Forum Topic

Poll

It all depends on how the question is phrased as to what a poll supports, without knowing the actual question the result is meaningless !

John Southey ● 2198d13 Comments

JohnExactly so and many agree with you

Loraine Pemberton ● 2198d

Redfield and Wilton survey:Low Traffic Neighbourhoods block motorised traffic from entering through roads to allow for more pedestrians and cyclists.  To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London? Strongly support 19%Support 33%Neither support nor oppose 25%Oppose 9%Strongly oppose 10%Don’t know 5%

Tom Pike ● 2198d

If that’s the definition of an LTN, then Grove Park doesn’t comply to it. There’s nothing here for more pedestrians or cyclists, just blocked roads.

Russell Pearson ● 2198d

Cycling and walking in the roads south of the Harvard Hill restriction and on Staveley Road is hugely improved by the massively reduced number of cars and the elimination of rat runners. Cycling down Burnaby Gardens or crossing the road with kids is safe now. When the further restrictions are implemented then more and more roads in the area will become much better for cycling and walking with much improved air quality. I can't wait to cycle with my son down Bolton Road on our way to and from Dukes Meadows without getting buzzed by speeding 4*4s when the Hartington Road camera has bedded in or to walk across and along Thames Street when the timed entry and exist has been implemented. This is exactly the purpose of a LTN and this is why the polls show that the majority of people suppport them. The reduction of cars makes the environment and streetspace better for everybody whenever they are not in a car. And that is a lot of people for most of the time.

Paul Campbell ● 2198d

Paul - the devil as always is in the detail. There are good LTNs and there are less good LTNs. That is why you need a proper public consultation before any such schemes are introduced. No need then to experiment on people as if they are laboratory rats because you would be implementing measures that as many residents as possible had helped shape with their common-sense input. This would ensure that the schemes introduced had a wide measure of support from the very beginning. I think most people would agree with you that placing a fixed barrier on Harvard Hill has massively reduced the rat running through the area. It is kind of obvious. If you cut someone's head off their headache miraculously disappears.The question remains however as to whether or not physically closing access to the A4 from Harvard Hill was and will remain the best way of achieving this.Access from the A316 on to Hartington Road will be closed in the next few weeks (along with a more flexible closure of the school end of Staveley Road). Most people believe that this will greatly reduce the rat running through the area by commuters trying to avoid the congestion at the Hogarth Roundabout.If this is the case the justification for the Harvard Hill closure could well be superseded as far as rat running is concerned.What the physical barrier at Harvard Hill currently achieves (and will continue to achieve after Hartington Road closure is implemented) is the re-routing of local traffic, that would otherwise have left the area at Harvard Hill, along narrow residential streets. It would surely be far better from a safer cycling and walking perspective, and from an air quality perspective if this traffic could exit at Harvard Hill and not have to undertake unnecessary detours.  Drivers still try and drive round the barrier on Harvard Hill so a camera has been installed as a deterrent and/or to catch the miscreants in the act.Would it not be more sensible to remove the barrier and redeploy the camera as part of an ANPR scheme on the same junction. Local residents could then register their details and then through the wonders of modern technology be able to exit the area straight on to the A4. The emergency services including the police and local doctors could also be allowed to register. This after all would only be the same so-called privilege that is being accorded residents in the neighbourhoods surrounding Hartington Road and Thames Road/Strand-on-the-Green. Those local residents can continue to exit the area that they live in using the shortest possible route. Physical 24/7 barriers are the option of last resort when all else has failed. We have far more effective and flexible solutions and we should be demanding that residents are consulted this in the very near future.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 2197d

Sam, are you saying the Council should have ignored Grant Shapps' offer of funding, which was explicitly required to be awarded without formal public consultation? In fact as subsequent funding was dependent on getting through the first round, that would have meant no money for anything. Is that your preferred outcome?It's notable that RBKC, a Conservative-led council, was funded under this scheme to put in the temporary bike lane along Kensington High Street with their application made with no formal public consultation. Your fellow councillor, Joanna Biddolph, has cited RBKC with approval in contrast to Hounslow in this context, so it's not clear what the Chiswick councillors' position is with respect to implementing these measures without public consultation. It does not seem to align with the position of the government, the Mayor, Hounslow, Kensington, or each other! It is therefore not completely surprising that Grant Shapps ignored your request for intervention given that your letter ignored the very conditions he had put on winning funding in the first place. However, I'm pleased to see that your fellow councillor John Todd is engaging constructively with the current schemes. The devil is indeed in the detail, and that's precisely why a constructive dialogue is necessary.

Tom Pike ● 2197d

A fairer question would have tagged on, 'even if it means displacing huge amounts of traffic to roads that don't experience it now, so pollution overall will increase because people have to take longer detours to get to their destination, it will block ambulances, doctors, vets, police and fire services getting to urgent situations, meaning that people and animals might die.'  How do you think they would hve voted then?

Claire Moran ● 2197d

If you want to look at a poll, take a look at the comments on here, it’s very clear what the consensus view is -https://chiswicktowncentre.commonplace.is/schemes/proposals/have-your-say-on-chiswick-town-centre/details

Mark Perry ● 2197d

Hi Tom, I asked Mr Shapps about this, at risk of reposting, this is what he said in reply“ The Government has consistently made clear to local authorities the importance of consulting on schemes, whether temporary, permanent or experimental. Engaging with communities – including those in affected neighbouring areas - is key to delivering a scheme that works for all.It is for local authorities to ensure they engage with communities on proposed changes. Although the Government cannot intervene in local democratic decisions, our position remains that if councils fail to demonstrate that their plans are genuine improvements then we will not hesitate to withhold funding.”

Russell Pearson ● 2197d

Paul CampbelNo road is Safe.I lived in a cul-de-sac of 27 Houses, I pulled up opposite my house and got my grand daughter out of the rear seat and took her around the the tailgate of my of my car to help pick up a couple of small parcel's, just as we were about to cross the road together she spotted my mother standing at the front door, and she shot off across the road like a bullet out of a gun. Ok no vehicle was using the road at the time, but 5 minuets later my mate came around the corner on his motor bike, if he had been 5 minuets earlier there could have been a very nasty incident, so do not be lead into a false sense of security regarding safe streets, There aren't any.Why would you cycle down Bolton road to get to dukes meadows, as when the measures are in place at Hartington Road, you will be asking you son to cross a much busier A316 junction, that will have some very confused drivers realizing at the last moment they cannot turn into Hartington Road.I bet you will get some rear endears, and swerving into the outer lane when a car suddenly stops.

Bernard Allen ● 2197d

No we come off Hartington after Bolton and take the river path past the boat clubs and under the bridge to avoid the junction on the A316 because it is lethal. We do the route every Saturday morning already and we are looking forward to the fast through drivers not being there on Bolton Road especially. The residents there must be truly sick of it.

Paul Campbell ● 2197d

"The devil is indeed in the detail, and that's precisely why a constructive dialogue is necessary"Given your own words, Tom, please explain why you think it acceptable LBH has steadfastly refused to have that constructive dialogue with those outside its bubble of sycophants?You're a data guy.Please provide the meeting minutes from LBH and Chiswick Councillors where LTN's and other travel initiatives were on the agenda. You know, the ones where our representatives had a chance to present the devilish details of their constituents.I've seen RBKC in action. They are capable of cross-party interaction in a way Steve Curran and LBH cabinet are not. What we have is intransigence and belligerence and snide comment not to mention Steve's public temper tantrums and finger pointing.

David Lesniak ● 2197d

This is being done on a cross-party basis, funded by a conservative central government and implemented by a local Labour council.I don’t know who you think the sycophants are here, but John Todd would not appreciate being called that. You are hardly helping with your choice of label for anyone who engages in constructive dialogue over these schemes.

Tom Pike ● 2197d