Forum Topic

South Chiswick traffic scheme proposal

I thought I saw a thread on the forum about this earlier today, but it seems to have disappeared. Or was I dreaming?

Margot Crowther ● 1897d88 Comments

Is it the one with Hamid Khan in the title?

Maggie Dodge ● 1897d

Sorry Hanif , wish there was the option to correct.

Maggie Dodge ● 1897d

Are you sure you weren't thinking of the story on the front page rather than a discussion thread?

Bruce Hammal ● 1897d

Topic: South Chiswick Privilege Posted by: Paul CampbellDate/Time: 15/08/21 09:52:00So The Grove Park Group, Strand on the Green Association and Riverside Ward Councillors have united around a proposal to install 12 cameras covering all entry and exit points in Grove Park and Strand on the Green to stop people from outside the area driving through it while allowing people who live inside the area to drive without restrictions. Inevitably that will result in inflation of fines for drivers who fail to see or understand the signs for the cameras.Does that seem fair to all of Chiswick's opponents of Streetspace?And will the proponents of this scheme support residents in other parts of Chiswick who may wish to install cameras on all of their entry and exit points to fine Grove Park and Strand on the Green residents who drive through their areas? For example, cameras on Barrowgate, Wavendon, Alwyn and Dukes would prevent Grove Park drivers from using those residential roads as routes to the High Road and beyond. Perhaps a camera on Sutton Lane North would be useful to ensure that Grove Park residents have to drive via the Hogarth Roundabout to get home when travelling east on the A4 instead of using other people's residential streets?

Richard Greenhough ● 1897d

The one where Grove Park becomes a complete no go area. When driving into Chiswick we all have to go round Hogarth roundabout or over Kew Bridge and Chiswick roundabout, but lovely residents of Grove Park drive in and out. I wonder whose idea that was? Aaaaarrggh!

Stephen Gould ● 1897d

Thank you Richard! I was beginning to think I was going potty!

Margot Crowther ● 1897d

Where did the original go ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1897d

Nowhere. It is still there in the thread about Cllr Hanif Khan.Paul raises a good point that more cameras will just mean more fines and you have to consider the social justice angle of one of the wealthiest areas of London benefiting from a measure which will cause considerable extra expense to people from whom driving is part of the way they earn a living and may be on incomes well below average.

Francis Rowe ● 1897d

Just to counter some of the mis-information in some of these posts.The scheme treats everybody the same, whether they live in Grove Park or not. It's just an attempt to stop rat-running along residential roads.Obviously people who don't read road signs might get in trouble. That's nothing new, and isn't an argument for not having road signs. I would certainly support other areas developing similar proposals.

Simon Pedley ● 1897d

More schemes? I’d like Chiswick roads to be open to everybody, as before.  No go areas are oppressive and some people will always gain while others lose out. I’d like my family and friends to visit the way they used to before we got taken over by bullies who are just interested in making money, whilst spending who knows how much of our money on running these schemes. Just my opinion

Maggie Dodge ● 1897d

Maggie,The new proposal allows your family and friends to visit just like they used to (assuming they stay more than 10 minutes).It also allows deliveries.But it stops rat-running.What's not to like?It's worth a look. If you do take a look, and have any specific objections, please let us know.thanks

Simon Pedley ● 1897d

I haven't been consulted by anybody at any time about local road schemes, but I am entirely in favour of the suggestion that 'South Chiswick', bounded by the South Circular, the A4 and the A316, be considered a single area for the purposes of traffic management and safety. The current scheme, imposed on us by our rulers in faraway Hounslow, causes confusion and congestion by chopping up a small area into even smaller sections, all covered by different rules. Consistency and consultation might produce a system we would all be happy with.

Colin Jordan ● 1897d

So someone can’t drop something to me and go  ? What’s the 10 minute rule? I don’t accept rat running as a thing, it’s just people going about their lives, give it an ugly name. it gets thought of us a problem.  Drive past my house 10 times a day if need to .

Maggie Dodge ● 1897d

I think in order to reduce crime they should make Bedford Park a gated community, and only allow pedestrians, cyclists and car drivers that are residents or those that can show valid a valid permit for being in the area.  The council could employ security guards that would fine anyone that is not permitted to be in the area thus bringing in even more revenue.This would solve the problem of the boys on bikes issue and restrict undesirables to staying in their designated areas.

Rahman Hyatt ● 1897d

Yes I would not object to some of my Council Tax being used to pay for your gated community security guards

Paul Fisher ● 1897d

It pay for itself though, Anyway have you seen what your council tax pays for?

Rahman Hyatt ● 1897d

It's all described in the proposal.A delivery driver could drop something and go.A non-delivery driver would have to play minecraft on their phone for a couple of minutes. Or maybe stop for a chat for a couple of minutes. Do you have an alternative name for rat running?I guess "taking short-cuts through residential streets" is the long name. I don't think people particularly mind having vehicles driving part their house. The types of things they don't like are:a) finding cycling on the road too dangerousb) finding it difficult to cross the roadc) finding that cyclists use the pavement because the road is so busy d)  traffic jams on their residential streets, caused by vehicles taking short-cutse) being scared of letting their children walk / cycle on their own because of the amount of traffic

Simon Pedley ● 1897d

The children of Chiswick (state) school would benefit.The children of Grove Park primary (state) school would benefit.We're not talking about the wealthiest people in London. When my son was at GPPS, most of his class came from families that were on benefits.

Simon Pedley ● 1897d

There's been a big local effort to get feedback on the proposal (which was written by a local person...not me...I'm not sure if he wants his name on the forum though). I don't know if you are local, but would you like to see it and give him feedback? He's been very proactive about seeking feedback.

Simon Pedley ● 1897d

One man's rat run is another's legitimate and historical route from A-B. I can quite understand a few ie Chiswick Rd where tons of traffic would avoid lights at Turnham Green, but it sounds like a slippery slope to me, to have enclaves of completely no go areas.

Stephen Gould ● 1897d

Whilst I agree with the need to reduce out of area through traffic in Grove Park/ Strand on the Green, this proposal is not acceptable as it stands.  The simple answer is for all residents living in W4 to be able to register whether they live north or south of the A4.  With this revised proposal, how am I to visit friends in Grove Park when I live on Heathfield Terrace?? Show some sense please.

Janet Tellick ● 1897d

The South Chiswick residents clearly consider themselves superior to the rest of Chiswick - we cannot have the riff-raff (i.e. the rest of Chiswick) using the beautiful South Chiswick Roads.I can fully understand why South Chiswick residents would wish to stop non-local drivers using their residential roads to cut from the A316 to the A4 (or vice versa) but for local drivers the proposal seems difficult to justify.As someone who lives just off SCR, if I want to go Richmond Sainsbury's I do not find the current restrictions a problem, I just need to time my shopping to avoid the restricted hours at Staveley Road.  But if the South Chiswick proposals go ahead I see no reason why we, north Chiswick residents, should not respond in kind and stop South Chiswick residents using SCR or Dukes Avenue as their personal rat runs and make them use Hogarth or Chiswick roundabout

Justin Stephenson ● 1897d

The name "South Chiswick" seems to be a very recent invention to cover areas usually known as Grove Park and Strand on the Green. Does it have any historical validity, or has it been invented to add confusion to those trying to understand the proposals ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1897d

I find the talk of gated community a joke. So the rest of us just get the pleasure of the criminals, I feel privileged. Can you get behind the cycle zealots sorting out how we live our lives, your next in the queue.  What class of resident are we exactly ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1897d

"South Chiswick" is shorter than "Grove Park and Strand on the Green and Dukes Meadows and the bit of Chiswick on the east side of the A316 near Chiswick House" which is the geographic scope of the S Chiswick project.

Michael Robinson ● 1896d

Shorter still is the informal estate agent name for it: SoChi.

Ed Saper ● 1896d

Janet...have you read the proposal?It definitely allows you to visit your friends on Heathfield terrace. No registration required.You just have to stay more than 10 minutes.It's worth a read.

Simon Pedley ● 1896d

I'm pretty sure the comments about gated communities were indeed all a joke.

Simon Pedley ● 1896d

I agree. If you applied the same logic to North Chiswick, then if South Chiswick residents were driving to somewhere in North Chiswick they'd be fine, while if they were driving to, say, Acton, they'd have to go round. Which seems reasonable, given that it would reduce traffic in North Chiswick. Even as a South Chiswick resident, I'd appreciate the north part of SCR and Dukes Avenue not being used as rat-runs. I'd probably cycle more as a result.The main objections that South Chiswick folk (superior or not) are raising about the current system is not that it restricts you from getting to Sainsburys, but that SCR near the station is getting hammered with rat-running traffic, which is a shame because it's a place with lots pedestrians and cyclists. It's become a lot harder to cross the road and cycle. It's become more dangerous for the hoards of school kids.

Simon Pedley ● 1896d

I live in a similar location to you (ie just outside the boundary of 'south Chiswick') and would like to respond to this consultation, which seems unfair and unreasonable. I can no longer see the article on the front of the website. Is someone able to advise how I should respond to this proposal?Kind regards

M Patience ● 1896d

I cannot see 10 minutes mentioned in the front page article and there is no link to the actual proposal. Am I right to assume that vehicles can enter and exit as long as they take longer than 10 minutes inside the zone?

Paul Scullion ● 1896d

One area is conspicuous by its absence; the streets bordering Dukes Meadows and the park itself. Some consideration should be given for those. Whilst attempts are being made to reduce exposure to vehicles and emissions elsewhere, this area is suffering proposals that are increasing the number vehicles, including coaches and lorries, using the area as free parking, with no attempt to mitigate. The public area of the park is less than half the size of the sports grounds near it, but it is used as a free, overspill car park for the clubs events. All this traffic including coaches and lorries cross a residential street and school route Staveley Gardens. The completely contrary approach to this area looks worse when you consider that it is an area with greater need than the areas that so much is being done to protect.

Kathleen Healy ● 1896d

Let me ask the fellow who wrote the proposal how you can get hold of it.Yes, you are right.It says "any vehicle entering...and leaving within a short period (e.g. 10 minutes) will be fined". That's the crux of it really, and how it proposes to control rat-running.

Simon Pedley ● 1896d

It's a proposal put together by one resident of south chiswick, with help from many others, to try and convince the council that there are better solutions than what we have now to achieve their stated goals of creating a low traffic neighbourhood and reducing rat-running.So it's not an official consultation from the council, and hence not something that you can respond to. But you could ask the author for a copy, read it, and send them comments if you don't like it. I will suggest to them that they look at this thread.

Simon Pedley ● 1896d

What is the legal basis for the proposal? Or put another way, what signage does the proposal say will be used?

Michael Robinson ● 1896d

Sorry, I don't see why those are the same question.The proposal is just a proposal. Why does it need a legal basis? For signage, it would use appropriate road-signs. I don't think this proposal would be breaking fundamental new legal ground in terms of traffic controls. It's just not that exciting.

Simon Pedley ● 1896d

A proposal for traffic restrictions is meaningless unless there is a legal basis for the restrictions.A proposal that said "we want to restrict red BMWs driving in the area" would be meaningless as there is no regulation that could be used to do that, even though some people may think it would be a good idea.What are the "appropriate road signs"?As it isn't breaking fundamental new legal grounds, I'm sure you will be able to point to another location where something similar to the proposal has been already implemented.

Michael Robinson ● 1896d

Simon, what does it say about local businesses delivering to customers using a car?Does it have to be a branded delivery vehicle? Or is it limited to only Amazon vans? Surely local businesses should still be allowed to freely service their customers as they have been doing for many years. If not, suddenly the cost to do so spikes. And if so, why? Especially during recovery.

David Lesniak ● 1896d

Whatever the drawbacks of this idea, it seems to be a big improvement on what is in place at the moment.  If you live in Grove Park Terrace, you can't come home from Richmond via Hartington Road, and you can't come home from Brentford/Kew via Strand on the Green.  What we have now is dreadful, and this would be much better.In terms of deliveries, it would also be an improvement on what we have now for a lot of businesses with the ability to use Hartington Road and Strand on the Green again, and presumably to exit the area via Harvard Hill.  Overall this scheme would take a lot of traffic off of SCR, which has been dreadful recently.  That would help deliveries from businesses on the High Road.It should be possible to set it up so that you don't get fined if you exit by the same route you come in by.  That was definitely the intention with the Strand on the Green Scheme.  If you turn around and exit by the same route you came in, you are fine.  If a business from the High Road making a delivery enters the area by SCR, and turns round and comes out the same way, then there wouldn't be a problem.The main problem with the scheme is that it's going to create more traffic on Chiswick Lane and through the Glebe Estate as you wouldn't be able to use SCR to get to Chiswick from the A316.  On the other hand, it will reduce traffic around Chiswick Roundabout because you will be able to use Strand on the Green again.This scheme isn't perfect, but it's a big improvement over what is in place now.

Al Webber ● 1896d

Was your life better, less complicated without these schemes? What are the plus sides?

Maggie Dodge ● 1896d

Was your life better, less complicated without these schemes? What are the plus sides?

Maggie Dodge ● 1896d

The current schemes are a nightmare.  They cause us real problems.At the same time, they need to do something.  When 10,000 people in London are dying prematurely every year because of air pollution, doing nothing is not an option.  The biggest source of particulate pollution in London is brake and tyre dust, and electric cars will not fix that. The only option is to reduce the number of car journeys.Something like two thirds of journeys made by car are under 5 miles, and could be cycled by the vast majority of the population.  My dad still uses a bike at 78 with both knees replaced - and where he lives is nowhere near as flat as West London.There are no easy solutions but we have to take measures to discourage car use and encourage cycling and walking.  This proposal is a massive improvement on what we have at the moment.

Al Webber ● 1896d

Has anyone looked at the amount of brake and tyre dust generated by bikes ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1896d

Al, zthought we work out that most short journeys to to do foodshopping which we need the car for as most do one shopping tripa week usually, and the other short journeys mostly to Doctor, Hospital,Dentist etc., which is mostly the elderly.  Don't think we will stop shortJourneys for this reason, other option deliveries for food.

Janice Evans ● 1896d

Thanks Simon. So if the traffic is heavy and takes longer than 10 minutes to pass through, the "rat runners" will have a free pass?

Paul Scullion ● 1896d

Well, I guess the idea would be to set the time limit to be long enough so that in most cases the sat navs would stop directing people that route anyway in that case.But the logic gets a bit confusing:  how would the traffic get heavy in the first place?

Simon Pedley ● 1895d

The plus side is: it's nicer to live in an area with less traffic. It makes walking more pleasant. It makes it easier to cross the road. It makes cycling safer and more pleasant. It makes it easier to send the kids off to the shops on their bikes. Cyclists use the road rather than the pavement. And then there are the health benefits mentioned above by Al.

Simon Pedley ● 1895d

Richard...what's your hypothesis? That there is some very surprising set of circumstances which means that bikes generate a significant amount of brake and tyre dust?I'm not sure it really needs looking into. Seems to me pretty obvious that it's not likely to be an issue (relative to cars). But I reckon you knew that already.

Simon Pedley ● 1895d

"how would the traffic get heavy in the first place?" - Lots of locals knowing the 10 minute rule and driving very slowly.

Paul Scullion ● 1895d

Even now it's quicker to go through Strand on the Green and stop for 5 minutes than it is to up to Chiswick Roundabout and along the High Road to Sutton Court Road if there is any traffic.  The current restrictions are forcing people who live in the South of Grove Park to drive a mile further in congested traffic, causing more emissions, and also making the congestion worse.  It's bonkers.

Al Webber ● 1895d

It isn't possible to legally enforce a time limit anyway.The 'Except for access' restriction being trialled on Thames Rd and Green Dragon Lane in Brentford uses time between 2 cameras to infer if the vehicle has stopped.  So it is circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence.  It doesn't matter what time the vehicle takes (assuming they don't break the speed limit), if they don't stop, it is a contravention, if they do stop to access a location, it is OK.  With the timed cameras, if the time between 2 cameras 0.5 miles apart is 1.5 minutes so an average speed of 20mph, they probably haven't stopped.  If the time is 10 minutes, they probably have stopped rather than driving at 3mph without stopping.  I am happy to be proved wrong, but I suspect that GPG/SOTG won't be able to point to anywhere else that is using the same way they have proposed and there is probably a reason for that...

Michael Robinson ● 1895d

But South Chiswick people consider themselves to be very special, recognising the importance of restricting the driving of other people in Chiswick and from elsewhere for environmental, health and road safety reasons while not having to be endure any inconvenience to their own impeccable driving behaviours. Their exceptionalism means that their scheme is not constrained by the natural orders of technical, legal and political challenges that create limiting parameters everywhere else.They have complained that other schemes have not been "thought through" or "consulted" so one must assume that their proposal has been thoroughly considered and consulted, is far beyond MVP stage of development and is ready to be implemented and enforced with no objections from the Chiswick community. The scrap of paper with crosses in pen and the nonchalent answers to questions about the detail are clever props and tricks to convey an impression of amateurism that conceals the highly informed expertise and professionalism of the scheme's designers and proponents who outrank qualified traffic engineers . Right?

Paul Campbell ● 1895d

Simon, I haven't noticed any of those things happening in Chiswick. I still choke on the pollution on the High Road and elsewhere in Chiswick and some roads are far worse than they were before - eg South Parade.  Cyclists are still using the pavement - many each hour. It is fantasyland.

Claire Moran ● 1895d

My experience is that Staveley Road is now more pleasant (quieter and less polluted), and SCR is less pleasant, relative to before. That's not a good outcome overall, because SCR has way more pedestrians and cyclists, so it'd be more beneficial if it were the other way round. Or best of all if both were more pleasant (and that's what people are trying to solve for with this new proposal).But it does demonstrate what can be achieved.Check them out and see what you think.CHR is a whole other can of worms.

Simon Pedley ● 1895d

Yes traffic has shifted to SCR and more so, around the schools along Burlington and at the end of Staveley Road. It’s already poor and will be even more dangerous once the school holidays are over and when the nights draw in.

Russell Pearson ● 1895d

People are discussing lots of options, and trying to come up with good proposals that take everything into account.They are sharing those proposals for comment. It all seems like perfectly normal and reasonable behaviour to me. I don't understand why you are being so aggressive and sarcastic.The new proposal being discussed is actually less restrictive, in many ways, than the current situation.If it's got technical problems, then the people involved will think hard and come up with another proposal, and so on. That's pretty normal behaviour too.

Simon Pedley ● 1895d

They are not sharing the single proposal for comment. They are presenting it directly to the Council, falsely, as a collective view of the residents that they represent. They are not presenting options or a range of proposals. They are presenting one proposal that is designed to ensure that residents of South Chiswick retain their privilege to drive unrestricted while imposing more restrictions on drivers who live elsewhere in Chiswick. It should be obvious to anybody who can think beyond their own privilege why that might be objectionable to people.The new Grove Park Group committee did not share the proposal with their members before they did this and they have subsequently failed to respond to criticism of both their approach and the proposal. They are unlikely to come up with better proposals if they do not listen to the points made by the people who understand in detail why this proposal is not viable. It is not a good start for the new Chair and Deputy of the GPG. The previous Chair would have been far more considered in his approach and taken into account the range of views of members. If they had listened more carefully during the consultation meeting they would also have heard Jefferson Nwokeoma make specific criticisms of the proposal that covered technical, legal and political reasons for why it is not feasible, they would have reflected on that and considered why and what that means for its likelihood of success.I say all of this as a member of the GPG who currently cannot drive into my area via Hartington, cannot drive through SOTG, cannot use HH to access the A4 and cannot drive straight along Staveley. I don't believe that I should be exempt from restrictions to my driving. I think that if we claim to care about the environment and public health then we should be prepared to share in the collective responsibility for doing something about it. And that is before we get onto the technical, legal and political limitations. So. no I disagree that this is normal behaviour. It is head-in-the sand desperation to protect driving privileges for South Chiswick residents at the expense of everybody else. Pretty objectionable really.

Paul Campbell ● 1895d

The basic 'No Motor Vehicles - Except for Access' sign might do the job at the boundary of this proposed zone. That would allow residents to drive in but not straight through, without them needing special permits. It would also allow deliveries and visitors, and shoppers and school drops, which the permit system wouldn't. But how is such a zone policed without cameras making guesses about transit times, and as with all these signs, they never say a Except for Access to where, so without local knowledge, you could unintentionally drive right through without realising.

Peter Evans ● 1895d

I so love Paul whinging about what appears to be an open line of communication between these community groups and LBH.He who has bragged about precisely the same.Sounds an awful lot like a tantrum to me. Feeling left out? Sorry, can't muster any pity. The majority of Chiswick residents and businesses have felt this way for years. Get over yourself. These folks are part of the solution. You're just perpetuating the problem.

David Lesniak ● 1895d

Peter,I agree with the weaknesses of this restriction you have pointed out.  I think in the past where 'except for access' has been used with camera enforcement, it has been at a location where the entire street could be covered by a camera so there was direct evidence of a vehicle not stopping.I believe Hounslow is the first local authority to trial the concept where the contravention is being inferred from the time taken between two locations rather than direct evidence. Another question is whether appeals to the adjudicator about fines resulting are being successful or not because of the use of inferred evidence of a contravention rather than direct proof.

Michael Robinson ● 1895d

Paul,Could I invite you to make a proposal of your own?You've obviously thought a lot about the issues and have strong opinions.I'd be interested to see what you'd propose.thanksSimon

Simon Pedley ● 1895d

The time is right for a full public consultation. It is undemocratic and wrong that a single scheme cobbled together during the height of the pandemic should be the only option that we as a residents are allowed to consider.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 1894d

Simon, don't hold your breath.This is where Paul will say he's not a traffic engineer. But when someone else should be critical he will attempt to tar them as anti anti anti and demand they put forth a proposal of some sort. If said person tries "I'm not a traffic engineer" Paul will increase the volume of his vitriol. Do as he says, not as he does.

David Lesniak ● 1894d

And I don't think anyone is suggesting that.But not many people have made the effort to come up with alternatives, so credit to the people who have. I've only seen two. Sam, Paul...your proposals?

Simon Pedley ● 1894d

A prominent mouthpiece for the local Labour Party smugly told me recently that a consultation is not a referendum which shows me at least what their thoughts are in respecting them

Paul Fisher ● 1894d

Funnily enough, that's also exactly what the Department for Transport say in their latest guidance to local authorities published on 30 July."Consultations are not referendums, "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-19

Michael Robinson ● 1894d

This forum and indeed this website is not the place to promote or discuss different proposals as anything that requires acceptance of restrictions to driving or reallocation of road space away from motor vehicles results in howls of outrage and a pathological drive to play the man and not the ball.  I have been down the road of engaging with Sam and the Chiswick Councillors on ideas and gave up on that a long time ago as they are utterly bewildered by the whole thing and have resorted to trying to make the Labour Council do things that will result in them being punished by the Conservative government, which is very easy for all of us including the Council to ignore while we move on and leave them behind. To achieve your desired outcomes for the area will require acceptance of restrictions for all drivers including those who live in Grove Park and Strand on the Green.I have been sharing my ideas in appropriate ways with the relevant parties, including with the GPG, upon whom none of us are reliant for communications with the Council. There is a full and ongoing public consultation for everybody with direct and open channels to the project designers and the relevant Councillors in which I enthusiastically and regularly participate and with which I am satisfied. Suffice to say that my ideas do not involve exempting South Chiswick residents from restrictions to their driving. If we are going to reduce the number of vehicles on Burlington Lane and Sutton Court Road then we will all share in the responsibility and the inevitable inconvenience. So it is apparent to me that there will need to be further restrictions for us all to accept and effective lobbying would focus on how to minimise the pain of those for local residents. The GPG will better serve its members if it focuses a bit of time on that kind of lobbying instead of promoting a scheme that is DoA.

Paul Campbell ● 1894d

Here are a couple of other pertinent paragraphs that I pull out because I can't see any evidence that our local Councillors in particular have read or understood them. This government is being very clear on its commitment to pushing active travel schemes and could not really be any more explicit about its views on how angry opponents' perceptions should not influence the outcomes. The burden of evidence for removal of schemes is on the opponents. "As set out in ‘Gear change’, we continue to expect local authorities to take measures to reallocate road space to people walking and cycling. The focus should now be on devising further schemes and assessing COVID-19 schemes with a view to making them permanent. The assumption should be that they will be retained unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. Authorities should also be considering how to introduce further active travel schemes, building on those already delivered.""Trial or experimental schemes should be left in place for the full duration of the temporary traffic regulation order (TTRO) or experimental traffic regulation order (ETRO), where appropriate, or where no traffic regulation order (TRO) is required, until at least 12 months’ traffic data is available and has been published. This will allow them to settle in and for changes in travel patterns and behaviours to become apparent so that an informed decision can be made. Adjustments may be necessary to take account of real-world feedback but the aim should be to retain schemes and adjust, not remove them, unless there is substantial evidence to support this"

Paul Campbell ● 1894d

The Government ?  yet the Tory Councils have gradually remove them which is difficult to understand.

Janice Evans ● 1894d

Al Webber: "The biggest source of particulate pollution in London is brake and tyre dust, and electric cars will not fix that"This is both factually wrong in places and highly misleading.Transport constitutes about 1/3rd of all PM2.5 and about 1/4 of PM10 according to the report published by the Mayor of London.  Also brake dust will be massively reduced by a switch to EVs due to regen braking, data from the US suggests that brake pads on EVs last 5-10x longer than on ICE cars.  Yes EVs produce more tyre particulates (EVs are heavier), but buses produce a lot more (50x more a day than a car) are you suggesting that we also reduce the number of buses in London?  In any case there are already inventions which could be fitted to cars to capture a big proportion of the tyre particulates emitted by a car.  Whether they make it to the next generation of cars is of course still up for discussion.The other thing which a switch to EVs will cause which is rarely discussed is that it will result in a much quieter environment. The difference will be startling.The idea that all journeys by car which are less than 5 miles can be scrapped and replaced by public transport, cycling or walking is of course complete nonsense - just try doing a weekly shop for a family of 4 - but it is definitely the case that a lot of those journeys do not need to be done by car

Justin Stephenson ● 1894d

Will see how this pans out with the recall of funds for the schemes.

Janice Evans ● 1894d

You would like to think that since the schemes were experimental then funding will have been held back against the cost of removing them.

Bruce Hammal ● 1894d

Agree Bruce.

Janice Evans ● 1894d

The government is stopping future funding to Councils that have removed schemes including the Conservative led Councils of RBKC and Wandsworth. Some Councils may say that they don't want active travel funding from the government anyway. The government response to that is that the funding that will be restricted is not limited to active travel budgets. The government has also acknowledged that it is considering requests from residents to place RBKC into special measures following what it considers to be the premature removal of the cycle lane on Kensington High Street with insufficient evidence or consultation to justify its removal. Special measures can include installing the government's own appointed Head of Transport to deliver on Gear Change in the Borough. The HoT would report to government instead of Borough Cabinet.Personally I think it is unlikely that it will go that far with RBKC but it does indicate the degree of seriousness behind the government' intentions for the Gear Change programme.Opposition Councillors trying to pressurise Labour Councils into putting themselves into a position like this with the government are not going to have much luck.

Paul Campbell ● 1894d

Exactly my thoughts at the moment.

Janice Evans ● 1893d

"The government response to that is that the funding that will be restricted is not limited to active travel budgets."That is very interesting but can you please provide a link or source as that appears to look like blatant blackmail to shove a policy through at all costs and even a hint of desperation by the Government if true?

Paul Fisher ● 1893d

Without the supporting evidence to which Mr. Fisher refers, it could also be seen as scare mongering from Mr. Campbell.

David Lesniak ● 1893d

Watch this space and pay close attention to events in RBKC, Wandsworth, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon and Redbridge who have all had funding blocked now. You can characterise it how you like. I prefer to see it as a responsible authority exercising appropriate governance on use of public funds for transport, environment and public health. Making Councils provide robust evidence justifying removal of schemes and penalising them financially if they fail to do so is perfectly reasonable.

Paul Campbell ● 1893d

So no evidence then and pure hopeful speculation?Most funding provided to Local Authorities is ring fenced so which funding apart from LTNs are you guessing will be cut?

Paul Fisher ● 1893d

Full scope of LIP funding. Take a look at historical LIP bids from those Boroughs for more detail of what that encompasses. You can dismiss my lack of interest in providing detailed evidence or sources to people on this forum who I don't know and who I have to assume are quite capable of doing their own research if you like.  It makes no difference to me if you believe me or not.

Paul Campbell ● 1893d

Why stop there? If closing the coffers is good enough for imposing government transport policy at a local level then what else might be on the agenda? I do wonder if the commited supporters of these measures would be quite so  enthusiastic if the methods used were employed in the cause of something with which they did not agree. Does the end always justify the means? I well remember Margarat Thatcher's solution to that thorn in her side at County Hall, one Ken Livingstone. She just abolished the GLC.Things were simpler then.

Bruce Hammal ● 1893d

Doesn't this happen all the time in lots of other areas of public expenditure? Funding is allocated by elected politicians in government to departments and local authorities to implement policies that were in manifestos and then there is governance to ensure that funds are spent appropriately. I have to accept that these allocations often don't correspond to my personal interests. There are lots of areas I would like to see get better funding for local implementation but the Conservative government disagrees with me. I accept that we live in a representative democracy and the public have voted in politicians who don't share my views. I don't expect there to be a referendum on how the adult social care grant from the government is or isn't spent by Hounslow.Maybe this particular policy just feels too atypical for a Conservative government. But it was all in the 2019 manifesto and voted for by the public. So the government has its mandate and it pursuing it with its customary vigour for the things it is passionate about.

Paul Campbell ● 1893d

I can't offhand think of another occasion when a Conservative government has had a controversial policy element that was fervently supported by a Labour dominated council and indeed a London mayor, while being vehemently opposed to virtually everything else in their manifesto. Chuck in Conservative councillors whose job is to represent the views of their voters who aren't enamoured of said government policy and you have a recipe for a right old mess. Hanif Khan must have really enjoyed his visit to the enemy's lair the other day. A bit like Churchill accepting an invitation to a soirée hosted by Mussolini because Il Duce had done such a good job of making the trains run on time.

Bruce Hammal ● 1893d

You'll be surprised to learn, Paulo (as in Campbell) but I agree with you.But it is truly odd you have no evidence and only opt to antagonize with "my lack of interest in providing evidence" schtick. Which kinda gets us back to scare mongering.

David Lesniak ● 1893d

Michael Robinson, you posted this earlier: "South Chiswick" is shorter than "Grove Park and Strand on the Green and Dukes Meadows and the bit of Chiswick on the east side of the A316 near Chiswick House" which is the geographic scope of the S Chiswick project.I live on the east side of the A316 in Staveley Gardens. Are you saying that I will be regarded as a "resident of S Chiswick" for the purpose of the proposals?

Jim Currie ● 1889d

Michael Robinson, you posted this earlier: "South Chiswick" is shorter than "Grove Park and Strand on the Green and Dukes Meadows and the bit of Chiswick on the east side of the A316 near Chiswick House" which is the geographic scope of the S Chiswick project.I live on the east side of the A316 in Staveley Gardens. Are you saying that I will be regarded as a "resident of S Chiswick" for the purpose of the proposals?

Jim Currie ● 1889d

Yes.  The proposals don't affect Staveley Gardens directly but for example they include the closure of Dan Mason Drive at the railway bridge and that will affect traffic on Dan Mason Drive, The Promenade and Riverside Drive and Staveley Gardens is connected to Riverside Drive .

Michael Robinson ● 1889d

Not sure which reveals more, these tedious waffle posts, or the ones filled with spite.Answers on a postage stamp please.

Russell Pearson ● 1889d