Forum Topic

Russell Pearson · 04/12/2023 10:27:00

new.ChiswickW4.com Communtity Forum Topic posting

Burlington Lane fiasco

John Todd is right“He called for a rethink alongside other Grove Park schemes, and for the replacement of the council’s current “piecemeal” measures with a single scheme which allows for access only for drivers registered in the borough, as well as their visitors, similar to that implemented in Hammersmith and Fulham.”I suggested similar around 3 years ago. They have the technology to do it. But maybe not the skills. Or the will.

Russell Pearson ● 1256d89 Comments

So almost nobody* wanted thousands of vehicles per day diverted off the A4 and through the residential roads of Grove Park? (*With the honourable exception of Councillor Biddolph and the Tory Councillors of course.)That’s a shock. I thought the silent majority (90%+) were against LTNs? It is inconceivable that people don’t want more pollution and death on their local roads, but that’s the problem with a silent majority: they don’t speak up.

Ed Saper ● 1256d

What people want is something that works. What we have is a make it up as you go along noddy traffic scheme. This latest flip flop over Burlington Lane sums up the charade that passes for traffic management.

Russell Pearson ● 1256d

I've just had a look at what has been implemented in Hammersmith and Fulham and it seems like the ideal solution in that it stops rat-running but retains access for local residents and visitors.Could any of the supporters of the current Grove Park fiasco explain why a similar system would not work ? I am genuinely curious.

Simon Tranter ● 1256d

Very well played ….

Paul Campbell ● 1256d

i really don't understand the rational of opening Burlington lane to evening rush hour traffic - surely that negate the WHOLE point of the LTN AND diverts rush hour traffic down a wholly unsuitable narrow road - Staveley Road East is far far wider = safer. It's insane. Either leave it alone, or open Staveley back up, or create some kind of visitor permit scheme. Not this dogs dinner

Ceinwen Mailvagnam ● 1256d

All I want is that my children can come to see me - their sat nab is not telling them correct details - in the past they have been fined !!! I saw a woman with 2 young toddlers sitting on her lap in the front of her bike today unbelievable- on a road going down to grove park on the road .. What next .

Helen Bamberger ● 1256d

Even a dog wouldn’t have this mess for dinner. which is why, not one of the scrutiny committee voted for it.“Labour councillor for Chiswick Riverside, Amy Croft, said that the council had “failed to properly communicate the scheme” and that it had to “own up to that.”When it was put a vote, eight councillors were opposed with just one abstention.”

Russell Pearson ● 1256d

Whilst looking for some delightful Chopin piano music on YouTube last night ...I stumbled across a recording of Hounslow Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting.I was quickly turned off. The Chairman should be standing up to deliver his monologue introduction... know the names of his Committee Members.... not refer to John Todd as "Mr Toad"! etc.. and after laying down the law about Councillor's 5 minutes slot etc..allowing Ms Dunne to say "UM"every 10 secondsI was appalled.

Jim Lawes ● 1256d

Much like you gaslighting a woman on twatter today for wearing a wig which was likely to be a result of chemo. I unfollowed and blocked you there, wish I could do the same here. https://twitter.com/PauloCampbell/status/1646147818040569858

Ben Halloren ● 1256d

Think that’s a reference to Mr Campbell. Just seen his Tweet, and another good reason for not using that platform. What a horrid place it’s become. And well before Musk bought it.

Russell Pearson ● 1256d

Well it was good to hear that common sense prevailed and the Burlington Lane reopening was ditched. That it was suggested in the first place does seem to indicate significant problems are developing and I was shocked to learn that Chiswick Gators are moving - that'll be a huge loss to the local community.While extending access to carers is obviously a great idea, there is no detail as yet how this will work but, given the nature of the way the care industry operates, there seems to be little alternative to a system in which residents can give access to vehicles on an ad hoc basis. Once that is set up it begs the question why the same can't be done for deliveries, visitors, unpaid carers and trades people. They will be driving into the area anyway so making them drive further benefits nobody and causes more pollution and congestion.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1249d

Fiasco indeed. Every supposed solution, creates other/different problems. This is obvious from every discussion since they introduced these road closures. They have never been fair, have never worked well, and the only benefit is to the Council in the form of revenue, or those who for selfish reasons, want their road closed to others road users, who have legitimate rights to the use of these roads. Why is it not obvious that the only fair solution is to return things to how they were before the road closures. No need for expensive permit schemes, no more confusion and fairer for all, If evaporation was the objective, its failed, so admit that and do the decent thing Hounslow and HCC

Maggie Dodge ● 1249d

Funnily enough not everyone wants everyone else from everywhere else to drive down their road.

Philippa Bond ● 1249d

So introduce an ANPR scheme similar to LBH&F

Michael Good ● 1249d

It's over. All bargaining and negotiations are done. South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood is finally secure and we can all just get on with enjoying it. Good luck to those who look on with envy and a saucer of sour milk on me for the embittered drivers mourning the loss off their favourite routes.

Paul Campbell ● 1249d

Absolutely correct, I do hope the SOTG society and others who opposed the partial Burlington Lane reopening are happy now

Michael Good ● 1249d

Jeremy, I agree it was the right decision, but I think the reopening of Burlington Lane was proposed for much the same reason that King Solomon suggested that a baby be cut in half - to clarify the true feelings of those involved and hence make reaching that right decision rather easier.

Tom Pike ● 1249d

They're getting it ready for Microwaveing!!

James Dow ● 1249d

Word in the Grove is it’s a stitch up, and we’ve all be dunne up.

Russell Pearson ● 1248d

Tom, I don't think there is any ambiguity about the views of residents. They want all the benefits of the scheme with none of the downside.Cllr Dunne seems to be dead set against a visitor permit scheme but there clearly are serious and growing issues with access. The Chief Officer's 'Decision' was an attempt to deal with this and probably the only viable proposal giving the situation.We are left with the question of why, if you are setting up a system for the ad hoc exemption of carers, you shouldn't just extend this to all visitors? What is the benefit of not doing so?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1248d

This was exactly the same question I asked on 12th April on this thread, and funnily enough not one single person replied !

Simon Tranter ● 1248d

Everybody is bored of giving the same answers Simon. Your question has been answered here and elsewhere numerous times. This has been going on for three years and it's time to move on. I wonder why people who have been asking for exemptions for carers are not shouting from the rooftops about their success in persuading the Council. They should be really happy with their win. Curious they don't appear to be ... if I was feeling uncharitable I might think many just used the word "carers" as displacement for "I don't want any restriction or inconvenience to my own driving or that of any of my friends or family or anybody else who I might like to come to my house".As I said it's done now and I look forward to seeing the Council extend C9 through to Hounslow and implement more LTNS across the Borough.

Paul Campbell ● 1248d

Simon, there was something of an answer given to your question by Cllr Katherine Dunne who said at the meeting, that unlike H&F Council, the aim was not simply to prevent people cutting through the area but to discourage car use by residents by making driving more difficult.This does of course beg the question of, why if the council genuinely believes this is a policy approach that could work, it is not being implemented widely across the borough and initiated in an area which has comparatively low private car use combined with relatively poor public transport options.There seems to have been a significant problem developing with carers, who are often rotated and not always familiar with the area getting PCNS, and also finding it hard to keep to care schedules because of the long detours often needed.It is to the council's credit that they have acknowledged the problem and committed to deal with it although the level of their actual commitment has to be measure by how workable a solution they deliver.This can really only be done by the provision of a simple online form plus a phone system that will always be answered to register the car registrations of visiting carers. Once this system is in place, the question is what is the justification from excluding other vehicle trips into the area from an exemption list. Perhaps you could argue not allowing visitors to use the restricted roads might encourage them to come by bus or train but that doesn't really work for deliveries or trade vehicles working in the area.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1248d

It's hardly to Hounslow's credit that they have acknowledged the problem when the problem was obvious from the very start.Clueless is more like it.

Adrian Irving ● 1248d

Perhaps, but the specific issue of carers may have got lost in the general noise around the issue. Those dependent on carers are often not in a position to highlight their problems on forums or social media.It is your prerogative to give the council no credit at all for this belated action but could it be better to reserve judgement until we see details of what they are proposing?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1248d

There are far more carers who do not work for agencies but are looking after relatives or friends without being paid. How will these people get exemption from the restrictions?

Diane Brown ● 1247d

No detail has been released on the proposal to expand exemptions to carers. Cllr Dunne just outlined it as a general principle at the beginning of the week at the cabinet meeting. She may have wanted something positive to say after the failure of the bid to reopen Burlington Lane and underestimated the complexities of implementation but she has committed herself to doing something.There is a strong argument that visitor exemptions should be universal. Once you try to determine worthy and unworthy cases you inevitably get small injustices.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1247d

LBH had proposed a partial reopening of Burlington Lane which would have made access easier but that was rejected by Conservative councillors and the SOTG society amongst others. They only have themselves to blame if they continue to complain, every option has pros and cons but it’s clear that this scheme now permanent.

Michael Good ● 1247d

You presume again that all carers use cars and not bikes or e-bikes. During the pandemic NHS workers had free use of Santander bikes. They will have the same problems with rotas whatever you do because there are not enough of them and they're visits are often overlap on a rota when ideally they shouldn't.Everybody should by now be able to tell any visitors what they can't do to get to them as they should all know which borough they live in and/or where to find an online map. Simply relying on satnavs has long been shown to be a mistake.

Philippa Bond ● 1246d

Caring for others is exhausting enough without cycling as well,

Janice Evans ● 1246d

Hi Phillipa,When people mention carers, I think there are two main groups of people who they are thinking of- those who work as carers and I presume have several people to visit during the day, or alternatively members of family or close friends who are acting as carers in a non professional role.For the first group, absolutely a good thing to be giving them unfettered access - their schedule is already likely to be tight and longer journey times take away from the time they spend with people. For the second group it might be difficult to distinguish between those who are acting as carers and friends etc who aren’t actually visiting but using Grove Park etc as a cut through. Don’t know the answer… maybe allow everyone living in GP to have one or perhaps two visitors every day who can be registered on the day as being exempt? The resident could allow the visitors to self register as not everyone in GP would be able to do the registration process themselves.Opening the area back up to all doesn’t look like it’s ever likely to happen.

Andrew Jones ● 1246d

Andrew In some cases there’s a lot more involved in looking after a patient in the home.When dealing with end of life care at home you can be dealing with several agencies. Carers who attend 3 to 4 times a day for every day needs of the patient. Community Matrons and district nurses.Palliative care team can involve doctors nurses occupational therapist and Physiotherapists.Then you have the Marie Curie nurses who are on call 24/7, some will even stay the night to give the relatives a rest from their own caring duties. Or the Macmillan nurses. So for one very I’ll patient at home there can be an army of medical professional s attending that one house hold.How the LBH is going to arrange for them to enter the south. Chiswick area is mind blowing, baring in mind that the Marie Curie Nurses are based at Ealing Hospital and cover Ealing and Hounslow. Call for assistance to the two Nurses that are on duty in the middle of the night and you can find them out at Northolt Airport assisting a patient there as that comes under Ealing so they probably needs a 100 passes to get from there to Chiswick. Sorry life has become cheap for the agency’s that wants us to be more healthy.Their basically slowly killing us all off with knee jerk reactions to government plans and money.

Bernard Allen ● 1246d

Rumours going around theirGoing make an updated, version of the Stepford Wives.in the Grove Park area, sometime soon.!

James Dow ● 1246d

Bernard, All those people you described are what I referred to as professional carers. It should be easy (in principle) to have their details put on a similar database to one where all the Grove Park resudents' car details are on.The second group (family or friends undertaking an unpaid caring role are the ones I suggested might be limited to 2). And even if there are 3 or more visiting on a particular day, their most convenient entry point is unlikely to be one that is restricted for ALL 3 or more.

Andrew Jones ● 1246d

"Call for assistance to the two Nurses that are on duty in the middle of the night and you can find them out at Northolt Airport assisting a patient there as that comes under Ealing so they probably needs a 100 passes to get from there to Chiswick."Bernard, every road is accessible by car. The number of passes required to get from Northolt to Grove Park is zero. The proposal is to allow carers to take shortcuts on certain roads that are access only for local residents.If a nurse is travelling "in the middle of the night", then traffic is going to be light and they have no need to take shortcuts.What is "mindblowing" is that you would completely misrepresent restrictions to prevent rat runners for the benefit of local residents as some sort of plot for "killing us all off".

Ed Saper ● 1246d

Well, some do, but they are doxxed, abused and worse by some of the nastier elements of the "I must be able to drive my car whenever and whereever I like" brigade.

Paul James ● 1246d

"Stepford wife"The term "Stepford wife" entered common use in the English language after the publication of Levin's book. It is generally used as a derogatory term for a submissive and docile wife who seems to conform blindly to the stereotype of an old-fashioned subservient role in relationship to her husband.At least Ed had had something to say about my post, what's your excuse for your post or was it just sarcasm.

Bernard Allen ● 1246d

As ever, you just make an assumption These nurse don’t all live in some centrally located home. They come from all over London. Often they are called out at very short notice.But when you or someone in your family needs some assistance, and itvwill happen, don’t expect any outpouring of support here, Ed Saper.

Simon Hayes ● 1246d

I am in total agreement with John Todd and have been wondering why a scheme like this has not been implemented already. Having ANPR cameras that allow access only to cars registered to a Chiswick address makes perfect sense and would solve the confusion and problems over the LTNs immediately, yet whenever I have suggested it in the past I have been accused of being a Chiswick elitist. Comments like that don't help at all and usually don't come with an alternative solution either.

Chris Blackwell ● 1246d

As ever, you post without engaging brain, Simon.You didn't even have to read Bernard's post as I quoted from it. Did you ever get a response to your all caps letter to the BMA? At what point did you realise your accusations that I was killing my patients were a little wide of the mark?!

Ed Saper ● 1246d

I am probably going be corrected but the main objective of these selective permissions is to stop rat running, correct? (school streets is another question)To me this suggests that traffic is using the shortest route between A and B therefore confining it mostly to one of two roads.I can understand people living on these routes being engaged but is it not the truth the vast majority of residents of Grove Park living elsewhere are unaffected. A squadron of tanks could pass alone the rat run and they would be oblivious.I have to wonder, is this another case of sledgehammer/ nut ?

Adrian Irving ● 1245d

There are no restrictions for anybody entering Grove Park by car on any road in the middle of the night.

Paul Campbell ● 1245d

I have made the same suggestion as Chris we have the technology let’s get smart and use it. Local people should be able to use their local roads and this should apply to all LTN’s. This seems the most sensible, logical answer to protect the local areas from commuter traffic whilst supporting their community’s who pay council tax. The concept of channeling traffic and creating bottlenecks is utter madness. There used to be the idea that you keep traffic moving sensible and pragmatic. We need smarter commercially led people on our councils.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1245d

I absolutely agree. Those (in Hounslow) who restrict road access in Chiswick do not live in Chiswick and do not have to live with the consequences, of congested traffic and bottlenecks, increased pollution, and loss of friends and family who do not want to risk fines. Hounslow council do not help us or even listen to us and our Chiswick counsellors.

Victoria Lynch ● 1245d

They use some software from WSP called Taranto I believe. It’s pretty sophisticated, if you know how to use it correctly. It’s used in ULEZ and for CPZ too.https://www.wsp.com/en-om/services/traffic-supporthttps://tarantosystems.com/clean-air-zones/https://hounslow.tarantopermits.com/Account/Login

Russell Pearson ● 1245d

Why don't you contact your Councillors to make sure that all the info you need to get around is clear and available and is ip to date on the Council website?

Philippa Bond ● 1245d

It is worth restating that Cllr Dunne explicitly stated that she is opposed to a visitor permit scheme because the South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood Scheme is not simply about reducing ratrunning but also aims to discourage vehicle use generally. The recent meeting was the first time I had heard anyone from Hounslow Council confirm this was the aim of the policy.Putting aside the question for now as to why, if the council believes that making things more difficult for drivers is a good way to reduce congestion and pollution, measures of this nature are only being introduced in Chiswick, this is why Cllr Dunne said she is opposed to a visitor permit scheme.However, there is an illogicality built into the approach. If you want to discourage driving then most of the gains you might expect to receive would be from changed behaviour by residents. But they have been given exemptions.Changing visitor behaviour is likely to be far more difficult because many of these trips couldn't be done by other means e.g. deliveries, carers, services, family visitors from outside the area. Of those that could they will tend to be one off so, even if a person decided to make a journey by public transport rather than by car, it would be a one off with no ongoing benefit.It therefore seems to me highly likely that making things more difficult for visitors will reduce congestion and pollution because the reduction in the number of trips will be minimal and outweighed by the extra miles that people need to travel to enter the area.Cllr Dunne is not so dogmatic that she thinks making the lives of carers difficult is a good thing but once you have accepted the principle that there are 'good' visitors and 'bad' visitors to the area, it becomes difficult to draw a line. The solution in Fulham is to provide an app and always available helpline to register visitors' registrations to give them exemption. The app is operated by Ringgo and is apparently quite easy to use.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1244d

Here's a real-world example of how daft the current scheme is:I am in a lift-share rota with 3 other parents to get 4 boys to and from sports fixture on a Saturday morning which involves going down the A316 to a location which is not easily accessible but public transport. 2 boys (including my son) live north of the A4 and 2 live in Grove Park. Before the restrictions came in the return journey was easy - turn left into Hartington Rd, drop the 2 GP boys off, then cross the A4 at SCR. Now I have to go all the way up to the Hogarth roundabout, left onto the A4 and then into GP. I have worked out that I actually now drive a greater distance in GP than previously, in addition to sitting in a slow moving queue of traffic to actually get to the Hogarth roundabout. Madness.

Simon Tranter ● 1244d

Did Hounslow accurately quantified the number of visitors that used the now restricted access roads prior to implementing the scheme I wonder?A figure not to be confused with so called rat runners.I would be fascinated to know how or if this was done because without knowing the extent of the issue justification becomes a little tricky.Hopefully Councillor Dunne had the figures at her fingertips before implementation unlike the value of the fines issued when asked at the Area forum.

Adrian Irving ● 1244d

Before the measures were implemented there was a traffic survey of the S Chiswick area that used about 36 cameras covering every road entering and leaving the S Chiswick area and numberplate recognition can then track how the vehicle travelled through the area.So for the roads along the A316, the % of through traffic was Hartington Road (84%), Staveley Road (90%) and Burlington Lane (90%).So using Staveley Rd as an example, 90% of vehicles using the junction of Staveley & the A316 drove straight through the area. This was mainly to the other end of Staveley for Sutton Court Rd and the A4 but there were also secondary rat-runs where vehicles got to the A4 via Eastbourne Rd or Harvard Hill to avoid the traffic lights on SCR.Again using the example of Staveley, the figures mean that 10% of traffic at the A316 junction was local, meaning the vehicle journey started or ended within the S Chiswick area.More detailed analysis can be done based upon the times vehicles took between the cameras, so if they took more than a certain time, you could assume that the vehicle stopped so could classify the vehicle as making a local rather than a through trip. However the times showed that the vast majority of vehicles just drove through the area as quickly as possible.

Michael Robinson ● 1244d

Rather dubious deductions. But Michael - Why did the company collecting the data decide to share it with you?

Russell Pearson ● 1244d

I was right then, the measures were mainly to discourage rat running. If the cameras can pick up through traffic why not use them to impose fines? The relatively low number of visitors would then to be free to come and go.

Adrian Irving ● 1244d

The survey data using individual anonymised vehicle registrations clearly showed the volume of traffic using Grove Park as a bypass for Hogarth roundabout, the heaviest used ratrunning routes and how little traffic was actually accessing the area compared to vehicles driving straight through.I got the survey data because I asked the council if they would send it to me. I asked them politely, using my real name. Surely you know that Russell from the FOIs your tinfoil hat wearing friends did?This may seem like a novel approach compared to your Onesie chums, who, as you know, are still bombarding the council with anonymous and increasingly batshit crazy emails. Although I expect anything with OneChiswick in it now gets blocked by spam filters.

Michael Robinson ● 1243d

I agree that these OneChiswick emails appear increasingly deranged but they aren't representative of the concerns of most people in the area.Your numbers show that ratrunning accounted for the overwhelming proportion of traffic in the area so what is the argument against a visitor exemption scheme now?

Francis Rowe ● 1243d

My guess is that the complexity of the systems and processes involved with setting up and managing visitor permits for camera enforcement is a lot more complicated that some think.I don't know what would be involved but my approach is usually to err on the side that things are more complicated than people think rather than a simplistic 'how difficult can it be?' based upon no knowledge.I don't believe LBHF is implementing visitor access for their proposed LTN schemes (happy to be corrected). A visitor needs to use certain streets to access certain areas - they can't drive through from any street to access any area.

Michael Robinson ● 1243d

LBHF has indeed implemented visitor access for their schemes, which are actually in place rather than being proposed. The point about a visitor needing to use certain streets to access certain areas is that this does not require the person being visited to register the number plate of the visitor. However, if the person being visited does register the number plate of the visitor, they can access from anywhere.It's all documented in great detail here: https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/clean-air-neighbourhoods/south-fulham-clean-air-neighbourhood-projectOne aspect which really stands out is that the final design was the outcome of a collaborate engagement between all stakeholders, rather than a dogmatic imposition. On top of that, data shows that overall traffic is down by 23% - so entirely consistent with Cllr Dunne's stated objective.I simply do not understand why a similar scheme would not work in Grove Park.

Simon Tranter ● 1243d

The LBHF scheme does include full visitor access through an app supplied by Ringgo. This is no more complicated than the app based visitor parking systems implemented by most councils.The reason that this has not been introduced is that Cllr Dunne is against visitor access because she believes this will discourage driving by residents and reduce congestion and pollution in the area. Her intention appears to be to introduce a very limited access system for carers who already have parking permits for Grove Park CPZs who I now understand make up the minority of carers visiting the area.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1243d

The LBHF LTN areas are considerably smaller geographically than the S Chiswick area.In the LBHF schemes I've seen, there are no proposals to filter roads that have 6k+ vehicles per day on them which was the case with Hartington, Staveley and Sutton Court Rd.If the approach was to divide the S Chiswick area into smaller areas but keep Hartington Road, Sutton Court Rd and Thames Rd as the through routes then it would be much easier to implement. e.g. in the LBHF LTN proposals for the Brackenbury area they are keeping Paddenswick Rd as a through route and I think it has a lot less traffic than Hartington Rd had.Despite your claims of "collaborative engagement" you will find articles in The Sun with residents in the LBHF scheme claiming "it feels like we're living in North Korea" and there was an article in the Daily Mail 2 weeks ago saying the LBHF scheme "has left businesses on their knees".(I don't really want to link to The Sun and Daily Mail to avoid giving them clicks but people can google if they want to)LBHF are also consulting at the moment with an LTN in the Brackenbury area and I hear from friends who live there that the LBHF officers are being harangued by residents who object to any restriction on driving, needing to register etc.All that shows is that any restriction on driving will mean objections and LBHF is no different from Hounslow in that regard.

Michael Robinson ● 1243d

Carers are not issued parking permits in Hounslow. There is a carers' permit which a resident can buy for £70 per annum but it is not specific to a particular vehicle, so while it can for parking, it doesn't exempt the carer from the traffic restrictions. District Nurses do get exemptions if they are registered on the system as working in the borough.As individual car registrations are not registered for carers and they change all the time, I can't see how the current system can be adapted to admit carers. Carers from agencies not familiar with the area are picking up fines and if you add to this the extra cost of the ULEZ which some of them have to pay everyday, their take home pay is severely eroded. This means they can't get financing to buy a replacement car that doesn't incur the charge. Sadly, when politicians draw up these measures, they never seem to take account of the impact on the social care system.

Diane Brown ● 1242d

Thank you for the explanation Diane. That has cleared up a few issues that I had been finding confusing.It will be interesting to see how the council decide to operate carers' permits. If they charge and allow only companies to apply then few actually will. If they make it free and allow individuals to apply then this would also mean parking would be covered and result in a loss of revenue for the borough.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1241d

Simon Tranter, I completely agree.I have 2 kids that need dropping off and picking up from chiswick train station daily. My GP is in GroveP, my nominated chemist for presciptions is in GroveP and my Dentist. My wifes GYM is in GP about 40 metres from the A316! She used to go there, then up to the COOP or to big Sainsbury. Now she has to go back to the A316, hogarth, SCR and back to near where she started!We live south of the A4 near the Black Lion pub. It used to be really easy to get to these, now we now find ourselves doing more miles in grove park and the A4 than we ever did. If the A4 has a traffic Jam, or extra busy on a friday I'm in danger of not being able to pick them up on time. I'm not sure what it achieves as some people get less traffic from us (not sure who as hardly any houses on stavely) but some houses get about 30%+ more. I don't even see why it should be a LTN.

Nik Solomon ● 1241d

Michael Robinson: "Again using the example of Staveley, the figures mean that 10% of traffic at the A316 junction was local, meaning the vehicle journey started or ended within the S Chiswick area."And here we have the statistical fudge, Michael has redefined "local". It is not good enough to define "local" as being a Chiswick resident - that probably wouldn't produce the results Michael wanted. Someone who lives on the north side of the A4, say less than 100 yards north of the A4 is not a "local", even though they are probably geographically closer to parts of S. Chiswick then many people living in S Chiswick are to each other.It is time to call this redefinition for what it is, nonsense. Chiswick has a very long history of being a single community with reasonably well defined boundaries - everyone who lives in Chiswick is a Chiswick local for every single part of Chiswick

Justin Stephenson ● 1241d

NikIn answer to your question, it's an LTN precisely to reduce the number of short journeys by car that pollute, endanger and congest our roads.You're a 9 minute cycle ride from Chiswick station, your wife is a 10 minute cycle ride from her gym. Get a bike. You'll never be late again.

Andrew Walmsley ● 1241d

I don't have the numbers of "visitors" that were entering via the restricted roads prior to the restrictions as all I have seen are estimates of a total expressed as a percentage.I find it hard to imagine the number of "visitors" was actually very high and almost certainly not enough to cause all the problems people are suffering.Ask yourself how many visitors does the average person have in a week? Somewhere between hardly any and not a lot is probably about right.

Adrian Irving ● 1241d

You didn't read Nik's post Andrew. He said his wife would go to the gym then to the shops. You may be able to cycle to the gym, shower change then go to the shops and presumably shower and change when you get home again after carrying all the bags back but most people won't.It probably is the case that by making some people's journeys more difficult they have been encouraged to walk or cycle but it is highly doubtful that the car miles saved are not outweighed by the extra journey time for people required to take longer trips who have no choice but to drive. Your benchmark for success for an LTN 'to reduce the number of short journeys' may only be succeeding by turning them into long journeys.

Francis Rowe ● 1241d

"Ask yourself how many visitors does the average person have in a week? Somewhere between hardly any and not a lot is probably about right."Exactly so why are people badgering the Council to invest money in conferring special privileges on infrequent visitors? We have regular visitors to our house in Grove Park and they have gotten used to driving via Hogarth and Sutton Court Road. They don't moan about it and in fact they think it is usually quicker than their old route via Hartington.People just need to get over themselves and stop expecting the Council to bend over backwards to preserve their unnecessary privileges. And Andrew is right about Nik and his wife getting bikes. His wife can put some panniers on hers and stop off at the Co-Op after the gym. Plus Nik's kids should make their own way to and from Chiswick station instead of expecting their parents to pollute the air and burn the planet. I had to do that when I was a kid. The independence is good for their development not to mention the health benefits of walking or cycling instead of sitting on their backsides in Daddy's car.

Paul Campbell ● 1241d

Paul your round trip to the Alps was probably the equivalent of all of Nik and his family's far more justifiable journeys for at least a year so please don't get all pious on us.

Francis Rowe ● 1241d

Don't be silly. People who go on holiday can still do things to reduce their overall carbon footprint. Going on holiday abroad doesn't exclude anybody from making better choices in their everyday lives to contribute to tackling the climate emergency and not poisoning their own and everybody else's children with their toxic fumes by taking unnecessary short local journeys in their cars. Car lobbyists do get distracted by their irrelavant strawman arguments. Lately I've seen them saying that people who use mobile phones and advocate for active travel infrastructure are hypocrites. Carbrain.

Paul Campbell ● 1241d

Either she doesn't go to the gym very often, or she goes to Sainsbury's too much!Why would I need to shower and change after cycling back from Sainsbury's? I noodle over with panniers on my bike, and don't need to break a sweat - it's a shopping trip, not the Tour de France. What's amazing is the contortions some people will go through to justify the use of cars for such short journeys, and the inconvenience some will endure just to stick to using a car despite such easy alternatives.

Andrew Walmsley ● 1241d

Sounds very much like one rule for you and one rule for other people. Lecturing people about better choices to tackle the climate emergency after going on a skiing holiday and then in the next breath calling people hypocrites is Trump level projection.The reality is most people try to do their bit but you should refrain from the sermons unless you know in detail what motivates them to make the decisions you do. You may feel hard work during the rest of the year justifies deciding to choose the most environmentally costly types of holidays. I would not criticise that choice but by the same logic you use others may feel that after a hard stressful day driving to the gym is justified. It's exactly the same principle with exactly the same outcome other than long journeys are more harmful than short ones. We could all bring our carbon footprint down significantly but our lives might become unbearable as a result.

Francis Rowe ● 1241d

Acting in a responsible way with regard to climate change does not mean sackcloth and ashes. A third of car journeys in London are less than 2km, and 60% have just one person in the car. These are in many cases easily substitutable with walking, cycling or public transport - but unfortunately many people feel unsafe doing this because of the number of cars on the road. Awaiting the 'what if I need to take a fridge to the dump' responses...

Andrew Walmsley ● 1241d

I think that if somebody chooses to fly to Sydney once a year to visit their family they are still entitled to advocate for measures that tackle the climate emergency, reduce air pollution and improve public health. To argue the opposite is ridiculously foolish. Like arguing that car owners are not allowed to support measures that reduce driving. That is why these arguments have gained zero traction over the past five years and why the people making them have no credibility whatsoever with the decision-makers. Arguments like 8000+ cars should be allowed to drive through Grove Park so that somebody's wife can drive the shortest route to the Co-Op after the gym or so that they can drive the shortest route possible to save their children making their 3 mile round-trip every day under their own steam are far more helpful to the cause of active travel campaigners than the car lobbyists realise even after all this time. I know people don't like being told this stuff because motonormativity has made them consider their poor choices to be sacrosanct. Tough really.

Paul Campbell ● 1241d

The problem here Paul is that you work on the assumption that everyone else lacks your virtue and therefore the choices they make are bad and the choices you make are good.While I accept there are lazy people in this world who drive to the gym when there is no need or take kids who could do with the exercise to school, most people do try to make good choices but sometimes, like you with your skiing holidays, practicalities get in the way. You can feel free to castigate people who you know for sure are willfully taking unnecessary journeys but I'm not going to condemn people for their behaviour without full knowledge of their circumstances. When I had younger kids and a job that made me time poor, I racked up more miles in my car than an Uber driver with heavy gambling debts including driving to the gym. These days the last time I was behind a wheel was driving to my in-laws at Easter. I haven't suddenly become a better person, my circumstances have changed.

Francis Rowe ● 1241d

The problem for you Francis is that the Council, TfL, the Mayor and the government all agree with me that society needs to change and they are the ones making the interventions that will over time and as they stack up radically alter how we use urban space and the behaviours of everybody including Nik and your younger self. I know plenty of people like me with young kids who are deliberately making their lives less convenient for the broader good of society. Do I think that makes them better people - yes I absolutely do. They deserve to be commended for breaking the habits of your generation that have caused so much harm to society. Don't be fooled by the absence of their capes - every cyclist you see in Chiswick is a hero. Especially the parents with cargo bikes and even the ones who run the red light at Dukes Avenue. Precisely because they have elected to cause less harm to their fellow citizens by their choice of transport for that journey.

Paul Campbell ● 1241d

It seems that more and more sophisticated technological solutions are being sought to selectively restrict access to Grove Park, creating more and more discussion and disputation, when the old 'analog' solution of putting a barrier across the road would do it overnight and remove all confusion and doubt. Of course the council would loose millions in penalty notices, but that only shows how confusing, ineffective, and inadequate the existing schemes have been. Alternatively, the whole area should be made an 'Except for Access' zone, which would allow all residents and their visitors and deliveries to come and go without convoluted permit arrangements, while penalising through traffic, with some technological solution to monitor it if needed.

Peter Evans ● 1241d

"when the old 'analog' solution of putting a barrier across the road would do it overnight and remove all confusion and doubt."I couldn't agree more. But some entitled drivers in Grove Park and Strand on the Green wouldn't stand for having their personal freedoms compromised in such a way and so the Council gave them the concession of ANPR. Entitled drivers will take any concession and use it to beat the giver with relentlessly. I sincerely hope that if Katherine Dunne and the Council have taken any lesson from the GP scheme it is that drivers will not be appeased with concessions so don't give them any.All of this is moot now anyway. The scheme is permanent in its current form and everybody just has to lump it.

Paul Campbell ● 1241d

"with some technological solution to monitor it if needed."What solution would that be then Peter?It would be great if you could point to any other area in the UK that has implemented "except for access" restrictions across an area of about a square mile covering around 9 entrances and exits to the area.Surely there must be some. It's simple, isn't it?

Michael Robinson ● 1241d

>What solution would that be then Peter?How about WSP’s Taranto? Seems to do a grand job with ULEZ, and the local PCNs, but not sure anyone has counted the access and exit points limit, mind you.https://www.wsp.com/-/media/service/uk/document/wsp-traffic-support-brochure-2020.pdf

Russell Pearson ● 1241d

Come on actually try to think. That is a system that issues a fine if a driver of a prohibited vehicle passes a single point. This forum says it is for intelligent locals. Where are they?

Paul Campbell ● 1241d

>This forum says it is for intelligent locals. Where are they?I’ve spotted a few. But might have missed a couple of numpties on a mission.

Russell Pearson ● 1241d

I don't think you have. It takes one to know one and we have more than enough evidence to know you can't possibly have seen anything intelligent.

Paul Campbell ● 1241d

>we have more than enough evidence to know you can't possibly have seen anything intelligent.Gosh. I will wait for the next MCB News update for more.

Russell Pearson ● 1241d

You have remained reassuringly consistent in your IQ scores since our first exchange four years ago when I had to explain to you why the probability of parked vehicles on Thames Road being damaged by other cars increased with higher volumes of cars using the road. So that’s good.

Paul Campbell ● 1241d

Splendid. Always good to see someone happy.

Russell Pearson ● 1241d

Paul, while we can all applaud your selflessness in making your and your family's lives slightly less convenient for the benefit of the rest of us, it isn't as easy to divide people into good and evil as you think.You come across a bit like some bible bashing preacher telling your neighbours for 51 weeks of the year that the world will end because of their minor sexual improprieties but then going off to spending seven days in a brothel. You then justify this by saying the impact on your soul is 'offset' by the sermonising you have done.

Francis Rowe ● 1240d

That you think that that it is egregious that people who take holidays or own cars could argue that roads should not be engineered to accommodate the people who insist on driving journeys of 1.5 miles every day speaks volumes. Like I said the car lobby doesn't help itself with its absurd arguments and it seems unable to learn from experience.People who walk, cycle or take PT for daily journeys of 1.5 miles are just more responsible citizens than able-bodied people who choose to drive those journeys regularly. That isn't remotely controversial.

Paul Campbell ● 1240d

I adopted cycling twenty years ago as my primary means of transport in London, and I did so because I was incredibly busy and cycling offers a reliable way to get to my destination in time - no traffic jams, or points failures. I live in Chiswick. By bike, Oxford Circus is 30 minutes, Grove Park 10, Richmond 25 - almost always faster than a car, and definitely more reliable. Normal clothes, normal bike, not breaking a sweat. So when I hear people bleat about getting stuck in traffic on the way to the gym, I have zero sympathy. They made a choice to use an inefficient means of transport, and impose the consequences of that choice on the rest of us - noise, pollution, road danger. Whining about being time poor is just nonsense. If they were genuinely time poor, they'd jump on a bike.

Andrew Walmsley ● 1240d

I too used to find cycling a more efficient way of getting about, even using it for work journeys and claiming the 4p a mile bicycle rate! The main problem was the lack of safe places to leave a bike while you were shopping or eating or having a drink or when visiting someone. Leaving £1000 worth of bike fastened to a lamppost just became too nerve-wracking, particularly after the third one was stolen.

Peter Evans ● 1240d