Forum Topic

An amalgamation to Lbh of the four cpz (SOTG/RV/CS/FR) into one area

Ive been emailed to post this for someone (Please don't ask who and and questions relating to it as I'm clueless to this and does not directly effect myself) SOTG/RV/CS/FR AREA TRAFFIC MEASURES.There is considerable discussion being expressed locally about the disparity of traffic measures in the area comprising SOTG/RV/CS/FRPROPOSALSOTG is one of four CPZ within an area roughly bounded by Sutton Court Road the A4 the River and the A316. The other three CPZ are CS Chiswick Station (which includes Hartington Road), RV Riverview and FS Fauconberg.Whilst being virtually a self contained area none of the four have a common traffic policy under Lbh's current Traffic Measures.SOTG cannot use Hartington Road northbound.CS cannot use Thames Road to go to or come from Kew Bridge.RV being between cameras can use both Hartington and Thames Road.FS can use neither.None of the four cpz can exit onto the A4 via Harvard Hill as It is closed off to outgoing traffic.NOTEElmwood Road is historically in the GP zone but would be included under this scheme.SOLUTIONSOGA proposes an amalgamation of this area into one benefitting from the same traffic measures and controlled by timed ANPR cameras (red dots) as per attached map.With time controlled cameras linked to ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) at the following points: Kew Bridge / Hartington Road / Sutton Court Railway Bridge / Fauconberg Road / Elmwood Road and Harvard Hill the area becomes one whilst retaining their separate CPZ designations but benefitting from common traffic measures whilst remaining open to visitors deliveries taxis and shoppers but closed to rat running and the 'access only' along Strand on the Green and Thames Road would become redundant.SoGA has put this scheme to Lbh Traffic and subsequently discussed it in greater detail on a Zoom meeting. As the existing traffic measures are new to the area Lbh Traffic require time to assess both their impact locally and the overall effect caused from displaced rat running traffic.COVID has had implications on the timing of both the introduction of the traffic measures and the Thames Road cameras and consequently the subsequent review which will now not be before June/July

Julian Pavey ● 1951d20 Comments

"Ive been emailed to post this for someone"This is odd.  A very similar message was posted by Jennifer Selig on 12 April. She said that she had been asked to post it by Richard Griffith, Chairman of the Strand on the Green Association (SoGA).  SoGA later contributed themselves to that same thread.Reposting what is essentially the same message without any further comment seems pointless. And why are we not supposed to ask who wanted this done?  The lack of transparency on a matter of public traffic policy is unwelcome.

Richard Jennings ● 1951d

You can ask but unless theyask to be named I will refraim from doing so.Its no big dealeither way but it is what it is As previously said,dont askme, I'm just the messenger boyon this occasion.

Julian Pavey ● 1951d

I suggest you remind Richard that the Grove Park Group does not support this SOTGRA suggestion. Not has he consulted the rest of us in GP to my knowledge. Nor is this costed.

Iris Hill ● 1951d

As I recall, there was so much resistance to the CPZ they took a ‘salami’ approach and introduced then zone by zone. The sting in being that only those people in a specific zone could park there.Well overdue for a rationalisation, especially after the Hartington Road ANPR nonsense.

Russell Pearson ● 1951d

I can see attractions in the SOTGRA proposal (I live in the FR zone). I am sure plenty of others would too.

Brendan McCarthy ● 1950d

Don't know much about the areas being discussed.One thing I would say is that large CPZs encourage bad behaviour.Ealing Zone B (Bedford Park) stretches up to houses at least 8 minutes walk (shock horror) from Turnham Green tube station. I often see one of my (fully fit) neighbour's cars parked as close to the tube as they could get - having driven perhaps 800 yards.

Will Watson ● 1950d

I live in East Chiswick - mid way between two Tube stations. I can remember when some people wanted a Chiswick wide CPZ introduced, precisely so they could drive and park near these stations.

Carl Wynne ● 1950d

A Chiswick wide CPZ is too sensible an idea to ever get approved. The local Militant Cycle Lobby would never agree to it, and the rest of us would be ignored.

Russell Pearson ● 1950d

I live in SOTG. Initially I opposed to the new scheme, expecially to the new idea of the Hartington road being no longer available to me. Well after a few months I believe this new scheme works for me because we have less cars on the Thames road.It is actually very pleasant to have a evening walk along practically empty roads Overall I support the new scheme, in fact I would make it even more obstructive, which will happen with old diesel cars leaving London pretty soon.

Edward Przepiora ● 1950d

Great Edward! Naturally quiet safe streets are more pleasant to live in. Thank you for having the courage to change your mind and state it on this forum. As for the amalgamation idea - this is just some people who think that driving restrictions are immoral reaching the bargaining phase where they plead for their own driving privileges to be maintained while imposing restrictions on other drivers. It is textbook. We are not in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea so this is a plaintive cry for help that will get exactly the level of attention it deserves. We are all in this together.

Paul Campbell ● 1950d

I've done that a couple of times, I felt very guilty and have not since!

John Hall ● 1950d

I definatelly support less noise.Having said that I am not sure if the amalgamation will make noisier. Just guessingI prefer to get rid of the lunch traffic which just stops on the SOTG and Thames Road that benefits noone from our area.

Edward Przepiora ● 1950d

Amalgamation will make it more noisy. It's a big area with a lot of drivers. If it is just SOTG access it makes this really one of the most attractive and desirable riverside spots in London.

Paul Campbell ● 1950d

Not exactly sure why prople of SOTG should take the traffic but not Grove ParkPractically anyone can enter SOTG as long they pretent it is access only.It quite funny, you put it 'desirable riverside" is freely accessible to anyone accept us living here through Harrington rd. Isn't it funny?

Edward Przepiora ● 1949d

"I suggest you remind Richard that the Grove Park Group does not support this SOTGRA suggestion. Not has he consulted the rest of us in GP to my knowledge."IrisWhere did you get this from? This is not my understanding (I live in Grove Park). I would also mention that I have had (brief) consultation with the GPG.My understanding is that this is an ongoing process.I agree with Richard Jennings. Why on earth would a "third person" want this posted "anonymously. This would suggest a hidden agenda. (Though I agree with the principle). I wonder why Julian is unwilling to say who asked him to do this anonymously. Is the person a resident of Grove Park? Is Julian a resident of Grove Park?  PaulYou are right. We are all in this together. Please, however, do not write an incorrect interpretation of what people post merely for your own ends - to whit "that driving restrictions are immoral reaching the bargaining phase where they plead for their own driving privileges to be maintained". Nobody asked me (or, I suspect, a large number of other people) about my view of these LTNs before they were introduced.As a resident of Grove Park, you are, of course, entitled to your views on LTNs in the area. These may, or may not be either correct or reflect the majority of Grove Park residents.

John Hickman ● 1949d

There are two separate issues here;1. should the four CPZs be merged into one?2. should the six experimental traffic measures be replaced by one consistent scheme that treats all residents in the same way?The traditional argument for several CPZ's is that permit holders will be less inclined to drive and park close to stations when it is raining or they are simply feeling lazy. The arguments for a consistent LTN is pretty powerful in terms of equity. The current measures bestow special privileges on some and huge disadvantages on others. This cannot be right.The argument that there is considerable internal traffic and that this would be made worse by a whole area scheme has clearly not been thought through. The local traffic continues to exist whether you have an LTN or not and it has to leave and enter the area. The current measures simply forces some drivers to make detours on to already heavily congested roads e.g. A205, A4 and A316. This adds to air pollution unless of course you believe that the pollution from such additional journeys and congestion "don't count" or is somehow a "necessary evil". Finally Edward Przepiorg you may well think that "after a few months I believe this new scheme works for me because we have less cars on the Thames road". The SOG/Thames Road measures have yet to come into force for reasons known only to Hounslow Council. Imagine the backlash when people entering the area start receiving PCNs. Imagine the damage to the hospitality businesses etc

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 1949d

From the Chair of the GPG who left on 14 June. I had a discussion about this suggestion with him before he left.This view is not about the LTN itself but the suggestion from SOTGRA that was posted at the beginning of this thread. As I understand the GPG view, it is that we are in the middle of the process and awaiting the data and any suggestions that will be made following this.

Iris Hill ● 1949d

Excellent John. Good to add you to the ranks of sensible mature adults who realise that driving restrictions are not immoral and may even be moral.

Paul Campbell ● 1949d

Message removed

Fatima Traore ● 1948d

Apologies - my internet crashed several months ago so I have only been able to see/read it extremely intermittently.  When finally jt staggered back into some sort of life there were over 400 messages including this personal request from SOTG asking me personally to post their message on ChiswickW4.com  I am not able to do this myself so privately asked Julian to do it for me.  Again many apologies for upsetting so many people (and thanks to Julian for his complete discretion).

Jennifer selig ● 1947d