Forum Topic

Michael Brandt · 02/08/2011 14:09:00

new.EalingToday.co.uk Communtity Forum Topic posting

South Ealing Road improvements

Just read a well presented consultation document on proposals for South Ealing road.Sadly, well presented is about as far as it goes.The proposals are a recipe for rat runs and obstacle courses which will make the road hazardous for bus passengers and cyclists and users of larger vehicles.I fear it will be another Bond Street which has become a hopeless bottleneck as it is no longer possible for a Bus and a light delivery truck to pass.It looks nice but some of the changes have become an impractical hazard.

Michael Brandt ● 5710d36 Comments

Where did you read it Michael?

Penny Crocker ● 5710d

We've had one in the post as well. It's got copies of proper plans but have to agree here with Michael, I've not had a real good look and walked the area yet but even a quick glance reveals a lot of flaws. I think this will lead to a huge increase in rat running and make the whole street look cluttered.I can't see how a mini roundabout at the Church lane junction will improve matters. The current set up was a bodge and it will be chaotic for bus users.Quality pavements, removal of clutter, a bus shelter at South ealing stn and a smooth road surface would be ideal but this 'enhancement' will not look good and will clutter up the whole area.Who really wants to sit on park benches in the street close to a busy road when there are cafes with tables to hand?Wino's with a new venue springs to mind.Mike is also right about Bond St. It looks good, lovely paving but it now has pinch points and clogs up at any time with just one standard sized delivery truck, yet the pedestrian pavements are adequate.The widening and plant pots are already a magnet for litter and artificial congestion.This seems the same.Road hump tables are all very well but as well known locally they cause problems with drainage ( huge puddles in Church Lane) and need to be properly maintained, They are hazardous for cyclists and cars turning. Unmaintained they get loose and slippery.Again they create a cluttered appearance and often do not suit the envirions.Why narrow a road even more when it spends most of the day congested by large vehicles?Seems like a rather pointless waste of money.

Oliver Gregan ● 5709d

A very odd decision for what's the main road North-South in that area. Why try to clog it up?

Susan Kelly ● 5709d

Frankly anything would be better than we have got in South Ealing at the moment. The traffic calming is long overdue: there is no real reason for anyone driving at over 20mph in any part of Ealing that is not a dual carriageway, and the number of accidents and fatalities around South Ealing Tube Station due to the London Underground workers and contractors parking all over the place (which the police and Ealing Council ignore) and which the local station management encourages are legendary.P.S. Isn't the Hanger Lane the main North-South Road in Ealing. The South Ealing Road is a negelected death trap exploited by endless mini cab drivers who learned to drive in countries where driving licences are available for sale.Go for it Council!

Luther Brown ● 5709d

Got a consultation document in the post.Whilst some of the plans I like - renewing the paving etc, it's the usual consultation questions all loaded so one cannot respond specifically.The more I study the plans the more I think it will look like a dogs dinner once it is finished and weathered.It would be better to bring in a set of parameters for shop fronts etc and smarten up the parades and make some other improvements like as Oliver mentioned a proper bus shelter at the tube station and the re-siting of a lamp post that blocks the footpath by the station.

Michael Brandt ● 5709d

South Ealing road is a B category road and is a major bus route road. It's speed limit is 30mph.There are no records of fatalities plural at South Ealing station although there have been many accidents involving people not waiting for the crossing lights.Most incidents have been by antisocial group of reckless drivers who irrespective of speed controls have no regard for cameras, calming or any other measure but often come to calamity by losing control of a vehicle from abusing a traffic calming measure.Problem is these individuals do this anywhere, anytime.The proposals will stream a lot of impatient drivers into residential side roads where they are more likely to speed to make up time lost on a detour.Residential roads do not have pelican crossings or zebra crossings so denser traffic will increase a chance of a fatality. Not to mention the fact that the side streets are a major school walking route and this is already hazardous from the school run car users.Speed tables / humps have adverse effects particularly for buses. Passengers most of whom have to stand in modern buses often lose balance and fall and the buses suffer rapid suspension wear which adds up and leads to fare increases.Heavy axle loads also increase on the downforce and cause damage to the sub surface infrastructure. South Parade in Bedford Park is a good example of this but the bus route is largely unladen at that stretch. The 65 route is a major heavy load route.

Michael Brandt ● 5709d

As I witnessed a fatality at South Ealing Station a few years back I fear that I must take all the rest of your arguments as fiction as well. Please get your facts straight Mr Brandt! Most RESIDENTS (not "local businesses" I suspect) will welcome these proposed changes. Please remember Mr Brandt that people live in Ealing (about 330,000 of them) to whom having a safe and pleasant place to live in is somewhat more important than the survival of their many (usually dirty) convenience stores, cafes and endless unwanted take-aways.

Luther Brown ● 5709d

We don't all just drive up and down South Ealing Road.Cars travel too fast around the blind bend at the Church Road junction on what is a narrow road. A roundabout and raised crossings should help to slow the traffic.

Philippa Bond ● 5709d

Michael,Thanks for this. I use this section of road and pavement on an almost daily basis as walker to Tube, cyclist to Coop and driver to Brentford and beyond. I got maps by email from Cllr Cowing Thanks and a proper copy from a friend's recycling box. That's the first problem of a series:-(1)No presentation to 3 local ward forums..councillors please respond. This is a £800,000 ? scheme. Area committees were better for this sort of scheme that affects a big area and a lot of people.(2)Poor map....all proposals in sharp detail please existing in lower tone..see roundabout.(3)No prices. I've seen and heard the Arts Centre business plan ripped to pieces by officers and members. There aren't even prices here.(4)No rigor, plotted accident data? No(5)Plotted speed data? No(6)An appraisal of modifications to show how they will affect speed and accidents. No(7) (8) (9) (10) I could go on.We don't live in the dark ages some of have had eduction and apply much more rigor to our daily lives than this. Headmasters report..could do better.On a serious note if I were King I would have all of the transport department dressed just in their underwear waiting for a 65 bus at South Ealing station every evening after work for a week. And Boris if neccessary. There is no shelter there and none in these proposals. Shame shame shame. Do it now. Every time I drive by i see 40 people huddled exposed in the rain dark and cold. Wrong wrong wrong.

Arthur Breens ● 5709d

Michael,Thanks for raising this issue. I am a bit torn by this scheme myself. I do think that it will improve the neighbourhood from a safety perspective but my brother calls these "road narrowing" schemes and I do have a lot of sympathy with that view. The point about consulting is to get the issues aired. It is worth remembering that this scheme is funded by TfL so if we strip out all of the road safety aspects they will not fund it. But, if we don’t want it we don’t have to have it. By all means go along to the Ealing Common ward forum tonight and raise it. The Northfield ward forum on 16th February will be covering a couple of transport schemes including this one, see here:http://www2.ealing.gov.uk/services/council/committees/agendas_minutes_reports/ward_forums/northfields_ward_forum/index.htmlOne of my colleagues, David Millican, was responsible for transport in the last administration so he has some expertise and the Northfield councillors will be interested to hear your views. We have often stopped schemes that were inappropriate. The point of the consultation is to kick off the debate. I hope that you come and take part. It sounds like you have some well developed thoughts on this. If you can't make either of those dates buttonhole the Walpole councillors on 17th.

Phil Taylor ● 5709d

Phil,Closing date for reply is 17 Feb so Walpole ward forum not much use eh?

Arthur Breens ● 5709d

Arther,You do talk nonsense sometimes. I can tell you that if the councillors aren't convinced by the scheme it would weigh very heavily in the decision. What do you think ward forums are for?

Phil Taylor ● 5709d

What nonsense is this? The presentation of the scheme to Walpole Ward residents by the transport department at the Ward Forum on the 17th and completion of the forms on the same night to meet the deadline. What are you saying Phil?

Arthur Breens ● 5709d

What do we think Ward Forums are for?They should be for residents to raise concerns and ask questions. Residents should be encouraged to supply agenda items and decide on priorities , time allocated and the running order of topics. Sounds a bit like 'The Big Society' doesn't it?They should also be the forums for discussing the future of the Wards. Each trio of Councillors in each Ward should be experts in describing, explaining, discussing and consulting on the Local Development Framework as it applies to their Ward.The Ward Forums should not be opportunuties for residents to be lectured to by Councillors, Parks management, or the Police.The Forums should also not go over old ground that was excessively trampled on in previous Forums.

Eric Alan Leach ● 5708d

I agree with you on this one Mr Leach. The ward forums do seem to have become an opportunity for partisan politics and for various public sector bodies such as the police and the parks management to stand up and deliver pr (public relations). I do not think that what is said merits the term "lecture" however, is is just pr. No doubt it racks up some unsocial hours overtime for council employees and fulfills the tick-boxes for customer interactions etc. in performance reviews. However, as long as we have petty cross-party sniping going on at these ward forums residents are not going to work together: there is nothing more discouraging than seeing councillors throwing sand at each in the sand box!

Maggie Tomlinson ● 5708d

Maggie I'd like to see some sand throwing. My ward forum Walpole reminds me of a swamp..2+1 councillors on the same side using valuable time discussing £40,000 when at the other edge of the ward is a proposed £1,000,000 "road safety" scheme with lots of problems. Many people who have local knowledge and will be affected by the changes will only learn about this scheme (maybe) on the night of Walpole Ward Forum. The deadline for comments on the scheme is the same evening. My councillors refused to discuss the LDF with its important changes to the ward skyline and population prefering to keep to discussions about park railings and street signs. Important but ignoring the "elephant in the room". We the people of the big society had no say.

Arthur Breens ● 5708d

With due respect, Luther, Please read what Mr Brandt posted again. He refers to "no fatalites plural."I have checked and there is only one recorded fatality at South Ealing Stn to Church lane since 2002 when the pelican crossing was installed.A deeper look which can be accessed via the TFL/Metropolitan Police traffic division traffic records reveals a number of accidents that were not caused by a driver but by "undue attention actions of a pedestrian". A bit vague but this ranges from drunks to simply not looking. Cyclists have come of the worst many from car doors being opened into their paths.Mr Brandt also does not dismiss road safety but questions the wisdom of whether those enhancements will make road safety better for all road users.From my take on the proposals it is hard to see what will be achieved apart from rat running and an increase in traffic in residental roads, precisely where all these people you mention live including you and I. Something I most definitely do not want to see happen.

Oliver Gregan ● 5707d

Here is where I read it: http://www2.ealing.gov.uk/services/council/consultations/current_consultations/south_ealing_and_st_marys_rd_safety_improvements/"Safety Improvements" being a potentially biased title if I may suggest. "Vehicle impediments" may be an alternative. :)There is a link to a short online survey where one can give feedback on the proposals. Which is always nice.

David Whitelam ● 5707d

I live directly opposite the proposed rounabout and don't think it will be of any benefit. i tried to use the online survey to put forward my views but it won't let me submit!!Anyone else had this problem?

Kelly Cornfield ● 5707d

I did get that too. I assume they have recorded the responses but simply failed to direct us to the correct "Thank you so much for your comments" page...

David Whitelam ● 5707d

David,You are right. There was a problem with that form. I understand that responses were collected properly but the dialog did not confirm as much at the end. They have now added a positive reponse at the end but the system was working before and old responses should have been collected.

Phil Taylor ● 5707d

We had to brake today to allow a couple of cars coming up South Ealing Road to overtake a bus. Luckily we know the road and weren't travelling as fast as many do but still wonder why people think it is a good idea to overtake on the blind bend here.

Philippa Bond ● 5704d

It is normal to overtake a stationary bus in the UK. But illegal in other countries. I drive and cycle St Marys and S. Ealing road every day and have done for over 40 years, I cannot see how one could overtake a moving vehicle at this point. There are two obelisk/refuges one on the bend and one at Church lane.Even if you did not know the road, you would have to have your eyes closed to not see these.I am disappointed that those speed activated signs which are highly effective have never been installed prior to the southbound side of the curve.I think the junction could be improved but a mini roundabout would be dangerous, cause congestion and be really hazardous for cyclists as many will ignore the priority and confusion seems to occur at 3 way junctions. Swyncombe Ave/ Boston Manor Road is one of those examples, hellish.According to the statistics I looked up last week, South Ealing Road and St Marys road carry a higher volume of traffic than Northfields Avenue and HGV use is higher. But the accident rate is substantially lower. Little Ealing Lane and Windmill Road being the highest. Elers Road to Leyborne Ave and Leighton Road to Mattock lane also being higher. Popes Lane Junction, Warwick Road and Disraeli Road and Sunderland Rd/Airedale Rd jcn being the worst zones in St Mary's / South Ealing Rd.Just one fatality is recorded since 2002 at South Ealing Stn. But several in Northfields. I am sure there were two in South Ealing but it is not showing up anywhere.

Oliver Gregan ● 5704d

It isn't normal to overtake when you can't see what is coming towards you.Overtaking here means that the overtaking cars are on thewrong side of the road in the path of cars coming around the bend.

Philippa Bond ● 5703d

You don't say if the vehicle being passed was stationary or not.Certainly if it was moving it is a really dangerous place to pass.Very dangerous, illegal and crazy.But it's perfectly legal for and necessary to pass a stationary vehicleIf this is the section of road between the Plumbers merchants and the Zaykya Indian restaurant. then this is not uncommon to have to pass a parked delivery vehicle or builders vehicles loading.There are no service roads to the businesses there. Any further restrictions will finish the businesses off, then what?What does any one suggest be done?I have to say thanks to Mr Gregan who seemed to answer a few points for me but also how I do agree with him over the lack of any speed or hazard warning detectors. A simple slow 20mph for the curve would make a difference.I took a look down the service road to the mansions this morning. I noticed it has been spruced up since I last looked but it cannot take a standard light truck - well it can but you cant open the doors!I spoke to a few shopkeepers who say they have virtually barricaded the back doors as break ins and flash raids are a favoured method. Indeed, they do have to close the shop to deal with rubbish or rear deliveries which do happen with small deliveries. Royal Mail and a few other delivery companies wont leave vans unattended in back service roads as they are prime targets.It seems that shops with staff do use the rear as much as possible but most shops are sole traders.Forum Home

Michael Brandt ● 5703d

Cars also turn the corner with Church Lane so fast that they are on the wrong side of the road.

Philippa Bond ● 5703d

The bus was moving.

Philippa Bond ● 5703d

I think you will find that there are service alleyway and yards for all the busineses you mention: the Zayka does take its deliveries via this (it exits opposite the Conservative Club behind the corner convenience store. I would suggest that you look at all the shops mentioned: you will find that there is either active rear access or unused rear access. It does not require huge lorries to deliver to these shops just a matter of asking for a smaller van to do the delivery!

Charles J McGregor ● 5702d

The Ealing Park Mansions private road can easily take a 7.5 tonnes truck from Travis Perkins, a full size skip lorry, and a full size rubbish collection track. Where Shopkeepers have chosen to build up to the edge of the service road meaning that the delivery trucks cannot open the doors that is a business decision, a bad one, but their choice!On principle, I have taken to not shopping in shops where the staff obstruct the pavement with deliveries or cut carpets on the pavement when they have perfectly good rear back yards. That the shops are practically all doing badly may have something to do with the fact that they have annoyed the locals with their poor customer service, rubbish all over their back yards, and epensive!

Charles J McGregor ● 5702d

I would like to see you try and get a skip lorry down the mansions. It can get down but cannot function ie drop or collect without demolishing the boundary posts or the rear fences of the properties in the next road.When we had builders in we had to use a transit flat bed almost daily and it cost a fortune. Naturally this blocked the road for 45 mins a day as there was simply no-where else to remove the rubble.No business encroaches the boundary and by the way many of the rear access forecourts are for residents not just the shopkeepers.Very often the rubbish bins block the roadway. It has to be remembered several hundred people live over the shops and they have rubbish as well.it has been a big issue with the freeholders over many years, but the simple fact is there is not enough space for modern transportation.They were designed for vehicles the size of an Austin Seven and even a 1960s Morris 1000 van would barely fit without a lot of manouvering. Vehicles are far bigger now.As for the Church lane access, well that is where I first lived and only the Undertakers and the Zakya use it as they have smaller vehicles but again anything bigger and bang goes your garden fence, it is neither safe or practical although I wish it were.

Oliver Gregan ● 5702d

Councillor Taylor, you told us: "It is worth remembering that this scheme is funded by TfL so if we strip out all of the road safety aspects they will not fund it. But, if we don’t want it we don’t have to have it". I have put this to the Council's Assistant Director of Strategic Transport, Nick O'Donnell, who is responsible for this scheme, and he advises: "To clarify on Councillor Taylor's comments, it is up to the Borough how we spend our allocation of money. If we wish a corridor to include road safety measures or not has no bearing on the funding. I trust this clarifies that point".So one of you is talking rubbish and misinforming us. Which one is it? - you or him? - does this scheme really depend on yet-to-be-secured funding from TfL, dependent on demonstrable accident and casualty eduction justification, as you forcefully claim, or has all the funding necessary already been secured and allocated, as Mr O'Donnell equally forcefully claims?Whichver, you can take it from me that this scheme as currently proposed has NO meaningful correlation with the actual accident record on thus corridor - which is remarkably good - having analysed in detail the three years' injury accident records on which the Council claims the scheme to be based, and checked the results against the actual scheme proposed, and there is NO accident-based justification for any of the works proposed.

Chris Veasey ● 5686d

Well Councillor Taylor, the responsible Assistant Director has again insisted that all funding required for the South Ealing scheme, whatever form this takes following the 'consultation' is already secured, so does NOT depend on TfL approving the road safety elements (if any).So it appears that you have seriously misled the public by your comments on this site, and probably thereby skewed the consultation responses in favour of acceptance of the scheme as proposed, thus making the validity of the whole consultation exercise of dubious validity.I think we're all entitled to a response, explanation and (if appropriate and at all possible) an apology from you - don't you?

Chris Veasey ● 5683d

Cllr Taylor has now responded and clarified on this as follows, on the separate thread 'To Councilor Phil Taylor re South Ealing Road Improvements:-"Chris,"I have just seen your comment and I am sure that Nick O'Donnell is right and that I made a mistake. Sorry. Under the current Mayor TfL has been giving councils a lot more latitude about how they spend their apportionments of roads money from TfL, clearly this is an example of that and I was reflecting the old thinking. "I made clear my ambivalence about the scheme in my original posting. My main point was that people should make their views clear in the consultation and/or at ward forums."

Chris Veasey ● 5683d

I cannot understand why shopkeepers are allowed to take up so much public footpath space to trade so much tat.They create huge obstruction and congestion for pedestrians, wheelchairs,blind people,mothers with push chairs etc.Surely there should be a restriction as to how far they can trade beyond the limits of the shop fronts.There are many areas in Ealing which have become eyesores and some have even erected canopies way across the pavements.These shops already occupy huge space inside and use our public space to expand their businesses. This has to be very unfair to the general public who have to endure these hazardous conditions and severely restrict the use of footpaths and Public transport.I think this situation should be seriously reviewed.Apparently shop owners can pay for such use but this facility should not be sanctioned and footpaths should be returned to the PUBLIC to whom they belong.

Marie Anne OConnell ● 5680d

Actually, if you look carefully as you walk along past the mansions/shops you will see that there is a boundary line about halfway across the pavement.This is because half the pavement is actually owned by the freeholder of the mansions. There is some sort of gentlemens agreement that the whole area can be used asa public footway but it was originally designated for traders to set out their wares.Old photographs show this as the norm when the mansions and parade was new but has died out.If the freeholder so wanted he could fence the front boundary leaving a pavement about the width of the opposite side of the road. But then would be responsible for its full upkeep.

Oliver Gregan ● 5679d