Forum Topic

Big crash closes A4 westbound at Sutton Court Road junction

Nasty smash. 4 cars damaged. Lots of debris even on the eastbound lane.

F Coyle ● 1628d53 Comments

Car on fire I think, as a result.

Maggie Dodge ● 1628d

That junction has always been a disaster waiting to happen.

Steve Taylor ● 1628d

Thick motorists, smashing into each other and catching fire, eh Steve.

John Hall ● 1628d

That's quite an insensitive thing to say given that we don't know as yet if anybody was badly injured.

Anita Blake ● 1627d

“ Thick motorists, smashing into each other and catching fire”Nope, thick TfL designers!!!

Steve Taylor ● 1627d

Seems that there may finally be an enquiry into the design of ‘disaster junction’.

Steve Taylor ● 1627d

Great Steve - about time too !

Helen Bamberger ● 1627d

“Thick TFL designers” advised by the LCC. Everybody else is!

Maggie Dodge ● 1627d

Hopefully all those involved are ok.Does anyone know roughly what happened?Sounds like it was an accident involving vehicles all travelling west on the A4.

Andrew Jones ● 1626d

The damaged cars were some way past the corner. There is a tendency for some drivers to cut round cars waiting to turn right. And then, once round the corner, want to change lanes quickly to be in line for the flyover.

Vivienne Cox ● 1626d

Yep the junction is an absolute disaster design. Astoundingly bad!

Steve Taylor ● 1626d

Andrew, there was a report in the newsletter yesterday - nobody seriously hurt which is a blessing.The police are looking for witnesses and I don't know what happened in this crash but from experience vehicles tend to converge from three points (out of SCR from the north and south and going west on the main carriageway) and there is often confusion about lanes. I have no idea how this risk could be mitigated.

Anita Blake ● 1626d

If there is a review of safety at this junction it might need to look again at the Harvard Hill restriction. With the other controls at the eastern end of Grove Park, any problem with through traffic in this area will have been mitigated already and you could argue that the closure generates more traffic on local streets by forcing people to exit on Sutton Court Road. There seems to be an assumption that nobody lives on that road and it is okay to displace traffic to there but that is wrong.More vehicles turning left onto the A4 does add to the complexity of navigating it as does the redirection of eastbound traffic on the A4 heading for Grove Park onto Barrowgate Road/Sutton Court Road.Pressure on the junction has also been increased by the closure of access from the A316 to Grove Park. Although the signage recommends vehicles heading east on the A4 to turn off by the Porsche Garage and circle round along Barrowgate Road back onto Sutton Court Road many Grove Park residents used to ignore that and go to Hogarth Roundabout and turn right there. Now all these vehicles are forced to cross the A4 at the Sutton Court Road junction.I've always thought the diversion through Barrowgate Road was perverse but presumably it was intended to reduce pressure on Hogarth Roundabout but that is the exact opposite impact of the Grove Park restrictions. Closure of access from the A316 makes it impossible to redirect Grove Park bound traffic on the A4 from Barrowgate Road because it is now the only practical way in.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1626d

You raise some really good points and they did make me rethink some assumptions about what is the strategic thinking about policy for our local roads at the moment.Previously, the assumption had been that the traffic measures in Grove Park were being implemented over the objections of TfL because they would tend to displace vehicles towards Hogarth Roundabout. The council emboldened and funded by a Department of Transport driven by Andrew Gilligan's dogma were able to steamroll TfL whose priority would always be the smooth running of the A4.However,  delays at Hogarth Roundabout are more likely to be caused by A4 eastbound traffic turning right to get to Grove Park than traffic approaching from the South turning left onto the A4. If too many cars are turning right at Hogarth Roundabout the tailback crosses onto the main carriageway effectively reducing the A4 to a single lane.The Barrowgate Road loop, in which Grove Park bound traffic is encouraged to leave the A4 by the  Porsche garage, was originally created to stop this happening. However, it may be that with the advent of SatNav more motorists are being directed to ignore the signs and proceed to Hogarth Roundabout to get to Grove Park.Now that the access restrictions off the A316 are in place, most motorists are forced to use the Barrowgate Road loop and enter Grove Park via the Sutton Court Road junction.If the above is correct it explains a lot that seemed illogical about the council's traffic measure. Why spend so much time and effort in implementing traffic schemes in the face of local opposition? Why limit the exemptions so much? Why if directing traffic away from residential areas was the priority were restrictions never considered for Barrowgate Road? Many assumed these inconsistencies were due to the Council hating Chiswick and being delighted with the extra revenue but it could be that the pressure for these changes is coming from TfL.To confirm this theory it would be interesting to hear from Grove Park residents how they get home when travelling in from the A4 and has that changed recently. It would also be good to get some confirmation from Heathfield Gardens and Barrowgate Road residents that they have seen an increase in traffic since the Grove Park restrictions were implemented.If this is all correct, I'm not saying TfL is wrong but they do need to take into account that they are directing more traffic to a very dangerous junction which seems to have got no safer since the new lights were installed.

Paul Corcoran ● 1625d

" the assumption had been that the traffic measures in Grove Park were being implemented over the objections of TfL"Whose assumption was that then Paul?  Is this one your assumptions based upon absolutely no evidence whatsoever?Really, why do you come up with such nonsense given the entire S Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood project has been funded by TfL from the very start.  There was a competitive bidding process between boroughs for the funding back in 2018, the funding awarded in 2019 and the project then needed to go through several review stages with TfL all before Covid.  The reason the project got the money was because it met TfL's objectives to get traffic off residential roads and onto the arterial network.The traffic surveys were done in 2019 before Covid so Hounslow would have had a good idea of the measures they wanted to implement long before Gilligan got involved with TfL.You are also ignoring that the A316 had more traffic on it in the past than it does now.  In the early 00s average daily traffic on the A316 was 30k-40k vehicles per day, compared to 25k measured in 2019.  The measures are just getting traffic back to the A316 from which it was displaced in the first place.

Michael Robinson ● 1625d

More evidence that TfL isn’t fit for purpose.

Steve Taylor ● 1625d

Michael, while I admit that this is just a theory which I can't hope to prove, it does fit the facts some of which, in an attempt at rebuttal, you have added to give extra confirmation.If you work from the starting point that the overriding policy priority of TfL in this area is to ensure the smooth running of the A4 then effectively creating a gated community in Grove Park and diverting traffic towards the Hogarth Roundabout appeared to make no sense.However, it does if you assume they were becoming concerned about a greater proportion of Grove Park bound traffic abandoning the Barrowgate Road Loop due to SatNavs. The overall numbers for traffic are not really that relevant here. Each phase of the lights at the Hogarth Roundabout for traffic heading into the A316 allows about 5 or 6 vehicles through on the southbound lane. It only takes a relatively small increase in the number of cars to result in the tailback from these lights to reach into the main carriageway. This creates a pinchpoint on a key artery which could cause traffic problems across west London.As I say, this is just a theory but rather than dismissing it as nonsense when you haven't fully understood the point I am making, why not wait and see if any Grove Park and Barrowgate Road residents can confirm that this is what is actually happening.

Paul Corcoran ● 1625d

On the contrary. It shows that TfL are following a logical and consistent policy not driven by dogma. If the A4 becomes clogged gridlock occurs across Chiswick. Do you have a alternative strategy that they should implement that would deal with this problem?

Paul Corcoran ● 1625d

What Paul is saying makes perfect sense and I think he may be right. When I posted earlier I hadn't followed up on the logical conclusion to the comments I made but he has seen the broader picture.Two Grove Park residents separately have said the thing they like least about the changes is that they are now forced to exit the A4 at the Porsche garage. They both find negotiating the junction of Barrowgate Road and Sutton Court Road more stressful than getting around the Hogarth Roundabout.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1625d

"If you work from the starting point that the overriding policy priority of TfL in this area is to ensure the smooth running of the A4 "You are starting from a mistaken assumption so there really isn't any point discussing the rest of your post.There is no such thing as an "overriding policy priority", there is always a balance.  You seem to be under the impression that TfL like traffic rat running through residential streets and staying away from the arterial road network.  They don't. They want longer distance traffic on the arterial network where it is easier to control, manage and implement schemes like the ULEZ.If TfL wanted to keep traffic off the A316 and A4 then they would never have funded the S Chiswick scheme in the first place.  Part of the scope of that project was to improve walking and cycling at the A4/SCR junction.  Initial designs were done but haven't progressed because of funding.  They wouldn't have approved that if the "overriding policy" was traffic capacity on the A4.Another A4 project also currently paused because of funding is reducing the speed limit on the A4 east of Hogarth Roundabout and introducing a surface crossing near Furnival Gardens. They wouldn't have been looking at that if the "overriding policy" was the A4.So your "theory" seems to be more based upon your own beliefs rather than the actions of TfL in the real world.If Low Traffic Neighbourhood principles were applied to the area N of the A4 then there is an argument for closing off the Barrowgate route completely.  Traffic using this route is also disruptive to traffic on SCR as it tries to force its way into southbound traffic.  There are other ratruns within this area that could also be addressed, such as traffic using Dukes Avenue to the A4 and cutting the corner to SCR.

Michael Robinson ● 1625d

Michael, I'm afraid your response shows you haven't grasped the point being made. There are no 'Low Traffic Neighbourhood principles' at work here - just ask the residents of Barrowgate Road.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1625d

Paul, a coupe of thoughts as an observer with no inside knowledge. There is a conflict as you note, but I think to assume some overriding plan from TFL and LBH on all this is a bit far fetched, while the funding may come from TFL there seems to be a lack of real collaboration and little in the way of traffic modelling, which is a pretty unreliable science in any case. I dont know why you assume traffic should abandon the Barrowgate rd option in favour of the Hogarth roundabout? The impact of the closures in GP and the SotG restrictions will lead more traffic from the west/ south west to use the Barrowgate route, which is the route signposted by TFL. If they instead head down the A316 from Hogarth roundabout I am confused as to where they then enter GP, as all the entry points from the A316 into GP have restrictions? Have I misunderstood your post?THe issues we see are that there are growing queues generally northbound up the A316, and long waits at Hogarth for traffic attempting to turn left onto the A4 westbound and then reach north Chiswick via SCR. TFL have not changed the light phasing at all despite knowing that more traffic will be using this route. This is an added inconvenience for GP residents and trade vehicles. THe other point is that the SotG restrictions force more traffic to use Barrowgate Road. I dont understand the logic of saying that through traffic and delivery vehicles cant use one residential road, so then knowingly push them onto another? Do Barrowgate residents get consulted?There is a seperate thread on the dangers of the A4/ SCR junction. It is long due a redesign, which should include closing the rat run off the A4 to through traffic, including onto Barrowgate or up Heathfield Gardens. A right turn filter should be created into GP at the lights for traffic coming in from the M4. This would keep traffic off residential streets and also reduce the congestion/ dangers off traffic forcing its way from Barrowgate onto SCR southbound.

Bill George ● 1625d

I am certainly grasping the point that you and Paul Corcoran love nothing better than inventing theories out of thin air.There hasn't been a project to look at the area N of the A4 yet.Or are you under the impression that the council/TfL can address all of London simultaneously?

Michael Robinson ● 1625d

We live north of the A4 in chiswick, the challenge with any new traffic measures Curley should consider the bigger picture. Closing GP to chiswick residents means all commuter traffic mixes with local traffic and inevitably there are going to be pinch points which is turn will lead to more accidents. When the slightest issues arises on the A4 the whole of north chiswick is gridlocked. So the traffic measures may work for a few in GP at the expanse of the rest of chiswick residents. This is clever planning. surely with today’s technology TFL/Hounslow council could find clever ways to achieve safer neighbourhoods. Just one suggestion allow all chiswick residents via postcode definition to use the local roads using ALPR? this would reduce commuter traffic in residential areas and allow locals to use their local roads, not that hard….

Jayne Thorburn ● 1625d

Bill, you have misinterpreted my post which I'm sure is down to the inadequate way I explained myself.I am not saying that more people are using Hogarth Roundabout to access Grove Park now but that they were before these changes were introduced. I know many locals already ignored the Barrowgate Road route but the increasing prevalence of SatNav may have resulted in a much higher proportion of traffic doing so. It wouldn't have required much for this to mean that the queue in the central lane heading towards the A316 under the Hogarth Flyover stretched back beyond the yellow junction box on the A4 eastbound much more often.The restrictions on entry to Grove Park would therefore be deliberately intending to direct traffic along Barrowgate Road. The logic of doing this is that, if you didn't, the resulting constriction on the A4 from vehicles turning left on Hogarth Roundabout would have a seriously negative impact on traffic across west London.

Paul Corcoran ● 1625d

Paul, the tail backs you mention on the A4 were/ are a regular feature at peak times, an accident blackspot as well. But this was driven mainly by traffic heading down the A316 and across Chiswick bridge rather than into GP. TFL have in the past and now prioritise A4 east-west traffic over the leaving/ joining from the A316. Given the GP restrictions in place, a more frequent and longer green phase for the A316 would help.I dont believe this had any bearing at all on the GP plans from LBH. This stiatuon has been the case for years. The broad point I think you are making is that Barrowgate loop is an awful one, and also I would add pushing traffic onto a residential street. A full redesign of the the A4/SCR junction would be needed to prevent this. I dont think anyone in LBH seems to care that the GP schemes are pushing more traffic onto Barrowgate.

Bill George ● 1625d

"The restrictions on entry to Grove Park would therefore be deliberately intending to direct traffic along Barrowgate Road. " I'd suggest that this sign which has been on the A4 since as long as I can remember is firm evidence that  traffic is being deliberately directed along Barrowgate Rd. Whether Barrowgate should be an officially signposted rat run or if it should be closed off is a valid topic but the reality is that it has been sign posted for years. The role of the S Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood project in this is just a product of your imagination. A316 traffic in the 00s was significantly higher than it was in the 2010s (2020 traffic was lower again but this was during Covid). You are ignoring that local access traffic is a tiny proportion of the total.  ANPR measurements in Grove Park showed that local traffic was only around 10% or less, depending on the street.  The impact of Grove Park locals is a drop in the ocean compared to traffic driving through the area.

Michael Robinson ● 1625d

They are also ignoring that Grove Park locals who wish to continue to the Hogarth roundabout and access their area from the A316 can still do so as they have permit access 24/7 on either Staveley or Hartington. I've never done that though and I imagine that there would be great deal more noise on this aspect of restrictions if Grove Park drivers were made to do so by closing the Barrowgate rat run without installing Bill's suggestion of a new right turn direct rom the A4 into the south side of SCR. Not that that would be a good reason not to do so if that is what the residents of Barrowgate and Heathfield Terrace would like.

Paul Campbell ● 1625d

Correction - Heathfield Gardens not Terrace.

Paul Campbell ● 1625d

Sorry Michael you are still not seeing the broader view here. The existence of this rather illogical diversion for decades only confirms that TfL have for some time been concerned to divert Grove Park bound traffic away from the Hogarth Roundabout.The capacity of the junction to handle traffic effectively is limited to the number of vehicles that can queue between the lights controlling access over the westbound carriageway and the junction box on the eastbound carriageway which isn't a lot.You can't do anything about traffic seeking to access Chiswick Bridge from Chiswick Lane and the A4 because there isn't an alternative route but you can control traffic here trying to get to Grove Park and even if it is only 10% of the total that will still significantly reduce the number of tailbacks crossing the A4.I would contend that in the run up to restrictions being introduced there was an increase in the proportion vehicles using Hogarth Roundabout to access Grove Park. The explosion in the number of private hire vehicles and the proliferation of Sat Navs would have caused this to happen.As I say, this is just a theory. It would be interesting to hear from Barrowgate Road residents if they have been experiencing more traffic recently and how Grove Park residents have changing their driving patterns over the past few years.

Paul Corcoran ● 1625d

I wasn't ignoring the exemptions. If this is actually what is driving TfL policy it explains why they were made so restrictive and narrowly limited to certain CPZs. This counters the accusation against Hounslow Council that this was to maximise fine revenue.

Paul Corcoran ● 1625d

"The existence of this rather illogical diversion for decades only confirms that TfL have for some time been concerned to divert Grove Park bound traffic away from the Hogarth Roundabout."Nope.  The previous junction was a roundabout.  I don't know when the current arrangement was put in place but the 1974 A-Z shows it as a roundabout.  The loop via Barrowgate is, in effect, keeping it like a roundabout except via adjacent streets.Your claim makes no sense.  You are basically claiming that the traffic using the Barrowgate  loop was significant enough to affect the Hogarth Roundabout, a junction that in the 2000s handled 100k vehicles a day on the A4 and 48k a day on the A316, so instead it was directed along a narrow street involving a couple of turns.... The reason they put the loop in was precisely because the volume of traffic was low.  OK, it may be unpleasant for residents in Barrowgate at times but that isn't the same as being significant enough to impact traffic at Hogarth.You keep on ignoring that Hogarth has handled far more traffic in the past than it does now.

Michael Robinson ● 1625d

It's been there longer than 1974 I used to ride my bike across that junction as a kid and there was no roundabout then.My guess is the roundabout was removed in the early 60's as I can never remember one being there.

Brian Green ● 1625d

My point is really that the loop via Barrowgate Rd was introduced because the volume of traffic using it was low.Not as Paul Corcoran seems to think, that the volume of traffic was so high that the Hogarth Roundabout needed to be protected from it...so the 3 lane Hogarth Roundabout couldn't handle it but it was fine for Barrowgate Rd...

Michael Robinson ● 1625d

Michael, I think you need to reread Paul's post because you are clearly not understanding his point. Maybe you are not familiar with the way the junction works because if you were you would probably recognise what he says does make a lot of sense even if you don't agree with his conclusions.I'm surprised you just don't take the win because the implication of what he says is that the restrictions on Hartington Road and Staveley Road are here to stay.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1625d

Well, what other understanding of "confirms that TfL have for some time been concerned to divert Grove Park bound traffic away from the Hogarth Roundabout" is there?Of course they divert Grove Park traffic away from Hogarth roundabout.  There has been a big sign on the A4 doing that for decades!He also shows no understanding that the volume of local traffic from residents and services going to Grove Park is noise level compared to the overall volume of traffic on the A4.He has also ignored that the A316 had considerably more traffic in the early 00s than it does now.  Somehow I think if I search back on this forum there will be no mention of this.  Its only when there are measures to restrict traffic that all these concerns come out.As for "the implication of what he says is that the restrictions on Hartington Road and Staveley Road are here to stay", the news is that traffic orders for those roads (for Staveley, meaning the diagonal filter) were made permanent last year.The camera restrictions on Staveley and restrictions at Burlington are being done using an experimental traffic order so will be reviewed sometime later this year.The more observant in the area may have seen cameras at a number of locations being used for traffic surveys.  Clearly Hounslow have learned from their experience of the foxes and this survey is unlikely to be affected unless the foxes have ladders.

Michael Robinson ● 1625d

Sorry Michael but your objections to the idea only really show you haven't understood it. It might benefit you to take a drive through the junction at a busy time and you will see the point. A permanent traffic order as opposed to an experimental one doesn't make any difference if there is a change of policy at the top. Some people on this forum, including as I understand it some of the local councillors, were hopeful that the end of Johnson would mean the departure of his creature Gilligan and the unwinding of many of the schemes implemented across London during lockdown. The Conservative councillors that survive the May elections will be lobbying the Department for Transport hard for changes with presumably Shapps gone also.While some schemes might be scrapped, if Paul is right, and the Burlington Lane, Staveley Road and Hartington Road restrictions have been implemented primarily to avoid problems on the A4, central government are unlikely to override TfL on this particular set of measures.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1625d

Still no actual explanation, still ignoring the fact that the A316 has had far greater levels of traffic in the past.As to "if Paul is right, and the Burlington Lane, Staveley Road and Hartington Road restrictions have been implemented primarily to avoid problems on the A4,"Paul isn't right. He has a history of being wrong when it comes to making predictions about traffic and bike lanes.If you expect to see permanent measures reversed then that would need change of policy at national government level and mayoral level and borough level.  I'm not saying that is impossible but you and Paul appear to be indulging in an awful lot of wishful thinking unsupported by any evidence from the real world.Some people still seem to be in denial that policy at all level of government means that it is OK to inconvenience private car journeys.

Michael Robinson ● 1625d

The absolute levels of traffic on the A316 are not directly relevant to this point. That you keep clinging to this piece of data as a proof of your point of view confirms you haven't really understood the issue.It has probably always been the case that governments have been prepared to inconvenience private car journeys in certain circumstances and the need to do so has risen due to SatNavs directing more traffic where it shouldn't be going. That, however, is one policy priority among many. Another is to avoid congestion on major trunk roads and this is the overriding consideration in the matter we are discussing.As so often when someone you are debating with makes points you can't really answer you start to personally denigrate them which is what you are doing with Paul. This only serves to confirm he is probably right.If you continue to insist that he isn't perhaps you could explain the reason for the signed traffic diversion away from the Hogarth Roundabout and down Barrowgate Road before the new traffic measures? As far as I can see this can only have been over concerns about traffic heading to Grove Park causing issues at the roundabout because it would only take a small number of cars to cause tailbacks on the main carriageway. This shows to me that the authorities will, if necessary, divert traffic down residential streets to ensure main roads run smoothly. You may choose to disagree with the policy but I can't see how you can dispute that this is what is happening.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1624d

I have lived just off Barrowgate Road for nearly 30 years and have used the A4/SCR junction very regularly for all that time.  It has always been dangerous and I am not prepared to conclude that it has recently become more dangerous simply on the basis of a single accident.There are a myriad of problems with the junction, some of which should have been made better by the S.Chiswick LTN (but haven't), some of which may, and I emphasise that this is not certain, have been made worse.Dealing with the problems with the junction is no particular order of importance.1. Traffic going south on the SCR and turning right onto A4 going west.  The problem here is that the lights do not provide for a dedicated right filter.  What happens is that cars turning right have to wait for a gap in the traffic travelling north on the SCR before turning.  More often than not there is no gap until the lights on SCR going north turn to red.  If there are 3 cars waiting to turn right, the 3rd car is in danger of being hit by traffic travelling west on the A4.  This is a problem which the LTN should have eased - on the basis that it would stop traffic on A316 using GP as a cut through.  Whilst it has definitely reduced traffic on the SCR going north, in my experience it is not a big enough reduction.2. Use of Barrowgate Rd to enable cars coming east on A4 to turn into GP.  This section of Barrowgate Road is totally unsuitable for any significant level of traffic and that is before you consider the dangers of turning right from Barrowgate Road on to SCR to go to GP - leaving aside how busy SCR is (and getting worse), lots of cars coming down SCR to turn right onto A4 come down the middle of SCR (over the chevrons) often at speed.3. Effect of LTN on cars at this junction.  There are both positives and negatives.  By closing access from A316 to GP (except for residents) and forcing cars to use the Hogarth roundabout and come west down the A4 turning left, this should not cause any problems, the left turn is very safe and I am sure residents of GP overall would prefer not to be part of a rat run.  But there is also the negative in that many cars which would have used that rat run to go north of the A4 now have 2 options: use Chiswick Lane from Hogarth roundabout which means navigating the death trap that is the junction between Chiswick Lane and the exit from flyover; or use SCR which means turning right from the A4 at the junction.  My impression is that there are far more cars stacked up in the right filter than there used to be and if you ever get them stacked up beyond the short filter lane into the main body of the A4 that is a horrific accident waiting happen.Whether it is possible to redesign the junction to ease these problems raises a different set of issues.  For example changing the light sequence so that there was a dedicated right filter onto A4 going west would certainly reduce the risk of accidents at the junction - but there will always be people who risk jumping the lights so there will always be some element of risk and adding a right filter sequence will simply back more traffic up on the A4 which raises the risk of accidents there.

Justin Stephenson ● 1624d

Well you and Paul are incapable of actually explaining the issue.  Please explain why you think there is an issue now but not when there was much greater traffic on the A4 and A316.  You keep on claiming "haven't understood the issue" so then explain it in words of no more than two syllables and provide hard evidence.The route to Grove Park from the eastbound A4 via Barrowgate Road has been there for decades because:1. Not many vehicles use it2. It is approximate 2km shorter than going via Hogarth roundabout3. The current arrangement replaced a roundabout, and the route via Barrowgate Rd is in effect a roundabout via adjacent streets.It beggars belief that somehow you believe that the volume of traffic going from the eastbound A4 to Grove Park is such that it would overwhelm the Hogarth Roundabout.  This is a junction that can carry 100k vehicles on the A4 and has carried up to 48k vehicles on the A316.  And you think the volume is too much for Hogarth but fine for Barrowgate? You have this totally wrong.  The route is signposted because the volume of traffic going that way is low.  OK, it is higher than many residents of Barrowgate like, but in absolute and relative terms compared to the A4, it is low.The date when it was introduced isn't clear but if it was in the 1970s, there were a third of the number of cars on the road compared to now.  Yet, you claim it was because of volume of traffic that would be routed via Hogarth Roundabout.I have more news for you about turning around at Hogarth Roundabout.  That is the official signposted route for vehicles on the eastbound A4 to avoid entering the ULEZ.

Michael Robinson ● 1624d

Thanks for the analysis Justin.On the point about the LTN, it deliberately addressed the northbound A316 to A4 traffic as there was a much higher volume than southbound A4 to A316.  I can dig out the numbers but from memory it was 2:1 or 3:1 in terms of volumes.In an ideal world the scheme would have addressed everything, but this would have added even more complexity and arguments.As part of the S Chiswick LTN project there was an initial design done for improvements at the A4/SCR junction.  However, there is no funding to progress this.  Changes to signal phases are always "rob Peter to pay Paul".

Michael Robinson ● 1624d

Michael, is there much less traffic now? Genuine question, as on another thread Tom Pike seemed to be arguing that traffic was back to pre pandemic levels. As for Barrowgate, your claim that 'not many people use it' is pretty astonishing. The evening peak can often see long queues. Its a residential street, so why is TFL signposting traffic (including HGVs) onto this to reach Grove Park, and volumes doing this can only have increased due to the impact of the restrictions across GP. The use of Barrowgate is not signposted because volumes are low, but because TFL have for years refused to invest in making the A4/ SCR junction safe and functional. The flow of traffic on the A4 into and out of London was (and I assume still is) their priority. This is the same reason that TFL have refused to have a right filter for traffic joining A4 westbound when heading south down SCR. Barrowgate I would have thought  is exactly the sort of 'rat run' (although one that is officially sancioned by TFL) that you would oppose?

Bill George ● 1624d

"why is TFL signposting traffic (including HGVs) onto this to reach Grove Park" HGVs aren't signposted.  Note the prohibition.
Traffic has been higher in the past, such as early 00s, than even pre-Covid. Traffic was lower when the route was introduced in the 1970s or even earlier It doesn't take many vehicles to fill up a residential street like Barrowgate That's why the idea that traffic is routed via Barrowgate because Hogarth can't handle it is ridiculous.

Michael Robinson ● 1624d

Two points to note from my observations.Firstly, my satnav used to always choose the Barrowgate Road loop when coming eastbound A4 into GP.  Then it started sometimes giving the option of turning left into SCR followed by a U-turn south into GP (yes - seriously).  Now it seems to mostly choose directing me onto Hogarth Roundabout for a U turn onto A4 West and then into GP at SCR.Secondly, the A316 northbound used to be two lanes all the way to Hogarth Roundabout.  With the introduction of cycle lanes it has been reduced to one lane which greatly reduces flow.  When it widens into two lanes ( roundabout and fly over) there is not enough of a lead in to 'fill' the roundabout lane and thus I have often observed no queuing vehicles into the roundabout at the end of a traffic light sequence.  Another consequence of this is that queues on the A316 into Hogarth Roundabout often start shortly after Chiswick Bridge or Hartington Road and even traffic allowed to turn left into Staveley Road have to endure the queue.  I have suggested to Hounslow Traffic that residents of FR CPZ be allowed to choose a permit to use either Hartington Road or Staveley Road but not both.  But as this is not their idea, I doubt that they will even consider it.

John Ridout ● 1623d

That's very interesting. The people living on Barrowgate Road and adjacent streets aren't going to take a great deal of solace with Michael's observation that the amount of traffic going down their road is less than the A4. Additionally, although there is a weight restriction on the diversion, even assuming it is adhered to, it gives leeway for some pretty big vehicles to go that way which anyone living there will tell you that they do.What remains unexplained, if you want to dismiss Paul's thesis,  is why the signed diversion remained in place before the Grove Park traffic measures? We were being constantly told that it was okay for motorists to be made to drive a bit further to avoid residential areas and it has long been known that the SCR junction is a dangerous one particularly for vehicles crossing it north - south.If Barrowgate Road residents are being asked to endure this extra traffic, it might be deemed appropriate to give them a convincing explanation as to why.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1620d

The ULEZ exemption for this section of the A4 for vehicles who fail to exit at Chiswick Roundabout requires vehicles to loop around Hogarth Roundabout. Vehicles over 7.5 tonnes heading for Grove Park also have to head this way. If junction capacity at Hogarth Roundabout is not an issue then I don't see any good reason why all non-exempt traffic heading for Grove Park shouldn't be required to continue on the A4 and double back to SCR. It's grossly unfair on the residents of Heathfield Gardens and Barrowgate Road that traffic is signposted their way.

Mark Evans ● 1618d

Michael, just seen your earlier reply. I agree with Jeremy that its a rather strange observation that traffic is lower than the 1970s so that is somehow OK? You are correct to point out the little red circle on a lorry that 'prohibits' HGVs from using the Barrowgate route, though there is no enforcement such as for example width limiters as you see in other areas. It still leave plenty of vans and cars that can and do use this route, a volume that logically must have increased due to the GP traffic restrictions.HGVs are able to exit the A4 and head up Heathfield Gardens without any restriction at all, not even a little red ring. And lots of them do use this route, there is a steady stream alongside lots of vans and cars every day. I do agree with your point that it does not take many vehicles to fill up a  residential road like Barrowgate. So what are then the criteria to decide which residential roads become traffic free? I presume you supported the closure of western end of Wellesley and Stile Hall Gardens, and the barrier on Staveley. So why not oppose TFL signposting traffic along a residential road, or allowing HGVs to run unchecked up another residential road past an infant school? Are there some objective criteria at play here or something else? As I believe you noted funds are limited, so why does for example Staveley deserve no traffic, but roads like Barrowgate and Heathfield Gardens not?  Its helpful to understand the process and criteria. Thanks

Bill George ● 1618d

Bill,The history is that LB Hounslow applied for and got funding in 2019 for the S Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood project to address through traffic in that area.As to why LB Hounslow picked that area and not others, I really don't know. However one reason may be the through traffic on some roads in that area is likely to have been significantly more than Barrowgate Rd (Hartington Rd 8k vehicles per day, Staveley Rd 6k vehicles per day..).  LBH did extensive traffic surveys of the S Chiswick area pre-Covid, and I'm assuming also had a view of possible measures.  So when the funding situation all changed following Covid, LBH would have been in a better position to make the case for funding a recognised project compared to an area which hadn't been looked at in as much detail.The funding to address the west end of Wellesley and Stile Hall came from Cycleway 9.  Originally the plan was for C9 to go down CHR to Chiswick roundabout however that was changed around 2016 to go along Wellesley instead.  The money saved from not putting in protected cycle lane the full length of CHR meant the route could reach Hounslow Town Centre.  With the cycle route along Wellesley, there was no way there could be access to the S Circular from Wellesley and Stile Hall as they were full of queuing cars every evening.  TfL budget has been set every 6 months so there has been no long term view of funding.  As C9 construction had already been started pre-Covid, it was a priority to progress it, but TfL's budget currently runs out in June and nothing is committed beyond then.As to how to get local traffic addressed, there is no simple answer as it depends on availability of funding and other priorities.  Given council elections are coming up, I'd suggest contacting candidates for your ward and ask what their position is.

Michael Robinson ● 1618d

Expensive measures aren't really necessary in this case. All that needs to be done is a sign is taken down.

Mark Evans ● 1618d

If funds are limited, why was £110,000 wasted on the Staveley Road permanent barrier? Was that sort of spending justified?  Hanif Khan apparently doesn’t know about Staveley Road , when asked for a comment when he was canvassing recently

Maggie Dodge ● 1618d

Says it all Hanif Khan can’t even be bothered to understand the damage he is doing in chiswick, very sad he clearly isn’t fit for office.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1617d

This junction and the signs diverting traffic onto local residential roads are the responsibility of TfL and nothing to do with Hanif Khan as far as I am aware. If the issue with junction capacity at Hogarth Roundabout is the reason for the Barrowgate Road diversion that may also mean that ultimately he was required to restrict access to Grove Park off the A316 by TfL. In which case the damage being done to Chiswick is down to having a motorway/major A road running through the middle of it.

Mark Evans ● 1616d