Grove Vale road narrowing

[ed_pete]

Has anyone else spotted the white lines painted on both sides of the road between Elsie Road and Grove Vale school ? It looks like the council are planning to widen the pavement in certain spots resulting in a narrowing of the road. I'd be interested in the reasons for doing this - especially in these austere times. Perhaps it is intended to decrease the likelyhood of accidents and increase safety on the approach to the school ?

[TopTree]

Ask Local Councillor ? Might Be James Barber.

[DJKillaQueen]

Could they possibly be markings for pinch points? James should be able to find out for you.

[KidKruger]

They already widened the pavement when under Ken Livingstone, it meant cars can't get past the buses at bus stop anymore, it was like it was designed to INCREASE congestion, no real reason to do it otherwise, totally pointless.

Widening again will be effectively blocking that artery into/out of ED.

[kford]

It looks like several pinch points, with the removal of that pedestrian island with traffic lights in favour of another narrow section. The word 'tact' is spayed in the road, which I assume means those tactile knobbly paving slabs to help blind folk. The pinch points might have speed cushions in between, which would be interesting if you're cornering on two wheels on a wet day.

[beef]

There was a placard and a petition outside one of the shops on the left hand side (as you travel north), so it seems local businesses are already on the case using the old fashioned way.

I would suggest a visit and show your support by signing up if you are concerned about these traffic calming measures.

[Alley Kat]

As a local resident I am quite cross about the lack of consultation on this. Will it impact local business/sidestreets/parking? Will it cause queueing back to goose green roundabout and beyond, particularly with buses trying to squeeze through the narrower road. Will it effectively be one-way traffic in these places?

Do we want to spend council money in this way regardless of the above?

I've signed the petition because I have seen insufficient information to make an informed decision.

[sazzle]

I live locally and received the plans a while ago it all seemed quite sensible to me. I can't find them at the moment but from memory they were putting in another pedestrian crossing near blackbird Bakery/ The Vale pub and improving the staggering from the one at the top of Copleston Rd.

[PeckhamRose]

But there is a busy roundabout at Goose Green which slows traffic down in an organic way (ie. not traffic light controlled but giving way to others when 'others' are there to give way to) - if more traffic is reduced to a pinch point up Grove Vale, there will be a back log of traffic at the roundabout. Don't you just love it? (And yes kford, I agree your point!)

[kford]

It seems like an expensive experiment. Something to bear in mind next time we read about Southwark's essential front-line cuts, in that glossy publication Southwark Life.

[jamie h]

I have alerted the South Camberwell councillors to this thread and asked that work be halted until local residents, not just those that live on Grove Vale, have the opportunity of being consulted.

I can see local streets bieng used as ratruns by drivers frustrated at getting through.

[boomerang]

We had pinch points installed in my road and they have caused nothing more than total havoc and frustration to all car users driving down the road which also has bus routes. Southwark seems to like to implement their traffic calming measures no matter what anyone thinks.... getting the speed down to 20mph is all they care about and I would bet that most of these decision makers dont even live in the borough. Grove Vales is already a congested road at the best of times without the need for extra calming measures.......

[James Barber]

Yes, the council is planning to spend a lot of money on Grove Vale to reduce the number and severity of collissions. The raised treatments along Grove Vale will make bus and cycle jounrneys particularly unpleasant and cause considerable vibration to adjacent homes.

A huge amount of money is also going to spent replacing speed cushions currently on Tintagel Crescent with sinusoidal humps and a speed table (raised area) outside Goose Green school on Tintagel Crescent. Both seem unnecessary.

Frankly I see half the money being spent as a total waste and have asked that they not undertake that half of the works. I've also asked why the plans haven't been presented to the Dulwich Community Council for our formal input.

Officers and the Cabinet member appear to be ploughing on regardless.

ALso plans to replace a pelican crossing with a Puffin crossing and at best ambivalent evidence puffic crossings are more dangerous at some locations and safer at others.

Frankly the whole thing feels like a screw up.

[Penguin68]

Most of the near-collisons I have had/ seen in Grove Vale (I haven't seen or been in any actual collisons, but there have been near misses) involve traffic pulling into to opposite lanes to pull past stopped buses, lorries, parked vehicles etc. - this plan appears to be intent on creating permanent narowing when there was once only intermittent narrowing (but of course that intermittent narrowing will not be displaced but simply additional to the permanent narrowing). Traffic times will be hugely increased, so vehicles will be able to be stopped outside the school puffing out fumes for far longer (that will be a health enhancement for our little ones) and of course ambulances trying to get to Kings will be satisfyingly delayed. A great call and a fine example of local democracy at work. But then, not a lot of those who will be impacted vote around here for the current ruling party, do we, so no real issue.

[Huguenot]

I'm always impressed by the number of local residents that suddenly reveal they have a PHD in Road Traffic Management when the local council want to improve safety and prioritisation for pedestrians.

I fail to see how taking advice from opinionated but poorly-informed local residents on traffic management is going to help them make a better decision than traffic counts and educated expertise.

I also fail to see how relentless and endless 'consultations' to satisfy the needs of attention hungry local commentators is delivering good value for taxpayer money.

The comment about democracy is completely wide of the mark. We elect councillors according to their manifesto pledges to oversee council activity on our behalf. Democracy isn't about giving a say on every decision they take to local nimbys. That would be a farce. Local services controlled by every tom, dick or harry with a big mouth.

[kford]

I'd say the people who use the road every day have a better idea of what works, and what perhaps won't work, than any council traffic management 'expert'.

[Penguin68]

I would be interested to know how many councillors, who apparently make these decisions on behalf of us, and how many of the officers and staff in the appropriate department advising these councillors have PhDs in traffic management - there are already controlled crossings (in the space of only a few hundred yards) to support crossing at the school and at ED station - very sensibly. There is also a pedestrian crossing only a few steps away at the Goose Green Roundabout. And there is a controlled crossing (partially, with lighs) for the crossing towards Sainsbury's at Dog Kennel hill. I suspect that as a very regular user of that part of Grove Vale (probably a far more regular user than any of the people who advised on or took the decision) I am as least as well qualified to offer an opinion as any. I do not recall any manifesto pledge about Grove Vale made by any candidate (though I am happy to be corrected on this). I also do not subscribe to the 'vote once every three or 5 years and you're a full member of a participating democracy' schtick. We live in an elective oligarchy - and occasionally, like the Egyptians and Libyans, I feel like kicking against the pricks (read that as you will).

[Huguenot]

Only in your opinion Penguin68

"Everybody wants to be in charge and think that their needs are the most important ones" shocker...

You could probably be a little better informed if you really want to make transport decisions.

Here is Southwark's 2011 transport plan.

In their own words, the transport plan contains the following information:

* A snapshot of transport within the borough and the challenges we are seeking to address

* Our transport objectives covering the period 2011 to 2014 and beyond

* Delivery plan including a costed and funded plan of interventions, covering the period 2011 to 2014 and beyond

* Performance monitoring plan which will identify a set of performance indicators and locally specific targets which can be used to assess whether the plan is delivering its objectives and to determine the effectiveness of the delivery plan

There was a two month consultancy period on this. If you didn't get involved that's your look out. ;-)

Interestingly the road user hierarchy is: pedestrian, cyclist, public transport, freight, taxis, motorcycles and then private cars.

It's a hierarchy I'm both impressed by and perversely proud.

It's quite different to other average car driver hierarchy, which tends to be 'my car', and f*** everyone else.

[Penguin68]

Guess what - if you search that document for Grove Vale - nada.

The issue is not policy objectives - it is the actual consequences of doing things which claim to be consistent with those objectives. Unless these constrictions have cyclist passegeways (I can't see that on the chalk marks, but is it possible) then cyclists will be forced out into the road in front of motorised vehicles rather than being able to stay more safely close to the 'normal' curb, and every other type of vehicle will also suffer from these constrictions. On the basis of what you claim therefore, these changes will place pedestrians first and everybody else nowhere - which as a 'hierarchy' is somewhat unbalanced (unless pedestrians pay road tax - remind me?)

[boomerang]

Well that hierarchy doesn't sit well with me since I am not able to walk to work, walk to do my weekly shopping, cycle to work, or take public transport to work, the fact it can take me upto 2 hours to get to my place of work which is 22 miles door to door, you can work out how much longer and more awkward it would be using the buses, tube and train - therefore I rely on my private car which I pay a lot of money to run including Road tax! So excuse me if my hierarchy wants a little more priority for cars on the road which the road was actually made for.

As I have mentioned I live on a road which has pinch points and speed tables on it. Southwark claims a high percentage of respondents to the consultation supported the calming plans, yet they did not publish exactly how many respondents there were or the percentage in favour.... if you ask any resident on my street most will agree the pinch points have made travelling on this street worse than before as buses mount the pavement to pass (in some cases coming within inches of the front yard of houses - vibrations have also significantly increased) - it can take upto 30 minutes to pass whilst the buses negotiate how best to get through.

And I do believe strongly that car users know what's best for a road they use on a daily basis than some pen pushing road traffic officer who has no experience of the road he/she is planning to ruin.

[Huguenot]

Car users only know what's good for themselves.

I think your point about your journey is an example of this. You don't want to help out other road users because you've organised yourself a 22 mile journey to work and you want the roads to be arranged with this in mind. My recommendation to shorten your commute would be to either get another job or move. It'll be more effective than trying to get everyone to fit in with you.

I also don't know why you think roads were made for private car owners? Vehicle excise duty (not road tax) pays into central taxation, it's not for roads.

More pedestrians, cyclists and people on public transport will use that road than private car owners anyway, so in a 'democratic' society, car owners would lose.

Roads are part of an integrated transport system that takes everyone's needs into account, including pedestrians.

Southwark's stated policy is to increase the use of the roads by pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, and decrease the use of private cars.

The reasons for this are extremely sound, practical and socially responsible: current road use is unsustainable, unhealthy, damages the environment and impractical.

If you don't agree with this then you need to elect councillors who will overturn this policy. I don't think you'll be able to because you'll be in a minority.

Car owners think everyone is out to get them. The truth is less palatable - that car owners are selfish and indulgent, and like a greedy kid, no-one feels that they need to keep going out of their way to prioritise your wants.

[Penguin68]

Huguenot

You quote the priorities as "pedestrian, cyclist, public transport, freight, taxis, motorcycles and then private cars" - All of these (apart from cyclists and pedestrians) pay vehicle excise duty and substantial taxation of fuel usage, all apart from pedestrians will be adversly effected by this road narrowing (if cut-throughs are designed for cyclists they will not, but, as I said, that design is not clear at the moment). The money that is collected by government in this way is (you are right) not hypothecated, but it is taxation which is being paid by those with (or who use, though charges) powered vehicles and not those without.

You constantly write as if disruption to the roads is something which is a disbenefit only to the private car driver, when, in fact, what is proposed is only to the benefit of the pedestrian and (possibly) the cyclist.

[Huguenot]

The only point that I'm trying to make is that Southwark's transport plan is put in place to benefit all road users.

It's a comprehensive strategy that take into account more issues than whether it's currently advantageous to private motorists. It's been through consultation that it seems you didn't attend, but you had your chance.

This invariably needs compromise on everyone's behalf.

However, previous strategies have benefitted motorists to the point of fracturing communities and shutting down high streets. Now that there's more effort to balance the needs of everybody, the motorists are getting all stampy-footed about it.

It's typical of the blind arrogance of private motorists that they try and lay the blame on other people. The fact is that the roads are congested because there's too many private vehicles, not because there's a pedestrian friendly road narrowing at Grove Vale.

[boomerang]

Who are you to recommend to me to change my job or move closer to it? I live in this area as I happen to like it very much hence being here for 10 years. I also like my job and have no intention to leave and if the commute to Heathrow Airport was more convenient on public transport from this area then yes I would absolutely use it, but it is NOT - and I have no desire to live near Heathrow Airport.

Your remarks that car owners are selfish and indulgent may be correct for a small proportion of car users and I may agree with you but the vast majority are not. The fact you think that the population can use their feet or public transport or indeed a set of two wheels that emit no pollution in the air to go about their daily lives is impractical. Yes there are people who are able to commute by bike to work but not all of us can. And a road was invented for vehicles be it private or public, I do not see pedestrians walk on a road but a pavement. Southwarks plan to reduce the amount of private cars on the road is what is not sustainable. A council cannot dictate to an individual whether or not they should use a car. Southwark, and especially this area sorely lacks an enviable public transport system since there are no tubes, buses take an age to get to their destination and trains in my experience can be unreliable. Until we have a transport system that can efficiently and effectively get me to and from work then I have no choice but to use my private car.

Back to the topic of this thread, I still stick by my original post that the road calming measures Southwark seems intent on implementing will cause nothing more than chaos for both private car users, public transport users and pedestrians. And if that does happen on Grove Vale, then yes, I will source another route for my 22 mile journey to work.

[Huguenot]

I'm not trying to make you do anything boomerang. I'm just highlighting that your attitude to your commuting problem is that you should inconvenience other road users, rather than inconvenience yourself by moving. It's entirely selfish.

I've made no assertion that people can walk or bicycle everywhere - I have merely pointed out that pedestrians and cyclists use the road too, and that road design should take into account their needs.

Roads are currently organised for the comfort and convenience of private car owners when they are minority users. It is entirely appropriate that decisions on road design should take into account the needs of other people.

It is somewhat ridiculous to claim that pavement widening causes 'chaos' for pedestrians.

Southwark also are not trying to dictate anybody do anything, they simply have a strategy which is in place to incentivise the use of roads by non private car owners.

Car owners simply cannot see that, because they're too self-obsessed.