@TaaSeenMeem
Any update on this?
Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I was commenting on this continuing saga. My correspondence with H&F over Rivercourt Road is not about a specific PCN: I have been putting FoI requests to them to elucidate just what the TMO is and whether they have been complying with the law.
One feature of TMOs is that, 6 weeks after they have been made, the law deems them valid unless they have been challenged in the High Court before that (which only other local authorities would do). While their validity cannot be challenged, their enforceability can be. In this case I smelled a very dead rat: the presence of new road markings on what had been the exit slip road from Great West Road. As it crosses the verge and footway of Great West Road, this slip road forms part of TfL's highway and is controlled by TfL. That prompted a series of questions to H&F and TfL which are still playing out.
I surmise that when H&F wrote the TMO, they thought that the exit slip road was theirs, hence their painting their own road markings on it (and erasing TfL's edge-of-carriageway road marking). The signage plan in my previous post shows that in December they recognised that the exit slip road is part of TfL's highway and they have stated this in answer to my questions.
Unfortunately for H&F, their TMO was signed in September and defines the one-way south-to-north restriction as running from the junction between Great West Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road to "a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road". This would have made sense if the junction between Great West Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road had lain at the edge-of-carriageway markings. Then the end of the south-to-north restriction would have lain to the north of its start.
Perhaps there wasn't a smash in late November to force a rethink and what actually happened was that someone at H&F realised where the boundary lay between TfL's land and H&F's. That means that, by my reckoning, the end of the south-to-north restriction actually lies south of its start. That would make at least this part of the TMO unenforceable. I rather think that the rest of it is also unenforceable, but for different reasons.
There's some monkey business with the plans for the scheme. H&F have now disgorged plans showing the road markings but these are dated December 2024 and approved January 2025.
(Attachment Link)
They have also sent me this as the Advance Signage, which manifestly isn't there yet
(Attachment Link)
The scheme was implemented at the end of November 2024, so clearly these plans weren't used. The December/January plans show the Give Way road markings about 1 meter further north than they were originally, as shown in the images in the Hammersmith Society's article (https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-a-new-two-way-ltn/).
Despite this, H&F are claiming that they moved the Give Way markings because the contractor didn't put them in the correct place. Apparently the contractor wasn't much good in November at predicting what the plans would look like in January.
One possible explanation is that TfL found out about the scheme and demanded that the Give Way signs be moved further north. If they'd thought about it and really were concerned for cyclists, they would have realised that the road markings at the edges of the exit from the carriageway of Great West Road (marked as being diagram 1040.4 but actually drawn and implemented as diagram 1040.3) prohibit all vehicles from crossing the solid white lines at their edges. When I say "all" I mean all: that restriction applies just as much to bicycles as it does to motor vehicles. So cyclists on the combined cycleway/footway must dismount and carry their bicycles over the hatched areas (sorry, wheeling doesn't cut it; only carrying will do) before continuing on the other side.
TfL might also have considered the implications of making Rivercourt Road two-way. While drivers exiting Great West Road northbound get a PCN, those existing southbound do not. They can only be prosecuted and get points on their licence. This isn't just theory: take a look at this PCN video (https://i.imgur.com/7A09bY9.mp4).
It's also possible that TfL didn't find out about the scheme until much later and that H&F realised the danger - perhaps there was a smash in the first few days - and redrew the plans to reduce the risks. If so, they don't seem to have stopped the smashes, see this recent Hammersmith Society article (https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-ltn-and-the-west-dulwich-case/). I hope H&F residents realise they're on the line when a victim sues the Council for causing crashes by creating a grossly unsafe road scheme.
(1) No London borough council shall exercise any power under this Act in a way which will affect, or be likely to affect,—(a) a GLA road,unless the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) below have been satisfied.
(2) The first requirement is that the council has given notice of the proposal to exercise the power in the way in question—(a) to Transport for London;
(3) The second requirement is that—(a) the proposal has been approved(i) in the case of a GLA road, by Transport for London;
(5) If Transport for London has reason to believe—(a) that a London borough council is proposing to exercise a power under this Act in a way which will affect, or be likely to affect,Transport for London may give a direction to the council requiring it not to proceed with the proposal until the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) above have been satisfied.(i) a GLA road,(b) that notice of the proposal is required to be, but has not been, given in accordance with subsection (2) above,
(6) If a London borough council exercises any power in contravention of this section, Transport for London may take such steps as it considers appropriate to reverse or modify the effect of the exercise of that power.
(8 ) Any reasonable expenses incurred by Transport for London in taking any steps under subsection (6) above shall be recoverable by Transport for London from the London borough council concerned as a civil debt.[/indent]
3. details of notice and correspondence between H&F and TfL relating to their TMO 2037, in particular under section 121B of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;TfL have asked for more time to answer my questions. I have agreed to this.
4. any authorisation provided to H&F which allows them to place road markings and erect traffic signs within the curtilage of Great West Road in the vicinity of Rivercourt Road;
5. any safety assessment carried out into the possible consequences of TMO 2037 (vehicles turning into Rivercourt Road reach Give Way road markings 8m after leaving the carriageway of the A4 and would not be able to see vehicles using the turning bay until they had started making the turn;
6. any correspondence or assessment of the need for advance signage of the restrictions which apply to vehicles turning left onto Rivercourt Road (as an absolute minimum I would have expected a 750mm-diameter diagram 613 with the plate "Except buses, taxis, cycles and authorised vehicles")
One possible explanation is that TfL found out about the scheme