Forum Topic

Chiswick School. Hounslow's Streetspace traffic scheme

The website link to this LBH scheme ishttps://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20053/transport/2171/hounslows_streetspace/11The schemes start date is awaited.I'm pleased that some, but not all of the outstanding Equality issues that we called-in have been addressed.John

John Todd ● 898d25 Comments

Bump for Colin

Bernard Allen ● 884d

"listened to a consolation when the TRUTH seems to be they are running scared of their blunders being exposed by a judicial review"

Adrian Irving ● 894d

"The council hopes that the changes made will make C9T less vulnerable to a legal challenge by the OneChiswick campaign group which argued previously that the early design significantly disadvantaged the elderly and the disabled and that the council had not fulfilled its statutory responsibilities to those groups." firstly let me say I am not a signed up to OneChiswick however I have been dismayed by a certain faction continually making sneering comments about them.Well, if nothing else, they seem to sufficiently rattled the council's cage to instigate significant changes to tC9.Changes that were blindingly obvious from the start.ie. bus stops, left filter to Chiswick Lane etc. etc.By the way, sad it maybe, but each time I walk past CHR/CL junction I count the number of vehicles turning left against straight on. The vast majority turn left. 12 to 3 was the last count so it is no wonder it's a traffic bottleneck. Add in buses  changing drivers of course.How the council have got the cheek to say they have listened to a consolation when the true seems to be they are running scared of their blunders being exposed by a judicial review.What's the betting they would just have left the mess they have created without an active pressure group? We can only guess.

Adrian Irving ● 894d

Facts (or figures, statistics etc) are only dangerous to those who make fact free arguments. Unfortunately not dangerous enough.

Ed Saper ● 894d

Misinterpreting figures? Easily done and can be used for or against an argument. Dangerous things figures or statistics as some call them.

Maggie Dodge ● 894d

"Comical" is a very polite way of describing Justin's "logical conclusion". I used to think that people on this forum were deliberately manufacturing contrived arguments to be provocative but posts like that have disabused me of that notion.

Paul Campbell ● 895d

Great that you are reading my article Justin but you have misinterpreted the figures to a comical extent.Yes, the traffic on Staveley between the A316 and Burlington did not change significantly.The traffic in Burlington between the A316 and Burlington did not change significantly.The traffic on Staveley west of the Burlington / Staveley junction decreased by about 4,600 vehicles per day.The traffic on Burlington west of the Burlington / Staveley junction increased by about 4,100 vehicles per day.Therefore a large proportion of the traffic that turned off the A316 onto Staveley, rather than going straight on Staveley as it used to, was deterred by the barrier on Staveley and took left onto Burlington Lane to reach the A4 using that route.So while navigating the barrier at the western end of Staveley was successful at preventing traffic going that route, it wasn’t sufficiently circuitous to prevent traffic coming off the A316 at Staveley and reaching the A4 via Burlington Lane.The increased traffic on Burlington Lane clearly came from the A316, not as you claim from within Grove Park.As further proof, where do you think the thousands of westbound cars on Staveley between the A316 and the junction with Burlington come from? There isn’t a single residential property east of where the the sensor was. Were these cars driven by zombies coming from the cemetery?The ANPR survey from September 2019 using a camera at the junction of the A316 and Staveley showed that 90% of traffic coming off the A316 was driving through the area to the A4 using a variety of routes. The measures achieved a slight reduction in this through traffic but displaced a proportion from the west section of Staveley to the west section of Burlington Lane.

Michael Robinson ● 895d

I am more than happy to point to the data.https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/traffic-data-shows-effects-of-traffic-restrictions-in-south-chiswick/An article written by Michael Robinson!!The graphs provided by the Michael Robinson who wrote the article (obviously a different Michael Robinson to the one who posts on this forum!!) clearly show an increase in traffic going west along Burlington Lane from where it intersects with Staveley Road but they also show that there was no meaningful change in traffic going west along Burlington Lane prior to Staveley Rd (ie from the A316 junction) AND they show there was a reduction in traffic turning up Staveley Rd to intersect with Burlington Lane.So the logical conclusion has to be that the increase in traffic going west between Staveley Rd and the train station can only be due to traffic which came from GP - your own figures prove that it did not come from the A316.SO if you are claiming that this is all nonsense who is wrong - the Michael Robinson who wrote the Chiswick Calendar article or the Michael Robinson who posts on this forum

Justin Stephenson ● 895d

That's its turnover isn't it?

Simon Temple ● 896d

Obviously  if Sainsbury's etc pay then we’ll all end up paying . Even those of us who don’t have deliveries. I wouldn’t want the drivers paying either, as there’s is a difficult job, in my opinion. The obvious answer is remove the restrictions. Job done 👍

Maggie Dodge ● 896d

For all we know Sainsbury drivers might be obliged to follow a predetermined delivery route which could require them to go past restrictions, which is OK as long as the company picks up the tab.  It would be most unfair if the drivers had to pay themselves, unless they had the freedom and the extra time to choose their own route.

Peter Evans ● 896d

Where are these 'zones' that you speak of Bernard?There are restrictions entering Grove Park area from the A316 but where are the restrictions within the area itself?The only one is the 'except for access' on Thames Rd but that doesn't apply if the driver is actually doing deliveries there.Are you saying that a £30billion company has the expertise to run a hugely complex logistics system, figure out what groceries should go on each van to make the most efficient deliveries but doesn't know how to get to a location without the driver breaking the law?

Michael Robinson ● 896d

It’s not about signs, to go past the first sign on your route which gives some Hounslow rubbish information, but once you have entered the walled city of hell, you have multiple drops. Now, I would Except a employee to concentrate on his real job of good customer service while delivering their purchase items to  their door. Then the employee moves off to the next drop unaware that halfway down the road you have moved into another zone in this hell hole, therefore Collect  a ticket for doing so, and so on.What very large company’s really need to do regarding the the situation in this borough is to completely avoid it, Chiswick is only a small part of Hounslow therefore if the company makes £30 billion pounds a year as you say, Chiswick could be rubber stamped off the map altogether regarding door step delivery’s.Surly this would be a good thing, less vehicles on the roads from the company, but then the residents would have to go to the store to pick up their supply’s.Which mode of transport they would use would depend on how much shopping you intend to buy, so could increase the amount of local vehicles on the roads.As a ex union rep I would be concerned for the members safety, he has abided by what he interpreted the signs to mean. He has done the best he can, and is only trying to earn a living, and doesn’t expect to be fined for making  the wrong move by council who was direct by the MP who fell off his bike a few days ago.

Bernard Allen ● 896d

Yes Bernard, obviously a company that makes £30 billion pounds a year can’t be expected to provide SatNav directions to drivers that respect road signs.As an ex union safety rep you must have been concerned that the driver showed so little regard for this.

Michael Robinson ● 897d

Talking to a Sainsburys Delivery driver this evening, he's getting roughly 4 to 5 tickets a day delivering in Chiswick, up to now, Sainsburys having been paying them, but they are thinking of making the driver pay for any tickets received while delivering in Chiswick.Speaking as an EX union Safety rep of another union than the driver, that little statement, would bring on industrial action, or a boycott of delivery's in Chiswick.Proud of yourself Michael Robinson,

Bernard Allen ● 897d

"the only traffic data I have seen shows that nearly all of that traffic increase is due to traffic originating in GP, ie traffic which will not be affected by the proposal."That is nonsense.  Please point out "the traffic data you have seen' which you claim shows this.Traffic on the A316 from 2001 to 2005 averaged about 32k a day while in 2019 it was 25k and in 2020 (pandemic affected) 19k.You'll need to explain why you think the A316 will 'struggle to cope' when it has handled far more traffic in the past.

Michael Robinson ● 897d

The entire proposal is flawed.  It is nothing to do with school safety - I support the closure to traffic during normal school start and end times.  Allegedly it is because of increased traffic along Burlington Lane between Staveley Road and the train station but the only traffic data I have seen shows that nearly all of that traffic increase is due to traffic originating in GP, ie traffic which will not be affected by the proposal.I do not believe that LBH has even considered where the traffic which will be displaced by the closure of Staveley Road and Burlington Lane turn offs from the A316 will go.  Some of that traffic may evaporate but most will not.  The traffic that is displaced would otherwise be (a) going to GP or (b) using SCR as a cut through to the A4 or (c) using SCR as a cut through into Chiswick north of the A4.  If we examine the remaining traffic routes for each of those possibilities we can quickly reach the following conclusions:(a) will go to the Hogarth Roundabout, turn onto the A4 and then turn left at the SCR junction(b) will go to the Hogarth Roundabout, turn onto the A4 and keep going(c) will go to the Hogarth Roundabout, then they have 2 options (i) turn onto A4 then right at the SCR junction or (ii) exit the Hogarth Roundabout onto Chiswick Lane.Obviously all such traffic has to use the Roundabout and depending on the amount of traffic that adds to the A316 it may struggle to cope.  Possibility (a) after the roundabout does not present any obvious concerns, cars turning left will be in the slow lane. Possibility (b) after the roundabout presents no concerns. Possibility (c)(i) is a potential safety issue if it results in cars backing up from the SCR junction waiting for the lights to go change - basically you have a traffic jam in the fast lane.  Possibility (c)(ii) is an even worse safety concern.  The junction of Chiswick Lane and the exit from the flyover is notoriously dangerous, and this will simply add more traffic to a bad junction.LBH should publish what, if any, safety assessments have been done.

Justin Stephenson ● 897d

Is there any way to know which roads are controlled. I live on Sutton Court Rd so would need to get onto the South Circular towards Gatwick.I've not driven since the new restrictions.Is there a decent map anywhere? It seems a bit of a mess.

Basil Finnis ● 897d

My apologies. I couldn’t see where Sutton Court road  was included. It must  in one of the CP Zones. So does that mean he has to apply for both permits. Nothing is clear. Its a complete farce

Janice Jones ● 897d

John, how can the Staveley Road closure be made under the guise of a School Street given so many people,(residents of Grove Park and elsewhere) can drive down it? And of course given the 6 day per week closure. Is this 'normal'?

Mandy Waters ● 897d

Actually no. Colin is eligible for a resident exemption to the Staveley Road restriction.

Paul Campbell ● 897d

Basically yes

Janice Jones ● 897d

So under the new regulations, if I drive north over Chiswick Bridge heading for my home on Sutton Court Road, south of the A4 (as I often do), the only route available will be via Hogarth Roundabout and the A4, turning left into Sutton Court Road at the traffic lights, i.e. more time, more inconvenience, more traffic queues, more pollution. Another classic anti-Chiswick policy from the denizens of Fortress Hounslow masquerading as virtue-signalling.

Colin Jordan ● 897d

When you enter Staveley Road from the A316 the restrictions doesn’t start straight away. They start at the signage just before the school entrance.This will give you time to stop and turn around, which I’ve done a couple of times when I forgot the time of day it operates. It also gives vehicle access to the Chiswick New Cemetery without receiving a PCN every time there’s a funeral. So we don’t want it to start at the beginning of Staveley Road.

Bernard Allen ● 897d

I used this stretch of Staveley Road today, and wondered why the restriction signs at the A316 end are placed some distance from the junction, which means it's too late to go in some other direction once you've deciphered the complex signage. There is sign at the A316 junction but that's an even more complicated and contradictory restriction aimed at lorries. I hope the new arrangements will sort this out. It's the same with Hartington Road, with the restriction signs some distance away from the A316 junction so it's impossible to avoid passing the sign without doing an awkward U turn.

Peter Evans ● 897d