The Royal Parks Movement Strategy (open - participate now)

Posted on
Page
of 4
/ 4
Last Next
  • This is an important one to engage with; covering eight of London’s largest open
    spaces: Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, St James’s Park, The Green Park, The
    Regent’s Park, Greenwich Park, Richmond Park and Bushy Park.

    About
    https://www.royalparks.org.uk/managing-t­he-parks/park-strategies/the-royal-parks­-transport-and-movement-strategy

    The Royal Parks is embarking on an exciting and ambitious journey to
    develop a Movement Strategy that will influence movement and
    transportation throughout our parks and London

    Strategy document (pdf download)
    https://www.royalparks.org.uk/__data/ass­ets/pdf_file/0008/106937/34379_TRP_Trans­port_Strategy_Discussion_Paper_final.pdf­

    Principle 4:

    Our park roads are not intended to be commuter through-routes for
    motor vehicles

    Feedback survey
    https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/movemen­tstrategy1

  • Nice one, thanks for posting.

  • Thanks for the link.

  • feeded back. thanks for sharing

  • Richmond park and regents parks are massive car commuter router...let's hope this brings about change.

  • Friday bump.

  • And the bullshit changes they made to Hyde park / south carriage drive

  • Done. they really did use the lightest font in the world.

  • Done as well.

  • Bump for this.

    Bound to be a load of negativity from commuters who use Richmond Park as a short cut, so would be great to have as many positive responses about the many leisure users (pedestrians, cyclists and others) who will benefit from improved safety, air quality and peacefulness.

  • The park was closed for a long time during the foot and mouth outbreak.
    People coped.

  • Done. Hopefully it makes a difference. It seems ridiculous that in a city as densely populated as London the parks allow their spaces to be used as car commuter-through routes

  • It's only Richmond park that this is really the case. For Regents, while the road is busy it's not really "in" the park - but round the outside. Annoying for cyclists, but I don't think it impinges on the quality of the park itself.

    It does seem a bit mad in Richmond Park though. Traffic was backed up near Ham gate this morning. Would be amazing if they could implement a scheme where by you get charged £5 if you enter and exit from different gates within 30 mins, but would remain free for drop offs leaving from same gate and anyone staying longer than 30 mins.

    Not quite sure how it would work infrastructure wise. Something like the system from the Dartford Crossing would be ideal - you get 5 days to pay online and are informed by a screen as you leave.

  • Simplify it. Just make it £10 to drive into the park for anything.

  • Nah. You want to encourage people to get out in the park - and that can continue to include people driving in to park in the car parks. It just shouldn't be full of cars just cutting through.

    The park is too big and too far from public transport to restrict cars altogether. You'd massively reduce the number of people who use it which would be pretty self defeating. Perhaps a small charge for parking, to encourage non car access, but as there is bugger all alternative I'm not sure what the point would be.

  • If only there were ways to get to the park that didn't involve driving ...

    (Richmond has pretty good Rail/Underground/Bus access, and 371 goes right by the Richmond hill entrance, 65 follows the Ham side of the park all the way to Kingston)

    Edit: and this is a hard thing to argue (where do the restrictions land?), but Richmond Park has an unsustainably high footfall which is permanently changing the landscape there. If some of that footfall is reduced by excluding those who could use public transport to get there but are too lazy to, then honestly that sounds fine

  • I don't want to encourage anyone to drive anywhere. There's buses that go past the park. Shuttle service from Richmond could be paid for with parking moolah.

    If parking is used in there it should be for disabled people or other people who struggle with movement not someone living down the road who could've taken a bus, ridden or walked there.

  • unsustainably high footfall which is permanently changing the landscape there.

    Its not some natural untouched idyl - its a managed park and has been for centuries.

    65 follows the Ham side of the park all the way to Kingston

    From Ham to Ham gate is quite a long boring walk. On the Ham/Kingston side I don't think a bus stops close to the actual park. Say you wanted to visit the Isabella Plantation - in the middle, with the lovely gardens and flowers and streams, and go for a nice gentle potter. Say you've got a three year old and a six year old in tow too. From Richmond gate that is like two miles. Ever tried walking two miles with a three year old? Knowing you've got to walk two miles back? And you haven't actually started the walk you wanted to do?

    Perhaps this could be alleviated by some kind of internal shuttle train a la:

    But get stuck behind that on the wrong section and your strava section is still gonna be ruined. You'd need loads of them, shuttling folk all over to get to the bits of the park they wanted to go to. - The great play park at Petersham gate, the bike hire at Roehampton - Bacon sarnie by the ponds in the middle.

    I just don't see how the park, as it is currently used, could really ban cars completely. It's too big and I still think it is important to encourage more people to use it - not less - just not for driving through on unrelated errands.

  • I just don't see how the park, as it is currently used, could really ban cars completely.

    No one suggested banning cars, simply that they should pay for the privilege of being in the park

    and

    Its not some natural untouched idyl - its a managed park and has been for centuries.

    And as someone who's visited pretty regularly over the last 20 years it has changed pretty significantly in that time

  • No one suggested banning cars

    I did. But a deterrent that actually reduces their numbers would be nice. It's a bloody carpark in there on weekends.

  • A £10 fee almost is banning them - it's certainly making it much less attractive to those on a budget. If you've already dissuaded people who use it as a rat run, you're just limiting who can justify regularly using it.

    I've only been a regular at the park for 10 years, but I can't say I've seen any huge difference. Perhaps the main paths are a little wider, but it generally feels pretty similar to me. The main difference I notice is ever more cyclists, particularly at the weekends and summer evenings - which is a good thing!

  • Have another bump.

    Somewhat related, my favourite publication (ok found it on reddit) has published an article on reduced road space leading to modal shift, as opposed to complete chaos:
    https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/The-H­ammersmith-Conundrum/4917

    I'm getting a bit bored of impatient drivers in the park and the added pollution, the idea of implementation starting after Christmas is the stuff of dreams..

  • Edit: and this is a hard thing to argue (where do the restrictions land?), but Richmond Park has an unsustainably high footfall which is permanently changing the landscape there. If some of that footfall is reduced by excluding those who could use public transport to get there but are too lazy to, then honestly that sounds fine

    It doesn't to me, parks and spending time in the outdoors/open space/greenery has huge physical and mental health benefits which we are only now starting to better understand.

    Given the issues around access to green space living in a big city I feel these benefits outweigh any issues around the park being oversubscribed.

    The £10 fee suggested by @hippy is a regressive policy - it won't be a problem for the rich to pay a tenner so it would be the poor who suffer. I agree people shouldn't be rat running through the park, but if you want to enforce that do it with a clear ban and significant fine for doing it, not pay for play.

  • If we could get a ban then I'd deffo prefer that to pay for play but if that's not possible then paying to enter with a car is second best option. Do you think they will ban cars? There's carparks and the cafes etc will no doubt crack the shits about any perceived footfall reduction

  • The poor will suffer? What suffer not being able to rat run through a park? No, they can drive around. Rich won't like paying even if they can, it's why they're rich. So it might deter them enough to head around instead of through.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

The Royal Parks Movement Strategy (open - participate now)

Posted by Avatar for spinnnout @spinnnout

Actions