark, they wouldn't bother with all this complexity and IT, they'd just stick in some planters.

Michael Robinson ● 2241d

I bet the people at LBH who have come up with this plan have not come up with a similar plan as bonkers as this in the areas they live in.

Brian Green ● 2241d

If you note I did say 'it is impossible to keep everyone happy'.It is quite simple.  SHG and Wellesley Rf aren't relief roads for CHR and the A4 or bypasses to Chiswick roundabout.  If a driver wants to get onto the S Circular then they either get onto the A4 and come off at Chiswick Roundabout or use CHR.It always seems to be the case that people who claim "workable alternatives" can never provide examples of where they work.There are dozens of examples of road closures in Chiswick.  The pattern is always the same, frothing and anger that someone may need to drive a bit longer, the scheme goes in, residents like the reduced traffic on the street and wouldn't go back, drivers get used to it, the end.

Michael Robinson ● 2241d

Michael, I am not frothing. Alternatives have been presented but you dismiss them as too complicated. From a systems perspective its not complicated at all. If you check one exit route you can check 2-3. If you can check 100 number plates you can check 1000. How do you think the congestion charge works, magic? Or the average speed checks on motorways, you realise they cover the slip roads as well?I agree its hard find a perfect solution. Wellesley Rd was at some point designated an A road so explicitly designed as an alternative to Chiswick roundabout, but that is not the discussion here. Its whether someone who lives 5 yards the other side of a camera should still be able to use Thames Road as they have for 5 years or 20. Of course they should. All these road closure also push lots more traffic on SCR and in turn Chiswick roundabout, already a blackspot.The geography of Grove Park is a challenge. The river plus these closures would mean the only entrances and exits are SCR to the north and Burlington Lane to the east. Hartington Rd becomes exit only. This is overly and uncessarily restrictive.

Paul Green ● 2241d

My favourite LTN in the area is the one covering Beverley Road, Homefield Rd, Airedale Avenue, Netheravon Road, British Grove and St Peter's Square. Of course it pushes lots more traffic onto Chiswick High Road and Chiswick Lane, already blackspots. Perhaps the residents of those roads should do the honourable thing for the majority of people who do not live there and remove the closures to the A4 and at Beverley Road and Chiswick Lane so that the traffic is spread more evenly and there are fewer cars on the main roads? Also the residents in the LTN won't have to suffer the terrible hardship of having to drive several minites longer up to Chiswick High Road and then onto Chiswick Lane to access the A4. They can just nip straight out at the bottom of their roads. When you think about it the current situation is overly and unnecessarily restrictive. Why don't the High Traffic Neighbourhood campaigners lobby for this to happen?

Paul Campbell ● 2241d

The implementation cost of the initial CCZ infrastructure was around £200M-£300M and the maintenance costs are in the £10s of M per year.A camera on a major motorways will cover 100,000 plus vehicles per day.Just because these schemes have been made to work doesn't mean they are technically, operationally or financially feasible or appropriate just so a few hundred or so residents could save a few minutes for some car journeys.

Michael Robinson ● 2241d

Its a shame that Paul C and Michael get so upset when someone dares question something.Paul C: a classic and ridiculous straw man argument you have deployed before. Noone is suggesting that. We are discussing new proposals, we are allowed to. I know you would prefer just to force everyhthing through. THere is a broader point to consider around the cumulative effect of all these schemes and the concentration of traffic on a few remaining routes. Whether these routes can cope and what the means for the unfortunate few who live on and around them.Michael, I was merely pointing out things are possible, you seemed to insist they were not. An alternative could be to have a similar access only camera near to the entrance to SoTG, similar to the one planned for Hartington Rd. Use the same database and register all GP vehicles. Would not remove all the traffic but a large proportion. Just an idea. I am bored now so will give up on this thread. Have a good weekend all.

Paul Green ● 2241d

Iit is a long established LTN that incorporates most of your objections to the new proposed LTN. Nobody even notices it and the residents would be appalled at suggestions from HTN campaigners that they should give up their quiet streets to enable traffic flow in the area around them. It appears to be a particularly effective illustration of the absurdity of many of your arguments because it has made you throw your toys and storm off while accusing others of being upset and trying to take the moral high ground with your concerns for the “unfortunate few” when we all know that this is about you being delayed a bit in your car.

Paul Campbell ● 2241d

Paul, you just cannot give it up. I have not thrown my toys anywhere but its like talking to a brick wall. I am far from the only one raising questions and making suggestions but you seem to have some personal beef with me. Again, what happened before is not relevant to this proposal. It is a unique and far larger area. Measures are being suggested here that have not been implemented before. So we can discuss them. Grow up a little.

Paul Green ● 2241d

Two of your main objections to the South Chiswick LTN are 1) that it forces residents to drive longer and further to get in and out of their area and 2) that it squeezes more traffic onto fewer roads causing delays for drivers and hardship for people on those roads.My favourite LTN does both of those things very effectively so why are you so accepting of it? Can’t you see the contradiction? You are starting to give the impression that you just don’t like change.

Paul Campbell ● 2241d

It’s a poorly thought through scheme, that unnecessarily impacts local residents, that’s the objection. A full and proper consultation with people who live here would produce far better alternatives. It also raises a lot of unanswered questions.Why for example only whitelist 2 CPZ for Hartington - what’s the logic there? Why close Harvard Hill when the same technology could be used to stop rat running both there, and across all of Grove Park?

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

If they copied my favourite LTN then there would be many more road closures because that is the cheapest and most effective way of reducing traffic in the area. Old LTN good; new LTN bad.

Paul Campbell ● 2241d

Might as well close the A4 and A316 and be done with it, with that logic. Though I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that’s what you want.

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

Cameras that only allow access to residents with CPZ permits don't seem practical as they'd exclude those with off-street parking or using hire cars, and, unlike a normal Access Only area, will also exclude all visitors and deliveries. Is that what residents really want?

Peter Evans ● 2241d

No it’s just the logic that they used when they put in my favourite LTN. They closed one end of every residential road to stop drivers using them to move between Chiswick High Rd, Chiswick Lane and the A4. Do you think that is anti-car? Do you think the residents feel they live in an anti-car area? No car ownership is high there and they are not trapped. They just live on lovely quiet roads with no through traffic and don’t even think about the fact they all have to drive up to CHR to get out in any direction.

Paul Campbell ● 2241d

Non equivalent- they’re not in between the river, the railway and the A4. It’s a joke comparison that bears no relevance to Grove Park needs. We need a solution that works, not a cut and paste bodge from an entirely different area.

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

I guess that is why the one here is different then! You should be pleased they haven’t done a cut and paste.

Paul Campbell ● 2241d

I’m just pleased they’ve not given you the job of closing even more roads. Thankful for small mercies.

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

I think we have established that you would be very unhappy with any proposal that restricts you from driving wherever you like. I saw your reaction to having one of the five possible exits from your road closed to you for two hours a day so that kids can get to their school safely. The mask of community mindedness is hard to keep on isn’t it?

Paul Campbell ● 2241d

Cheap jibes. But I guess you’ve not looked in any detail about how that proposal will impact safety? Such as when the parents can’t park near the school, and of the sharp turn into and from Grove Park Terrace / St Mary’s Grove where all traffic will be forced to go?

Russell Pearson ● 2241d

With kids at the school and a house around the corner I have looked at all the detail as have the school and the governors who were consulted by the Council and it is a thumbs up. “All the traffic” will be “where is all the traffic” when Hartington and Thames Rd measures are in place alongside the school street and Harvard Hill. It’s already very different with only one thing in place. And you will have to drive around the block if you want to go Sutton Court Road at the same time as the two one hour closures five days a week during term-time. And I have to drive via Gordon Rd and Fauconberg to SCR to go west on the A4. Get the violins out for us!

Paul Campbell ● 2241d

Speaking of community mindedness, how will SME businesses be able to provide deliveries to these areas? Be it a supplier doing a quick drop to a building site, Pot Pourri dropping off flowers, Macken dropping of Christmas provisions or The Good Wine Shop doing a monthly order?Do we email Paul for clarification and permission? Or do we simply go about our business?

David Lesniak ● 2240d