Forum Topic

South Chiswick Traffic Measures

Having had just a quick look through the proposals on the story on the front page it seems like a very well thought out set of measures. It looks set to reduce traffic significantly in the area and most will be displaced onto the A316 where it should have been in the first place. I reserve the right to change my view should someone who understands the area better than me point out flaws that aren't initially apparent but, for the time being, well done to the council and all those local people who took their time to contribute to the exercise.The cause for concern is the mention that many of the schemes are dependent on funding from TfL. Not sure if the collapse in revenues from the public transport side of the operation has a direct effect on funding for surface transport but it can't be helpful.

Paul Corcoran ● 2339d149 Comments

I live on Gordon Rd. To go west on a4/m4, I just drive up harvard hill and turn west. The plan prohibits this. What alternative route do I have that reduces traffic in the area?

Paul Barnett ● 2339d

"The cause for concern is the mention that many of the schemes are dependent on funding from TfL. "The bail-out package provided by the DfT to TfL contains money for redistribution to the boroughs.  The conditions attached to the bail-out package by the government seem to be well aligned with the Liveable Neighbourhoods objectives but Hounslow will still need to make the case as there certainly won't be money for everyone.The DfT are also providing money directly to boroughs, again, with conditions aligned with the objectives for reducing motor traffic and enabling walking and cycling.I assume people in Hounslow will be looking to secure money from one, other or both of these sources.

Michael Robinson ● 2339d

One of the maps shows the proportion of through traffic and local traffic.  Harvard Hill has a very high proportion of through traffic so stopping this will mean a substantial reduction of traffic in the area.  Local traffic using the access to the A4 looks very small in comparison.I've asked Hounslow for the traffic survey data so I can put numbers to this.

Michael Robinson ● 2339d

I agree with Paul Barnett. Rat-running to the A4 via Harvard Hill is an issue during the rush-hour but not at other times. Our neighbourhood (I live in Saint Mary's Grove) is boxed in by two railway lines (SWT and North London lines), the A4 and Sutton Court Road. When SCR backs up (because of an issue north of the A4) or because the Hogarth flyover is closed (and traffic seeks alternative routes), it becomes almost impossible to leave our neighbourhood.That sliproad is vital to us. I believe that this proposal is led by the fantasies of town planners who suddenly have some TfL money to spend - and not by a grassroots demand in this neighbourhood.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2339d

So it is a good job the plans include measures that will reduce traffic at SCR and make it easier to use that junction.If you look through the comments, while some people prioritised convenience of driving, more said they wanted to reduce traffic through the area.

Michael Robinson ● 2339d

I am not sure I understand some of the implications of the proposal. E.g. is it that you can't go further than Cavendish Road along Hartington Road, or that you can no longer travel North on Cavendish Road?  It seems an odd set of proposals, turning Grove Park into a semi-gated neighbourhood and transferring quite a bit of traffic from Hartington Road to Staveley Road for example. I remember some consultation document a while back but the plan seems over-engineered.

Cecile Parfitt ● 2339d

Michael - this was not an easy survey to access or to comment on. Do you know what the response rate was? And is this broken down by street? I have a suspicion that the response rate was not high. How many prioritised convenience of driving? How many prioritised reducing traffic?And most importantly, how many, one way or another, commented on Harvard Hill?

Brendan McCarthy ● 2339d

There are some more comments from locals on the Streetspace Commonplace survey posted in the last couple of days asking for the Council to close Harvard Hill. Here are three:1. "I live on Burnaby Gardens, close to Harvard Hill and I have personally almost been hit twice by speeding cars that use the road as a quick access to the A4.With Burnaby Gardens been a residential road and the majority of the homes on it have young children, and a school (Falcon Boys) right on the Conner of Burnaby Gardens leading to Harvard Hill, surely limiting / restricting access to the A4 should the a priority before someone is injured or worse.I know a lot of us on Burnaby Gardens are extremely concerned about this and would truly appreciate the council’s support in addressing this urgently."2. "Commuter traffic using residential road (Burnaby Gardens) as a shortcut to access A4 westbound. Driving too fast through a narrow residential road which is close to two schools particularly during morning and evening peak hours."3. "Our road is very busy with dangerous drivers speeding up towards/away from the entry/exit point to A4 from Harvard Hill.The children at local schools and my own children are put in danger daily by inconsiderate drivers racing past as they cross the road and get in/out of their parents’ vehicles.Please please please do something"

Paul Campbell ● 2339d

The proposal is for Staveley Road to have a diagonal filter at the junction with Park Road so that you can turn left onto Park Road from either direction but you cannot drive straight through Staveley.

Paul Campbell ● 2339d

Brendan - there is lots of information about the numbers responding and a breakdown of issues by area in the consultation report at https://southchiswicklnmap.commonplace.is/about+ other information as well

Michael Robinson ● 2339d

Except that when you combine the current proposals with the proposals announced a few days ago you end up with the flow of traffic along Sutton Court Road and onto the A4 (or over it) being reduced AND the amount of traffic being forced to take that route being increased.It is as though the intention of the planners is to completely grid lock SCR all the way back to the Town Hall (and if anything else goes even slightly wrong back to the CHR and gridlock all of Chiswick) not just the regular Friday afternoon jam but for as long as possible throughout the week  That part of the proposals is complete nonsense.  Much of the other proposals are fine even if for some journeys that I regularly take will add more time and distance

Justin Stephenson ● 2339d

All the data and relevant numbers are included in the full Report, whoc can be found here: https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/commonplace-customer-assets/southchiswicklnmap/South%20Chiswick%20LN%20Report%20Final.pdf The Traffic Dept have also kept live the original interactive map, including all comments.

Andy Murray ● 2339d

In total there were 518 respondents, 645 comments, 3,296 agreements. 76% of respondents live in the area or nearby with others taking kids to school or working there. 58% of respondents were female; safety is the no. 1 concern and the primary mode of transport is walking.64 respondents in the Harvard Hill and Fauconberg Road area. Safety, traffic volume and traffic speed top 3 issues. Less traffic, slowing down traffic and fewer polluting vehicles the top 3 requested improvements.This is copy and paste from the consltation report on Harvard Hill:"More than a third of suggested improvements in this zone related to restricting access forcars or other methods of reducing traffic. Nearly 20% of open text responses focused onthe Harvard Hill access to the westbound A4, with half these responses strongly supportiveof closing this access and the other half strongly opposing closure, because it would causeinconvenience to residents or displace traffic elsewhere. Of those supporting closure, half ofcomments wanted the road to be closed fully and the other half suggested either makingHarvard Hill one-way or restricting access to residents using number plate recognitioncameras. Responses supporting closure received 54 agreements, whereas responsesopposing closure received 22 agreements."

Paul Campbell ● 2339d

Thanks Michael. It seems to me that the Harvard Hill recommendation has been made on the basis of a very small number of comments (divided 50/50).This would so fundamentally change the neighbourhood west of Fauconberg Road, turning it in effect into a gated community, that the only fair way to proceed would be to conduct a CPZ style consultation. Nothing should happen on the basis of a handful of comments. It would be grossly undemocratic and I hope our Riverside councillors will take note.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2339d

Cecile,but I believe the principle is that the huge volume of through traffic in the area will be prevented by the ANPR at Hartington and SOTG/Thames and discouraged by the diagonal block at Staveley/Park.Local traffic taking a different route will be small in comparison to through traffic, so there should be a large reduction overall.The documents have some traffic figures and as mentioned, I've asked for the traffic surveys to see the actual numbers.

Michael Robinson ● 2339d

Plus the traffic data showing the volume of cars from outside the area using Harvard Hill. The governemnt has issued statutory guidance to the Council to take exactly this sort of measure in the short and immediate term and then consult before determining the permanence of the measures.For the record I am also in that neighbourhood, affected and OK with a detour to a much quieter SCR to go west on the A4.

Paul Campbell ● 2339d

If they can implement ANPR in some streets, then surely this would be a good idea for Harvard Hill and hence only those in the section of Grove Park that borders SCR Court could use it. If there is little local traffic that uses it - then that would work out fine - and deter the rat runners? Although, the people living in Sutton Court Road will have permanent traffic no doubt outside their homes? The ANPR cameras sound good, maybe we should have them on Chiswick High Road and only those with say W4, and some W6/W12 can use the High Road - putting all other through traffic down the A4?

Julie Morse ● 2339d

Brendan, I'm not sure those figures include people agreeing with the comments.My guess is the change will be done as an experimental traffic order which means the closure will be put in place, there will be 6 months consultation and the council needs to decide within 18 months whether to make it permanent or remove it.I don't live in this area so it isn't for me to say what's best.  However I do live on Stile Hall Gardens and we have gone through 4 years and 3 consultations before access to the S Circular was closed.I can predict the debate.  The people most affected by traffic will want it closed.  The people least affected by traffic and who don't want to make a detour will want it open. For SHG I could have told you that beforehand so the consultations provided very little value.Far better to actually do it as part of a trial so there is real information about what it is actually like rather than people's opinions about what it might be like.

Michael Robinson ● 2339d

We were told there would be a review of the CPZ in Elmwood Road after a year.  There wasn't.  Or if there was, then it didn't involve contacting the residents.The Harvard Hill proposal is likely to increase traffic going East along Elmwood Road, as all the traffic west of Fauconberg Road that needs to get to the A4 will now be going along Elmwood Road.  That may be the price we have to pay to stop the rat running, but not everyone is going to benefit.

Al Webber ● 2339d

We live the Grove Park side of Sutton Court Road.  At the moment, if I'm coming back from the A316, I'd turn by Chiswick School and go straight down Staveley and turn right in to Sutton Court Road to park outside our house, but if I'm reading it correctly I would now have to avoid the school road system at end of school time, but can't turn down Hartington instead?  Would I have to pass by the turn at the school, turn left at the end of Burlington Lane, drive all the way down Burlington Lane into Sutton Court Road and then arrive at my house?  Though actually I wouldn't be able to drive straight down Staveley anyway because of the new thing at Park Road? Equally, to go to Brentford, I would go down via Strand on the Green and out at the foot of Kew Bridge, but under these proposals I'd have to turn left out of Sutton Court Road and take the Kew roundabout route instead?  Longer and far heavier on traffic?  Or have I got all that totally wrong?

Rebecca Singer ● 2339d

Unfortunately CHR is also the A315, a recognised main road and not a residential one.Hazarding a guess, CHR traders would be appalled at your suggestions.

Ken Munn ● 2339d

I don't know the reasons why the planners decided upon the different methods but I do know that ANPR is expensive, both initial cost and ongoing costs.A no entry sign or a bollard has minimal initial costs and ongoing costs (a planter will have some ongoing costs to look after the plants).Also so far, ANPR has been used for things like bus gates to only allow buses, and for school streets but there are very few examples of councils using it to manage traffic over a wider area.  It looks like Hounslow are one of the pioneers here and my guess is they will want to limit the number until they understand the issues and how to manage them.I've no doubt that it will become more common but we are at the early stages now.There is another point that while ANPR may prevent through traffic, there will still be a background level of local traffic.  Taking Harvard Hill as an example, if it was closed completely, you could put in a small park there and transform the area completely, maybe a place for kids to play, a community garden, whatever, like an add-on to Harvard Hill rec.With ANPR or even one way access, you couldn't.I suppose it comes down to what people value most, convenience of driving or an opportunity to transform an area by removing traffic almost completely.

Michael Robinson ● 2339d

If traveling from Brentford high street I use Thames Road to get to Riverside drive in dukes meadows.Going by the front page article, it looks like I cannot use that route.Also at a certain time of Day the new school road Road measures seem to stop me from accessing Riverside Drive.At the moment it looks as though its check mate on Houslow Council side from stopping a part of Chiswick getting home without incurring a fine in doing so. Come back Chris C-Freeman

Bernard Allen ● 2339d

I am affected by the traffic build up at the junction of Wolseley Gdns and St Mary's Grove — which is aggravated by the build up along Burnaby Gdns as well — meaning that the traffic sits longer queued up along St Mary's Grove before it can get on to the A4. Not only is there the engine pollution but the noise pollution as well, with cars and vans having their music on full blast! So yes, closing Harvard Hill (and the other proposals) will be massively inconvenient but in my view worth it to cut pollution and make the streets safer. I will just have to plan my journeys better and make time allowances for my journeys.  

Iris Hill ● 2339d

I suspect the through traffic in this area has increased with the closure of Hammersmith Bridge which will not be reopened for years.

Christopher Hugh Dakers ● 2339d

What do you mean Bernard? The school streets are Staveley Road and Edensor Road. You will be able to access Riverside Drive from either north or south on the A316, admittedly without being able to drive along Thames and Hartington Roads.

Paul Campbell ● 2339d

What this thread shows is that what is done (including nothing at all) will not please everybody. Consequently if this was being consulted, there would be consultation gridlock between the many and various points of view, while in the meantime the traffic sewers continued. One thing that these measures will show, for good or ill, is what actually happens when you do something, rather than what a thousand people (myself included) with separate points-of-view, speculate will happen.Suck it and see might be the only timely solution.T'other thing is that no hard infrastructure is involved (apart from a bit of camera wiring) so if it's decided to move stuff around, or even to remove it in the light of experience, that's pretty easy to do.

Ken Munn ● 2339d

But how do I get to the A316 from Brentford?Over Kew Bridge along the south circular to Chalkers Corner and left onto the A316 over Chiswick Bridge.That route is going to be solid The peple attending the Food market are likly to be luberd with a fine for use certain Grove park roads.Sorry Mark Frost and his oppo's have go some of their planning completely wrong, so far they near enough cut off a part of Chiswick from the rest of the borough.Sorry Brentford I can no longer support your local shops. Sorry Acton I can no longer support your new sopping area.I will have to head to pastures new, to centers south of the Hounslow borough.

Bernard Allen ● 2339d

I follow CCF on twitter.  He is loving the changes in Chiswick, the cycle plans, the plans to close roads.I won't repeat what he has said about some councillors now that he doesn't have to be polite to them.

Michael Robinson ● 2339d

Michael you seem well up on this subject,I cannot work it out, but I feel that the Riverside Drive area (Dukes Meadows) has been cut off from the rest of Chiswick.Or at least you could end up with a fine for driving through Chiswick on the way home.Ask CCF what he thinks of his trainee MF plans.

Bernard Allen ● 2339d

One thing I was worried about was the closures of Wellesely and Stile Hall, with queues back along CHR. I thought that SatNavs would direct drivers down Sutton Court Road, then Harvard Hill down to SOTG and through to Kew Bridge. As far as I can see, under these plans that will not be possible — I hope!

Iris Hill ● 2339d

I can't see any measures to improve the situation for pedestrians and cyclists along Riverside Drive and the hazardous junction with Staveley Alexandra Gardens.There are more comments on the map raising concerns about that junction than there are about the tunnel. So why close the tunnel, but do nothing for the people, including many families who have to cross the junction to take their children to Cavendish school, The Riverside Nursery, Meadows Montessori and Dukes Meadows Children Centre? Closure of the tunnel will send more cars along Riverside Drive, as visitors to the Riverside Club from Richmond and Barnes currently use Dan Mason Drive.There will be no mid week parking charges or enforcement on Dukes Meadows, so the problem of coaches and lorries using it to park up will continue and those large vehicles will also go across the junction. What is it about people living in Alexandra Staveley Gardens that means that they aren't seen worthy of measures to protect them and their kids from high volumes of fast moving traffic, including heave vehicles, across a junction with no give way point.

Kathleen Healy ● 2339d

All that does is moves the west bound traffic along Staveley Road into the Station end of Park Road and then creates a major problem turning into Burlington Lane. Just what is the point of that? Restricting access off the A316 into Staveley Road would be a far better solution.

Jim Wood ● 2338d

You seem to have missed the Mad Diagonal in Staveley Rd at its junction with Park Road. And I use Mad because whoever thought that one up is completely Mad. The comment in the proposals that the traffic 'will need to find an alternative route' is of no help at all.

Jim Wood ● 2338d

The theory is that rat-running traffic from the A316 to A4 will no longer use Staveley because of the diagonal block at Park Rd.Access to Staveley from the A316 could be blocked then all access from the A316 to the area N of the railway would be via Burlington.The advantage of doing things as an experimental traffic order with bollards or planters is things can be changed easily.

Michael Robinson ● 2338d

"But how do I get to the A316 from Brentford?"A4 to the Hogarth Roundabout. Take the third exit.

Ken Munn ● 2338d

Jim, excuse me if I say wait and see. I lived in a residential street* in Shepherd's Bush in the 1980s which was rock solid with rat-running traffic every afternoon rush hour. We got bolshie with LBHF and got one leg of the rat-run made one-way against the rat-runners. Utter chaos was predicted. After about 3 days it functioned as if it had been there for ever. There was a rather longer rat-run available, but very few drivers used it - they found sticking to the main road was as quick or quicker. My prediction is that is what'll happen with Staveley. But if I'm wrong it'll be cheap and easy to revert to how it is now.*Minford Gdns with the one-way in Rockley Rd if you want to look it up.

Ken Munn ● 2338d

You got there before me Ken. Bernard could come off at the Porsche Garage as well and drive southbound through Grove Park. Us cyclists are here to provide directions for motorists all week.

Paul Campbell ● 2338d

Ken as there are no hotels open, where am I going to stop overnight?

Bernard Allen ● 2338d

How droll.

Ken Munn ● 2338d

Don’t worry, just look out for the angels protest

Bernard Allen ● 2338d

Only yesterday I explained to these two other auld fellas who claim to have lived in Chiswick for ages how you can avoid most of the lights and junctions on Chiswick High Road. They were flabbergasted.

Paul Campbell ● 2338d

Each one of these proposals has to be considered for what it would mean for the very frequent occcasions when traffic leaves the A316, when the Hogarth flyover is closed. The consequences will be appalling, bottling us up in our homes even more than we are when it has happened up to now.This is toytown planning, wonderfully oblivious of the reality of what it is to live in Grove Park.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2338d

So I have looked at the map on the front page, which is rather lacking in detail.But as a Local resident and not a person who is rat running through the area, it seems that I am going o be penalised for entering Strand on the Green / Thames Road at Kew Bridge and driving the length of Thames Road to exit at Grove Park Road to access the row of shops by Grove Park Bridge on the way home.Then continue over Grove Park Bridge onto Sutton Court Road /Burlington Lane, to turn right into Staveley Road pass Chiswick School to the Traffic lights junction with the A316. Across this junction into Riverside Drive.So I am not rat running I am taking the convenient route home via a local shop to pick up an order and purchase some items on the way home.But it seems that the camera recognition system that is going to be installed on Thames Road will consider me a rat runner and issue me with a fine.Who thought that one up? maybe a Council office rather than a Councilor could explain why they are also going to fine residents as they are outside rat runners.   

Bernard Allen ● 2338d

That's Staveley Road. Staveley Gardens is the other side of the A316. There are no measures proposed to make pedestrians and cyclists in that area safer. The measures proposed will drive more traffic across their streets, so make them less safe add to the already bad congestion on many Sunday mornings, when there are events on the Meadows or the boot fair.I've seen people directing traffic at the junction themselves to try to clear gridlock. Not something I would do and scary to watch, with cars swerving round, but I've seen people doing it in desperation.

Kathleen Healy ● 2338d

I am interested to know where the camera would be situated at the Kew Bridge end of Thames Road. Because it's a one-way road, Spring Grove residents driving to Grove Park and beyond may find themselves in the interesting position of breaking the rules when they leave home but not when they return. I'm hoping that a solution will be that cameras could recognise local resident number plates?

Birna Helgadottir ● 2338d

Can anyone direct me to a link to see the proposals clearly explained. Particularly interested in the diagonal park road and Staveley road. Cannot get my head round this at all. What happens with deliveries, visitors, builders, Particularly if closures on A316, or Kew Bridge or Hartingdon.

Sean Wales ● 2337d

31 people have already signed a petition organised by one of my civic minded neighbourhoods opposing the implementation of these chaotic changes without proper consultation. The link is here https://www.change.org/p/hounslow-council-south-chiswick-traffic-measures

Brendan McCarthy ● 2337d

Obviously I meant ‘neighbours’, not ‘neighbourhoods’!

Brendan McCarthy ● 2337d

Has this type of Diagonal Junction been used anywhere else in West London, and if so with what results.

Jim Wood ● 2337d

It's basically saying "we don't want rat running but we want to drive anywhere we like".Having cake and eating it comes to mind...

Michael Robinson ● 2337d

Even if the wording is untidy, what the petition does express is the reality that most of us had little knowledge of this consultation and that its implications for us are enormous. In the past we have been consulted in a careful and systematic way on the implementation of CPZs. That is the scale of consultation we expect in this case. We do not consider that this consultation has any democratic force. And for that reason it should be set aside in favour of one that does.The petition already has 133 signatures and I suspect it will have many more before long.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2337d

My concern is the lack of consultation. The council has gone from fact finding to implementation without consultation on the proposed measures.For example, the decision to close Harvard Hill northbound was based on a total of 14 comments, of which half were strongly in favour and which half were strongly against.This process has given no opportunity for comment on the implications of this measure for the residents of Elmwood Road or Fauconberg Road, or for the safety implications of increasing traffic beside the Fauconberg Road shops, both of which seem natural implications of forcing A4 traffic this way.

Sarah U Benson ● 2337d

I don’t understand that Sarah. Fauconberg Road is being used as a rat run by commuters cutting through Grove Park from the A316 and using Harvard Hill as a way to avoid the lights at Sutton Court Road. This measure will dramatically reduce the traffic on Fauconberg Road. People living west of Fauconberg Road including me are a tiny fraction of the users of Harvard Hill especially during rush hours. It will be a massive relief for residents on Burnaby Gardens and also St Mary’s Grove.As for consultation. Unsurprisingly most people have missed the fact that the Department for Transport has issued statutory guidance to Councils to implement temporary measures that reallocate road space to walking and cycling and that reduce traffic volumes immediately under Experimental Traffic Orders. Once implemented they are then open to consultation to determine if the should be removed, improved or made permanent. This petition is missing the point. This isn’t a pre-Covid CPZ.Conservative politicians who are pretending that the government has not issued statutory guidance should take note of Shaun Bailey who has been protesting against the reinstatement of the congestion charge, pretending that it was done by Sadiq Khan when in fact it was a condition from government of the TfL funding, and who is now reported as having lost the confidence of his Party and is likely to be substituted as a result. Being anti walking and cycling policies is a career limiting move.

Paul Campbell ● 2337d

I saw a petition with more than 5000 signatures get the level of shrift that it warranted from the Council because it was based on flawed wording and false premises. Nonsensical petitions are unlikely to fare well regardless of how many nodding heads sign them.

Paul Campbell ● 2337d

Councillor Hanif Khan, Cabinet Member for Transport at Hounslow Council said:“The south Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood project was borne of a need to address public safety and quality of life for residents in the area and predates the pandemic. We have had extensive engagement with local residents and analysed traffic data to devise a range of measures that will transform the area into a low-traffic neighbourhood.  It makes perfect sense to implement these measures now before people begin to return to their place of work and children return to school, so that these measures become embedded as the ‘new normal’ and residents seize on the opportunity to switch to walking and cycling more as it will now be safer to do so.”The proposals include;Already delivered as a priority response, closure of Dan Mason Drive to traffic underneath railway line, to ensure a safe route for pedestrians and cyclists is maintained while allowing for social distancing.Strand on The Green / Thames Road: An access only zone to prevent through traffic. The zone is proposed to stretch from the Kew Bridge / Strand on The Green junction, to the junction of Grove Park Terrace / Grove Park Road. Vehicles would be allowed to enter the zone to access residential properties and businesses in the area unchanged, but not to pass through both points as part of a longer journey. This would be monitored by automatic number plate recognition cameras (ANPR) at both entry and exit points to the zone, to enforce against any traffic trying to make a through movement. The feasibility and design work for this scheme is ongoing, details of which will be provided to residents prior to the trial commencing.Harvard Hill: The closure of the road northbound, to prevent access onto the A4 westbound. Turning off the A4 into Harvard Hill will remain in place.Grove Park Primary: A ‘school street’ scheme, designed to restrict vehicle access at school drop off and collection times. These schemes introduce timed closure of roads around schools, to reduce access to schools by car, encouraging walking, scooting and cycling, while bringing additional benefits of improved road safety and air quality. Resident access to properties will be maintained at all times. This scheme would include Nightingale Close and a section of Grove Park Terrace. The extent of the closure is being considered and will be communicated to residents as part of the experimental traffic order process.Hartington Road / Cavendish Road: The introduction of a northbound ‘access only’ restriction, to remove non-residential through traffic. Northbound access to drivers will be open to residents only, via a permitting system. Pre-registered licence plates would be able to continue to travel in a northbound direction. It is proposed that this will be open to residential properties in the ‘CS’ and ‘RV’ controlled parking zones. Non-registered vehicles from outside the zone would therefore have to find an alternative route via the A316. Southbound travel along Hartington Road, and through the zone, would remain unchanged. The details of this proposal will now be developed and shared with residents prior to any trial commencing.Chiswick School: A ‘school street’ scheme, designed to restrict vehicle access at school drop off and collection times. This scheme would include a section of Staveley Road between the A316 and Burlington Lane. The exact extent of the closure is being considered and will be communicated to residents as part of the experimental traffic order process. Existing bus access is proposed to remain unchanged.Staveley Road: A new diagonal road closure at the Staveley Road junction with Park Road. This measure will prevent traffic heading east/west along Staveley Road and north/south along Park Road. It will still be possible for vehicles to turn left from Staveley Road into Park Road, when travelling in both directions. However, any vehicle wishing to continue straight ahead will need to find an alternative route. The junction will remain open for cyclists in all directions.Cavendish Primary School: A ‘school street’ scheme, designed to restrict vehicle access at school drop off and collection times. This scheme focuses on a section of Edensor Road, between the A316 and Edensor Gardens. The exact extent of the closure is being considered and will be communicated to residents as part of the experimental traffic order process. Existing bus access is proposed to remain unchanged.Temporary measures on the Transport for London Road Network, to be requested as part of the Council’s response to Covid-19:Sutton Court Road / A4 junction: explore opportunities for temporary measures that benefit pedestrians and cyclists, including possible temporary traffic signals, changes to existing signal timings, temporary cycle lanes and improved pedestrian crossing points. In order to successfully deliver change at this location, it will be necessary to agree changes to traffic signals managed by Transport for London.A316 / Dan Mason Drive / Hartington Road junction: explore opportunities for temporary measures that benefit pedestrians and cyclists, including possible signal timing changes that allow for a dedicated pedestrian crossing phase. At present there is no green/red signal for pedestrians, which can require crossing between fast moving, turning traffic.A map of the proposals can be found here. It is intended that the first of these proposals are introduced from the end of June, with all measures being in place by September. This is subject to funding being secured from Transport for London. All measures are proposed to be trialled for a minimum of 6 months. The project website also contains more information on the consultation results, the traffic data collected and the explains the proposed measures in more detail. MORE ARTICLES IN THE NEWS ARCHIVE LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW NEWS RSS FEED

Bernard Allen ● 2337d

Paul, I am sure we have different and equally valid perspectives on this, which is why appropriate consultation would be helpful.Just to clarify, how do you see the northbound closure of Harvard Hill increasing the allocation of road space to walking and cycling?

Sarah U Benson ● 2337d

Sarah,You have missed the number of people agreeing with the comments.I don't live in the area affected - I live in Stile Hall Gardens which has just been closed to through traffic and we went through 3 consultations.  They added virtually no value.  They just confirmed that some (the majority) wanted less traffic, others wanted convenience of driving and there isn't a single solution that will keep both happy. What has changed is that reducing traffic in residential areas has a higher priority that convenience of driving and this is from government downwards.The volume of residential traffic is very small compared to through traffic so the key point is getting rid of the through traffic.I asked Hounslow for the traffic surveys and they have given me the data (all 100M of it...) so I hope to put more detailed numbers on this within a few days.

Michael Robinson ● 2337d

The government has told Councils to put in the measures and then consult. We need to adjust our mindset to this new reality.The closure of Harvard Hill is primarily designed for the second objective I stated: reduced volume of traffic. It has become a hot rat run and Fauconberg, Burnaby and St Mary’s, Grove Park Terrace and Wolseley Gardens are bearing the brunt.Remove all of that excess traffic from residential roads and the benefits for walking and cycling will be obvious very quickly.

Paul Campbell ● 2337d

It is for those of us who live in Grove Park/SOTG to decide if consultations add value or not. The CPZ consultations gave their eventual implementation democratic legitimacy. We all had our say.
In as far as any of us knew about this consultation, we thought it was about improving the area around the shops at Grove Park. We had no idea that it was cover for a traffic management scheme.. Almost nobody asked for this. This is a quiet neighbourhood, one of the quietest in Chiswick. Our problems here are mostly sporadic. They certainly don't require this huge overkill.
Any decisions about what happens next should be made in Riverside by us, and by our local councillors. They should not be made by anyone else.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2337d

“ In as far as any of us knew about this consultation, we thought it was about improving the area around the shops at Grove Park. ”Come off it Brendan, the website is quite clear about the objectives.https://southchiswicklnmap.commonplace.is/about“This is a quiet neighbourhood, one of the quietest in Chiswick.“There were 8000 vehicles a day measured on Sutton Court Rd. No other road in Chiswick has as much traffic other than the A4 and Chiswick High Rd.The area is just a big bypass for the Hogarth roundabout.

Michael Robinson ● 2337d

Over 500 people commented on changes to traffic in Grove Park. There were more than 600 comments and more than 3000 agreements to those comments. Nearly 80% of the comments came from Grove Park residents including me. Nearly 60% of the respondents were female. The number one issue raised was safety and the biggest request for improvement was reduction in traffic volume. The residents of Burnaby Gardens are using the latest Streetspace survey to beg the Council to stop through traffic.There is consultation. The government has issued statutory guidance to implement temporary measures immediately and then consult to determine the future of those measures. The government has decided that it is better to comment on what is happening than what different people imagine will happen.If the Riverside Councillors say that they think there should be a consultation before the temporary measures then they are either unaware of their government’s statutory guidance or they are being deliberately disingenuous.

Paul Campbell ● 2337d

A technical question to those of you who sknow about the methodology. How many unique Grove Park residents commented? (I mean without multiple counting of comments by the same people). What checks were there that these were comments by people who live here? My suspicion is that the research did not capture what people who live here actually think.
I know that an open meeting of the Chiswick Area Forum in St Michael's Elmwood Road is not really feasible at the moment. But such meetings are how we've begun to resolve these issues in the past. The fact that we are still socially distancing should not be cover for a deeply undemocratic exercise.
At very least, nothing should be done for as long as the covirus restrictions last. Change, if it is to come, should follow a proper consultation. And whatever Paul  may say, very many of us feel there hasn't been one.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2337d

The 500 people are single instances. Nearly 400 GP residents.I’m not saying there has been a consultation. I’m saying the new process proscribed by the government has consultation AFTER implementation of temporary measures following which they can be removed. Your Councillors are doing you a disservice by not explaining that their Party has issued this new statutory guidance from the Department for Transport.

Paul Campbell ● 2337d

One more question Paul. How did the survey establish that a respondent actually lived in GP/SOTG? The reason I ask is that CPZ consultations have controls that limit participation to the streets affected. What controls applied in this case? 

Brendan McCarthy ● 2337d

I don't know Brendan. Ask Sam about that one.

Paul Campbell ● 2337d

Given that consultation on this Experimental Traffic Order will take place after installation it would be a very good idea to find a way of restricting comments to area residents. That would stop rat-runners commenting what a terrible scheme it is and how it adds time to their journey between A and B where neither A nor B are within Grove Park.

Ken Munn ● 2337d

We must assume, until the Council can show us otherwise, that there was no way in the online survey of discriminating between participants from Riverside and those from elsewhere. Which calls the validity of the exercise even further into question. Those who commissioned the research need to ask themselves how they could have got it so wrong.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2337d

'Those who commissioned the research need to ask themselves how they could have got it so wrong.'You, precisely, illustrate what an EPO circumvents. You assume they've got it wrong. But until it is up and functioning, that is your assumption, not a fact.What you are arguing for is never doing anything, because opposing assumptions will balance each other. Opinion grid lock.

Ken Munn ● 2337d

Brendan, you are making the same mistake that many other Chiswick residents and politicians have made about other schemes. You find it so hard to believe that a lot of people think differently to you that you are looking for a conspiracy theory to explain it away. Occam's Razor: people just think differently to you. The simplest explanation is usually the most accurate.

Paul Campbell ● 2337d

Brendan,I suggest you read the survey, it provides a break-down of postcodes.People aren't forced to provide their postcodes but you can see those.Did you go to the sessions at St Pauls church hall to discuss the plans with officers?  There were 4, I think during September and October of last year.They were well publicised - I can provide you with links in this website and Chiswick Calendar for example.

Michael Robinson ● 2337d

Ken — That's exactly it. I am arguing for doing nothing. There was no spontaneous demand in the area for this. It is externally imposed and I believe it will be opposed by a significant majority here. The solutions it proposes will make our lives worse not better. It would be best if everyone accepted that there is no good solution to the problems on Sutton Court Road, unless you close all left turns on the A316 between Chiswick Bridge and the Hogarth Roundabout. Short of that, whatever way you box and cox it, if the A316 backs up (Hogarth flover closures etc), traffic will somehow find its way to SCR. Speaking of which, it is extraordinary that the report makes little reference to Burlington Lane between Staveley Road and the A316, a notable bottleneck and one that has a real impact on those of us who live in GP.
The other point that I would make is, even if you allowed that this was a legitimate exercise, there is no case for trialling it, until and unless traffic returns to pre-Covid levels. An exercise is lockdown conditions, however modified, would prove nothing.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2337d

QED.

Ken Munn ● 2337d

Brendan,  if you want to do nothing, then why are you arguing for more consultation?

Michael Robinson ● 2337d

How many local residents really were for or against the new Brentford Stadium?I know a lot of supports were asked by there supporters club to take part in the consultation even when they lived in Camberley, Bracknell, Bagshot, Frimley, Fleet and so on.Who's to say that many Cyclist's walkers from outside the Borough took part in the Chiswick consultation, because they use Chiswick as through route from outside the area to their place of work in London.It's them who want their cake and eat it

Bernard Allen ● 2337d

Hang on a minute! If this scheme was first floated at public meetings last September, it can't be a response to the new virus crisis legislation to encourage more road space to be made available for pedestrians and cyclists, temporarily to start with.  It looks as if the council has just pulled an existing traffic management scheme off the shelf so they can claim the special funding.  And this scheme is nothing like that proposed to improve pedestrian access along the narrow shopping streets of Turnham Green Terrace and Devonshire Road, which seem to fit the new rules more convincingly.

Peter Evans ● 2337d

First of all read the following link provided by Richard Jennings and then the FULL report provided by Lbh.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management-act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid-19As a result Lbh has produced a pragmatic Report which it intends to implement under those guidelines. It may not be perfect at the outset but it is an area wide scheme that will ultimately improve South Chiswick's environment. Like it or not we are all going to have to reroute our journeys.

Strand on the green association ● 2337d

Bravo SOGA!

Paul Campbell ● 2337d

"I asked Hounslow for the traffic surveys and they have given me the data (all 100M of it...) so I hope to put more detailed numbers on this within a few days"One would think with a micro-consultation those that spearheaded it like Paul Campbell would have been able to engage neighborhood association leaders who would then have been able to engage with actual neighbors. Small area. Easy to canvass.Given Michael will have the data, I would think he'd share it with those in the area so people of all stripes could pore through it and assess as a community. Otherwise we have to rely on Michael, a campaigner, to feed us whatever his motivated reasoning desires.

David Lesniak ● 2336d

Yes I have engaged with Sam Hearn and also with Gabriella Giles and the Chair of the Riverside Councillors. Spearheaded. Oh stop it with the flattery you tease.Very pleased to see Strand on the Green Association supports the scheme.

Paul Campbell ● 2336d

David,I'm not an Internet Service Provider so won't be sharing the data myself. If anyone wants to get it from Hounslow, there is an email address on the website and they will provide a link to Hounslow sharepoint to download it.  Sharepoint has two factor authentication so if I shared the link, it wouldn't work anyway).Look out for my analysis of the data and given it is publicly available, you are more than welcome to check it for any errors or omissions.As I said, it is about 100M in a couple of hundred spreadsheet tabs covering over 1.2 million readings.

Michael Robinson ● 2336d

Reroute or re-provision.I'm a Brentford resident but have kept my membership of the Roko Gym in Hartington Road from when I lived in Chiswick.I used to drive there but about last September it occurred to me that it would make a lot more sense to cycle - I'd do 25% of my workout getting there and back, save money, save the environment and save congestion. I have cycled ever since that lightbulb moment, rain or shine (and fortunately no snow).I encourage people to make the same choice.Of course all this activity was suspended in March...

Guy Lambert ● 2336d

Surely in the best interests of democracy comprehensive Consultation should take place and the results of that Consultation should determine whether or not the scheme goes ahead. Thing is that putting a 'temporary' scheme in place is that they frequently  have a habit of becoming permanent whether not those who it affects actually want or support it.Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't pushing this scheme through without Consultation due to a deadline set by Government that if temporary schemes aren't put in place by the Government deadlines, then the local authorities will not be eligible for the available grants ?The other thing I'd like to question, that pro scheme supporters have made much of,  is the phrase "Statutory Guidelines" - isn't that a contradiction in terms ? Surely it's  either Statutory or a Guideline ?I'm just asking the obvious questions.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2336d

The documents have been put on here for all to read. Read them they are not long and they explain everything you are asking. There have also been multiple explanation from posters including me.I am afraid that opponents of this process for consultation can only blame the government. There is no other means of implementing schemes now. Same for critics of the terms - write to the DfT with your complaints.There is consultation. It just happens after the temporary measures go in for a six month period under the new legislation. The local Councillors issued a press statement supporting the government's new policy so maybe write to them to ask why they are in favour?

Paul Campbell ● 2336d

Guy, as you are commenting on here, I hope that all residents with Grove Park residents parking permits will be be allowed to use the section on Strand on the Green between Kew Bridge and Grove Park Terrace.If the idea is to discourage rat running, then it's the people going through who are the issue, not the residents of Grove Park.  If I do need to travel from Brentford to get home, making me go up to Chiswick roundabout and along the High Road is a massive detour.  It's not just inconvenient, it's creating unnecessary congestion and adds a lot of CO2.I'm saying this as someone who cycles a lot - I estimate that I have cycled over 30,000 miles in London, but there are times when you need to use the car.We should be looking to stop the through traffic without unnecessarily penalising the residents of Grove Park.

Al Webber ● 2336d

Consultation Report & Priority MeasuresPosted on Jun 8th 2020 by Tom SharlandView post and shareHi All,Following the update on the project last month, I’m able to confirm that the consultation report has now been uploaded to the ‘About’ section of the website. This report contains analysis of the comments received in late 2019, looking into the key themes, ‘hotspot’ locations where there were a number of comments on the same issue in close proximity and a breakdown of the feedback geographically. Alongside this, the report looks at the traffic data collected, with supporting maps summarising the volume of traffic across the area and the proportion of through traffic (i.e. traffic using residential streets as a cut through between major roads). These two sets of information are brought together, in conjunction with the initial aims of the project, to form a set of priorities going forward. As mentioned in the previous news update, a number of measures are now being prioritised as part of the council’s Streetspace programme, in response to Covid-19. For the Liveable Neighbourhood project, this means prioritising the ‘low traffic neighbourhood’ elements of the project which seek to reduce traffic volumes across the project area, in turn creating a quieter, safer neighbourhood that prioritises walking and cycling for local journeys. A number of measures are therefore proposed, including closing roads to traffic and various access restrictions, as illustrated in the map below. Full information can be found on the ‘About’ page of the project website, and also via this press release.The first measure, a trial closure of Dan Mason Drive to through traffic, has been implemented, feedback on which is welcome via traffic@hounslow.gov.uk. Further measures are proposed to be implemented between June and September. All proposals are trials and require funding from Transport for London in order to be delivered. There will be ongoing communication with residents prior to the trials going in, along with more updates provided via this project website. ContactTom Sharland(Senior Engineer)Transport and Environmental Strategy0208 583 3322traffic@hounslow.gov.uk

Bernard Allen ● 2336d

Al,I understand the restrictions proposed for Thames Rd / SOTG will be based upon timed difference between cameras, not a list of registrations, so it will apply to everyone.It will be impossible to come up with a scheme to limit traffic through the area without an increase in some journey times.  No such thing as having cake and eating it. I'll check from the traffic data how many people use this route to accesss Grove Park but ultimately, the people who live along SOTG/Thames Rd are being prioritised higher than the people who are driving through.

Michael Robinson ● 2336d

Michael, you potentially wind up with the ridiculous situation where someone who lives in Grove Park Terrace trying to get home from Brentford would have to drive about a mile further, and at the wrong time of day it would take them 20 minutes longer.  Admittedly, 80% of the time they could be on a bike, but when they do need to use a car, that is ridiculous.If they are using ANPR, then having a list of the cars registered in the Grove Park residents schemes would allow people to take the direct route home, and not contribute to more traffic and fumes on the High Road, but at the same time stop the rat runners who are the big issue.

Al Webber ● 2336d

I understand the restrictions proposed for Thames Rd / SOTG will be based upon timed difference between cameras, not a list of registrations, so it will apply to everyone. But an an ANPR system can be programmed to recognise Index numbers. I don't pay the congestion charge as the Tfl cameras recognise my registration number as I enter the zone. Unless Hounslow Council are installing the system on the cheap. Most systems can handle this sort of programming.

Bernard Allen ● 2336d

Yup, I live on Stile Hall Gardens and the closure means there is a possible maximum detour of up to a mile for some journeys for people who live on the street.  That's the way it works.  Having a quieter and safer street for everyone, all the time is more important than some people having some additional times for some car journeys.  Government and TfL policy is clear about this.  Life in London isn't going to get any easier for people driving.

Michael Robinson ● 2336d

Government and TfL policy is clear about this.  Life in London isn't going to get any easier for people driving.Maybe not, But i wouldn't trust any elected representative of any party to make decisions, based on their performance so far.So lets say their policy on London traffic is flawed. So what are we going to do about it.Maybe protest in the streets? Plus the fact that Tfl is basically is part of the government now, and has to do what politicians want them to as part of the bail out.

Bernard Allen ● 2336d

As a resident living in Grove Park I have off road parking so do not need a Parking Permit so did not buy one - will I be allowed to move freely within and in and out of Grove Park at all times.  I used SOTG to visit family (also Morrisons etc) in Brentford before Covid lockdown - will I be able to do once lockdown is relaxed? Someone on here raised the issue of no parking permit you'd be stymid and treated like an outsider/rat runner.

Jennifer Selig ● 2335d

It seems to me that adding ANPR to the mix will add to the expense - and these are meant to be cheap projects - and to the confusion, as 'permitted' cars will be seen passing through with apparent impunity, encouraging others to follow and 'get caught'.  A 'No Entry' sign is pretty irrefutable. A 'No Access' sign somewhat less so, but a 'No Access Except for Vehicles Registered in Zones X, Y and Z' will become a nonsense.  And what about 'local residents' without a permanent 'registered' vehicle but using a hire car or club car or a car borrowed from a friend? I think in the present circumstances, if a project can't be done with barriers and bollards, then it's too complicated.

Peter Evans ● 2335d

JenniferIf you enter via Thames road and do not exit at kew bridge and turn around and go back the way you cam in, you will be OK.But if you exit via kew bridge to travel in the Brentford direction you will be considered as someone driving through the area.Also if you enter Thames Road from Kew Bridge and travel past st Pauls church you will also be treated as some who is driving through the area.

Bernard Allen ● 2335d

So much speculation! Why not wait for the detail?

Ken Munn ● 2335d

Michael,How about answering the question about the Staveley Rd - Park Road Diagonal that I asked you a couple of days ago.

Jim Wood ● 2335d

There is no detail Ken. Hounslow are making up as they go.

Bernard Allen ● 2335d

Bernard - well that's me stuffed then - even with the relaxation of the Covid lockdown I will still be unable to visit my daughter and visa versa.

Jennifer Selig ● 2335d

Don't rely on Bernard's interpretation of detail which has yet to be published.

Ken Munn ● 2335d

Rebecca you have that spot on. That is my concern too. The huge detours that will be required for Grove Park residents to return to their homes. Forcing them onto already clogged main arteries. Surely there is a way for Grove park residents to be able to circulate freely in our roads. I know the aim is to cut traffic and stop us all using our cars as often. However some people cannot walk or cycle.

Krysia Gdaniec ● 2335d

These measures look to be too far reaching.Making Thames Road "Access Only" enforced by cameras seems a good idea. With the right detailed design it could be effective and fair in reducing the unpleasant traffic and jam-creating conditions there. Protecting school zones at the start and end of school days is also reasonable.However, the scheme goes too far and will create new problems north of the railway line by forcing long traffic laden diversions when heading north. The key to avoiding this would be for the Grove Park Bridge to be available to all for North as well as South-bound journeys. The same could apply to the Grove Park Terrace level crossing.My understanding from the sketchy map and the threads on this subject is that North-bound crossings of the bridge would only be legitimate for those who have RV and CS zone parking permits. That would not be fair and reasonable.

Jeff Gear ● 2335d

Well said Al. This is my feeling as well. The scheme can prevent a vast amount of rat run traffic but.  Grove Park residents should be able to move freely within the zone and not forced onto long detours on main arteries.

Krysia Gdaniec ● 2335d

There is no detail. It is an experimental traffic order now which requires no consultation

Krysia Gdaniec ● 2335d

No, there aren't any traffic restrictions for Grove Park Bridge.

Michael Robinson ● 2335d

Why restrict access to holders of certain permits only. Why can’t all residents of Grove Park have their number plates registered so they can use any of the entry and exit points. Remember not everyone has residents permits. Does anyone have an approximate  for the number of vehicles owned by Grove Park residents?

Krysia Gdaniec ● 2335d

Going by post from the cycle fraternity, it isn’t cast in stone where the cameras are gong to be placed.As mentioned Spring Grove residents have only one way out of there Road. If the cameras are positioned across the entrance to Strand on the Green. When they exit it will be ok as they will still be inside the zone. But if they are situated across the road from the row of shops they will be turning left in a zone they are already in.The other set of cameras need to be moved to a different place, to allow local grove park traffic to move within there local area, remember grove park is bigger than you think,If We,I mean Chiswick and Barnes residents successfully stopped the proposed motorway from being built From the M4 through Chiswick following the route of the railway line, over the river at Barnes bridge and though Barnes, we can stop the government backing Hounslow installing a couple of traffic cameras, on the back of a Local cycling campaign.

Bernard Allen ● 2335d

"On the back of a local cycling campaign". Oh Bernard. That language and the reference to the "cycling fraternity" sound very familiar. I am afraid it sounds like you have been gotten at by the fixed car lobby of Chiswick and their great leader. Well the world is a little more nuanced than their binary view of it. The majority of respondents on the scheme consultation were women living in Grove Park. The number one concern was safety. The number one request for improvement was reduction in traffic volumes. The proposals are entirely about reducing traffic volumes to increase safety in the area. There isn't one cycle path or any other special provision for cycling in the proposals, which I am personally disappointed by and I will be using the 6 month consultation period to seek to remedy. My children's school was consulted on the proposals and is supportive because they reflect the concerns that parents have been raising for ages. You have told us that you don't want this scheme because you don't want to give up your favourite route between Brentford and Riverside Drive. I'm sorry Bernard but we need to stop Strand on the Green and Grove Park being the favourite route for through-traffic between the A316 and the South Circular or A4 because it is dangerous. You want parents to continue to run the gauntlet against speeding rat runners on Staveley Road, Grove Park Terrace and Thames Road when taking their kids to school. You want the 8,300 vehicles per day over Grove Park Bridge to tick steadily upwards to 10,000. You want the Grove Park Piazza plans shelved. You want speeding cars doing 40mph+ on Staveley Road and the accidents to continue. Stuff the views of the Grove Park Group and the Strand on the Green Association. Tough luck to the 500 people who took part in the consultation. Suck it up to the residents on streets like Burnaby Gardens who are begging the Council to do something about the Harvard Hill rat run. And why? Because you don't want to take a one mile detour. And you are trying to portray yourself as the saviour protecting the poor residents of Chiswick from the scary cyclists. Comparing removing dangerous traffic from residential and school streets to putting an urban motorway through Chiswick and Barnes. Give over. It is time to stop allowing the selfish interests of drivers like you who want the fastest route from A to B to blight our community.

Paul Campbell ● 2335d

The ‘cycling fraternity’ with their evil, unnatural, balancing ways. See...Burn them! Burn them!

Edward Seaton ● 2335d

Huge detours? You might have to drive a few hundred metres further than you do now.

Ken Munn ● 2335d

The published sketch map of the scheme and it's key indicate that it will only be legitimate for residents of the CS and RV zones to access Grove Park Bridge from the south if the scheme is introduced.Are you saying different?It would certainly help if a map with accurate positions of the restriction boundaries and their scope was available.

Jeff Gear ● 2335d

well you got that all wrong my dear chap. the proposals still  let the rat run from Chiswick high road over grove park bridge onto Hartington Road and turn right onto the A316 at Chiswick Bridge, thats if I have read the map on the front page correctly.But I digress, the Council could be using the government much more wisely. You quote Grove Park School, which at the moment is relatively safe as school entrances go. But many residents have been asking the Council to upgrade the junction Riverside Drive / Staveley Gardens / Alexandra Gardens over many years. A very small improvement was made some years ago by raising the road by 3 inchs and painting a Mini roundabout on it. Once the Mini Roundabout wore off, here were no road marking to go by, so the vehicle leaving the various sports clubs would get near to the junction and see the traffic lights were green, so they would speed up dramatically to try and catch the  green light.In taking this action they would tear through the junction mentioned above and forget that a lot of school children were crossing this junction to reach, Cavendish School, Chiswick School, Grove Park School,St Marys School and William Hogarth school.Now we have the temporary closure of the railway bridge which is increasing the vehicle flow on riverside drive.When the clubs fully open the traffic will increase as well.The Hounslow council are Creating Coach turning circles on the Promenade to enable coaches that drop passengers in London to come back and park in the Dukes Meadows area.There is also talk of certain HGV's being allowed to park on Riverside Drive.So all you wonderful groups are being lead blind folded into creating a safer place to live, when the Council are creating a more dangerous place just around the corner from railway bridge closure.You may think I am telling porky pies, but I did help my father protest at the building of the motorway through Chiswick, even in those days the average working man was against building more roads.Your probably to young to know, that when the borough of Brentford and Chiswick was absorbed into the Hounslow Borough, they erected a sign on the Middle of Chiswick Bridge which said, "welcome to Hounslow" It's all very petty really but the amount of vehicles that either stopped and asked us where Chiswick was, we use to say your are in it.Some vehicles even turned into Hartington road and turned around.But would the Council change it "no" but then the grit of the Chiswick residents kicked in and some bright spark painted the word Hounslow out, after awhile the message got through, but as I said this was a very minor inconvenience.As far as I am concerned the Grove Park Group are minor influence on the area , when once it was a considerable force to deal with.The SOTGA has was only for the tow path only it's only in recent years its broaden its remit to the Thames road area.Going back in History Thames Road used to be a lot more dangerous than it is now, that is until the drink driving act came in. Because the speeding drivers you use to meet were mainly drunk.All the side roads in the summer used to be the car park for the pubs, and its surprising at 1:30 in the early hours of the morning, how many doors a four door car has got, when pissed passengers were trying to get in.So back to the junction, Hounslow really wants to get it priorities right, and stop pandering to the flying Dutchman

Bernard Allen ● 2334d

75% of the through-traffic in Grove Park is northbound during both daily peaks. Southbound remains open because the Council is balancing the need to reduce through traffic with retaining access for residents on what the data shows is a key southbound access point for people in the whole area. If that leaves too many cars racing through our streets then we will have the chance to see and push for more change during the trial.I do find your stories of a previous era interesting and I just wish you wouldn’t use the rhetoric of a small group of people who demonise people who ride bikes and make them the scapegoats for any change as part of their plan to object to any and all improvements to our Borough. It is unnecessarily divisive and you seem to be kinder than that.

Paul Campbell ● 2334d

Some fascinating local history, Bernard. Going back a little further, I do wonder what the handful of residents thought when the railway ploughed right through the middle of Grove Park Terrace. Not much else built at the time, and Grove Park’s been repeatedly carved up for the benefit of through transit ever since, with little care paid to its residents. Now a substantial proportion of car traffic on the residential streets just sees these as just part of their route across London. It’s ironic that the first concerted attempt to finally stop other people cutting through Grove Park now provokes these strong feelings in some of its residents.

Tom Pike ● 2334d

Tim I am winging it a bit here, But looking at maps in the library it looks as though Grove Park Terrace wasn't built, or only a small part of it when the Railway was built.The only reason I say that is I do know the Level Crossing was in the cap you see buy the Grove Park Road shops and the old Grove park Hotel, now the Old Station House.The was a serous accident between a horse drawn bus and train that was reported at the time.Over time that crossing was closed and replaced by the crossing in Grove Park Terrace.I don't know when the horse drawn busies were phased out, but I can only remember the number 55 Route master that use to stop outside the pub, and also the 55 went along Burlington Lane to the A316 and over the to Chiswick open air swimming pools.

Bernard Allen ● 2334d

There’s a map in the Chiswick Timeline by the tube that shows the route of the proposed Hounslow Branch cutting right through the middle of the Terrace. There wasn’t much else in Grove Park at the time, but that didn’t stop the railway taking the shortest route through. Chiswick station looks like it was an example of “build it and they will come”, though that motivated much of the surburban network at that time.

Tom Pike ● 2334d

Bernard,'The only constant is change*'Heraclitus. Approx 500BC.*as you keep reminding us with tales of how things used to be.

Ken Munn ● 2334d

The only change I would wont right now, is a bloody hair cut

Bernard Allen ● 2334d

Krysia,As far as I can tell, this is the largest implementation of the use of ANPR to manage traffic over a wide area yet attempted by a council in the U.K. - possibly anywhere.ANPR has been used for school streets schemes. They are only operational for a couple of hours a day during school terms and cover a small area around a school.ANPR has also been used to restrict access to buses or emergency services, so a limited type of vehicle.I found an ANPR scheme that was implemented in the London Borough of Newham in the East Ham area towards the end of last year. I don’t know how many vehicles it covered but the area appears to be much smaller than Grove Park.Low traffic neighbourhoods have been implemented in the Netherlands but they wouldn’t use ANPR. They would use planters or physical barriers and if that meant most car journeys had detours of a km or more, tough shit.They would say, if it is only a short journey then use a bike. If it is a long car journey then so what, what difference does it make, cars are intended for longer journeys anyway.  If you must use a car then no one is stopping you but the most convenient routes will be for walking and bikes, not cars. That is their approach.There are about 5000 households in the Chiswick Riverside ward. A guess is that means maybe 4000 cars. That area doesn’t correspond to Grove Park but there will still likely be thousands of cars.If anyone can find an existing wide area traffic management scheme with that number of cars run by a U.K. local authority then I’d be interested to find out.For something that leading edge, to me it makes sense to start as small as practicable.

Michael Robinson ● 2334d

Scheme has its flaws for residents. I have posted this on another thread but will add here too My daughter lives in grove park GP zone She works in Brentford and needs her car for work. She drops off child at SOTG and continues to work a journey usually of approx 10 to 15 mins. New scheme  means she will drop off child turn around and return via Sutton court A4 and south circ to Brentford. New journey time doubled. In the evening to get home and collect child she can no longer enter SOTG vía Kew so will need to do longer route on already clogged arteries. Again this could easily be half hour journey. Twice a week she has to visit a Kingston hospital. Her normal route is Hartingdon Rd and then onwards. That is unchanged but returning she will no longer be able to return directly via Hartingdon or Staveley if during peak school time as this too closed So she would need to continue to Hogarth roundabout and then back via Sutton court rd. Another significantly increased journey time. Working and with babies and children it is not possible to cycle or walk everywhere. She is not alone. Residents will be effectively causing more pollution and add to clogging of already clogged arteries. I do think the scheme needs rethinking as to how residents are impacted. Agree less traffic passing through GP is good but if residents have significantly increased journey times and are prevented from driving round local roads it’s not a good think. Issues also arrive for delivery vehicles and bin collections etc. Where will the turning points be for these vehicles on the no through roads. She will increase her emissions significantly, be forced to drive on main arteries doubling if not more her journey times. Same for others to.

Sean Wales ● 2334d

I support Ealing/Brentford/Richmond/Acton/Kensington/Barnes shops as well as Chiswick incl Food Market and all by bike - not everyone has a car. If there is less ratrunning the streets become safer for more to cycle and pleasanter to walk. There are 1000s of people who do not have cars and have to deal with the few who choose to drive everywhere. During early lockdown our streets were so much nicer - quieter and cleaner and people of all ages were cycling.And before you mention 'whataboutthedisabled' - 1000s of disabled are precluded from driving but some can and do cycle and others manage to walk. With less traffic those who genuinely need to will have more space to do so. There are rarely any Blue Badges using the space outside As Nature Intended for example but plenty of fit active people pitching up in massive SUVs. This is not down to Hounslow Council but a worldwide movement to reduce car dominance. And whoever mentioned Chris Calvi - I suspect he might have been more draconian.

Ruth Mayorcas ● 2334d

They should come clean and rename it to the Less Liveable Neighbourhood Scheme". Steve Curran is on record saying 'We're not idiots' so one has to wonder what else motivated this ill thought out, unworkable, harebrained plan. Maybe it's revenge for all the resistance over their CPZs?

Russell Pearson ● 2334d

"Because you don't want to take a one mile detour" (leading to more congestion and pollution)"It is time to stop allowing the selfish interests of drivers [or insert cyclists here] like you who want the fastest route from A to B to blight our community."So funny. So, so funny, Paul. Your logic applies directly to you yet you always fail to see that. If we take the recent LBH newsletter to heart, I'd recommend the Leader and Cabinet lead by example. In their own words "we need to do more to improve engagement and representation of all groups - everyone must have a strong voice."And yet all you ever do is try to silence the voice of others.

David Lesniak ● 2334d

Like I and others keep saying to you David you are free to express yourself and you have done a great deal,over the last few years with access to the most senior deicision-makers. I don’t want to silence you because you are extremely helpful.

Paul Campbell ● 2334d

It could be that, if your school drop off is within the 'Access Only' section of Thames Road, you'd be allowed to drive into it from one end 'for access', and then drive out by the other end.  It depends what time allowance they set on the ANPR cameras.  Though allowing school drop offs here could be discouraged by other initiatives, such as a timed road closure. Installing and relying on ANPR seems an elaborate, expensive and confusing solution, when blocking off the Kew Bridge end of Strand on the Green, which is quite a tricky junction anyway, together with the Harvard Road access to and from the A4, could be done cheaply and quickly to at least get these experimental changes under way.

Peter Evans ● 2334d

Quit your whining David,  you were taken on a private bike ride with our MP and Commissioner for London. You have had direct conversations with Curran and were allowed to populate the high st with coves.You stood on a platform at a local event  and stuck signs up in your café window asking people to 'Stick it to TFL' for months on end.Youre not silenced one bit.

Matthew Swain ● 2334d

Blocking off the Kew Bridge End of Strand of the Green would make it much, much worse for all those residents of Thames Road and the roads off Thames Road and increase the amount of traffic in the Grove Park area (compared to the ANPR proposal). If you live there and want to end up going towards Kew/Brentford it will result in a much larger diversion that the Stile Hall/Wellesley Road new restrictions have resulted in. If you are going to limit access, ANPR is by far a better way of doing it.

Andrew Jones ● 2334d

Blocking off the Kew Bridge End of Strand of the Green would make it much, much worse for all those residents of Thames Road and the roads off Thames Road and increase the amount of traffic in the Grove Park area (compared to the ANPR proposal). If you live there and want to end up going towards Kew/Brentford it will result in a much larger diversion that the Stile Hall/Wellesley Road new restrictions have resulted in. If you are going to limit access, ANPR is by far a better way of doing it.

Andrew Jones ● 2334d

ANPR could work but numberplate recognition needs extending to all residents of Grove park at all access points. After all we really want to stop all the rat run commuters and non essential traffic. Not ruin lives of local residents.  The ANPR points currently proposed limit recognition to those CPZ zones closes to those points. It is also based on parking permits. So those without permits ie who have driveways will be affected or required to buy parking permits.

Sean Wales ● 2334d

I don’t think that will be the case Sean. I think that there will be a way for residents with off-street parking in the access zone for the Hartington Red restriction to register. The SOTG restriction is timed entry/exit.

Paul Campbell ● 2334d

If they're going to do it, make it work and reduce the commute traffic. So, permit everyone with a Grove Park CPZ to use Thames Road and Harvard Hill as currently, use ANPR to stop the rat runners. They plan to have one ANPR in place, so just add another and scrap the rest of the policy. It would pay for itself in no time as drivers won't read the warning signs and drive through.Problem is this is ideologically driven to reduce car use overall, hence creating these mad drive around routes for people who live here.

Russell Pearson ● 2334d

No mention of doing anything to fix the right turn from Barrogate road to get onto Sutton Court Road and across the A4. Seems like the only thinking that has been done is how to make more money in fines.

Mark Dixon ● 2332d

One step at a time... Just put a couple of planters on Sutton Lane N before the mini-roundabout.  Access to Grove Park on the eastbound A4 would be via the Hogarth roundabout and back west again. That's what many people do at peak time anyway to avoid Sutton Court Rd.Residents on Barrowgate Rd should be happy and it would ease the junction at Sutton Court Rd.

Michael Robinson ● 2332d

Michael,For the third time of asking, can you please give us an example of where the proposed diagonal junction for Staveley Rd and Park Rd has been implemented in London and when.

Jim Wood ● 2331d

You'll find the petition athttps://www.change.org/p/hounslow-council-south-chiswick-traffic-measures

Steve Taylor ● 2331d

Found this from a link on the Hounslow information website:https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/commonplace-customer-files/southchiswicklnmap/More%20Information%20about%20the%20South%20Chiswick%20Liveable%20Neighbourhoods%20Project.pdfHighlights"The total value of the south Chiswick project has been estimated at £3.3m.""Effective community engagement, prior to formal consultation on proposals, is therefore imperative.""This scheme would improve links for cyclists between Grove Park and Chiswick High Road alongSutton Court Road, which offers one of the few surface level crossings of the A4 within the projectarea. Pedestrian movements and the importance of Sutton Court Road as a bus corridor must alsobe key considerations of any future project. While the A4 is part of the TfL Road Network (TLRN) andtherefore not under the council’s control, it remains a key barrier for north/south pedestrian andcyclist movements between Grove Park and other areas of Chiswick."On the latter, they will be diverting north bound traffic to Sutton Court Road, while improving links for cyclists along that same road. How will this be achieved?

Russell Pearson ● 2331d

I’m sure they’re magicking that £3.3m out of the air and not planning to levy it on residents with more fines and residents permit charges.

Mark Dixon ● 2331d

There are three in Thornfield Road in Shepherds Bush between Goldhawk Road and Uxbridge Road. They've been there for some years.

Peter Evans ● 2331d

The map I see around Chiswick is really poorly designed. It shows a colour key that doesn't relate to any of the colours on the map.It seems to show most of Wellesley Rd blocked to through traffic. It's either a race track outside of rush hour or a car park during rush hour. It needs a huge reduction in traffic.

Basil Finnis ● 2331d

"It seems to show most of Wellesley Rd blocked to through traffic. It's either a race track outside of rush hour or a car park during rush hour. It needs a huge reduction in traffic."As an almost daily user of Wellesley Road, either of foot or on a bike, it is blocked to through traffic westward from Oxford Road North. It's not a race track, because in the main, it generates no traffic. There are parked cars but as it's a CPZ they are - by and large - mostly those of residents or workers in the area.

Ken Munn ● 2331d

954 have signed. Let’s get to 1,000!https://www.change.org/p/hounslow-council-south-chiswick-traffic-measures

Steve Taylor ● 2331d

And there's the realisation - this is about taking your money not about improving traffic flow.

Mark Dixon ● 2331d

Thanks for the information. Having had a look at them they seem to be part a system for managing one way traffic in those streets. That may make some sense. The one that is proposed for the Park Road - Staveley Road junction is not part of a one way system (at least not yet!)

Jim Wood ● 2331d

Jim,You can see 3 examples of diagonal filters just a few miles away in Shepherds Bush (Devonport Rd, St Stephens Ave, Godolphin Rd) They were put in to stop ratrunning between Uxbridge Rd and Goldhawk Rd. They have been there for about 20 years.https://goo.gl/maps/P8gTVBUB6CztbbG99https://goo.gl/maps/vdbHxHUzocZY74tX7https://goo.gl/maps/h7CUc2oK3YKE6Sus9

Michael Robinson ● 2330d

Thank you. As I stated in my reply above they are all part of a one way system, which doesn't apply to Staveley Road and Park Road. So the imposition here is completely experimental.

Jim Wood ● 2329d

I'm not sure what difference it makes whether it's a one way or two way junction, as long as there's room for vehicles to get round the corners without running into the cyclists coming through the middle. There's a two way example at the junction of Reidvale Street and Sword Street in Glasgow - see Google Streetview.

Peter Evans ● 2329d

“So the imposition here is completely experimental.“Yes, the clue is in the name - Experimental Traffic Order.

Michael Robinson ● 2329d

Here is another example on a two way street in Dagenham.https://goo.gl/maps/z3xiYTe8stakAVxR6

Michael Robinson ● 2329d

I'm afraid I don't agree. All this plan achieves is pushing traffic elsewhere and creating intensified gridlock in those areas. It's just not a fair and equitable solution and ends top making Grove Park a small ghetto. If the genuine aim of this is to discourage traffic then it's about time they just got on with it instead of pussy footing around all the time. There is only one solution - close all roads to non resident traffic in the entire area other than a few major arteries like the A316, A4, Chiswick High Road, Chiswick Lane, Uxbridge Road ... then it would be a fair solution.

Anthony Letterese ● 2326d

“ All this plan achieves is pushing traffic elsewhere”Yes, to the A316 and A4 where it should be in the first place.At the moment Grove Park is just a big bypass for the Hogarth roundabout.

Michael Robinson ● 2326d