Grove Vale road narrowing

[boomerang]

Im sorry huguenot but we have complete opposite views on this as I believe roads have been changed dramatically over the years to inconvenience the private car user in favour of cyclists, pedestrians and public transport. And whilst I do support some schemes which indeed do improve the road for such users in some cases and some areas all it has achieved is chaos for all users.

I drive and I use public transport so can see from both sides what is good and not so good. In my opinion since I experience it everyday on my road, pinch points have not improved the road for either pedestrians, public transport users or car drivers. They have caused chaos on the road especially when there are buses either side of the road trying to get through. London roads are already narrow and to narrow them even more when you have wide buses trying to get trough does not make sense to me. When a bus starts mounting the pavement to try and allow another bus to get through indicates something drastically in planning has gone wrong. How can it be safe for a pedestrian when a large bus is mounting the very widened pavement that was meant to make you safer. How much more inconvenience has it caused to those that use the bus when an extra 20/30 minutes have been added to your journey because the buses cannot negotiate a way through.

To some extent I understand fully where you're coming from, but to get the right balance on roads that were not made for such large vehicles is something planning must take into account when deciding to narrow them even more.

[Huguenot]

In the last 10 years I totally agree that policy has changed to favour cyclists and pedestrians.

It's a strategy I fundamentally support.

Private car owners are by large blind to the destructive impact of the their vehicle, from killing town centres to preventing pedestrians from going about their business by hurling a tone and a half of metal around at 30mph barely a few feet away.

If you were starting with a blank piece of paper today you wouldn't invent something so clearly destructive.

[boomerang]

This thread is not about car user bashing though is it? Its about the impending pinch points at Grove Vale which will not affect the destruction of East Dulwich or preventing pedestrians from going about their daily lives using that road.

My point is if this plan to install pinch points goes ahead it will not benefit pedestrians, bus or car users alike but cause inconvenience to all. And how do I know? I don't but from the experience of such installation on my road I can only speak from that experience.

[pinkhalf]

It seems like a dumb idea unless you penalise drivers for parking along there. It should absolutely be a non stopping route except for the bus.

The road is already very narrow due to parking.

Cyclists and motorcycles will ride in the middle of the road, trying to filter past buses and stopped traffic. Stopped traffic also encourages pedestrians to step out where they will meet cycles and motorbikes, and I agree that the traffic will just run up from Goose Green, blocking the roundabout and the access roads to Grove Vale.

It sounds like they didn't have the balls to make it a bus lane only, which would force car drivers off the road altogether. Instead its a stupid compromise which forces traffic into a narrow space and merely have a different type of accident.

For the record, I don't drive but it is difficult to see how this proposal benefits me as a ped.

[Alley Kat]

Can someone please clarify - is it a proposal or is it being pushed through?

[kford]

Contractors have marked the road - looks like a done deal

[Huguenot]

There's no evidence that this narrowing will increase congestion at peak hours, when the traffic moves at a crawl anyway. These arguments remind me of people who concocted hugely elaborate scenarios in order to prove that seatbelts shouldn't be compulsory.

It will however reduce speed, near misses, noise and pollution outside of peak hours.

It certainly makes it easier for pedestrians to cross, and will aid local commerce as a result.

It may not have a significant impact for singel adults in the prime of life, but it makes a big difference to families and the ageing.

Most car drivers think it's more reasonable that a pedestrian should have to walk an additional 10 minutes to cross the road, than their own journey should have to be reduced by 10 seconds.

This is what I mean by the arrogance of car drivers - they've had it their own way for so long that they genuinely believe that this is a reasonable compromise.

If you just stop and think about that for a second, you'll realise how shocking that is.

[kford]

How would you know - you apparently don't drive along there

[ratty]

Hugeonot, how have you got such an interest in this part of the town? Do you work for the contractors or something? I live here and can tell you that this will lead to a nightmare of congestion in an already difficult to cross road. I hate walking my nipper (soon to be 2 nippers) along this piece of road because of the impatience of drivers already suffering congestion, and a-hole cyclists, weaving in and out of the congestion and shouting abuse at pedestrians if you dare to put a foot in their road. These stupid measures will make it much worse, not to mention the effect on the already impossible to leave, congested Sainsbury's car park.

You write of arrogance in your post, whilst lecturing the forum of why you are right. I can think of no better people to give opinions on this issue than the people who live in this area and are affected.

"Most car drivers think it's more reasonable that a pedestrian should have to walk an additional 10 minutes to cross the road, than their own journey should have to be reduced by 10 seconds."

Can you cite the evidence for this quote?

[Penguin68]

As a driver I have, of course, (or apparently that's Huguenot's belief) had my legs removed and replaced with 4 wheels, but is there anyone out there who is still both a driver and a pedestrian and might be able to comment from both points of view? Before the wheel operation I do have dim memories of walking, although clearly these must be fading, but I do recall that in that particular stretch of Grove Vale there are already a plethora of controlled crossing points.

Many studies have shown that removing street furniture and road markings (rather than swamping roads with them) actually leads to better driving and a better pedestrian experience, as both drivers and pedestrians have to rely on their own observation and care rather than making assumptions about other's behaviour to given constrictions and signage.

There are approximately 38 million registered drivers in the UK - out of a population of 60m. If you exclude people under 17 (who cannot be registered) then you have signifciantly more than half the population who are drivers. Of course, the whole population are also pedestrians. If you add to the registered drivers those non-drivers who take motorised public transport (buses, taxis) or who are dependent on freight vehicles for deliveries etc. (and who pay the costs of longer drive times through pricing) then I would guess you would find very few people who would not be adversely effected by reduced conditions for road vehicles.

As a driver and (yes, really I am) a pedestrian (and even a user of public transport) I understand the concept of trade-off between different benefits. I cannot see (and, PhD less in traffic management I still have over 60 years of life experience) that the benefits (if they even exist) of this scheme outweigh the disbenefits.

Huguenot tries to paint private drivers as a tiny minority of selfish individuals - more than half of all adults are private drivers (or have been) - and we are no more selfish than any other group. People who are uniquely pedestrians (i.e. do not ever use motorised public transport or drive themselves) are in fact (if everything is to be designed just for their benefit) the selfish minority in this instance.

[tiddles]

surely this is going to make it more dangerous for bike riders and motorcycles?? unless there are little lanes thro the obstructions for them to go thro??

god help any two wheeled vehicle approaching these with a bus on their tail!!

sorry if this has already been mentioned but lots of long posts which didn't have time to wade thro

[Only me!]

Having driven through this section most days on my way to work & also having walked there on many many occasions as I make my way to the station, can I make the following observations.

Driving.

Apart from the bus lane, there is only a single usable lane along the whole route from Goose Green to railway bridge, so pinching the width will probably not slow the flow.

But

the complications & danger occur regularly when buses stop. Often not against the kerb, due to poor or inconsiderate parking adjacent to the stops. This causes the overtaking scenario, which IS dangerous. Especially as it happens on a bend, with parked cars & a filter lane, giving a queue in the middle of the road also in the area. Any combination of two buses, two HGVs or a combination of the either, frequently cause this "fitting three lanes into a space not big enough" scenario. Which is problematic. I was hoping that these plans were designed to alleviate this. But I'm not sure how they will.

Walking.

There are already three designated places to cross Grove Vale between the Green & the station, yet from the number of people who choose not to use them, it would seem that they are not in the most practical or wanted places. Some of the planned extended pavements may actually help with this, making the road safer to cross. But is there not a risk that this may actually encourage more people NOT to use the crossings?

So I'm afraid I just can't see what this plan is designed to achieve.

Smoother traffic flow?

Safer crossing?

Safer traffic flow?

If anything, a ban or even just tighter enforcement of the existing parking near the bus stops will probably help, but this could also be counter-productive for the shops.

The layout, as is, has problems. But I'm afraid I can't see how this solution will help with any of these. So why is it being done?

[KidKruger]

Like I said before, the road was already narrowed / pavements widened.

At the time I was a pedestrian (still am most of the time) and noticed it on my walk to/from ED station.

The pavements were widened considerably, easily 2x the original width, this pushed the bus stop OUT in to the traffic and that meant cars could no longer pass the pulled-over buses which had previously had an extra vehicle's width for that purpose. I noticed that congestion started building-up in both directions and this affected the roundabout and side streets' traffic. The only bearing on pedestrian life I noticed was more space than I needed to walk on the pavament (it's not an extremely busy pavement yet it's 2x wider than Lordship Lane pavement) and that the walk became less pleasant due to the build up of obstructed and noisy cars. The only possible winner I could see was Ken and his argument that London was congested and that he would deliver the solution (Congestion Charging). That strip of road, after the narrowing works, certainly was transformed into a 'sample example' of congestion in London's streets.

The congestion makes it dangerous to cross the street and obscures everybody's view, cyclist, bus driver, everyone.

Regardless of what they 'intended' the works for last time, the outcome was the pointless congestion and blind navigation we have now.

And they want to narrow it AGAIN ?

[henryb]

It makes sense for there to be another crossing there: it is long way between the existing ones, the traffic very busy and there are many aggressive car drivers going very fast (when they can) so it is difficult to cross.

I haven't seen the markings but road narrowing with traffic calming are generally the best option for pedestrians. The whole stretch should be a 20 zone.

I do not commute with a car the choosing the rather less antisocial bike or train for that but I am guilty of being a car owner and drive down Grove Vale regularly. I am more than happy for delays to those journeys if it improves crossing ease and pedestrian safety.

I do sympathise with anyone trying to get to West London by any other means than car - it is practically impossible. However that isn't a reason to resist improvements for other road users - it is a reason to lobby local politicians for better public transport in Southwark, which as far as I can see gets a really raw deal relative to other London boroughs.

The East London Line extension to Clapham needs to happen, as does CrossRail and a Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham via Camberwell and Peckham would mean the area would reasonably serviced.

Better bus links to the existing services would help right now but from the Route 63 thread even that is difficult.

[James Barber]

Hi henryb,

The East London Line phase 2 linking Denmark Hill to Clapham junction is happening during 2012.

Generally, I'm not keen on raised areas on buy roads as per Walworth Road they are really uncomfortable to bus passengers, neighbouring properties with the vibrations and dangerous to people on two wheels. I'm sure smarter ways having a similar affect can be found - and have. Also such raised areas costs a small fortune each and rarely stand the test of time without frequent expensive maintenance.

Replacing the two stage pelican crossing is useful to create local parking but replacing it with the flawed Puffin crossing concept which as often causes more collissions than it reduces is clearly a waste of money.

As a local councillor I was asked for my views. Those views have been ignored and the Dulwich Community Council has been bypassed. so what is proposed to happen has no local democratic mandate and large parts of what is proposed are an expensive waste of money.

Of all the times to waste any money now isn't one of them.

[tiger ranks]

its nearly the end of the fincinal year councils have to spend all OUR money so they have more for next year it is a total waste of money

[henryb]

Hi James

Thanks for your reply.

Yes I am sure you could be right that these plans are not cost effective or may not achieve the intended goal and the lack of local democratic input is bad.

I still stand by my point which is that it is incorrect, as was implied up thread, that all local car users would appose any additional crossing or anything that would impede car journey times. I am a local resident, I am a car user, I welcome any additional crossings either here or anywhere else up lordship lane.

Yes raised platforms and bumps are expensive, annoying and slightly ridiculous if you consider the amount of effort and technology people have put into making roads flat just to put bumps back in again. However whilst there so few ped crossings, whist most car drivers fail to give priority to pedestrians at junctions, whilst many car drivers break the speed limit which is already too high for a high street then in my opinion they are a necessary evil.

Grove Vale/Lordship Lane is an important through route but it also a high street where pedestrians should be able to go about thier business safely and easily.

I have always thought council run speed cameras would be a better alternative to platforms and bumps.

[Huguenot]

"Many studies have shown that removing street furniture and road markings (rather than swamping roads with them) actually leads to better driving and a better pedestrian experience, as both drivers and pedestrians have to rely on their own observation and care rather than making assumptions about other's behaviour to given constrictions and signage."

It's a few, rather than many, and mostly to be found in European countries with a sense of social responsibility that isn't often demonstrated by London drivers. This is supported by your own arguments about poor parking around bus stops.

In Singapore you can leave your front door open and not be burgled, it doesn't mean that if you leave doors open in the UK you'll reduce burglaries.

I haven't seen any arguments on here that say much more than 'I want to go faster, everyone else is to blame for congestion, and I have no data to substantiate any of my fears'. However, I did particularly like the one that goes 'We can't make the roads more welcoming to pedestrians because bus drivers are so bad'.

[Penguin68]

Huguenot

Actually although the quote you italicise is mine I did not make any comment about poor parking around bus stops, that was another of us data-less car hugging bigots. I did say that most of the near accidents I had seen involved vehicles pulling across the road to pass stopped or parked vehicles, but I made no comment (as I recall) about whether these were stopped or parked badly - in many cases not, but the road is already too narrow to carry the traffic it is having to. Often the stopped vehicles are buses, sometimes stalled and waiting for assistance. There is a study going on in, I think, Barnet of reduced road signage - and your assumption of European drivers full of social responsibility suggests that you are not a regular driver in Europe, and particularly not Italy or Belgium.

[Penguin68]

For those interested in a different approach to reducing congestion & accidents - these two links may be of interest.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2143663,00.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

[henryb]

Penguin68

So you would be happy if Grove Vale looked like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Road,_Brighton_-_shared_space.jpg

[henryb]

A couple of articles about the success of the shared space principle Penguin68 linked to when it was implemented in New Road Brighton

http://www.urbandesigncompendium.co.uk/newroad

http://www.civictrustawards.org.uk/winners/2009/CTA006050/

[Jeremy]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> particularly not Italy or Belgium.

Quite. Or try driving/walking/travelling on bus through major cities in France, Germany, Spain... pretty much any big European city. London drivers are not out of the ordinary.

[Penguin68]

I think the New Road Brighton trial isn't on a road which is a major route out of Brighton (at least that bit) as Grove Vale is out of Dulwich. However it does look good and I guess everyone is careful in its use. The experiments I was talking about do still maintain pavements and roads as separate spaces.

But to share the whole width of Grove Vale amongst all its users would be an interesting idea.

[henryb]

Both the articles you linked to are about Monderman's shared space principle. It works on roads busy with cars just as well as on quiet ones. By removing signs and segregation car journey times and congestion are reduced even though cars go slower.

Here is another more in-depth article about it

http://www.hamilton-baillie.co.uk/_files/_publications/18-1.pdf