Forum Topic

Hello Richard, Well, thank you for your comment which, may I add, is very revealing in itself! Were you the chairman of the Friends of Richmond Park at the time of the closure of Kingston Gate? On the issue of closing Richmond Park to cars, has any thought been given to the Royal Ballet School, its staff and students, to the delivery of goods, food, etc to the school, to Pembroke Lodge, to the cafeteria near Roehampton Gate?  I seem to remember that there is an ice cream van parked in the summer in the car park near Isabella Plantation — one would assume that this would not be allowed? You also have the playing fields (Rosslyn Park uses them in the winter for example).  If people have to park their cars in the car parks, has there been any consideration to enlarging the car parks, hence by definition destroying great parts (or chunks) of the today very pleasant and green land?   Also, if people park their cars in the car parks and walk, the erosion of the land near the car parks be substantial because, even if there are paths, so many people could be on them that some will overtake them on the grass hence damaging the areas that are purportedly being defended so vehemently.  Furthermore, while you have mentioned a possible exemption for blue badge holders, has any consideration been given to parents of small babies and children, particularly those who have more than one child between the ages of 3 and a few months?    Also, I think it is the ranger's office between Richmond and Roehampton Gates (on the left coming from Richmond) where there are middle whites grazing happily, if cars are banned, how do you get to the office?  Will the cattle be taken away from there (as by definition they arrive and leave on "lorries").  There is an annual event held there.  How would people be able to attend?  Or is the field with the middle whites going to become a car park? If Richmond Park is closed to cars, I assume that the Prudential Bike Ride in August will not be allowed to take place because of the sheer number of riders as well as the speed they do will certainly stress, if not shock, the deer- the same ones that are totally unperturbed by cars doing a stately speed of 20m/h. It was my understanding that one of the main purposes of the Royal Parks charity was to run programmes of activities and events to encourage outdoor recreation and public access to those areas. While it can be argued that you are not stopping public access to those areas, you would certainly be curtailing it in no small measure? It is also my view that a area-wide traffic management study must be carried out before Friends of Richmond Park decide unilaterally to close the park to cars.  It should also consider closing the park to bike riders at the same time. By the way, has any thought being given or study being undertaken to consider the damage to the park due to pollution as a result of the extension of Heathrow airport? If you think I am being difficult, perhaps, but I do not believe the comments made above to be irrational, selfish, obnoxious nor obtuse. Thank you.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2707d

I don't know of any specific studies of the harm caused by motor traffic in the Park, but there have been a number of studies of traffic there: (1). In 1996 Dame Jennifer Jenkins chaired a review of the Park which concluded that traffic formed a "cordon of steel" which divided the central wilderness area from the remainder, going on to say that "this stretch of countryside, itself quite extraordinary within a world city, is undermined by noise, pollution, congestion and danger from cars, all aspects of the surrounding great city which most park visitors have come to escape (Royal Parks Review: Richmond and Bushy Parks, Department of National Heritage, February 1996). (2) Subsequently, the Royal Parks commissioned a study of traffic there which found that the proportion of through traffic on weekdays was between 94 and 98 per cent and even at weekends it was about 80 per cent (Richmond Park: Study of existing traffic conditions within the Park, Peter Brett Associates, December 1998). (3) In 2003, a consultation document by the Royal Parks said, in para 3: "The presence of any traffic in the Park presents a threat to the delicate balance within it. Cars can be a significant visual intrusion, and the noise they create disturbs the tranquillity which so many visitors value. Speeding traffic presents an obvious threat to visitor safety. Traffic, and the roads themselves, create barriers for people and for wildlife. It is not only deer which are at risk of road kill; species large and small suffer, the latter going largely unnoticed. Pollution from cars – dust, petrochemicals, oils and fumes, even water spray – are all harmful to plants and animals, and noise pollution is also an issue for wildlife sensitive to disturbance or who use sound to communicate. " (Traffic in Richmond Park: The way forward, https://www.royalparks.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/41793/traffic_in_richmond_park.pdf) . Despite all this, very little has been done to limit traffic in the Park, despite (as I said earlier) its being an NNR, an SSSI and a SAC. And yet many people heedlessly advocate no change: yet another example of the selfishness that is ruining our environment.

Richard Carter ● 2707d

Hello Richard,Thank you for the information.  Unfortunately, tried to open the link to the consultation document of 2003, but the website told me document cannot be found.At this stage, however useful the documents of 1996 and 1998 are, I would take them as background information.As for the consultation document of 2003, is this to be considered as a study document or as a consultation paper (meaning views being collated?)A more up-to-date study would be very helpful indeed.Since 2003, Kingston Gate was closed to traffic I believe.  You say: "..... [the Park] is an NNR, an SSSI and a SAC, yet many people heedlessly advocate no change: yet another example of the selfishness that is ruining our environment."  I cannot think of anything further from the truth.  Drastic change, I would agree would find resistance.  But Lucille did give a very good suggestion, close the park during rush hour and you will see a significant reduction in traffic even the surrounding areas are badly affected. Also, the Park is full of plane trees as well as oak trees that are, in common with many other species of trees, absorbing all sorts of substances during the day and releasing oxygen during the night. Could I be so rude as to say that cyclists would love to have the Park for themselves, at least the roads?  I am sure I am not missing the point here by too long a distance.  The Park is there to be enjoyed by all.  I have not heard that all means able bodied people only, capable of running the perimeter of the Park with no problem.  But what about the central bit of the Park itself?  Cannot it be enjoyed by those who cannot cycle, walk or run also?  Isabella Gardens is a difficult place to reach but it is absolutely stunning!  I, for one and many more besides, would not be able to enjoy it anymore.  If that is the price to be paid, that the park can only be enjoyed by able-bodied people, please be brave enough to say so.And, in the meantime, please ensure that traffic cannot go through Hyde Park, Regents Park, Bushy Park, the New Forest, the Peak District as well as Lake District, among others.Thank you.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2707d

Richard, thanks for the reply however,1) The 1996 review comment is only an opinion, expressed in emotive language.2) The ‘Royal Parks’ commission finding that most traffic is through traffic is an indication of how valuable the park is for alleviating traffic on surrounding roads and indirectly the need to consider the surrounding environment when contemplating changes to traffic management changes in the park.3) The 2003 comment you quote is again only an opinion, unsupported by any quantification of the ‘threat to the delicate balance within it’.  Furthermore, you fail to mention that the results of the 2002 consultation (Appendix B of your linked report) revealed overwhelming opposition from all 3 adjoining boroughs to the closure of Robin Hood Gate yet the ‘Royal Parks’ agency went ahead and did just that.  In addition, two of the three boroughs called for responsibility for the management of the park to be transferred to the local authorities (so that decisions are democratically accountable).The fundamental problem of this latest ‘consultation’ is that it is being carried out by a democratically unaccountable organisation with a limited agenda.  They have no responsibility for the harm they may do to the surrounding areas by their short-sighted decisions.  It is time to take up Wandsworth and Richmond’s proposal to the 2002 consultation for the management of the park to be handed over to the local boroughs.  Only then might we get holistic solutions to these problems and some degree of democratic accountability.Finally, instead of calling opponents of these proposals ‘selfish’ you would be better advised to seek out objective evidence to support your claims.

Joseph Cairns ● 2707d

> The knock on effect of traffic displacement to surrounding areas would be phenomenally bad.Temporarily yes, but eventually it should settle back down to the standard level of congestion.When new roads are built (or existing roads widened) travel times initially drop but soon return to original levels due to "induced demand". ( https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/09/citylab-university-induced-demand/569455/ ). Essentially people who wouldn't drive before because it was too congested are now encouraged to drive and everything returns to an equilibrium (in terms of transit times).Likewise, when capacity is reduced there is an initial period where travel times increase hugely, but then they slowly return to original levels as those that can't put up with it any more, and are able to, seek other modes of transport or change their routines (leaving earlier, etc). Traffic, and subsequent pollution, along the main routes would return to similar levels and pollution overall would decrease.I know of a few people that have stopped their daily drive (and now prefer walking, the bus or a train) because of the Hammersmith Bridge closure. Before the closure one had a 30 minute journey that occasionally took an hour, after the closure it was consistently over an hour. They switched to the train and now they have a consistent 40 minute journey (very occasionally an hour if SWR is in failure mode) and can spend that time reading or just relaxing.Of course, the people that suffer the most are the people that have a genuine reason why they must drive (elderly, infirm, carrying tools, etc although the latter is less of a problem as commercial vehicles are banned from Richmond Park). But many people are simply wedded to their cars that they can't conceive of using public transport or getting somewhere under their own steam and will use any excuse possible for not doing so.It's the lazy and unwilling that make it difficult for those that have no choice.

Alex Greenbank ● 2702d