While I'm pleased that the sports hub at Gunnersbury Park is finally going to open has anyone considered the impact on access to the car park. If there are ten pitches, a large gym and a number of other outdoor facilities then there is going to be a large increase in the number of people turning up particularly at the weekend.The access to the park is essentially one way and generally good will between drivers avoids it getting blocked but if there is a stand off the road could get blocked. The plan is to start charging for the car park and people exiting will be anxious to get out in time to avoid a hefty fine. People entering the car park might not understand this and therefore there is scope for conflict. As far as I can tell this looks set to get very messy.
Mark Evans ● 186d37 Comments
Sounds like your skin is getting thinner by the second.I wonder if you were pleased at the 78 percent of respondents to the CAMTAG survey in LTN 21 who want the schemes removed. Not many want them kept.......and needless to say your pro chums are claiming it’s all lies and not to be trusted, etc, etc. Yet, every method of gathering opinion on these schemes has drawn an overwhelmingly negative response.You don’t have to be a genius to see where public opinion really lies, eh?
Simon Hayes ● 179d
Only a halfwit would think that Paula.Your increasing paranoia betrays the flimsiness of your arguments. Flailing about because nothing you say adds up. Reduced to gaslighting and deflection. You do realise you are on a losing wicket, don’t you?Frankly there are lots of people, in the thousands, who are sick of your pontificating on all matters environmental as if you are some green guru. Perhaps you ought to reconsider lecturing us all on how we should live our lives, since you just make wild assumptions about what your fellow Ealing residents do with their time.And you are thin skinned. Like most of your cycling chums.
Simon Hayes ● 180d
>>I never called you a halfwit Paula, you’re just paranoid and thin skinned. You are a hypocrite though. And a troll. And in a minority. And probably crying by now.....!What a bizarre post!You finished ALL your responses to me with "only a halfwit would say that".That was calling me a halfwit.That's why I blocked you!Thin skinned :D
Paul James ● 180d
I never called you a halfwit Paula, you’re just paranoid and thin skinned. You are a hypocrite though. And a troll. And in a minority. And probably crying by now.....!
Simon Hayes ● 180d
A reminder I blocked you on Facebook because in every post you called me a half wit, not because of your arguments, so again, more misinformation about me from you, along with the rest of it in your reply! :D
Paul James ● 180d
Away teams of all sorts come from all over what was Middlesex. Uxbridge, Enfield, Teddington. and some from the Surrey side as well.
Raymond Havelock ● 180d
I think you miss the point, Phillipa.Users of facilities in the park don’t just come from the local area, particularly teams that might be competing in a league that covers all west London. Chances are they travel quite a long way, lugging kit and players with them.The financial model of the CIC would be unsustainable if it was entirely reliant on local footfall.
Simon Hayes ● 181d
It must have bee the Popes Lane entrance. I would have thought that to get to the pitches visiting teams would approach from Lionel Road. Or will everything now have to be via the car park (except for wedding cars and the cars of the officials you mentioned perhaps)? Since we've always walked we've hardly ever used the road in via the car park - as it is - uncomfortably narrow! I do hope it won't all be turned into a car park though as that really defeats the object.
Philippa Bond ● 181d
Phillipa Bond explained:" The entrance to the car park is not the only entrance to the park."Indeed. Cars can enter via the main gate. Which is how I imagine our glorious leaders arrive, before fallingout of their Range Rovers* and staggering up the stairsof the large mansion to the executive dining roomon the 1st floor. Where they enjoy any "hospitality" before their regular meetings.There are three double wooden gates on Gunnersbury Avenue all currently unused, the Popes Lane Entrance can take both cars and lorries, there's a newly installed double gate on Lionel Road plus a double gate on the south West corner. But apart from that....*Whatever else they're doing, they're certainly not walking around the 80% the paths which are falling into varying states of disintegration. michael adams...
Michael Adams ● 181d
The entrance to the car park is not the only entrance to the park. I watched in trepidation as a car was driven into another entrance which has a locked gate to stop entry, then I presume having discovered it was the wrong entrance reversed out into the main road - something I'd been taught never to do - when there was actually enough space to do a three (or maybe more) point turn.
Philippa Bond ● 182d
Philippa Bond ● 182d
Mark Evans explained" The access to the park is essentially one way and generally good will between drivers avoids it getting blocked but if there is a stand off the road could get blocked."I did a quick recce inside the NW corner of the park this morning, - the other side of the high wall* to your left going in. The first 50 yards or so, belongs to the parkand at present is planted with bluebells etc and is fenced off with a wattle fence and plastic.After 50 yards there is a lower wall at an anglethe area behind that being assigned to Capel Manor.There are two very large trees approx 15ft from thewall which would still allow another carriageway to run in parallel with the present one IMO.Quite what's behind the lower wall on the Capel Manorside isn't clear from Google Maps satellite view but it seems there's nothing substantial.As it is, it seems quite possible to replace the high wall with a lower one about 15ft to the rightallowing a two lane entrance which would need to veer to the right once it had actually entered the park.michael adams*There is a substantial crack in that wall which I've tried unsuccessfully to bring to people'sattention in the past. However checking from the other side this morning. its positioned around where the lower wall abutts it, from inside. So its possibly not as dangerous as I thought
Michael Adams ● 182d
Sums up the abilities of those overseeing the running ofd the park.They do seem to be able to manage their salaries rather well though!
Raymond Havelock ● 184d
The walking and cycling catchment are for Gunnersbury Park is relatively small despite its size because the North Circular and the A4 act as a barrier to residential areas to the north and east and the area to the west is mainly industrial and commercial. Therefore it always was a park that most visitors drive to. Charging for the car park will discourage many but I don't think it will fully mitigate any problems on a Saturday and Sunday afternoon when lost of team sports are taking place. The Gunnersbury Sports Hub aims to be the biggest in London but it is hard to see how that will be possible with just one narrow entrance.
Mark Evans ● 184d
Paul, it wasn't my attempt to belittle you but you do create the impression that you feel that part of the problem is the moral deficiency of others. You say you are pro-clean air and safer roads and anti-congestion as if only those of your views could claim to be likewise.
On the issue of supermarket deliveries, I don't think either of us knows the answer for sure. The van, which generally isn't electric, delivers on the basis of time order was made rather than geographical proximity rather than the time the order was made so almost definitely drives further and spends longer on the road than the 20 individual cars that would have done if the shopping was collected personally. It seems to me a reasonable assumption that if, the delivery van alternative is diesel, I am improving local air quality by driving to the shops. The broader point here is that these issues are very complex and simplistic solutions are often counterproductive.
Whatever the draw back of buses they are an essential part of public transport particularly in the way many lower income groups are dependent on them. A better more reliable network has significant potential to encourage people to switch from using cars, unfortunately bus usage and service levels have been falling in London prior to the pandemic. Locally after the pandemic the service won't be helped by direction of more traffic onto distributor roads which also are nearly always bus routes. This is likely to lead a significant number of people electing not to revert back to bus travel from using their car.
I don't know if you are familiar with Gunnersbury Park but the parking capacity on site is not what people are concerned about, it is the access road to the car park which is long, narrow and single file. If cars enter off Popes Lane and other vehicles are exiting the car park at the same time there is a potential for it to become logjammed. The vehicle usage of the park is set to grow significantly when the sports hub and related facilities are up to full capacity.
Gordon Southwell ● 185d
Nice gaslighting attempts again Paul. Shame you can’t block people on here who disagree with you.You do come across as an entirely smug individual. There’s no option for anyone other than to agree with your world view. You just want to alienate people who live in this borough rather than understand why their perceptions might differ from yours.You use tenuous evidence to back up your arguments, cherry picking data that supports you rather than looking at the whole picture. Nice bit of cognitive bias, as usual.Those delivery vans aren’t electric. 99 percent of them are diesel powered. Many are sub contractors using even older vans. They are also on the roads far longer. A better approach from you would be to campaign against too much being ordered online, creating far more ‘unnecessary journeys’. Has it never occurred to you that these vehicles come from depots some distance away and therefore create more pollution? They also do the rounds on Sundays and late evenings, disturbing the peace and quiet of our residential streets.I’d agree that you do seem to view car owners as morally beneath you. It’s the only explanation for why you persist in attacking them and their perfectly legal use of a vehicle taxed and insured and paid for.You presume to know each and every person’s circumstances, yet cannot comprehend why they should not fall into line with your lifestyle.Gunnersbury Park and it’s new £13.8m sports hub needs to attract thousands of paying customers every week to make it viable. It’s naive of you to think the immediate hinterland will provide that customer base. There will be people from all over using it, many driving there for reasons outlined elsewhere. Inadequate parking provision simply pushes the problem into surrounding roads. It’s what happened when they held the music events there in recent years. And it will happen again.
Simon Hayes ● 185d
>>The problem from your perspective is that most of the rest of us lack your virtue and, if only we could be persuaded to recognise the error of our ways, things would get better."This is a pretty bad misinterpretation of my position on this, intended to belittle me.>>I would further argue that my short trip to the supermarket in my ULEZ compliant car is better for the environment than the refrigerated diesel van that will bring groceries to your doorstep.Only thinking about yourself and your own perspective is quite common. That van (which could be electric) drops off groceries for 20 households. That's better than 20 households driving to the supermarket and back I think>>you would be wrong to view as some sort of moral crusadeAgain with the assertions, made to belittle.>>This is not to say that we don't need to actYes we do.>> is by better more accessible public transport.One of the problems with local public transport, i.e. buses, is that they are messed up by congestion caused by, too many cars!We also need more stuff closer to homes, not further way in big car parks..>>Even if they achieve that the situation at Gunnersbury Park looks problematic.It is, but you won't see the problem!A huge multi story car park, would that fix it? In Gunnersbury Park>?
Paul James ● 185d
Raymond, that’s the point that people like Paul never grasp. Bell laughably calls Ealing an outer London borough but with inner London transport links. Maybe they are good in Ealing Broadway but large parts are poorly served by public transport.A lot of people I know need a vehicle for work, providing services for people who might, like Paul, spend their time mainly at a computer screen. All the policies implemented by Bell and his cronies is to make that more difficult and more expensive.But what a lot of these utopian idealists don’t understand is that what obviously works for them doesn’t necessarily work for most other people. That’s why we don’t have a massive cycling population already.They also don’t appreciate that modern life is predicated in choice, be that shopping, school, holiday destination, whatever. Just because something is local doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good.
Simon Hayes ● 185d
Paul, this point has been better made by others before me but it does seem to me that you do seem to consider this issue as primarily a moral one. The problem from your perspective is that most of the rest of us lack your virtue and, if only we could be persuaded to recognise the error of our ways, things would get better.
Unfortunately the issue is a lot more complex than that. The desire for cleaner air and safer roads is universal, despite what you might think, and travel patterns have adjusted a lot over the last two decades probably mainly because of increased motoring costs rather than anything else.
This means that conducting policy in a way that targets what are deemed to be 'unnecessary' journeys are doomed to failure because the overwhelming majority of motor vehicle trips are necessary and can't be substituted with a more sustainable form of transport. The small number of recidivist car users who use the car when they could easily walk or cycle will be difficult to discourage by any policy and besides, these journeys are short, and will therefore account for a very small proportion of vehicles on the road at anyone time.
Not owning a car does necessarily make you not part of the problem. All the services and utilities you receive plus visitors, and the goods that are delivered not just to your doorstep means that your presence in London generates extra traffic.
I would further argue that my short trip to the supermarket in my ULEZ compliant car is better for the environment than the refrigerated diesel van that will bring groceries to your doorstep.
This is a complex and possibly intractable issue that you would be wrong to view as some sort of moral crusade. A desire to punish car users out of a misplaced sense of superior virtue is not going to bring us cleaner air or safer roads.
This is not to say that we don't need to act. Population growth in Ealing in particular is going to lead to significant local challenges and we shouldn't fall for the lie that car free developments don't generate more traffic.
Ultimately the only way we can improve the situation on our roads to a meaningful degree is by better more accessible public transport. Hopefully when the government stops playing games with TfL over its finances it can get back to working out ways to deliver the services we are going to need.
Even if they achieve that the situation at Gunnersbury Park looks problematic. If all ten pitches were in use during the course of an afternoon it is hard to see how utter gridlock could be avoided at the car park entrance.
Gordon Southwell ● 185d
Which is why people are trying to keep Gunnersbury Parks Bowls Club in situ.To enable local people to easily access a local amenity. Full Circle to why it got established in 1931. When cars were from the wealthy only.But. London has ling had the lowest ownership of cars per 1000 in the UK.But we are talking about Central London. Central London now has the lowest full time residential occupancy as well.Ealing is a suburb being densified and overdeveloped but without the infrastructure.Pretty much those who have a vehicle have it because it's a necessary means. It's very costly and uses a significant amount of my income that is not recoverable, but without it I would have no means to an income and certainly not able to compete with those operating in other areas - even locally like Hillingdon and outer suburbs.
Raymond Havelock ● 185d
How do you ‘change stuff’? Put a tip in every neighbourhood? Put sports facilities that people want to use (not just some crazy golf) next door? How does that work with a council determined to build on every spare piece of land it can find.They want to cram more and more people in, all of whom will require services of some description. They will need deliveries, will have visitors, etc. Ealing isn’t interested in electric vehicle charging points. Many of the ones already installed don’t work, as one of my neighbours discovered recently.But what’s really boring is the fools constantly lecturing the rest of us about how we should be living. Tedious, sanctimonious and utterly hypocritical.
Simon Hayes ● 185d
>>choosing to live in one of the biggest cities in the world is a bit silly.I love living in a city because I don't NEED to own a car, I can do pretty much everything I need to do without one. If I moved to the country I'd probably need one!Most people in London don't have a car...>>Why just cars? The biggest increase in road traffic in London has been vans and taxis, the former being particularly polluting.Work needs to be done there too, it's being done, but it needs to happen faster, local hubs, electric vehicles etc..>>And of course you aren’t averse to using cars and vans yourself when it suitsOf course, I'm not suggesting banning cars and vans, despite you and others, very boringly over years, asserting that I am and that people calling for clean air and safe roads are.>>The same principle applies to other facilities and amenities. Not everything is convenient for everyone, including sports facilities like Gunnersbury.Well then, we need to change stuff so people have access to more stuff without having to use a car.
Paul James ● 185d
Why just cars? The biggest increase in road traffic in London has been vans and taxis, the former being particularly polluting.And of course you aren’t averse to using cars and vans yourself when it suits. Most people I know use their vehicles because they have to, not because they go for a pleasant spin.Saying you dislike pollution and noise and danger but choosing to live in one of the biggest cities in the world is a bit silly. If it doesn’t suit you then perhaps you are living in the wrong place.As it is nobody is breaking any laws by driving anywhere. They just offend your sensibilities.And some of the council policies counteract the very ‘values’ it tries to promote. Close Acton tip but tell people to drive to ones further away. ‘Only a minute longer to get to Park Royal than to Acton from Ealing Town Hall’, says Bell. What that fool utterly fails to recognise is that most people using Acton tip don’t live in the Town Hall, so any alternative is much further away.The same principle applies to other facilities and amenities. Not everything is convenient for everyone, including sports facilities like Gunnersbury.
Simon Hayes ● 185d
The gym membership looks very overpriced. Private sector gyms are available at equivalent prices and Everyone Active is cheaper with swimming included. If you add to that the cost of parking every time you visit then a regular user could be paying more in parking fees than membership fees when the former are introduced.The park seems to have increased hugely in popularity since the pandemic as it is possibly the best space in west London for social distancing and many people have been introduced to the park for the first time in the last year.The first real test will come when parkrun restarts - does anybody know when that is likely to be?
Mark Evans ● 185d
Not anti car Peter. Anti too many car journeys. Anti dirty air, anti streets and roads piled full of cars, anti so many people being killed and injured by cars.Please get it right.
Paul James ● 185d
Ealing left the real world a long time ago. It’s just for the crackpots and the cronies now, the zealots and the intolerant.
Simon Hayes ● 186d
No one drives for fun now, you can’t.It’s a necessity, for example I drive the dog as it’s a decent size where he can have a run. Unfortunately it’s too much for him to walk back (arthritis).Buses are reluctant to allow dogs, train would take an age.All this anti car rhetoric is ridiculous & the authors have no idea of the real world
Peter Yale ● 186d
'Can't understand the size of that car park, it's massive.'It isn't remotely massive and lots of the spaces are Blue Badge only. It'll be rammed when the Sports Hub opens. As will the surrounding streets.
Susan Kelly ● 186d
A lot of local leagues have disappeared now. There used to be a thriving Sunday league scene across west London, playing at places like Gunnersbury, Warren Farm and many other locations. It was always a case of lift sharing, usually to ensure you had enough players to start the match, but often because the pitches weren’t that convenient for public transport.Sadly the facilities at some became so dilapidated they were beyond use, Gunnersbury bring a prime example. It meant decent places to play were rare and if it rained heavily you weren’t allowed to use the pitches anyway!Those leagues have all folded now. Adult football participation has dwindled for traditional 11 a side games, though five a side is still popular. But that has its own accessibility issues.Of course, there will also be people driving their dogs to the park for a walk.
Simon Hayes ● 186d
It is odd that they seem to have overlooked home and away teams and that has very much been transport dependent for decades. Especially as local sides have been pared down and merged which has lead to 'local' teams being not so local.It used to be a trudge across Lionel Road or a queue to get in at Popes lane when the grotsville old dressing rooms and sunday league games were still a big thing at Gunnersbury.Did no-one think of this?Charging to use the car park won't solve the problem but might end up impeding it's success, especially as first reports seem to indicate it being a rather expensive venue for most.Lets hope the Bowls club does get back, it at least then shows a true commitment to sport for all and well being for everyone irrespective of age and means.
Raymond Havelock ● 186d
It pretty full at the weekend even before the sports hub opens but it isn't people using the gym that will be the problem. If just half the pitches are in use, particularly if it is for kids matches there will be a lot more cars coming and going.
Mark Evans ● 186d
Not all sport activity involves parking your butt on a bike, believe it or not.Any team sport, such as football, will require a fair bit of extra kit aside from a pair of boots. Believe me, you won’t want to lug balls, flags and other bits any great distance.There’s also a bowls club at the Park, which hopefully will get a reprieve. Many members might need to travel by car to take part in that, for example.
Simon Hayes ● 186d
Can't understand the size of that car park, it's massive. People driving to the gym to sit on an exercise bike? :D
Paul James ● 186d