Forum Topic

Burlington Lane - Urban Terrorism

Hounslow Council have committed a deliberate act of urban terrorism on residents and users of Burlington Lane.Under the guise of creating a "low traffic neighbourhood" they have turned what was once a quiet, safe, low traffic street into a an extremely busy and increasingly dangerous cut through route for traffic between A316 and A4.Before these changes it was safe and pleasant to cycle, walk and cross this street. Now it is a nightmare and dangerous.This is deliberate.By closing access to Hartington Lane and through Staveley Road, traffic has only one route to take - Burlington Lane. Why did the council decide that Burlington Lane was a better cut through route than Hartington Road?Burlington Lane passes the main entrance to the 1200 pupil Chiswick SchoolIt passes Chiswick House & ParkIt is the main pedestrian route for both these places.It passes the main entrance for Chiswick mainline station.It passes shops, doctors, tennis club, nursery, bus stops.It is the shortest cycle route from Kew Bridge to Hammersmith (after the horror of CHR and King St - anyone with sense would prefer the river route)Hartington Road has none of these:It avoids all shops, schools, parks etcIt is low pedestrianIt has a host of traffic calming measuresI appreciate that residents of Hartington Road do not want a cut through along their road but if you were choosing the least impactful route it would be this one.The council has 2 choices:1. Put it back to how it was.2. Add further measures to block all turnings off the A316 to traffic other than residents.Meanwhile there is an increasing likelihood of serious accident along Burlington Lane as traffic increases every day let alone all the negative impacts of the new High Traffic Neighbourhood that Hounslow Council have created.

Richard Potts ● 1952d44 Comments

Richard,  using ridiculous hyperbole like "urban terrorism" really doesn't help you make a point. From the 2019 traffic survey, Burlington Lane had almost 3000 vehicles a day with a peak of over 360 vehicles per hour, or about one every 10 seconds on average.That isn't particularly "low traffic".It would be interesting to know the current traffic levels to assess the impact of the Staveley Rd measures.  Unfortunately both traffic counters installed on Burlington Lane were vandalised.  A Chiswick councillor and OneChiswick claimed it was the work of foxes.I hope the counters were in place long enough for sufficient data to be collected.

Michael Robinson ● 1952d

Could one road allow EVs only and do a pollution test on that road tocompare with other vehicles.

Janice Evans ● 1952d

Wrong thread but will leave it on here. Sorry.

Janice Evans ● 1952d

I think it does Michael because that what it is.As usual you ignore all my points and fail to answer any.I remember you saying that A316 traffic would cut along Burlington Lane but would go all the way to Hogarth and then turn onto the A4. You have half a brain at least so knew that wouldn't happen.Do you know why they decided to turn Burlington Lane into the cut-through route?You purport to be a cyclist - so I don't understand why you would support this.

Richard Potts ● 1952d

Richard, 'urban terrorism' is 11 people being stabbed to death on London Bridge or 56 people being killed by bombs on the Underground.  It isn't traffic along Burlington Lane no matter how you try and claim it is.  Equating this with people being killed really does your argument no service whatsoever.I want to see the data to understand how effective the measures are.  If they aren't effective, then there is no point having them and they need to be changed or removed.There is no doubt that the measures at Harvard Hill and Staveley have reduced traffic on those streets. Figures for Hartington and Burlington haven't been published so the jury is out on whether Hartington is effective. If there is a significant increase in Burlington over the 3000 vehicles there used to be then I agree that should be addressed.

Michael Robinson ● 1952d

"The council has 2 choices:1. Put it back to how it was.2. Add further measures to block all turnings off the A316 to traffic other than residents."I don't think you are complaining about traffic using the A316 to get to the A4 via Hogarth roundabout?The issue is the cut through to Sutton Court Road - as you put it: there are too many vehicles - they're dangerous to vulnerable road users, noisy, polluting and you can't drive anywhere because of the congestion. You also point out that the route goes directly past Chiswick School, which will likely be contributing to unsafe air quality for the pupils and teachers. Although you accuse the council of "terrorism" in creating LTNs, your arguments appear to be exactly the motivation for putting them in.I think it is a good idea to do a Harrington style one-way restriction for non-residents on Burlington as it turns off the A316 - or make it only for access as per SOTG.  I wonder why they didn't do it in the first place?

Ed Saper ● 1952d

Ed,If the existing cameras aren't effective then here is no point installing ineffective measures in even more locations.  The whole point of the Experimental Traffic Orders is to assess this.If they aren't effective then it is back to the drawing board or give up and recognise that Hartington, Thames Rd etc. are bypasses for Hogarth roundabout.

Michael Robinson ● 1952d

Two things I'd add to this.Firstly I'm not certain the additional traffic volumes are coming from the Burlington/A316 junction. I cycle along Staveley most mornings during the school street restriction and even at that time there is a steady stream of cars coming off the A316 and driving past the cameras. Obviously it will also be doing the same outside school restrictions.Secondly the same applies to Hartington. Wave clicks into gear and streams of cars pour through the restriction and up and over Grove Park Bridge especially in the morning rush hour and on weekend afternoons.My take is that Staveley needs to be made 24 /7 and both need a thorough redesign of the road so that drivers are made aware that they are going past a restriction. Narrowing of the road, planters in the middle etc. The signs are not working. If the traffic counts worked before the anti-LTN foxes got to them and show high numbers using the eastern end of Burlington then same goes for that. Obviously I am hopeful the answer will not be to let so many thousands of cars keep using GP as a cut through. If that happens I'm coming after Paxton Road all guns blazing. And Corney Road. And Beverley obviously just for the purposes of equality and human rights.

Paul Campbell ● 1952d

I may have misunderstood.  I thought the OP's point was that the restrictions on Hartington and other roads had been effective and his expectation / experience* is that more traffic has turned off the A316 to get to the A4 via Sutton Court - missing off the Hogarth Roundabout / A4.(*Shame we don't know how many cars due to those other nocturnal urban terrorists - the playful fox cubs who ripped up all the traffic counters one evening!)

Ed Saper ● 1952d

Janice, what you on ????

Chris Vessey ● 1952d

Michael, too many cars, congestion, queues in my book is urban terrorism, and is a very excellent description. Well done Richard.

Chris Vessey ● 1952d

It should be remembered that the traffic calming measures not only affect non-local drivers who are using GP as a cut through to get to the A4 but also local drivers who are simply taking the most direct route home.I know many people do a large weekly shop at the Richmond Sainsbury's rather than the Chiswick one - the car park spaces are a bit larger!  To get back to Chiswick that means a drive back over Chiswick Bridge and then cut through to SCR.  Locals can time their journeys to use Staveley Road outside of the mandated school times.The problem with forcing more cars to go all the way along the A316 to Hogarth Roundabout, then back west along the A4 to SCR is that it is not clear the A316 from about Burlington Lane to the roundabout can cope with the extra traffic.  A lot depends on how the extra traffic is distributed across the day.  This is not a new problem.

Justin Stephenson ● 1952d

There is no god-given right for drivers to have the most direct route home otherwise all the roads that have been closed to prevent rat-running would be opened up again.  Like Paxton Road for example. This is no entry off the A316 so residents need to go via the Hogarth roundabout and access the street from the A4.The A316 had almost double the traffic in the early 00s (48k vehicles per day) than it did in 2019 (25k vehicles per day).

Michael Robinson ● 1952d

“ If that happens I'm coming after Paxton Road all guns blazing. And Corney Road. And Beverley obviously just for the purposes of equality and human rights.”Dukes Avenue would make more sense to reopen. Just because it is a park doesn’t mean cars don’t have a right to drive through it. Thousands of drivers could cut a few minutes off their journeys by opening a road that only seems to be used by Claire Balding and her dog - yet another example of the BBC acting like they’re better than us.

Ed Saper ● 1952d

> Under the guise of creating a "low traffic neighbourhood" they have turned what was once a quiet, safe, low traffic street into a an extremely busy and increasingly dangerous cut through route for traffic between A316 and A4.>Before these changes it was safe and pleasant to cycle, walk and cross this street. Now it is a nightmare and dangerous.Indeed, it’s best avoided on foot or on a bike. In a car you have no choice if you want to avoid a fine, but to use that route to drive into Grove Park, unless you divert round the A4. Very dangerous diversion for the school kids, plus all the extra pollution as traffic queues near all those schools and nurseries as it backs up on the A316.

Russell Pearson ● 1952d

"Very dangerous diversion for the school kids, plus all the extra pollution as traffic queues near all those schools and nurseries as it backs up on the A316."Says a man who opposes the School Street at Grove Park Primary that has finally made it safe  for school children to cross  the road 20m from his flat. Dry your crocodile tears Russell and come back when you are a little less disingenuous.

Paul Campbell ● 1952d

I hear you Justin. And you should of course plead your case here. Perhaps there is a system that will work but it isn't the one in place now nor the one proposed by Sam Hearn as we can see that simple ANPR just doesn't stop the drivers, can't stop the SatNav tech and then we get into a silly culture war argument about fines.The primary goal has to be to stop the really damaging levels of through-traffic in my view. After that we should do what we can to avoid real hardship for residents but not cave in to emotive pleas for the restoration of overwhelming privilege at the expense of the benefits from reducing the volume of cars from both through-journeys and local ones that can be substituted (not yours / those of less able / usual disclaimer etc.)What's your idea?

Paul Campbell ● 1952d

This is an excellent point Ed. I've seen Clare on that road many times. Let's take it from her, restore cars to their rightful place and win this culture war for once and for all.

Paul Campbell ● 1952d

"need a thorough redesign of the road"I'm thinking hell is a bit chilly this morning.This is precisely what I've been saying all along, Paulo. If you're going to make these measures a priority, study them and do it right starting from a blank slate. Otherwise we'll only ever get the sh*tty bits and bobs that don't work.In the meanwhile, how about a good bit of smoke and mirrors and try putting up a sign along the A316 at each of these intersections that says "No Access to the A4."Cheap and cheerful. Might help the situation.

David Lesniak ● 1951d

"There is no god-given right for drivers to have the most direct route home"I guess that means no white lists, then, Michael?

David Lesniak ● 1951d

"After that we should do what we can to avoid real hardship for residents"Wow. People can change. I never thought in a million years I'd hear Paul Campbell say something like this. Now...since he appears to have changed his mind, like many on these issues, do we disparage that as he has done to others, or do we embrace it?

David Lesniak ● 1951d

Thanks for reminding me of that daft measure. Off to get some new Michelin Pilot Sports this morning and might have forgotten. I will go the long way round and avoid a ticket. Great tyres btw - what do you run on your car Paul?

Russell Pearson ● 1951d

The question is still unanswered: Why did Hounslow deliberately and systematically design a scheme which re-routed thousands of extra cars each day past Chiswick School, Station, Shops, Doctors etc.?Why did they decide to turn a road that was low on traffic and high on pedestrians into the "through route" for all cut-through traffic from A316 to A4?btw The "through route" title appeared on a original version of the map that Hounslow produced for the area (title since removed from current map but colour code still there). https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/downloads/file/2732/view_mapThis is a well targeted attack, which will cause harm to residents, pupils and users of the area. Urban Terrorism seems the right description.

Richard Potts ● 1951d

Don't hold your breath, Richard. There is no answer and those responding to your query know this. Instead they have called you out in an attempt to diffuse the situation, obscure the lack of evidence, and denigrate you to drive an agenda at the cost of local representation. Some would call it gaslighting.

David Lesniak ● 1950d

Message removed

Fatima Traore ● 1948d

Depressing what people in power are doing knowing nothing about the area

Margie Frew ● 1946d

Hounslow Council don’t even know where ChiswickIs

Maggie Dodge ● 1946d

Great to see the pupils of Chiswick School taking part in their sports day on Friday.But disgraceful to see that the difference this year is that when they were all gathered on their playing field next to Staveley Road all day, they were breathing in the fumes from an extra 8000 cars that weren't there last sports day.This traffic has been re-routed past their school under the guise of Low Traffic Neighbourhood or Quiet School Streets or whatever the council and Hounslow Cycle Group claim was the reason to reroute all cut through traffic in Grove park past Chiswick school and along Burlington Lane.People like Michael Robinson & Paul Campbell of the Hounslow Cycle Lobby Group claim that the data of traffic supported this move. That the 8,000 cars per day that travelled down Hartington Road to Sutton Court Road needed to rerouted past the school! They claim that the changes would actually mean that all these cars would drive up to Hogarth Roundabout and then turn left onto the A4 and not take the quickest route to cut past the school, park and station to get to Burlington Lane and Sutton Court Road.This is shameful deceit which is endangering lives. This needs to be overturned.

Richard Potts ● 1940d

Stop inventing things Richard.Lets see what the traffic counters on Burlington Lane say.Note that in 2019 there were almost 3000 vehicles per day.Are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is and donate to charity £1 for every vehicle under your claim of 8000? So if there is 3000 measured, then you donate £5000. I'll do the same if the measured number is over 8000.

Michael Robinson ● 1940d

Indeed Richard. It’s more anti social local planning rather than ‘urban terrorism’. They supported it before, during, and after, and still do. One even cried ‘Hurrah’ when local traffic was diverted past the schools and nurseries.

Russell Pearson ● 1940d

What you smoking Potts and who is supplying the filling?

Paul Campbell ● 1940d

They're trying to do the same thing with the Glebe Estate.By making the primary access via Duke Road, more vehicles of all types will be diverted past the William Hogarth School. Irony is, that will undermine the green wall the Mayor himself came out to celebrate. Which pretty much makes that one a photo op and nothing more.

David Lesniak ● 1939d

I believe it's you Paul & Michael Robinson that must be smoking something or more likely are wearing your hypocrisy blinkers again.You claim to be on the side of the cyclist, quiet school streets and better neighbourhoods but you are not.Neither of you will accept the obvious fact that the Hartington Road closure has rerouted traffic past Chiswick School, station etc and turned Burlington Lane from a quiet street into a dangerous & busy cut-through.Anyone might think that you have some vested interest in supporting this lie. I don't suppose you benefited from these changes in some way or even live along the new resident only traffic routes?Or maybe it's that you are just thick after all?

Richard Potts ● 1939d

Firstly Richard, I'd suggest that somebody who goes onto a public forum to indulge in an aggressive postprandial rant on a Sunday evening to spread secondhand baseless allegations and falsehoods about his fellow residents is not in a strong position to accuse others of being "thick". Especially when we have recently seen somebody issue a public apology on the same forum.Secondly I suggest that you read my posts further up this thread on the evening of the 22nd June where I stated that I see traffic using Staveley past the school even during the School Streets hours and where I suggest a 24/7 restriction.No I do not live on a road that has had traffic diverted away from it by any aspect of the South Chiswick LTN scheme. I was as involved in its design as you (i.e. not at all) and I have expressed my reservations about the Burlington Lane and Staveley Road School Street part of this from the start including in front of Sam Hearn and Gabriella Giles and other local residents on a video call with the Project Manager when the scheme was first announced and in writing several times on local social media.My final suggestion would be that you try to dial down your credulity when engaging with the most entrenched opponents of schemes that reallocate road space and restrict traffic as that will help you to direct your energy in the right places and not make the same mistake that they have been making for over a year.

Paul Campbell ● 1939d

Read what I said previously Richard, I want to see the traffic counter data.  It doesn't matter what you, me or anyone else thinks, the data will show the effectiveness and impact of the measures.Unless you are a human traffic counter who has stood by the road braving attack by baby foxes 24x7 for at least a week, counting and classifying all vehicles, then extreme scepticism is needed about your claims, given the hyperbolic nature of your posts,  As I said, there were 3000 vehicles measured per day along Burlington Lane in 2019 with a vehicle every 15 seconds at the peak.  That isn't "a quiet street".  You've probably forgotten about that as you never paid any attention to it back then.

Michael Robinson ● 1939d

You have repeated that stat ad nauseum, unless the traffic patterns are the same it is meaningless.It could, for example, be the case that in the early 00s the peak traffic flow was 6-7,000 vehicles an hour, but in 2019 it was 8-9000 vehicles an hour (I have no idea whether this is true, it is merely a mathematical example).  That would imply that in the 00s more vehicles travelled at off peak times than the do now.  The averages would be as you described them but the reality is that the road was less able to cope with peak traffic than 20 years ago.  That is the problem with averages.Then there is the second issue, even if the traffic patterns are the same it provides no indication of how well the road is coping with peak traffic.  If the road struggles to cope with peak traffic now (and whilst I am not a regular A316 user, it definitely seems to struggle a bit) it just means that it struggled even more 20 years ago.It should be noted that this is not a new issue.  It was recognised as far back as the mid 1970s that that part of the A316 struggled with the volume of traffic and I cannot imagine traffic was more then than now if only because there were a lot less vehicles in UK then.

Justin Stephenson ● 1939d

The solution is already there. Just look at Hartington Road, "locals" are allowed to drive up it, however LBH has defined local very narrowly.  All that needs to happen is to have both Hartingdon Road and Burlington Lane northbound open to local traffic only with local defined preferably as anyone living in a Chiswick CPZ, or at worst a Chiswick CPZ south of A4.If non-locals drive up those roads they get fined, I have no problem with that.Of course it would increase traffic on Hartington but probably reduce it on Burlington but at least it would all be purely local traffic so by definition any increase would be fairly limited.

Justin Stephenson ● 1939d

I am not going to comment on the amount of traffic now using Burlington Lane, it is not a road I use regularly.I can comment on SCR and the amount of traffic on it.  It is definitely busier than in the past, and it struggles to cope far more regularly than in the past.  Those of us who live on or close to SCR were always familiar with the Friday afternoon traffic jam during school term times - which was caused as much by short cycle on the A4/SCR traffic lights than the amount of traffic on SCR but now that has spread to far more of the week than before.Again that could be because of changes to traffic light timings but from the naked eye it does look as though there is a lot more traffic using SCR both North & South and from the South it cannot have come up Hartington Road

Justin Stephenson ● 1939d

Another human traffic counter.  I really don't know why Hounslow paid for contractors to put down the traffic counting tubes which were only magnets for baby foxes anyway when there are people like Justin and Richard who can tell daily and hourly volumes at a glance.A bit like the people who claimed they can sniff out NO2 and particulates levels of pollution.Justin, didn't your naked eye fail you in the past. when you claimed that mopeds made up the majority of vehicles speeding along Staveley?  Something that was totally disproved by the actual traffic counts there?

Michael Robinson ● 1939d

The pro road closure Militant Cycle Lobbyists in LCC and Hounslow Cycling have ensured more local traffic gets diverted past schools. When challenged in this, they just scuttle out dubious data and proclaim there’s no issue. Shame on LBH for letting them define the agenda.

Russell Pearson ● 1939d

The trouble with dismissing the observed experience of 'human traffic counters' like Justin is that the data can't really give us a definitive answer to what is happening at the moment either. This was acknowledged by Steer in their report to Hounslow Council. Conditions are so distorted due to the pandemic that valid like for like comparisons are difficult to make.An individual report from a resident may be deemed to be unreliable but if the overwhelming proportion of people living in a area are saying the same thing, the chances are they have got it right. Dismissing the wisdom of the crowd is normally the wrong thing to do.The worrying thing about Sutton Court Road is that the A4 is not yet anywhere near normal traffic levels due to the continued low level of operation at Heathrow.It may also face additional challenges when the ULEZ is implemented because the South and North Circulars will be more congested so more people will cross at Chiswick Bridge rather than Kew Bridge.The new lights at the Sutton Court Road/A4 junction hopefully will mitigate the problems to a degree. Has there been any reduction in queues since they were installed?

Francis Rowe ● 1938d

Well said Francis!  With Hounslow Council, Ostriches burying their head in the ground comes to mind when trying to get them to listen!  I don't need 'counters' to tell me that almost every day in peak periods, there is a major bottleneck on Chiswick High Road between Goldhawk Road and Chiswick Lane.  All the traffic from Hammersmith directly to the East, and Shepherds Bush to the North East are all forced into one lane, including the busses. Everything gets held up.  The problem is compounded by the fact that any blockage on Chiswick Lane, or on Chiswick High Road, stops ALL traffic.  Then it starts backing up to Hammersmith and Shepherds Bush.  The pavement on this stretch is superwide and there are no shops.  It would be very easy to accommodate the cycle lane and a dedicated filter lane for Chiswick Lane, from Goldhawk Road.  This would require the replanting of about five trees, but would significantly improve the air quality for residents like myself who live nearby.  The traffic phasing at the Hogarth Roundabout would also need to be looked into at the same time.  I should also add that currently, that stretch of the cycle lane is SO dangerous for cyclists.  In the last couple of months I've seen ambulances attending twice, for cyclists being hit.  Coming out of, or into Homefield Road onto Chiswick High Road is particularly dangerous, as a large tree blocks one's vision of the Cycle lane significantly, and if you are turning into Homefield Road form the West, and a large vehicle has stopped to let you cross, you can't see what's on the cycle lane until you are half way across. Its's especially dangerous given the speeds some of the cyclists travel at on C9.  Worse still, for delivery drivers etc not familiar with the layout, it is not at all clear you are crossing a bidirectional cycle lane coming onto the High Road. It's only a matter of time before we have a serious accident there.

Richard Bryson ● 1938d

I don't think anyone is disputing that the queues on the Goldhawk Road to Chiswick Lane section have got considerably worse. Similarly the stretch between the Acton Lane junction and Chiswick Road junction on CHR is now regularly solid with traffic. If the queues weren't there they would be in the centre of Chiswick.Your suggestion about a filter lane is a good one but the temporary cycle lane was implemented under an Experimental Traffic Order which wouldn't have allowed them to remove trees. If they decide to make it permanent it would be possible to look at this option.On collisions, as far as I am aware no definitive data has been published as yet. There may have been cyclists injured on the Goldhawk Road to Chiswick Lane stretch and concern about this was one of the main reasons I was against the cycleway. However, cyclists were injured on this road before the cycleway and, until we see the data, then it can't be said for sure it is unsafe. On this issue, I'm with Michael Robinson, observed experience doesn't work for counting collisions.

Francis Rowe ● 1938d

Does that not risk a Dickensian approach? I’m reminded of Gradgrind’s many errors of judgement.

Russell Pearson ● 1936d