Forum Topic

SoGA & GPG Traffic  Proposal

SOUTH CHISWICK LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD (SCLN) Update URGENT: There is time sensitivity if you wish to contribute to the SCLN discussion as set out below. The Strand on the Green Association (SoGA) and The Grove Park Group (GPG) have been working together with other local stakeholder groups to develop an alternative proposal to London Borough of Hounslow’s (LBH) current implementation of the South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood (SCLN) scheme as part of its Streetspace trials. We support the stated aims of the SCLN, to reduce through-traffic, improve environment and safety, which is the view of a majority of our members. We wish to see the implementation of the SCLN improved, and a consultation to further explore resident views. We do not wish to see the SCLN abandoned but note that a majority of residents are opposed in its current form.In early August we engaged with lead Councillors Khan, Dunne and Lambert who were initially supportive of our alternative proposal, to have common traffic measures controlled by up to 9 APNR timed cameras within the area stretching from Hogarth Roundabout to Chiswick & Kew Bridges bounded by the A4 to the north and the A316 (see map below). Access is controlled through a timed measure via ANPR cameras, effectively aimed at removing through-traffic, but allowing access to anybody using Grove Park’s services, such as doctors and schools also for entry of taxi or delivery vehicles.During mid-August we were introduced by these Councillors to Jefferson Nwokeoma at LBH Traffic who dismissed our proposal out of hand, did not engage on the specifics and would not consider any workable alternatives. In particular, the significantly increased traffic seen on Burlington Lane and Sutton Court Road which he again described as being ‘a cost of the scheme’ and thus inequitably impacting Grove Park residents.  As part of this dialogue LBH Traffic told us about four proposed changes to the SCLN which we communicated to members. We raised practical challenges and alternatives to three of these. Thankfully it seems none of these additional and disruptive measures are to be implemented.Reading LBH’s Streetspace Review announced on 27 August we found that the trial measures in Grove Park have largely been made permanent. This decision has been made despite significant negative feedback from residents through consultation, which was a flawed process as it provided no traffic data to consider the impact of the trial measures, nor did it explain the trial measures selected or alternatives considered. Study of LBH’s further announcement on 1 September revealed that new measures were planned to provide a hard block to Burlington Lane from the A316 and an increase to the school hours in Staveley Road off the A316. This was designed to further reduce the through-traffic, but is ill-conceived in implementation, acting to the detriment of the adjacent residents who would not be able to access Grove Park without having to divert via Hogarth Roundabout and enter via Sutton Court Road.  We support measures to reduce the through-traffic which has now been inequitably displaced across the area and LBH have clearly changed their position after listening to both our proposals and residents’ concerns. However, the practicalities of these additional disjointed piecemeal and ill-considered measures across the area effectively cut off Grove Park to residents crossing the A316. If LBH were to engage constructively with our alternative proposal and their own proposed changes these flaws would have been immediately obvious. The validity of these measures is to be questioned through an upcoming LBH Overview & Scrutiny Call in Sub Committee (OSC) at 19:00 on Thursday 23 September. The challenges raised by local Councillors are focused on lack of consultation, inadequate data and impact on local cohesion; the relevant document is here:https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=693&MId=12447We understand that residents are planning to attend a demonstration at LBH’s offices. Should members wish to join this it will be at 18:00 on Thursday 23 September outside the LBH offices at Hounslow House 7 Bath Road TW3 3EB. Alternatively, and prior to the OSC meeting this Thursday, residents are encouraged to email the following Councillor: daanish.saeed@hounslow.gov.uk who will be chairing the OSC sub-committee to make their dissatisfaction to the current traffic measures known and to add their support for the APNR proposal as a workable alternative.The APNR timed camera proposal tabled by SoGA and GPG with other stakeholder groups is a workable option for delivering the SCLN in-line with Government policy for Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. Collectively we remain open to discussing further proposals and amendments from LBH, from local residents and from broader stakeholders. Our stated aim is for ours and any other schemes to be discussed by all interested parties through consultation. The link for further information on LBH’s Streetspace Review, which includes the SCLN is here: https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20053/transport/2171/hounslows_streetspace/9Your support is necessary, so please forward this email to friends and neighbours who may not be members of the relevant groups and take the time to email Cllr Daanish Saeed with your comments ahead of Thursday 23 September.MapDescription automatically generated

Strand on the Green Association ● 1861d35 Comments

Why don't you put your names on it?

Carl Wynne ● 1861d

Agreed. This thread should be removed.

Will Watson ● 1861d

Happy now?SOUTH CHISWICK LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD (SCLN) Update URGENT: There is time sensitivity if you wish to contribute to the SCLN discussion as set out below. The Strand on the Green Association (SoGA) and The Grove Park Group (GPG) have been working together with other local stakeholder groups to develop an alternative proposal to London Borough of Hounslow’s (LBH) current implementation of the South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood (SCLN) scheme as part of its Streetspace trials. We support the stated aims of the SCLN, to reduce through-traffic, improve environment and safety, which is the view of a majority of our members. We wish to see the implementation of the SCLN improved, and a consultation to further explore resident views. We do not wish to see the SCLN abandoned but note that a majority of residents are opposed in its current form.In early August we engaged with lead Councillors Khan, Dunne and Lambert who were initially supportive of our alternative proposal, to have common traffic measures controlled by up to 9 APNR timed cameras within the area stretching from Hogarth Roundabout to Chiswick & Kew Bridges bounded by the A4 to the north and the A316 (see map below). Access is controlled through a timed measure via ANPR cameras, effectively aimed at removing through-traffic, but allowing access to anybody using Grove Park’s services, such as doctors and schools also for entry of taxi or delivery vehicles.During mid-August we were introduced by these Councillors to Jefferson Nwokeoma at LBH Traffic who dismissed our proposal out of hand, did not engage on the specifics and would not consider any workable alternatives. In particular, the significantly increased traffic seen on Burlington Lane and Sutton Court Road which he again described as being ‘a cost of the scheme’ and thus inequitably impacting Grove Park residents.  As part of this dialogue LBH Traffic told us about four proposed changes to the SCLN which we communicated to members. We raised practical challenges and alternatives to three of these. Thankfully it seems none of these additional and disruptive measures are to be implemented.Reading LBH’s Streetspace Review announced on 27 August we found that the trial measures in Grove Park have largely been made permanent. This decision has been made despite significant negative feedback from residents through consultation, which was a flawed process as it provided no traffic data to consider the impact of the trial measures, nor did it explain the trial measures selected or alternatives considered. Study of LBH’s further announcement on 1 September revealed that new measures were planned to provide a hard block to Burlington Lane from the A316 and an increase to the school hours in Staveley Road off the A316. This was designed to further reduce the through-traffic, but is ill-conceived in implementation, acting to the detriment of the adjacent residents who would not be able to access Grove Park without having to divert via Hogarth Roundabout and enter via Sutton Court Road.  We support measures to reduce the through-traffic which has now been inequitably displaced across the area and LBH have clearly changed their position after listening to both our proposals and residents’ concerns. However, the practicalities of these additional disjointed piecemeal and ill-considered measures across the area effectively cut off Grove Park to residents crossing the A316. If LBH were to engage constructively with our alternative proposal and their own proposed changes these flaws would have been immediately obvious. The validity of these measures is to be questioned through an upcoming LBH Overview & Scrutiny Call in Sub Committee (OSC) at 19:00 on Thursday 23 September. The challenges raised by local Councillors are focused on lack of consultation, inadequate data and impact on local cohesion; the relevant document is here:https://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=693&MId=12447We understand that residents are planning to attend a demonstration at LBH’s offices. Should members wish to join this it will be at 18:00 on Thursday 23 September outside the LBH offices at Hounslow House 7 Bath Road TW3 3EB.Alternatively, and prior to the OSC meeting this Thursday, residents are encouraged to email the following Councillor: daanish.saeed@hounslow.gov.uk who will be chairing the OSC sub-committee to make their dissatisfaction to the current traffic measures known and to add their support for the APNR proposal as a workable alternative.The APNR timed camera proposal tabled by SoGA and GPG with other stakeholder groups is a workable option for delivering the SCLN in-line with Government policy for Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. Collectively we remain open to discussing further proposals and amendments from LBH, from local residents and from broader stakeholders. Our stated aim is for ours and any other schemes to be discussed by all interested parties through consultation. The link for further information on LBH’s Streetspace Review, which includes the SCLN is here: https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20053/transport/2171/hounslows_streetspace/9Your support is necessary, so please forward this email to friends and neighbours who may not be members of the relevant groups and take the time to email Cllr Daanish Saeed with your comments ahead of Thursday 23 September.MapDescription automatically generated

Bruce Hammal ● 1861d

These "Associations" are often two or three people.

Carl Wynne ● 1861d

Is that in addition to me?

Bruce Hammal ● 1861d

For information.https://groveparkgroup.com/about/

Bruce Hammal ● 1861d

https://www.strandonthegreen.org.uk/

Mark Perry ● 1861d

Perhaps Messrs Wynne and Watson would like to consider joining one of these fine associations. I assume they qualify?

Bruce Hammal ● 1861d

On the question of whether these are key decisions or not the officer's report states " A key decision is an executive decision which is likely to result in the council incurring expenditure or making savings that is/are significant (i.e. £500,000 revenue or £1,000,000 capital)."Making the Hartington Road restriction permanent will bring in over half a million in a few months and the extension of restrictions on Staveley Road will only take a short time longer so these are clearly 'key decisions'. The report says they are not so can somebody explain how proper procedure has been followed here?

Francis Rowe ● 1860d

Cyclists are what percentage of the population ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1860d

Now or in 10 years time? I think the point (right or wrong) is about making the number of cyclists a bigger/more significant % of the population over time with a reduction in car use ver time.  When the majority of cars are electric, there is a good argument for opening everything back up to them again.

Rob Reynolds ● 1860d

Have you run that one by Messrs Campbell and Robinson?

Bruce Hammal ● 1860d

We are using the new E10 fuel, there is no mention of it even though itcuts pollution.

Janice Evans ● 1860d

Have you run that one by Messrs Campbell and Robinson?"My comment was aimed more at Carl Wynne who thinks residents groups may, he thinks,  only be made up of a few members, and should not therefore have a say. Cycling has not increased in the numbers anticipated by the cycle lobby, and I think enough time has now passed.  I think it is therefore time that they stopped having so much control and so much say.  They are I understand a tiny minority

Maggie Dodge ● 1860d

Maggie - my comment was in reply to Rob's observation on electric cars not yours on cyclist numbers which will always be hard to measure accurately. I cycle but I'm not a "cyclist" if you understand my meaning. Anyway hopefully Carl is now better-informed on the history of local Residents' Associations!

Bruce Hammal ● 1860d

The vast majority of adults in this country can ride a bike and are therefore cyclists. The point is if a higher proportion of us chose to do so more regularly  we would all benefit but this is something that has little to do with the Grove Park traffic proposals which  provide a marginal benefit, if any, to cyclists.Debates about semantics are distracting from the specifics of the matter particularly the authority of the individual officer to make this decision. My own view that he has actually done no such thing and the call has been made by senior cabinet members. The officer in question has been given credit by them for the policy because they want to avoid the flak. Sadly this means that the call-in to the scrutiny committee will not prevent the measure going ahead even though it is quite clear the way the decision was made is irregular.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1860d

E10 only cuts pollution by a bit i think. 10% ethanol rather than 5% is the difference i think.

Rob Reynolds ● 1860d

This proposal is great. As soon as the traffic levels return back to the good old days, the cars will crawl through the area and exceed the time cut off.

Paul Scullion ● 1860d

Why would i do that? Reducing pollution (on a local scale) / greenhouse gasses generally doesn't mean we should close roads for ever and only ever use bikes. Some of the LTNs past and present are a fairly imperfect solution to some of the local pollution issues. Some of them are plain dumb. When better solutions arise, dig them up, but quid pro quo is sometimes you have to accept imperfection. Bikes are only useful (for most) for short journeys and ones that don't require you having bags/luggage/fishing rods/poorly cats/rubbish/young kids/trips to the lake district or Paidstow etc.

Rob Reynolds ● 1860d

The core fallacy in the pro LTN argument is that most of the vehicles don't actually need to be there in the first place. Proponents like to conjure up an image of massive cars engaged on pointless journeys that could better be carried out on foot or bicycle. While there will indeed be a proportion that fit this bill there are also a great many that do not. Most are there because they have to be, many of them on business that serves the residents of the affected areas. It is insanity to insist on imposing such draconian measures when better options exist. "Computer says no" is a great excuse, while the real reason is rooted in unmovable dogma and an ingrained refusal ever to admit that there is another way.

Bruce Hammal ● 1860d

You're certainly correct about 'unmovable dogma and ingrained refusal ever to admit there is another way' in the way the LTNs have been planned and defended by the council. Especially the stupid ones. However, the anti-LTN argument would be better served if it didn't also (sometimes) display the same intransigence.  Some of the schemes are awful, a few are good, some are a good idea but poorly executed etc. Trouble is both sides of the argument about road changes seem to fall into the mantra of they are all good or all bad. It devalues both sides of the argument. 

Rob Reynolds ● 1860d

The Grove Park Group are a toothless association they have been for years. Now they have Pro LTN activists joining the membership, they have no chance of joining up with the SOTG association.Maybe the Homefield ward residents could  lobby LBOH that no Chiswick resident living in Grove Park can leave the Riverside Ward going south  and crossing the A316 into the Homefield ward and use the excellent  facility’s provided within Dukes Meadows and Chiswick Pier, not even by bike or walking.Let’s face it the pro LTN  lobby want their cake and eat it, So let’s cut a slice off, as we have Hammersmith or Richmond  to buy what produce will be left. In the shops in a few weeks time.

Bernard Allen ● 1860d

Quite. A proper consultation to evaluate all the pros and cons is required, not this mess that has been pushed through on the back of Covid legislation. These are major changes (despite council claims to the contrary) and deserve full evaluation and proper consultation not the lip-service to it that is Hounslow's stock-in-trade. How many times have we been assured that we are being listened to when it is apparent that we're not and decisions have already been made. "The Council Knows Best" is not a good mission statement.

Bruce Hammal ● 1860d

Although the SoGA/GPG proposals have a coherent logic to them which the current arrangements don't, I'm not sure this is a determining factor in what is going to happen.We have the example of Ealing Council as to what happens if boroughs attempt to unwind unpopular schemes. They have been told their sources of funding will be cut off by Andrew Gilligan.Gilligan believes in traffic evaporation so schemes cannot be deemed a failure if they create congestion because that is part of the process. They cannot be deemed a failure if they are unpopular because that is an inevitable consequence of the policy.Government policy is not to create oases of calm in residential areas, under Gilligan it is to make driving more difficult in London on the assumption that this will reduce the amount people drive. As a policy this only works if the reduction in vehicle use is greater than the extra length and time of journey for traffic that continues.I don't believe traffic evaporation works in the most favourable of conditions but at the moment we are in a period in which our public transport system is seeing significant price increases and reductions in capacity. We are about to get bad news on bus service levels. Consequently it is even more bonkers to believe that you can make traffic disappear by creating more traffic than it would be normally.I'm sure Hounslow's councillors and council officers would accept this if pushed but they are constrained by the dogmatic nature of government policy and have chosen to keep the flow of funding by toeing the line.

Francis Rowe ● 1859d

Francis, I have a horrible feeling that your appraisal of the situation is absolutely right. What I don't understand about Gilligan's threat to Ealing is why it matters. Surely the funding was only to install and maintain the schemes, so no schemes means no extra expenditure, or am I missing something? If money is the issue how about residents witholding a portion of their council tax for loss of amenity? The principle is the same.

Bruce Hammal ● 1859d

It appears that the funding that will be withdrawn from Councils effectively replaces the old Local Implementation Plans (LIP) funding which no longer exists due to the state of TfL's pandemic finances. LIP covers transport and public realm. Even the sociopaths who want to cheerlead the cancellation of any and all schemes to reduce road danger and create safer spaces for walking and cycling for the next five years in Boroughs like Ealing, may wish to review Boroughs' previous LIP submissions to understand the full scope of what they would be happy to see disappear.RBKC may be able to stomach this due to the substantial revenue take they get from parking and their relative wealth as a Borough but most will not.  I believe that TfL and the government have a valid case for withdrawing this funding from Councils who have squandered it or shown no inclination to spend it on what it is intended for. They have to deal with the consequences of their actions and answer to the electorate which every representative poll has demonstrated consists of a minority of sociopaths.

Paul Campbell ● 1859d

Bullying - you know it makes sense!

Bruce Hammal ● 1859d

"The core fallacy in the pro LTN argument is that most of the vehicles don't actually need to be there in the first place."We have actually data on this. During lockdown traffic decreased as people reduced their travel to the bare necessity. Nationally, vehicle numbers dropped dramatically to 31% of pre pandemic levels. But in London, the drop was even greater to just 15%. Of course that was under extreme conditions, but nevertheless it does indicate that there is a higher proportion of discretionary travel in London than nationally.This ties in with other data. There are more cars on London's roads at the weekends than during the week, and a third of car trips are under 2 miles. A high proportion of these trips could indeed be made by most people by walking or cycling rather than by car.

Tom Pike ● 1859d

We've ben round the houses on this before. There are national policies that LAs have to implement. They get funding for those. If they screw up there are consequences. It's appropriate governance. If the government gave a LA £5m to add extra driving lanes to all the A roads in the local area and they either did that and then ripped them out because cyclists complained or spent the money on cycle lanes instead wouldn't you expect there to be some negative consequences for them?

Paul Campbell ● 1859d

I would rather they spent the money on shoring up public transport.

Bruce Hammal ● 1859d

They are spending many orders of magnitude more money on keeping public transport going than they are on active travel.I am sure some people would prefer they spent no money on safer and healthier streets and those people can vote for a different government at the next election. Not sure which party will have an attractive manifesto for those people but it will be an authoritarian one with some firm views on immigration and vaccinations for certain.

Paul Campbell ● 1859d

Hi Maggie,This isn't to do with cyclists?  I think you're posting on the wrong thread.  Unless I'm mistaken, this is about keeping through traffic on arterial roads so that the dangers they create for pedestrians, children etc doesn't blight residential communities.KR

EH McNeill ● 1859d

Sadly doesn't stop all traffic related posts turning on cyclists.

Paul Scullion ● 1859d

Bad timing Paul. Have you looked at the state of the nation's finances? Every day it seems another enormous begging-bowl is placed at the government's door. I'm afraid if I were making a list of priorities for eking out what little we have, (actually we don't have anything) LTNs would be fighting it out at the bottom along with HS2 and the Royal Yacht.As to your little dig about voter intentions, I rather thought you quite liked your administrations to have an authoritarian streak. Or is that just when they share a hobby with you?

Bruce Hammal ● 1859d

Luckily Bruce the mainstream parties disagree with your level of prioritisation for safer healthier streets. This will remain the case. Like in the London Mayoral election only the chancers with an authoritarian disposition will share your level of prioritisation. That's not a dig and I would actually expect you and most people in Chiswick to favour mainstream parties and accept, as I have done on transport policy for most of my life, that you don't get everything you want when you vote in a representative democracy. You've had it good for the past four decades and now it seems that the Overton window for public policy has shifted. National and local government don't view creating safer streets for walking and cycling as a "hobby". They actually view it as a serious policy to contribute to a healthier society.

Paul Campbell ● 1859d