A human-centric Lordship Lane

[Lee Scoresby]

London's high streets share the pre-modern pattern of terraced retail premises looking hard onto arterially busy roads. You wouldn't design 'em that way in 2010 - you can manage them well. Lordship Lane isn't.

Specifically:

- Footpaths are axial walking spaces. On LL (typically for London), on one side, local authorities and other bodies pull 'street furniture' way in from the curb; on the other, much of the space is curtilage - owned by the adjacent premise, which can enclose it at any time. Not an easy issue - is Southwark even aware of the principle?

- There is a huge planning vogue for 'ambiguous zones' where drivers are supposed instinctively to give way to walkers without need of regulation. Hence the orange paving where side-roads meet LL. Is ambiguity plausible? Is it safe?

- It would enormously helpful to Saturday's Northcross Rd market to close the LL end, and either close or restrict the upper end, so that idiots no longer roar past, inches away from stalls and shoppers. Southwark have chuntered about this for years without result.

- Apparently, Southwark believes we all love the Goose Green circular island. Can't touch it! Never heard any such feeling myself. Is that roundabout really the most sensible size and shape? Might it not have been a good idea to close the end of Spurling St behind the EDT?

- Several years ago, Robin Crookshank Hilton pushed through the planting of trees on LL. Absolutely brilliant they are too. A number have been destroyed. What would it take for our Southwark masters to bestir themselves and replace them?

- The East Dulwich Grove turnoff to/from points west is certainly awkward, but it would be good to feel that Southwark had some ideas about how to improve it.

- There is a complete absence of traffic calming measures on LL. And the lack of safe clear crossings on this busy road is a scandal. Note that the pedestrian crossing (where the crosser has priority) outside Iceland was replaced some years ago by a push-button light (vehicles have priority, the crosser waits). There should be another crossing at the Co-op bend, and probably several more.

Share a thought with me.

Lee Scorseby, serene in his own way

[east-of-the-Rye]

You'll certainly get a few responses to this posting so let me try and get in a few positive comments first:

Southwark Living Streets, (a pedestrian pressure group - we meet upstairs on the third Thursday of the month 7pm at the Ship on the corner of Borough High Street and Borough Rd.,) did a "Street Audit" of Lordship Lane about 3 years ago. That is, a number of invidividual (not all members of Living Streets) walked up and down LL noting all the good and the difficult points, and came up with many similar points to you:

- In particular, a crossing outside the Co-op would really help shoppers - shopkeepers are quite reasonably worried about the loss of parking if this is installed, but at any given time, there are several estate agents cars parted there, and I'm not sure what they contribute to the local economy

- something to improve the East Dulwich Grove / LL junction.

- closing the LL end of Northcross Road at least on Saturdays.

The LS Street Audit went into the Traffic Department of Southwark, and didn't entirely disappear:

I believe that there are plans for a crossing outside the Co-op - I though I'd seen a notice to that effect - I'll check and repost.

Apparently a lot of thought was given to the EDG / LL junction, but without a conclusion. I understand that they haven't yet worked out how to put a crossing in without a fairly major impact on the smooth running of the buses and have not yet come up with an idea that will be agreed by Transport for London.

As for the crossing by Iceland - I was working in East Dulwich when this change was made and there was no consultation or notice - it just appeared.

[SteveT]

Apparently a lot of thought was given to the EDG / LL junction, but without a conclusion.

Perhaps make LL one way

and Barry rd one way.

[eater81]

No amount of tinkering will improve ll for traffic and pedestrians, there are just too many vehicles competing to achieve their aims and it will always be an ordeal trying to get anywhere.

Barry road and lordship lane are too far apart to make a counter parallel one way sysrem a viable option.

[huncamunca]

Just remember - The LL shop owners value profit more than the safety of the residents and have proved this in the past with their vocal opposition to any thing that may harm their trade.they dont going a shit about the quality of the environment for residents as long as they stay in business.

[louisiana]

One way can worsen roads, with vehicles tending to drive faster and more aggressively.

Take a look at the Crystal Palace triangle (Church Road, Westow Street, Westow Hill), where two-way traffic and a mini-roundabout were replaced with lights and a one-way system. Pretty much everyone up there is up in arms about it (traders, residents, the Chamber of Commerce) but I think the cost of reinstating the previous arrangement is the problem.

I completely agree that LL needs to be more human-centric, and more crossings (e.g. outside Iceland/Co-op) are a priority. I try to plan my shopping so as to do all my west-side shopping together, and all my east-side shopping together, but even crossing once or twice with loaded bags by dodging among the traffic and parked cars is no fun, and I probably shop less frequently on the Lane than I otherwise would, because of this, and I definitely visit fewer shops each trip as a result too. Crossing LL around the junction with ED Grove can be a nightmare. It is completely unrealistic to expect shoppers (some elderly) with heavy bags to only use the existing crossings: they are just too far away from where most people are shopping.

Any shop-keeper not supporting a crossing in the Co-op area is shooting themselves in the foot on this, because they're losing many potential customers owing to the aggro of crossing the road all the time.

[computedshorty]

Lee .

I think that you have a lot to learn about the residents of E.Dulwich, if you had lived here and seen the progress over many years you would have seen the changes for the better.

It takes many years of living with what is placed there to know if there is an alternative, so what grounds to put your thoughts forward may I ask if you have some special background in this field?

Most think that the people here have been quite capable of making OUR Home Town.

Give a little thought to your area there are things that could be better, had you thought that some of the Planning Officers do live in Dulwich and I myself was once one of those, so I can see both sides, and certainly approve anything good for where I live.

I had noticed that you had a message removed, and wondered why, dont you really know?

You have a tendency to reply to all who put forward a reply, it might be less embarrassing for you to not reply so quickly.

Take it easy just sit back and play a little tune on your Saxaphone and forget about the Outback.

[CMG]

i like the goose green round about....its pretty!:))

[reggie]

Steve

Can you imagine how much faster traffic would travel if it was one-way down Lordship Lane?

Would it be safer and more pleasant for humans that way...I very much doubt it.

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Apparently a lot of thought was given to the EDG /

> LL junction, but without a conclusion.

>

> Perhaps make LL one way

>

> and Barry rd one way.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I agree about the number of pedestrian crossings on Lordship Lane (there needs to be at least one more). It can be very difficult to cross.

[Lee Scoresby]

Thank you all for responding. To be clear, I am very fond indeed of Lordship Lane. Things could be improved - how is that 'negative' ?

My thought was to have traffic move more carefully and slowly thru, and I agree that one-way, even if possible, does not necessarily achieve this. Crystal Palace is indeed a rather grim example.

east-of-the-rye: I remember the Street Audit. I talked to those guys at some length. Their consultation period was ridiculously short, and I was alarmed by their wild enthusiasm for ambiguous zones. The bureaucratic detail you give re endless delay (at one extreme) and impetuous action (at the other) is interesting but hardly JUSTIFIES anything.

computedshorty: goodness, what to say to you, my anonymous friend? I appear to have offended your professional pride - but I just don't agree that only town planners and LA officers can have a valid opinion about where we live. You seem to believe I have only just arrived, and pull the classic (and tired) dichotomy, we the REAL locals, you the 'orrible incomers. In fact, I have lived in the area for many years. Yes, I have seen East Dulwich improve wonderfully in that time - so does progress have to come to a stop right now? Can we not change "what is placed there"?

Clearly, c-shorty, you have taken a considerable dislike to me - or to who and what you think I am - because it's a little tricky when it's just emails, isn't it? You express some objection to the period after which I reply to responders to my posts - but WHAT is it, exactly? Yes, I had an over-whimsical post removed recently - what is it you want to SAY about that? You have evidently taken much trouble to find my activity all over the EDF, and have drawn wrong conclusions about my nationality and musical hobbies. Frankly (and I draw this gently to the attention of the moderator, whom I know is lurking gently there in the cyber-bushes), I find this surveillance rather threatening - your tone is certainly abusive. What is the problem with using the EFF to discuss these important local matters? I suggest it is people who have nothing postitive to say who should "Take it easy just sit back".

Sorry folks, what a silly distraction, but I feel that sort of post, if not answered head-on, would have a really chilling effect on the EDF.

Lee Scorseby

[Dorothy]

Lee - any chance you could make your posts a bit shorter?

I'm potentially interested in what you have to say.

But can't be arsed to cut through the waffle.

[tomchance]

It's a shame they switched the zebra crossing outside Iceland to traffic lights. The roundabout at the top works very well, the fact is there are people crossing the road all the time so giving pedestrians some extra safety and cyclists/motorists some extra certainty would only be a good thing.

One way systems definitely aren't appropriate for main roads, they speed everything up.

Has any of this been raised at a recent community council meeting and is there a traders forum to discuss it at?

[Magpie]

I thought the zebra crossings were removed on grounds of safety - an additional traffic light by Iceland would reduce the speed of traffic, but would increase congestion/pollution, it would end up like the Walworth Road.

The obvious improvement has been previously mentioned, which would be to pedastrinise Northcross Road on a Saturday (or at least shut the junction with LL).

[Emily]

Goodness me, Lee, you do write the most in the most appalling jargon! " terraced retail premises looking hard onto arterially busy roads" "axial walking spaces". If you could write in English it would be much easier to work out what you think is wrong, and what you want to change. I think Lordship Lane is very nice. The fact that the shops are near houses is extremely 'humancentric'. Do you think out of town malls are better? Another zebra crossing or two would be useful I suppose, but it seems a busy, lively place full of nice shops and cafes which is thriving despite the recession. I have grave reservations about anyone who talks about 'ambiguous zones' being quite human enough to decide how the rest of us should live.

[James Barber]

Hi Lee,

Goose Green roundabout is apparently remarkable for the low rate of collissions. Experts can't explain this success.I suspect that due to its tight nature people go slowly. When cycling its a roundabout I don't feel inimidated on.

A year ago we had a 3rd zebra crossing added on the northern arm

Lordship Lane. Last year we had lots more 'entry treatments' on side roads where the road goes up to be at level with the pavement. STill a few more to go before universal.

A scheme of change to Lordship Lane and Grove Vale is again in the pipeline. The one roadblock to this going out to public consultation is Transpiort for London Buses. When a zebra crossing was propsed outside Somerfield/Coop they objected as it would obviously be so popular and hold up buses. We offered various solutions to offset this while improving Lordship Lane further but officers took fright at the bus people concerns. So we're going to have another go - all going well.

Assuming bus people see sense we'll shortly have a raft of porposed changes to share publicy.

[Cassius]

huncamunca Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just remember - The LL shop owners value profit

> more than the safety of the residents and have

> proved this in the past with their vocal

> opposition to any thing that may harm their

> trade.they dont going a shit about the quality of

> the environment for residents as long as they stay

> in business.

But if the shop owners (mainly small independents) don't stay in profit they will close down, people don't run their own businesses in this current economic environment for the fun of it. Then there will be either chains who care even less about locals and who probably would not offer the same variety, or there will be empty shops. What kind of quality of environment would make up for either of those possible scenarios?

[James Barber]

Hi Cassius,

It might be that huncamunca is thinking of research undertaken in Bristol. The shop owners there all wildly over estimated the amount of custom that came via car - as they travelled into their shops by car - but the reality was overwhelmingly their customers came on foot, bicycle and bus.

So there the shop owners were putting car parking issues above issues related to walking, cycling and those arriving/departing by bus. Ironicially there they were marginalising the vast majority of their custom in the mistaken believe their custoers travelled to their shops as they did by car.

Then again he might not!

[Cassius]

James

huncamunca Wrote:

The LL shop owners value profit

> more than the safety of the residents ..........

> they dont going a shit about the quality of

> the environment for residents as long as they stay

> in business.

Seems rather a sweeping statement to me. when I go to the shops in LL I often have a chat with the owners. Obviously they want to make a profit, otherwise what is the point of them putting in the hours, investing their money etc etc (incidentally employing other local people). That doesn't mean they don't give a shit ............

[Gimme]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Apparently a lot of thought was given to the EDG /

> LL junction, but without a conclusion.

>

> Perhaps make LL one way

>

> and Barry rd one way.

Supposedly the EDG / LL junction is under review at the moment and Southwark Council said they had gotten funding from TFL on how to improve it. Difficult to know if this is true or if anything will come of it but this is what the guy who runs the department said when asked about what they were doing...

[James Barber]

ITS TRUE.

The key is how officers try suggesting it gets spent.

orginally proposed to be lordship lane and now proposed grove vale and lordship lane.

key is TfL buses and what these highnesses find acceptable.

[northlondoner]

huncamunca Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just remember - The LL shop owners value profit

> more than the safety of the residents and have

> proved this in the past with their vocal

> opposition to any thing that may harm their

> trade.they dont going a shit about the quality of

> the environment for residents as long as they stay

> in business.

Those capitalist pigs.It is typical of the running dog imperialists to object to workers' demands that harm their vile businesses. That's why it's called lordship lane. Fact.

[Old Yeller]

A zebra crossing, or even pedestrian lights outside the Co-op. Yes.

plus...

child-buggies and kids' scooters to be fitted with flashing warning lights and audible sound warning systems.

[Huguenot]

I do think huncamunca's overcooked the argument slightly, and consequently created a conflict that needn't arise.

The shopkeepers should be absolutely committed to the profitability of their shop - it's a reflection of their ability to respond to the needs of the local citizenry. A profitable shop is a good shop.

The challenge arises because shopkeepers don't actually know the number of their customers who arrive by car. It's understandable they may have convictions, because shopkeepers often need cars to commute to their shop, and also to arrange deliveries.

However, the evidence is that as a consequence shopkeepers vastly overestimate the numbers of customers who arrive by car, and that they overlook the benefits that can be reaped from investing further in providing facilities to pedestrian shoppers.

If the association of LL traders wanted to do one genius thing, it would be to organise a study of customers as they left their shops and find out how they arrived, how much they spent, and how far away they came from.

Exerpience elsewhere tells us that they may be in for some massive surprises, and that they may want to invest in a more pedestrian friendly environment.

To fail in this study would really be to demonstrate that they don't actually care about the profitability of their shops, and that they are by definition poor shopkeepers...

[Twirly]

Regardless of how customers arrive in LL to shop, once the car or bike is parked, they become pedestrians like the rest of us who arrive on foot.

So a pedestrian crossing outside the Co-op is going to be just as useful to them as to anyone else. I regularly cross the road there, and it's a nightmare. I don't want to have to keep traipsing up and down between the lights and the crossing at the roundabout to get across LL.