.

subscribebutton1

Log in
x
Register
x

Search - Documents
Search - Articles and Content

 

Residents' Association Forum

 

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Portmeirion on September 30, 2013, 11:26:40 PM

 



Title: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Portmeirion on September 30, 2013, 11:26:40 PM
I am still miffed by why people park on Giggs Hill Road blocking the passage into the village.

The flats in Rayleigh House etc have their own, so I don't know why people park at all. After spending some time there, it seemed to me it's a combination of train commuters (bizarre) and offices in the High Street. Surely these people/business should be enticed by the council /villagers to park in Ashley Road, then the council could perhaps have roads we can drive on.

Double or single yellows I hope will follow. If you are working in an office, why not use the car park?


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Dictun Mearc on October 01, 2013, 08:29:39 AM
People legally parking outside their own house?  It's outrageous!  It shouldn't be allowed!  Where's my pitch fork?!!!!!

Raleigh Court/ Ditton Close is not on Giggs Hill Road, but Watts Road, so I believe you are talking about that.  There was a recent consultation that polled the views of the residents of the road, and that's how we ended up with the double yellow lines outside Linden Close to allow a passing point.

As far as I know, nobody wanted the road turned into a race track, which is what would happen with a nice straight road with no cars parked on it.  The parked cars provide a decent amount of traffic calming, and if they discourage a few people from driving through the village on their commute, then that's a good thing.  I've never been held up for more than 30 seconds or so when I've driven through, and so I believe it's a price well worth paying.  Yellow lines would also put pressure on the Library Car Park, which is currently free, but probably wouldn't be if everyone who was parking in Watts Road was displaced there.  It's a slippery slope.

Whilst you would like 'roads we can drive on', I'd prefer roads in the village that pedestrians can cross, and cyclists can use without fear of being run down by fast cars.  Parking helps to slow down and provide natural breaks in the traffic.  Whilst ideally I'd like to see people from the offices in the High Street use the Ashley Road car park, we have to be realistic. In an ideal world, Ashley Road car park would be free.  It's not, and it's not going to be any time soon, as Elmbridge believe that it it has to 'pay for itself'.  Given the choice between paying a day rate, and parking for free on a side road, if you were an Office worker, what would you do?  I'd rather people from offices in the High Street parked in Watts Road than the High Street itself, as that reduces pressure on the High Street, where we'd all like to see spaces for people to stop during the day for short periods to buy from our wonderful shops.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Portmeirion on October 01, 2013, 09:18:12 AM
I am right that one yellow Lines does now allow 15 minutes of waiting time, this is presumably a goo dissolution for the high site.

You are right, it is Watts Road I was talking about,  I do take your point about speeding and pedestrians but I think a zebra crossing there would look great and deter people from speeding. So what if cars are displaced to the car park, it's only abut 5 or 6 cars, the library car park can take that,  I know.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Dictun Mearc on October 01, 2013, 01:02:59 PM
Yellow lines allow 15 minutes of waiting time do they?  That's news to me! Looking at the Highway Code, a single yellow line means that you may not park but may stop to load or unload (unless there are also loading restrictions) or while passengers board or alight.  This does not mean that you may park on them and go into a shop for 15 minutes.  There have been rumblings from the current administration to allow something approaching this, as an admission that yellow lines kill passing trade, but this hasn't been legislated for.  I could see the case for putting down restrictions allowing parking for limited times in the high street during the day, to assist with passing trade, much like those at Winters Bridge (30 mins max, no return within 1 hour, from 9am-6pm or so), but this would clearly have to have the support of the residents and retailers if it were to be implemented.

Going back to the Library car park, I seem to remember that there is a 4 hr time limit there during the week anyway, so I guess any cars wouldn't be displaced to there.  This would probably mean that they'd be displaced to Giggs Hill Road, Mercer Close and Linden Close, which wouldn't go down too well with the residents there, the majority of whom don't have off road parking available to them.  You'd also see further pressure on Station Road.  Remember that putting yellow lines down does not remove parked cars, it just displaces them......


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: craigvmax on October 01, 2013, 02:51:12 PM
I honestly don't see the problem on Watts road, agree the parked cars ensure speed is kept down and I'm never waiting there for longer than 30 seconds max. Ok the odd car driver taggs on and squeezes through which can be annoying but thats just life.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: mg on October 01, 2013, 03:38:58 PM
I agree with Dictun  Mearc that parked cars slow down traffic and without them we would go back to the race track rat run situation again.

The ideal situation, in my view as a Station Road resident, would be limited timed parking ie no parking between 10 - 12 for example COUPLED WITH and I stress that, COUPLED WITH,  more effective speed humps and some physical alteration (no right/left turns from Watts Road to Station Road or what ever).  This would cut down the number of cars through Thames Ditton and also slow down the speed that they travel through the village.

It seems sad to me that we have to tolerate road jamming, free,  commuter parking,  just in order to slow traffic down,  because  the speed humps were put in place to do that.  I don't think the humps do the job at all.  As DM said, it is only parked cars that slow the traffic down in Thames Ditton.

A questionnaire, initiated by a resident, was recently sent to all Station Road and Embercourt Road residents,  asking us what we thought about parking etc, but I haven't heard any more about it. 


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Portmeirion on October 01, 2013, 04:23:30 PM
MG - I agree with your sentiments and yes some results will be interesting.

I also think the parked cars make the bumps ineffective as you are forced to drive between them especially if you have a small sports car and a range rover which I have, they make the bumps useless. MG is right, the logic is rotten and should be thrown out.

If one goes to places Richmond or Wimbledon village, cars just would not be littered on the street - off street and on residential roads fine or the common, fine.  If these commuters want to come into the village, then they should be forced to use Ashley Road or around Giggs hill green.



Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Dictun Mearc on October 01, 2013, 04:58:20 PM
Z-Cars - May I remind you that Watts Road, Station Road, Giggs Hill Road, and the High Street are all 'residential roads'.  They all have a number of houses and flats that do not have their own off street parking.  You may have the luxury of either having your own 'free' off street parking, or living in a road where parking is not a problem, but many of the residents of these roads do not.  We have to consider the needs of these residents, alongside those of the motorists that drive through.  Given that Giggs Hill Green along its northern edge has many such houses with no parking of their own, how do you think they'd feel about an influx of cars parking there that had been forced out from the rest of the village?  I simply fail to see how reducing the amount of parking spaces available for everyone can improve the parking situation in any way shape or form.   
In places like Richmond, they have rationed parking to such an extent that new builds often have conditions attached that prevent their residents from applying for any parking permits.  This is not a route that I think anyone who owns a car and lives in the village would want to go down.  We are very lucky that there are still free parking spaces available on the roads, and 2 car parks in the village, one of which is free, and the other with very modest charges.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Portmeirion on October 01, 2013, 05:28:42 PM
Your missed the point, the high street is mixed-use, so of course there will be parking for both shops and residents.

Watts Road, doesn't have any houses or flats that don't have their parking.

Giggs Hill Road, I am suggesting is where the cars will be displaced to as there is no restrictions there. I actually think Wimbledon common looks good with cars parked along its boundary.

In Richmond they are just trying to minise multiple car houses, which is another issue. We have loads more space than them as they vastly more densely populated.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: mg on October 01, 2013, 05:43:47 PM
z cars - I certainly wouldn't want the speed humps to be taken out.  I would want them made much steeper, so that people in vans or 4 x 4s can't drive over them quickly.

I also think that parking restrictions on Thames Ditton roads should be agreed by the residents living on the roads in question.  A consensus of views if possible - no change from the present situation if not.

Speaking from our experience in Station Road,  putting yellow lines on some roads just moves the problem to adjoining roads and because of this, I think that a complete overview of all the roads has to be taken.  All roads should have the same timed parking restrictions, just to stop all day commuter parking.  This then frees up street parking for shoppers, residents cars, friends, visitors, school parking etc.  I would much prefer this sort of parking, than the road being used as a commuter car park for people who drive from surrounding parts of Elmbridge to get free parking.

Lets face it,  we are the only area around here that has unrestricted parking near to a railway station.   There has to be a good reason for other areas to have decided to restrict commuter parking, what were those reasons and why should they not apply to Thames Ditton.  Why are we different from Surbiton, Kingston, Esher, Richmond etc etc????????????????????????

Anybody got any good reasons why Thames Ditton is different from other local areas where a BR station is situated???????????????


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Dictun Mearc on October 02, 2013, 07:32:58 AM
Quote from: mg on October 01, 2013, 05:43:47 PM
Lets face it,  we are the only area around here that has unrestricted parking near to a railway station.   There has to be a good reason for other areas to have decided to restrict commuter parking, what were those reasons and why should they not apply to Thames Ditton.  Why are we different from Surbiton, Kingston, Esher, Richmond etc etc????????????????????????

Anybody got any good reasons why Thames Ditton is different from other local areas where a BR station is situated???????????????


A very good reason - Thames Ditton has an effective Residents' Association and Residents' Association councillors that take the views of all local residents into account, whereas the surrounding areas that you mention don't.  Additionally, being non political, the Residents' Association has no ideological pro or anti car views, unlike some local administrations (Richmond Council springs to mind, where residents parking permits related to CO2 emissions were introduced under the Liberal Democrats).

If you have a look at some of the old 'Thames Ditton Today' magazines in the Library, you'll see that parking has been a continual issue that has been debated time and time again in open meetings.  While there are those who would like to introduce stronger parking controls in the village, there are plenty of others who wouldn't, and the healthy discussions for and against have and will continue.  Long may they do so.  If and when, and only when, the balance moves in favour of more controls will more controls be implemented.  At the moment, the majority are against.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Dictun Mearc on October 02, 2013, 07:51:08 AM
Quote from: Z cars on October 01, 2013, 05:28:42 PM
Your missed the point, the high street is mixed-use, so of course there will be parking for both shops and residents.

Watts Road, doesn't have any houses or flats that don't have their parking.

Giggs Hill Road, I am suggesting is where the cars will be displaced to as there is no restrictions there. I actually think Wimbledon common looks good with cars parked along its boundary.

In Richmond they are just trying to minise multiple car houses, which is another issue. We have loads more space than them as they vastly more densely populated.


With regards to Watts Road, I think the residents of Rose Cottage,  Byways, The Coach House,  and the the flats at the Lodge would disagree with you for a start.  You've also got to think of the houses and flats at the end of Station Road and the houses and flats at that end of the High Street who all use Watts Road to park when there are no spaces available on their respective roads.  As I said before, all these roads are 'residential', and all have a fair number of houses and flats in the vicinity with no off road parking of their own.   

If you had no off road parking space, had always parked your car on the road near your house, and found that there was a movement to paint yellow lines on it from people who didn't live there, just so that they could shave 30 seconds off their commute, thereby increasing traffic speeds in your road and removing any possibility of your parking your car there during the day, would you be happy with that?

With regards to Giggs Hill Road, there may be 'no restrictions', but the local residents already take full advantage of that - it already is full of cars.  Where do you propose these extra cars would go?  The road is not wide enough for parking on both sides.  You'd just be shifting the parking from Watts Road 100 yards up the Road, upsetting the residents of Giggs Hill Road in the process, so I fail to see the point!

With regards to Richmond, we only have 'loads more space' on the roads, as there are a lot less parking restrictions.  If you were to introduce more yellow lines, you would see very quickly how that space disappears!


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Portmeirion on October 02, 2013, 08:20:47 AM
All those apartments have parking to the rear, if you bothered to check. I know very well, because l live close by also.

Lets see what the questionnaire says?

It's not merely saving 30 seconds, it's the stares, wing mirrors being hit and feeling sick going over bumps - ie quality of life.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: craigvmax on October 02, 2013, 08:24:52 AM
I think they only have limited parking at the rear, a number of garages, I'm not 100% sure though.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Dictun Mearc on October 02, 2013, 08:36:12 AM
Quote from: Z cars on October 02, 2013, 08:20:47 AM
All those apartments have parking to the rear, if you bothered to check. I know very well, because l live close by also.

Lets see what the questionnaire says?

It's not merely saving 30 seconds, it's the stares, wing mirrors being hit and feeling sick going over bumps - ie quality of life.


Where have I mentioned the flats in Ditton Close?  I'm quite aware that a number of those have garages to the rear (although quite a number, being rented, do not have access to those garages.  There are also flats where 'shock horror', they have more than one vehicle, just like you!).  The fact remains that quite apart from the flats in Ditton Close, there are plenty of other houses and flats in the area with no off road parking, including all those that I have quoted.

Has this questionnaire that has been mentioned actually gone to any of the residents of Watts Road or the High Street?  If it is just a Station Road thing, then I fail to see what that has to do with Watts Road.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Admin on October 02, 2013, 09:58:10 AM
There is not a single parking issue that has not been discussed and consulted on extensively, and repeatedly, during the past 13 years and more.  Residents (and businesses) have differing views and they are strongly held. 

When small changes that do appear to command support are implemented, always after both informal local consultation then the statutory process of SCC consultation (which does give most weight to the views of occupants of the roads concerned) they tend to have knock on effects.

Also, when compromises are made to solve, on balance, one problem (e.g. rat-runs), people then tend to focus on other, often lesser, problems (e.g. humps that were part of the rat-run solution).

In the case of Station Road, a resident of that road again raised the idea of yellow lines at the recent RA Open Meeting.  However, notwithstanding his own strongly-held views, when last year the matter went through all the consultation procedures, a significant majority of Station Road residents who took the time to respond to the statutory consultation were against the proposal.

As another resident of vast experience sagely remarked at that meeting, the real problem is that there are too many cars, and there is nothing that is likely to change that in the foreseeable future.

I would just add that most of the time, there are few if any problems in the village when I drive around, and there always seems to be parking available.  The problems are only manifest at peak traffic times.  And to a great extent they are self-regulating.  Several contributors have already commented that more parked cars tends to lead to slower traffic speeds.  That is part of the self-regulating process.  Drivers will balance out the inconveniences with the conveniences.  You make provision for parking, more people will park; you make roads less constricted, more drivers will drive fast, and more will cut through the village to get from Portsmouth Rd to HC Way.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Portmeirion on October 03, 2013, 11:35:07 AM
Admin, thanks - what future plans do you/RA have in regards to car parking and safety issues in the village then?


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: mg on October 03, 2013, 05:46:03 PM
I don't think that the RA is thinking about TD residents when it encourages free commuter parking.  In fact, the representatives of the local areas  (Kingston, Richmond, Surbiton etc) where commuter parking has been stopped, are better at representing their community than our RA (in that respect only of course!)

All day free commuter parking has no benefits to the local area what so ever.

Allowing parking for most of the day - but not ALL day - would be the best option.  School drop offs could still happen.  People could stop and shop.  Friends, tradesmen etc could visit TD residents easily.    The spaces created by vehicles parking and then moving away throughout the day would create traffic passing spaces  along our roads in a natural way.  Allowing cars other than all day commuting cars to park in TD means that  there would still be some vehicles parked on our roads which naturally slow down the speed of through traffic.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Portmeirion on October 03, 2013, 06:05:11 PM
Mg - I agree with you. There is no advantage to have free commuter parking.

I would even buy a residents parking badge of about £100 for e village and library if the council needs revenue.
Giving free parking is no benefit to them either


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: BlueSky on October 03, 2013, 09:29:59 PM
I too think free commuter parking especially on the high street side of the railway bridge does not benefit the locals. Commuters will soon get the idea, it's not worth it.

I know a few people who drive in from Surbiton for the free parking albeit less frequent trains.  I don't really see the RA are protecting our living standards just aliens who visit. Surely it's part of the delight of living in our village is walking to the train.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Dictun Mearc on October 04, 2013, 08:31:52 AM
MG, Z Cars and Bluesky, I think you misunderstand how the RA works.  It is not a top down organisation, with dictats from above, an over powerful executive committee, and Councillors that do not listen to the constituents that they represent, it's a bottom up democratic organisation.  It is truly a group of residents, and the view of the RA is no different from the views of the residents (and local businesses) that it represents.  In effect, the RA are the residents. 

One of the most important ways that the RA garners the views of the residents is via open meetings, which are often a forum for such debates on parking.  As Admin points out:
Quote:
There is not a single parking issue that has not been discussed and consulted on extensively, and repeatedly, during the past 13 years and more.  Residents (and businesses) have differing views and they are strongly held.


You may not agree, but the current majority view of the residents and local businesses on Station Road is that further parking restrictions are to be avoided.  Indeed, when consulted last year over the idea of putting yellow lines outside the Old Manor House near the junction of Basing Way, there were 19 representations made by residents.  Of these, 18 were against, and only 1 was for. If the RA were not to support this majority view, then that would be undemocratic at the very least, and would go against its whole raison d'être.  Residents' views may change over time however, and if, or when the day comes that the majority of residents are in favour of further parking controls in Station Road, or indeed anywhere else in Thames Ditton and Weston Green, then my hope and expectation is that the RA would support them.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: BlueSky on October 04, 2013, 09:25:19 AM
I have seen this all before ie. washing their hands to actually do something constructive. I never voted for the bumps or was consulted either, it seems to be a number of individuals who don't consult get the what they want.

I think the new high street website is a good thing as its another voice and residents also have the right to vote at the election. I am not saying I'm going to vote for Nigel Farage but if its a top down organisation then perhaps mr.Raab should be targeted MG.

I may write a letter when I get around to it, I suggest you might do the same to get some action. This place just goes around in circles.

Dictun Mearc, I luv to know why u think you are important here, also.    I actually don't believe your numbers are correct and its actually how the questions/solutions are put which makes results screwie. Can you send me a pm with the full results /questions asked, I want to see them for myself



Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Thames Dittonite on October 04, 2013, 09:41:18 AM
I live on Station Road and am converted to the idea that yellow lines along the whole road would be a disaster. Yes, it annoys me that sometimes people park so close to my drive that it is impossible to reverse out and get the angle to drive towards the village (so I have to loop around under the railway bridge) but despite the humps, on the day last week where parking was suspended cars were speeding down Station Road and this on balance is more of a danger than the obstruction caused by parked cars.
I personally think we could do with allocated parking bays to be marked out so that people can safely pull out of their drives with clear vision, but the traffic calming benefit of the commuter parkers isn't lost.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Dictun Mearc on October 04, 2013, 10:24:29 AM
Quote from: BlueSky on October 04, 2013, 09:25:19 AM
Dictun Mearc, I luv to know why u think you are important here, also.    I actually don't believe your numbers are correct and its actually how the questions/solutions are put which makes results screwie. Can you send me a pm with the full results /questions asked, I want to see them for myself


No need to PM you BlueSky.  The full page on the consultation is public, and is available on the web here:
http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/parking/parking-news-and-updates/elmbridge-201112-parking-review

The specific page of results of the consultation are here:
http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/563827/Objections-report-for-web.pdf

There were actually 19 objections regarding the yellow lines on Station Road, not 18 - my apologies!



Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Admin on October 04, 2013, 01:24:58 PM
It is absolutely not the case that the RA does not represent the views of residents.  But it may be the case that the views of any one individual do not command general support, and therefore are not pushed by the RA either.

In the case of parking, RA volunteers gave up their time and organised public meetings (packed out), gathered ideas (almost as many different ones as there are residents), set up working groups for half a dozen areas of roads (guess what - hardly anyone of those who expressed views were willing to give up their time to knock on doors, circulate papers to houses in their roads, or serve on the working groups.  But some  people were willing to do that).  It quickly became clear that there was no consensus for many of the proposals.  We then went to Surrey whose highways and traffic officials further complicated matters, raising yet more suggestions.  There was then a phase of extensive consultation led by Surrey, including montages and open sessions in the Library. 

During all that process, some ideas that had seemed like starters either turned out to be rather bad when their implications were considered, or failed to command significant support against significant resistance.  We ended up with a small set of proposals that were the only ones that did command widespread support.  These were then put by Surrey through the formal process of public consultation, local area committee, and adoption.  Some of those measures, when implemented, prompted criticism even so.

Individuals dissatisfied with the results keep reverting to the ideas which were exhaustively examined and found not to command widespread support, or occasionally to very seriously (and unacceptably) damage a particular group of residents such as the Islanders.

In the case of residents parking, see the points in the thread of that title: http://residents-association.com/forum/index.php?topic=621.msg6062#msg6062

You ask what are the present priorities.  They are to do with securing the future of Ashley Rd car park, to the extent that may be possible, against the intentions of the Conservative Administration in Elmbridge to sell off car parks that are not making a profit for the Council.  And to see if we can further improve the prospects for keeping shops in the High St. by reverting to the proposal to have a number of  free, non-metered, short-term bays.  This was generally agreed by residents in the parking consultation.  Then the Administration of SCC, again a totally Conservative one, insisted that such bays should have parking meters and be chargeable.  As you know, that plan was resisted throughout Surrey by businesses and residents alike, and the council's rulers were forced to climb down.  If the threat of spreading parking meters is now truly laid to rest (but is it?) then we can revert to the original idea, generally approved by residents including, with some reservations, residents of the High St.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: BlueSky on October 04, 2013, 01:53:20 PM
Thanks, Admin - there's a lot to take in here, I will have a good think over the next few weeks about a solution which may actually work!

Just a minor point, if Ashley Road is in danger than I would of thought its best to shunt some parkers there, by introducing some yellow lines or commuter parking discounts, it's a nice walk down along Church Walk to and from station.

I still also can't understand what's happening with the pedestrian walkway, when open I may purchase an annual ticket. The RA needs to learn how to add some pressure to evoke some changes.

Best wishes - I look forward to using the car park soon.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: mg on October 04, 2013, 04:13:53 PM
I remember the questionnaire that Dictun Mearc refers to. 

Unfortunately, the "yellow line" questionnaire could be seen as misleading.

I think Dictun Mearc said that the questionnaire asked whether residents wanted yellow lines outside the Manor House on Station Road.  I think, if I can remember,  that was correct - the questionnaire asked whether we wanted them outside of the Manor House ONLY.

Our household said NO to these yellow lines, because that would have pushed the people parking outside of the Manor House, further down Station Road to park there (or here!!).  Had the questionnaire been about putting yellow lines down the whole of Station Road, the results of the questionnaire might have been very different.  Also had the questionnaire asked about the whole of Station Road perhaps more people would have responded.

But we were forced to answer the question as it was written.    As it happens, things have changed dramatically down Station Road anyway - from no commuter parking to total commuter parking.

Like Thames Dittonite, I don't think yellow lines would be a good idea now - but do think that having an hour where parking is banned is a perfectly good and cheap solution to the problem.

Admin - I only said the RA did not represent  Station Road and Embercourt Road in regards to parking - not anything else (I think they do a brilliant job).  What you don't seem to take into account is the fact that residents come and go and households completely change.  The views garnered from residents a fews years ago, might  not be the same as ones you would get today.  Also, the traffic situation has changed completely in the past year.  As I mentioned previously, a questionnaire has recently been sent around to residents, but UNLESS  questionnaires are designed by trained and professional companies,  they can be unreliable and give misleading and unrepresentative results.





Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: Juninho on October 04, 2013, 04:44:56 PM
On Ashley Road Car Park.

I raised this in another thread but as of October 1st I believe - it is no longer free on Saturdays.
http://residents-association.com/forum/index.php?topic=439.new#new

This is a real shot in the foot in my view (as well as the fact the parking charges time starts earlier on weekdays)...

The car park is under used even on weekends (when it is free) - charging on a Saturday, especially pay and display charging (which I hate as you have to 'predict' how long you might be at a pub, shopping etc) is non sensical.

The benefit of the amount of extra revenue it may generate is far outweighed by the con that more people will look for free off street parking.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: BlueSky on October 04, 2013, 05:01:21 PM
MG - I agree.

As I thought, the questions were misleading - I don't care if it was conscious or unconscious, there is an art in questioning whether you are a policeman or barrister, if the RA don't recognise that there should a professional survey be done than they will just go down in estimation or conversely dont look to ask  everyone in the vicinity (I wasn't asked)

At the moment the RA cannot grasp the problem and are looking at things piecemeal; the car parks and commuter provision, revenue generation, protection of residents peace are part of the same puzzle. There's good opportunity for the village to benefit from the commuters if they use, Ashley Road and library (I would make free for 2hours for the mums etc)

The single yellow lines in Watts Road / Station Road is an excellent solution, obviously there will a few bays for houses without parking but they will be very rare.


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: nurseryparker on October 04, 2013, 11:22:12 PM
If the questionnaire being referred to is the one that was done around the time of the other proposed changes in summer / Alexandra road, then it was done by Surrey CC as the body responsible for highways in Surrey and not by the RA.

As far as I can tell the RA have done all they can to try and get all of the competing views together and come up with solutions to what is for all of us a thorny issue, particularly where there is limited on street parking for those of us who do not (and can't have) off street parking. 


Title: Re: Giggs Hill Road
Post by: mg on October 05, 2013, 07:21:33 PM
No, Nursery Parker it was not at the time of changes in Summer Road / Alexander road.  In fact, my household was not consulted or informed about the changes you are referring to.  I don't know if anyone else down Station Road, Embercourt Road  and Weston Green Road was consulted about those changes either.  Should we have been?

The only way that the RA or SCC can find out what the residents in Station Road, Embercourt Road and Weston Green Road feel about the current parking and traffic situation, is to ask us. 

The Resident Association or Surrey County Council has certainly not asked Station Road residents if they wish to have double yellow lines, parking meters, a zone of restricted parking (any other parking prevention measure)  down the whole of the road.  Only whether we want it on PART of the road.  I don't know if they have asked Embercourt Road or Weston Green Road if they want any parking restrictions on their roads.  There needs to be consideration of the whole area around the BR Station.  Not consideration of part of a road or one of the roads - but all of the roads in that area. 

Would all of the area like to have restricted parking hours, where for one hour per day cars are not allowed to park?  I would love the RA or SCC to ask the area around Thames Ditton station that question.

I, personally, do not know what the outcome of such questions would be.  I just think that the time is right to at least go as far as to ask the residents some questions about what has become a serious traffic situation.

Like I said before - if the result of asking the questions is a feedback of very diverse wishes/solutions from the residents of the above three roads, then things should be left as they are. 

At the moment, the only way that traffic can pass in both directions along Station Road, at some sections of  the road, is for cars heading towards the village centre to drive on the pavement.  When I was pulling out of my drive, across the pavement, the other morning in the rush hour, my car was nearly hit by a car DRIVING ON THE PAVEMENT towards me.  I had to reverse back into my drive to allow the car to get past ON THE PAVEMENT.  Very dangerous and most unsatisfactory.

I can only imagine that the residents of the other two roads , Weston Green Road and Embercourt Road have some problems too.   





Residents' Association Forum | Powered by SMF 1.0.7.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.