wulfhound

Or even - put enough pressure on the main roads that people beg for the South Circular Tunnel (2013 edition) to be brought back from the never-never? Now *there's* a nice little pay-day for the council's pet contractors. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/south-circular-goes-underground-and-brent-cross-to-get-flyunder-in-30bn-plan-8697628.html (Although, in some ways, keeping the A205 surface roads for local traffic displaced from the back-streets, and putting everything long-distance in a dirty great big tunnel, does sound rather civilised. Unless, that is, one of the tunnel portals ends up on your doorstep or high street).

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/londons-toxic-air-has-already-caused-1300-premature-deaths-this-year-10296515.html @first mate - where does that quote come from? Is that a borough document, or Mayor's cycling vision, or something else? The Quietways are supposed to be on quieter streets! Turney Road & Calton Avenue meet that description (at least in theory). Court Lane isn't supposed to be part of it, tbh I don't know why they want to close that one.. perhaps to stop traffic banned from Calton Ave diverting on to the other small residential streets? Rosendale Road is a bit of an odd one, as it does carry a fair bit of traffic & seems reasonably well designed to cope with it (at least the bit between Robson Rd & the S Circ) - but I suppose it's quiet compared to Norwood Road or Croxted Road. The big problem with closing it is that it'll push more traffic on to existing cycle route Alleyn Park.

It's by far the safest place to be, at lights. You can't not be seen (well, unless it's midnight and you've no lights, in which case more fool you), and no matter which way traffic turns, with or without indicating, you won't get hit. Waiting at the side of traffic is not a good place to be - especially when anything big or with significant blind spots is on the road. That's why the cycle boxes were designed the way they are - a feeder lane up the side to get bikes to the front while the light is red. A common cause of serious crashes is when the lights go green, a cyclist is still riding up the feeder, and somebody turns. If one or other person isn't paying 100% attention, it'll end very badly. That's why a lot of new designs have a separate lane and traffic signal for cyclists. There's an early release (to get cyclists waiting at the junction across before traffic starts turning) and a hold signal (so they don't proceed through once the traffic's turning). It's reasonable, if unfashionable, to ask why everyone can't just pay attention and use their common sense - fact is though, they don't.

This. And where's his professional-journalist-turned-cycling-commissioner pal? You'd have thought a man who made his name at BBC & the Daily Telegraph could manage a bit more communication on this stuff. The original "Mayor's Cycling Vision" press releases were superbly articulate, but that was, what, two years ago now? In some ways I don't think consultation is the whole answer - eventually they have to decide to either just build the thing or not build it, as with airports and high speed rail, and accept that some will be unhappy whatever the outcome. I do feel for those who have to drive across S.London regularly - it does very much seem to be happening all at once, on a whole raft of unrelated schemes backed by different ideologies (the thinking behind Loughborough Junction, Elephant & Castle and the Quietways are poles apart) - but at the same time, when it comes to providing for the supposed new, not-the-usual-demographic cyclists, doesn't it have to be a bit all-or-nothing? Closing half a road seems to me rather like fighting half a war or being a little bit pregnant. But the whole thing would be much easier - and indeed more democractic - if there had been a city-wide conversation first about the Quietways, so that people understood what they were, why they're needed (and perhaps had a fair chance to vote their advocates out of office, if it's that bad.)

On a bike, I experience thankfully little aggro - I'm talking about opposition to the kind of changes that, if done right, will enable many more kids & others outside the usual demographic to make cycling part of their travel mix. spider69 - in some cases, perhaps. The majority? Call me sceptical.

@first mate - no, but they did just spend ?millions, dig up the park for the best part of a year, permanently rearrange the playground, and indeed closed some roads (albeit temporarily) to reduce the impact of rainwater drainage on the sewer system. Be thankful you don't live or work near a Thames Tideway Tunnel site. They've already banned high-capacity toilet flush units some years ago - the maximum now is 6 litres, less than half the standard a few years ago. Fortunately, better modern engineering means they're still reasonably.. effective.

Same boat as you, Otto. Works out nicely - especially with Hailo/Uber/etc. for emergencies. What puzzles me is why those who genuinely need to drive often direct so much of their ire at those who want to cycle, and so little at those who clog up the roads driving short trips for no other reason than selfishness.

@edhistory they seemed to be backing away from those designs. Somehow they failed to notice that making Court Lane one-way would create a de-facto gyratory with Woodwarde Road & push /more/ traffic on to the Quietway. At the last workshop, they acknowledged that this would create more problems than it would solve - which is perhaps why they've put more radical answers including closing the eastern arm of the junction entirely. (Although, if I got the gist of it right - they haven't actually done the traffic modelling to say whether the council could implement that if it wanted to, this is "early community engagement").

Adys Road is perfectly OK for cycling if you know what you're doing. Narrow, yes, but speeds are very low, there are no buses and hardly any HGVs. Nobody expects to go fast, which means you can ride in the middle of the road - you just have to be sensible enough to negotiate with oncoming traffic (OK, there's the occasional thug that thinks(???) negotiating = "try to run the other guy off the road", but those are a fact of life). Biggest hazard is at school drop-off - cars pulling in and out and people opening doors without looking, but "ride wide" and that's not such an issue. Given the minor changes there and on Crystal Palace Road, it's not like there's going to be some massive surge in numbers cycling along there anyway. Simply designating something a cycle route is not going to turn it in to a Superhighway peloton overnight. Likely similar numbers as you get on Green Dale.. more than background noise, but not so many you'd necessarily notice it was a designated route. Further north, it's a different story.

@edhistory Lordship Lane Cycle Superhighway (AKA "CS6 Penge to City") is dead and buried, and has been for a year or more. The map you've got there is a Southwark Spine proposal, more akin to a Quietway (i.e. back street route, some junction tweaks and traffic calming) than a Cycle Superhighway (big wide blue paint strips along a main arterial road, or a segregated bike track in their new incarnation). Doesn't run past this junction.

Are you saying people shouldn't walk, too? Or, er, .. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746925/Why-suffer-pollution-driving-car-walking-street.html (Am reminded, on a tangent, of the NRA - "We need to prevent school shootings - let's make sure all the good guys are armed to the teeth too!") For any of this stuff to work depends on behaviour change. Which some view as social engineering - but, oddly, the building of new motorways (which gives the appearance, if not always the reality, of increasing choice) is never characterised as such. Increasing road capacity? Traffic engineering. Legitimate in intent, if not in implementation. Decreasing road capacity? Social engineering, USSR-style.

I saw a straw man try to cycle once. His foot got caught up in the derailleur and.. the rest doesn't bear thinking about :o) Perhaps - although in any case this particular (& so far rather messy) scheme is a Lambeth initiative. Was over there this morning - still enough traffic either confused or ignoring the CCTV that it's not remotely functioning as a Pedestrian Zone. On the plus side, the air along Loughborough Rd itself felt a lot cleaner than usual - although Coldharbour Lane & Camberwell New Road may have been worse, mind you. One disappointment - was hoping it'd make Milkwood Road a bit quieter, that being the southern leg of the same route, no such luck there. Busy as ever. If this scheme really is about getting more people to cycle, they need to get some cycle exemptions in to the crazy one way system north of Myatts Fields asap. Getting between there & Burgess Park is remarkably fiddly. Lothian Road / Akerman Road is plenty wide enough for a contra flow bike lane.

What on earth makes you think that? Never mind that many of those same people also can't drive, for the same reasons. There are all manner of lightweight, electric-assisted vehicles which can use most cycle facilities - and which can still be used by people whose eyesight, reaction time etc. rules driving out. Albeit there's a lot of room for improvement in terms of how accessible public transport is for people who use them - and the same, or worse, issues around secure parking at stations as cyclists face. I do know one local cyclist who's still riding at the grand old age of 89 - age, in itself, is no obstacle. And another who rides miles on his Brompton - despite having one of his legs amputated above the knee. And there's this inspiring lady: Besides - would your accusation not be better leveled at those able bodied folk who could reasonably use alternatives, but routinely drive short distances regardless? Causing pointless congestion and delays to those who genuinely have no choice. A little light reading: https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/independent-mobility/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/who-else-benefits-from-the-dutch-cycling-infrastructure/ Two miles is really not a lot. Same as walking half, three quarters of a mile. Not everyone can manage that, true, but the vast majority can.

Who's supposed to be on which side? *confused* - and how come the bright blue City of London are on the same side as deep red Southwark? You know about this..? https://www.bromptonbikehire.com/docks/2735-peckham-rye A touch expensive at ?20 annual membership plus ?2.50/day, but gets the job done. The huge plus with Bromptons is, you can take them on all public transport at any time of day. They're even allowed on the bus, if the luggage space is free. Gets you discounts on car club membership too - but not on one that has any vehicles round here :( If you need to hire a car (or use car clubs) semi regularly, Bromptons are also mighty handy in conjunction with that, in that you can ride a couple of miles to pick the car up & chuck it straight in the boot.

This is why they need to focus more on *local* cycle links (and cycle parking at stations) rather than long distance. In to London and back is a lot to ask of some people - but from ED you've got masses of good stations within a couple of miles - too far to walk, but an easy, relaxed cycle. West Dulwich & Herne Hill for fast trains to Victoria; Tulse Hill & Herne Hill for City and Wimbledon; ED itself for London Bridge; Peckham Rye & Honor Oak for the East End, Docklands & Croydon; Brixton for the Tube. All reachable in 20 minutes on a bike taking it very easy -- wearing normal clothes, not breaking a sweat, lugging a pannier bag or two of work stuff, stopping for red lights etc.

If you're headed on to Court Lane as opposed to turning left in to Calton, I can see how that would be a problem, yes. The new designs don't look much better for you then? e.g. none of them have any marked waiting area to turn right from Calton in to Court.

Yikes - from a cycling point of view that double roundabout looks genuinely scary, and not much better for pedestrians. Can't believe anyone pro-cycling or pro-Quietways would recommend that. This should probably get its own thread, but cycling wise the problems with the existing layout are as follows: * Southbound Calton on to DV: you have to cross 4 lanes to turn left on to Dulwich Village. Much of the traffic turning left up Calton doesn't indicate; because it's a very short distance to the main junction, you're having to look in multiple directions at once. Giving Calton priority & reducing Court Lane to 2 traffic lanes at the lights will make this a lot easier. You'll still have to be careful as some people may turn right in to Court Lane without looking properly or indicating - but making Court Lane one-way just moves that problem up to Woodwarde Road. * Northbound DV on to Calton: This is basically OK, for the type of people that use it at least. Right on to Court Lane & then left on to Calton - no major problems there. * Northbound from Turney on to Calton Ave: * Southbound from DV on to Turney: These two have the shared problem of the staggered shape of the junction - the sight lines are weird, the exact path to take through the junction isn't clear, and there's a good chance an oncoming vehicle turning right either won't see you or will try and push through. The TfL proposal is to give cycles their own lane with a separate "early start" phase to get through the junction before the traffic starts moving. Provided they can get the timings right, that should be much better than the present situation - the concern though is that it's quite a big distance to cross (30 metres?), a slow cyclist moving off from a standing start needs quite a while to clear it. Southbound they can hold right-turning traffic on red a bit longer to allow for this, but northbound there's no right turn lane on Turney. @rch agree with you about Design 2 - although would be preferable without the kerb cutback at Turney. Design 4 doesn't have it, so it doesn't look like it's essential to the scheme.

True that. @Spider69 - I use that route almost every day (on bike and on foot). I don't have much in the way of issues with it (if it felt life threatening, I wouldn't use it) - but can empathise with others that do, and with residents who are seemingly fed up of it being used as a cut through. I also see a fair few adults & big teenagers cycling on the pavement there. Whether out of fear, ignorance of the law, or something else, I don't know. Having said that, I don't think a one-way would be particularly helpful. If anything, one-way systems encourage speeding. There are better answers.

@ rahrahrah - if the Champion Hill road closure goes ahead, this will be a pretty nice cycle route from the north side of Dulwich Village to the Overground at Denmark Hill. There's been talk of another QW running from the top of Green Dale to Brixton tube station via Ruskin Park & Loughborough Junction, but that depends on what happens with all the road closures in LJ - whether people adjust, or have them taken out.

Officers ultimately answer to elected councillors (whether directly, via cabinet and/or via community councils). However, if a different party controls the council to the one your ward representatives belong to, getting them to do what you want can be challenging. Assuming everyone wants them to do the same thing, that is. No roundabouts. Some suggestions that the Village end of Court Lane might become one-way. I understand why they came up with that (trying to make the right turn from Calton Ave in to Dulwich Village less difficult for cyclists) - but it risks creating a de-facto gyratory / one way system with Woodwarde Road, which is in nobody's interest. Simply moves the problem 80 yards north. I was at a table with a couple of Calton Ave residents, they seemed pretty fed up with traffic levels as-is.

Actually, it's rather the opposite. The Quietway is pretty much certain to happen - but at a bare minimum, it's nothing more than a designation (well, a few road signs and some paint) - much like the LCN commuter cycle route that exists today. (Although the Village junction is bad enough that they're bound to be keen to improve that - on that, I'm liking the look of Option 2 - apart from the kerb cutback). They're consulting to see what standard they can build it to in each neighbourhood. They want to build it as good as they can, but the politics & constraints are different in each area. Equally, though, a consultation is not a plebiscite - it's not about raw % votes. They don't need a majority, but 2:1 against any given intervention and they'd likely back down. What that means for the route as a whole, is that it's impossible for potential supporters (would-be users, might-be users, and wouldn't-use-it-myself-but-it'd-be-nice-for-other-people) to know how good the thing is going to be overall. The Champion Hill bit might be great, and Dulwich unchanged apart from the junction - or indeed vice versa. Which in turn feeds back in to how much change people are prepared to put up with. If the whole route were guaranteed to be of a very high standard, a much wider section of the population stands to benefit. As things stand, precious little is guaranteed.

All I'm suggesting is that if a newly designated cycle route is being created, with ?3M of public money, a reasonable spec is that it be usable by anyone on a bicycle who might want to, whether they're 8, or 88. Wouldn't be surprised if equality legislation had something to say on the subject. I've little need of cycle routes myself: ride anywhere, deal with whatever, perfectly capable of using an A to Z and common sense, or any number of fancy online mapping tools, to work out how to get where I want to go. slarti B, I expect you're the same. Very strongly in favour of proper training for kids. They pick up one-handed riding and signalling pretty quick, once their basic skills are solid - but teaching them good judgement of the kind that's second nature to veteran road users, that's a far longer process - limited more by intellectual and emotional maturity than ability to learn. That's why we teach kids the Green Cross Code, not the more complex and nuanced interaction that most adult pedestrians use.

And as I have tried to explain, youth is absolutely not a barrier - it just means any solution has to be more thorough in recognition of that. Any able-bodied kid too large to be transported by Christiania or child-seat can manage two, three, four miles each way. Old age (or more accurately, less-than-ideal health) is not so easily addressed, that much is true. Which were built to accommodate all those 4x4's so popular during the reign of Mary I..? :) I'm not sure I'd personally want a segregated cycle lane on Calton (more of a bollard-and-barrier fan myself), but if the hierarchy of priorities is as you outlined, it's pretty clear why close to zero actual, on-the-ground progress has been made in the last decade. I'm not saying that chopping down the trees or obliterating the parking would be a good answer - but you can, I hope, see that ruling both out from the beginning is indicative of any real appetite, or lack of, for a solution. Let me put this a different way. A council or London Assembly that were serious about Quietways (I'm not altogether convinced we have either) might start from the position that an 8-year-old on a bicycle must be able to get through safely. That being the basic specification for the route.. no different to specifying that a rail line must be usable by trains, or a bus route by buses. From there, you'd have a number of choices - barriers-and-bollards, cycle lane instead of parking, cycle track instead of trees, legalised pavement cycling, 10mph speed limit + 3T weight restrction - but one of which would have to be adopted.

Colour me unconvinced. Three little kids here, no car (though we do use the occasional taxi, Zipcar and rental), so I speak from experience. Other than now-and-then having to get off and push on Green Dale when one of us is tired, it's a piece of cake with small ones. South Bank is a fairly easy distance, further than that and we'd tend to ride to a station. Most older people can cycle too, but as with the young, they need benign roads in order to do so. Take a look at this blog on cycling in the Netherlands - a real eye opener as to what's possible => http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/ It actually gets much more difficult once the kids are too big for a Christiania - they've got the legs and the stamina to go miles and miles, but however hard you try there's a limit to how much road sense you can train in to an eight-year-old. You can teach them to follow the rules, but getting them to reliably maintain concentration or deal with the unexpected (i.e. other road users breaking the rules) is like trying to teach a pig to sing. There's a reason they only teach Bikeability 2 to ages 10-11 and up. The problem in this area specifically, but in most of London really between the Inner Ring Road and the Green Belt, is that you cannot further improve things without addressing the school run, and you cannot hope to address the school run without being somewhat radical. That should be the take-away from this debacle, IMHO.. tinkering around the edges means spending ?250k on naff-all - over, and over again. Not to mention the amount of hot air generated in the community, which could have been put to far, far better uses. Maybe it's time I sold one of my bikes & bought some FM Conway shares - the way things are going it'll buy me a Jaguar in five years ;) And while radical shifts in favour of cycling may make some aspects of life worse for those who cannot (specifically, getting from A to B by car becomes less convenient), it should nevertheless, if done correctly, make other things better: air quality, ambient noise level, mobility on foot or on electric scooters, sociability of the street, quality of streetscape / street greenery, reduction in road danger etc.

Nice interactive ward level map here http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/interactive/census-map-2-1---car-ownership/index.html Zoom right in and then choose "click area to update table" & it'll give you the hard numbers from the 2001 & 2011 census. Totally in favour of kids walking to school wherever possible - as, I think, are most parents. Distance and time put an upper limit on that, though.. not really an option much above a mile for primary, or 2 for secondary. Give them a bike & somewhere to ride it and you've instantly multiplied those numbers by 3.