Grove Vale road narrowing

[jamie h]

I happen to know New Road, Brighton, and it is fundementally different to Grove Vale. It is not on a bus route, it is a side street that didn't/doesn't get a lot of traffic. I don't have a problem with that solution at all.

[henryb]

Yes it is but in Drachten and other places it was tried on busier roads and junctions as well. It was found to not only reduce serious accidents but also decrease congestion and reduce car journey times by nearly a half - all at a fraction of the cost of conventional traffic calming measures. The mantra that private car use is always a priority and that pedestrians and other road users should just get out of the way and be segregated by pavements, barriers and designated crossing points just isn't sustainable and creates a very hostile environment for people who want to use a street to shop, work, have fun and well.. live. A viable alternative to more road narrowing, bumps and platforms is something like this.

[James Barber]

Really chuffed to see so much thinking into what Grove Vale might be. But we have the immediate problem of the administration imposing something now that is far short of anything discussed so far.

[pinkhalf]

Oh why not judicially review the decision - that would stop it for months....

[James Barber]

Haven't the sort of cahs and risk that might involve - we have considered it though.

[kford]

How much is this costing? ?75-100k?

[James Barber]

The Grove Vale scheme has a budget of ?500,000.

To mount a Judicial Review would require a solicitor and barrister/s and if costs were awarded against me could quickly mount in more than the ?21.63 in my wallet or my small bank overdraft facility could cope with!

Saying that the threat of a JR usually see's Southwark climb down.

[kford]

Jeeze. What an utter waste of money. There must be dozens of these vanity projects happening all over the country, while local councils bleat about having to cut front-line services.

So my nursery kids have to go without the - probably cheap-as-chips-to-run - Southwark mobile library, while budgets like this are signed off without even local consultation?

Words fail me.

Edited to say, thanks James.

[pinkhalf]

The costs issue is prohibitive, agree though perhaps a Prohibitive Costs Order could be sought for protection, which means no costs from the council if it doesn't work out.

A letter however is pretty easy to draft and from what you say James, this sounds nearly unjustifiable or irrational. A letter before a JR can be done pro bono with a good few litigation heads but they will need grounds and evidence.

A careful FOI made to the council on the proposals (all accident statistics relating to Grove Vale and proposals for traffic calming across Southwark would be useful) might be good ammunition.

[Penguin68]

If what is reported here is true Southwark is combining vanity projects (hitting an area not noted for its 100% labour electorate) together with a massive increase in reserves and reduction in front-line services (including, if what James has reported elsewhere is true) not offering education (yet) to nearly 3 dozen SE22 families. No doubt Coalition cuts will be blamed for the front line services reduction.

I think it is important that we keep in mind actions which are in the council's free decision area (i.e. not actually being enforced by direct budget cuts from central government).

This is very much Big Government (as opposed to Big Society) in action - the Southwark Daleks have given their orders, with no interest in taking on board local views.

[speedbird]

Use up the end of year budget, no real reason for a new road plan, use it or lose it is the theory on all budgets... so another waste of public money for something to make most people unhappy and frustrated. If they have any spare change from the budget, no doubt they will join up the raised areas with speed bumps!

[James Barber]

Hi speedbird,

The collission maps do indicate a ribbon of crashes along Grove Vale, Lordship Lane and east Dulwich Road. All three roads do need changes to reduce collissions.

Orignally the emphasis was going to be Lordship Lane first as clearly the worst collission ribbon and a busy high street to boot. The change in administration and the emphasis moved to Grove Vale as it represents the border between East Dulwich ward (Lib Dems) and South Camberwell ward (Labour).

A large slab of the proposed works and budget are for Tintagel Crescent that has virtually no recorded collisions but does appear on Goose Green school travel plan wish list. As I suggested to officers they should be spending such money elsewhere in Southwark where collisions actually are occuring.

[fredricketts]

It?s another way of getting rid of the excess money at the end of each year, They are just wasting rate payers money on a road that has worked well for the last 70 years, they know it cause more congestion for normal traffic, but not for buses, just another way of squeezing the car of the road.

Driving today is like a nightmare, because of the stupidest of Councillors that put traffic lights where they have never been before and are not needed, Bus stops that stick out in the road so no traffic can get pass, moving traffic causes less pollution than traffic standing still. It?s the buses that causes more congestion than anything else, and they then have the nerve to put in Red Routes, bus lanes which are always empty, and parking facilities, all to get money of the motorists, and then on top of all that they say they have not got enough money to keep the vehicles going for the DISABLED, and all the other cut backs they are making. I say fewer services less Council Tax; after all it?s not us spending all these billions of pounds on Computers that don?t go and planes that don?t fly.

[James Barber]

Hi Fred,

This isn't last minute end of year spend. It's a decision taken last summer.

Officers don't expect or have to spend the money by 1 April.

[bonaome]

It's a proposal, it seems, and if you want to object to it you can

email [email protected]

quoting reference PR/ND/RDH/TMO1011-037

but you need to email them by 24th March (Thursday).

As regards Huguenot's points above ... I'm reminded of what happened at Brockwell Park recently. There, a very broad bunch of folks comprising the park using public, local residents, the anti-car lobby, the pro-cyclist lobby, opposition councillors and some people who really did genuinely have phds in traffic management (no, really), tried to stop the changes in the road layout at the corner of the park at Dulwich Road, Herne Hill and Norwood Road. Everyone said it was a bad idea. Except the councillors who had proposed it. Even their own internal investigation couldn't find anything that actually supported the plans. Didn't stop the council cracking on though. It would be nice to believe that our elected representatives only ever act in our best interests, objectively and intelligently, benevolently. Nice, but naive. Sometimes they just have a really bad idea that they get hell bent on executing.

[kford]

I agree. And I wish the OP would re-name this thread 'The ?1/2m Grove Vale Road Narrowing Experiment'.

[KeyboardWarrior]

Ive read most of the above with interest, and to add my 2p worth ...

Whether car driver, pedestrian, cyclist or all of the above, smooth traffic flow whether peak or off-peak is surely benefitical. There are car drivers that are idiots, there are pedestrians that just walk out, and there are cyclists that race through red lights. All groupings can be equally guilty or innocent. It is just as unreasonable to label all car drivers selfish as it is to make any other stereotype (racism, ageism, etc).

Whoever's gain it is for is not important. Smooth traffic flow is good for all, poor traffic flow will not necessarily reduce accidents, as inevitably frustration and impatience will increase.

Save the money and repair some f**king pot-holes.

Good night.

[EDOriginal2010]

Just sent an email to Southwark at that email above - thanks for posting.

On the legal front, I know the businesses affected are doing a petition and would imagine that they would take this forward legally. There's that solicitor on Grove Vale - GT Stewart. Anyone know them? Would imagine they might be willing to do a little pro bono?

[Huguenot]

Since people driving past them at speed are unlikely to do any business with them, they'd be a bit silly to promote high speed traffic over pedestrians don't you think?

[Penguin68]

Since the road narrowing will remove parking places and (for instance) delivery points for local traders - and some of the shops would probably expect people to need transport to take things away (i.e. furniture and other bulky items) that they had bought I suspect that this isn't an issue of high speed traffic over pedestrians but accessibility. Except late at night (or very early in the morning) I have never, in over 20 years, been able to drive at high speeds along the relevant bit of Grove Vale (even had I wanted to) because of existing traffic and the multitide of crossing points.

[henryb]

More reason for a shared space then. I was walking around Kensington the other night and there are a few there. I was most impressed - the new one outside Sloane Sq tube is a massive improvement - car drivers slow down and make eye contact with pedestrians when it is busy and get a clear run when it is empty - it used to be very dangerous. Surprising most car drivers do quite quickly get it into their heads that they no longer have priority over pedestrians and seem ok with that.

Obviously one would need be tailored specifically for the needs and problems of Grove Vale but from the sound of it they are a key part of Mayor's Office transport strategy. Southwark spending a lot of money on something that is not inline with City Hall's strategy and when alternatives haven't been looked at is a reasonable criticism.

I doubt simply complaining that these traffic calming measures are annoying and will slow down car commuters will get much get traction.

[kford]

Another reason shared spaces improve the flow of traffic is that they seldom use traffic lights. Can't see them being removed from Grove Vale

[Huguenot]

"Southwark spending a lot of money on something that is not inline with City Hall's strategy and when alternatives haven't been looked at is a reasonable criticism."

It's only reassonable criticism if you haven't just made it up. As it is, you did make it up, and it's wrong. So it's not reasonable criticism.

Southwark's transport strategy is completely in line with the Mayor of London's strategy, and the alternatives are regularly and comprehensively considered.

[Huguenot]

I hardly need to point out that a reduction in car parking along this busy route will improve traffic flow. Indulgent motorists parallel parking is a major cause of obstruction for other motorists.

[zeban]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> I hardly need to point out that a reduction in car

> parking along this busy route will improve traffic

> flow. Indulgent motorists parallel parking is a

> major cause of obstruction for other motorists.

Absolutely