Forum Topic

Staveley Road Block

The council is about to waste tens of thousands of pounds on a pointless roadblock on Staveley Road.I hear that the cost of building this is likely to be around £80k once all items included - design, approvals, etc (although the actual work might be £20k). What's it for?There is no more through traffic that will use Staveley Road.The route from the A316 is now closed due to the closure of the Staveley Rd South and Burlington Lane entrances.The cut through route south is also effectively closed, as the only way out is via Burlington Lane and no-one in their right mind would use that versus going out via Hartington Road.The only users of Staveley Road are now residents who want to get from one end to the other and still can't.So the council is deliberately wasting money.Is there some reason why whoever would deliberately waste money like this?

Richard Potts ● 1692d24 Comments

Yes I have a daughter who wants to see me- coming up the 316 for the first time in months - I have warned her- 1 go up the 316 to Hogarth round about- 2 turn left at a4- then go all the way  to Sutton court road-3 then eventually turn left- 4- go all the way down- 5 turn left at the corner- 6 up park road- 7 turn right through  Staveley - great - grove park is now a joke-

Helen Bamberger ● 1692d

Chiswick provides Hounslow Council with a perfect way to experiment with all sorts of things and also tick any number of unpopular boxes. Under normal circumstances angering residents to the extent they have recently would lead to consequences at the ballot box. In Chiswick's case however there's no problem since the ruling administration has no seats to lose in the first place and voters in the rest of the borough are highly unlikely to make a protest on our behalf. Given what is going on at government level it's highly likely that Labour's position in Hounslow will be strengthened come May 5th so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see any number of new schemes being test-bedded in W4.

Bruce Hammal ● 1692d

Until 1927 Chiswick Urban Disrict was a separate local authority. In that year it was merged with the Brentford Urban District to form the Brentford & Chiswick Urban District, which gained the status of municipal borough in 1932. It included the parishes of Chiswick, New Brentford and Old Brentford.In 1965 the municipal borough was abolished and its former area transferred to Greater London to be combined with that of other districts to form the London Borough of Hounslow.Chiswick is the only London postal district within LB Hounslow, which in itself shows that the 1965 arrangements were poorly thought out; it has far more in common with Hammersmith and Ealing than it does with Hounslow, and it is presumably only because of the 1927 link-up with Brentford that it was placed in Hounslow in 1965. Is it time to launch a campaign to re-draw the boundaries in the area ? Either to go for a restored independent Chiswick (which would set the example for other historic areas of London to regain local control of their affairs) or failing that to join either LB Ealing or LB Hammersmith & Fulham ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1692d

Well - this is now a real real problem-  we can't condone what is going on around us. It beggars belief- please someone on this council take note of these rediculous new restrictions

Helen Bamberger ● 1692d

The figure of £80,000 quoted seems very high. What's the source?

Francis Rowe ● 1692d

Quite a lot of Chiswick is in LBE including my road. Us Ealing residents,  most of us anyway, think pretty much the same about Ealing Council as about Hounslow.

Claire Moran ● 1692d

Ealing with LTNs (plenty more coming post-May) and Fishers Lane, Hammersmith and Fulham with the, frankly awesome, cycle lane and surreptitious LTNs called other things. There is no safe haven for the Chiswick conservative motorist anymore unless you move to Kensington, Brent or Bromley.

Paul Campbell ● 1692d

It is ludicrous. However if the access restrictions to Staveley and Hartingdon ad Burlington from 316 are  experimental and these are then reversed the barrier May be a useful deterrent. I think the council should at least wait to see how current system pans out before doing anything further.

Alina Dansord ● 1692d

Richard Greenhough pointed out" which in itself shows that the 1965 arrangements were poorly thought out "Quite the contrary. Without wishing to labour the point unduly or give ammunition to any knuckle draggers among us, the London Boroughs of both Hounslow and Ealing are quite clearly the result of social engineering.    michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1692d

£80k seems like peanuts. The tweaking of the short section of cycle lane at Chiswick Lane cost £3.3milliin. Assume that includes the cost of removing the 90 year old tree.  It makes you wonder doesn’t it

Maggie Dodge ● 1692d

It's time some priorities were sorted out. Tfl is hanging on  by a thread.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60266463No doubt to the chagrin of some  "TfL has said that cutting all "uncommitted" Healthy Streets funding, such as for cycling schemes, would save about £500m".What would you like - more cycle lanes and LTNs or a tube and bus service?

Bruce Hammal ● 1692d

It's time some priorities were sorted out. Tfl is hanging on  by a thread.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60266463No doubt to the chagrin of some  "TfL has said that cutting all "uncommitted" Healthy Streets funding, such as for cycling schemes, would save about £500m".What would you like - more cycle lanes and LTNs or a tube and bus service?

Bruce Hammal ● 1692d

Sorry - website seems to be in duplicating mode!

Bruce Hammal ● 1692d

Bruce, I've seen quite a lot of cheer-leading from opponents of Healthy Streets for a bad deal between TfL and the government. All of it has ignored the impact on road and bridge infrastructure which is included alongside the Healthy Streets impact in the TfL board paper. It includes imminent closure of the A40 Westway and Vauxhall Bridge among other major infrastructure unrelated to cycling but much more costly. It Is a great example of how one-eyed the Car Lobby has become as a result of their resentment at giving up a fraction of their dominance of our urban street space. And the irony of course is that if the A40 flyover or the A4 flyover or Vauxhall Bridge are closed to motor vehicles, you all know what will be allowed on them - that's right it's bikes.

Paul Campbell ● 1692d

Paul, I have to confess I don't understand much of what you've written so apologies if that's down to my deficiencies. Frankly I think you are much too concerned with the relatively trivial motorists versus cyclists spat when we have a major transport crisis on our hands. The country is broke. Tfl is broke. Local Councils are broke. Much of the population is broke. There is simply not nearly enough money to go round. The "safer streets" initiatives already in existence have been financed either directly from Central Government or by Tfl. The notion of spending tens of millions on creating even more of them within a major world city that can't operate a decent public transport system or keep major roads open for lack of funding is quite frankly ludicrous. (I really can't wait to see Government Ministers and captains of industry cycling along the A4 on their way to and from Heathrow because the roads have been closed to cars and there are no trains on the Piccadilly Line!)

Bruce Hammal ● 1692d

On the contrary Bruce I am raising the much more serious issues created by the funding gap while much of the media and commentators continue to focus on the relatively trivial matter of Healthy Streets funding as if a bad deal will be good news for opponents of expenditure on cycle lanes and LTNs. Cancelling all Healthy Streets schemes will make very little difference to the situation and will not prevent managed decline of the tube and road network and the cancellation of many capital investment projects, which will have a much bigger impact on motoring than any other transport modes, including the closure of the A40 Westway, Vauxhall Bridge and the Rotherhithe Tunnel as well as managed decline of the entire TfL road network. These are all itemised and accounted for in TfL's board papers.And locally it won't make a difference to the existing cycle lane as funding is safe for the sections currently being worked on including the extension across the Hammersmith gyratory.

Paul Campbell ● 1692d

The original post asked two questions. There are 16 responses every one of which ignored the questions. Why oh why can responders not respond by sticking to the original topic rather than going off on a tangent. By all means go off on a tangent but please oh please do so by raising a different topic.

Jim Currie ● 1691d

That's this forum finished then! I know what you mean, though I thought my original response did suggest one reason for the expenditure is the ability to use Chiswick as some sort of laboratory for contentious schemes without fear of electoral consequences for the ruling party.What's your answer to the original question then Jim?

Bruce Hammal ● 1690d

Remember you asked me before Jim and I gave you my view. Here it is again copied from the previous exchange. "Well Jim, while I can't speak for the people who made the decision, I can think of three plausible reasons for the permanent barrier on Staveley:1. The restrictions from the A316 are 8am to 7pm Mon to Sat. The barrier makes the restriction on Staveley 24/7 which is good for the residents and the increasing numbers of people using the road as a safe virtually car-free route across Grove Park and to Chiswick House, Chiswick School and Grove Park School. Much like how Fishers Lane being permanently closed is making it a natural south / north route for cyclists.2. There is more than one purpose to LTNs - they do restrict rat-running as you say (spare me the faux outrage forumers) and they encourage people living in and around the LTN to reduce their use of cars for local journeys such as the people living on Park Road north of the barrier who have complained that they can't drive straight down to the Co-Op. Continuing to use their legs for that journey instead will help them and the environment3. The Staveley restriction from the A316 and the Burlington Lane restriction have been implemented under an ETO which only started on Monday this week at 8am and will be subject to its first review in June this year. There are currently two groups of people lobbying for its removal: a) people who want to restore the rat-running between the A316 and the A4 and b) people who believe that a nine-camera solution will allow them to drive where they like while restricting the rat-running through their area. If either of these groups were to be successful in removing the ETO restrictions then the permanent barrier stands as an insurance policy for the residents of Staveley Road and the people using it as a safe route for cycling"In my view these answers render the second question irrelevant.

Paul Campbell ● 1690d

PaulThank you for being the first person to attempt to answer my original question.However, your answer falls short.You argue that this expensive road block is good for residents because it makes it more difficult for them to use their cars. I don't imagine many of the local residents will see that as a benefit. But since when has what residents want ever been taken into account? You ignore the question I raised. Which is why the council is wasting money on making this permanent when cut through traffic has been eliminated by other measures.There is only 1 cut through route left - North to South from SCR to HR onto A316. Which doesn't not impinge on Staveley Road.Agreed, there is period between 7pm and 8am Mon to Sat when traffic could drive along Staveley Road. But that is a quieter time because most people are at home or in bed. It's also not a big time for family cycling. So the risk is minimal.The Staveley Road Block does not need to be made permanent. The current measures have eliminated cut through traffic and only local traffic is using these roads.

Richard Potts ● 1690d

Bruce, see below.Paul, I remember your response to my query and thanked you at the time.What's it for? The thought processes of LBH re Hartington, Staveley and Burlington have been flawed from the start. The stand-alone closure of Hartington obviously diverted traffic onto Staveley. I pointed out on this forum that that would be the inevitable result. Why did LBH not foresee this? Instead, they were then forced to respond with the partial restriction on Staveley and the barrier on Staveley. The barrier increased traffic on Burlington past the station. However, this detour is so minor in terms of increased journey time and mileage as to be not really worth bothering about (although the traffic diverted by the barrier does use Burlington instead of Staveley).Had LBH come up with the current Staveley/Burlington trial at the outset as they should have, the barrier on Staveley would have been reviewed in due course with the whole scheme involving Harrington, Staveley and Burlington. As it is, the decision to make the barrier permanent has now been made. That means traffic will no longer be monitored and the decision will not be reversed. As such, any consideration about what the barrier is for is now pretty pointless.As for the second question re some reason why whoever would deliberately waste money like this, it's in the DNA of governments of all persuasions, local and national. They've got to spend our money on something!

Jim Currie ● 1690d

I totally agree that the 'Berlin Wall' is now redundant, and a complete waste of money that could definitely be better used.I have read the arguments made on this thread that the other measures might be taken out (unlikely!), and that there are still some times when non residents can access the area off the A316 (these are not 'rat run' times, so we will hardly be getting loads of cars passing through - and if we did it could be made 24/7) BUT a lot of local traffic is now having to drive twice as far through the area to reach their own homes (I'm one of them), thus causing more local pollution, and this seems a bit counter productive to me if the idea is to create safer CLEANER streets. And with the new A316 restrictions preventing 'through traffic', these extended journeys are serving no useful purpose. It seems to me that whilst some streets are loving it (and yes my street  has so little traffic now that it feels positively post apocalyptic most of the time so I guess I ought to be happy), many residents are either inconvenienced by longer local journeys, or more pollution than necessary, or both.

Caroline J Simonds ● 1689d

Careful Caroline, you’re not allowed to compare it to the Berlin Wall. And any reference to other sensitive locations, present or past, and / or political movements with a democratic deficit, might trigger an offended reaction in Grove Park, Brentford, and beyond. The Thought Police could already be on their way.

Russell Pearson ● 1689d

"Ealing with LTNs (plenty more coming post-May)"So you think a few more Labour Councilors elected, will change the minds of the huge majority of residents who rejected LTN's?Sensible people told the council exactly what they thought of LTN's, and the majority were scrapped. They will not be returning to South Ealing or Northfields for example, because surprise surprise , the LTN congestion and pollution has disappeared, No more fines, conflicts, extra fustration and costs.Maybe the Labour Council will try inflicting LTN's on more Labour voting areas in Ealing?....good luck with that!

Nick Jenkins ● 1688d